Thanks and indeed - my experiences have been overwhelmingly positive and I think the only reason I'd go back to conventional lubrication is if I had to ride a lot in the wet, as the wax doesn't seem to offer much protection in this regard..
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Thanks and indeed - my experiences have been overwhelmingly positive and I think the only reason I'd go back to conventional lubrication is if I had to ride a lot in the wet, as the wax doesn't seem to offer much protection in this regard..
alex_cycles
Veteran
- Location
- Oxfordshire
I think if you have a compressor and are able to blow the water off the chain after wet rides it should be OK to stick with wax. But we will see. I've manged to avoid wet rides so far since switching to wax for the main road bike. Still waiting for current chains to wear out on other bikes before switching over. But I can't see myself going back to oil unless the longevity is poor (which I'm not expecting).
Perhaps, although IME when it gets properly wet the water gets in between the pins / rollers and probably would be difficult to shift with compressed air. In the past I've refreshed wet chains in the oven, although this would get tedious if being used daily in wet conditions.
Another alternative would be to spend a bit more on a stainless / nickel chain; however I suspect this would still eventually succumb to corrosion once the nickel plating had worn off. That said hopefully this wouldn't happen for a while given the lack of impromptu grinding paste inside the chain!
This makes no sense, 1x is unrelated to chain width or number of cogs on your cassette.
I can make a 1x 9 speed.
A fixie is 1x and the chain lasts far longer than a 12 speed I'm sure.
chriswoody
Legendary Member
- Location
- Northern Germany
The quote you've made from my post, was not written by me, but was actually a direct quote from the website that I'd linked to in my post.
On that website they had taken several standard commercially available 2x drivetrains and compared them to a couple of off the shelf 1x drivetrains.
The quote I put in my post and quoted in turn by you, referred directly to those test results and as such, makes perfect sense in that context.
One of the aspects of a 1x11 or 1x12 drivetrain in comparison to 2x or even a fixie, is that when the gears are selected at the extremes of the cassette, the chain is visibly having to bend to reach them. This leads to the common misconception that 1x 11 or 12 drivetrains wear out much quicker. My post was made to offer an alternate view point, that was also consummate withy own personal experiences of these drivetrains.
Why would they wear out less than a 2x drivetrain using the same chain? With a worse chainline it would seem impossible for them to last *longer* with the same usage.
What protection is it that you think is needed? Rust?
Again, that zero friction cycling site suggests that immersion wax is by far the best for wet usage as it doesn't accumulate the extra dirt and doesn't need a full strip and degrease following a single rainy/mucky ride.
In my experience, rust is always surface only and disappears after usage. Maybe worth a rinse if you're riding in salty winter conditions.
T4tomo
Legendary Member
perhaps changing chainrings exacerbates wear, as it puts more stress on the chain whilst changing? it is usually doing a 16T change, which you don't get with any changes at the rear.
chriswoody
Legendary Member
- Location
- Northern Germany
If you read the article I've linked to in my original post it's all explained there about what they tested and why, as well as discussing the results. As I said in my previous post, I have experienced similar longevity with my 1x drivetrains.
If you're interested in discussing 1x and longevity then please start a new thread, I don't want to derail Wafter's thread any more.
Indeed - many people seem to have no corrosion issues with the waxing but I've had several occasions where I've been out in the wet and found the water's got into the links and the resultant corrosion has made them stiff / squeaky.. I certainly agree with the lack of accumulation of dry particulates though.
I have just added a load more liquid paraffin to my mix, resulting in a more paste- like consistency; not so great to handle but perhaps it'll help keep the water out..
alex_cycles
Veteran
- Location
- Oxfordshire
I'm still fairly convinced that a proper good blast of compressed air will minimise water problems. But I have yet to get an opportunity to try it - and I'm not in a hurry to do so
Time will tell.I'm still fairly convinced that a proper good blast of compressed air will minimise water problems. But I have yet to get an opportunity to try it - and I'm not in a hurry to do so
Indeed - keep us informed!
Today I remembered that the CdF's chain was due a wax so I hurridly chucked it in the pot before popping out to meet a mate. Apparently this time it's done 402 miles with no obvious signs of complaint, and I measured it before the re-treatment to see if it was showing any signs of elongation / wear yet. Results below; measured over 55 link pairs:
1st full link; measured from 12" in on the tape to reduce measurement error:
55th link, showing some perceptable but hard to quantify elongation:
The smallest graduations are 1/16th of an inch, suggesting current elongation is in the region of 1/128"; although it's so small measurement error here will be significant. For context the largely-permitted wear limit of 0.5% elongation over this number of links would be around 0.27" / just over 1/4" or four graduations.
So we have - as near as I can measure it - around 0.03% elongation over just under 3700 miles. Extrapolating this to the wear limit (with the caveats above notwithstanding) suggests a chain life of around 130,000 miles
Not to say that the chain will make it this far of course, and more use / wear will reduce measurement error and give a better idea of the true expected figure as time wears on.
Considering some struggle to get 1/100th of this projected value from their chains I'm certainly not complaining - based on this figure (and assuming I live long enough to out-last the chain, which is doubtful) this would be a saving of around £1500 in replacement chains; not to mention cassettes and chainrings
GuyBoden
Guru
- Location
- Warrington
I've been waxing my chain this year, so far it's been very good, but dry summer rides only, not sure about winter.
I've waxed chains in past years, but not with the same amount of chain cleaning diligence before and after waxing.
I'm using this:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/325089309670
I
I've waxed chains in past years, but not with the same amount of chain cleaning diligence before and after waxing.
I'm using this:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/325089309670
I
Yesterday I came to wax the chain on the Fuji. Despite the 350 miles covered since the last treatment it was still performing perfectly, however I usually look to re-wax at around 300 miles and it got a bit damp during the day's ride so figured it was time.
Upon removing the chain it appears that the new softer wax mixture (higher paraffin oil content) does a better job of remaining in place... the down side of this formula being that the chain's not so clean to handle (although still infinitely nicer than were it covered on grimey black oil). Maybe next time I'll push the mileage out further than usual to see how far I can get because the chain starts to audibly complain.
Since I had all the gear out I thought I'd do the chain on the CdF at the same time so took the opportunity to compare the two back to back. Both are KMC and have been waxed pretty much from new. The Fuji's 9 speed chain has done about 380 miles total, the Genesis' 11 speed item has covered around 4320 miles.
A 3.7mm drill bit was pushed through the end link of each chain, allowing them to be hung side by side and their relative lengths compared by looking at the alignment between opposite links at the dangling end. The 110th link was photographed (below) and the displacement between corresponding rollers measured in photoshop to try to quantify elongation of the 11sp chain (LHS) relative to the 9sp item.
As we can see there's descernible elongation in the 11sp chain relative to the 9sp item; hardly surprising since it's covered around 11 times the distance. Measured as best as possible the difference in vertical position between the upper-most extremities of the corresponding 9 and 11 speed rollers is around 0.63mm. The total original lenth of the 110, 1/2" (12.7mm) pitch links is 1397mm, making this relative elongation less than 0.05% of total length. This is around a tenth of the widely-accepted wear limit of 0.5% - which would be around 7mm or nearly one whole roller diameter.
I also measured the diameters of the rollers with a caliper, with both the 9sp item and a new 11sp link (removed before fitting) coming in at 7.70-7.72mm, while those on the well-used 11sp chain were around 7.67-7.68mm. There's evidently some wear there; seemingly around 0.5%.. Within reason roller wear shouldn't cause any issues as it "balances" between rollers so their relatively pitch remains the same.. what appears to kill chains (and subsequently wear associated components) is an increase in effective pitch due to wear between the link pins and plates.. which still seems to be very minimal in this case.
Of course this process is open to an amount of error and inaccuracy; one being that we're comparing two used chains so the 9sp isn't an ideal control, however given the levels of wear encountered throughout I think it's safe to discount any wear experienced by the 9sp chain over its short lifetime. Conversely, no effort has been made to account for roller wear, so it's likely that the effective elongation of the 11sp item is actually less than that suggested by the measurements.
Looking back a better approach would have been to have measured the difference in position between the pin bores in the plates themselves, however this would have required the chains being hung in a different (harder to achieve) orientation, while measuring the offset between two bores is potentially easier said than done.
Ultimately the chains appear to be holding up extremely well thanks to the wax treatment; the current numbers suggesting that the 11sp item from the CdF might last as much as 45k miles or a bit more before it his its wear limit
As always I'll continue to try to quantify the chain wear and will maybe consider replacing chains at less than 0.5% wear if this is likely to prolong the life of the associated drivetrain components.
Upon removing the chain it appears that the new softer wax mixture (higher paraffin oil content) does a better job of remaining in place... the down side of this formula being that the chain's not so clean to handle (although still infinitely nicer than were it covered on grimey black oil). Maybe next time I'll push the mileage out further than usual to see how far I can get because the chain starts to audibly complain.
Since I had all the gear out I thought I'd do the chain on the CdF at the same time so took the opportunity to compare the two back to back. Both are KMC and have been waxed pretty much from new. The Fuji's 9 speed chain has done about 380 miles total, the Genesis' 11 speed item has covered around 4320 miles.
A 3.7mm drill bit was pushed through the end link of each chain, allowing them to be hung side by side and their relative lengths compared by looking at the alignment between opposite links at the dangling end. The 110th link was photographed (below) and the displacement between corresponding rollers measured in photoshop to try to quantify elongation of the 11sp chain (LHS) relative to the 9sp item.
As we can see there's descernible elongation in the 11sp chain relative to the 9sp item; hardly surprising since it's covered around 11 times the distance. Measured as best as possible the difference in vertical position between the upper-most extremities of the corresponding 9 and 11 speed rollers is around 0.63mm. The total original lenth of the 110, 1/2" (12.7mm) pitch links is 1397mm, making this relative elongation less than 0.05% of total length. This is around a tenth of the widely-accepted wear limit of 0.5% - which would be around 7mm or nearly one whole roller diameter.
I also measured the diameters of the rollers with a caliper, with both the 9sp item and a new 11sp link (removed before fitting) coming in at 7.70-7.72mm, while those on the well-used 11sp chain were around 7.67-7.68mm. There's evidently some wear there; seemingly around 0.5%.. Within reason roller wear shouldn't cause any issues as it "balances" between rollers so their relatively pitch remains the same.. what appears to kill chains (and subsequently wear associated components) is an increase in effective pitch due to wear between the link pins and plates.. which still seems to be very minimal in this case.
Of course this process is open to an amount of error and inaccuracy; one being that we're comparing two used chains so the 9sp isn't an ideal control, however given the levels of wear encountered throughout I think it's safe to discount any wear experienced by the 9sp chain over its short lifetime. Conversely, no effort has been made to account for roller wear, so it's likely that the effective elongation of the 11sp item is actually less than that suggested by the measurements.
Looking back a better approach would have been to have measured the difference in position between the pin bores in the plates themselves, however this would have required the chains being hung in a different (harder to achieve) orientation, while measuring the offset between two bores is potentially easier said than done.
Ultimately the chains appear to be holding up extremely well thanks to the wax treatment; the current numbers suggesting that the 11sp item from the CdF might last as much as 45k miles or a bit more before it his its wear limit
As always I'll continue to try to quantify the chain wear and will maybe consider replacing chains at less than 0.5% wear if this is likely to prolong the life of the associated drivetrain components.
Last edited:
DaveReading
Don't suffer fools gladly (must try harder!)
- Location
- Reading, obvs
I'm not so sure that relying on gravity to take up all the wear on the pins/rollers is the best strategy - I'd be interested to see if there's any difference in the absolute and relative lengths with the lower ends weighted.
