Stripper and campy 10t

[@georgebirddrums]

I was thinking about this in the giro mountain TT. Sure the thing about 10t is not about gross efficiency at all times, but efficiency when it matters. You need the gear range to put power down on te descents at a reasonable cadence, but descents are limited by rider skill and aero more than power. Where power output efficiency matters and will result in taking time on other riders is on the climb. Roglic was in 40/42, G was in 34/34. And maybe narrow wide levels the playing field. But it did strike me that 10t is more about gear range for 1x and big tooth count efficiency when climbing

[@georgebirddrums]

So found a higher res image of the results that I could read... and narrow wide obviously makes more of a difference than I thought

[@mrlotfi]

Thanks. The points are well made! I'm totally onboard with mental side of it as well as physical. Physically I feel the loss when I'm on my bike but mentally ... oh ... I even would not be able to sleep well if I even think my drivetrain has any losses (just like you demonstrated with BB) and there might be a solution for it😊

[@amoney9210]

I don't doubt that the efficiency from the bigger chainrings and sprockets outweighs the miniscule weight savings from the smaller chainrings and sprockets. However, at what point would the extra weight of something outweigh the efficiency gains? For example, I know that having a water bottle is more aero than not having a bottle. However, a full water bottle weighs quite a bit more than not having one.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

weight difference for such components to be larger is absolutely dwarfed by the efficiency. Vs say a 48t ring, most gear inches in middle of cassette will be circa 2 to 3w higher loss vs a 52t. Cannondale did a lot of focus on weight for the launch of the system six aero bike, which is heavier, but much more aero than a "climbing bike". They released that for most bike + rider combo, 1kg extra bike weight, on a 10% gradient, requires 3w more power. So even on a 10% gradient, larger rings and cogs - maybe adding 100 grams? so 0.3w more on 10%, down to basically 0.0 on level ground, vs 2w+ lesser effciency ALL the time - up hill or flat. It is not even a contest re larger vs smaller and slightly lighter. new state of the art drivetrains and huge expense simply should not be taking a step backwards in efficiency vs previous. It is to save them mfg cost, but at negative impact to consumer, and it is hard to see where that cost saving is being passed on...

[@Membrillo81]

I know a bigger enemy than small chainrings: the 15, 20, 25%, and more, gradients that I have to ride in almost any ride I do in the mountains around Taipei. So, I'll keep my 46/30 chainrings. But I will happily blame the efficiency losses every time I suffer to bring my ass up a steep gradient. Of course, we're talking about different needs: my need is just to enjoy my cycling, I don't have to win anything.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

For sure - smaller rings are a great option for some, and you wont ever be able to measure in your riding any difference in efficiency. The main thrust is that for latest and greatest and very expensive groupsets, the masses should not have a step back in efficiency force on them. Smaller rings and 10t should be an option, not the standard.

[@jamespage7182]

I’ve been running 10T since 2020 and enjoy the flexibility of having the same rollout as a 55-11 with my 50/37 and the same rollout whilst still in the big ring as a 39-26 when running the 10-33 cassette. I got caught out whilst visiting for TDU this year on the SASI ride with a 46/33 and spent 45 mins in the 10T. It was fine.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

absolutely - again you wont notice it in reality - it is too small a difference. You dont notice bigger differences by say wearing aero socks over cotton socks, even though again - it is there. But the reality is, it is less efficient, and should that be the path for the latest and greatest groupsets, at rather large cost?

[@jamespage7182]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 agreed. I recognise the loss is there but I’m prepared to take it for the superior ranges and in the 1x systems, superior chain retention. That said, if I had my time again and didn’t have to buy a new front mech, I’d have gone for bigger front rings

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

@@jamespage7182 yes absolutely - again no one will be able to determine a difference in the losses in their riding - and so all just ride super and its good times. However at the highest levels, it is taken into account, and larger rings demanded. My stance is simply that we should not be getting, in reality - due to indisputable physics and maths and logic, and well, reality - a less efficient drivetrain vs previous - due to machining cost savings for them, that are hardly being passed on to consumer. The smaller rings and thus move to 10t is for their benefit, not ours. I should have put an analogy along the lines of - lets say currently conti gp 5000 TT edition is 7.5w loss and $150. Conti bring out a new GP 5000 TT race edition. It is now 9.5W loss due to them saving some mfg costs, but now costs us $180. I would not call that a win for the consumer of the gp5000 TT race edition etc.

[@kidsafe]

The 10t enables increased range with an allowance for an additional 1t jump towards the middle of the cassette where racers will spend most of their time…especially if one ends up spending more time with a straighter chainline. To me that is a worthwhile tradeoff in mass-start racing.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

The exact same thing can be achieved with an 11t for the same number of cogs you just end up with a larger largest cog. As all cogs are going to be at least 1 tooth larger if the smallest is an 11t, it costs the more in material and machining, same with larger rings. They are not delivering a benefit to you in range / jumps - they are delivering cost saving to them - which is passed on where.....?

[@kidsafe]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 A Campy 10-27 has 10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17 for 1t jumps. A Shimano 11-30 has 11-12-13-14-15-16-17... one fewer. They could add the 18 cog, but then the remaining cogs would probably have to be 20-23-26-30. That 2023 is a 15% jump. Even a 1719 is 11.8%. Like I said, I'll take the additional 1t jump in the middle of the cassette that Shimano doesn't currently offer...and can't practically offer.

[@wtran87]

@@kidsafe if a 48-10 is roughly the same as 53-11, and 48-27 is roughly the same as 53-30, and you give them both 12 gears to go through that range, how would one have any noticeable gear ratio differences to the other? If we're nitpicking, the 1T jumps on a smaller chainring has larger percentage ratio changes than the 1T jumps on the larger chainring. Ie going from 48-12 to 48-13 is 7.7% reduction, but 53-13 to 53-14 is a 7.1% reduction

[@kidsafe]

@@wtran87 You’ve missed the point. While the gear ratio changes are slightly bigger for each 1t jump, you get one more useful 1t jump toward the middle of the cassette. With Campy you get 48x16 to 48x17. With Shimano you get 53x17 to 53x19. Again, I’ll take that additional 1t jump for my race weekends.

[@wtran87]

@@kidsafe I guess this also comes down to personal preference - my interest in gear ratio changes is in time trials, so everything 17T and below are what count, and once I'm going higher than 17t I'm more likely to be climbing, (I find I'm less picky about having an exacting cadence when I'm climbing). I think also because of my cadence, I don't find myself riding beyond 53-17 in my local races (at 95RPM that's ~37kph). In the end though I'm still on 11spd Shimano so I don't even have the 16T cog to work with on my cassette lol

[@fatpinarellorider]

Hmm. I see what you are talking about re smaller chainrings w.r.t. wear and friction. However, I'm personally going to smaller [outer] chainring mainly because 53T is too big a gear for me to push at the moment, and it means my chainline is very skewed as I'm half way up the cassette. It's more of a fitness issue though, because I haven't downsized my cassette in a corresponding manner. And I'd rather not upsize my cassette too much either, because I find the jumps between gears to big. Speaking of that, one thing I do like about the new campy wireless group is that the spacing of the cassettes is closer together than before. But I see even the 10-25T cassette lacks an 18T cog. If you ask me, range isn't everything, and they should be putting more gears or cogs in the middle of the cassette where the majority of people spend there time. Now if you happen to live in the mountains where it's either all up or all down, then sure, I can understand having a wider range cassette. I won't be buying the new group anyway. Too expensive.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

yes for sure - smaller rings definitely suit many riders - and you will never notice the lesser efficiency. Thats why compact came out when the norm was 53/39. The main thrust for me is that for latest greatest groupsets, they should not be taking a step back in efficiency - things should be stepping forwards. And that a step backwards should not be forced on everyone. There should definitely be smaller ring options, but there should also be larger ring options. If they want to have a 10t to keep range for smaller ring options, make that an option. Really for bulk of cyclists, the reality is it will not matter at all. but for serious racers, it will matter. For tt riders and triathletes, it will matter. For professionals at WT level, they are unlikely to accept those smaller rings. On principal, we should not be getting less efficient drivetrains on latest and greatest groupsets vs previous iterations. All aspects should be moving positively forwards.

[@amoney9210]

I was also wondering, how important is it to have the most frequently used gears in the middle of the cluster vs the size of the chainrings and cassette? For example, the range of the Ultegra R8000 11-32 11 speed cassette is similar to the Ultegra HG-800 11-34 cassette. However, the 6th gear in both of these cassettes is quite different, 18t for the former, vs 21t for the later.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

it depends how important any chain line friction losses are for you. Ie for world tour time trials, a lot of focus is put on chain ring and cassette range to get hopefully circa 80% of tt (flat / rolling tt vs hill) in as straight a chain line as possible. For "normal" cyclists - where most will have just one chain ring and one cassette - typically overall range is what dominates vs chain line. The middle cogs and ratio's if there is a small difference between one and another set up, you could never detect that. But for some set ups - grinding away in a 46t ring to a 52t cog at an extreme chain line will be pretty bad losses vs if one went smaller and was thus able to stay in the 2nd largest cog vs the 52, so might be a 42 / 45 or 42 to 42 at 2nd cog - if one has a a ride or race where they will spend over an hour in such climbing gears - they could be saving easily multiple watts if pushing ring / cog sizes and thus chain line angle etc - and at those extremes they rarely run nicely.

[@bpfastfeet25]

Can you discuss the hypothetical option for drivetrain manufacturers to offer the opposite trend to consumers and make the smallest cog in the rear a 12T? What are the gains to be had there by eliminating the 11T (assuming larger chainrings)?

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Yes great question - overall for really most cyclists - 11t is really a great sweet spot. to get same range with 12t with same jumps, it can mean that the largest cogs are getting pretty big. This can make some adjustments more tricky for road mechs - ie B-Tension and parallelogram are designed for a certain range / rate of step down, and once start getting outside of that range (ie if trying to get mech to stretch to accommodating a 36t vs 32) - shifting is compromised, AND all cogs larger = heavier and more material, more cost to machine etc - so there is a sweet spot. For sure some riders would prefer to have only a 12 or 13 or event 14t smallest cog as they never use the 11t, and dont want the range expanded they want a tighter range across the cassette for giving up a small cog they dont use. I would like to see more options for users able to customise their cassette ranges like this, but again for mfg cost and packaging costs and everyone stocking more sku's in one area etc - we are stuck somewhat on this.

[@fatbloaterdave]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 For a while last year on my Crit bike I ran a 58 tooth single ring with a 14-28 Junior cassette. Mostly just for the giggles. but it worked out pretty well.

[@scottwebsdale]

The only reason the 10t is annoying is because the have to take out a cog in the middle of the cassettrr, giving bigger jumps between the most often used gears.

[@stuartmisfeldt3068]

Campy needs to backwards compatible with the 11-32 cassette along with making larger chainrings.

[@windscreen91]

I would love someone to re-do that Velo News test with the latest SRAM Force AXS 2x vs. Shimano Ultegra, or Red vs Dura-Ace and similar gear ratios. That old Velo test used SRAM 1x with 11 speed, and not the current flat top chain.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

it wont make a massive difference - the flat top chains are also not fast. Sram just is not grand at making fast chains. So the key differences / losses between the two will remain similar. Smaller rings for road is just not great overall vs larger rings and larger cogs from an outright efficiency standpoint. Small ring simply = greater chain tension and more articulation at both the ring and the smaller cog required for desired gear inches - with both those increase articulations taking place under greater tension load. There is no getting around that. And the penalty is higher if the chain is slower, so whilst flat top vs old sram 11spd might a touch faster, it is not enough to make any meaningful difference in this testing example. The reason for sram going smaller was 1) weight but mostly i think 2) mfg cost - less teeth to have to machine for both rings and cassettes as well as less metal, which over tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands , probably millions - of rings and cassettes = significant savings adding up. Which going by cost of components, does not appear to be passed onto customer. For the customer, stepping backwards in efficiency vs 11spd for the latest groupset is not a pro. I am fine for small rings to be AN OPTION, but the 48/32 etc launched should never have been standard, with larger 54/38 or 52/36 basically impossible to get or if possible, EXHORBITANTLY expensive. Standard 52/36 should be the benchmark with smaller and larger options easily obtainable and sanely priced, along with at least a couple of cassette ranges. Normal joe might love his 48 / 32, but racer joe really wont want them. A friend of mine really wanted to buy a factor hanzo to upgrade tt bike, but the only option was sram axs with 48/32. for a TT bike. Nuts. Absolutely Nuts. No sale - went for cervelo with shimano.

[@saltycycling]

I can understand the argument of the chain stripper appealing to people who, for whatever reason, can't get their hands on usual solvents. Completely disagree with what you said about its value though. Where I live in the UK, 5 litres of white spirit is £10. At 250ml per procedure that works out to £0.5 per application. This chain stripper is £50, it would have to last for 100 applications, just to have the same value. Since this is a 120ml bottle, that's 1.2ml of product per application, which doesn't sound feasible.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

ah yes if you can get for that price for sure you are correct. But in many countries mineral turps / white spirits and metho etc are easily over $5 a litre, so cost to prep a chain would be circa $10. In those situations it would be less cost, and easier - to use chain stripper / UFO clean. Ceramic speed claim 1 litre of UFO clean can prep circa 30 chains, i imagine stripper will have a similar claim. To be cost parity at say even $75 a litre delivered, they only need to prep 7 or 8 chains to achieve parity, and 10 chains to be ahead.

[@BeatzarrAudios]

what about 1by on gravel bikes? most gravelbikes ride on a 40t chainring. is there a better solution to it?

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

for gravel - you need to achieve the range that suits your riding. So if you are running 1x, and you have X cassette, you then just need to match that to the right size chainring for your climbing / riding. Again you will not be able to physically detect or measure the efficiency difference between running a 36 or a 40 or a 44t. It is something that only really is considered by marginal gainers at highest levels - where they will try to go as large as feasible for the gear range they need (and or go 2x). The main thrust for this discussion really is that for road - should efficiency be taking a step backwards for latest and greatest, and very expensive - groupsets.

[@Opt_out_of_this]

We're talking about marginal gains here. It would be nice to see the data watts, chain tensions, friction loss, etc. when in these 10 tooth high watts situations. Do you have the data yet? Update: chain waxing with Silca using a insta pot 4 qt to heat it up is a game changer. Takes 15 minutes, chain is always clean, wear is nil, and I'm using 4 chains. 2 road bike 2 on my mountain bike. I'm reusing the quick links up to 5 times with no problems. I'm so intrigued the cycling world hasn't taken this clean_zero_friction method by storm yet. It's definitely a game changer.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Hey Glenn - the data on the chart there by Jason smith of Friction facts fame is actual tested data. The short version is; > You will never detect such losses in your riding > The losses are physics /maths / logic and TESTED - with extremely accurate sensors - proven. It really is not in dispute. > Whilst you dont spend much time in the 10t to get max losses, the fact is - smaller rings are higher loss, and will always have you in smaller cog for the desired gear inches etc - on average in most of cassette range it is going to be 2 to 3w. > We should not be going backwards in efficiently losses for latest and greatest and VERY expensive groupsets. All areas should be moving forwards. ANd there is no reason for us to go backwards - it is a reason that only helps the mfg in reducing their costs - but it i rather difficult to see where that is being passed on to us. A fictional example is a bit like - A conti GP 5000 TT edition is 7.5w loss and $150. Now conti bring out a their latest greatest GP5000 TT race edition, that is 9.5w loss due to the fact they are making it from a cheaper casing material, but it is now $180. That is not a step forward for the consumer. Again any world tour teams - to consider running - just like as with sram - the first thing they would demand is larger rings - and it is not for range purposes - the range is there. So - should they be getting a yeah thats fine pass, for giving us a less efficiency, for more money, on their latest EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLAR groupset. Even though i could never detect it if i rode it - just the move in that direction offends me. Our latest stuff should be giving us improved efficiency, not worse, so they can save a buck. I bet sram a friggin pumped they now dont have to field the above crap from people like me by themselves anymore hahahahahaha

[@Opt_out_of_this]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Now I understand what you were saying. Step backwards in technology (know) and at a higher cost. It needs to be a balance of front and back sizing plus optimize the chain line angles too. I get it. Just want to emphasize how much cleaner and satisfying it is to use immersive waxing with additives. Game changer clean, low friction, and most importantly no wear in the drive train in practicality. I can change a chain in about a minute now. A quick rinse in alcohol gets the nasty out if any on my mountain bike. My bike frame and parts are dirtier then the chain now. In conversation with fellow riders it's like you're weird or talking about politics if you mention you're a waxer. A study in psychology I guess, set in their ways or dripping on muck off makes them feel like they're solving the problem when in reality they're making it much worse. Like mining for precious metals to make batteries when they're charging them with coal power. :) :) :) Thanks Adam and how did the carbon wheels that failed turn out? I've seen several gravel race DNF's frames breaking too at desert gravel in Fruita Colorado. Another sales job, not built to take rough roads these gravel bikes, I road my mountain bike and had a great time passing most of these broken gravel bikes. Unbound was way worse.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

@@Opt_out_of_this Yes are very correct there! Mtb demographic is honestly quite fascinating. Overall they have by far the most to gain re friction / parts wear savings for going wax - and the smart / logical ones get it asap - but then much, much more of MTB just dont get chain lubrication and how much it means, and why waxing will be king offroad - at all. Just listen to podcasts of the likes of Just riding along and their understanding of wax / chain lubrication - what a train wreck - and yet there is a huge part of mtb that think just like that. It is changing, not only due to cost of components kick starting more to switch on some logic circuits - but simply the never ending drive and push re wax lubricants from many top mfg's. I would say roughly 9 out of 10 new high profile lube launches have been wax based in last few years. It is very much like say 5 years ago, no money was really being put into tubular, all R&D money on that front was being put into tubeless as that was the clear future direction. The benefits of top waxes / wax lubes over wet lubes -for a part that operates completely exposed to contamination - similarly the vast majority of R&D in this space by mfg's who know what they are doing - it is into wax / wax lubes - not wet lubes. Those mtb riders dripping on M-O etc for offroad - they may as well drip on some cutting fluid.

[@shafiqjan1474]

Waxing my chains is my plan from now on, 4 MTBs and a Monster Gravel will all get the treatment with the next chain swap. I am old so my chainrings are really small so I like what I'm in for.

[@ridefast0]

Thanks Adam - I particularly enjoy watching your giant hands in these videos, from where do you get your super-size bar grips?

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Thanks Ride fast! and hahahaha maybe the camera makes my hands look big? or maybe they are big, i do wear size large gloves.... buy super size bar grips - i am assuming just he silicone grips on my handlebars? I use wolf tooth fatpaw - i find the thicker silicone grips give by far the most shock absorption - i get sore hands (i think i am starting to get arthritis in hands :( ) on longer mtb days / xc marathon races - but they fair far better with those grips vs all others i have tried over the years.

[@terrywalker7127]

Your friend can buy the Hanzo frame set and use a Rotor crank set and rings.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

yes - frameset wasnt avail at the time on their website, but definitely a build with frameset would be the go. But many people want to buy a bike ready to rock, and also - when spending circa 6k on a groupset - would also like that to be a very efficient groupset. One that is at least as, if not more - efficient than their previous groupset. Paying more for a groupset that is less efficient than the previous 11spd groupsets, for cost saving reasons for the mfg, that it is hard to see how that is being passed on to consumer - it is just not a great deal for the consumer. She would love for instance to be able to puchase that with a 54/38 chainset. This makes a lot more sense on a tt bike. Who, who wants a tt bike with a 48 large ring?

[@glennmorgan8691]

Thank you Adam for another interesting vid all fact no friction lol!!! I'm with you 100% on the wear rate of small chain rings.I have 2 chain eating ebikes 1 has a 15 tooth chain ring and the newer gen 4 has a 32 tooth cr,the 15 tooth cr with a shamano cn-e8000 chain ss hotmelt from new and got 300 kms before it hit .50 wear and the 32 tooth cr with xtr 12 speed chain and ss waxed from new has 2700kms on it and still not at .50 wear what a difference wow!!!!Adam what would you do with regards to rewaxing a chain would you use the new silca stripper(doesn't remove old wax)or run the chain trough the us cleaner to remove old wax and any grime locked into the old wax to keep all your wax goodness in the wax pot?Sorry for the long post!!!Cheers!!!

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

wow what - 300km on an xtr 12?? they are a pretty darn durable chain - something is not quite right there somewhere - even a 15t isnt going to do that by itself! Hmmmm For re waxing you generally do not do any cleaning - the re wax does that. Yes you bring some contamination into the pot, but remember vs what would be happening with a drip lubricant path - that contamination is diluted amongst hundreds of ml of lubricant vs 3ml on the chain. For mtb riding the easiest way to minimise contamination in wax overall is to go two pot method as demonstrated at 1hr 39 min mark on wax faq vid (i have to re do that vid...). Otherwise dry dust riding, wipe chain with alcohol of cloth before re wax (always do that anyway) to remove surface dust. Post wet ride just do some boiling water flush rinses to remove worst of contamination and dry. You will not track a benefit going deeper than that with solvents and US etc - you would do so if it was a dedicated race chain to ensure every fraction of a watt, but you will never get the payback just for training / riding. I also have a chain maintenance guide - instructions tab on website covering all ride types and lubricant types to reference as well :)

[@glennmorgan8691]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanx for your response Adam.The 15 tooth cr is an 11 speed the 12 speed xtr has 2700 kms and still going.I usually get 800kms out of the 11 speed with kmc's,I just put a new xtr 11 speed chain on it but I'll probably end up using a 12speed xtr chain on the 11 speed(I got this 12 speed swap from 1 of your video's)Cheers!!!

[@stevenleffanue]

Did you try this Silca solvent yet Adam? Any good?

[@Leo-gt1bx]

Would I notice the difference between a 40t chain ring and 42 cog vs a 32t chain ring and a 34t cog in terms of loss?

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

not likely. We are not very sensitive at all to detect losses even if its multiple watts. Ie 99 out of 100 riders in a blind test on a climb or flat would not be able to detect difference in an XC tire thats tested at 35w loss vs one thats tested at 25w loss, and whilst it would likely show up with a time difference if timed and power for both efforts very precise, again without a clock to tell us we cant tell which effort was 5 secs faster over 2km etc. So same with sram axs road riders - they can't tell there is circa 5w loss higher in a 48x10 vs a 52 x 11. Or if a chain that is running a meh lube and is 5w slower than a wax chain / good wax drip. It does make a difference, but we are not sensitive enough to directly detect such differences normally - only one who is extremely sensitive MAYBE able to tell circa 5w+ per 250w load. The 32t to 34t combo is also likely to be a less extreme chain line angle - so there will be a bit of an efficiency loss for the smaller ring / cog, but some efficiency gained back vs lesser chain line angle - so overall you wont get negative experience re oh wow this feels slower etc.

[@rolling-along]

What about the smaller chainring potentially allowing lower BB for the same ground clearance. Yes. I know you’d need shorter cranks, but hasn’t it been shown that crank length is also not much of a factor? Or is it?

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

If one needs that then yes for sure - ie gravity focussed mtb riders may indeed run a 30 or 32 vs a 34 or 36, and they tend to run 165 vs 175 cranks. Yes sort of re crank length and power. There are a lot of caveats involved - it is actually a pretty interesting area, i will have to do a vid on soon if i can. The longer crank does give you more mechanical leverage, so you have more "Torque", but power is torque x cadence - and to complete a larger circle with a longer crank - this impacts power generation & foot speed to generate force across the entire cadence, which is more easily done in a smaller circle which is more efficient - so you are giving up some outright torque in main power phase, but gaining other efficiencies re force applied throughout the full rpm. Typically shorter rank will mean higher cadence which means you gert same power for a slightly lower force as the increase in cadence of the smaller circle offsets this. However - in some mtb - imagine a very steep pinch where your cadence is going to be sub 50, your pedal stroke is for shit anyway, you cant just increase cadence - cadence is balls, in such instances a longer torque lever will be more advantageous. If you can attain an efficient / desired cadence via gearing - then shorter is often more desirable overall. Kind of imagine if you had very high resistance on the crank and but you were challenged to get it to turn, you would choose a longer lever to do this. But then to generate power so you had to get it spinning - then dynamics and decisions are different. Ie a tractor can pull a tree stump out and only be 30 hp, that a 500hp 4 cyclinder sports coupe would not be able to do without a lot of customisation.. But the tractor motor wont be able to drive that car to 250kmh. .Torque vs power requirements differ for different situations - in cycling in general erring on shorter is better - mostly - for most cyclists, but not always.

[@theriver8524]

So all this to say im taking a big loss running CX ranks (44-34) on my touring/gravel bike to get better range for all the hills in my area, correct?

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

No not at all. 1x is dominent for CX for a reason, and it is very suitable for a lot of gravel riders, and absolutely dominent for mtb - all for good reasons. Sometimes for some gravel riders 2x will be more efficient overall, but again, unless racing at a high level, you will never ever be able to measure a difference, i would not stress at all. It is possible depending on your riding and cogs you tend to use, cassette range and chain line angles - that 1x may overall be more efficient for some gravel set ups - the more time you are spending in a 40t in a largish cog in the rear with a good chain line may be time you are not spending in a 32t ring with smaller cog etc. It is very much an individual it depends, but as you would never be able to measure or feel anyway - never stress about it. The main point is that for road drivetrains - the move to small rings and a 10t is simply a step backwards in efficiency for no good reason for the consumer. It helps the mfg for production costs, but it is hard to see they are passing that benefit on. My strong view is that for the latest greatest groupsets, all things should be moving forwards, not backwards. We should not be paying more, for a known step back in efficiency, where there is no reason to take a known step back in efficiency. 2x for road situation is very different than 1x vs 2x for offroad / gravel.

[@thiemen.v]

Is there any evidence of wax performance in different (dry) weather conditions. I've noticed that in temperatures below zero°(C) the chain can take much longer to break in, and in hot weather the treatment seems not to last as long. I wonder if this is true or if I just think so.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Yes that is true. Top waxes are so fast because the wax surface is able to polish up to a high sheen, so it is an extremely slippery sliding surface, with very low stiction and no viscous friction. This takes much longer when the wax is very hard in very cold conditions, and then the wax can be more brittle which can affect treatment lifespan. At the moment - the world is really making great strides re yes - immersive waxing is king - and for a lot of easily logical reasons. But it is still a big step for many to make the change. The world is not really ready to have multiple wax blends - low melting point for cold climates so it is softer and easier, higher for very hot area's / seasons. At the moment, we have one - but to some degree, it is like having one set of clothes for winter and summer - they will not be as optimal all the time at certain times. There are so possible hacks to help those improve at home - but i need more test time to confirm.

[@vitalbikechains]

So, Adam, about the stripper. Do you have any plans to add this as another bath in your process due to its wax “adherence” properties?

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Not at this stage no unless i can test that it makes a clear difference. Overall we dont have any issues with adherence with existing prep - however i will be checking to see if it does help chains that have a lesser adherence (shimano) - and if it does, i would look to possible add that step - but it would cost more as even at w/sale it is expensive stuff, and i cant recycle it like i can mineral turps and metho via distillers. When prepping the volume of chains we prep - we wouldnt be able to absorb the cost of that product in existing pre prep prices for those chains which is pretty much by far the lowest globally for that level of prep.

[@10ktube]

Is it a safe assumption that noise coming from a drivetrain is energy loss? The reason I ask is because I recently started with a fresh chain, stripped it well, and was using SS drip wax as my only lube. I was excited. It seemed great for a ride (25 miles). Literally. Then it got loud. It wasn't malfunctioning, but was loud. And this is the pattern for the entire bottle I used. I bought new Squirt, I had given my old bottle away because it was so horrible. I wiped my chain clean, did Squirt, and I can get about 100 miles out of it in dry, road conditions, before it equals the noise from the SS. I'm wondering if the "ear test" is valid or not. Love the videos.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Mostly no, but sometimes yes. For chains in general silent = dampening = greater loss. Ie with wax, you have generally a solid lubricant in between metal parts. It is the fastest and most efficient, but has the least dampening. Put motor oil on your chain, it will be super quiet, but at a cost of viscous friction and stiction (and contamination gathering). However - if chain starts squeaking - that is metal on metal, and is definitely not optimal. SS drip can be quite short lifespan as it is very thin, it is hard to get a heavy coating on as past a small application amount, most then drips off chain onto floor. Ensuring apply as per silca instructions will help get more on, as well as ensuring full set time - but still it is overall probably one of the shortest lifespan treatments of the wax drip lubricants. From ZFC, most use on top of an immersive waxed chain in between re waxes, and it performs very well in that duty, but stand alone - depending on the chain, power, conditions, ride length etc - your situation is not unique - i think Silca need to make a tweak to make it easier to get a heavier coating on like say UFO drip. Squirt / smoove etc are much longer lasting waxes, they use a different wax base (we believe slack wax) which is longer lasting than very refined paraffing bases. There are offsets to that (maintenance in time - they are a tough clean). If not immersive waxing, and ss drip is too short a lifespan for your riding, for sure squirt or smoove may be a better option to suit - SS drip is really just a great one for waxers as it is super clean, super quick and easy to apply once used to how to do it, and can just re wax straight over with no cleaning maintenance first - but yep it has to be able to last the persons ride lengths which is not the case for everyone.

[@10ktube]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I have a bottle of Smoove in the garage as my next trial. You're spot on, squirt is a bugger to clean but definitely stays there longer. You know what else they need to address, all of the drip waxes I mean, is cure time. If they got it down to sub 10 minutes, people could carry a small bottle on mega rides and keep topped off while nature breaking, eating, etc.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

@@10ktube Yes - there is one that claims that (there are probably more, i just dont know of them) - Tru-Tension tungsten claim 10 mins - i need to try to test this properly though as that is a bold claim. However that is my go to when i grab a bike, have no idea how far the treatment has done, have a decent ride planned - i throw some of that on whilst i get ready. It has seemed fine - and i just re wax when back - but the re wax may be hiding extra contamination gathering i cant see by eye if it was still a bit wet. However, it hasnt been obviously still wet, so thats been good. but yes, i will try and test some of these set times shortly. stay tuned.

[@10ktube]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I'm anxious to hear, I'll see if I can grab some and try myself.

[@znicho]

What about more cross chaining from larger chainrings with same size cassette?

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

For road - until you get to basically cog 1, the efficiency gains of the larger ring / cogs offset the losses from cross chaining, and they are generally more efficient unless running big ring to biggest cog, in which case one should just change to small ring

[@robertpoll27]

With a smaller chainring the chain speed is lower, so you get fewer link articulations per minute which will cancel out at least some of the effect of the higher load won’t it?

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Sadly no - you do have that one aspect but there are 3 aspects of higher loss that gang up on that one.

[@knutstitan]

Taking it to extremes: how big can you make the chain ring before the efficiency decreases? I guess at some point, the friction from lots of teeth and links would in the end dominate and...loss would go up?

[@feedbackzaloop]

It won't: number of links doesn't matter for chain efficiency. Power is lost at teeth engagement and chain articulation. When it is freely moving between cogs and rests on a cog, chain doesn't loose energy.

[@knutstitan]

@Feedback ZA Loop yeah, in that case I suppose it would indeed take an extreme case to reduce efficiency (such as so much chain and chain ring weight that the whole bike got way heavier and tire friction increased)

[@emilvaradi9393]

Friction does not depend upon the size of the rubbing surfaces but rather their surface quality, this is what I learned in school about mechanics.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Thats a good question - i think the answer is definitely larger than what we can power. ie they use up to 64t in track riding. They could use a 50t and a smaller cog - but they go as large as possible. For road there becomes more and more issues as things get very large, as you need larger cogs / cassette range to ensure you are in middle of cassette for bulk of tt, and both larger rings and cogs will exacerbate chain line angles in the biggest cogs - so the gear inches for the avg speed the rider is likely to be doing dictates ring sizes and cassette range for TT's etc.

[@CatManDoSocial]

Great stuff as usual, Adam.

[@borano2031]

Campagnolo, put your info on the net!! A minute later.. my mouse doesn´t work.. my computer doesn´t work. Great vlog, Adam, mixes info and humour, doesn´t it?? Rgr

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

If only you knew how jinxed i was with IT / electronics!!! If i worked in IT support, a lot of workers would have computers flying out of office windows.

[@凸Bebo凸]

Always been a fan of small rings, the efficiency loss is super tiny and with small rings there is zero chance of snagging your pants on the chain and chain ring. 10t is a little weird though, those BMX microdrive sizes have issues.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

depends what you mean by super tiny. Its not an issue for most recreational riders, as you would not be able to notice. But as a physical comparison to larger rings, it is not super tiny per se. 52x11 vs 48 x 10 jason smith tested as a 6w loss difference. it will be less on other cogs, but you could say as an average circa 2 to 3w loss vs "normal" size rings. So its not a show stopper for most, but the main point is - this move ONLY benefits the mfg by saving production costs. it is not a benefit to 99.9% of cyclists who dont need 4 less chain ring teeth to avoid pants issues. When one is shelling out the big bucks for latest gen drivetrain - it is preferable for ALL aspects to be moving forwards. Drivetrain efficiency should not be going backwards. For the racing cyclist (and there are a lot of recreational cyclists), the first thing they will look typically is larger chainrings vs 48 or 50. And those options are not cheap. I have a friend who was looking at the factor hanzo TT bike - comes with axs red with 48/32 chain rings. On a TT bike. So that immediately ruled that bike off the list. So yep - for sure not an issue for many, but i just do not think it is correct to give the consumer a less efficient drivetrain if they do not wish it. Sure make 48/32 and 50/34 avail, but also make 52/36 and 54/40 easily available for force and rival level as well, and at sane prices.

[@凸Bebo凸]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Eh, big bike has been hurting the last 2 years. When you put a Fred on pro gears they just get sore knees and 40 RPM cadence. Selling junky BMX microdrive to roadies is a decent plan. The BMX world got tired of 8 9 and 10t cogs, might as well pass that onto roadies for a quick buck. 10t wears chains and cogs out super fast, pair that with 12 and 13 speed chains wearing out super early that is way more $$$ for bike companies. Pretty much every drivetrain tech beyond SKF Square Taper bottom bracket is designed to milk your wallet, might as well add tiny cogs into the mix.

[@凸Bebo凸]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Eh, big bike has been hurting the last 2 years. When you put a Fred on pro gears they just get sore knees and 40 RPM cadence. Selling undesirable BMX microdrive to roadies is a decent plan. The BMX world got tired of 8 9 and 10t cogs, might as well pass that onto roadies for a quick buck. 10t wears chains and cogs out super fast, pair that with 12 and 13 speed chains wearing out super early that is way more $$$ for bike companies. Pretty much every drivetrain tech beyond SKF Square Taper bottom bracket is designed to milk your wallet, might as well add tiny cogs into the mix.

[@凸Bebo凸]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Eh, big bike has been hurting the last 2 years. When you put a dentist rider on pro gears they just get sore knees and 40 RPM cadence. Selling undesirable BMX microdrive to roadies is a decent plan. The BMX world got tired of 8 9 and 10t cogs, might as well pass that onto roadies for a quick buck. 10t wears chains and cogs out super fast, pair that with 12 and 13 speed chains wearing out super early that is way more $$$ for bike companies. Pretty much every drivetrain tech beyond SKF Square Taper bottom bracket is designed to waste your cash might as well add tiny cogs into the mix.

[@bbqcrew1]

.5w loss vs 2.5w loss, where do you get these numbers from?

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Friction facts did a bunch of testing of bb's back in the FF days. A good bb is around 0.5w loss. The worst bb tested was 1.5w. I have felt a few pretty cheap bb's in my time that do not spin well, as well as many very good bb's - so would have some indication of what approx 0.5w is, and what would approx 1 to 2. I may be out by a bit of course - but i wont be out by enough to make the example not relevant. A 2w or 2.5w loss bb will not free spin well at all, and the majority of those who would remove chain and notice bb spinning not so well, take action. People almost always take action when they notice bearings not spinning well, even if the cost in most cases will be less that the difference in oh so many other things they would never notice if it made them 2 to 5w faster / slower. The main thrust is smaller rings, indisputably - increases losses, buy on average at least a couple watts, more so at the smaller end. And so even if you cannot notice in your riding, should the latest greatest groupsets coming to us be less efficient than previous, for them to save mfg cost - which hardly seems to be passed on to us. For 99.99% of cyclists, the increase in efficiency loss will never matter, nor be able to be measured - that doesnt mean mfg should get a pass on giving this path. All things should be moving forwards / improving on latest greatest 8k groupsets. Efficiency should not be going backwards.

[@mikesiemens4145]

How much am I losing with my 46/30 rando gearing? How much am i gaining by having a nicer chainline than I did with 50/34?

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Again you wont ever be able to notice or measure in you own cycling. I would not worry about it at all unless you are a very very serious racer. The main point is should our latest and greatest drivetrains be stepping backwards re efficiency - for the reason of mfg saving cost - and it is hard to see where this is being passed on to consumers.

[@Flip01]

From one strange boring old man to another keep up the good work👍🍻

[@thecatsonholiday5932]

Forget about my rock's, I'm still jenny from the block

[@bbqcrew1]

Has that 6w loss been confirmed in other tests, how was it calculated or measured. It sounds dubious

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

That was measured not calculated. Most definitely not dubious, Jason smith pioneered outright efficiency loss testing, it is THE gold standard. It is using Honeywell torque sensors that are 0.01w accuracy and over 6k usd each. I am not sure why it sounds dubious.... Again the physics, maths, and logic are kind of not in dispute here, and then you have the worlds most accurate efficiency test rig confirming known physics, math and logic. Pls expand on where they dubiousness comes from?

[@robertwhyte3435]

doesn't equal power into the chain result in the same tension?

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

There is greater mechanical leverage force from crank arm to the stop point, which is the chain on the chain ring. Power is a dynamic number, it the average force you exert on the pedals across a full revolution of the crank x by revolutions - same as for an engine - power = torque (turning force) x Rpm. For same power (force on pedals x cadence) - tension load on chain is greater the smaller the chain ring and thus greater leverage of crank arm over the chain.

[@robertwhyte3435]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thank you. So, hypothetically, if you were heavy on a steep hill putting out 800 watts at 60 rpms in a small gear, the tension would be less than 800 watts going fast at the same rpms... Gotta admit, that's hard to wrap my head around. Seriously, I'm feeling, not too bright at the moment. Sheeesh.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

@@robertwhyte3435 Ha no it is not a natural thought path - but yes there is a reason that chain snaps are very rare in sprints in the big ring, smaller cogs etc despite 1500 to 2000w, vs other more innocuous times. And easy way to think would be ok - i need to snap a chain. I can exert X max strength down on this lever (crank arm) to try and break it. Lets say the chain is being held static - it will not move - you will not be able to rotate the chain ring / cog. Imagine a really large chain ring - say an 80t - so the ring - chain stop point - is almost at same place as the pedal. Or, imagine say a 22t chain ring, so the ring is very small, and there is a lot of leverage of lever arm over the stop point. Your same max force on pedal will exert a lot more tension into chain on the 22t ring vs the 80t ring. Same is happening at whatever power your are generating. Your power is independent of the chainring and the chain. it is your force on the pedals multiplied by your cadence = power. The tension in the chain from your power will then be determined by the crank length and chainring diameter.

[@robertwhyte3435]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 thanks for the explanation. BTW I've been using the super secret chain lube on my gears, painting it on with a brush, and melt waxing my chain for awhile and it seems to work well. Nice and quiet.

[@amoney9210]

I know there's a lot of talk between a bottom sprocket of 10 vs 11t. Why doesn't Shimano offer more 11 and 12 speed cassettes with a bottom sprocket of 12t? This would be very easy. It might be a bit harder for SRAM and Campy to also offer cassettes with a bottom sprocket of 11 or 12, but why not give people the choice? This would be a better option for slower cyclists who don't need or want a 50/11 or 46/10.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Yes great thought - it is mostly just cost - to offer more options - it adds cost to mfg & packaging runs, and it adds more SKU's to manage stock at all levels from mfg, to distribution, to importers, to stores. All stores end up ordering too much of one thing and not enough of another, leading to OOS on stuff that is selling well, and excess stuff they cant move or takes and age to move which is just $$ they are paying interest on sitting on shelves. It is a really tough balance - and so what seems easy and logical to a consumer (ie -i thinkg absolutely more cassettes should have a 12t smallest cog vs 11) - but it turns out even such a small thing is actually very difficult to implement at many levels. A bike store already has to stock so many cassettes from sram in multiple ranges in red, force, rival - - 11spd, 12spd, 10spd, and campy, and shimano - even a few ranges across many groupset levels and speeds - oh man the stock $$ / ordering adds up big time, and if you dont buy enough - often when go to re order from importer - they are out for 6 months or more before you can get more - and excess others can just be sitting on shelf for years. How many will buy 12t? how many should mfg produce to then be distributed to importers across europe / USA / asia / etc etc - it is just actually very difficult from mfg to importer to retailers to get these numbers and costs right, and if wrong - its a bust for all.

[@frenzalrhomb1]

Thanks again matey👍

[@wsbygt]

Thank you!

[@feedbackzaloop]

In defence of smaller chainrings, they offer bigger range in case of 2x and allow for narrower chainline for 1x, minimizing crosschaining in mid and low range. So they are definetely more beneficial for non-pro riders On the side note, it makes me wonder, was 10t introduced in order to justify smaller chainrings or smaller chainrings followed it... 'cause it is only recently that sub- and supercompact cransets became popular. Kind of an egg and a chicken thing

[@jkk916]

But slightly bigger range is due to larger jumps at high speeds where the tooth progression is one. Where you need smooth shifting the most.

[@feedbackzaloop]

@@jkk916 no, it's not about jumps at the cassette, it's because of relative difference at front. 50/34 is simply greater than 52/36, eg. However, you are right that if you want to match top ratio of two systems, one with smaller chainrings will have greater gaps near top speed. But again, it's a problem for pros, especially sprinters, the average riders use top two gears as bailout for descends.

[@saltycycling]

I was expecting a stripper to present a Campag groupset. Very disappointed :-/

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

I got stuck on what stripper to book. it is complicated these days. Should it be female? male? both? one but identifies as another? Was one but is now another? whichever option i would offend someone! I am waiting for omnisexual to become prevalent whereby we are all all sexuality options all the time and are offended by none but inclusive of all :)

[@borano2031]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Just book one and face the music... Rgr

[@alastairstedman7840]

2x MTB ALL the way

[@derek75116]

Watched this year old clip only now. Adam I really don’t know why you focused so much on the front chainrings where total system chain articulation power losses are concerned. Its likely to be up to 18 times higher at rear cog ! Explanation follows; Bike chain goes through many more articulation cycles and angle at the rear than the front . Whether it be 52/12, 48/11, or 44/10. Ratio is approx 4.3 in top gear. Year10 school physics tells us chain tension is equal and opposite, regardless of chain in motion. Depending on chain stretch most tension is held in perhaps 3 link sets at either end of the tensioned chain line. So, Given that those 3 link sets wrap around a greater arc angle of the rear cog than the larger front chain ring its clear to understand more angular articulation under tension happens at the rear cog(s). To boot, in top gear there are 4.3 as many link articulations at the rear previously mentioned ! Calculating chain articulation angles 360/52Teeth makes 7deg at chainring tangent. 360/12teeth makes 30deg at smallest rear cog tangent ! So 30deg/7deg makes 4.3 times the angular displacement Therefore in conclusion, of total watts lost to chain system articulations it’s reasonable to say in a 52/12 gear chain articulation ratio is 4.3x4.3 (18 times higher)at rear cog than front ! Obviously this is only considering tensioned chain parameters.(no jockey wheels etc) Suffice to say, knowing this back in the eighties I was hesitant when Shimano went from 13 to 12 cog min. let alone a 10 by Sram! Friggin idiotic ! Marketing more than manufacturing cost saving i feel..

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Derek you have in your explanation helped reinforce my explanation why. I am sure i covered thoroughly that... > Large rings reduce chain TENSION load. > Large rings will have one in a LARGER cog for a given desired gear inches > Therefore the articulation over the rings AND THE REAR COG will be occurring under a LOWER tension load, and of course if in a larger cog for a given gear inches - at the rear there is less articulation to occur. So yes, the rear is extremely important re the efficiency gains, but the efficiency gains at the rear come by way of running a larger chain ring. Thats why there is the focus on the chain ring size...

[@derek75116]

Ok i see what you’re getting at. Less chain tension, I get it. To explain my misunderstanding you seemed to be making a front chainrings VRS rear cogs being a point of focus.. Rather; for the sake of better chain wear, the focus should be achieving similar ratios by using larger tooth number Front AND Rear . Most of us wouldn’t use a larger chainring at front with out thinking of consequence to rear selection. I’m from a time before BS terms like ‘compact’ ‘mid compact’ etc existed. To me its cog front ,cogs rear, give you a ratio thus. We’re on the same page, just had to clear with myself why is Adam saying this 😅😅👍👍

[@willbaren]

This move to 10t is an attempt to get around Shimano’s patents which does not include 10t. I mean why would you use 10t. In TT the opposite occurs where they run a 56T chain ring so they can get a straighter chain on a 14t cog or similar. I agree it’s a step backwards. Cheers.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

sorry almost missed this one - hmm im not sure this is about patents, there was no reason they could not use their existing 12s mechanical chain rings and cassettes.

[@kdejvviihd6439]

I remember you asked for tips on how to make shorter videos. So here is a tip 😃. You saved me from muc off and your videos hold the highest value. However, they are all so long. I think you have reached the level of credibility that you don’t really need to explain things too much anymore. Like don’t explain as if you want to convince people to believe you by sharing with them the logic of why things are the way they are. Instead you can just tell us what to do and we could easily follow the advice. Example: wax based lubricants are a lot better in the real world compared to oil based lubricants. When you cover a surface with oil like a table and then throw small particles at it, everything sticks right? so this proves oil collects lot of dust and debris from the road. Now if you allow some molten wax from candle to drop on that same table and let it coo down, you wont have particles stick to it the same way right? This is why wax based lubricants are better. INSTEAD: wax based lubricants are a lot better in the real world compared to oil based lubricants. This is because oil based lubricants gather lots of dust and debris to themselves which is what you dont want. But wax based lubricants do not attract dirt to themselves the same way and will allow for consistent efficiency.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

yes true but i have to remember also that this might be first zfc vid one see's / cyclists new into thinking about such things - i will find it very hard not to explain most things fully. or over fully.... :)

[@feedbackzaloop]

I would rather disagree. A lot of audience and credibility gathered exactly because of explanations in simple and digestable terms. And this process must not stop. Rather, do some scripting and ask somebody to redact the text. Because I noticed quite often you repeat some theses couple of times too much. Also, you may split the videos by topic. Like now, one may be dedicated to silca, another to campa

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

@@feedbackzaloop thanks feedback - yes i really am going to try to find more time to prep to avoid this - I know i keep apologizing and making excuses but alas today was tricky, a number of tech issues had me very very time pressed today, but i still wanted to quickly smash this out as i have quite a backlog of vids to get out including catching up on detail reviews so i didnt want to miss a spot. but i am always rushing a bit much, i need to secure myself more time to prep, re take where necessary and edit time - its just.... tricky for me - always very busy - but i am really going to keeping chipping away at it - and everyone keep holding me to it :)

[@thebrunoserge]

My issue all around with Zero Friction Cycling is a complete lack of perspective. Upgrading your tires and inner tubes will potentially make a 200w difference PER TIRE some times, and people still use knobby thick heavy gravel tires nonetheless - but a fucking 10t cog or 1x setup is horribly bad because you lose 1-2w average? Give me a fucking break guys. You show the 1x vs 2x efficiency graph so often, it feels like someone's paying you good money to do it

[@Bikes-guitars]

I have always ridden Campag until I went electronic and was tempted by wireless electronic Etap from Sram, 11 speed with 36/52 chainrings up front, built on. A Bianchi Specialissima, later I was fortunate enough to buy a Pantani anniversary Specialissima and built the bike on Sram Red Etap AXS with 35/48 chainrings up front, so we have the same bikes but with two groupset options, I was curious to apply my own test on the same piece of road, riding the same watts on the big chainrings at the same cadence, the end results we absolutely the same average speed and same average watts, ZERO Difference whatsoever, same old thing of people bench testing instead of just going out and testing in the real world and just enjoying riding a bike 🤷‍♂️

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Yep for sure mark - most will not ever be able to detect. Can you be certain that for both tests that air temp, pressure and humidity were the same? Same tires - model, size, pressure? Any difference in wheels and bearings? In difference in what you were wearing, and what position you were holding for all moments across the ride - considering 2 to 5w of aero difference can be attained with the smallest differences etc etc. What we can say for sure; a) The physics and the maths behind the FACT that smaller is less efficient is indisputable. b) precise efficiency testing confirmed exactly the maths and physics. c) There is no reason that we should be getting drivetrains that are less efficient. The latest and greatest should be a move forward in this area as well. not backwards - even if the normal cyclist would never be able to detect it. d) The pro peleton would never accept such ring sizes - for the simple reason that the reality is they are less efficient. So the rest of us are just chumps then? The reason for the lower efficiency is for their mfg cost - not for our benefit - and can we see where they are passing that cost saving to us? e) Lets say conti brought out their new GP5000 TT - and it was 2w slower than the previous version of the tire, and the reason it is 2w slower is because they saved cost on mfg, but the cost of the tire increased to $150 from $120. Would that be a great move forwards for the consumer ? More expensive and less efficient? even if in a real world ride test the normal cyclist would not be able to time a difference? There is no good reason, for us - for road groupsets to move to a 10t and smaller rings. It is a step backwards for us to save X amount for the mfg - which we can not detect at all that is being passed on to us, hard to detect when they keep getting more expensive. For me, to a large degree - on principal we should not be happily accepting a step backwards in efficiency, for more cost, for the latest and greatest groupsets. But they are banking on the fact 99% of cyclists will think same as you, and they are perhaps correct and have no consequence for charging more and delivering a less efficient drivetrain. Personally i would not accept - even though i do not take my racing seriously, i would never, ever, ever purchase a road groupset with a 10t and small rings (unless literally that is all that is available on the market if all 3 go that path). The mfg should make available at reasonable prices larger ring options.

[@bikesavvy3654]

Well then I’m happy Shimano has 54-40 and 11-35 that the pro riders are used because it’s at that level it counts

[@lesliesutherland4080]

Are bike and component manufacturers trying to price some of us out of cycling?🤬

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Hey leslie! Ooh depending on brand and groupset level, i would say pricing of many components is getting very painful. Very very painful. In some cases (campy) - they have long frustrated me re pricing - especially pricing vs performance / and performance quirks. Why do their eps batteries cost circa 3x srams axs batteries when they will be basically the exact spec just different connectors. Why do their master links cost $30 fkn dollars. Why do they include a 123 page book in every chain box when the internet has been a thing for awhile now. Why does their EPS itself cost so much, and yet in many ways be less refined than shimano / sram (i mean their mechs just about need their own postcode they are so big). Why do the stray from bcd so you cant use an aftermarket chainrings. why does the cabling on their mechanical systems cost over $100. In campy case, they did not go from dominating the pro peleton to have no presence due to good decision making and management. And at the same time as falling off massively in road - where are they in other demographics? Where is campy at in TT gruppo's? how many Ekar do they sell vs grx and xplr / sram. They have nothing in xc mtb, or enduro, or DH. So outside of road, they are basically non existent, and in the one focus area they have - they have fallen so far behind for so many reasons - AND THEY NEVER FIX THEM! They havent learnt a thing re managment and decision making in decades, and show no sign of doing so. Unless there is a wholesale change of basically the entire managment team and structure - they wont change how they do things, and how they do things is leading them very steadily to bankruptcy - and this has been obviously so for oh so long, and it is omg so frustrating!! ! anyhoo - if that wasnt your question at all i apologise hahahaahaha! more widely speaking yes there is an issue with component costs! Lucky ZFC is here to help people massively reduce wear rate of their DT components :)

[@wtran87]

Adam, just for fun, I decided to throw the video transcript into ChatGPT for a summary...here's what I got (spelling/translation errors included) #### Summary - There is a new chain stripper product called Silka that competes with Ceramic Speed's UFO drivetrain cleaner. - Silka's chain stripper is super concentrated, making it easy to clean the chain and remove factory grease. - The concentrated formula allows for a perfect off-bike clean, which is difficult to achieve with traditional solvents. - Despite being more expensive, Silka's chain stripper is cost-effective in the long run because a little product goes a long way. - The cleaner is environmentally friendly but caution should be taken when disposing of factory grease. - Campagnolo has launched a new wireless 12-speed groupset with a focus on zero friction cycling. - The move to a 10-tooth cog in the cassette has received mixed opinions. - The smaller chainrings accompanying the 10-tooth cog can lead to increased chain tension and articulation, resulting in efficiency losses. - The efficiency differences may not be noticeable to most cyclists, but there are measurable losses in certain gear ratios. - The move to smaller chainrings is seen as a step backward in drivetrain efficiency. - A demonstration with crank spins is provided to illustrate the potential losses. - The decision to use smaller chainrings with a 10-tooth cog is criticized for compromising efficiency. #### Highlights - Silka's chain stripper offers a concentrated and effective solution for cleaning chains. - The move to a 10-tooth cog in Campagnolo's new groupset has raised concerns about efficiency losses. - Smaller chainrings accompanying the 10-tooth cog contribute to increased chain tension and potential efficiency compromises.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Beauty!!! when can i get that to take over my vid production? :)

[@janeblogs324]

Took me less than 2min to read. A 26m video is ridiculous

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

@@janeblogs324 I may not be the right channel for you :)

[@janeblogs324]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 you remind me of a church preacher, 1000s of excess words to pad out an essay. When clarkson,Hammond, may were making their new show they told us the number 1 tip about videoforamtion is the bare minimum words to get the facts/point across. The way youre doing it is just setting yourself up for piracy/plagurism while you foot all the testing costs

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

@@janeblogs324 Thats awesome, thankyou. You likely havent seen any of the vids where i re -iterate that i know i am terrible atm at you tube. I never planned to do you tube, am not a good speaker / presenter - and i will be working at getting better - but i also severely lack prep time, and pump out what i can when. I hope to retire in the next 18 months ish - and hopefully someone better can pick up the torch in this space. In the interim - rest assured - i know - i just am who i am, it is hard to change ones spots - especially in a non strength area. If it makes you feel better though, please keep telling me how bad i am. Or - go watch channels you like..... :)

[@anthonyholmes1704]

I really don't understand Campagnolo with the release of the new wireless groupset with radical gearing ratios, i had hoped that given their heritage and past inventions that brought progress and benefit they would have got it right??? Why did they not just take the original 12 speed and give us a wireless option, the sensible groupsets for road bikes has now gone, do all manufacturers want Road cyclists to ride mountain bikes in disguise? Road bikes don't need disc brakes or silly gear ratios and also at the same time being denied CHOICE! I will stick with my 52/36 11/32 12 speed Super Record EPS as it works so why fix it. Oh! yes and direct rim brakes on my Colnago C64.

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Yes overall i think this is going to be a costly miss. The removal of the thumb shifter will really put off their heritage fans, and they are just crucial. At over 8k aud, i just dont see any young-ish cyclists deciding against sram or shimano in favour of campy. So i cant see them winning new fans, but i can see them losing more heritage fans, so thats not exactly a winning direction, and i am not sure how that scenario would not have been presented at strategy meetings. They must be discussing strategy with Ferrari F1 team.... Re rim - thats not just campy that is everyone. Industry + market have decided that direction. it is just too expensive for brands to run two different molds of same bike, remembering that it needs to be across at least 5 sizes - to make a rim and disc version. It is extremely difficult to get production vs demand numbers correct as it is, by model, by size - a bunch of unsold at end of year hurts everyone in that sales chain - trying to predict sales of rim, sufficient that it would actually end up in a net profit - that is just too fraught a path - so yeah trying to get ANY top model from any top brand in rim is near impossible now, and i understand why when the market for rim is now so small. There is a lot more to it than just the argument of what is a better brake, moving away from rim has enabled wheels to be aero optimised for much wider tires, which brings some benefits, ones braking does not over time wear through a possible 5k wheelset, we have hookless tubeless (dont get me started) where blow off from pressure increase from temp if rim braking would be a risk etc etc. For all that and more, rim is just never going to have the demand to justify the production costs. For those who love rim (i still love my 2014 black inc evo) - custom is really the way to go - the market is pretty flooded with many - actually really great - custom builders. I building a bastion and i was tempted by rim still, but in the end as i hope to be rockin that bike for the next quarter century, the ability to run 28 tires with 70ps vs 23's with 90 etc, and probably larger again in my twilight years - it just has to be disc. Disc far from perfect, but it will keep improving.

[@anthonyholmes1704]

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thank you for your intelligent explanation of the 'Campagnolo New Groupset" and reasons for, I guess I am just a old cyclist of 40+ who hates change for profit margins. The positive thing is I have enough bikes to see my days out without having to buy a road bike with discs and 'new Campagnolo groupset"

[@jackmorrissey5318]

the sizes of the cassettes are also ridiculous

[@PowerRanger83]

First.

[@Morten_B]

Can you run a YBN 12-speed chain and Shimano 12 speed cassette with a Sram Force AXS rear derailleur and chainset? Will get pretty much same range with 50/37 and shim 11-34 as with 46/33 and sram 10-33 , but probably less friction. ( But HG freehubs really suck - at least those made of alloy gets f***ed up after short time... )

[@zerofrictioncycling992]

Alas no - sram axs force / red / rival cassettes have narrower cog spacing for the notably narrower flat top chain. So the rear mechs are indexed for that more narrow cog spacing. Putting a shimano cassette on, the gear indexing will be out immediately, it just will not work.

[@Morten_B]

@@zerofrictioncycling992, discussion on starbike seem to approve, but require either spacer or micro adjust because of different chainline. Looks fine: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nH_QmatoZc5ordE

[@Morten_B]

Tuned correctly in the middle of the cassette things are still OK at each end...

[@borano2031]

@@Morten_B Aren´t rollers on the AXS chain 0,2mm larger than an ordinary chain?? Perfect match between rollers and cogs??? Rgr

[@Morten_B]

@@borano2031, yeah but with a YBN chain then cassette and chain matches. So front rings and pulleys are slightly mismatched...?