Originally Posted by
cyccommute
There are a lot of fallacies when it comes to wet lubricants and wet weather performance. Yes, the lubrication can "backfill" while dry lubricants can't but I would argue that this isn't necessarily a good thing. Wet lubricants are going to form an emulsion with the water that is sprayed on the chain. The water is going to churn with the water through the action of the drivetrain. Once the system sits, the water is going to phase separate and the water is going to sink to the bottom of the system while the oil rises to the top. This puts the water in contact with the steel of the chain and, since it is highly aerated...again through the action of the drivetrain..., it is going to increase the possibility of corrosion.
The fallacy comes in to play with people thinking that the oil somehow prevents contact of the water with the metal. It really doesn't but you think it does because the oil is sitting on top of the water and it is what you see. The lubricant should still be refreshed after a rain ride so that you flush as much water out as possible.
Nicely explained - great posts and info... as usual.
Risking going into a hair-splitting territory, comparing wet and dry lubes, from corrosion protection perspective - I'd say that even with water reaching beneath the lube, some lube still remains after the rain has stopped. And the "wet lube" lubricated parts of a drivetrain still remain mostly rust free in the salty winters I face, while the dry (not lubed parts) ones get rusty. Would it be the same with a dry lube - yet to test it.
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
Compare that to the action of a dry lubricant. Yes, a dry lube can't "backfill" but the dry lube stays in place better. The water has fewer opportunities to infiltrate because the spaces are filled with something that doesn't mix at all with the water. The water sits on top of the wax. Yes, it can get in and yes, it can cause corrosion but a oil lubricant and water corrodes as well. You just don't hear it as soon.
I'd just argue that dry lube gets pushed aside even in dry weather, especially if there's power applied when riding cross chained (like most multispeed drivetrains do).
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
I've used something similar in the past and I've had to deal with people's home brew lubricants at my local co-op. I've also used Tri-flow in the past. All of them are maintenance nightmares. I swear just brushing up against the chain can spread inordinate amount of black gunk on every surface within a 3 km diameter.
It's about the same. I get what most people claim for chain mileage but without all the hassle of cleaning them. I work on bikes and am a regular volunteer at my local co-op. All of my bikes are about as maintenance free as possible so I get my jollies by helping other people fit their bicycle problems.
But I really hate to clean bikes.
Perfectly clean chain lasting similarly long as a wet lubed (and often dirty) one confirms my theory about the downsides of dry lubes. If they were more water resistant, or at least able to replentish the contact area they get pushed out of, with having such a clean drivetrain, it would most probably result in 3 to 6 times longer chain life.
However, the fact that you don't get any shorter chain life, and the drivetrain is always clean is definitely a plus. If price difference is not a problem, it's a good recommendation. The way I see it, it literally is a choice: bit more expensive lube with a clean drivetrain vs the other way round. At least for the modern, bushingless chains.