Thoughts on saddle height
09/10/24 21:28 Filed in: Riding
If you want the TL:DR right now, it is that 1 mm too high can be terrible, but 1 mm too low is seldom even noticeable.
The details...
Sometimes I swear that YouTube and Facebook can hear me think. I've been having some seat-comfort issues with my Checkpoint commuting bike since I got the new frame - more than 12 months ago. It has never been quite right in that period. Meanwhile I changed the crank length on my Madone road bike necessitating a change in seat height. I hadn't changed the seat height since I assembled that bike several years ago, so I wasn't sure how to do it or exactly how much to change it by. This is perhaps where the default feed results came from?
After riding my Madone on Sunday with the saddle at very much as much the same height as the Checkpoint as I could muster, and deciding it felt a very tiny amount too high I got to thinking if that was the source of discomfort on the Checkpoint. And into my YouTube feed came a bike fitters video about how saddle height impacts on saddle comfort. Now I didn't have the symptoms of a too-high saddle he spoke of, but I still wanted to try lowering it to see if that helped things.
I had to do a few minor things to the Checkpoint and included lowering the seat in that list. I think I went down around 4 mm. I have a red mark on the post to indicate if the post was slipping (it did slip twice when new - solved with carbon grip paste and slightly more torque on the pinch bolt). I hid the red mark. So now I can't tell if I slide down, but that is about 4mm change.
On that basis of one ride to work the next morning, I think it did help. I'm still not convinced that the saddle on there is a perfect match for me, but it definitely is not a bad one.
Next thing I have to do is revisit the Madone and drop that saddle by the same amount (and also get out some car wax to shine up the portion of the post that has been hidden inside the frame for several years but is now showing).
And then ride. Ride a bunch to see if the problem has been solved.
Typically I suggest someone try a saddle for 20 hours before deciding if they like it or not. Unfortunately, I seem to need longer. Many saddles have been close. Few have been good.
Thus I expect it will take 10 or more hours to evaluate the small drop in seat height as 1-not necessary, 2-just right, 3-too much or 4-not enough.
When the saddle goes too high, the hips cannot sit squarely on the top of the saddle and reach down to both pedals through a full revolution of the cranks. Everyone favours one side, so the non-favoured side should be reaching too far and rocking a bit on the seat resulting in pain (and possibly saddle sores) on that side. This YouTube video fitter has a saddle pressure mapping device for clients and can see if a rider is evenly sat upon the saddle. He displayed a before and after map for one client where they were heavily right-favoured before and very even after. In this case not from just dropping the saddle a bit, but a whole suite of changes including the lower seat.
If you find yourself always getting sores on one side, or your hips are rocking slightly, or you are always trying to ride on the saddle nose - these are all signs of a too-high seat.
Conversely, there are no signs of a too-low seat unless you look at near-maximal power outputs where the lack of full leg extension will cost a few Watts.
So err on the side of slightly too low.
The details...
Sometimes I swear that YouTube and Facebook can hear me think. I've been having some seat-comfort issues with my Checkpoint commuting bike since I got the new frame - more than 12 months ago. It has never been quite right in that period. Meanwhile I changed the crank length on my Madone road bike necessitating a change in seat height. I hadn't changed the seat height since I assembled that bike several years ago, so I wasn't sure how to do it or exactly how much to change it by. This is perhaps where the default feed results came from?
After riding my Madone on Sunday with the saddle at very much as much the same height as the Checkpoint as I could muster, and deciding it felt a very tiny amount too high I got to thinking if that was the source of discomfort on the Checkpoint. And into my YouTube feed came a bike fitters video about how saddle height impacts on saddle comfort. Now I didn't have the symptoms of a too-high saddle he spoke of, but I still wanted to try lowering it to see if that helped things.
I had to do a few minor things to the Checkpoint and included lowering the seat in that list. I think I went down around 4 mm. I have a red mark on the post to indicate if the post was slipping (it did slip twice when new - solved with carbon grip paste and slightly more torque on the pinch bolt). I hid the red mark. So now I can't tell if I slide down, but that is about 4mm change.
On that basis of one ride to work the next morning, I think it did help. I'm still not convinced that the saddle on there is a perfect match for me, but it definitely is not a bad one.
Next thing I have to do is revisit the Madone and drop that saddle by the same amount (and also get out some car wax to shine up the portion of the post that has been hidden inside the frame for several years but is now showing).
And then ride. Ride a bunch to see if the problem has been solved.
Typically I suggest someone try a saddle for 20 hours before deciding if they like it or not. Unfortunately, I seem to need longer. Many saddles have been close. Few have been good.
Thus I expect it will take 10 or more hours to evaluate the small drop in seat height as 1-not necessary, 2-just right, 3-too much or 4-not enough.
When the saddle goes too high, the hips cannot sit squarely on the top of the saddle and reach down to both pedals through a full revolution of the cranks. Everyone favours one side, so the non-favoured side should be reaching too far and rocking a bit on the seat resulting in pain (and possibly saddle sores) on that side. This YouTube video fitter has a saddle pressure mapping device for clients and can see if a rider is evenly sat upon the saddle. He displayed a before and after map for one client where they were heavily right-favoured before and very even after. In this case not from just dropping the saddle a bit, but a whole suite of changes including the lower seat.
If you find yourself always getting sores on one side, or your hips are rocking slightly, or you are always trying to ride on the saddle nose - these are all signs of a too-high seat.
Conversely, there are no signs of a too-low seat unless you look at near-maximal power outputs where the lack of full leg extension will cost a few Watts.
So err on the side of slightly too low.
Cassette replacements
06/10/24 16:06 Filed in: Gear
It seemed (when I worked in a shop) that the average bike shop customer rode their bike until the shifting was problematic, and then took it to their bike shop for adjustment. Often that adjustment involved a new chain and cassette (sometimes chainrings too). Which is expensive.
On the flip side are the multi-chain users. These people seem to run 3 chains at a time, swapping the one on the bike frequently with one of the other two. This way one can be on the bike, one ready to go and one getting ready to go at all time.
My own approach is closer to the first than the second. I've never had great luck with multiple chains over a single cassette. As the cassette's edges wear, even if the chain-pitch isn't wearing, performance degrades. Sloppier, slower shifts. Noisy driveline.
53/16 is a favourite gear for racing. On the race bike I spend a ton of time in the 16T sprocket. So much so that it might take 40-50% of the use. Even if it doesn't end up too worn to mesh with a brand new chain, the shifting "ports" end up worn enough that shifting suffers and it gets noisy. I had one cassette that after 28000 km, it would still take a fresh chain for pitch, but it refused to actually shift it well (sometimes at all).
Thus, my approach is to use one and only one chain, but replace it before wear gets carried away and ruins the chainrings too. And then replace the cassette at the same time. I try to take care of the whole drivetrain at the maintenance/lubrication stage rather than through the rotation of chains. Ultimately it might be a bit more expensive, but everything works as expected through its life. Taken care of they last thousands of kilometres and I don't see the point in putting up with one noisy gear, one gear that doesn't quite work right or the issues of a partially worn cassette when I can have close to perfection all the time.
And in this era of excellent lubricants that double (or quadruple) chain life, the chances of wearing out the shifting ramps on the cassette before the pitch goes "bad" seems that much higher than in the past. On my commuter bike with Record I was over 12000 km with everything still shifting nicely when I sold the Record gear. That seems just fine with me.
On the flip side are the multi-chain users. These people seem to run 3 chains at a time, swapping the one on the bike frequently with one of the other two. This way one can be on the bike, one ready to go and one getting ready to go at all time.
My own approach is closer to the first than the second. I've never had great luck with multiple chains over a single cassette. As the cassette's edges wear, even if the chain-pitch isn't wearing, performance degrades. Sloppier, slower shifts. Noisy driveline.
53/16 is a favourite gear for racing. On the race bike I spend a ton of time in the 16T sprocket. So much so that it might take 40-50% of the use. Even if it doesn't end up too worn to mesh with a brand new chain, the shifting "ports" end up worn enough that shifting suffers and it gets noisy. I had one cassette that after 28000 km, it would still take a fresh chain for pitch, but it refused to actually shift it well (sometimes at all).
Thus, my approach is to use one and only one chain, but replace it before wear gets carried away and ruins the chainrings too. And then replace the cassette at the same time. I try to take care of the whole drivetrain at the maintenance/lubrication stage rather than through the rotation of chains. Ultimately it might be a bit more expensive, but everything works as expected through its life. Taken care of they last thousands of kilometres and I don't see the point in putting up with one noisy gear, one gear that doesn't quite work right or the issues of a partially worn cassette when I can have close to perfection all the time.
And in this era of excellent lubricants that double (or quadruple) chain life, the chances of wearing out the shifting ramps on the cassette before the pitch goes "bad" seems that much higher than in the past. On my commuter bike with Record I was over 12000 km with everything still shifting nicely when I sold the Record gear. That seems just fine with me.
Bike sizing
26/09/24 22:42 Filed in: Gear
I recently put up a story about chain lubricating that was inspired by a disagreement in a Facebook cycling group about best approach to chain lubrication.
Well it happened again, this time about bike size.
The Gen 2 Trek Checkpoint was (as it has been superseded now by the gen 3) a very long bike. This length prompted many to choose a size down. A question came up from a Checkpoint shopper asking for advice about sizing. Someone replied that all else being equal, you should choose the smallest frame you can fit on.
I've heard that advice so many times; lighter frame, stiffer frame, more aero... the benefits list is long.
And I completely disagree with it. I suggested that as a fitter of 20+ years experience, when in doubt, size up. Choose the largest frame you can fit on for the most comfortable experience.
Small is OK for some professional riders. They are all young, fit and have access to a support team that can assist if the small frame leads to discomfort. I suggest for anyone with typical Western lived experience, small is not going to be your best friend. It requires a certain level of flexibility, core strength, mobility and balance to achieve a happy location on a small bike. As part of my bike fitting, I've tested a lot of cyclists for flexibility and core strength. It would be fair to say that most do not present with high flexibility and high strength.
Regardless of these, for older cyclists larger is going to help out with achieving comfort. Few at 40 still retain the flexibility and strength they had at 20.
The TL:DR summary is: there's a pretty good reason that there is a "usual" size for a bike based on a person's leg measurement. Have a good reason if you want to stray from that.
Well it happened again, this time about bike size.
The Gen 2 Trek Checkpoint was (as it has been superseded now by the gen 3) a very long bike. This length prompted many to choose a size down. A question came up from a Checkpoint shopper asking for advice about sizing. Someone replied that all else being equal, you should choose the smallest frame you can fit on.
I've heard that advice so many times; lighter frame, stiffer frame, more aero... the benefits list is long.
And I completely disagree with it. I suggested that as a fitter of 20+ years experience, when in doubt, size up. Choose the largest frame you can fit on for the most comfortable experience.
Small is OK for some professional riders. They are all young, fit and have access to a support team that can assist if the small frame leads to discomfort. I suggest for anyone with typical Western lived experience, small is not going to be your best friend. It requires a certain level of flexibility, core strength, mobility and balance to achieve a happy location on a small bike. As part of my bike fitting, I've tested a lot of cyclists for flexibility and core strength. It would be fair to say that most do not present with high flexibility and high strength.
Regardless of these, for older cyclists larger is going to help out with achieving comfort. Few at 40 still retain the flexibility and strength they had at 20.
The TL:DR summary is: there's a pretty good reason that there is a "usual" size for a bike based on a person's leg measurement. Have a good reason if you want to stray from that.
Scorpion Race
20/09/24 22:53 Filed in: Gear
I never really liked Pirelli automotive tyres when I worked in the tyre business (years ago). They usually took a lot of weight to balance out and they didn't look well finished on the inside. Contrast with Michelin tyres, they looked as good on the inside as the outside and they hardly required any balancing weights at all. Regardless of how good the rubber might have been, from a tyre installer's POV, the Pirelli tyres weren't as good as some competitors.
Enter Pirelli bicycle tyres. Early on, none of them were even made by Pirelli. Road tyres by Hutchinson in France. MTB tyres by Vittoria in Thailand. But both those companies make good tyres. So, Pirelli rubber (arguably as good as it gets from F1, WRC, MotoGP and more experience) is likely to be great.
I've written about them before on these pages. The topic of today's writing is the new(ish) Scorpion Enduro Race M. I have one on each end of my Slash. Prior to that I had the Scorpion Enduro M/R pair (not Race).
There is NO comparison between the Race and non-race versions of the Enduro tyres. None. The Enduro Race has massive blocks for traction, made of soft rubber. I was really happy with the traction offered by the first version - they gripped well in the wet with their rubber compound clinging well, and in the dry. I have only a couple of rides on the Enduro Race so far, but they are so amazingly grippy and stuck to the ground that I bought a pair of Scorpion DH Race Ms for the Sender.
They're a bit like magic. I can't do much to make them slide. They simply grip. Yes they are a little draggy on the climbs, but they are also good in techy climbs where traction is important. On the way down I don't feel like my progress is impeded by the high rolling resistance of them - rather I can stay off the brakes more and carry better speed in places.
If their durability is OK (they're softer so I expect them to wear faster) then I've got a new tyre to use going ahead.
I'll also need to report back on the DH version - once Thredbo opens for the season and I get a few runs on them.
Enter Pirelli bicycle tyres. Early on, none of them were even made by Pirelli. Road tyres by Hutchinson in France. MTB tyres by Vittoria in Thailand. But both those companies make good tyres. So, Pirelli rubber (arguably as good as it gets from F1, WRC, MotoGP and more experience) is likely to be great.
I've written about them before on these pages. The topic of today's writing is the new(ish) Scorpion Enduro Race M. I have one on each end of my Slash. Prior to that I had the Scorpion Enduro M/R pair (not Race).
There is NO comparison between the Race and non-race versions of the Enduro tyres. None. The Enduro Race has massive blocks for traction, made of soft rubber. I was really happy with the traction offered by the first version - they gripped well in the wet with their rubber compound clinging well, and in the dry. I have only a couple of rides on the Enduro Race so far, but they are so amazingly grippy and stuck to the ground that I bought a pair of Scorpion DH Race Ms for the Sender.
They're a bit like magic. I can't do much to make them slide. They simply grip. Yes they are a little draggy on the climbs, but they are also good in techy climbs where traction is important. On the way down I don't feel like my progress is impeded by the high rolling resistance of them - rather I can stay off the brakes more and carry better speed in places.
If their durability is OK (they're softer so I expect them to wear faster) then I've got a new tyre to use going ahead.
I'll also need to report back on the DH version - once Thredbo opens for the season and I get a few runs on them.
Chain lubricating practices
08/09/24 18:21 Filed in: Gear
In a Facebook group on cycling, I recently got into an argument about the best way to lubricate a chain.
I stated a simple enough message. That frequent lubrication is the pathway to a quickly worn-out chain; probably faster than any other option. I've seen it first hand and I can support it with a mechanism. When I worked in a bike shop we had numerous customers who only took away the message that they needed to lubricate their chain. So they did. Some after every ride.
Particularly back when I worked in a bike shop, there were more bad options than good ones for lubricant. Any "oil" is a prime candidate for rapid wear. The problem isn't the lubricating properties of the oil itself. After all, motor oil keeps a very complicated internal combustion engine running for hundreds of thousands of kilometres. The problem is that it is sticky; a characteristic that helps it do its job inside the confines of an engine. But one that confounds its role on a bike chain. We ride around in the outdoors where there is all manner of fine dust and grit that sticks to the sticky oil. Look at just about any bike chain that has some use, it has some dirt stuck to the outside.
The problem arises when more oil is applied. It washes that dirt from the outside (where it does no harm) to the inside - the moving surfaces of the chain (where it can do a great deal of harm).
Grinding paste (such as for making a glass lens, or polishing a nice stone, or a concrete floor) is essentially some fluid (like the oil) and some grit (like that stuff stuck to a chain).
Once inside the chain, every time the chain bends around a chainring or cassette, it is being abraded by the paste.
I've seen a chain go from new to beyond worn in as little as 600 km due to frequent lubrication.
You'd get markedly better life just from a good wipe of that dirt prior to re-lubing.
This is where the bike industry tried to outsmart the dirt (not that the dirt is actually smart - just ubiquitous) with self cleaning lubricants. Early ones didn't work so well. The cleaning part of the mix attacked the lubricating part so it required frequent reapplication, sometimes in the middle of a ride. Eventually the chemists came up with some formulae that worked. I used Rock N Roll Gold for at least a decade with great results. Good lifespan for the drivetrain, low effort on my part, good shifting and didn't run out in the middle of a ride. It wasn't so much self cleaning as easy cleaning.
When I was a kid there were some cyclists I knew who dipped their chain in melted paraffin wax. Because the wax dried hard, and it was waxy, nothing stuck to the chain. And it didn't run or splatter in use. Unfortunately, it wasn't a great lubricant and it couldn't mobilise inside the chain. Once the wax on the articulating surfaces inside the chain was worn away, it was time to redip the chain. Most lubricants are runny enough to continually replenish the moving surfaces with fresh stuff in use. [Interesting little aside here, if you take a chain link and place it on top of a drop of liquid and bend the chain side to side, the motions of the pieces will suck up the liquid and push it out the top - chains in use do this all the time.]
Waxing is back. But now it is not simply paraffin wax, but some clever chemists have added numerous extra goodies to the waxy stuff so that it provides good lubrication for your chain. Silca even makes a specific bike chain station with hanging arm so you can simply immersion-wax a chain.
While chemists were playing with waxes, several came up with an emulsified option (if you've ever used oil & vinegar dressing you'll have noticed that oil and water don't mix - the best science can offer us is a liquid where the oil is held in the water in extremely tiny droplets: an emulsion). These emulsified waxes can be dripped onto the chain, the water penetrates (some more than others - more on that in a minute), delivering the waxy lubricant inside the chain where it can do some good. Eventually the water evaporates and the only thing left behind is the desired wax.
As I wrote above, I used Rock N Roll for about a decade. I got a sample bottle of Squirt at a bike race in my goody bag. I tried it on a few MTB rides and found it was good. I went through a couple of bottles of Squirt before I learned that Smoove was similar, but better. They provide good shifting and easy application along with low dirt. But not the best lifespan for chains because whatever solvent they use to get the wax into suspension isn't drawn into the chain as easily as one might like.
Zero Friction Cycling tests chains to destruction. They have established a protocol of clean then dirty use that tests either chains or lubricants for effectiveness. Both Squirt and Smoove do better in the testing after a period - where the lubricant finally makes its way inside. I'm not sure how much it helped, but whenever I applied one after learning about this, I used a heat gun to warm up the chain and help mobilise the lube inside.
Two lubricants that perform better than the Squirt/Smoove twins are also a bit of twinsies themselves: Silca Super Secret drip wax and Effetto Mariposa flowerpower drip wax. Both test well at Zero Friction and behave similarly in my garage testing. Because the solvent is water for both of them, it runs into the chain "just like water".
I had the pleasure of talking to Josh Poertner from Silca for about an hour online when I was reviewing some Silca products. Josh puts out loads of YouTube videos about Silca products and about best practices he and his team have found. Josh tells me that SSS wax is about 70% wax and 30% water. Thus, on one application, I add a drop of SSS to each roller on the chain and pedal backwards a little to draw the suspension inside the chain. Then I leave it for a day. The water evaporates leaving behind 70% wax fill and 30% voids. A second application will fill those voids with emulsion and evaporate once again. Only this time the chain is 91% full of wax. A third application (a bit of overkill without a lot of pay-off in my testing) leaves the chain about 98% full of wax. Which is about the same as immersion waxing with the Silca hot wax which is the same formula as the drop wax in a different format.
The wax in these four lubricants is not sticky. It doesn't promote grit sticking to the chain. But some sticks anyway.
I can't be bothered doing a full re-wax every time the chain requires a top-up. Instead I wipe the chain as much as I can such that it appears clean (I know some grit is lurking in places I can't wipe) and then drip on some more wax. A single top-up will almost double the interval between cleanings. I know it is speeding up the wear rate on my chain slightly, but in a return on investment (of time or money) I think it's OK.
The beauty of the waxy chain is that it can be completely removed with some boiling water. This was Josh's idea and it is brilliantly simple. Chain on big ring. Bike in work stand. Full kettle of boiling water. Move chain backwards, pour hot water on chainring. Two minutes later you have an incredibly clean chain with some water in it. I suspect drying it out first would fully load the chain with the 70% wax load, whereas dripping water onto an already wet chain won't displace all the water with waxy water [editorial note - I noticed Zero Friction Cycling expressly demands drying out the chain after the cleaning step, so I will have to revise my approach in future]. But it is much easier that way and I don't have so many days to relubricate a bike I use every day to ride to work.
If I do the boiling water thing on Saturday morning, the second lubrication on Sunday morning, I can ride a silent bike to work on Monday morning.
It is even simpler with any other bike in the quiver - they don't get ridden so often so the cleaning and lubricating can take place over a week or more.
The proof, they say, is in the pudding. My Campagnolo 12-spd chain that never got lubricated when dirty according to the above (but not the boiling water clean as I didn't know about that then) had 13000 km on it when I retired it. I wouldn't have done so were I not replacing the frame. It wasn't worn out yet, just very worn. The Campag 12-spd chain on my race bike only has 3500 km on it to date, but it measures "new" because it rarely gets ridden in wet conditions and that's when a lot of wear occurs. Now that I have Red 12-spd on my commuter, I'm at 6000 km and can't accurately measure any wear on the chain (it might be half the thickness of the scribe marks on my metal 12" ruler). I have heard of Red chains worn out in 4000-5000 km. At this rate I should get at least 12000. Wear is not linear in chains, once you go through the surface hardening it speeds up quickly.
On my various mountain bikes, the chains (all SRAM, mostly 12-spd - the DH bike is 7-spd but that is actually an 11-spd chain) last crazy amounts of time. And if we look at Zero Friction chain wear statistics, the Eagle chain is about the longest lasting chain ever tested. Couple a long-lasting chain with careful lubrication and they last almost forever.
Which brings me back to where I started. Some guy got angry with me for suggesting that frequent lubrication leads to premature wear. It doesn't have to. But it routinely does.
My old boss at the bike shop used to counsel lazy customers to not lube their chain at all. Better dry than worn out he used to offer. He had a deal with one customer who rode the most of anyone we knew - 600-1000 km per week most weeks. That's pro sorts of distances. He offered her free service for the life of her bike if she promised to never do anything to her bike. And after that deal was accepted, she went from a chain per week to a few per year.
Thus I stand by my statement. Lubricate a dirty chain at the peril of your pocketbook.
I stated a simple enough message. That frequent lubrication is the pathway to a quickly worn-out chain; probably faster than any other option. I've seen it first hand and I can support it with a mechanism. When I worked in a bike shop we had numerous customers who only took away the message that they needed to lubricate their chain. So they did. Some after every ride.
Particularly back when I worked in a bike shop, there were more bad options than good ones for lubricant. Any "oil" is a prime candidate for rapid wear. The problem isn't the lubricating properties of the oil itself. After all, motor oil keeps a very complicated internal combustion engine running for hundreds of thousands of kilometres. The problem is that it is sticky; a characteristic that helps it do its job inside the confines of an engine. But one that confounds its role on a bike chain. We ride around in the outdoors where there is all manner of fine dust and grit that sticks to the sticky oil. Look at just about any bike chain that has some use, it has some dirt stuck to the outside.
The problem arises when more oil is applied. It washes that dirt from the outside (where it does no harm) to the inside - the moving surfaces of the chain (where it can do a great deal of harm).
Grinding paste (such as for making a glass lens, or polishing a nice stone, or a concrete floor) is essentially some fluid (like the oil) and some grit (like that stuff stuck to a chain).
Once inside the chain, every time the chain bends around a chainring or cassette, it is being abraded by the paste.
I've seen a chain go from new to beyond worn in as little as 600 km due to frequent lubrication.
You'd get markedly better life just from a good wipe of that dirt prior to re-lubing.
This is where the bike industry tried to outsmart the dirt (not that the dirt is actually smart - just ubiquitous) with self cleaning lubricants. Early ones didn't work so well. The cleaning part of the mix attacked the lubricating part so it required frequent reapplication, sometimes in the middle of a ride. Eventually the chemists came up with some formulae that worked. I used Rock N Roll Gold for at least a decade with great results. Good lifespan for the drivetrain, low effort on my part, good shifting and didn't run out in the middle of a ride. It wasn't so much self cleaning as easy cleaning.
When I was a kid there were some cyclists I knew who dipped their chain in melted paraffin wax. Because the wax dried hard, and it was waxy, nothing stuck to the chain. And it didn't run or splatter in use. Unfortunately, it wasn't a great lubricant and it couldn't mobilise inside the chain. Once the wax on the articulating surfaces inside the chain was worn away, it was time to redip the chain. Most lubricants are runny enough to continually replenish the moving surfaces with fresh stuff in use. [Interesting little aside here, if you take a chain link and place it on top of a drop of liquid and bend the chain side to side, the motions of the pieces will suck up the liquid and push it out the top - chains in use do this all the time.]
Waxing is back. But now it is not simply paraffin wax, but some clever chemists have added numerous extra goodies to the waxy stuff so that it provides good lubrication for your chain. Silca even makes a specific bike chain station with hanging arm so you can simply immersion-wax a chain.
While chemists were playing with waxes, several came up with an emulsified option (if you've ever used oil & vinegar dressing you'll have noticed that oil and water don't mix - the best science can offer us is a liquid where the oil is held in the water in extremely tiny droplets: an emulsion). These emulsified waxes can be dripped onto the chain, the water penetrates (some more than others - more on that in a minute), delivering the waxy lubricant inside the chain where it can do some good. Eventually the water evaporates and the only thing left behind is the desired wax.
As I wrote above, I used Rock N Roll for about a decade. I got a sample bottle of Squirt at a bike race in my goody bag. I tried it on a few MTB rides and found it was good. I went through a couple of bottles of Squirt before I learned that Smoove was similar, but better. They provide good shifting and easy application along with low dirt. But not the best lifespan for chains because whatever solvent they use to get the wax into suspension isn't drawn into the chain as easily as one might like.
Zero Friction Cycling tests chains to destruction. They have established a protocol of clean then dirty use that tests either chains or lubricants for effectiveness. Both Squirt and Smoove do better in the testing after a period - where the lubricant finally makes its way inside. I'm not sure how much it helped, but whenever I applied one after learning about this, I used a heat gun to warm up the chain and help mobilise the lube inside.
Two lubricants that perform better than the Squirt/Smoove twins are also a bit of twinsies themselves: Silca Super Secret drip wax and Effetto Mariposa flowerpower drip wax. Both test well at Zero Friction and behave similarly in my garage testing. Because the solvent is water for both of them, it runs into the chain "just like water".
I had the pleasure of talking to Josh Poertner from Silca for about an hour online when I was reviewing some Silca products. Josh puts out loads of YouTube videos about Silca products and about best practices he and his team have found. Josh tells me that SSS wax is about 70% wax and 30% water. Thus, on one application, I add a drop of SSS to each roller on the chain and pedal backwards a little to draw the suspension inside the chain. Then I leave it for a day. The water evaporates leaving behind 70% wax fill and 30% voids. A second application will fill those voids with emulsion and evaporate once again. Only this time the chain is 91% full of wax. A third application (a bit of overkill without a lot of pay-off in my testing) leaves the chain about 98% full of wax. Which is about the same as immersion waxing with the Silca hot wax which is the same formula as the drop wax in a different format.
The wax in these four lubricants is not sticky. It doesn't promote grit sticking to the chain. But some sticks anyway.
I can't be bothered doing a full re-wax every time the chain requires a top-up. Instead I wipe the chain as much as I can such that it appears clean (I know some grit is lurking in places I can't wipe) and then drip on some more wax. A single top-up will almost double the interval between cleanings. I know it is speeding up the wear rate on my chain slightly, but in a return on investment (of time or money) I think it's OK.
The beauty of the waxy chain is that it can be completely removed with some boiling water. This was Josh's idea and it is brilliantly simple. Chain on big ring. Bike in work stand. Full kettle of boiling water. Move chain backwards, pour hot water on chainring. Two minutes later you have an incredibly clean chain with some water in it. I suspect drying it out first would fully load the chain with the 70% wax load, whereas dripping water onto an already wet chain won't displace all the water with waxy water [editorial note - I noticed Zero Friction Cycling expressly demands drying out the chain after the cleaning step, so I will have to revise my approach in future]. But it is much easier that way and I don't have so many days to relubricate a bike I use every day to ride to work.
If I do the boiling water thing on Saturday morning, the second lubrication on Sunday morning, I can ride a silent bike to work on Monday morning.
It is even simpler with any other bike in the quiver - they don't get ridden so often so the cleaning and lubricating can take place over a week or more.
The proof, they say, is in the pudding. My Campagnolo 12-spd chain that never got lubricated when dirty according to the above (but not the boiling water clean as I didn't know about that then) had 13000 km on it when I retired it. I wouldn't have done so were I not replacing the frame. It wasn't worn out yet, just very worn. The Campag 12-spd chain on my race bike only has 3500 km on it to date, but it measures "new" because it rarely gets ridden in wet conditions and that's when a lot of wear occurs. Now that I have Red 12-spd on my commuter, I'm at 6000 km and can't accurately measure any wear on the chain (it might be half the thickness of the scribe marks on my metal 12" ruler). I have heard of Red chains worn out in 4000-5000 km. At this rate I should get at least 12000. Wear is not linear in chains, once you go through the surface hardening it speeds up quickly.
On my various mountain bikes, the chains (all SRAM, mostly 12-spd - the DH bike is 7-spd but that is actually an 11-spd chain) last crazy amounts of time. And if we look at Zero Friction chain wear statistics, the Eagle chain is about the longest lasting chain ever tested. Couple a long-lasting chain with careful lubrication and they last almost forever.
Which brings me back to where I started. Some guy got angry with me for suggesting that frequent lubrication leads to premature wear. It doesn't have to. But it routinely does.
My old boss at the bike shop used to counsel lazy customers to not lube their chain at all. Better dry than worn out he used to offer. He had a deal with one customer who rode the most of anyone we knew - 600-1000 km per week most weeks. That's pro sorts of distances. He offered her free service for the life of her bike if she promised to never do anything to her bike. And after that deal was accepted, she went from a chain per week to a few per year.
Thus I stand by my statement. Lubricate a dirty chain at the peril of your pocketbook.
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022