Originally Posted by
Maelochs
Not looking for a fight, but curious.
Where is the actual data "clearly" showing this?
ZFC is currently testing candle wax and so far it isn't matching up against the brand stuff. Even though the test isn't finished yet and the most interesting metric, ie. wear jump point is yet to be published it would seem that candle wax doesn't last nearly as long as the better brand waxes.
Not looking for a fight, but curious.
Where is the actual data "clearly" showing this?
See the above.
How many use teflon or other additives ... and in what quantities ... and has any of this been scientifically proven to have a beneficial lubricating effect in real-world application, and/or a serious negative environmental impact? How much does a bike with a little teflon in the wax pollute per mile versus, say, a car?
You know this sorta seems like a gish gallop. Pose multiple difficult or impossible to answer questions in order to stump the opposition. I hope that isn't your aim.
Anyhow, I fairly sure none of the big names use teflon. At least Silca markets their wax as forever chemical free which would mean there's no teflon or ptfe as lubricant. Rex wouldn't use it since the company is European and they'd be crucified if it came out that they'd used powdered teflon in a chain lubricant.
MSwax uses moly
Silca uses tungsten disulfide
Rex uses something but it's unknown what it is.
The question about additives having a measurable effect is an interesting one and the only wax that has allowed for testing that is Rex, which has non additive base blocks and the black diamond additive blocks. The testing ZFC has done gives different results for higher concentrations of additive when compared to lower concentrations. Even more interestingly lower amounts of additives seem to fare better in the wet.
There's some effect from additives but since the softer waxes tend to fare much worse (AB Graphene for example) the actual wax formulation seems to more important by a big margin.
That last one is a false comparison. Comparing the pollution of bikes to cars is irrelevant. You shouldn't do something harmful just because there are worse things around. You shouldn't go sowing the roads with powdered teflon just for the principle of it especially when it costs you nothing to not add the teflon in the first place.
As has been mentioned, there is no actual Scientific data ... I am glad that Aussie guy made those videos, and I have been using his method with excellent effect for several years ... but a lot of the differences are marginal, and the overall impact unclear ... (for instance, wax with teflon is seen by some as an environmental evil but oil is okay?) Also, rewaxing intervals are only one metric ... show me the side-by-side tests with equivalent bikes with identical drivetrains and show which method causes less wear ... but you cannot use human operators of course ... you would need to hook both bikes to electric motors and shift at precisely coordinated intervals ...
That's exactly what ZFC is doing... Testing lubricants with identical drivetrains, electric motors, coordinated shifts, identical contamination levels etc.
And sicne no one really knows exactly what works best for each individual ... it is possible that using the expensive wax and taking that one extra ride, that extra forty or seventy miles, actually causes more wear than re-applying the cheap, home-made stuff one ride sooner .... or not.
What is your point? You override a waxed chain and there's wear? That's sorta what I was getting it. Longer rewax intervals push that envelope and allow for a better average level of wear than if the rewax intervals were shorter.
None of the science would hold up in a masters' program ... glad people did what they did, and for me, homemade paraffin/teflon is just fine ... but really, none of us know. We are all just deciding what we like and doing it.
I mean, wouldn't the ZFC protocol hold up in a masters program? And if so, why not?