cyccommute 

The problem with this idea is that oil flows. If you are wiping off “excess” oil, you are removing oil that can flow back into the chain. At some point, the oil will all flow away. The other problem is that wiping doesn’t stop the chain from picking up grit while riding…that whole “oil flowing” thing. Wiping the grit off the outside of the chain is all well and good but the grit that causes problems isn’t the grit you can see. Wiping also pushes grit into the chain where it can flow with the oil into the pressure points which is where it can do it’s work.

Again, I’m not saying one lubricant is far superior in lubrication of another…see my comments above. But there is a distinct advantage in terms of cleaning and cleanliness to wax based lubricants.

terrymorse 

There's no doubt that wax-based chain lubes are great at making your chain look clean.

But if minimizing friction and preventing wear are the goal, there is probably no worse lubricant than the class of drip-on, wax-based lubes.

cyccommute 

That’s not what the data says. One isn’t better than the other. Wear intervals for either lubricant is the same. Friction wise, the range is very narrow on the order of 1.5 watts or less. On Ceramic Speed test, White Lightning has about 6.2 W of friction and Triflow standard has about 6.4W. That’s rather insignificant. If you look at that chart, a significant percentage of the lubricants, including the best performers are wax based lubes. White Lightning Clean Ride is right in the middle.

Since the results are the same, cleanliness becomes a larger factor

rsbob 

You mean I need to stop waxing? Just kidding.

If I clean the drivetrain once a month I feel like I have OCD.

terrymorse 

Yes. While it is true that the absolute differences in friction between the different chain lubes is small, what is not small is the rate of chain wear.

In a simulated 10,000 km of dry dusty conditions, Zero Friction Cycling measured that the best lube (Silca Hot Melt melted paraffin) would need 0.5 chain replacements, and the worst lube would need 13.5 replacements. White Lightning Epic Ride would need 7.1 replacements.

The problem with certain drip-on wax lubes appears to be their inability to penetrate, and their tendency to get displaced from bearing surfaces.

There are exceptions. Effetto Mariposa Flower Power is drip-on, wax-based, and fairly inexpensive, but its measured resistance to chain wear rivals that of melted paraffin.

rsbob 

Not that it matters but I am happy with Silca’s Synergetic Wet Lubes performance. The precision applicator is unique.

roadcrankr

Cyccommute and I referred to White Lightning Clean Ride, not Epic Ride.
Clean is entirely wax-based, while Epic is synthetic/silicone based.
I find that "chain replacements" bit ridiculous. It implies replacing a chain in less than 1k miles with Epic.
From my experience, I replace my chain every 5k miles, whether it needs it or not.
Typically it exhibits minor elongation, but at forty bucks a pop, it's not worth stretching (pun intended) mileage much beyond.

Litho dbh

And/or 3. You run fenders.

cyccommute 

I look on those values with a whole lot of suspicion. Their longevity estimates of 25000 km (15,000 miles) are way outside what most people report for chain longevities. That said, from their tests, oils don’t seem to be at the top of the list and waxes at the bottom. The distribution seems to be evenly distributed. If anything wax based lubricants…both hot and drip…occupy a whole of the top spots.

Where does this “inability to penetrate” come from? Most oil based and wax based lubricant use similar (if not the same) solvents in similar proportions of solvent to lubricant. The solvent serves to mobilize the lubricant (of either form) so that it penetrates into the chain. Penetration isn’t any more of a problem for wax in a solvent than it is for oil in a solvent. Yes, wax gets displaced from the bearing surface which leads to wear but oil traps grit which leads to wear also. Both wear about at about the same rate.

You may want to look at that chart a bit more closely. Eight of the top ten lubricants in the list are waxes. Three are hot wax but 5 are drip waxes. So much for the idea that wax, and specifically drip wax, is a poor performing lubricant.

terrymorse 

Easy to believe. White Lightning Epic Ride performed so poorly in the Zero Friction wear test, it broke their test equipment:

After re lube – during the second interval for the (test) block the drive motor was literally unable to maintain a 250w load at rear wheel (Neo is set to 250w resistance). By 2/3rds in, the motor was unable to maintain cadence – once cadence starts to drop smart trainers compensate by increasing resistance – which cascades to slowing the motor further as the torque now required is simply too much for the motor. There had been a notable drop in speed for the ratio both from when it started and compared to other lubricants tested for that ratio (a trend that was becoming apparent in block 2). Once cadence dropped too low everything came to a juddering halt, tripping the fuse on drive motor from the strain and ruining rubber spider coupling insert from too much torque. -- zerofrictioncycling.com, Lubricant On Test: White Lightning Epic Ride

White Lightning Epic Ride Performance Ratings from zerofriction.com:

• Race Day Lubricant Road – 1/10
• Race Day Lubricant - MTB / CX – 0.5/10
• Everyday Lubricant – 1/10
• Harsh Conditions Lubricant – 0/10
• Single Application for Long event – 0/10

The only positive comment was that it makes your chain look clean.

terrymorse 

No, manufacturers don't use the same solvents. Some manufacturers are responsible.

For example, White Lightning Epic Ride is about 75% heptane, Clean Ride is 60-80% heptane. Really nasty stuff. Flammable, toxic, and a strong greenhouse gas.

Contrast that with Ceramicspeed UFO Drip, which is non-toxic, non-flammable, and bio-degradable. Also, UFO Drip blows away White Lightning on friction and wear prevention.

rsbob 

This is a first for an oil based lubricant. Did a 50 miler today and found this. The chain was wiped down well after cleaning and oiling but apparently not good enough. Getting oily stuff thrown on the seat stay, (from the tire?) and chain stay is a new one. Wiped the chain down again and will see if it still happens.

easyupbug 

↑⇡↑ I have never seen anything near that bad, did you use 0W weight oil?

cyccommute 

You are speaking to a chemist here. I can read safety data sheets and, more importantly, interpret them. The solvents used are usually called “hydrotreated light distillates (petroleum)” or something similar.

Yes, White Lightning uses heptane but heptane isn’t particularly nasty. It is a bit flammable (flash point -4°C) but it isn’t toxic. From the Wikipedia page on heptane: The CDC

In other words, it has a narcotic effect. Other sources suggest that the effects of heptane are short term with few chronic effects. I can find nothing that says it is a green house gas of any kind. Like most any hydrocarbons, it is a volatile organic compound (VOC) which can be an air pollutant but that’s different from green house gases.

Are you sure about that? Check the UFO Drip SDS. The main solvent is n-hexane (60 - 100%) and pentane (10 - 30%). Both are more flammable than heptane and hexane has a higher chronic toxicity. Pentane also has a elevated chronic toxicity and from from its SDS

It is most definitely not bio-degradable. Nor non-toxic. Nor non-flammable. I’m not saying that White Lightning products are green but neither is UFO Drip.

In terms of wear, the comparison on the Zero Friction is to White Lightning Epic Ride which isn’t that great of a product. Clean Ride is different but there is no comparison of it to the other products on the list. I won’t say where it would fall on the list for wear but it is in the middle of the range for friction and friction is related to wear.

Oh, and it’s 9 out of 10 are wax based lubricants with 6 of the 9 being drip waxes. How does that fit with the statement

Zero Friction doesn’t seem to agree in either case.

rsbob 

It Tungsten based oil.

terrymorse 

I believe the UFO Drip SDS you referred to is for their old, non-green formulation. Their new formulation is described on the company's product page:

The chain coating is developed to support all disciplines and is based on a non-toxic, non-flammable and bio-degradable formula.

The SDS for the new UFO Drip formulation.

Racing Dan

I dont think that is accurate. Not even according to zerofriction, that you are referencing. On the contrary most of the best performing lubes on test was in fact wax based. It is also true that some of the tested wax lubes have performed worse than expected. Most notably forum-darling Squirt, and the tester surmised that the poor performance was related to poor penetration. However, was that the reason? He never proved the point by taking a Squirt lubed chain apart. The poor penetration conclusion seem derived from endless theorizing and conjecture, rather that just taking a look.


From my, limited, experience with Squirt it seem perfectly capable of draining in to the chain. However tenacity seem lacking. In less than 100km the chain becomes notably chatty (no squeaking tho) and there are dry / shiny spots on chainring teeth indicating all the lube is pushed away. I'm not too impressed, but will use up my two bottles, as I do like the reduced mess. The other wax lubes that tested better seem way to overprized to pay for them selves. Even Squirt seem a bit on the high side, considering two little bottles are as much as I usually pay for a new chain, and the low mileage pr lube.

james89

(just so we're all on the same page here - I HATE scammers and everything about them), but maybe this guy is in the same boat that I am. I have a few questions on a Trek I recently purchased and want to make a thread to show it and get some advice, but sometimes forums can make it difficult to even get the ball rolling. When I first tried to make a thread, I couldn't - I was told I have to have at least 10 posts. When I tried getting my posts up, I couldn't - I was told I can't make more than 5 in a day. On the second day, I tried making 5 more posts, I couldn't. Even though it was after 24 hours, it said I needed to wait 24 hours. When I tried replying with a quote that included an image, I couldn't - I needed to get back to my 10 word-only replies. If this guys really a scammer, have at em'! If he's dealing with what I've been dealing with - give him a break.

To answer his question - take care of your bike and it will take care of you - clean your chain.

terrymorse 

My statement was too general. A more accurate statement is that certain formulations of drip-on, wax-base lubes perform very poorly.

Tests show that some drip-on, wax-based lubes perform very well. Others horribly. Why the difference?

One thing horrible lubes have in common: they contain mostly very low viscosity carrier/solvent, with little lubricant.

cyccommute 

The lubricant tested by Zero Friction was the old formulation. That report has been around for quite a while and the SDS that I linked to is from 2017.

Granted Ceramic Speed changed the formulation and SDS in 2020. Maybe their new formula may be all the things they say it is but the new SDS is rather sparse in details…only one ingredient of less than 1% is listed…which makes it difficult to judge their claims. The 2017 SDS lists wax as one of the ingredients in the safety sheet as having an exposure limit. It’s not listed in the new SDS but it obviously has to be there.

Finally, I’ll remind you again that you said that drip waxes as a class are bad lubricants. Having 9 out of 10 of the top ten lubricants on the Zero Friction list does not support that argument.

terrymorse 

Zero Friction Cycling has tested the new formulation: Lubricant On Test : Ceramic Speed UFO Drip v2


TL;DR -- Second lowest block 1 (no contaminants) wear ever tested.

Fair enough, my initial statement was overly general. Performance of commercially available drip-on, wax-based lubes is highly variable, ranging from superior to horrible.

cyccommute 

Well at least you admit you were wrong. But on the Zero Friction list, there are a whole lot of oils that perform just as badly as some of the wax based lubricant. Not a whole lot of them perform as well as many of the wax based lubricants.

Your conclusion is wrong again. The UFO Drip wax, for example is (was) mostly solvent which makes it a low viscosity fluid. It performs pretty well. All of the drip wax lubricants are going to need some kind of carrier to get them to penetrate because wax doesn’t flow at room temperature. Oils tend to penetrate better when they use a solvent carrier as well. From previous research, I’ve found that the oil and wax use similar solvents in similar proportions. The solvent in both cases are there to aid penetration.

rsbob 

Understand your frustration when you want questions answered and keep running into roadblocks. Please know we were all there once and came out the other side. You will get there too. There are a few here that call people scammers and trolls at a drop of a hat, or pump, or sneeze. I ignore them or block them since their negativity seems to be pervasive, unless you are into that sort of thing.

cyccommute 

Oil based lubes have similar variable results. Wax has the advantage of not needing constant cleaning.

terrymorse 

(Note: I wouldn't characterize UFO Drip as has having "little lubricant". The old 2017 MSDS says it had up to 30% waxes.)

My observation that horrible lubes are low viscosity and have little lubricant is based on published test data. The worst performing lubes in the Velonews tests were reported to be "thin". Notice the clustering of "thin" lubes at the bad end of the graph:




However, one can't conclude that all thin lubricants are poor performers. The tests also found some low viscosity formulations that perform well, like the Rock n Roll products. At least they perform well on the Velonews test. Rock-n-Roll Gold didn't do so well on the Zero Friction wear tests.

Given that low viscosity has been correlated to poor performance, but it's not universal, how does a consumer know what they're getting? Review test results, I guess.