Adventures in OCD: Today's Chain Waxing

[wafter]

What waxes are you guys using? Bought or home made? Enigma is good but expensive.

Not sure if it's in the OP, but mine's just generic paraffin wax with paraffin oil to control hardness and some moly disulphide powder. Tbh If you're doing it on a budget just the wax and oil are probably 95% there for 50% of the cost or less..

If you're really tight just rob some candles from the local church and melt them down - it's not rocket science

 

[Sea of vapours]

I'm using Silca Hot Melt. It's pretty cheap given that it seems to not be disappearing from the Crockpot at any discernible rate, and it's certainly a really small cost compared to the expected savings on chains, cassettes and chain wheels.

Whilst I'm 'here', writing on this thread, my latest wear figures are, for @Ajax Bay 's interest if no-one else:
8,000km covered and an elongation of slightly over 0.2%.
So, that's just over 40% of my target wear for replacement of chains (0.5% elongated being when I retire chains). That rate suggests 20,000km for this chain, ultimately. I was going to be happy with the chain lasting 10,000km (normal for me being 5,000km), so I'm already happy with this. As I've said above though, the sheer cleanliness of everything is very comfortably worth it.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I'm using Silca Hot Melt.
. . . my latest wear figures are, for @Ajax Bay 's interest if no-one else:
8,000km covered and an elongation of slightly over 0.2%.
So, that's just over 40% of my target wear for replacement of chains (0.5% elongated being when I retire chains). That rate suggests 20,000km for this chain, ultimately.

Thanks - I am tempted.
My son-in-law (between Lanza and Kona) shared this excellent 'how to' series with me:
https://www.instagram.com/stories/highlights/18025641361638511/

 

[alex_cycles]

What waxes are you guys using? Bought or home made? Enigma is good but expensive.

I'm using food grade paraffin wax (Kerawax 422) with Molybdenum disulfide and PTFE additives. I bought a 2kg bag. I think I used about half of it in my initial batch just over a year ago. It's nowhere near needing replenishing yet and I'm rotating 3 chains on each of 3 bikes.

Completely happy so far and the wear seems very low compared to oil.

 

[GuyBoden]

I'm still using a 1kg bag of food grade paraffin wax plus molybdenum disulphide and PTFE additives.

I'm interested in trying pure Soy Wax, when this runs out.

I've no idea if pure Soy Wax will work, but I will give it a try.

 

[wafter]

Since I currently have a brand new (KMC E8) chain in my possession I've taken the liberty of checking a few existing chains against it for wear.

I've done this by hanging them both side-by-side from their end link, taking a close-up photo of the opposite end then measuring this in photoshop using ratios against the known 7.70mm roller diameter:

Brompton (8sp SRAM - original-fitment): at 885 miles 1.0mm elongation over 49 link pairs for around 0.075% wear; projected life to 0.5% wear is c. 6000 miles.

Fuji (9sp KMC X9 EPT): At 1390 miles 1.9mm elongation over 55 link pairs for around 0.14% wear; projected life to 0.5% wear is c. 5500 miles.


I've not checked the 11sp KMC X11 chain on the Genesis with this method. As previously posted when measured with a steel tape this chain seems to have barely elongated at all at pushing 4k miles; so it'll be interesting to see how it compares to the new chain.

There certainly seems to be a massive difference between the projected service life of the two chains above versus the one on the Genesis - this could be due to measurement error, chain quality, environmental variables or something else..

I recall discussing chain life with another CC member some time again; my assumption being that narrower chains with thinner plates (i.e. those that serve a greater number of gears on the cassette) would wear faster due to the reduced bearing area. The counter argument was that the narrower chains were made to better tolerances so would last longer..

The situation with tolerances is potentially interesting; 0.5% wear is only 0.06mm over one chain link and it would be interesting to know what sort of tolerances manufacturers can hold, and how far a typical chain will deviated from its "correct" length from the factory.

I guess if you can keep your mean dimensions right on the ideal value with tolerances evenly distributed each side the chain length should average out; although of course tooth wear is caused by elongation over one or two links; so even if overall length is good one out of spec link can still accelerate wear. I suppose this is why it's important to use a chain checker in multiple spots when assessing chain wear...

 

[DaveReading]

Since I currently have a brand new (KMC E8) chain in my possession I've taken the liberty of checking a few existing chains against it for wear.

I've done this by hanging them both side-by-side from their end link, taking a close-up photo of the opposite end then measuring this in photoshop using ratios against the known 7.70mm roller diameter:

I'd want to put a bit of weight on the end of each chain, to be sure that any free play was being taken up.

 

[wafter]

I'd want to put a bit of weight on the end of each chain, to be sure that any free play was being taken up.

Aye - this has been mentioned before and I'd agree is a good point; however in practice it's a pain to achieve and in reality tbh I don't think would make a lot of difference as there's nothing to hold the links in place against gravity (such as a really sticky lube, for example).


This morning curiousity got the better of me so the chain came off the Genesis for interrogation. Short story is a shade over 0.5mm over 56 link pairs, or around 0.035% elongation. At a bit over 4k miles on this chain this pretty much corroborates the last comparison to the nearly-new X9 EPT chain from the Fuji at around 50k miles projected chain life at 0.5% wear

On the one hand I'm slightly dubious of today's measurement since the chain on the Genesis is only around 70 miles into a wax; meaning that solid wax between the links could be bulking them out and underplaying wear present. On the other hand I've measured this chain in the past after 300+ miles when it's definitely ready for a re-wax, and the figures are broadly similar

 

[Ajax Bay]

I'd want to put a bit of weight on the end of each chain, to be sure that any free play was being taken up.

this has been mentioned before and I'd agree is a good point; however in practice it's a pain to achieve and in reality I don't think would make a lot of difference as there's nothing to hold the links in place against gravity (such as a really sticky lube, for example).

Agree with Dave. Have a weight (not heavy eg 500g) and hook it on. I suggest you're underestimating the potential error: the bottom third of the chain will weigh down the links above but that last section has (increasingly) no tension. Which is a threat to the validity of your measurement, when 100s of microns 'matter'. After all if you're considering "solid wax between the links could be bulking them out and underplaying [measured] wear" . . .
As an aside "the known 7.70mm roller diameter". How do you "know"? What tolerances are these manufactured to?

 

[wafter]

Agree with Dave. Have a weight (not heavy eg 500g) and hook it on. I suggest you're underestimating the potential error: the bottom third of the chain will weigh down the links above but that last section has (increasingly) no tension. Which is a threat to the validity of your measurement, when 100s of microns 'matter'. After all if you're considering "solid wax between the links could be bulking them out and underplaying [measured] wear" . . .
As an aside "the known 7.70mm roller diameter". How do you "know"? What tolerances are these manufactured to?

OK, next time I'm in the position to repeat this test, if possible I'll do so both with and without weights to see if there's any descernible difference as a means of validating / invalidating this hypothesis

I think the solid wax thing is well worth keeping in mind. However, considering that the chain is hung from my no-expense-spared-custom-made-hanger during waxing most of the links should be under tension - meaning that any voids filled by the wax should be on the "back" side of the pin and hence should contribute to "fixing" the chain in its elongated state.. On balance I'd expect this unlikely to affect elongation figures (as has been largely bourne out by my experiences).

Of course I can't be 100% certain what tolerances the rollers are manufactured to, however have measured plenty and found them to be consistantly between 7.68 and 7.72mm, regardless of chain mileage / wear. At around only 0.5% extreme spread I don't consider that to be a significant factor in the process..

 

[Sea of vapours]

It seems to me that measuring the length of chains is inherently problematic, in the sense that the variations are very small indeed. Weighting the end(s) must be a required part of any protocol, I'd have thought.

In the specific case of waxed chains, whilst I don't know whether this is the case, it does seem entirely possible that the solid wax inside the rollers could mask actual metal wear; and after all, this is the entire point of waxing the chain, to get solid wax inside it so that the movement is wax-on-wax, not metal-on-metal. i.e. if the metal has worn, it seems possible that more wax will go in and the external length of the chain will remain the same, only now that length consists of more wax and less metal (the 'bulking out' mentioned above).

To counter that perceived (by me) issue, I've been removing the wax using a boiling water bath and much swishing prior to measurement, but I'd rather not, so if someone can plausibly assert that that is not the case I'd appreciate it. For measurement, I then hang the chain from one end with a consistent mass on the lower end, and I'm measuring the change from a reference measurement when the chain was new, but stripped of factory grease.

If the internal wax, after each new application, can 'mask' wear, as measured by chain elongation, then the corollary question is whether it matters for practical purposes.

a) What matters in terms of not wearing the chain rings and cassette sprockets is that the length of each link is unchanged, and the wax content may fix that, so that if re-waxing is frequent the chain will not elongate and thus not wear the other components.​

b) Even so, the metal content of the chain may be being reduced over time, which would be not a good thing from the perspective of potential chain breakage.​

Point b) is why I'm measuring with the wax removed (to the extent that I can do so).

 

[Gunk]

This morning curiousity got the better of me so the chain came off the Genesis for interrogation

Are you sure this wasn’t a thinly veiled excuse to try out your new stand @wafter ?

 

[Milzy]

I can’t get my Enigma white powder to melt in normal wax. I’ll just have to use it for brushing on afterwards.

 

[Sea of vapours]

I just remembered to do the quarterly chain wear measuring.

The usage is now a little over 10,000km and the chain is worn 0.23%.

That's a somewhat lower wear rate in the last couple of thousand kilometres than the first eight thousand. I'd happily attribute the difference to the difficulty of measuring rather small increments of wear, but it could also be that the mostly wet weather has meant that I've probably re-waxed it more frequently in the last three months than during the rest of the year (certainly after every properly wet ride, and when there's salt solution spraying up, even if it's not actually raining).

Still looking promising for 20,000km to the 0.5% wear point :-)

 

[gbb]

Today the ultrasonic bath and the slow cooker arrived. Wax, Molybdenum disulphide and Teflon on the way (trying the recipe here )
I might not get to it until the spring though, and I think I'll restrict it to my 11-speed chains as the 9-speeds seem to last a lot longer.

Most I've had out of an 11 speed using Mickle-like method is about 2500 miles, but all too often it's around 1000, which isn't enough.

No surprise the 9 speed is lasting longer than the 11. There's more contact area between rollers/bushing and pin the lower speed the chain is, more contact area, less wear.
Tbf you're doing well, I'd struggle to get 2000 miles out of a 9 or 10 speed chain but then I did like to be out the saddle on inclines, it doubtless puts an awful lot more force through the chain.

I've often said, been there, done that (seemingly ridiculous focus on extending chain life or mileage)...but it was interesting.
Eventually came to the conclusion my variety of methods made little real difference... but it was interesting finding out.