Chain lubrication, the balance of pros versus cons

[Ajax Bay]

What is the mechanism which "wears the side plate holes oval"? Are the pins moving in the side plate holes? If not, what causes the wear of which you speak? Help us all understand. Maybe it's explained better in a link you might share?

 

[faster]

What is the mechanism which "wears the side plate holes oval"? Are the pins moving in the side plate holes? If not, what causes the wear of which you speak? Help us all understand. Maybe it's explained better in a link you might share?

Yes, the pins do move in the inner plate holes, which wears them oval.

 

[DRM]

Yes, the pins do move in the inner plate holes, which wears them oval.

As above the pins are peined over at the end, the plates rotate around the pins as they go round the chainring and cassette, this movement causes the wear eventually, the rollers also rotate round the pins too

 

[silva]

... and an addition of dirt / road grit or worn off teeth particles to the lubricant, forming an abrasive paste, quicker than quick.
The trouble is that it is quite a job to get the particles out/off.
And one next ride over a single spot with dirt suffices to inflict a repeat.
All that work I see as a waste of time - I have better things to do.
So, my goal was/is to reduce it as much as possible.
Since I ceased lubricating the chain, I had nearly zero cleaning work.
And yet, the rate of chain retensions, and their magnitude (how much the eccenter has to be moved in order to get the required tension) both decreased.
But as said, testing this became only possible when the chain was protected against rain.
Since I finally found a working cover construction (that special shaped rubber seal), this became possible.
And this topic is the conclusion I drawed from the experience over the months since the cover.

Probably by the end of summer, I'll need to replace chain and rear cog.
I will put on the second in line of that Regina 420 oroy chain, but the newer model of my second purchased batch.
Unlike the first, the rain cover now allows to NOT put oil on it.
These motorcycle chains have a white grease on them. Also sticky. So I think I'm gonna try to wipe it off the externals as much as possible.
And then see if the wear story confirms the current.

 

[DRM]

... and an addition of dirt / road grit or worn off teeth particles to the lubricant, forming an abrasive paste, quicker than quick.
The trouble is that it is quite a job to get the particles out/off.
And one next ride over a single spot with dirt suffices to inflict a repeat.
All that work I see as a waste of time - I have better things to do.
So, my goal was/is to reduce it as much as possible.
Since I ceased lubricating the chain, I had nearly zero cleaning work.
And yet, the rate of chain retensions, and their magnitude (how much the eccenter has to be moved in order to get the required tension) both decreased.
But as said, testing this became only possible when the chain was protected against rain.
Since I finally found a working cover construction (that special shaped rubber seal), this became possible.
And this topic is the conclusion I drawed from the experience over the months since the cover.

Probably by the end of summer, I'll need to replace chain and rear cog.
I will put on the second in line of that Regina 420 oroy chain, but the newer model of my second purchased batch.
Unlike the first, the rain cover now allows to NOT put oil on it.
These motorcycle chains have a white grease on them. Also sticky. So I think I'm gonna try to wipe it off the externals as much as possible.
And then see if the wear story confirms the current.
[/QUOTE

Don't motorcycle chains have seals between the plates and the rollers, in order to keep, I assume road dirt and water out as much as is practically possible, unlike a bicycle chain? Just going on what my work colleagues have said, who are really into their motorbikes.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Deliberately not lubricating a mechanical transmission on the basis that it wears slower if not lubricated, is totally bonkers thinking.
Any supposed reduced rate of chain elongation on an unlubricated chain, is almost certainly due to the fact that rust takes up more space than the metal it is formed from.

 

[Smokin Joe]

I think I prefer this guy's view over the OPs -

Lab testing confirms: Clean your damn chain - CyclingTips

 

[silva]

About that nondiscussion, "oval worn plate holes",

Don't motorcycle chains have seals between the plates and the rollers, in order to keep, I assume road dirt and water out as much as is practically possible, unlike a bicycle chain? Just going on what my work colleagues have said, who are really into their motorbikes.

Not all, some, usually those for bigger forces, have. Their price tag is alot... "heftier".
There are different kinds (shapes) of those seals.
I already mentioned those somewhere in this topic.
Even as an argument - in the sense that if the seals block particles from arriving on the mating surfaces, they also block worn off particles from the pins and plates from getting out.
That on its own, already indicates, and maybe even proves, that the producing companies see the wear impact of external particles (from a variety of materials) as bigger than those of internal particles (from known materials).

One theory could be that those worn off internal particles (hardened steel) have a size and maybe also shape (more round) that is less abrasive than the "foreign" ones. Or just that their number per surface unit is much smaller than the foreign ones, that have virtually no limit and can fill completely.

 

[silva]

Deliberately not lubricating a mechanical transmission on the basis that it wears slower if not lubricated, is totally bonkers thinking.
Any supposed reduced rate of chain elongation on an unlubricated chain, is almost certainly due to the fact that rust takes up more space than the metal it is formed from.

Whether that latter is (one of) the case(s) or not, does that even matter?

What matters, for me, is that the chain lasts longer.
Minimum cost, minimum work.
That's my goal.
Some people prefer to caress their bike like their wife.
My focus is to get the non bike related jobs done, treating the bike as a wheelbarrow - minimal maintenance.

And it wasn't a "supposed" reduced rate.
The reduced rate, was empirically identified.

What matters is a chain that does its job longer.
This is about a choice between two bad things.
Chosing the least bad, why would that be "bonkers thinking"?
"least bad", has the same outcome as "optimal".

 

[silva]

I think I prefer this guy's view over the OPs -

Lab testing confirms: Clean your damn chain - CyclingTips

Oil-based lubes can indeed still be efficient, but the way they attract dirt means you need to be more fastidious with your cleaning regime.

The alternative,
Their alternative,
Expensive parfume alike bottles.
If I can buy a new chainring at the price of their parfume bottle, why would I chose the latter?
Or, waste my time to cheapskate melt candles into wax to then unmount the chain and bathe it in?
Not even sure how wax is gonna "lubricate", since it's viscous, when pressed out in the load cycle, it doesn't flow back in in the relief cycle. It may serve abit alike a poormans motorcycle chain seal but that's it.
Oil does lubricate and is acceptable amount of work for me, it's just dripping on the rollers.
But its sticky nature causing subsequent hefty cleaning, lol, I don't want a backpack that I have to sew back together every evening.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Minimum cost, minimum work.
That's my goal.
Some people prefer to caress their bike like their wife.
My focus is to get the non bike related jobs done, treating the bike as a wheelbarrow - minimal maintenance.

I don't spend hours doing things like pointless cleaning & polishing my bikes either, but I do attend to the lubrication of the moving parts regularly.
Run your chains to the point of mechanical failure, both lubricated and dry. We'll see which regime is better then.

 

[palinurus]

Somewhere in 'Bicycling Science' there is some information on transmission efficiency and IIRC a dry, rusty chain was still pretty efficient compared to alternatives and while worse than a new chain, it was not substantially worse (I suspect belt drives were not included and it's likely the alternative was shaft drive). Will see if I can find it later.

It's interesting, but I didn't stop lubricating my chain after reading that.

Having said that on my shopping bike the intervals between lubing are often very long- one or two times per year and wear is not a concern I have at all. Trips are short & frequent, often done instead of walking, chain is pretty chunky- likely it will not be replaced in the next five years, longer in all likelihood.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Only one thing causes chain elongation, the holes in the plates wear oval and the pins wear with a groove in them, therefore making the chain longer when under tension, unlubricated metals rubbing against each other wear themselves away quicker than those lubricated

Agreed
The OP is also measuring chain wear due to having to re-tension the chain on a Fixed gear. Not exactly a scientific measurement as the slackening could also be caused by rear wheel movement and Freewheel/Chainring and roller, wear.
Moot points, but in any case, I can see no viable reason not to clean and lube a chain!

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/chain-wear.html

 

[silva]

I don't spend hours doing things like pointless cleaning & polishing my bikes either, but I do attend to the lubrication of the moving parts regularly.
Run your chains to the point of mechanical failure, both lubricated and dry. We'll see which regime is better then.

Attending to lubrication implies attending to cleaning to avoid grinding paste.
So it's contradictional. The two come together.
I now run my chain since months dry. I barely had to touch the chain tensioner. Before, after every lubrication, a matter of days, I had to retension. Even with a new mounted chain, in good weather except maybe blown sand, but not visible on the chain.
It isn't then a big thinking step forward to try a cease lubrication.
I tried alot oil, I tried minimal oil, I tried oil on the rollers alone, between the side plates alone, both, I tried everything. Didn't matter. The oil ended up everywhere including cogs. Also because that's just the purpose. Without a fluid material, how can one lubricate?

As before, 1, 2, 3 and 4 years ago: I'll see. I popped back up here, reporting results of previous experiments, and announcing a new.
Maybe it saves somebody else in a similar situation, waste of time.
That's not a crime, no?

 

[Blue Hills]

I don't spend hours doing things like pointless cleaning & polishing my bikes either, but I do attend to the lubrication of the moving parts regularly.

+1
haven't washed a bike in well over a decade.
But it's important to keep the drivetrain and gear shifting maintained/clean/kept lubed.