On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 11:36:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 4:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Yes Siree Bob! Don't youse guys know that the ONLY correct method is
> > the one that I recommend?
> LOL. I think that many of us have tried paraffin for chain "lubrication"
> and quickly came to the same conclusions at Craig, Jobst, Mike J., and
> Sheldon.
>
> "When wax was popular, we'd get customers coming in all the time
> complaining about shifting problems on their bikes. Removed the wax and
> lubed with conventional stuff and voila, shifting back to normal." Mike
> Jacoubowsky, co-owner of Chain Reaction Bicycles.
>
> "Wax is not mobile and cannot return to a location from which it has
> been removed by rotation of one part on another." Jobst Brandt, author
> of The Bicycle Wheel
>
> "If you use dry lube or wax, follow product directions and use it often.
> In some cases, dry lube should be used for every ride. It wears off very
> quickly and no new lube can flow to the critical wear areas." Craig
> Metalcraft, manufacturer of Super Link III.
>
> "Downsides of the wax approach include the fact that it is a great deal
> of trouble, and that wax is probably not as good a lubricant as oil or
> grease." Sheldon Brown
>
> But using pure paraffin does keep your chain cleaner, no argument with that.
>
> I think that must paraffin users now understand that they need to add
> some kind of oil to the mix in order for the chain to actually be
> lubricated.
> --
> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
> they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
I think that the shifting problems come from the chain slipping on the cassette teeth. It certain is there if you don't have your derailleur perfectly aligned but I don't worry much about it because I would rather have a little shifting problems that chain tattoos on my legs

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 1:03:06 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 12/11/2023 12:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > "I think that many of us have tried paraffin for chain
> > 'lubrication' and quickly came to the same conclusions..."
> >
> > And others came to the opposite conclusion after the same experience.
> Now whenever you see someone extolling the wonders of waxing they are
> almost always adding some kind of oil to the mix.
> --
> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
> they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
Lubricant, not oil. I use teflon

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 14:32:02 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 11:28:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 12/11/2023 3:33 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:41:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/10/2023 3:38 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:14:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/10/2023 11:42 AM, Catrike Rider waited a mere 16 minutes to write:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:26:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But why is this so important to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm an engineer with a deep interest in the technical side of bicycling.
>>>>>> This is (purportedly) a bicycle technical discussion group. Chain care
>>>>>> is an issue with practical and technical significance for cyclists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Different chain lubes are an insignificant issue...
>>>>
>>>> Fine. If you think the issue is insignificant, why are you wasting time
>>>> nagging me about it? Is there really nothing better you can do with your
>>>> life?
>>>
>>> I'm only egging you on.
>>
>>Whatever. I'm generally ignoring you; and from what I can tell, nobody
>>but John gives you any respect. Keep making a fool of yourself, if
>>that's all you've got to do.
>
>Unlike you, I'm not looking for admiration. My self image is very
>secure.
>
>But why are you so afraid to discuss *your* narcisism and poor self
>image? I think it would be good for you to start a discussion about
>it.
>
>Persons who display either narcissistic personality disorder or the
>narcissistic personality type are preoccupied with maintaining
>excessively positive self-concepts. They become overly concerned with
>obtaining positive, aggrandizing feedback from others and react with
>extreme positive or negative emotions when they succeed or fail to
>receive confirmation that others hold them in high regard. Narcissists
>want positive feedback about themsleves, and they actively manipulate
>others to solicit or coerce admiration from them. Accordingly,
>narcissism is thought to reflect a form of chronic interpersonal
>self-esteem regulation.
>
>https://www.britannica.com/science/narcissism

Regarding Frank's claim (above) "I'm an engineer" and his frequent
clams to be a Professional Engineer (PE). Ohio state requirements
include "must meet Ohio’s registration requirements; graduation from
an ABET accredited or Board approved engineering or surveying
curriculum of four years or more"
https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2014/01/14/ohio-outlines-requirements-for-engineers/10498098007/
but Frank has never mentioned attending collage.

And strangely a search of PE license holders in Ohio turns up only
one, named "Krygowski", an Adam C. Krygowski who is listed as residing
in Dewitt N.Y. License EI.07671. License Type - Engineer Intern
https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense?board=Engineers+and+Surveyors+Board
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 11:36:08 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/10/2023 4:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Yes Siree Bob! Don't youse guys know that the ONLY correct method is
>> the one that I recommend?
>
>LOL. I think that many of us have tried paraffin for chain "lubrication"
>and quickly came to the same conclusions at Craig, Jobst, Mike J., and
>Sheldon.
>
>"When wax was popular, we'd get customers coming in all the time
>complaining about shifting problems on their bikes. Removed the wax and
>lubed with conventional stuff and voila, shifting back to normal." Mike
>Jacoubowsky, co-owner of Chain Reaction Bicycles.
>
>"Wax is not mobile and cannot return to a location from which it has
>been removed by rotation of one part on another." Jobst Brandt, author
>of The Bicycle Wheel
>
>"If you use dry lube or wax, follow product directions and use it often.
>In some cases, dry lube should be used for every ride. It wears off very
>quickly and no new lube can flow to the critical wear areas." Craig
>Metalcraft, manufacturer of Super Link III.
>
>"Downsides of the wax approach include the fact that it is a great deal
>of trouble, and that wax is probably not as good a lubricant as oil or
>grease." Sheldon Brown
>
>But using pure paraffin does keep your chain cleaner, no argument with that.
>
>I think that must paraffin users now understand that they need to add
>some kind of oil to the mix in order for the chain to actually be
>lubricated.

The first formula I read about for "waxed" chains was,
1 lb of household paraffin wax, 5g of pure PTFE (Teflon) powder, and
1g of pure molybdenum disulfide (MoS2)

I washed the chain with a kerosene solvent then soaked it an electric
cooking pot of the paraffin mix until it reached the same temperature
as the mix - 20 minutes or so - then lifted it out by the end link and
let what would run off, run off, and hung it up, again by the end link
until it was cool enough to handle and installed it.

If you started the bike cleaning, inspection and lube process with
taking the chain off and sloshing it in the kerosene and dropping it
in the wax pot then did the cleaned, inspection and lube if required,
work and reinstalled the chain as the last step it really required
little or no extra time.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/11/2023 7:32 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Regarding Frank's claim (above) "I'm an engineer" and his frequent
> clams to be a Professional Engineer (PE). Ohio state requirements
> include "must meet Ohio’s registration requirements; graduation from
> an ABET accredited or Board approved engineering or surveying
> curriculum of four years or more"
> https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2014/01/14/ohio-outlines-requirements-for-engineers/10498098007/
> but Frank has never mentioned attending collage.

:-) No, I didn't attend "collage" [sic]. I got my engineering degrees
at a university, not at a pasted-up artwork.

>
> And strangely a search of PE license holders in Ohio turns up only
> one, named "Krygowski", an Adam C. Krygowski who is listed as residing
> in Dewitt N.Y. License EI.07671. License Type - Engineer Intern
> https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense?board=Engineers+and+Surveyors+Board

John, I'm retired! I saw no need to keep up my certification once I
retired.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 07:32:28 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 14:32:02 -0500, Catrike Rider
><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 11:28:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/11/2023 3:33 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:41:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/10/2023 3:38 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:14:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/10/2023 11:42 AM, Catrike Rider waited a mere 16 minutes to write:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:26:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But why is this so important to you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm an engineer with a deep interest in the technical side of bicycling.
>>>>>>> This is (purportedly) a bicycle technical discussion group. Chain care
>>>>>>> is an issue with practical and technical significance for cyclists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Different chain lubes are an insignificant issue...
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine. If you think the issue is insignificant, why are you wasting time
>>>>> nagging me about it? Is there really nothing better you can do with your
>>>>> life?
>>>>
>>>> I'm only egging you on.
>>>
>>>Whatever. I'm generally ignoring you; and from what I can tell, nobody
>>>but John gives you any respect. Keep making a fool of yourself, if
>>>that's all you've got to do.
>>
>>Unlike you, I'm not looking for admiration. My self image is very
>>secure.
>>
>>But why are you so afraid to discuss *your* narcisism and poor self
>>image? I think it would be good for you to start a discussion about
>>it.
>>
>>Persons who display either narcissistic personality disorder or the
>>narcissistic personality type are preoccupied with maintaining
>>excessively positive self-concepts. They become overly concerned with
>>obtaining positive, aggrandizing feedback from others and react with
>>extreme positive or negative emotions when they succeed or fail to
>>receive confirmation that others hold them in high regard. Narcissists
>>want positive feedback about themsleves, and they actively manipulate
>>others to solicit or coerce admiration from them. Accordingly,
>>narcissism is thought to reflect a form of chronic interpersonal
>>self-esteem regulation.
>>
>>https://www.britannica.com/science/narcissism
>
>Regarding Frank's claim (above) "I'm an engineer" and his frequent
>clams to be a Professional Engineer (PE). Ohio state requirements
>include "must meet Ohio’s registration requirements; graduation from
>an ABET accredited or Board approved engineering or surveying
>curriculum of four years or more"
>https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2014/01/14/ohio-outlines-requirements-for-engineers/10498098007/
>but Frank has never mentioned attending collage.
>
>And strangely a search of PE license holders in Ohio turns up only
>one, named "Krygowski", an Adam C. Krygowski who is listed as residing
>in Dewitt N.Y. License EI.07671. License Type - Engineer Intern
>https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense?board=Engineers+and+Surveyors+Board

I know that he is a chronic liar, but I can't imagine that he'd lie
about that.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 05:48:35 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 07:32:28 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 14:32:02 -0500, Catrike Rider
>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 11:28:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 12/11/2023 3:33 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:41:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/10/2023 3:38 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:14:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/10/2023 11:42 AM, Catrike Rider waited a mere 16 minutes to write:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:26:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But why is this so important to you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm an engineer with a deep interest in the technical side of bicycling.
>>>>>>>> This is (purportedly) a bicycle technical discussion group. Chain care
>>>>>>>> is an issue with practical and technical significance for cyclists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Different chain lubes are an insignificant issue...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fine. If you think the issue is insignificant, why are you wasting time
>>>>>> nagging me about it? Is there really nothing better you can do with your
>>>>>> life?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm only egging you on.
>>>>
>>>>Whatever. I'm generally ignoring you; and from what I can tell, nobody
>>>>but John gives you any respect. Keep making a fool of yourself, if
>>>>that's all you've got to do.
>>>
>>>Unlike you, I'm not looking for admiration. My self image is very
>>>secure.
>>>
>>>But why are you so afraid to discuss *your* narcisism and poor self
>>>image? I think it would be good for you to start a discussion about
>>>it.
>>>
>>>Persons who display either narcissistic personality disorder or the
>>>narcissistic personality type are preoccupied with maintaining
>>>excessively positive self-concepts. They become overly concerned with
>>>obtaining positive, aggrandizing feedback from others and react with
>>>extreme positive or negative emotions when they succeed or fail to
>>>receive confirmation that others hold them in high regard. Narcissists
>>>want positive feedback about themsleves, and they actively manipulate
>>>others to solicit or coerce admiration from them. Accordingly,
>>>narcissism is thought to reflect a form of chronic interpersonal
>>>self-esteem regulation.
>>>
>>>https://www.britannica.com/science/narcissism
>>
>>Regarding Frank's claim (above) "I'm an engineer" and his frequent
>>clams to be a Professional Engineer (PE). Ohio state requirements
>>include "must meet Ohio’s registration requirements; graduation from
>>an ABET accredited or Board approved engineering or surveying
>>curriculum of four years or more"
>>https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2014/01/14/ohio-outlines-requirements-for-engineers/10498098007/
>>but Frank has never mentioned attending collage.
>>
>>And strangely a search of PE license holders in Ohio turns up only
>>one, named "Krygowski", an Adam C. Krygowski who is listed as residing
>>in Dewitt N.Y. License EI.07671. License Type - Engineer Intern
>>https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense?board=Engineers+and+Surveyors+Board
>
>
>I know that he is a chronic liar, but I can't imagine that he'd lie
>about that.

Well, the references are there
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 2:48:39 AM UTC-8, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 07:32:28 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 14:32:02 -0500, Catrike Rider
> ><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 11:28:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 12/11/2023 3:33 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 22:41:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 12/10/2023 3:38 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 13:14:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 12/10/2023 11:42 AM, Catrike Rider waited a mere 16 minutes to write:
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:26:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But why is this so important to you?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm an engineer with a deep interest in the technical side of bicycling.
> >>>>>>> This is (purportedly) a bicycle technical discussion group. Chain care
> >>>>>>> is an issue with practical and technical significance for cyclists.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Different chain lubes are an insignificant issue...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fine. If you think the issue is insignificant, why are you wasting time
> >>>>> nagging me about it? Is there really nothing better you can do with your
> >>>>> life?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm only egging you on.
> >>>
> >>>Whatever. I'm generally ignoring you; and from what I can tell, nobody
> >>>but John gives you any respect. Keep making a fool of yourself, if
> >>>that's all you've got to do.
> >>
> >>Unlike you, I'm not looking for admiration. My self image is very
> >>secure.
> >>
> >>But why are you so afraid to discuss *your* narcisism and poor self
> >>image? I think it would be good for you to start a discussion about
> >>it.
> >>
> >>Persons who display either narcissistic personality disorder or the
> >>narcissistic personality type are preoccupied with maintaining
> >>excessively positive self-concepts. They become overly concerned with
> >>obtaining positive, aggrandizing feedback from others and react with
> >>extreme positive or negative emotions when they succeed or fail to
> >>receive confirmation that others hold them in high regard. Narcissists
> >>want positive feedback about themsleves, and they actively manipulate
> >>others to solicit or coerce admiration from them. Accordingly,
> >>narcissism is thought to reflect a form of chronic interpersonal
> >>self-esteem regulation.
> >>
> >>https://www.britannica.com/science/narcissism
> >
> >Regarding Frank's claim (above) "I'm an engineer" and his frequent
> >clams to be a Professional Engineer (PE). Ohio state requirements
> >include "must meet Ohio’s registration requirements; graduation from
> >an ABET accredited or Board approved engineering or surveying
> >curriculum of four years or more"
> >https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2014/01/14/ohio-outlines-requirements-for-engineers/10498098007/
> >but Frank has never mentioned attending collage.
> >
> >And strangely a search of PE license holders in Ohio turns up only
> >one, named "Krygowski", an Adam C. Krygowski who is listed as residing
> >in Dewitt N.Y. License EI.07671. License Type - Engineer Intern
> >https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense?board=Engineers+and+Surveyors+Board
> I know that he is a chronic liar, but I can't imagine that he'd lie
> about that.

Frank doesn't need to be a PE to be a mechanical engineer. He only needs a diploma from an accredited college. What's more he was teaching mechanical engineering at a college and he was listed as that at the college. You only need a PE for certain public works and to inflate your resume for large projects. John has a need to show his ignorance at every turn. My uncle built the atom bomb towers in Nevada I think and the South Pacific without a PE. Taking time off in the Philippines he caught Polio and the Army supported him for the rest of his life,

On 11/12/23 10:03, Lou Holtman wrote:

>
> Like I mentioned a colleague of mine did that. The trick was/is the adhesion of that stuff to the pins and bushings and that stuff had to withstand the contact pressure. The wax is mainly as a non sticky carrier and it closes the voids preventing sand/grit entering the innards. Oil is not good at withstanding pressure but it is able to flow back when the pressure reduces. A chain in a oil bath is something different.
>

In my wax/oil concoction, I use EP gear oil. I figure it has the best
chance of sticking to steel surfaces with the sulphur additive. FWIW, I
also added a blob of moly disulphide grease to the mixture, though I
don't know what, if any, benefit there is from it.

I do know that the 11s Campagnolo chain on my gravel bike has gone
7000km already without noticeable elongation.

--
JS

On 12/13/2023 2:13 PM, James wrote:

<snip>

> In my wax/oil concoction, I use EP gear oil.  I figure it has the best
> chance of sticking to steel surfaces with the sulphur additive.  FWIW, I
> also added a blob of moly disulphide grease to the mixture, though I
> don't know what, if any, benefit there is from it.

Yeah, EP gear oil is fine. The sulfur additive is really for high
temperature which is not going to be the case on a bicycle chain.

I recall using molybdenum disulfide ages ago on my chains after reading
something about how it was a fine enough powder to flow back between the
pins and rollers and didn't flake off like wax.

After learning that plain was was not good to use on chains I never
tried making up a concoction of oil, wax, and whatever, I began using
foaming chain lube to lubricate the chain on the bike, and kerosene to
clean the chain on the bike. But my goal was simply a clean, well
lubricated chain, and I wasn't so concerned about the chain getting
dirty since I could clean and lubricate it in just a few minutes.

There's also the issue of weakening the chain every time you remove it
and reinstall it.

"If you watch professional race mechanics at a road or cyclocross event,
you’d be impressed to see how quickly they get a chain sparkling clean,
without removing it from the bike."

Jason Quade of Abbey Bike Tools is a seasoned race mechanic himself, and
a strong proponent of cleaning chains on the bike. “With few exceptions,
I don’t remove a chain from a bike unless it’s going into the trash.
I’ve seen enough failed quick links to drive this opinion.”

On 14/12/23 10:49, sms wrote:
> On 12/13/2023 2:13 PM, James wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In my wax/oil concoction, I use EP gear oil.  I figure it has the best
>> chance of sticking to steel surfaces with the sulphur additive.  FWIW,
>> I also added a blob of moly disulphide grease to the mixture, though I
>> don't know what, if any, benefit there is from it.
>
> Yeah, EP gear oil is fine. The sulfur additive is really for high
> temperature which is not going to be the case on a bicycle chain.

That is not entirely correct.

>
> I recall using molybdenum disulfide ages ago on my chains after reading
> something about how it was a fine enough powder to flow back between the
> pins and rollers and didn't flake off like wax.
>

That's rubbish.

> After learning that plain was was not good to use on chains I never
> tried making up a concoction of oil, wax, and whatever, I began using
> foaming chain lube to lubricate the chain on the bike, and kerosene to
> clean the chain on the bike. But my goal was simply a clean, well
> lubricated chain, and I wasn't so concerned about the chain getting
> dirty since I could clean and lubricate it in just a few minutes.
>

I don't bother spending time cleaning my chain. I remove the chain at
the quick link and immerse it in my hot wax/oil solution, then lift it
out, let it cool and reinstall it.

> There's also the issue of weakening the chain every time you remove it
> and reinstall it.
>

A non issue when you use a quick link.

> "If you watch professional race mechanics at a road or cyclocross event,
> you’d be impressed to see how quickly they get a chain sparkling clean,
> without removing it from the bike."
>

Clean on the outside, perhaps, but that is irrelevant to the inner
moving parts. In fact there is an argument that cleaning the outside
may move dirt further in to the inner moving parts of the chain.

> Jason Quade of Abbey Bike Tools is a seasoned race mechanic himself, and
> a strong proponent of cleaning chains on the bike. “With few exceptions,
> I don’t remove a chain from a bike unless it’s going into the trash.
> I’ve seen enough failed quick links to drive this opinion.”

I've been using quick links on all bikes under my care for well over a
decade, so far more than 100,000km of testing, and I've yet to have one
fail. In fact I have had to donate a spare quick link to others on more
than one occasion out on the road, when their chain has failed. I keep
one in my saddle bag in case.

--
JS

On 12/13/2023 8:32 PM, James wrote:
> On 14/12/23 10:49, sms wrote:
>> On 12/13/2023 2:13 PM, James wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> In my wax/oil concoction, I use EP gear oil.  I figure it has the
>>> best chance of sticking to steel surfaces with the sulphur additive.
>>> FWIW, I also added a blob of moly disulphide grease to the mixture,
>>> though I don't know what, if any, benefit there is from it.
>>
>> Yeah, EP gear oil is fine. The sulfur additive is really for high
>> temperature which is not going to be the case on a bicycle chain.
>
> That is not entirely correct.
>
>>
>> I recall using molybdenum disulfide ages ago on my chains after
>> reading something about how it was a fine enough powder to flow back
>> between the pins and rollers and didn't flake off like wax.
>>
>
> That's rubbish.
>
>> After learning that plain was was not good to use on chains I never
>> tried making up a concoction of oil, wax, and whatever, I began using
>> foaming chain lube to lubricate the chain on the bike, and kerosene to
>> clean the chain on the bike. But my goal was simply a clean, well
>> lubricated chain, and I wasn't so concerned about the chain getting
>> dirty since I could clean and lubricate it in just a few minutes.
>>
>
> I don't bother spending time cleaning my chain.  I remove the chain at
> the quick link and immerse it in my hot wax/oil solution, then lift it
> out, let it cool and reinstall it.
>
>> There's also the issue of weakening the chain every time you remove it
>> and reinstall it.
>>
>
> A non issue when you use a quick link.
>
>> "If you watch professional race mechanics at a road or cyclocross
>> event, you’d be impressed to see how quickly they get a chain
>> sparkling clean, without removing it from the bike."
>>
>
> Clean on the outside, perhaps, but that is irrelevant to the inner
> moving parts.  In fact there is an argument that cleaning the outside
> may move dirt further in to the inner moving parts of the chain.
>
>> Jason Quade of Abbey Bike Tools is a seasoned race mechanic himself,
>> and a strong proponent of cleaning chains on the bike. “With few
>> exceptions, I don’t remove a chain from a bike unless it’s going into
>> the trash. I’ve seen enough failed quick links to drive this opinion.”
>
> I've been using quick links on all bikes under my care for well over a
> decade, so far more than 100,000km of testing, and I've yet to have one
> fail.  In fact I have had to donate a spare quick link to others on more
> than one occasion out on the road, when their chain has failed.  I keep
> one in my saddle bag in case.

Good idea. But these days it seems one might have to keep one quick link
for every width of chain! They're not compatible, are they?

My wife actually had a quick link break many years ago. We had just
finished a five day tour. A day or two later we were riding to get
groceries when I heard a strange periodic click on her bike. This is
what I found:
https://flic.kr/p/2kYpGYs

But that's been our only quick link failure. I did break my mountain
bike chain once, in the forest preserve near my home. I didn't have a
chain tool with me, so I used a bit of wire to hook the chain ends
together and made my home by "ratchet pedaling," keeping the repair on
the low tension side of the chain.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 12:32:27 +1100, James <james.e.steward@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 14/12/23 10:49, sms wrote:
>> On 12/13/2023 2:13 PM, James wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> In my wax/oil concoction, I use EP gear oil.  I figure it has the best
>>> chance of sticking to steel surfaces with the sulphur additive.  FWIW,
>>> I also added a blob of moly disulphide grease to the mixture, though I
>>> don't know what, if any, benefit there is from it.
>>
>> Yeah, EP gear oil is fine. The sulfur additive is really for high
>> temperature which is not going to be the case on a bicycle chain.
>
>That is not entirely correct.
>
>>
>> I recall using molybdenum disulfide ages ago on my chains after reading
>> something about how it was a fine enough powder to flow back between the
>> pins and rollers and didn't flake off like wax.
>>
>
>That's rubbish.
>
>> After learning that plain was was not good to use on chains I never
>> tried making up a concoction of oil, wax, and whatever, I began using
>> foaming chain lube to lubricate the chain on the bike, and kerosene to
>> clean the chain on the bike. But my goal was simply a clean, well
>> lubricated chain, and I wasn't so concerned about the chain getting
>> dirty since I could clean and lubricate it in just a few minutes.
>>
>
>I don't bother spending time cleaning my chain. I remove the chain at
>the quick link and immerse it in my hot wax/oil solution, then lift it
>out, let it cool and reinstall it.

Yes, I did that for a while and then I noticed that the bottom 1/3 of
the wax solution had turned black. With dirt I assumed. I then started
sloshing the chain around in kerosene before throwing it in the wax
pot and while that didn't 100% cure the problem it did make the
interval between throwing out the old dirty wax mix and having to make
a new mix. :-0

>> There's also the issue of weakening the chain every time you remove it
>> and reinstall it.
>>
>
>A non issue when you use a quick link.
>
>> "If you watch professional race mechanics at a road or cyclocross event,
>> you’d be impressed to see how quickly they get a chain sparkling clean,
>> without removing it from the bike."
>>
>
>Clean on the outside, perhaps, but that is irrelevant to the inner
>moving parts. In fact there is an argument that cleaning the outside
>may move dirt further in to the inner moving parts of the chain.
>
>> Jason Quade of Abbey Bike Tools is a seasoned race mechanic himself, and
>> a strong proponent of cleaning chains on the bike. “With few exceptions,
>> I don’t remove a chain from a bike unless it’s going into the trash.
>> I’ve seen enough failed quick links to drive this opinion.”
>
>I've been using quick links on all bikes under my care for well over a
>decade, so far more than 100,000km of testing, and I've yet to have one
>fail. In fact I have had to donate a spare quick link to others on more
>than one occasion out on the road, when their chain has failed. I keep
>one in my saddle bag in case.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/13/2023 5:32 PM, James wrote:

> Clean on the outside, perhaps, but that is irrelevant to the inner
> moving parts.  In fact there is an argument that cleaning the outside
> may move dirt further in to the inner moving parts of the chain.

Nope.

No one said that they clean the chain only on the outside. Those chain
cleaning tools submerge the chain in solvent while flexing the links. If
you've ever used one, you'll be amazed how dirty the solvent gets even
when the chain is clean on the outside. You have to go through several
solvent changes before it runs clean.

As Sheldon Brown wrote: "The on-the-bike system has the advantage that
the cleaning machine flexes the links and spins the rollers. This
scrubbing action may do a better job of cleaning the innards." That has
been my experience as well, after running a chain that had been soaked
in solvent, and agitated in the solvent, through a chain cleaning tool,
there was still dirty stuff inside the chain. After that I dispensed
with the chain removal and soaking since the only advantage of the
pre-soak was that I had to do fewer solvent changes on the chain
cleaning tool, but the amount of solvent was no less.

Way too many people clean the outside of a chain and assume that the
chain is clean.

I also use the same kind of lubricant he mentions, though I was doing
that long before I read this on his site:

"Motorcycle-type Chain Lubes
The problem with lubricating conventional chains is that thick
lubricants can't penetrate into the inaccessible crannies where they are
really needed, but thin lubricants don't last long enough. There is a
family of popular chain lubricants that deal with this by mixing a thick
oil-type lubricant with a volatile solvent. The resulting mix is thin
enough to get some penetration by capillary action, then the solvent
evaporates and leaves the thick oil behind. This type of lube is easy to
apply, and is very popular for that reason."

See https://pj1.com/product/pj1-heavy-duty-black-label-chain-lube/ but
there are others as well.

Way too many people apply a lubricant that doesn't penetrate inside the
chain and assume that the chain is lubricated.

What some bicycle shops use is a machine that can connect to a tank of
clean solvent, a waste collection for dirty solvent, and a port for
lubricant, similar to <https://www.ebay.com/itm/385537267530>. They
can't be spending an inordinate amount of time on the bicycles that come
in for service and the home chain cleaning machines aren't designed for
commercial use.

<snip>

> I've been using quick links on all bikes under my care for well over a
> decade, so far more than 100,000km of testing, and I've yet to have one
> fail.  In fact I have had to donate a spare quick link to others on more
> than one occasion out on the road, when their chain has failed.  I keep
> one in my saddle bag in case.

Well you're an example of one, while a race mechanic sees a large number
of bikes, so no offense, but I'll go with an experienced bike mechanic's
experiences.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 14/12/23 13:13, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Good idea. But these days it seems one might have to keep one quick link
> for every width of chain! They're not compatible, are they?

Yes, the quick link really should be the correct width, though I guess a
10s link might get you out of trouble with a broken 11s chain.

>
> My wife actually had a quick link break many years ago. We had just
> finished a five day tour. A day or two later we were riding to get
> groceries when I heard a strange periodic click on her bike. This is
> what I found:
> https://flic.kr/p/2kYpGYs

I bought a new bike for my wife. Full Shimano 10s gear, and chain
assembled without a quick link by the OEM. On the first ride a link
broke, in much the same way as that in your photo. An outer plate broke
in half. There have been a few times I've helped out a companion who's
bike chain broke during a ride. It's why on more adventurous rides I
carry a multi tool with a chain breaker and a spare quick link.

>
> But that's been our only quick link failure. I did break my mountain
> bike chain once, in the forest preserve near my home. I didn't have a
> chain tool with me, so I used a bit of wire to hook the chain ends
> together and made my home by "ratchet pedaling," keeping the repair on
> the low tension side of the chain.
>

Joerg would be impressed, I'm sure.

--
JS

On 12/14/2023 1:26 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/13/2023 5:32 PM, James wrote:
>
>> Clean on the outside, perhaps, but that is irrelevant to the inner
>> moving parts.  In fact there is an argument that cleaning the outside
>> may move dirt further in to the inner moving parts of the chain.
>
> Nope.
>
> No one said that they clean the chain only on the outside. Those chain
> cleaning tools submerge the chain in solvent while flexing the links. If
> you've ever used one, you'll be amazed how dirty the solvent gets even
> when the chain is clean on the outside. You have to go through several
> solvent changes before it runs clean.
>
> As Sheldon Brown wrote: "The on-the-bike system has the advantage that
> the cleaning machine flexes the links and spins the rollers. This
> scrubbing action may do a better job of cleaning the innards." That has
> been my experience as well, after running a chain that had been soaked
> in solvent, and agitated in the solvent, through a chain cleaning tool,
> there was still dirty stuff inside the chain. After that I dispensed
> with the chain removal and soaking since the only advantage of the
> pre-soak was that I had to do fewer solvent changes on the chain
> cleaning tool, but the amount of solvent was no less.
>
> Way too many people clean the outside of a chain and assume that the
> chain is clean.
>
> I also use the same kind of lubricant he mentions, though I was doing
> that long before I read this on his site:
>
> "Motorcycle-type Chain Lubes
> The problem with lubricating conventional chains is that thick
> lubricants can't penetrate into the inaccessible crannies where they are
> really needed, but thin lubricants don't last long enough. There is a
> family of popular chain lubricants that deal with this by mixing a thick
> oil-type lubricant with a volatile solvent. The resulting mix is thin
> enough to get some penetration by capillary action, then the solvent
> evaporates and leaves the thick oil behind. This type of lube is easy to
> apply, and is very popular for that reason."
>
> See https://pj1.com/product/pj1-heavy-duty-black-label-chain-lube/ but
> there are others as well.
>
> Way too many people apply a lubricant that doesn't penetrate inside the
> chain and assume that the chain is lubricated.
>
> What some bicycle shops use is a machine that can connect to a tank of
> clean solvent, a waste collection for dirty solvent, and a port for
> lubricant, similar to <https://www.ebay.com/itm/385537267530>. They
> can't be spending an inordinate amount of time on the bicycles that come
> in for service and the home chain cleaning machines aren't designed for
> commercial use.
>
> <snip>
>
>> I've been using quick links on all bikes under my care for well over a
>> decade, so far more than 100,000km of testing, and I've yet to have
>> one fail.  In fact I have had to donate a spare quick link to others
>> on more than one occasion out on the road, when their chain has
>> failed.  I keep one in my saddle bag in case.
>
> Well you're an example of one, while a race mechanic sees a large number
> of bikes, so no offense, but I'll go with an experienced bike mechanic's
> experiences.

Or more accurately, you're going with his opinion. But from when? 1990?

You're ignoring the copious tests done from 2010 to 2023. Not to mention
at least one test that showed the same thing as far back as 1977, plus
lots of personal reports posted here.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/14/2023 8:53 PM, James wrote:
> On 14/12/23 13:13, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Good idea. But these days it seems one might have to keep one quick
>> link for every width of chain! They're not compatible, are they?
>
> Yes, the quick link really should be the correct width, though I guess a
> 10s link might get you out of trouble with a broken 11s chain.
>
>>
>> My wife actually had a quick link break many years ago. We had just
>> finished a five day tour. A day or two later we were riding to get
>> groceries when I heard a strange periodic click on her bike. This is
>> what I found:
>> https://flic.kr/p/2kYpGYs
>
> I bought a new bike for my wife.  Full Shimano 10s gear, and chain
> assembled without a quick link by the OEM.  On the first ride a link
> broke, in much the same way as that in your photo.  An outer plate broke
> in half.  There have been a few times I've helped out a companion who's
> bike chain broke during a ride.  It's why on more adventurous rides I
> carry a multi tool with a chain breaker and a spare quick link.

I recall a club ride a few years ago, a pretty leisurely ride with one
very optional ~10% hill maybe a quarter mile or so. The option was to
just climb the hill for the hell of it, then go back down and continue
the ride.

I was surprised at how few of the riders climbed the hill that day. It
turns out it was because one guy's chain broke as soon as he started to
climb. (He was on a recumbent, not that that was important.) Several
riders were clustered around his bike puzzling over what to do.

I had no chain tool, but another rider took out her multitool and said
"Would this do any good?" Sure enough her tool included a chain tool,
although she had no idea what it was. I removed the bad link,
re-attached the chain and we went on. But that guy never did climb that
hill.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 12/13/2023 6:45 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, I did that for a while and then I noticed that the bottom 1/3 of
> the wax solution had turned black. With dirt I assumed. I then started
> sloshing the chain around in kerosene before throwing it in the wax
> pot and while that didn't 100% cure the problem it did make the
> interval between throwing out the old dirty wax mix and having to make
> a new mix. :-0

Back when I tried paraffin I noticed the same thing. There's a
misconception that by using wax there will be no dirt inside the chain
and all you have to do is to re-wax it without first cleaning it. That's
not how it works.

On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 11:52:37 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
> On 12/13/2023 6:45 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Yes, I did that for a while and then I noticed that the bottom 1/3 of
> > the wax solution had turned black. With dirt I assumed. I then started
> > sloshing the chain around in kerosene before throwing it in the wax
> > pot and while that didn't 100% cure the problem it did make the
> > interval between throwing out the old dirty wax mix and having to make
> > a new mix. :-0
> Back when I tried paraffin I noticed the same thing. There's a
> misconception that by using wax there will be no dirt inside the chain
> and all you have to do is to re-wax it without first cleaning it. That's
> not how it works.

My experience is that there is (almost) no dirt inside the chain. You still have to clean the outside of the chain, which is easy and doesn't need any solvents, before applying fresh waxed based lubricant. That doesn't change and is in fact the biggest error people make with any lubricant. My problem with oil based lubricants is that it is almost impossible to clean the outside of the chain, let alone the inside. You have to use solvents and what it does is it starts moving the dirt from the outside to the inside of the chain. It needs endless iterations to get it out after that. Best option in my opinion is an ultra sonic cleaner with solvent (yuck). The chain cleaning gizmo's you a fan of, well you find a lot of people that think they are worse than leaving the chain alone. I am one of them. What a mess.

Lou

On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 4:55:44 AM UTC-8, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 11:52:37 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
> > On 12/13/2023 6:45 PM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Yes, I did that for a while and then I noticed that the bottom 1/3 of
> > > the wax solution had turned black. With dirt I assumed. I then started
> > > sloshing the chain around in kerosene before throwing it in the wax
> > > pot and while that didn't 100% cure the problem it did make the
> > > interval between throwing out the old dirty wax mix and having to make
> > > a new mix. :-0
> > Back when I tried paraffin I noticed the same thing. There's a
> > misconception that by using wax there will be no dirt inside the chain
> > and all you have to do is to re-wax it without first cleaning it. That's
> > not how it works.
> My experience is that there is (almost) no dirt inside the chain. You still have to clean the outside of the chain, which is easy and doesn't need any solvents, before applying fresh waxed based lubricant. That doesn't change and is in fact the biggest error people make with any lubricant. My problem with oil based lubricants is that it is almost impossible to clean the outside of the chain, let alone the inside. You have to use solvents and what it does is it starts moving the dirt from the outside to the inside of the chain. It needs endless iterations to get it out after that. Best option in my opinion is an ultra sonic cleaner with solvent (yuck). The chain cleaning gizmo's you a fan of, well you find a lot of people that think they are worse than leaving the chain alone. I am one of them. What a mess.
>
> Lou
That has pretty much been my experience. Using a Park Chain Cleaner I would have to change the solvent a half dozen times before it ran clean.

On 12/14/2023 11:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/14/2023 1:26 PM, sms wrote:
>>
>> Well you're an example of one, while a race mechanic sees a large
>> number of bikes, so no offense, but I'll go with an experienced bike
>> mechanic's experiences.
>
> Or more accurately, you're going with his opinion. But from when? 1990?
>
> You're ignoring the copious tests done from 2010 to 2023. Not to mention
> at least one test that showed the same thing as far back as 1977, plus
> lots of personal reports posted here.

Oh, there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pndkk5fTiw

and this about re-waxing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VoTLOVw2Dg

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 21:37:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 12/14/2023 11:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 12/14/2023 1:26 PM, sms wrote:
>>>
>>> Well you're an example of one, while a race mechanic sees a large
>>> number of bikes, so no offense, but I'll go with an experienced bike
>>> mechanic's experiences.
>>
>> Or more accurately, you're going with his opinion. But from when? 1990?
>>
>> You're ignoring the copious tests done from 2010 to 2023. Not to mention
>> at least one test that showed the same thing as far back as 1977, plus
>> lots of personal reports posted here.
>
>Oh, there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pndkk5fTiw
>
>and this about re-waxing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VoTLOVw2Dg

Yeah, I also ignore all the chain lubing tests, studies, and advice,
because it really doesn't make that much of a difference. I'm going to
do what I believe requires the least amount of work, and that seems to
be a wet lube that is oil based.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 04:09:00 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 21:37:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 12/14/2023 11:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2023 1:26 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well you're an example of one, while a race mechanic sees a large
>>>> number of bikes, so no offense, but I'll go with an experienced bike
>>>> mechanic's experiences.
>>>
>>> Or more accurately, you're going with his opinion. But from when? 1990?
>>>
>>> You're ignoring the copious tests done from 2010 to 2023. Not to mention
>>> at least one test that showed the same thing as far back as 1977, plus
>>> lots of personal reports posted here.
>>
>>Oh, there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pndkk5fTiw
>>
>>and this about re-waxing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VoTLOVw2Dg
>
>Yeah, I also ignore all the chain lubing tests, studies, and advice,
>because it really doesn't make that much of a difference. I'm going to
>do what I believe requires the least amount of work, and that seems to
>be a wet lube that is oil based.

I had a look at
https://www.ridepace.com/how-much-are-bikes/
which tells me that, "On average you should aim to spend between $1000
and $2500 on a bike.".
So you whack out, lets say $1750 for a new bike... and then worry
about how long a $15 - $20 chain lasts?

Or perhaps a bit up market?
Cannon dale Habit LT LTD with the electric shift and the hydraulic
brakes? Only $312 a month>
https://www.cannondale.com/en-us/bikes/mountain/trail-bikes/habit/habit-lt-ltd

The logic eludes me :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/18/2023 6:11 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 04:09:00 -0500, Catrike Rider
> <soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 21:37:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/14/2023 11:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/2023 1:26 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well you're an example of one, while a race mechanic sees a large
>>>>> number of bikes, so no offense, but I'll go with an experienced bike
>>>>> mechanic's experiences.
>>>>
>>>> Or more accurately, you're going with his opinion. But from when? 1990?
>>>>
>>>> You're ignoring the copious tests done from 2010 to 2023. Not to mention
>>>> at least one test that showed the same thing as far back as 1977, plus
>>>> lots of personal reports posted here.
>>>
>>> Oh, there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pndkk5fTiw
>>>
>>> and this about re-waxing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VoTLOVw2Dg
>>
>> Yeah, I also ignore all the chain lubing tests, studies, and advice,
>> because it really doesn't make that much of a difference. I'm going to
>> do what I believe requires the least amount of work, and that seems to
>> be a wet lube that is oil based.
>
> I had a look at
> https://www.ridepace.com/how-much-are-bikes/
> which tells me that, "On average you should aim to spend between $1000
> and $2500 on a bike.".
> So you whack out, lets say $1750 for a new bike... and then worry
> about how long a $15 - $20 chain lasts?
>
> Or perhaps a bit up market?
> Cannon dale Habit LT LTD with the electric shift and the hydraulic
> brakes? Only $312 a month>
> https://www.cannondale.com/en-us/bikes/mountain/trail-bikes/habit/habit-lt-ltd
>
> The logic eludes me :-)

Can't say I'm surprised that logic eludes you.
1. If you're spending >$2K on a bike, you don't put a cheap-assed $20
chain on it, dumbass.
2. Most of us who care about performance and longevity spend
substantially more. This is about as low-priced as I go:
https://moltenspeedwax.com/collections/ybn-11-speed-chains/products/sla110-silver-chain
3. The longevity of the chain is only part of the equation. Shifting
performance is as much a part of buying the right chain as how long the
chain lasts. Buy a cheap-assed $15-20 dollar chain, get cheap-assed
$15-20 performance and longevity.
4. You seem to forget that many of us ride for many many hours, many
many miles from home. Sure, you can repair a cheap-assed $20 chain well
enough to get you home. However, spend some decent money, get a quality
chain, maintain it properly, and you have confidence that the chain
isn't going to break when you're 15 miles from your car in technical
terrain on an MTB, as well as having better shifting performance.

Unless you're tommy and need something to bitch about, Logic dictates
that you buy parts on the level of the rest of your equipment from
reputable vendors rather than buying cheap chinese shit off ebay.

--
Add xx to reply

On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 1:09:04 AM UTC-8, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 21:37:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 12/14/2023 11:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 12/14/2023 1:26 PM, sms wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Well you're an example of one, while a race mechanic sees a large
> >>> number of bikes, so no offense, but I'll go with an experienced bike
> >>> mechanic's experiences.
> >>
> >> Or more accurately, you're going with his opinion. But from when? 1990?
> >>
> >> You're ignoring the copious tests done from 2010 to 2023. Not to mention
> >> at least one test that showed the same thing as far back as 1977, plus
> >> lots of personal reports posted here.
> >
> >Oh, there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pndkk5fTiw
> >
> >and this about re-waxing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VoTLOVw2Dg
> Yeah, I also ignore all the chain lubing tests, studies, and advice,
> because it really doesn't make that much of a difference. I'm going to
> do what I believe requires the least amount of work, and that seems to
> be a wet lube that is oil based.

But, but, but, Krygowski has "science" behind him so his word is law. And if you don't like it that's too bad.