Bicycle Mechanics - Chain-L Lube

I'm interested in trying this lube and was wondering who is using it, and how you like it?
I've been using a wax lube for some time but want to give a wet lube a try, and this product looks like it might be the ticket....

You know, of course, that FBinNY on the forum
is the guy who markets this product?

He is understandably reluctant to comment on
something in such an obvious possible conflict
of interest/selling your stuff on the forums situation,
but would no doubt respond to you in private
(I think).

If you use the advanced search function, discussion
of Chain-L has popped up from time to time, like here:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/615500-Chain-Cleaning-and-Re-Lubing-Techniques

Mike Larmer

You know, of course, that FBinNY on the forum
is the guy who markets this product?

He is understandably reluctant to comment on
something in such an obvious possible conflict
of interest/selling your stuff on the forums situation,
but would no doubt respond to you in private
(I think).

If you use the advanced search function, discussion
of Chain-L has popped up from time to time, like here:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/615500-Chain-Cleaning-and-Re-Lubing-Techniques

Mike Larmer

No, I had no idea that FBinNY marketed this lube, and if this is so I would not expect him to comment due to possible conflicts with others.

I suppose it's difficult for anyone to comment in a negitive way about his product, after all he helps lots of people here with his incredible knowledge including myself. I would have not started this thread had I known.

I just started using Chain-L last week. I applied it to a new Sram chain and installed it on my commuter with a new Shimano freewheel. I also put it on my son's worn in KMC chain with an equally worn in DNP freewheel. I took his chain off to clean and lube. We have taken two rides so far, and both chains have been quiet and clean. I expected my chain to be quiet, as the factory Sram lube is good stuff, but my son's lube was overdue for cleaning and the Chain-L does seem to last longer on his chain than the Rock-N-Roll we had been using.

The secret to success seems to be to follow the Chain-L directions for cleaning, lubing, and really wiping off the excess lube.

Brian

No, I had no idea that FBinNY marketed this lube,.- ...
...I would have not started this thread had I known.

Why not? I'm fair game, and my product should not be accorded any special courtesy not given to any other. Obviously I like it, so I won't comment except to answer a specific question, if asked.

I'm sure others will chime in, since chain oil threads always stir up debate. Chain-L has been reviewed in many places, including 2 other forums, that I won't name as a courtesy to this one. If you google "Chain-L reviews" you'll find a bunch to choose from.

BTW-the most recent review is here (http://www.velo36.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3440). I'll send a free bottle to the first people to email me a translation to English. (Google translate translations don't qualify)

Yikes, I just found a review and this stuff got 100% total satisfaction!!!! I think that's the first time I've read a review where everyone gave a 5 star rating.

I'm going to be in Franklin tomorrow, and there is a LBS there that has Chain-L in stock so I will be picking up a bottle:thumb: I'm pretty excited and can't wait to try it. How dull can I be that I'm excited over chain lube:roflmao2:

I have a question for you FBinNY..... I have a brand new SRAM PC830 chain that I will be using so my question is, should I clean the factory lube off the new SRAM and lube with Chain-L or leave the factory lube on and lube right over it with Chain-L?

Thanks......................

It seems that most people leave the Sram factory lube intact when lubing with Chain-L. I did when I lubed my new Sram PC850 chain, and it worked fine for me.

It seems that most people leave the Sram factory lube intact when lubing with Chain-L. I did when I lubed my new Sram PC850 chain, and it worked fine for me.

+1, factory lubes tend to be good stuff. After all chain makers want you to get good service. The only legitimate beef against factory lubes is when there's excess semi-dried on the outside. You'll wipe that off as you wipe off the added oil.

For an independent review check out RoadBike Rider, a biweekly (formerly weekly) e-newsletter sent free via e-mail to anyone who requests it. (Look here for details http://www.roadbikerider.com/) The guys who publish it have mentioned Chain-L a couple of times and given it glowing praise, particularly for its durability.

And I know for certain that FBinNY does not have a business relationship with them so they have not been paid for their review.

But really, FB, what's not to like about
the Google translate version?:roflmao2:


I can not not tell about this remarkable lubrication (Web: http://chain-l.com).
Love, you know, ride a bike. And really, you know, upset me a routine to lubricate the chain every 150-200 miles - before each and every second was out. Upset, but had to put up. So far, as they say, has not appeared yippie, and behind him - a message from veloforumtsa luden (viewtopic.php? P = 73961 # p73961) on a new miraculous chain oil.
Ordered and waited for the arrival of a bottle of magical liquid, smelling of common transmission oil. Testing of the fallen to the cycling trip of Kerch and the Crimean peninsula (viewtopic.php? F = 6 & t = 2789).

I'm thinking of changing my signature line to:


Love, you know, ride a bike.

Mike:thumb:

I'm interested in trying this lube and was wondering who is using it, and how you like it?
I've been using a wax lube for some time but want to give a wet lube a try, and this product looks like it might be the ticket....The Chain-L lube is great, one of the best on the market. Why? It's specifically formulated for bikes with an understanding of the types of metal-to-metal interactions that occur in a bike chain. Here's a post I made a while back on chain lubbing and why motor-oil based lubes aren't really up to the task (A LOT of chain-lubes on the market are just re-packaged motor-oils).

THe pro's chain lube (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/644314-THe-pro-s-chain-lube?p=10848881#post10848881)

Using properly-designed oils with attention paid to the EP-additives, you can expect 7000-10000 miles out of a chain with regular cleaning and lubing. Much, much better lubrication and durability than dry-lubes or waxes.

DannoXYZ, is there a way to buy the EP-additives separately and add them to whatever lube you want?

DannoXYZ, is there a way to buy the EP-additives separately and add them to whatever lube you want?

Yes, but to my knowledge, not in small retail quantities. You also need to know how to use the various ones so they work together well in whatever base stock you're using.

It's also a question of economics. A 4oz. bottle usually lasts people well over a year, so at less than $12.00 per year the potential for saving is pretty limited. That's the number one problem with Chain-L. The repeat business is pretty limited even form my most committed clients (my problem, not yours)

Yes, but to my knowledge, not in small retail quantities. You also need to know how to use the various ones so they work together well in whatever base stock you're using.

It's also a question of economics. A 4oz. bottle usually lasts people well over a year, so at less than $12.00 per year the potential for saving is pretty limited. That's the number one problem with Chain-L. The repeat business is pretty limited even form my most committed clients (my problem, not yours)

FBinNY, on the general level you are right and I have no intention to compete with your business that I am sure is tough bread to start with. However, because bike business is so tough I have learned that I cannot generally wait for the bike business to solve my problems but need to be inventive myself. My problem is that I ride under any weather conditions which in itself represents a minute fraction of bicycle market. On my own, I have conquered the effects of rain and snow on the chain and on other parts of the bike, but the chain wear remains a problem. So why not go ahead and improve upon that. From the reading so far, it looks like I could add transmission fluid or aftermarket oil additives such as ZDDPlus or Duro Lube. The problem is that these contain liquid EP additives. For my purpose, solid additives could be better such as added to grease.

I wasn't worried about losing your business or your going into competition. There are an infinite number of possibilities of additives and bases, some of which work well together, and some which don't.

As it is, Chain-L is far from perfect, but is what I felt was the best balance between conflicting objectives. I chose to prioritize lubrication, service life and weather resistance, above cleanliness and ease of use. Others take a different approach, and the beauty of the marketplace is that anyone can choose what best suits his needs and preferences.

When you research EP additives you'll find that there are solids and some that are used as additives with liquids, You also find that some of the solids only work with liquid vehicles. I wish you luck. It took me, and the folks who blend Chain-L very little time to decide on the lubrication science, but much more time, to decide on how to use it effectively, and almost a year of extensive road testing to dial it in.

BTW- if you want to PM me, and tell me your objectives, I'll be happy to help you if I can.

In my experience, Chain-L is some serious foul-weather lube. When I lived in Vermont and commuted year-round, I was able to go three weeks in the winter before the chain made any noise. Pretty impressive for east coast salt, sand, and grit. Before Chain-L, I was getting maybe 1000 miles per chain in the winter; after, easily 4000 miles.

There are an infinite number of possibilities of additives and bases, some of which work well together, and some which don't.

This is good and bad. The latter is in the fact that in my impression the majority of lubes does virtually nothing for my chain, i.e. I could just as well spit on it.


As it is, Chain-L is far from perfect, but is what I felt was the best balance between conflicting objectives. I chose to prioritize lubrication, service life and weather resistance, above cleanliness and ease of use.

It took me, and the folks who blend Chain-L very little time to decide on the lubrication science, but much more time, to decide on how to use it effectively, and almost a year of extensive road testing to dial it in.

I am glad to hear about the effort by a manufacturer to actually put out something that is supposed to meet some hopefully quantifiable expectations.


In my experience, Chain-L is some serious foul-weather lube. When I lived in Vermont and commuted year-round, I was able to go three weeks in the winter before the chain made any noise. Pretty impressive for east coast salt, sand, and grit. Before Chain-L, I was getting maybe 1000 miles per chain in the winter; after, easily 4000 miles.

I am not sure whether the noise should be a criterion in assessing the performance of a lubricator. It is a criterion that people can use, but is it the right criterion? There is this Johns Hopkins University test (http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1199/et1199s13.html) which demonstrates that lubrication (at least for 3 different lubricants) does nothing as far as chain efficiency is concerned under laboratory conditions. Without a lubricant, I am sure the chain produced a lot of ringing, but that had apparently no impact on efficiency. Now the efficiency is not the same as wear, but they must have some connection. Further, you may imagine a lubricant acting to dampen out the sound without any wear reduction. On the other hand, I will have no problem damaging metal with a sandpaper, without any ringing present.

Anyway, I am not sure whether one should use the chain ringing in deciding on lubrication. On the other hand, if there are chemicals that harden the surface of a metal and are applied successfully in other similar contexts, I am sure my chain could benefit from that.

.... There is this Johns Hopkins University test (http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1199/et1199s13.html) which demonstrates that lubrication (at least for 3 different lubricants) does nothing as far as chain efficiency is concerned under laboratory conditions. Without a lubricant, I am sure the chain produced a lot of ringing, but that had apparently no impact on efficiency.



This test has been referenced for a number of years, and IMO has a few serious flaws which lead me to question their methodology. One thing that raised red flags is their "discovery" that sprocket size is a major factor in efficiency, something that had been known for over half a century.

The real problem with the test as far as cyclists are concerned is that it's misunderstood and measures the wrong thing. They studied efficiency, not wear. Also in my reading of the report, I couldn't find their load factor which is important because bike chains are run at higher loads (relative to chain width) than what is normal industrial practice.

At low load dry friction is often more efficient because lubricants add parasitic or viscous drag. Viscous drag is unusually high in chains because it happens not only at the bearing (pin/bushing/roller) but at the shearing area between the overlapping plates which in a chain with good chainline doesn't need lubrication.

Viscous drag is the price you pay for lubrication and is one reason oils are blended in so many viscosities. You want the lightest oil that's do the job. Put gear oil into a clock and it'll stop the clock, put clock oil into a gearbox, and you'll get excessive wear. Now back to bike chains and chain lube. Viscous drag is a constant so at low loads may exceed the friction reduction benefit. But as the load increases friction rises proportionately surpassing the loss to drag and yielding a net gain.

Lastly, even if there is zero gain in efficiency, how do you want the energy loss to occur, overcoming viscous drag in a lubricant, or removal of metal from mating surfaces?

The original paper can be found in this 2000 issue (http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf) of Human Power.



This test has been referenced for a number of years, and IMO has a few serious flaws which lead me to question their methodology. One thing that raised red flags is their "discovery" that sprocket size is a major factor in efficiency, something that had been known for over half a century.

I think that naivety for some members of the research team could be good thing as they approached the problem without an agenda. They were testing and rediscovered what others considered obvious.



The real problem with the test as far as cyclists are concerned is that it's misunderstood and measures the wrong thing. They studied efficiency, not wear. Also in my reading of the report, I couldn't find their load factor which is important because bike chains are run at higher loads (relative to chain width) than what is normal industrial practice.

From the paper, they pretty much tried to reproduce the situation of a bicycle rider. Shimano representatives were on the research team.



At low load dry friction is often more efficient because lubricants add parasitic or viscous drag. Viscous drag is unusually high in chains because it happens not only at the bearing (pin/bushing/roller) but at the shearing area between the overlapping plates which in a chain with good chainline doesn't need lubrication.

Viscous drag is the price you pay for lubrication and is one reason oils are blended in so many viscosities. You want the lightest oil that's do the job. Put gear oil into a clock and it'll stop the clock, put clock oil into a gearbox, and you'll get excessive wear. Now back to bike chains and chain lube. Viscous drag is a constant so at low loads may exceed the friction reduction benefit. But as the load increases friction rises proportionately surpassing the loss to drag and yielding a net gain.

Lastly, even if there is zero gain in efficiency, how do you want the energy loss to occur, overcoming viscous drag in a lubricant, or removal of metal from mating surfaces?

I think that the viscous drag was a negligible factor in their measurements. It would be unlikely for the gain in the lowered friction to always nearly exactly cancel the loss from drag for every RPM and every lubricant.

This test has been referenced for a number of years, and IMO has a few serious flaws which lead me to question their methodology. One thing that raised red flags is their "discovery" that sprocket size is a major factor in efficiency, something that had been known for over half a century.

The real problem with the test as far as cyclists are concerned is that it's misunderstood and measures the wrong thing. They studied efficiency, not wear.

If I can choose between more efficiency or better wear I'll choose efficiency every time. I want a chain lubricant that will help me produce the most work with the least energy spent in a given time frame.

What about rust? In actual use, the formation of rust, which is inhibited by many lubricants, will increase the friction substantially, as well as speed up wear. This would argue for using lube on any chain that gets wet, as rust can ruin a brand-new chain. As FBinNY observes, the JHU study doesn't address real-world factors that are far more significant to the cyclist than efficiency.

What about rust? In actual use, the formation of rust, which is inhibited by many lubricants, will increase the friction substantially, as well as speed up wear. This would argue for using lube on any chain that gets wet, as rust can ruin a brand-new chain.


In my experience, most lubricants on the market are weak as far as rust protection is concerned. (Note that I have not tried Chain-L yet.) Sure they are better than nothing. Factory protection, praised by many, in my tests is not that great either.


As FBinNY observes, the JHU study doesn't address real-world factors that are far more significant to the cyclist than efficiency.

They have put plenty of effort into the measurements and came up with numbers, diagrams, figures and etc. that you can inspect from different angles. If you think that there are some better studies please point to them. Otherwise, this is an open area and if you can up with a way to quantify the factors you deem to be more important, everybody would be happy.

That the JHU study didn't address issues that affect cyclists more profoundly than efficiency is no criticism of their study: they were examining efficiency and from what I read it sounds like they did a good job of it. Finding that lubricant has no effect on the percentage of power transmitted by a roller chain in a controlled environment is interesting and of value, as are their other findings. My point is that lubricants offer benefits to riders, both in the short and the long term. Spicer, the study's supervisor, says as much. He doesn't mention rust, though, and I thought I'd point it out. My experience with lubricants is different than yours. An unlubricated chain will rust a lot faster after getting wet than an oiled one. A rusty chain has a lot more friction than it did before it rusted. I don't think we need a study to prove these things. Again, I was not criticizing the JHU study, just pointing out another reason to use oil on a bicycle chain.

If I can choose between more efficiency or better wear I'll choose efficiency every time. I want a chain lubricant that will help me produce the most work with the least energy spent in a given time frame.


They have put plenty of effort into the measurements and came up with numbers, diagrams, figures and etc. that you can inspect from different angles. If you think that there are some better studies please point to them. Otherwise, this is an open area and if you can up with a way to quantify the factors you deem to be more important, everybody would be happy

Al1943 and 2_i:

I am curious. What would you consider to be an acceptable chain life?
Put another way, how often are you willing to replace the chain on a
bicycle-- either in terms of miles ridden or months on the bike? It does
seem that given your argument for maximum efficiency at all costs, spit
might very well be your best choice. Is your focus on racing?

I remember the halcyon days when the Sedisport chain first came out
and you could buy them for about eight bucks. I rarely cleaned a chain
in that period of time. The life cycle equation seems to me to be a
little more complicated now. Nor can every mechanical decision be
based on studies. Were that the case, this would probably turn some
heads:

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6801.full

Respectfully,
Mike Larmer

Al1943 and 2_i:

I am curious. What would you consider to be an acceptable chain life?.....I remember the halcyon days when the Sedisport chain first came out and you could buy them for about eight bucks.

Respectfully,
Mike Larmer
I remember reading about the same time that Pro Teams bought Sedisport chain in 100 meter rolls and their mechanics changed the chain ever day or two during the major stage races. It seems their expectations for chain longevity were pretty low.

I am curious. What would you consider to be an acceptable chain life?
Put another way, how often are you willing to replace the chain on a
bicycle-- either in terms of miles ridden or months on the bike. It does
seem that given your argument for maximum efficiency at all costs, spit
might very well be your best choice. Is your focus on racing?

I remember the halcyon days when the Sedisport chain first came out
and you could buy them for about eight bucks. I rarely cleaned a chain
in that period of time. The life cycle equation seems to me to be a
little more complicated now.

Mike,

most often I ride a loaded bike on tires with kevlar. The tires indicate should indicate that the efficiency is secondary for me to the reliability and to reduced maintenance. With the chain, as little lubing and other maintenance as possible has been for me a priority. Experimenting with lubrication I came to the stage that it ceased to be an issue - I can live with a lubrication every few months. Currently I get 2500+ miles out of a chain and, if possible, I would like to increase it. The longer the expected lifetime, the less often I need to check the chain elongation. Running over the useful lifetime of a chain can easily turn for me into a disaster. I put together cassettes out of individual cogs and a ruined cassette becomes an endeavor.

Within this thread, I learned that it is possible to reduce chain wear chemically. Also checking chain tests, I realized that I ride a less than optimal chain brand and I could increase the chain longevity by switching the brand with just little extra cost. Thus, this thread has been totally beneficial.

Al1943:

I am curious. What would you consider to be an acceptable chain life?
Put another way, how often are you willing to replace the chain on a
bicycle-- either in terms of miles ridden or months on the bike. It does
seem that given your argument for maximum efficiency at all costs, spit
might very well be your best choice. Is your focus on racing?

My chain life has varied between 5000 miles and 8000 miles.
If I could trade some mileage for measurable improved efficiency I would. Don't get me wrong, I certainly would have some limit on how much mileage I'd be willing to give up. The bigger question is how much improvement in efficiency can we expect from a better chain lube.

Efficiency at all costs? No. It's an interesting concept. I choose to ride tires that are more efficient than heavy puncture resistant tires because I can keep my flats to an acceptable frequency. From bicycle riding I doubt that we could measure an efficiency difference between any of the better oil based chain lubes. I'm sure there are some differences but I'd bet that they are too small to measure, especially in an uncontrolled environment. I believe the efficiency in tires probably could be measured.

I have done some minor racing at the local level but not in a few years. I need to be efficient just to be able to keep up with the groups I ride with. And I like to take my turns pulling at the front and I hate to be dropped.

Rust, I haven't seen any since 1998 when I started riding nickel plated chains .

I've tried several bicycle specific chain lubes, including wax base and oil base. I have not tried Chain-L yet. My favorite "off-the-shelf" chain lube is Purple Extreme but I'm now using a home brew of about 4 parts mineral spirits to one part synthetic motor oil that I think is just as good.

And no, I don't think spit would be efficient.

edit: I had not read 2_i's post before posting mine. It's interesting that he also used tire selection as an example of efficiency choices.

I've been using Chain L for 2 seasons summer and winter.
The aroma grows on you, it assures me the stuff is still
working after weeks and weeks of wiping it off. I put it
on a clean chain with a toothbrush. It goes on thick but
I wipe off excess with a clean cloth. (don't use your own
toothbrush use a used one:))

I was already used to the smell of Chain-L, as it is similar to gear oil or bearing grease. I have spent too many years working on classic cars to be concerned about a bit of petroleum scent.

I never thought of using the toothbrush to apply Chain-L. That's a good idea. I've only used a toothbrush to aid in cleaning the chain before lubing it.

This is a great thread. I have been using Chain-L for several months in all sorts of conditions (okay, not snow...), and it has proven itself superior to anything I've used before--and I've used pretty much all of them, wet or dry. My chains in the past were showing enough wear to require changing well before they hit 2000 miles (it's very sandy here), but since switching to Chain-L, my chains (three bikes) are all at or over 4000 miles with NO measurable wear. I absolutely did not expect that any lube could make such a difference.

When I apply it, I put a very small drop on the top if each roller, one section of chain at a time, and let those drops slowly penetrate completely before I move the chain to the next section. Sure it's more time consuming than just squirting lube on the whole chain all at once, BUT it only needs to be done every three months (with my mileage) instead of every three weeks like my old lube.

I clean the chain thoroughly every time it's re-lubed, but this can also contribute to stuff getting inside the chain, no matter how good you are at cleaning your chain or what method you use. So a longer lasting lube means less frequent deep-cleaning (just wipe down the outside of the chain between rides) and I think that also contributes to longer life.

The drivetrain is so quiet and smooth, more than any other lube I've used. Better performance as well as longer chain life. I'm a convert.

I put two new chains on two of my bikes this last spring and decided to use Chain-L on those two. One of the chains now has 1800 miles on it and there is no stretch whatsoever according a Park tool. The Chain-L keeps the chain silent and it seems to run smoother, and the chains look new. I haven't had any issues with rust, but that's not really fair qualification for Chain-L since I've never had a chain rust in 45 years of riding! If you keep the chain cleaned and lubed then rust should be a non event. Chain life is still in question since I usually get about 8,000 to 12,000 miles on my chains, I still have a ways to go before I figure that part out.

The only other lube that I used that I was impressed with was Finish Line Ceramic which I'm still using on my other bikes. I thought I would never find any lube better then that stuff, but I have with Chain-L...at least until the wear information comes in.

Finding that lubricant has no effect on the percentage of power transmitted by a roller chain in a controlled environment is interesting and of value, as are their other findings. ...referring to the JHU study.

This statement about a finding of no difference in efficiency appears a number of times on this thread, but it's just not true. The study found a 2.3% difference in efficiency between a lubed (Pedros Syn lube) and un-lubed chain @100 watts input, 52x15, 60rpm.

To put that in some perspective, if you're in a group ride going up a 1 mile long 3% grade and can put 250 watts to the rear wheel with an un-lubed chain and your exact twin is in the same ride with a lubed chain putting 2% more power to the rear wheel, 255 watts, at the same effort he'll get to the top 64 feet ahead of you (see http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesSpeed_Page.html to play around with different power/speed scenarios). If you're the weak rider in your group that could easily mean being dropped, or not. And that's just one, short, shallow hill. If the total elevation gain over your entire ride is just 1500 feet the difference at the end will be about 200 yards.

Choosing the right lube is equally important. The Pedros Syn lube was 1.7% more efficient than the Castrol dry lube and 1.5% more efficient than White Lightening.

If you're of the mindset "what's 1 or 2%" when you think about chain lube then you'll probably be of that mindset when it comes to tire selection (another 2 to 5 watts), wheels ( 4 to 8 watts among everyday non-exotics), and particularly perceived minutia like where you carry your drink bottle(s). Taken individually these are small things, collectively they're not just 60 feet on one small hill but hundreds. It makes a difference.

...referring to the JHU study.

This statement about a finding of no difference in efficiency appears a number of times on this thread, but it's just not true. The study found a 2.3% difference in efficiency between a lubed (Pedros Syn lube) and un-lubed chain @100 watts input, 52x15, 60rpm.

To put that in some perspective, if you're in a group ride going up a 1 mile long 3% grade and can put 250 watts to the rear wheel with an un-lubed chain and your exact twin is in the same ride with a lubed chain putting 2% more power to the rear wheel, 255 watts, at the same effort he'll get to the top 64 feet ahead of you

I think you read the data incorrectly. For the specific conditions, the chain lubed by Pedro's Syn lube is 0.2% LESS efficient than a chain without lube. I am looking at Tables 1 and 2 in the Human Power paper (http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf).

However, in general I think that one should interpret those data in a different way. The study does not find a systematic advantage to using a lube, as far as efficiency is concerned, within the precision of the study. If you look at individual cases, a lube is usually worse and in one case it wins. There are factors that are likely not well understood that may affect the outcome. Thus, if you carry a measurement at one speed for a particular configuration, you may resonantly induce oscillations of the chain and those affect efficiency. If you put one lube or another on the chain, resonance frequencies change and efficiency changes. In real-life riding, the pace will be constantly varying, so resonance oscillations might matter less - their effect will be averaged. Primarily, you should be looking whether there is a systematic advantage to a lube, beyond a single case. If anything, the lubes come out worse within the quoted values. However, the researchers presumably had more measurements than they put into the paper. I would take their word for this that they saw no advantage to the lubes.

If you're of the mindset "what's 1 or 2%" when you think about chain lube then you'll probably be of that mindset..... wheels ( 4 to 8 watts among everyday non-exotics)...
I'll accept your other power consumption numbers for tires, and aerodynamic refinements but I think this value for wheel is much too high even for properly adjusted steel cup-and-cone bearings. I know that they are so easy to rotate, spin-down very slowly and will pendulum after they come to a stop to let even a very small imbalance end up at the bottom so I can't believe they consume even close to 4 watts.

Can you document this value and does it include aero drag from the spokes as well as hub friction?

When it comes to lube I don't care about the drag issue primarily, I care about the wear issue primarily.

I think you read the data incorrectly. For the specific conditions, the chain lubed by Pedro's Syn lube is 0.2% LESS efficient than a chain without lube. I am looking at Tables 1 and 2 in the Human Power paper (http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf).



Go to page 7 of that issue and read the section titled "Lubrication". Table 2 gives the efficiency ratings of the 3 lubes tested under different conditions. That table clearly shows efficiencies of 90.9 for Castrol Dry Lube, 91.1 for White Lightening, and 92.6 for Pedros at 100 watts power, 52x15, and 60 RPM. Now refer to the text in that section, they state that the efficiency measured for no lube at 100 watts, 52x15 and 60 RPM was 90.3%.

If anything I understated the differences because for simplicity I used the difference in efficiencies as the % difference in power transmission when comparing one to the other. The truer difference in percentage is arrived at by comparing the point difference between them to the base points of the least efficient. For example Pedros is 2.3 points better than no lube, which has a rating of 90.3. Therefore Pedros is 2.3/90.9, or 2.5%, more efficient than no lube and similarly 1.7/91.1, or 1.9% more efficient than Castrol Dry lube.

I'll accept your other power consumption numbers for tires, and aerodynamic refinements but I think this value for wheel is much too high even for properly adjusted steel cup-and-cone bearings. I know that they are so easy to rotate, spin-down very slowly and will pendulum after they come to a stop to let even a very small imbalance end up at the bottom so I can't believe they consume even close to 4 watts.

Can you document this value and does it include aero drag from the spokes as well as hub friction?

I can. Please see http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html

Note, for example, the difference in watts absorbed between the Shimano R-550 and Mavic Ksyrium Equipe, 25.9 and 30.0 respectively. This was a front wheel simulation and I understand it is generally believed that rear wheel differences are half that of front. So the total wheelset difference is 1.5 that of the 4.1 watt difference of the front only, or about 6 watts.

The test is on complete wheels so it includes spoke and hub effects.

Go to page 7 of that issue and read the section titled "Lubrication". Table 2 gives the efficiency ratings of the 3 lubes tested under different conditions. That table clearly shows efficiencies of 90.9 for Castrol Dry Lube, 91.1 for White Lightening, and 92.6 for Pedros at 100 watts power, 52x15, and 60 RPM. Now refer to the text in that section, they state that the efficiency measured for no lube at 100 watts, 52x15 and 60 RPM was 90.3%.

If anything I understated the differences because for simplicity I used the difference in efficiencies as the % difference in power transmission when comparing one to the other. The truer difference in percentage is arrived at by comparing the point difference between them to the base points of the least efficient. For example Pedros is 2.3 points better than no lube, which has a rating of 90.3. Therefore Pedros is 2.3/90.9, or 2.5%, more efficient than no lube and similarly 1.7/91.1, or 1.9% more efficient than Castrol Dry lube.

I swore you referred to 52x11, but indeed now it appears that you referred to 52x15. Further, indeed in the text they give 90.3% for the 52x15 at 60RPM/100W after degreasing. However, in Table 1 they give 92.3% for the same conditions without lube. (Within the measurement errors, 92.3 for no lube and 92.6 for Pedro's would have been the same.) The difference between the two no-lube measurements, 90.3 and 92.3, is much greater than 0.2% measurement error than they quote in the text. Maybe there had been some other changes in the setup that are not mentioned (chainline, different or deteriorated chain??). I think that you are, however, right in saying that this 90.3% value is more relevant as baseline, since obtained within the same stage of experimentation.

It would have been obviously better if they provided more info, providing more systematic view than this one off-the-cuff number, for deciding about the role of the lubes. Overall, Pedro's looks superior to the two other lubes and, if deciding on the basis of this one reference number, it may perform better than no lube.

The thing I like the most about the Chain-L is the bottle, which has pretty much the perfect dribble characteristics to make applying the stuff easy and relatively mess-free.
FB was easy to deal with, fast and helpful.
As a lube it certainly seems to do better than the white oil I was trying out earlier, but whether it's significantly better than the more traditional lubes I've used before I can't say.
White oil was easier on the nose and hands though.

The thing I like the most about the Chain-L is the bottle, which has pretty much the perfect dribble characteristics to make applying the stuff easy and relatively mess-free.
FB was easy to deal with, fast and helpful.
As a lube it certainly seems to do better than the white oil I was trying out earlier, but whether it's significantly better than the more traditional lubes I've used before I can't say.
White oil was easier on the nose and hands though.

Make sure you follow their directions to the letter for best performance. Their website has questions and answers if you need more detail. I decided to use it on a couple of bikes I had put new chains on first and leave the old ones using the lube I had been using before.

Like I said earlier, so far I like the stuff, the only outstanding issue is chain wear which I won't know for a while. Even if Chain-L's chain wear is the same as the Finish Line Ceramic I'll probably switch due to the less hassle of cleaning and reapplication.

The Chain-L lube is great, one of the best on the market. Why? It's specifically formulated for bikes with an understanding of the types of metal-to-metal interactions that occur in a bike chain. Here's a post I made a while back on chain lubbing and why motor-oil based lubes aren't really up to the task (A LOT of chain-lubes on the market are just re-packaged motor-oils).

THe pro's chain lube (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/644314-THe-pro-s-chain-lube?p=10848881#post10848881)

Using properly-designed oils with attention paid to the EP-additives, you can expect 7000-10000 miles out of a chain with regular cleaning and lubing. Much, much better lubrication and durability than dry-lubes or waxes.

All right, you convinced me. I'm switching to gear oil with my new chain to see how long it lasts. Boy that stuff stinks.

Being someone who normally removes my chains to clean them, I applied Chain-L back in October on 3 mtn bikes and one road bike, using the one-drop per link method with the chain stretched out on newspaper.

I've only cleaned one of the chains since, leaving it on the bike and using a rag and a toothbrush, then reapplied a small amount of Chain-L using the brush.

All of the chains are "forget they are there" quiet.

All right, you convinced me. I'm switching to gear oil with my new chain to see how long it lasts. Boy that stuff stinks.

But, will gear oil attract dirt and grit like motor oil? Since I started using Chain-L on two of my chains I haven't noticed this.

I can. Please see http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html
The test is on complete wheels so it includes spoke and hub effects.
Thank you. I had to assume the wattage you reported was for the entire wheel assembly and the majority of the drag was aerodynamic. There was no way a hub alone required that much energy to turn.

I use "Krazy Grease" for all my lube. I have a jar for my boat trailer bearings but I use it on everything including my bike. It's a grade 2 grease so I use an old toothbrush to work it in the chain. It's water resistant so it last a long time. It's hard to find, typically at marine shops or trailer shops but I think you can buy it online.

Very satisfied with the lube, so far!

I have to add that, since I work in a lab a lot of the time, I have some discarded 2 ml LDPE pipettes, which I use to apply the chain oil to the rollers super-sparingly. So, I used one third of the "demo" bottle to lube a singlespeed (meaning, somewhat short) chain. Even so, there was plenty of oil to wipe off, and still there is.

It has a very strange consistency. Quite viscous, and yet, it oozes around the rollers like a much ligher oil.

The thing I like the most about the Chain-L is the bottle, which has pretty much the perfect dribble characteristics to make applying the stuff easy and relatively mess-free.
FB was easy to deal with, fast and helpful.
As a lube it certainly seems to do better than the white oil I was trying out earlier, but whether it's significantly better than the more traditional lubes I've used before I can't say.
White oil was easier on the nose and hands though.

To really stretch it out- (sorry FB)
I used a 1CC hypodermic I got at the drug store for $.50.
You can apply the smallest amount exactly where you want it.

I apply it to a straight section (using the quick link for a reference), go watch TV for a couple commercials worth and go back & do the next section.

I had so little excess, I didn't even bother to wipe the chain afterwards.

I thought I already had a pretty quiet chain before I used the Chain-L, but was pleasantly surprised how much quieter/smoother it seemed.
I tend to be pretty skeptical in my "advanced years", but I WILL drink THIS Kool Aid!

To really stretch it out- (sorry FB)
I used a 1CC hypodermic I got at the drug store for $.50.
You can apply the smallest amount exactly where you want it.

I apply it to a straight section (using the quick link for a reference), go watch TV for a couple commercials worth and go back & do the next section.

I had so little excess, I didn't even bother to wipe the chain afterwards.

I thought I already had a pretty quiet chain before I used the Chain-L, but was pleasantly surprised how much quieter/smoother it seemed.
I tend to be pretty skeptical in my "advanced years", but I WILL drink THIS Kool Aid!

How much do you use, then, for a chain?

Frugality contest!

How much do you use, then, for a chain?

Frugality contest!

"Just enough". But I really don't care if I'm being frugal and have absolutely no idea how much that is or how much I use.

I've never had the stuff in front of me, so am wondering if Chain-L lube might at least be adaptable to my own chain-maint routine.

Basically, I decided long ago that I would use what I felt were long-lasting (Shimano) chains, and lube them only with various chain lubricants diluted with mineral spirits (I was being given many different lubes to use, and at the time was doing moderately high training mileage).
I developed a preference not to spend more than a minute or two applying and then wiping off the chain lube using a terry cloth shop rag, never removing the chain or doing a dedicated cleaning process beyond wiping.

So, would the Chain-L lube be suitable to this routine?

I admit that I find it hard to discern quantitative quality differences between some of the various lubes.
Some do seem somewhat cleaner than others, and some seem to last longer.
It can be hard to discern whether this is due to the quality of the formulation, or whether varying dilution effects are leaving more or less actual lube remaining on the chain (as some lubes are already diluted with solvents).

I have migrated toward using a blend of 45% mineral spirits and 55% "White Lightning Wet Ride... ...extreme conditions heavy lube".
I persist with this in part because of this blend's ability to flow readily through an aerosol applicator tube fitted to a 4oz, flat squeeze bottle, and for it's lubrication performance on both chains and on the cables of old, neglected bikes that I refurbish for students here.
With this process, I can quickly lube and clean the chain with very little wasted time, so at least my chain stays exceptionally clean, and in this state I have consistently got what I felt was excellent stretch-resistance, regardless of which lube I used.

One last question, is the Chain-L available in larger bottles?