What's your chain lube/s..?
- Thread starter tumble
- Start date
stirk
Burner
I have used Rock'n Roll Gold and now have Progold extreme, (I'm not a brand whore) - both seem to work really well and I ride in dry and wet conditions.
I hose the bike down after wet rides or when it gets dirty after a few dry runs so the chain get a fresh coat of lube after every wash, normally every 2 to 3 weeks. I think the frequency of washing and lubing keeps everything in good order.
Given you shower with your bike after every ride just make sure it's well lubed afterwards!
If you wash the bike after every ride a lube which does not build up and also washes away easily will be the best choice.
My bike came standard with a waxy lube which gathers dust quicker than my wallet and does not wash off easily so for me it's a wet lube applied liberally, then wipe off the excess so sand and dust don't stick to it so much.
I hose the bike down after wet rides or when it gets dirty after a few dry runs so the chain get a fresh coat of lube after every wash, normally every 2 to 3 weeks. I think the frequency of washing and lubing keeps everything in good order.
Given you shower with your bike after every ride just make sure it's well lubed afterwards!
If you wash the bike after every ride a lube which does not build up and also washes away easily will be the best choice.
My bike came standard with a waxy lube which gathers dust quicker than my wallet and does not wash off easily so for me it's a wet lube applied liberally, then wipe off the excess so sand and dust don't stick to it so much.
Knuckles
Lives under a bridge
Only ever used the blue, does the job. About 1 month intervals in the dry, I lube after ever wet ride anyway.
I'd just like to point out that this is wrong. Never use wd, 556 etc. as a lubricant as they are a solvent with small amount lubricant and do a better job of stripping existing lubricant off than actually protecting the driveline.
I use shimano dry lube as its low maintenance, it gets a bad rap from people who don't know how to use it and apply it like wet lube.
redbruce
Eats Squid
Not entirely correct. It will dissolve existing lube but unless you apply it in sufficient quantity for surplus to run off, it cant actually remove whats there. Once the solvent has evaporated, original plus additional lube remains.
What is correct is the oil left behind after the diluting solvent has evaporated is very light and not designed for lubing loaded surfaces such as bearings, chain rollers and the like.
Both WD and 556 are designed to penetrate close surfaces to get lube in to assist release of seized parts, and to displace water.
And +1 for R&R gold. Extreme is better in the wet but messy (has moly di sulphide added from memory).
Last edited:
This is poorly written and incorrect.
redbruce
Eats Squid
A criticism without explanation/evidence, so not particularly helpful. If you know better then enlighten us.
WD 40 and 556 are basically light oils dissolved in a volatile (boiling point below ambient temp) solvent. You apply the WD/556 and solvent evaporates leaving the light oil behind (same principle as dry lubes except its a wax -with or without fortification, left behind).
That same solvent (until it has evaporated) will also dissolve any other lube (hydrocarbon) of similar polarity that is already in the system to which it has been added (once again, principle would also apply to dry lube).
The law of Conservation of Mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass) tells us that unless the solvent is added in sufficient quantity to leave the system (carrying existing lube dissolved within it) ie drip off the chain, there can be no net loss of original lube. Having said that, while re dissolved, any lube already in the system can be redistributed within the system, potentially away from the areas of highest need for adequate lubrication. if there was insufficient there to start with then it makes no difference to outcome anyway.
In any case, the light oils used in such formulations aren't designed for nor are suited to service lubing load bearing surfaces such as in a chain.
Last edited:
My original point was wd is not suitable for use as a form of chain lube and you've confirmed this with a long winded wiki quote. So why say anything at all...
redbruce
Eats Squid
Because the "long winded wiki quote" did nothing of the kind (in fact doesn't refer to or discuss lubricants at all). The rest of my explanation did by explaining the underlying principles and consequences.
Your comment re "stripping existing lubricant off", remains, not entirely correct.
Apparently at least Kwikee understood.
Last edited:
Supposing the SOLVENT doesn't dissolve the lube that's there by your theory, how does the wd provide any additional driveline protection? You have contradicting information firstly you say "original plus additional lube remains" and then go on to say wd has no lubricating properties for a bike chain. If you have nothing worthwhile mentioning why comment...
redbruce
Eats Squid
If the WD et al doesnt remove the original lube, it remains in the system (because it hasn't been removed). If it does dissolve the original lube, once the solvent evaporates, everything (additional oil, old lube, etc) that was dissolved in it, it still remains (the point of the "long winded wiki reference").
Ive made it clear that the light oil in WD et al is unsuitable for lubing a bike chain, in itself. I've not in any post suggested WD et al WILL provide additional protection.
The irony here is that we both agree on that fact. I've provided an explanation as to why that is, you on the other hand have simply expressed an unqualified opinion, and expect people to accept it at face value.
Last edited:
Then why the hell would you even entertain the idea of putting wd on the chain in the first place??? Some sought of half ass'd clean job or just shits and giggles...
"Original plus additional lube remains" does that not infer that the additional lube provides purpose?
redbruce
Eats Squid
Sorry, cooking dinner so my Yr 12 daughter can continue studying.
Where were we? Oh yes............
Wasn't suggesting you should (so I think we therefore agree on that point also). As I said, simply providing a technical explanation.
Didn't/can't offer objective assessment of the hypothetical "original lube", because I don't know what has been used. Do you?
Last edited:
