Good points.
Originally Posted by
Slaninar
The thesis is flawed IMO because it completely disregards both dirt and water. So a lubricant that attracts more dirt, or doesn't resist water washout will perform well in a lab, but much worse in field use. Same goes the other way round: a lubricant that isn't too good in lab test conditions, but doesn't collect much dirt, or resists water washout well will perform better in the field.
True, but unclear to what extent wet lubes suffer from dirt and dry from water.
Originally Posted by
Slaninar
Add different cleaning and lubing regime, and various riding conditions and it's very hard to make an absolute, blanket recommendation of which chain lube is better than which.
Totally agree. This being said, I believe that lubricant properties differ such that different uses are consistent with different lubes. I am convinced optimal lubes will differ across high-stakes users (e.g. professional racers vs bike share operators). And that yes, for most casual users, any lube might do.
Originally Posted by
Slaninar
This is actually Ceramic Speed. Well, Friction Facts at the time, which has recently been purchased by Ceramic Speed. Velo news had sponsored this series of tests.
You know, you could make a reputation for yourself by trying to put your ideas to the test, in a systematic way. You may want to take some inspiration from Ceramic Speed but tweak the protocol such that drivetrain wear becomes the focus. Look at their experiment on pulley wheels, maybe. Their protocol isn’t totally clear, but interesting nonetheless. You may also be able to interest someone from the chain industry. The more or less only experiment on chain wear was commissioned by Wippermann, several years ago. A follow up using their chain but with different lubricants would probably generate a considerable amount of interest.