Originally Posted by
razorjack
not true... if you look at ZeroFrictionCycling, good wax/lube (and clean chain thanks to them) can extend lifespan of your drivetrain A FEW TIMES (2-3x or more)
You have to go looking around (check the “Single Application Longevity Test folder) to find the statement “real world road riding vs lab testing tends to indicate that treatment longevity is around double to triple vs what is what is assessed in field testing”. His data under that statement shows mileages of nearly triple for bench testing vs field tests in terms of chain wear. Silca Synerg-E, for example, laboratory tests at around 9400 km while its field test is around 3100 km. Something is seriously wrong with the bench test.
Hambini has
this critique of Zero Friction’s testing which points out a number of problems with the test. The following quote is probably the most important part of Hambini’s post.
However, … [Sedis and Reynolds chain] representatives, who are avid cyclists[,] pointed out that the test conditions do not accurately reflect real-world cycling. In Kerin’s setup, the chain remains on a single pair of cogs, failing to simulate the lateral forces and movement involved in actual gear shifting. In real riding scenarios, gear changes would cause the wax to flake off, significantly reducing its claimed longevity and effectiveness. The representatives argued that this critical factor is entirely ignored in Kerin’s testing, which skews the results in favour of immersed wax-based lubricants. A drip type wax such as squirt would likely give similar levels of friction.
A test that gives 3 to 4 times the real world result is not a valid test nor is the data valid. That kind of difference in result means that something needs to be changed in the testing methodology. Especially if the tester admits that the real world and laboratory tests don’t match. It also means that we shouldn’t put too much stock in the tests either.