i have long thought of mine as my little battle fleet. I just need to fully embrace and walk around all the time in the right looking uniform as an adjusted star fleet operator. And change my last name to kirk.

Yes indeed. I am still chasing my follow up questions to their lubricant choice criteria because really running any wet lubricant in all conditions with no maintenance other than the odd re lube - at years end they will be replacing everything anyway. Things will be less crapped out, and less likely to be presenting issues to customers (ie components too worn then risks of chain failure increases, but also chains dropping, jumping under load, chain suck if lubricant starts to struggle etc etc) - so for sure customer experience for a year could be much better upheld with one choice vs another. And yes on the project list is looking at testing various on bike quick flush clean methods - this would be relatively easy to test for effectiveness, just holy batman when / how to fit in. one day. And i think with kmc not having a lubricant (Go wax is just re bottled squirt -99.99% certain of this) - they do not have a competing product in what the fleet operator is looking for, however why they have sign off approval is a mystery. On what basis would they give their approval or not currently mystifies me.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Potentially (too) careful about legal things? Don't really get why anything that tests well would be so out of spec to really give problems in that area. If it tests well, it should be by definition a suitable legally defendable choice. And if a chain manufacturer "blocks" the use of a lubricant that is more performant and makes their product more durable, they should get in trouble with consumer rights.

Resources - did you see the update on where i am at with test machines? at this stage first spot for an open test is looking around march 2025. If olive oil is the most requested product to test then sure, but i highly doubt that is the lubricant most people want to know about...... There is nothing stopping people testing and reporting - ie how many kms to a genuine 0.5% on olive oil? give it i whirl and let me know! :)

yes that is definitely next check with silca and CS - i have a strong feeling they use more sophisticated lab analysis - something i may end up needing to do (ie send samples to X test lab) - but the parameters of that would need to be done correctly - it is expected the cleaning solution will become more heavily contaminated, we really need to assess the chain - so it would need to be sections of chains sent in etc. Knowing exactly how silca and CS assessed will be very handy - and ideally there must be a way to get the powder to work.....

yes, i have suggested that! Even just domestique would be brilliant for them, they wouldnt need black diamond.

1. No, there is always some wear, but the damage you do increases non-linearly as the chain wear rises. If you go well above 0.5%, you will probably have to replace chain and casette at once, as the casette will be too worn for a new chain to fit. 2. Yes to both of those. It also guarantees you will get at least 2 chains worth of life out of your drive train components. If you were to first "use up" one chain, there is a risk you notice the first chain is worn over 0.5% too late. You also avoid the situation where you have a very unworn chain on a already pretty worn casette. At the end of the day, all drive train components are consumables, the question is not if, but when you will have to replace them, provided you keep cycling.

no cogs and rings will always wear, just much more slowly the closer the chain is to 0.0%, and also it is a bit dependent on ones riding. Ie if in dry road, and chain is not worn - the very small movement of roller against tooth surface will cause very very little wear. If riding in dusty offroad - there can be dust between roller and tooth surface, and as it settles into place - that tiny amount of movement but at high load and with dust in between - that will cause a tiny tiny bit of wear. But multiply this across millions of interactions over thousands of kms - the teeth will keep wearing. Having a lubricant that is very abrasive in between also does not help. Running something abrasive and past the wear tolerance where now the rollers are really sliding down the tooth face - wear is very rapid. Multiple chains can be very handy for some, but really only if keeping up with one chain is a bit of hassle, and also if simply using a top up compatible wax lubricant in between is not an option being used. High mileage, harsh conditions - for sure chains on rotation is a great way to go. Low to medium mileage, dry road conditions - its pretty easy for most to re wax as needed.

only better than one by the end of block 5...... Muc-off new advertising - better than cyclon?!

i think if my choice was chain with cyclon or belt, i would go belt.....

They've been trying to rebrand themselves from pronunciation cyc-lon to Cycl(e) - On, probably got something to do with this

Actually .. didn't you say that all bikes needed to be brought in for repair every year.. Looking at the performance of cyclon that might be related? Then imagine what the cost savings could be if they chose a better lube.

if I was you I'd clean that drive train right away and switch to... well, almost anything else is better, I guess. it's easy to say "oh I'm not going that far" and dismiss that wear because it takes such a long time, but that's about ⅛ of the distance that I put on my drivetrain at 3× the wear rate, just switching to Rock & Roll Gold would probably extend your chain-life by 2 years for you. and switching to wax immersion would extend it to like 16 years or something crazy... and you'll have saved enough lubricants and parts to buy a whole new bike before the end of that

Reminds me of 'Dragnet' kzbin.info/www/bejne/rGGtaXZjp9F5nK8 🙂

honestly at this time no chain should be topped off with any lubricant from Muc-off as all have tested poorly to extremely poorly, and there are SEVERE concerns around the honesty and integrity of their own inhouse testing and data (in my opinion, they have deliberately tested in a known incorrect manner that will produce terrible results for key competitors - see muc-off files part 2 video for full information - skip part one thats a rambling mess). Even without the carte blanche no for muc-off, no such lubricant from other brands should be applied either. You need a good wax lubricant if you are going to top off a wax chain. Other types are not compatible at all and will create issues.

@zerofrictioncycling992 Got it, ill stick to the waxing. Thanks for your advice and all your hard work.

Hey van! Silca Super Secret drip is nothing like Immersive waxing when it comes to treatment lifespan - it is MUCH shorter, especially in the wet. Really of all the top wax drip lubricants - SS drip would be for sure on the shortest lifespan side in wet conditions, and that is assuming it has had a full set time (silca recommend 24hrs before a wet ride if possible). IM waxing is what is the focus here. The top tested IM waxes have excellent treatment lifespan (ie i do a lot of offroad riding in winter here, and typically have no problems at all with treatment lifespan on wet days for rides 3 to 4 hours long on mtb / gravel bike) and are then the most easily reset post wet ride. All of the top IM wax compatible drips like ss drip, ufo drip and TTAW will struggle for outright treatment lifespan in wet as they are a much thinner coating of lubricant vs IM wax. Remember at least half of what you are applying with such is going to be water as the carrier. Double coating can really help (ie apply, work in, allow at least a few hours or more set time, re peat and allow over night set time) but may not always be practical. There are very long lasting wax drips like say SMoove - but then they are not an easy reset. Hence why in general IM waxing is number one - it will last, it will be lowest friction and wear, and it is by far the most easily reset if one can simply re wax. if IM waxing not for you, and the cleaner / easy to clean wax drips like SS drip not working for you - then for sure you need to go to something that lasts - but then you just need to work out how to maintain that post wet riding so that you still have something that is a lubricant in your chain vs something turning into liquid sand paper which will happen very quickly post wet riding if not flush cleaned and reset.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 That is extremely clear! Thank you so much for clarifying my thoughts.

Potentially - but honestly this is not well tested by anyone as far as i am aware. How soft or not wax drips set varies a fair bit, and the raced powder is developed with the more solid immersive waxes vs wax drips. It for sure be a negative, but whether you would get positive for the effort is currently unclear.

from memory when i did a chain wear checker check, the park tool cc4 was pretty accurate for 0.5%, i have a sram one too now so will check with 0.5% - i'll be back

@ think I saw a table from you somewhere where it stated 0.6 for the sram chainchecker. I checked again on my chain but with the parktool it really does not fall into the 0.5 but with the sram it does on what is supposed to be 0.8 Curious on what your result with the Sram will be now

@@akampgerard and yes you are pretty much right - i just had another play and with just a little bit of force i can get my 0.5% chain up on the 0.8% sram mark. I would have rated it 0.6 just off a bit of feel in that it takes a little force (albeit small) vs "drop in" to that mark. However - overall i think its really close enough to have sram 0.8% basically equal to other tools 0.5% if both yours and mine are doing that - so thats just overall a bit confusing by sram....

@@zerofrictioncycling992 yes exactly, for me it is even that the Sram chain checker warns me earlier than the Parktool CC-4, I have to use little force on my chain to drop it in with the CC-4 and no force with the one from Sram. That makes Sram is contradicting themselves I would say. They can't say their own chain checker is not an approved one, they in fact mention their own TL-CNTL-WEAR-A1 as well as the Parktool CC-4 as approved chain checkers for the 0.8 (while the Parktool only has 0.5 and 0.75)... And now I read on the SRAM website that for Eagle drivetrains they advise replacing the chain before it reaches 0.80% of wear to extend cassette and chainring life, so here they at least say sooner ... But for flattop chains like Sram Red Axs and Sram Transmission with flattop chains apparently to do it when it reaches 0.8% and not sooner. By the way for SRAM RED AXS I don't see the line (anymore) where they are saying that it leads to premature wear when you replace the flattop chain sooner than at .8% Only a referral to approved chain checkers. Hope in the end you can get a clear answer from them and also on why their own chain checker, which says >0.8%, then measures 0.5 or at the most 0.6 instead of the 0.8 they are advising.

you do for race powder for sure. Some don't wish for the race powder application, or if doing at home - don't bother with that step. So sans race powder then yes normal handling of chain is fine, just as always in (hopefully) normal behavior washing hands before eating etc will ensure not eating any wax. The top waxes are not toxic as such, but they are not food grade anymore due to additives. if one ingests 0.000000001gram of ws2 from fingers it is unlikely to be any issue over decades of handling wax chains, but just in general washing hands before eating so to ingest less stuff from handling things (micro plastics etc) is a good plan, and takes care of any chain handling on any product. But race powder is a faffy clean.... :)

yes i have been tinkering away on what should be absolutely definite document about how is bearing test is utterly preposterous. In my opinion there is no way that testing took place, the data is just made up - stay tuned, i will cover on YT - i have done a couple vids but this one will be scripted from the doc so will be covered better and really leave zero doubt with anyone who has more than 3 working neurons and not a blind sycophant! I dont think he has any actual expertise in bearings. He may be (maybe....) an engineer of some type - but just decided to use that qualification to speak as an authority so as to step into a side hustle in cycling. He doesnt have the experiences riding in many different cycling types and the actual maintenance that comes with that to know what works and what does not. He just had a sales angle to try and so put some numbers in a graph that suited that (again, in my opinion, but yeah, if this document doesnt clearly show that, i don't know what will. From an engineering and knowledge perspective his stuff is a house of cards - it falls over at first scrutiny, he just relies on that most of his audience just tacitly believes him).

Hi Ren, yes i am not sure what their drip wax is yet, but it is 99.9% certain the IM wax they are using for their factory wax chains is Optimize bike wax. Unfortunately i have no idea when i would be able to test unless they book in for a test as testing bookings are pretty flat out. However i have no concerns about Optimize being a good wax, and that anyone starting off with a pre waxed chain from any reputable mfg then that is going to be a great start vs factory grease whether that person is planning on continuing waxing / going to a good wax drip / or going to a good wet lube. I also wouldnt have any concerns with compatibility - whilst we dont know, it is likely that they are also using a good quality paraffin wax base as the main base - but even if their wax base is a bit different, by the time one uses that factory wax treatment to the point where it is due for a re wax, there is only about 1gram of wax left on a chain, not enough to worry about with then moving to a different wax like silca, mspeedwax, rex etc from then on. The only thing that really had wippermann lower fs some others in the chain wear checking was higher roller wear. When just looking at the elongation wear only - they were right up there. Im not too concerned about a bit higher roller bore wear, and that was an accelerated test (bad lubricant) - it wouldnt be much of an issue if using a good lubricant that protects against wear better. It may still happen more over time vs some other chains but not enough to worry about at all if replacing at recommended 0.5%, overall wippermann seem to be a quality chain option

@@zerofrictioncycling992 KMC also now selling pre-waxed chains with their 'GOwax' treatment. Be interested on your thoughts on these also

Probably not enough that your over the counter power meter with a .5 to 1 percent margin of error can reliably detect it. The time spent doing the prep, hit the gym or do some core work, seriously, and I mean this with no sarcasm or hate either, I love optimizing stuff, but nope, not detectable and I'd guess we need more time on the body work more than anything. Unless it's just for kicks/fun, totally cool too, hit the gym so you can keep your body position better, it'll matter more.

An important bit is running the chain in pre-race, 20-30 minutes should get it closest to its sweet spot (talking UFO chains here which i have experience with - UFO chains have had a brief run in, so its basically race ready out the box.). From a freshly dipped chain to its sweet spot you might be looking at 3+ watts drop, and this quickly drops down (within 10 minutes, nearing its lowest loss after 20-30 min) and you could be looking at around 1 maaaaaybe upwards to 2 watts improvement. Depending on the wax and chain. A well broken in (worn) chain is "faster" than a brand new chain for an example. UFO chains have a lengthy break in performed before being waxed. And yes, you can do other things that make more of a difference but knowing you have the best of everything going for you is mentally important too. Case in point, a national championship time trial was decided by 100ths of a second (from memory, could have been 10ths or 1000ths), the winner had an aero cage on his OSPW system, the "loser" did not. So difference between nr 1 and 2. Worth it? For top athletes for sure.

@@TGMvideo Thank you

@@akiofearth You're welcome, hope it wasnt too chaotic, i typed my thoughts :D

Alas precise figures for a lot of models are not there, but going off the old friction facts days + ceramic speed - on average it is around 1w vs an ultrasonic cleaned and waxed chain, but vs factory grease it will be around 3 to 5w.

16:05 ends here

oh ffs lol, will try to fix over weekend if i get mo!

@@zerofrictioncycling992😂

@@zerofrictioncycling992That’s a bingo

yeah i dont know why i thought 16 would be fine when i bought computer, i guess cos i was moving up from 8!! :)

@@zerofrictioncycling992 what are people doing with their memory use?! i'm on lxqt nixos occasionally cutting 4k@50 video using losslesscut, limit my open tabs to 8, and i honesty don't remember the last time i went above 4 gigabytes full

very correct!

hahaha yeah - i think he just for got to mention the oil as synergetic or synerg-E :). And yep as much as proponent of IM waxing as i am as it is just absolutely simply better in every way, i cant honestly say if i had to frequently ride in very very cold temps if i would wax or if i would switch to oil. If the chain is a drag for hours to break in, that would be a drag. I would trial installing warm - but i dont know if that would work sufficiently. I personally wouldnt have the time or faff to break in on an ergo first before doing my ride. I dont know how much adding 20ml of synergetic helps the break in in such temps, i only know the breaking of my olfactory system that this does. Alas it is something that i cannot directly test and advise which is a shame - but i keep gathering experiences from those who do - and it is a little mixed. I do think there is a place for a specific freezing winter wax that is soft at sub zero temps.... and that smells nice :)

Sure, but in realistic terms - it is an investment in saving $ in the longer term. lets say running 2 chains on rotation ensures you get 2 chains to a $380 dura ace cassette vs if you only ran one chain you ended up with one chain to the cassette. So you $90 chain spend - you could have instead invested that $90 in the stock market and you did really well and got a 10% return on investment - so you got $9 return on investment by not spending on inventory and put that money to work. Vs the $90 spend that returned $380 so a 422% return. If your cassette is a lower level cassette costing less, the return will be less, but it would have to be a pretty cheap cassette to not come out ahead vs investing the $. If it is a $700 axs red cassette or $1100 t-type cassette - the advantages of ensuring multiple chains to cassette sure is a wise one. I have always said it MAY be a good option especially if your components are higher tier and thus more expensive, and especially if riding a lot in harsh conditions where many are easily caught out zooming past 0.5% wear mark. Simply one should weigh up the benefits or not for their own riding, it is simply an option that for many fitting those criteria is worth considering and it is genuinely a smart way to roll. Saving circa $100 to then have to spend hundreds more some months later is a false economy. And running two chains on rotation will usually extend lifespan of chain rings, pulleys etc - so the savings for the investment can be easily higher / much higher than outlined above.

yes, yes and yes. Hopefully i came across balancing the middle ground of "this may help for your winter break in if that is a struggle, and may help with your wax longevity in harsh wet if you need longer, and or if it is going to help lessen the risk of rusting if you cant follow the other tips to prevent that" - with this is not really my favored path vs other options such as endurance chip, installing chain warm etc. I get where he is coming from, and it genuinely might be worth the trade off for some winter cycling for some cyclists so its worth covering, but i would only consider doing this if the other options for some reason were not going to work for you. To properly weigh up this option we need to see some data on just how much extra longevity it brings in harsh wet conditions, how much extra rust protection etc. And i honestly dont think it will make the wax that dirty - but..... until i try 20ml in wax i dont know. The Hot wax X hack recommended by josh at the time was 10 drops of synergetic so a much lower amount - and that did help the break in a bit, but as X is so long lasting already, it was impossible to gauge anything in field test at the time with regards to doing anything on that front. I do remember the smell of the wax very, very well however. 20ml on syn in your wax, that is going to be hell of trip for ones nostrils!

it would be extraordinarily unlikely that it is fake as they are a reputable retailer. They are a big store so their stock ordering is a pretty locked in system and for shimano they will be ordering from shimano. There will be little incentive for the purchasing officer to shave some more profit by going to alibaba. There are videos on YT that take you through visually what to look for on both the packaging and the chain for genuine vs shimano so you can easily check - but odds are something more obvious will have caused the noise and wear issue, the most likely being lubricant / maintenance. What are you using at the moment?

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Yes I reckon so as well. Must be a problem with something else, such as rear deraileur or maybe a crankset... Or maybe even a frame issue, who knows? I am using molten speedwax new formula.

If you still have the packaging then the QR code phone app check may help ? Do a search for ' shimano en-AU information anti-counterfeit ' . I'm assuming they do this now for chains ? You might be able to check them in a shop but only 3 scans are allowed. More than 3 checks result in a 'caution' notice so there is potential for 'shop checks' to be abused !