SpedFast

Scented candles are best, they mask the old guy farts. EOS

kit_fl

I want to try it

cyccommute 

Pin friction is mostly a nonissue. There’s a John’s Hopkins study that shows there is very little heat generated in a bicycle chain during use. That said, a soft wax like vaseline has a lower melt point (105°F) than candle (125°F to 150°F) or canning wax. Chains aren’t likely to reach even the low temperature of the soft wax.

Kontact

I'm sorry, but you appear to be taking the stance that hard wax doesn't lubricate chains for hundreds of miles.

It does. Dry chains squeak. Waxed chains that have been run too long squeak. Straight white candle wax is a good lubricant. In tests, one of the very best.

Vaseline and it's cousin mineral oil are not good lubricants. Otherwise they would lubricating products, not byproducts of oil refinement. No one rebuilds their hubs with vaseline. No one lubes their chain with mineral oil.


It is just magical thinking to observe that people are getting good lubrication out of wax and presuming that it is somehow wrong based on theories about friction works that you didn't get from a lab.

cyccommute 

You seem to think that there is something magical about hard wax vs soft wax. There isn’t. All waxes are byproducts of oil refinement. They have very little value in the oil processing process. They don’t make for good cracking stock. Markets have been developed for waxes that can be quite large but compared to other products from oil refinement, they are a small fraction.

Who has tested vaseline as a lubricant? Have any data that it is a bad lubricant. Mineral oil, on the other hand, is used throughout the bicycle chain lubricant market. That’s the “oil” in oil based chain lubricants.

Both mineral oils and waxes are a very broad class of compounds. In fact, the point where mineral oil ends and waxes begin is a bit nebulous. They are both part of a homologous series and vary only in molecular weight. The difference between waxes…hard and soft…is even more nebulous. It would not hurt the lubricating abilities of hard waxes to be a bit softer so that the wax isn’t as brittle as it is. Hard waxes do have a tendency to slough off more readily which reduces their protective qualities.

All that said, the testing I’ve seen falls in a very narrow band of about 2 watts difference for most all lubricants from wax to solvent wax to oil. But the chart doesn’t present sufficient data to determine if that 2 W makes much of a difference. No error data is presented that I have seen so a conclusion that one method is superior in terms of lubrication really can’t be drawn. It really doesn’t matter all that much what you use. Wax wins in my book because it is cleaner. Solvent wax wins…again in my book…because it is easier to apply.

Kontact

What I think is immersion chain waxing works incredibly well with regular hard wax. Which is why I'm wondering why some people are suggesting you need to modify your emersion wax with softeners.


Also, I think you are confusing two ways "mineral oil" is used. Mineral oil is a term for a paraffin derivative that is clear and used for things like laxatives. It is never a lubricant. The term is also used to compare different lubricating oil sources - like synthetic vs mineral motor oil. Those are the kind of "mineral oils" that are used in chain lube.

SoSmellyAir

Why not use a hanger to hold the chain to avoid splashing hot wax upon removal from the Crock Pot?

SoSmellyAir

Refined paraffin wax has a < 0.5% oil content. Some of the wax flakes off a freshly waxed chain upon initial use. The suggestions to soften the wax via the addition of oil or OMS seem to be directed at addressing this initial flaking? However, I have not found the initial wax flaking to affect chain lubrication. I am concerned that any attempt to make the wax adhere better to the chain would also make the wax more adhesive to road debris.

cyccommute 

Because some people don’t like the wax sloughing off the outside and/or want something a bit more durable. If someone wants to experiment with a wax formulation, I’m not going to dissuade them from trying something and I’ll even make suggestions based on my chemical knowledge.

I’m a chemist. I know how to read safety data sheets (SDS) and how to look up and interpret the Chemical Abstract Number (CAS) on the materials listed in the SDS. “Mineral oil” is a very broad class of mixtures from something slightly thicker than kerosene (itself a “parafffin”) to something close to a soft wax like Vaseline. That includes, by the way, the base oil used in motor oils and the mineral oil that is modified to make synthetic oils and, yes, the mineral oil that is used for laxatives. You could even include polyethylene in that list since it is just a very long chain “wax” that shares the same molecular structure and generic formula with other “paraffins”. They all have lubricating abilities since they are slick and tend to make materials slide over each other by reducing friction.

Motor oil…both synthetic and regular…have other materials added to them so that they can work properly in an engine but they are mostly mineral oils.

“Paraffin” is an old name for the class of compounds that all have the generic formula of C(n)H(2n+2) where n is the number of carbon atoms. More modern nomenclature calls them “alkanes” but most chemists will use the terms interchangeable. A “paraffin” is technically anything from methane (CH4) to high density polyethylene which could have a carbon chain with 500,000 carbons.

To illustrate the “mineral oil” in bicycle chain lubes, consider Triflow. It contains 39% Heavy Naphthenic Petroleum Oil, CAS #64742-52-5. The description of that material is

​​​​​​​

I can’t find a motor oil that contains a CAS number but in their SDS for a Delo 100 motor oil 40wt motor oil, Chevron lists the oil as containing “Highly refined mineral oil (C15 - C50) 70-90%”. Other motor oils mention “mineral oil” as well.

The most important takeaway from these comparisons is the carbon chain range. There is overlap between them indicating that they are the same materials.

By the way, the mineral oil used for dietetic purposes has a CAS #8012-950-1 has a carbon chain of C15 according to the link provided. It’s on the lower end of motor oil but it’s in at least part of the range. The reason it is used as a laxative is that it isn’t metabolized like any of the mineral oils.

Kontact

The main point I was making is that the stuff we call petroleum jelly and pharmacy "mineral oil" are petroleum products, made by refining the otherwise discarded "rod wax" component of crude oil. The stuff we call "mineral oil" that is used to make lubricating oil is made from the other part of the crude. Their behavior as lubricants is different.

The fact that paraffin wax is actually a good chain lubricant is something of a oddity, and is likely more related to the low temp, speed and torque of bicycle drivetrains than the fabulous overall lubricating qualities of paraffin in general. Otherwise, it would be used in broader machine applications after being pre-heated. Same with paraffin mineral oil - it is used as a lubricant only in applications where a traditional oil would destroy seals - like in hydraulic systems. And petroleum jelly is not used as grease, because actual grease is that same lubricating oil suspended in soap, not just super thick oil.


The benefit of chain waxing is that there is no "oil" at room temperature - which is why it doesn't attract contaminants or make a mess. Adding softening jelly or paraffin oil only ruins that situation, without increasing the lubricity of the wax or its ability to keep wicking into the inside of the chain where needed. If you're going to oil your wax, you might as well just oil your chain. It's easier.

cyccommute 

And the main point which you keep missing that I’m making is that both of those substances are part of a continuum of petroleum products made from crude. While “rod wax”, a byproduct of drilling, was where it originally came from in 1872, that is not the source today. It is made from dewaxing of heavy lubricating stocks during the refining of oil process which is where all waxes come from. Crude oil is a complex mixture that is heavily refined for a large number of products we use in our modern world.

”Mineral oil” that is pharmaceutical grade is a more refined part of the other mineral oils available in petroleum. And, again, they are part of the continuum of petroleum products. Chemically they are closely related and only have slightly different properties because of molecular chain length. You could use motor oil for the same procedure if it didn’t have additives for the demands of an internal combustion engine.

“Vaseline” is a product name. A more general name for the soft wax is petroleum jelly or petrolatum. This product from Armite Lubricants says

Further it says that it is “lubricates…and reduces friction”. Those are qualities of a lubricant.


Frankly, it’s not surprising at all…at least to a chemist. I understand that it is just a solid version of what most people would call “oil”. Again, wax is part of the class of compounds we chemists call “paraffins”. To call something a “paraffin oil” is somewhat redundant. As to the petroleum jelly, see the above link from Armite Lubricants.

You say it doesn’t increase the lubricity of the wax. If you used petrolatum by itself, it would probably attract more surfaced contaminants than hard wax will. However, even if you used petrolatum by itself, it would still fill the gaps and not pump those surface contaminants into the chain like oils will. Adding a little bit of flexibility to hard wax would make it less likely to spall off while providing some surface protection. And it would perhaps not be as easy to push out of where it is needed.

And, again, I’m not saying to add enough petrolatum to make the wax tacky. That would take a lot of petroleum jelly. I can’t say how much without having done any experimentation but I would suspect it would take much more than 50%.

Kontact

The above is all conjecture. We know hard wax is a superior lubricant because that has been tested. We don't know that making it sticky at room temperature is actually going to help it fill gaps - it already fills the important gaps just fine - arguably better than oils do after a single application.

That's why I don't understand someone talking about the science behind petroleum chemistry and then leaping directly into territory that they have no experience or data to support. Wax with petroleum jelly has not been tested, and I suspect that one of the things hard wax has going for it is that it only liquifies where the real friction forces are, rather than having capillary action to move further from the pins. Why make a lubricant that provides longer and better lubrication than oil act more like oil?

base2 

Said the man to the only actual chemist in the room...

WabashMcCoy

I do the crock pot wax method. Two chains per bike in rotation to add procrastination time.
I use wax simply for the cleanliness.
I wipe the chain with an old sock after every ride to remove any surface debris picked up during the ride.
Seems to work okay.
I try to switch chains between 200 & 300 miles.

Kontact

Did you not read what I quoted? It is not a chemical analysis but a description of what he thinks might happen mechanically.

asgelle

You don't know that. Not everyone uses their degree to support a claim of authority.

elcruxio

I'm not sure there's actual wax melting happening inside the chain. My hypothesis is that the lubricity of wax is based on polished wax surfaces which remain in place longer with a harder wax and not long at all with a softer or softened wax. The same sort of effect you'd get from waxing the old type wooden drawer surfaces.
The melting theory also might fall apart in colder climates where the chain might get so cold that there's no possibility of melting. That'd make things interesting if the working principle were fact melting based and not polished surface.

Stuff doesn't exactly have to be fluid (in layman terms) to be low friction. A good example of this are the additives used in some waxes such as PTFE, Molybdenum sulfide and as a new contender, tungsten sulfide. I don't know how they are low friction exactly, but I'm relatively certain they don't turn to liquid inside the chain no matter how high point pressures there are.

pdlamb

Well, no. But some of us prefer to add clarity to a discussion, which is hard to do when one has gone off the rails like this thread.

cyccommute 

A few problems with your statement. First, “superior” is questionable. Again, there are no error bars on the measurement nor details about replicates nor any kind of error statistics offered in any chain lubricant report I’ve read. We can’t say it is “superior” unless we know that it is actually superior. The range of power reduction is very small between most of the chain lubricants…on the order of 2 W. That’s not a large range and the range of error could easily cover that entire range. And the range is very small. That makes the “superior” statement rather hollow. In other words, it doesn’t really matter that much.

You really have no data to support your position either. From what I have seen no testing has been made on factory chain lubricant…essentially petrolatum…nor on mixtures of waxes. No testing means no data and, without data, you can’t draw conclusions. I can’t draw conclusions either but I can form hypotheses based on what I know about the material. There’s no reason to reject petrolatum nor to accept it without testing.

As for any “melting” of any wax, that just doesn’t happen. Bicycles chains don’t heat up to the point where wax can melt. Wax gets squished out of the way but it doesn’t “melt”. Bicycle chains don’t heat at all during use and they certainly don’t heat to the melting point of wax. Go for a long ride and touch your chain afterward. It is stone cold, not hot enough to make water steam.

I would also question the statement that wax is longer lasting than oil and that it provides better lubrication. Chains seem to have a limited life independent of the lubrication used that seems to be of the same magnitude. I suspect people who claim outlying mileages three to five times the norm are likely misremembering or embellishing. Most people don’t keep any kind of record and memory is kind of tricky.

I’m not saying that there isn’t a reason to use wax. I much prefer it simply for the cleanliness. I don’t use hot wax…I have in the past so I’m not completely unfamiliar with it. I use solvent wax because it offers all the advantages of oil like convenient application and it’s as clean as hot wax without all the bother. In terms of longevity of the lubricant and the longevity of the chain, solvent wax is sufficient for my needs. I’m not going to spend a lot of time and energy on trying to squeeze every last penny of use out of a $20 chain.

And your speculation about what happens inside the chain has no more value than my speculation. There is a chemical analysis part of my speculation that is backed up by facts. See the links I provided in my posts above about the lubricating ability of petrolatum (aka petroleum jelly, aka Vaseline).

cyccommute 

I’ve made no claim of authority. I use my chemistry degree to learn and disseminate information and to counter wrong information. If you have different information, by all means share it.

SkinGriz

You guys haven’t made the switch to Krytox yet? Such luddites.

Lol.

unterhausen

This thread is amazing. I can't believe some of you have so many words to say about chain lube. Probably tl;dr for most of us

cyccommute 

I’m amazed by the people who stand on the side lines, snipe at the discussion, don’t add anything to the discussion…not even a clever joke…, and then complain about how a thread is too long; didn’t read. Kontact at least has a cogent argument for his position. I don’t agree some of his points but I agree with his general opinion that wax is better. I think it can be made better but it’s not bad to begin with. The snipers are just killing electrons…and we only have a limited supply of thos.

Kontact

I didn't say the whole chain gets warm. The pivot actually carrying the load warms momentarily because it is actually a very small surface under a lot of strain as the link straightens off the cassette or bends around the chainring under load.

This effect is familiar to some knife sharpening people who are aware that dry honing has the effect of raising the temperature at the very edge momentarily high enough to effect the temper, leading to rolled edges. So I don't think it is far fetched to think that the interface between the roller and pin might get up over 150F if the knife blade is getting up over 600. Not hot, not for long, but just enough for a tiny bit of capillary action to back fill the wax lost due to friction and pressure.


Speaking of which, do you really believe that wax is such a durable material that you can squeeze it between two hardened steel surfaces with the full weight of a rider standing on the crank - and it will last for 300 miles???? And we know it lasts, because dry chain pivots - waxed or not - squeak. But it takes hundreds of miles or lots of rain to squeak. Same thing that happens when the chain runs out of oil.

Wax is just an oil that is solid at room temperature and normal pressure. That's not the environment of the inside of a chain.

Bike Gremlin

For me, melting the wax, removing the chain etc. is not worth the time and hassle.

Wax lubricants with a solvent that are applied like oil (White Lightning and the likes) are very expensive in my country - one ~ 100 ml bottle costs as much as a new 8-speed chain.

That aside, I would argue that wax has its pros and its cons - it's not better than oil in every possible way.

Having said all that, people use what they like, everyone has their preferences - that's what it boils down to IMO.