Originally Posted by
JohnJ80
The wear comparison, as you note, is a pretty individual thing and there is wide variance between riders. The only real basis for comparison would be lifetime of the a chain before and after on the same bike with the same rider in total miles.
And this is where the thread falls down. While it might seem unbiased, it isn't because it relies almost totally on subjective assessments of visual appearance and noise. The true measure is still the length of the chain. We have a base point now to deal with because one measurement has indicated the length of the chain is the same after a certain number of miles.
People know that different conditions will influence chain wear irrespective of the lubricant used.
People like you also say you get 1500miles out of a chain. But we don't have the other metrics that count -- such as number of speeds, manufacturer, design, and most importantly, the point at which
you say the chain is worn out.
I can say I have got 11,000km out of a chain, and all I used was motor oil, but would it be any use to you?
PS: I think TromboneAl has covered a lot of these metrics, and now the length. I hope he continues to measure length. Sometimes a chain will suddenly wear a lot more quickly after appearing to be OK for many miles.
Oh, and I might add in relation to chain checkers, a favourite story of mine. A colleague brought in his chain-checker in to work one day, and unsolicited, measured the wear on my bike's chain. He stood up and said: "No, that's too worn. You have to get a new one". I pointed out the chain was new and had been on the bike a week.