There is no way wax allows hundreds of miles of lubrication by remaining a solid that doesn't flow at all inside the pressure points of the chain. If that worked, chains would be made with PVD coatings much harder and longer lasting than any layer of hard wax could possibly be, since wax is softer than a fingernail. Or nylon bushings, which are also far harder than wax.


The problem here is that wax is not a lubricant for any other industrial uses, and the fact that it works as well as it does on bicycle chains is essentially counterintuitive and outside engineering practices. So if you have a flawed belief about what is going on inside the chain, you really can't advise anyone how to improve that performance.



So "chemistry" aside, the OP is maybe having a problem with his complex wax procedure. Wax is cheap, so if simply throwing the chain in wax is not acceptable, use two pots of hot wax - one to clean and one to lube. That avoids questions of chemistry and allows the chain to be lubricated the way people have been doing for 50 years at least.

I used hot melt candle wax on the chain of my first good road bike since new, for cleanliness. I was clueless at the time about checking for chain stretch. I ended up running the same chain for 15 years, my estimate is 70,000 miles. Then I noticed cupping on the cogs, so reversed them (could do that with Uniglide), and bought a new chain. Never ridden in rain.

In more recent years I had used oil lube, due to occasionally being caught in rain, and because I thought it would lube better. I never suspected that wax was actually better in terms of durability, until seeing test results on ZFC. My plan is to go back to wax this year.

The mechanism by which wax lubricates the chain, I am only guessing, is that it works sort of like old babbitt metal poured-in-place bearings; The wax creates a solid bushing, not as hard as the materials it separates, between the rollers and bushingless nubs, and between the inner plates and pins, and is not squeezed out, until worn away and the chain begins to squeak and is rewaxed. The wax on the outside of the chain flakes off very quickly, and I would think also in the flat area between outer and inner plates, though in a thread or website this year (can't recall which), someone had photo proof of wax with PTFE additive bonding durably to that sideplate interface. But in the two places mentioned, my guess is the wax is captured so does not just flake off. IF TRUE... I think a softer wax mix (wax with tallow, mineral oil, or as seen on Sheldon Brown, new toilet ring seals) would be inferior to a harder wax mix. Also, a harder wax seems to facilitate easily shedding of any fine metal particles, as well as dirt, whereas a softer wax may keep both embedded and act as abrasive. My current oil lube, when I clean with solvent, a magnet into the solvent removes copious amounts of black sludge, which is the very fine metal particles from the chain, which turns the oil lube into a paste due to the particles in suspension, that's my clue to clean and relube the chain. When I wax lubed, I never saw anything but the slightest amount of metal particles at the bottom of the wax pan, and I mean over a decade in the same pan of wax. So either way less metal particles created, or them being shed into the environment.

Does anyone else have a different theory about how/why melted hard wax lube works so well?

Sure. I think the peak friction coming off the cassette and then back onto the chainring creates a tiny flash of heat sufficient to briefly liquify a very small amount of the wax and cause it to draw into the bearing surfaces.

Hard wax is too soft to serve as a structural bearing when it is only seeing friction on one side of the pin, and other types of steel friction have been shown to produce surprising temperatures. So this is the only scenario that makes any sense to me. In other words, chains are not like bearings and all the contact happens within a few degrees - which would displace all the wax to the other side of the bushing in seconds. Some other mechanism is necessary.

Possibly. I had thought about that possibility in the past, but wasn't sure it would be durable. If my memory is correct, I think my chain waxes on the road bike in dry, clean conditions, and flat land mostly spinning and not high climbing loads, lasted over 1000 miles.

However the wiki on babbitt metal posits a similar theory to some babbitt alloys:

You do realize that chemistry is the study of matter and its states don’t you? Have you ever actually looked at a block of wax? It is a solid. Yes, you can make it into a liquid by melting it but it is a solid at temperatures that we humans normally operate at. Even the hottest temperatures we humans regularly encounter, wax is still a solid with a melt point around 130°F to 150°F. It is plastic and can move around under pressure but that isn’t flow nor the material being liquid. But that plasticity works both ways. Physics says the wax is going to be forced out of the pressure points but there really isn’t anything driving the wax back in. In other words, the wind only blows one way.

As to how long the wax lasts, not all of the wax is going to be pushed out of the pressure points. A small amount…a few molecules thick…would linger for a long time. But that really is all the lubrication that is needed.

Yes, you could put a vapor deposition layer on the chain but that would probably be cost prohibitive.

I think these guys might disagree. So might these guys. And these guys. I could go on. That is works on chains isn’t counterintuitive at all. It’s been known to work on chains for decades. I experimented with hot wax before I had kids which is nearly 40 years ago now. About 10 years later after I gave up the hassle of waxing with hot wax, White Lightning hit the market and I’ve never looked back.

rosefarts is having problems with the longevity of his waxing. I don’t particularly see his procedure as complex. It’s mostly useless as water has no place in cleaning a chain for any reason…it’s that chemistry thing again. That’s when stripping off the factory lube or cleaning dust off the chain before waxing. It’s a useless step but then most cleaning procedures that have more than one step…washing with mineral spirits…are.

Two pots of wax is just as silly. There’s no need to clean the chain with wax even in dusty conditions. Dirt doesn’t stick to the wax that much. Don’t make it harder than it needs to be.

(above) Hah, one of those lubricating wax companies, I had close contact with their parent company 30 years ago.

I think key for wax lube is that it is encapsulated where it remains for lubing, unlike it flaking off the outside. With just a micro-layer contact-melting to lube, it might stay in place. But it may just stay solid, wax against steel, and if supported on all sides, with a decent bulk modulus, will stay in place. The really thin solid wax between the pin and inner plates, where all chain stretch wear occurs, I think if liquifying, that wouldn't last long.

Yes, there are superior materials for bushings, like PTFE ("Teflon"), but I look at it this way: A waterproof-breathable membrane on a raincoat ("Goretex", expanded PTFE with microholes) functions superior to my waxed/oilskin cotton. But waxed cotton coating is infinitely renewable, PTFE is not renewable even once.

Kluber refers to its chain wax as "quasi-dry". What does that mean?

Why is paraffin wax considered "semi-solid"?

The definition of "slip melting point":
Does the inside of a chain have shearing forces between waxed components? What does it mean that a crystalline wax loses its solid structure due to shearing?


The links you provided seem to lead to exactly what I've been saying - the forces on the chain are linear, wax is not a perfect solid, and relatively low amounts of stress heat causes a phase change that allows small amounts of capillary action.


Thanks for the links!
​​​​​​​https://www.silmid.com/Documents/Bro...Ps8NEo-Mx_XXfc

You’d have to ask them. I’d take it to mean that the material feels waxy or, depending on the formulation, it feels tacky or greasy. Not all wax is as hard as canning or candle wax.

Because it has some plasticity. Being “semi-solid” doesn’t mean “semi-liquid”. When I say “wax doesn’t flow”, I mean that wax can be pushed out of the pressure points by pressure due to its plasticity. It doesn’t flow back however. Oil and other liquids get pushed out of the pressure points but as soon as the pressure is released, the oil flows back. Wax can’t do that.

While this may happen on a small scale, it would likely only work on the outflow of the wax from the pressure points. There is nothing that would drive inflow to the pressure points once pressure is reduced. And any melting would be extremely small in mass and highly localized. Bicycle chains don’t have enough friction to melt bulk amounts of wax. They simply don’t get that hot.


I’m not sure where you’d said that but it wasn’t here. I didn’t say that wax is a perfect solid. I have said (here and elsewhere) that small amounts of oil or soft wax could soften hard wax and make it less likely to flake off and/or make it slightly more mobile. The kind of phase change that is needed for capillary action to occur simply isn’t going to happen. There is no driving force for it to occur.

Glad to help but it doesn’t say what you think it says.

We've had this argument before, and as I made clear then, all of the wax isn't melting, but localized heat (or shear) is causing the wax to be pulled into the wear points.

Through a process you, a chemist, should have been familiar enough with to previously mention.

I get it, as I have seen the prolix posts on such. In doing sidewalk bike repair, in a "low income" city in which many youth leave their bikes outside, I lube most every bike chain that comes in with used motor oil.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...afc8abcd80.jpg
(Yes, the nipple is from a cable brake, and I think the bottle is from a neighbor who dyes hair. Works fine, thank God).

If they are going to leave the bike outside, esp. uncovered, i tell them to coat the chain with any oil!

I get it, as I have seen the prolix posts on such. In doing sidewalk bike repair, in a "low income" city in which many youth leave their bikes outside, I lube most every bike chain that comes in with used motor oil.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...afc8abcd80.jpg
(Yes, the nipple is from a cable brake, and I think the bottle is from a neighbor who dyes hair. Works fine, thank God).

If they are going to leave the bike outside, esp. uncovered, i tell them to coat the chain with any oil!

Oil, let it sink in and wipe off excess. Chains looks clean and is lubricated.

Until you ride it.

Kontact

I very much doubt the micro melting theory.

I think in terms of actual mechanical forces, bike chains don’t take much. They are powered by way less than a horsepower, complete something less than 100 RPMs max, depending on gearing. The only real issue is that they are small and open to the environment. That’s why they last a few thousand miles VS something like a 300k+ timing chain in a Toyota 22R.

I think wax and other lubes work because the task we’re asking them to do is pretty minimal, stop squeaking.

This goes to what Cycocommute said, the difference between the absolute “best” lube and the “worst” is extremely minimal. Probably less than shaving your legs. As long as it’s enough to keep it quiet and keep it shifting, it’s fine.

Yes, we have had this argument before…and you are just as wrong now as you were then. Why would the wax be pulled into the pressure points? Outflow is easy to explain without having to go so far as to say that the wax melts even locally. What drives the inflow? If there were enough heat to cause the wax to melt even locally, the heat would build up and the chain would get hot with use. No chain I’ve ever touched during a ride is warmer than the outside air.

Looking only at the chainring (something similar would occur at the cassette), pressure on the pressure point would start to ramp up as the chain first starts to go around the curve of the ring. The pressure would quickly ramp up as the chain travels further around the ring but any possible melt shear would happen near the point where pressure first starts. If (and that’s a big “if”) the wax “slip melts”, it would occur at this point. If (and again a big “if”) the wax melts enough to become liquid, it would flow out of the pressure point. When the chain comes off the bottom of the chainring, the pressure quickly goes from on to fully off. Unless there is enough heat in the chain to remain liquid, there is nothing to make the wax flow back into the pressure point. The wax would solidify in place outside the pressure point.

Now consider if the wax is just plastic. Under the same scenario, excess wax is pushed out of the pressure point due to its plasticity. It still stays outside of the pressure point but the chain shows no heat. We are at the same place where the wax doesn’t flow.

Also consider the size of the gap between a chain plate and the pin. It is large enough for the two pieces of metal to move but it is a very small gap…on the order of micrometers (or hundreds of thousandths of an inch).The wax (or any lubricant) needed to fill that gap is likely to be on the order of micrograms. The roller is filled with wax (probably milligrams) and it should serve as a reservoir of wax. If wax melted like you feel it does, there should be enough wax in the roller for many thousands of rotations of each pressure point. The wax in the roller isn’t going to be squeezed out during the rotational process in any significant amount so the reservoir of wax should be practically endless. Oil will flow out of the closed system and needs to be refreshed. Again, wax doesn’t flow so it will stay in place until physically removed.

I will grant that some of the wax in the reservoir could flake off and be pulled into the gap through physical means…i.e. grinding…but there is no significant flow nor any liquid flow back into that gap. It’s not pumped into and out of the gap like oil is. That’s a good thing since it doesn’t carry grit like oil can. Unfortunately, the starved nature of the waxed pressure point makes for a lot of metal-on-metal grinding which wears the chain at about the same rate as the grinding paste in oil does.

I thought chemistry had nothing to do with this discussion. As to the process, it doesn’t work the way you think it does. There’s no evidence for the process you think is acting here such as a chain heating up over time.

Loving this thread. What's the best lubricant for the interface between an irresistible force and an immovable object?

I think a nice thin layer of warm soft bullsh1t will do the job....:)

Take your full weight, divide that by the surface area of one sided contact with the pin and bushing. 200 pounds divided by 1/100 of a square inch is 20,000 psi.

What is the temperature change to steel from appling 20,000 psi instantaneously?

It has little to do with horsepower.

Can wax withstand 20,000 psi between two pieces of steel without being pushed out of the way and heated? Does wax expand or contract when it melts?


Anyway, stop washing your chain. That's probably your problem.

I understand the cleanliness issue, and the fact that waxing a chain results in a much cleaner setup, but you are having an issue with the wax not holding up to one specific application, your gravel biking. I am not against waxing chains, you have good results with it on other bikes used for other purposes, and so do many. You do not however, have good results with it on your gravel bike. That is why I suggest you scrap chain wax, and simply use a standard chain lube. That will solve your issue. Chain lube is supposed to provide protection for your chain, and help it run smoothly, wax is not doing that in this instance. Use something else. I wasn't trying to be a smart-aleck with my original comment, I was using a bit of humor to make a point. Everything is a compromise, and in this case you can make one of two compromises. One, you can use wax and have a clean chain, but poor lubricity for your purpose, causing early chain wear, more friction, and chain noise, or two, you can have god lubricity, longer chain wear, and smoother operation, but with more, but really normal, dirt accumulation. For me, I would always go for better lubrication, especially when what you are now using is not lasting long enough to give you proper lubrication during a ride.

Yes, 20,000 psi is a scary number but it’s 200 lb of force on 1/100 of a square inch. It’s a fair amount of force on a tiny little area. Any heating would be proportional to the area being compressed. Small amount of area = small amount of heat. Chains don’t develop heat during use thus any heat generated is small. Even without any lubrication at all there is very little to no measurable heat generated. See this Johns Hopkins study.

Hard to say. It’s not a straightforward calculation. It depends on the time of the pressure, the material, the ambient temperature, the rate of transfer of heat, etc. With a bike chain the pressure is transitory. As the gear transfers the chain from one cog to another, the pressure would fluctuate. Fluctuations are going to result in low rates of heating.

You keep missing the point. Wax most definitely is pushed out of the way. That’s a large part of the problem with wax as a lubricant. It flows away. You keep harping on this idea that the wax melts and flows back. Find the heat needed to do this and explain how the heat would be enough to melt a wax at 130°F on the low end and leave no evidence of this heat in the drivetrain.


I’m torn on this one. I partly agree that washing a chain is useless. But, since rosefarts does the same thing to a mountain bike as well as a road bike without the same result, I doubt that the washing is the problem. Frankly the solution to the gravel bike problem is to probably learn how to sign show tunes at the top of his lungs to cover up the noise since nothing bad is probably happening.

Just ride faster than the dust your making and the chain stays clean.

From this thread, I have added quite a bit of information to my understanding of how a lubricant works. We need more of this type of intelligent conversation. Keep it up!

What I don't understand from your position, is how you acknowledge that the force applied to the parts needing lubrication is in the area of 20,000psi, claim that wax is essentially a deformable solid, and then believe that immense pressure is going to leave any residual hard wax in the 20 degrees of mating area between those two linear parts. You are describing a super material, much harder than the steel acting on it.

It is the equivalent of saying that you can press down on a piece of fishing line with a knife, but that it never quite gets cut all the way through. Two pieces of steel grinding against each other are going to be metal on metal after one or two passes if the wax material is a true solid. You think wax always behaves as a solid, yet you ascribe some magic ability to stay in between mated steel parts for not just seconds or minutes, but 10-40 hours of use!


And you keep talking about heat as if the whole chain needs to come up to the melting point of wax. Only the critical friction points need to get warm, and that that heat would essentially be expended by liquifying the wax, cooling that area back down.

Which is only the case if that amount of heat is necessary, but as we have established, shearing action will cause paraffin wax to liquify at the "slip melting point" - the thing you've never heard of, apparently.


So we can either believe that hard wax is stretchier than taffy and stronger than kevlar, or we can consider that slip melting and the fact that wax expands as a liquid might explain how trapped wax could keep surging into the void left when the linear load drops and the wear points of the chain leave a gap, much like how grease leeches oil out of its matrix to lubricate a bearing.

At least my explanation sounds possible.

Couple of thoughts on your technique:

I don't think the soap and wax are helping you, but watching for bubbles doesn't tell you very much. You are not getting to the boiling point of water with wax temps, especially with a chain barely coming to temp. Water is heavier than wax, so it sinks, not bubbles up. So you have no positive sign that the water is gone. When I have experimented with water and wax, the water remains below the solidified wax when cool.

You might not be getting the chain warm enough to get good wax penetration. The rivet area is the densest part of the chain, so is going to warm up much slower than the side plates that you are observing. And trapped water is going to make that problem worse.



Personally, I use a sauce pan, and pop the solid disk of wax out of the pan to start. Then I put the chain in the pan on Low, and put the wax disk on top of the chain. That way the chain warms the wax, not the other way around. When all the wax is liquid the chain is definitely at the same temp. I pull it out and hang it to drip back in the pan. It has never overheated and allowed too much wax to run off, and I get good mileage. There are no bubbles to confuse matters.

Regardless of how you decide to heat the chain or the vessel, leave the chain in longer and shake it so the wax is definitely wicking into every cranny without fighting cool metal or water.


If I had to "dry" a wet chain in wax, I'd want the wax heated to over 212F to actually boil the water, then somehow cool everything down again to just over wax melting temps so the chain retains the wax when hung up. Which is neither real safe nor quick.

It is difficult to impossible to completely remove every molecule of a substance by pressure. A very small amount of any lubricant is going to remain at the interface. That’s how any lubricant works on any surface. Oil is squished out of the pressure point but not all of it.

These is just so much wrong with this paragraph. First, wrong analogy. A better analogy would be a rolling pin rolling across dough. You can thin it out to a molecular level and some would remain under the pin. Next, I have never said that wax performs as a solid. I have said over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again that wax is plastic. I have also said that the reason that most of the reason that wax does not perform well in water is because the pressure pushes most of the wax out and allows for metal on metal wear. Wax never has been, never will be, and cannot be water soluble. There are substances that can be added to make it water soluble but you’d have to go out of your way to add it. The reason I know that there is bare metal at the pressure point is because water exposure quickly leads to squeaking due to rust formation at the pressure point. And this can happen to a freshly waxed chain as anyone who waxes chain can attest.


If you heated even a localized point on a steel chain enough to melt wax with a melting point of 130°F, the heat would flow not to the wax but to the other parts of the chain. Wax is an insulator with regards to heat flow. Steel is a conductor…a very good one at that…with regards to heat flow. Any heat generated would flow into the other cold parts of the chain and would simply not be hot enough to melt wax. Heat flows to cold.

You haven’t established anything. No, I haven’t heard of “slip melting point” before. But from what I can find out about it, it is not what you describe. From what I can find (not just on Wikipedia), it is a way to measure mixtures of fats and oils that have poorly defined melting points due to a wide range of molecular ranges. A tube of the material is heated and the slip melting point is the point where the mixture “slips” in the tube because it is starting to float on the melt.

What you describe is likely shear melting point which is when the melting temperature is reduced due to shearing force on a substance. That the wax is under shear force is not something I would dispute and is likely the cause of the plasticity of the wax. However, that doesn’t mean that the wax is liquid nor that it can flow back into an area still under pressure nor even under reduced pressure. In fact, remove the pressure and the shear and the wax would solidify again. There is no driving force to get the wax to flow backwards against a pressure causing it to flow outwards.

That’s a false dichotomy. Wax is plastic. It can flow under pressure. But the flow is going to be in only one direction…from high pressure to low pressure. It can’t flow in the other direction. And, if you could make the wax liquid, it would flow away from the high pressure area even faster and more efficiently.

Only if you ignore a whole bunch of chemistry and physics.