I love DIY projects that save money, result in significant improvements, or are just fun to do. But OZ misses all three targets. For now, I'm happy with Silca's products, which are cost effective, work great, and don't require a lot of messing about with dangerous chemicals.
I just changed from diy wax to Silca secret. With Silca I have much less wax flakes coming off the chain. Silva is more expensive but for me it is worth it.
Totally agree. I just switched. Silky smooth and minimal flaking. I agree with Zero Friction vv making money and surviving. If the apocalypse hits, I will use paraffin. Until then, Silva gets my few $ more!
I once suggested sewing machine oil to test in the comments. Great that you picked that up! I think the results are mind blowing. Decades ago before all these "bicycle chain lubes" came up it was a very common used lube for bicycle chains. At least in Europe. These lubes are very cheap here. You can get 100ml for 2-3€ or even cheaper if you buy a liter. That the Singer is doing better than some much more expensive oils... If this doesnt show up that bicyle oils are mostly a scam what else would! Another VERY controversial oil to test would be WD40. I found a lot of comments where people swear by it. Claims from 5000-10000km per chain! Many other say rather from theory that it not a real lubricant and its bad for the chain. But from the knwoledge that I got from your work it looks like it maybe isnt so bad. The solvents of WD40 flush the dirt out. With its low viscosity it gets very deap inside the chain and after the solvents are evaporated it leaves a little oil with a chain that doesnt attract to much dirt. PS that the oil like with the Singer fly off the chain while riding is also a problem with some bicycle oils.
DIY seems interesting. But..:since the gap and cost is similar to proper waxes, why risk the possibility of it being not good enough? These are multiple thousands of dollar bikes. And we are fussing over $10-30?
“There can be a perspective that the top commercial waxes are just way, way overpriced”. That’s because a lot of them are! Thanks to your work, we know how to get the best bang for the buck (or AUD or £).
At the moment i disagree re products like Mspeedwax, HM and rex being overpriced. They do have a higher mfg cost than A LOT of other products we pay a vastly higher margin on, and again there is the cost of bringing to market, marketing, distribution, all the other costs of doing business which are substantial, investing in future, and after all of that - having some left over to pay yourself a living wage. Remember from when mspeedwax create the product, and package it - most of that then moves to importers / w/salers - to sell to retailers, to then sell to customer - so their are also usually 3 layers that all need to make margin, and from that margin those business need to cover their costs from that and be left with some net profit. No one is running off to buy a yacht off selling bicycle chain lubricants! (maybe muc-off...). And so factoring all of that - comparing to the DIY mans own numbers - there is about a $35 gap from DIY to Mspeedwax per 15,0000km - I dont get to "way overpriced" from that place.
@zerofrictioncycling if Muc Off did buy a yacht, they better not get it in their heads that they should make an engine lubricant. The results might be not what they’re hoping for.
@@zerofrictioncycling992I was actually referring to things like Trutension ($902), UFO drip ($626) and Silca Hot Wax X ($565) vs MSpeedwax (only $256) per 10km
I just switched my mtb chains from winter mix to summer mix (pure paraffin, ptfe powder and pure paraffin oil. I brush the chain grossly with a kitchen plastic brush and break the links to avoid buildups since it's a bit tacky but it's excellent for muddy Canadian conditions, as with silca I just wipe my chain after a ride...
Manufacturing costs are almost always going down. CNC machines churn out parts by the thousands at speeds and tolerances no machinist or even team of machinists could come close to so either parts should be getting cheaper or profits are going up. I think, parts are based more on what people will pay than cost of production and some reasonable profit and since most of the things we buy aren't essential I'm pretty much fine with that. Not so much on essentials like insulin for example... If one of those mounts costs two dollars to make I'd be surprised.
Some interesting comments here today. I think if you are happy with the 'ingredients' and performance and can be pfaffed making a home brew, then go for it. MSW and Silca have just worked out their own blends through experience and testing (with performance listed on ZFC) and provide a consistent and repeatable experience, so I'm happy with the convenience they provide. I also prefer to buy bread from Bakers Delight rather than bake it myself because it is the same and what I like each time, even if it costs a little more.
Also, you should make it clear that "candle wax" can be anything from melted-down supermarket own brand candles (with the wicks pulled out, you hope) which can be made, in addition to paraffin wax, of soy wax, beeswax, paraffin oil, or other oils & fillers, through to fully refined paraffin wax with less than 1% additive content. Yes, candle makers supplies sell paraffin wax, but the smart ones make sure that the fully refined wax is labelled as such, exclusive of additives such as the above.
Looking at your test data its easy to conclude wax generally beats oil based product. But what happens if a person use wax and does maintain the bike? Im asking because I just cleaned my brothers road bike. It was extremly dirty and components where full of old lube turned into grinding paste. My brother have stored the bike through winter in a shed. So after removing the "grinding paste" I found the chain rollers was a bit rusty. Both chain and chainwheel was worn, so I replaced them. Initially I entended to apply immersive vax on the new chain. But for someone like my brother who doesn't ride his bike very often and doesn't maintain the bike beyond maybe applying fresh lube, on top of the old lube. I figure rust is a bigger issue than actual wear? So I think oil based "dry" lube is better for my brothers bike...
I find it amazing that people talk about weight percentage for additives. The densities of these additives range from 2 to 7.5. I order to get a similar number of molecules you need to adjust for density.
Hi ! on the surface that comment doesnt make sense to me yet - can you expand? Lets see - waxing = lubing, thats done frequently enough. Waxing does the deep cleaning at the same time. Wax is solid so has the highest contamination resistance, many more times so vs wet lubricants. So why would one want to spend time and solvents faffing cleaning and rate that at 90% vs waxing at 10%? confused, can you explain more?
I would still be interested to know the chain's efficiency with each lubricant. I understand your viewpoint that less wear shows there is less friction, but a higher viscosity lubricant may give lower wear but more resistance.
Correct - for waxes - jason smith had tested a lot of paraffin for UFO wax base in the early days. Less refined - so higher oil content - it can keep a treatment feeling smooth and long lasting, but it is slower. Other impurities that are common like soy and palm oil, and candle scents etc - are slower again. High grade paraffin has a very low oil content, so the wax polishes to a very slippery surface once broken in, and so has highest efficiency as for all the sliding surface friction movements (literally around 300,000 a minute in large chain ring at 90 cadence) - having the lowest stiction and basically zero viscous friction - that gives an efficiency advantage - independent of if both types are protecting metal from wear. Also high grade stays cleaner and attracts less contamination, so over time they tend to deliver lower wear as contamination is abrasive
@@jorgelucascouto oils always just attract contamination and become abrasive. Just the nature of running wet and external operation. there is a reason they never "oiled" key locks but used graphite powder! :)
@@MrVizzle that explains a lot. I can't do AliExpress. I have more respect for my drivetrain to stoop that low. No offence, each to their own. I'll leave it there. If I did go dyi I'd be looking for reputable established sources (manufacturers) with quality controls for the materials and not just looking for the cheapest listing from a random seller in what I view as an unregulated marketplace. It's not going to end well. It's a matter of when, not if.
There is a lot of shite sold as X that could be anything. I didnt bother going into that on this one as again i dont want to come across against DIY - but for sure some people have bought ws2 by the kg for like $15. Or graphene for similar. And yet what goes into ws2 and silca costs a fair bit, so it is not the same thing getting genuine quality and particle size from a tier 1 supplier vs getting something called that from alibaba for 1/100th the price
I use effetto mariposa sunflower wax but after watcing OZ cycle i have mixed it by a blender with PTFE powder, i didn't know the solvant in there i just put alcohol, for cleaning i keep the chian on the bike and back pedal and pore some boiling water and wait 2 hours before rewaxing. I wish if you can test some quick links to see which are the best ones as top performer chain lubes in your list require chain removal, i think the cost of quick links should be added with those waxes. Thanks for the good work greetings from a small country in the middle east called Bahrain
why would you put PTFE in a very environmentally friendly, already super low wear and good longevity drip lubricant?! How are you going to tangibly track a benefit for doing such? what were you looking for in doing such? I would not do this going forwards..... Yes quick links should be part of wax cost but the cost of ones chosen links has a high variance, and thus this has become overly complicated especially as its all linked with omni-calc online calculator. Ie campy c-links cost like $30 for single use. YBN links cost a lot less but currently not compatible with sram axs flat top, whose links are more expensive, or T-Type. So for those you only have single use links, which are also expensive - and if one is stuck with only able to use officially single use links - the recommendation is to go hybrid approach, not to immersive everytime as that would be completely impractical to replace a $7 or $30 link everytime you re lube. So what to do re this is still be tinkered with with omni calc. the best ones are simply the officially re useable ones IF they are compatible with your chain, if not - hybrid approach of wax - re lube next approx 5x with immersive wax compatible drip lubricant like UFO drip - then re wax to reset any contamination starting to build and use a new link.
This is probably a compelling reason not to watch Oz ! You've turned a known quantity into an unknown one. It's possible you partially dissolved some of the wax in the alcohol , especially if it was hot. You may have created a gel instead of an emulsion of solid wax particles in water. This may have altered the penetration properties ? The PTFE may also have affected this and may possibly because of the presence of water , 'clump' or thicken the mixture ? I'm not sure that boiling water is effective at cleaning Flowerpower. Effetto sell a product ' Allpine Extra ' that contains pine oil. Pine oil alone is not water soluble. A possible substitute you could try if you already have some is turpentine as used by artists . This is not to be confused with mineral turpentine which is totally different. Turpentine is a lighter fraction from the distillation of pine wood than the pine oil. I've not tried this and It is only a suggestion. You could try the Connex wipperman quick links as they are removable by hand and should last the lifetime of your chain. I have some and they seem quite durable. At least here in the UK they can be difficult to buy at times and are expensive for >10 speed chains.
There is a lot of math being done here based on regular pricing on a website. There are MANY times you can catch a sale, especially during that cyber week type of time of the year, where you get 25% off of sites. You can stock up and be good for a year easily (I do it). There are ebay sellers, there are amazon listings, there are possibly points saved from say the 10000 dollar bike you purchased, wax is the last thing I'm worried about to keep my bike running clean. Meanwhile, people will spend 20 dollars on a TPU tube (rather than 7 from a Chinese website for the same thing). Etc. There's time involved in sourcing DIY stuff, there's R&D that you're now dealing with, possibly making a mistake, all of it. Cach a sale, buy the brand you want to go with, and less thinking.
Yep for comparison workings i really have to work of normal pricing and i dont expect all will be waiting or hunting for sales, or risking buying knock off or potentially poor quality stuff from some sites. Not sure how common but i can for sure advised people are burned every day getting poor quality / knock off stuff from some sites, and then it costs you more money as you have to spend what you would have initially on the right product from a reputable site vs the money you just blew + then purchasing the right stuff. With experience some get to know the pitfalls, what to look for, what to avoid etc but that often comes with trial and error and wasted $$ to save $$
With diy. Depends where you live on availability of all items you would need to make your own wax blen and depending on shipping and import fees, time wasted, you have could’ve just bought premade wax and be riding your bike.
Is that Singer oil as in sewing machine oil? Very good for the bearings in 'multiplier' sea fishing reels to cast a long way. Doesn't have the viscosity for the loading on a bike chain link though. Is there a formula for minimum viscosity against load?
Sewing machine oil isn´t just very viscous, it´s also very easy to wash off with water if you stain your garment whilst sewing. For fishing reels, really?? Rgr
yes but it markets itself these days as "All purpose household and industrial use - high quality" - so from that i would singer says its good for both your sewing machine, garage door hinges, to your lathe's bearings and well - basically everything. I think in a pinch - its going to just pass for some things, but for just about anything, a quality product specialising in the use case you are looking for will way outperform singer.
5:20 there is no way that WS2 in 4-6 micron costs $10 for an ongoing supply. It's currently selling directly from the manufacturer (Kooben Industries USA is where I got mine) for $AUD40 per 1oz (28.35g).
There is a lot of shite sold as X that could be anything. I didnt bother going into that on this one as again i dont want to come across against DIY - but for sure some people have bought ws2 by the kg for like $15. Or graphene for similar. And yet what goes into ws2 and silca costs a fair bit, so it is not the same thing getting genuine quality and particle size from a tier 1 supplier vs getting something called that from alibaba for 1/100th the price
I dont know what that means. Am i silver armour knight? Just in case it means what i think it may mean - ZFC has zero sponsors. An important part of the independent testing is holding to account mfg putting out rubbish products but marketing powerfully to get a lot of market traction, which equals a lot of drivetrains suffering early death by abrasion. The other important part balancing that is to highlight mfg and products that are genuinely outstanding in this space. I would hope you agree that doing both of those things is a rather obvious and important thing to be done from the findings from a very robust, very labour intensive independent testing process. Its pretty much a "Key findings" kind of thing. So, highlighting the top products and mfg is a pretty natural, expected and logical outcome from the testing that followers would expect. It would be very weird to operate otherwise. So if highlighting the top products and mfg found to date you class as ZFC protecting sponsors - then i would say there is not a conspiracy theory you wouldn't sign up to. If i am wrong about what you meant - disregard :)
@@zerofrictioncycling992 always enjoyed your content. even if you overthink things sometimes and take internet to serious. Very sorry that my comment took so much time off you, it was not vicious in intent.
@@MrVizzle ha no problems - i just do get the odd troll, durian sycophant, or just plain everything is a commercial conspiracy thinker. I work very hard and ferociously independent so i will alway fight any actual or possibly perceived attacks against my very hard work that i feel passionate is really important in this space as without ZFC, what else is there in this space atm?! :)
Also, if you follow the original formulation of Friction Facts, then why can't your home wax blend be 90% (or more) as good as MSpeedwax, or Silca? It's what they did, a few years ago. As long as you use the best paraffin wax you can find, and don't overheat it, the only thing their $60 blocks of wax have over your $10 - 20 one is 3 different particle sizes of WS2 (and an unbiased jury could fail to see how this might be a significant advantage: we only have their word for it that this makes a measurable difference to their wax's performance over a single particle size blend). MoS2 seems to be good in most commercially available sizes, and the current animus some manufacturers have against PTFE powder as a friction modifier additive is based on an outdated idea of PTFE's toxicity (which used to use PFOA (a PFAS) as a precursor chemical, but has not since the early 2000s).
Agree. A test with proper purified paraffin wax and some added modifiers would be a great comparison. But that might make some commercially available options not viable anymore.
Disagree on a couple of points there (and you can still disagree with me though). You can see in the test that new formula mspeedwax and silca hot melt are basically 1/3rd the total wear by end of block 6 vs original formula Mspeedwax. And i think that you are taking extremely rose coloured glassed to PTFE mfg. Yes it can be produced in a fairly low toxic manner now, but are you betting that it generally is? Just look at how many things are produced that could be produced in a very clean manner, vs just pumping toxic waste from production directly into rivers etc - in quite a number of countries. Here is a quote from Chemsec; “There are no regulations in place that require chemical producers to disclose PTFE production" Little is known about where PTFE and other fluorinated polymers are produced in the world as there are no regulations in place that require chemical producers to disclose this. Within the EU, the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register requires chemical manufacturers to report emissions into the air, water, and land from a number of pollutants. But producers of fluorinated polymers do not have to specify that they produce these particular substances. What you can do is measure the amount of PFAS in the air to indicate fluorinated polymer production sites, since you need PFAS as a production aid when manufacturing fluorinated polymers. In other words - production of fluorinated polymers can be a source of PFAS emissions. According to a recent report from the EEA, several harmful substances have been reported in wastewater or river water downstream of plants known to be manufacturing fluorinated polymers. So considering there are other friction modifiers that can be used that outperform PTFE, PTFE is now usually only used by lubricant MFG who do not want to spring for more expensive WS2 Etc. And for DIY, it is up to each own, but i think it is incredibly premature to think that even a handy % of PTFE is made you way you hope it is. SInce when do such companies do something in a manner that is more expensive without a gun being held to their head. They can clearly continue doing the old much cheaper way as there is no regulation or practical method of enforcing the cleaner way - so in my view the odds on that being widespread are basically nil, and information put out about oh now it can be so its ok - is the equivalent of PTFE greenwashing by those manufacturing PTFE. Same as X companies plant tree's to keep polluting etc.
hmmm is there a pattern forming ? First DR questions your techniques and you retaliate with abuse towards him and now you dont like what ozcycle says and the same response...i cant find anywhere where oz has had a go at you just has a cheaper and different waxing technique
People are free to disagree with ZFC--but they had better be doing so fairly & honestly--and with facts, repeatable processes, and good evidence. Otherwise, Adam will rip their conclusions to pieces. Which isn't really a bad thing, right? DR doesn't understand the difference between unverified fact and fiction. OZ needs to back up his conclusions with evidence & facts before making extravagant claims. So, yes, Adam's "pattern" is to challenge these kinds of people--which I think is awesome!
DR doesnt question anything - he makes a lot of very incorrect statments as well as outright lies - deliberately and maliciously so. I think i have a right to defend against such no? And despite DR being one of the most notorious malicious liars and defamers in this space (and you support him? if yes pls feel free to not come here) - Oz had him on his show to talk crap about zfc. Aside from that..... his test vs msw was VERY bad - again i have that covered in a document. His ratio's make no sense and appear to be based on moon phase or whether mercury is retrograde - and his formulas and ratio's change often - again based on zero data or info on these formula's or the changes etc etc. So it is great he is working in the DIY space, but for sure there are valid points to be raised re some of the information. Ie this one, do you not think it should be tested first before putting out video recommending this diy hack vs silca strip chip, vs doing so , and then saying hey i will back in 5 months with some data? ZFC work is based on extremely robust control testing. So why are you looking for a conspiracy, vs the basic obvious facts of the situation that are smacking you in the face?
What puzzles me most is why the DIY world cares about contaminating your wax with random crap when all we've been doing for years is using glass pickle jars and white spirit to clean the chains in the first place. It's really not that hard to clean a chain once you've found a solvent that works on chain grease. I just bought the fanciest wax I could find, it claims under 0.5pc oil. I'll be curious to see how that compares with the paraffin pellets I've been using until now. It was 5usd/kg.
I think it's unfair to conclude that Oz's DIY wax is most likely inferior to the commercial wax. We have absolutely no data. I'll be honest, I think that's his claim, that it is as good. I think it would be fair to say that the claim needs some data to back it up. Either he needs to provide credible data, or he needs to convince you that it's worth giving it a try. Apart from that, there isn't anything to say. It might be as good. It might not. If someone wants to try a DIY wax with additives, that's great. Maybe if enough people do it, then some data will come back to see if it is actually worth doing a rigorous test on it. Otherwise how is anyone going to provide evidence that it works or doesn't? You don't have to recommend it, but you also don't have to cast shade on it. Providing an opinion on how you think it's going to perform when you really have no data is a bad idea, IMHO. Even though it's based on paraffin wax and additives that other waxes are using, we don't know if it will perform better or worse. We can guess. But other people can guess just as well. I don't think you are intending to make these videos to guess how well lubricants will perform ;-) That's literally the opposite of what I think you are about!
I prefer the guesswork from someone who works with waxbased lubricants compared from someone who does NOT work with waxbased lubricants. If I have problems with my teeth, I listen to a dentist, not to a surgeon, although the surgeon has studied for a longer period of time. Rgr
I respectfully disagree. For one, we know the wax base is much cheaper and inferior vs mspeedwax, hot melt etc. There is a reason why he says to replace every 3000km vs others 10,000km. And mspeedwax, silca and others have spent a huge amount of time and resources and cost testing - both control and field. We can already see that new formula mspeedwax has 1/3rd the total wear vs original formula mspeedwax by end of block 6. The oz test of his vs mspeedwax (original formula), was in my view so flawed and so many base errors that it verges on concern re the errors being deliberate. I offered at the time for Oz to send me his blend for testing, and he did not. Now that ship has sailed, and we are far too busy with tests for mfg and other much higher value knowledge wise open lubricants tests vs his DIY mix. I would read the document in the instructions tab titled "That oz cycle video" for the full run down on that. Also - remember he has changed ratios for his wax blend A LOT, and still there is zero re what he has based both his original and updated lower numbers on. Same re wax drip - that has changed drastically over time. What was original based on? Then change X? then change y? then change z? So you are giving a vote of confidence to a product outcome based on numbers that for all we know could be derived from moon phases on what level of retrograde mercury is in, vs products with genuine huge amount of R&D and testing behind them. odds On oz diy matching the likes of mspeedwax etc are..... lets say... .low. Not saying its bad, it overall could be quite a groovy product. but its not mspeedwax of hot melt or rex, of that i am sure.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 I'm not giving a vote of confidence to anything. I'm saying we have no data. None. We do not know that the wax is inferior. We have no data. We do not know what the commercial wax producers use for their base wax. All we know is what additives they are adding. We have no other data at all. I love the fact that you test this stuff. That's the important bit. You have data on how well the products actually work. If you were going to sit there and bad mouth Muc Off without ever having once tried it, I would write you off as just as big a crank as what I think Oz is. But you actually tested it. It performed objectively poorly. End of story. However, your opinion is biased, just like everyone. There will be times that you are right. There will be times that you are wrong. Opining how well or badly something will work when you have no data is what the other guys are doing. It's not helpful in any way. It detracts massively from the conversation. Just because you distrust the person, or their approach to a problem does necessarily mean that their solution is bad. It might mean that it's not worth your effort to evaluate. That's totally fair. I'm not saying that you need to chase up every crackpot's theory in the world. I'm just saying that if it's not worth your effort to evaluate objectively, then it's not worth your effort to reply at all. Why is this important? Because you are the only person with objective evidence in this field. There is nobody else. There is no other data. None. Tilting at windmills helps nobody and hurts many. You don't have to listen to me, but I hope that you do. This kind of poor reaction to cranks is what others use as ammunition to devalue your work.
@@urouroniwa I think it's fine for Adam to question & challenge unverified claims. OZ doesn't have ANY data to back up his rather grandiose conclusions, so I applaud Adam for holding him accountable.
I love DIY projects that save money, result in significant improvements, or are just fun to do. But OZ misses all three targets. For now, I'm happy with Silca's products, which are cost effective, work great, and don't require a lot of messing about with dangerous chemicals.
I just changed from diy wax to Silca secret. With Silca I have much less wax flakes coming off the chain. Silva is more expensive but for me it is worth it.
Totally agree. I just switched. Silky smooth and minimal flaking. I agree with Zero Friction vv making money and surviving. If the apocalypse hits, I will use paraffin. Until then, Silva gets my few $ more!
+1 on fewer flakes
I once suggested sewing machine oil to test in the comments. Great that you picked that up! I think the results are mind blowing. Decades ago before all these "bicycle chain lubes" came up it was a very common used lube for bicycle chains. At least in Europe. These lubes are very cheap here. You can get 100ml for 2-3€ or even cheaper if you buy a liter. That the Singer is doing better than some much more expensive oils... If this doesnt show up that bicyle oils are mostly a scam what else would! Another VERY controversial oil to test would be WD40. I found a lot of comments where people swear by it. Claims from 5000-10000km per chain! Many other say rather from theory that it not a real lubricant and its bad for the chain. But from the knwoledge that I got from your work it looks like it maybe isnt so bad. The solvents of WD40 flush the dirt out. With its low viscosity it gets very deap inside the chain and after the solvents are evaporated it leaves a little oil with a chain that doesnt attract to much dirt.
PS that the oil like with the Singer fly off the chain while riding is also a problem with some bicycle oils.
DIY seems interesting. But..:since the gap and cost is similar to proper waxes, why risk the possibility of it being not good enough? These are multiple thousands of dollar bikes. And we are fussing over $10-30?
“There can be a perspective that the top commercial waxes are just way, way overpriced”. That’s because a lot of them are! Thanks to your work, we know how to get the best bang for the buck (or AUD or £).
At the moment i disagree re products like Mspeedwax, HM and rex being overpriced. They do have a higher mfg cost than A LOT of other products we pay a vastly higher margin on, and again there is the cost of bringing to market, marketing, distribution, all the other costs of doing business which are substantial, investing in future, and after all of that - having some left over to pay yourself a living wage.
Remember from when mspeedwax create the product, and package it - most of that then moves to importers / w/salers - to sell to retailers, to then sell to customer - so their are also usually 3 layers that all need to make margin, and from that margin those business need to cover their costs from that and be left with some net profit.
No one is running off to buy a yacht off selling bicycle chain lubricants! (maybe muc-off...).
And so factoring all of that - comparing to the DIY mans own numbers - there is about a $35 gap from DIY to Mspeedwax per 15,0000km - I dont get to "way overpriced" from that place.
@zerofrictioncycling if Muc Off did buy a yacht, they better not get it in their heads that they should make an engine lubricant. The results might be not what they’re hoping for.
@@weiwenng8096 Gold!
@@zerofrictioncycling992I was actually referring to things like Trutension ($902), UFO drip ($626) and Silca Hot Wax X ($565) vs MSpeedwax (only $256) per 10km
I just switched my mtb chains from winter mix to summer mix (pure paraffin, ptfe powder and pure paraffin oil. I brush the chain grossly with a kitchen plastic brush and break the links to avoid buildups since it's a bit tacky but it's excellent for muddy Canadian conditions, as with silca I just wipe my chain after a ride...
Manufacturing costs are almost always going down. CNC machines churn out parts by the thousands at speeds and tolerances no machinist or even team of machinists could come close to so either parts should be getting cheaper or profits are going up. I think, parts are based more on what people will pay than cost of production and some reasonable profit and since most of the things we buy aren't essential I'm pretty much fine with that. Not so much on essentials like insulin for example...
If one of those mounts costs two dollars to make I'd be surprised.
Let’s say you make a window of SiO2 is it a volcanic rock window? Nevertheless it’s very abrasive ;) keep up the good work, thx man!
Some interesting comments here today. I think if you are happy with the 'ingredients' and performance and can be pfaffed making a home brew, then go for it. MSW and Silca have just worked out their own blends through experience and testing (with performance listed on ZFC) and provide a consistent and repeatable experience, so I'm happy with the convenience they provide. I also prefer to buy bread from Bakers Delight rather than bake it myself because it is the same and what I like each time, even if it costs a little more.
Also, you should make it clear that "candle wax" can be anything from melted-down supermarket own brand candles (with the wicks pulled out, you hope) which can be made, in addition to paraffin wax, of soy wax, beeswax, paraffin oil, or other oils & fillers, through to fully refined paraffin wax with less than 1% additive content. Yes, candle makers supplies sell paraffin wax, but the smart ones make sure that the fully refined wax is labelled as such, exclusive of additives such as the above.
Looking at your test data its easy to conclude wax generally beats oil based product.
But what happens if a person use wax and does maintain the bike?
Im asking because I just cleaned my brothers road bike. It was extremly dirty and components where full of old lube turned into grinding paste. My brother have stored the bike through winter in a shed. So after removing the "grinding paste" I found the chain rollers was a bit rusty. Both chain and chainwheel was worn, so I replaced them.
Initially I entended to apply immersive vax on the new chain. But for someone like my brother who doesn't ride his bike very often and doesn't maintain the bike beyond maybe applying fresh lube, on top of the old lube. I figure rust is a bigger issue than actual wear?
So I think oil based "dry" lube is better for my brothers bike...
Egg white extracted from singed Easter eggs as a chain lube? JK Happy Easter!
I find it amazing that people talk about weight percentage for additives. The densities of these additives range from 2 to 7.5. I order to get a similar number of molecules you need to adjust for density.
In engineering perspective waxing helps 10% and frequent deep cleansing +frequent lubing helps 90%...
Hi ! on the surface that comment doesnt make sense to me yet - can you expand? Lets see - waxing = lubing, thats done frequently enough. Waxing does the deep cleaning at the same time. Wax is solid so has the highest contamination resistance, many more times so vs wet lubricants.
So why would one want to spend time and solvents faffing cleaning and rate that at 90% vs waxing at 10%? confused, can you explain more?
I would still be interested to know the chain's efficiency with each lubricant. I understand your viewpoint that less wear shows there is less friction, but a higher viscosity lubricant may give lower wear but more resistance.
I think none of the "high viscosity oils" had low wear in the ZFC testing.
Correct - for waxes - jason smith had tested a lot of paraffin for UFO wax base in the early days. Less refined - so higher oil content - it can keep a treatment feeling smooth and long lasting, but it is slower. Other impurities that are common like soy and palm oil, and candle scents etc - are slower again.
High grade paraffin has a very low oil content, so the wax polishes to a very slippery surface once broken in, and so has highest efficiency as for all the sliding surface friction movements (literally around 300,000 a minute in large chain ring at 90 cadence) - having the lowest stiction and basically zero viscous friction - that gives an efficiency advantage - independent of if both types are protecting metal from wear.
Also high grade stays cleaner and attracts less contamination, so over time they tend to deliver lower wear as contamination is abrasive
@@jorgelucascouto oils always just attract contamination and become abrasive. Just the nature of running wet and external operation. there is a reason they never "oiled" key locks but used graphite powder! :)
I'd like to know where he's getting 50gms of friction modifiers (that isn't PTFE) for $10AU. Also like to know what grade/size it is for that price.
AliExpress, you can pick size etc. Hope that helps.
@@MrVizzle that explains a lot. I can't do AliExpress. I have more respect for my drivetrain to stoop that low. No offence, each to their own. I'll leave it there. If I did go dyi I'd be looking for reputable established sources (manufacturers) with quality controls for the materials and not just looking for the cheapest listing from a random seller in what I view as an unregulated marketplace. It's not going to end well. It's a matter of when, not if.
@@clintmichigan9112 check Georg Rockall-Schmidt - How Teflon Poisoned the World for your reputable sources
There is a lot of shite sold as X that could be anything. I didnt bother going into that on this one as again i dont want to come across against DIY - but for sure some people have bought ws2 by the kg for like $15. Or graphene for similar. And yet what goes into ws2 and silca costs a fair bit, so it is not the same thing getting genuine quality and particle size from a tier 1 supplier vs getting something called that from alibaba for 1/100th the price
I use effetto mariposa sunflower wax but after watcing OZ cycle i have mixed it by a blender with PTFE powder, i didn't know the solvant in there i just put alcohol, for cleaning i keep the chian on the bike and back pedal and pore some boiling water and wait 2 hours before rewaxing. I wish if you can test some quick links to see which are the best ones as top performer chain lubes in your list require chain removal, i think the cost of quick links should be added with those waxes. Thanks for the good work greetings from a small country in the middle east called Bahrain
why would you put PTFE in a very environmentally friendly, already super low wear and good longevity drip lubricant?! How are you going to tangibly track a benefit for doing such? what were you looking for in doing such?
I would not do this going forwards.....
Yes quick links should be part of wax cost but the cost of ones chosen links has a high variance, and thus this has become overly complicated especially as its all linked with omni-calc online calculator. Ie campy c-links cost like $30 for single use. YBN links cost a lot less but currently not compatible with sram axs flat top, whose links are more expensive, or T-Type. So for those you only have single use links, which are also expensive - and if one is stuck with only able to use officially single use links - the recommendation is to go hybrid approach, not to immersive everytime as that would be completely impractical to replace a $7 or $30 link everytime you re lube.
So what to do re this is still be tinkered with with omni calc.
the best ones are simply the officially re useable ones IF they are compatible with your chain, if not - hybrid approach of wax - re lube next approx 5x with immersive wax compatible drip lubricant like UFO drip - then re wax to reset any contamination starting to build and use a new link.
This is probably a compelling reason not to watch Oz ! You've turned a known quantity into an unknown one. It's possible you partially dissolved some of the wax in the alcohol , especially if it was hot. You may have created a gel instead of an emulsion of solid wax particles in water. This may have altered the penetration properties ? The PTFE may also have affected this and may possibly because of the presence of water , 'clump' or thicken the mixture ?
I'm not sure that boiling water is effective at cleaning Flowerpower. Effetto sell a product ' Allpine Extra ' that contains pine oil. Pine oil alone is not water soluble. A possible substitute you could try if you already have some is turpentine as used by artists . This is not to be confused with mineral turpentine which is totally different. Turpentine is a lighter fraction from the distillation of pine wood than the pine oil. I've not tried this and It is only a suggestion.
You could try the Connex wipperman quick links as they are removable by hand and should last the lifetime of your chain. I have some and they seem quite durable. At least here in the UK they can be difficult to buy at times and are expensive for >10 speed chains.
There is a lot of math being done here based on regular pricing on a website. There are MANY times you can catch a sale, especially during that cyber week type of time of the year, where you get 25% off of sites. You can stock up and be good for a year easily (I do it). There are ebay sellers, there are amazon listings, there are possibly points saved from say the 10000 dollar bike you purchased, wax is the last thing I'm worried about to keep my bike running clean. Meanwhile, people will spend 20 dollars on a TPU tube (rather than 7 from a Chinese website for the same thing). Etc. There's time involved in sourcing DIY stuff, there's R&D that you're now dealing with, possibly making a mistake, all of it. Cach a sale, buy the brand you want to go with, and less thinking.
Yep for comparison workings i really have to work of normal pricing and i dont expect all will be waiting or hunting for sales, or risking buying knock off or potentially poor quality stuff from some sites. Not sure how common but i can for sure advised people are burned every day getting poor quality / knock off stuff from some sites, and then it costs you more money as you have to spend what you would have initially on the right product from a reputable site vs the money you just blew + then purchasing the right stuff. With experience some get to know the pitfalls, what to look for, what to avoid etc but that often comes with trial and error and wasted $$ to save $$
With diy. Depends where you live on availability of all items you would need to make your own wax blen and depending on shipping and import fees, time wasted, you have could’ve just bought premade wax and be riding your bike.
Is that Singer oil as in sewing machine oil? Very good for the bearings in 'multiplier' sea fishing reels to cast a long way. Doesn't have the viscosity for the loading on a bike chain link though.
Is there a formula for minimum viscosity against load?
Sewing machine oil isn´t just very viscous, it´s also very easy to wash off with water if you stain your garment whilst sewing. For fishing reels, really?? Rgr
yes but it markets itself these days as "All purpose household and industrial use - high quality" - so from that i would singer says its good for both your sewing machine, garage door hinges, to your lathe's bearings and well - basically everything.
I think in a pinch - its going to just pass for some things, but for just about anything, a quality product specialising in the use case you are looking for will way outperform singer.
5:20 there is no way that WS2 in 4-6 micron costs $10 for an ongoing supply. It's currently selling directly from the manufacturer (Kooben Industries USA is where I got mine) for $AUD40 per 1oz (28.35g).
There is a lot of shite sold as X that could be anything. I didnt bother going into that on this one as again i dont want to come across against DIY - but for sure some people have bought ws2 by the kg for like $15. Or graphene for similar. And yet what goes into ws2 and silca costs a fair bit, so it is not the same thing getting genuine quality and particle size from a tier 1 supplier vs getting something called that from alibaba for 1/100th the price
Brake clean is awful but excellent in stripping chains.
There's a difference though between making a honest living and exploiting your employees and customers just because you can. (IMO)
who is that one aimed at? lil zfc or big biz?
Silver Armour Knight.
I dont know what that means. Am i silver armour knight?
Just in case it means what i think it may mean - ZFC has zero sponsors.
An important part of the independent testing is holding to account mfg putting out rubbish products but marketing powerfully to get a lot of market traction, which equals a lot of drivetrains suffering early death by abrasion. The other important part balancing that is to highlight mfg and products that are genuinely outstanding in this space.
I would hope you agree that doing both of those things is a rather obvious and important thing to be done from the findings from a very robust, very labour intensive independent testing process. Its pretty much a "Key findings" kind of thing.
So, highlighting the top products and mfg is a pretty natural, expected and logical outcome from the testing that followers would expect. It would be very weird to operate otherwise. So if highlighting the top products and mfg found to date you class as ZFC protecting sponsors - then i would say there is not a conspiracy theory you wouldn't sign up to.
If i am wrong about what you meant - disregard :)
@@zerofrictioncycling992 always enjoyed your content. even if you overthink things sometimes and take internet to serious. Very sorry that my comment took so much time off you, it was not vicious in intent.
@@MrVizzle ha no problems - i just do get the odd troll, durian sycophant, or just plain everything is a commercial conspiracy thinker. I work very hard and ferociously independent so i will alway fight any actual or possibly perceived attacks against my very hard work that i feel passionate is really important in this space as without ZFC, what else is there in this space atm?! :)
Also, if you follow the original formulation of Friction Facts, then why can't your home wax blend be 90% (or more) as good as MSpeedwax, or Silca? It's what they did, a few years ago. As long as you use the best paraffin wax you can find, and don't overheat it, the only thing their $60 blocks of wax have over your $10 - 20 one is 3 different particle sizes of WS2 (and an unbiased jury could fail to see how this might be a significant advantage: we only have their word for it that this makes a measurable difference to their wax's performance over a single particle size blend). MoS2 seems to be good in most commercially available sizes, and the current animus some manufacturers have against PTFE powder as a friction modifier additive is based on an outdated idea of PTFE's toxicity (which used to use PFOA (a PFAS) as a precursor chemical, but has not since the early 2000s).
Agree. A test with proper purified paraffin wax and some added modifiers would be a great comparison. But that might make some commercially available options not viable anymore.
Disagree on a couple of points there (and you can still disagree with me though). You can see in the test that new formula mspeedwax and silca hot melt are basically 1/3rd the total wear by end of block 6 vs original formula Mspeedwax.
And i think that you are taking extremely rose coloured glassed to PTFE mfg. Yes it can be produced in a fairly low toxic manner now, but are you betting that it generally is? Just look at how many things are produced that could be produced in a very clean manner, vs just pumping toxic waste from production directly into rivers etc - in quite a number of countries.
Here is a quote from Chemsec;
“There are no regulations in place that require chemical producers to disclose PTFE production"
Little is known about where PTFE and other fluorinated polymers are produced in the world as there are no regulations in place that require chemical producers to disclose this.
Within the EU, the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register requires chemical manufacturers to report emissions into the air, water, and land from a number of pollutants. But producers of fluorinated polymers do not have to specify that they produce these particular substances. What you can do is measure the amount of PFAS in the air to indicate fluorinated polymer production sites, since you need PFAS as a production aid when manufacturing fluorinated polymers. In other words - production of fluorinated polymers can be a source of PFAS emissions.
According to a recent report from the EEA, several harmful substances have been reported in wastewater or river water downstream of plants known to be manufacturing fluorinated polymers.
So considering there are other friction modifiers that can be used that outperform PTFE, PTFE is now usually only used by lubricant MFG who do not want to spring for more expensive WS2 Etc.
And for DIY, it is up to each own, but i think it is incredibly premature to think that even a handy % of PTFE is made you way you hope it is. SInce when do such companies do something in a manner that is more expensive without a gun being held to their head. They can clearly continue doing the old much cheaper way as there is no regulation or practical method of enforcing the cleaner way - so in my view the odds on that being widespread are basically nil, and information put out about oh now it can be so its ok - is the equivalent of PTFE greenwashing by those manufacturing PTFE. Same as X companies plant tree's to keep polluting etc.
hmmm is there a pattern forming ? First DR questions your techniques and you retaliate with abuse towards him and now you dont like what ozcycle says and the same response...i cant find anywhere where oz has had a go at you just has a cheaper and different waxing technique
People are free to disagree with ZFC--but they had better be doing so fairly & honestly--and with facts, repeatable processes, and good evidence. Otherwise, Adam will rip their conclusions to pieces. Which isn't really a bad thing, right? DR doesn't understand the difference between unverified fact and fiction. OZ needs to back up his conclusions with evidence & facts before making extravagant claims. So, yes, Adam's "pattern" is to challenge these kinds of people--which I think is awesome!
@@SnaxNoCo could not have said it better myself! probably just longer :)
DR doesnt question anything - he makes a lot of very incorrect statments as well as outright lies - deliberately and maliciously so. I think i have a right to defend against such no? And despite DR being one of the most notorious malicious liars and defamers in this space (and you support him? if yes pls feel free to not come here) - Oz had him on his show to talk crap about zfc.
Aside from that..... his test vs msw was VERY bad - again i have that covered in a document. His ratio's make no sense and appear to be based on moon phase or whether mercury is retrograde - and his formulas and ratio's change often - again based on zero data or info on these formula's or the changes etc etc.
So it is great he is working in the DIY space, but for sure there are valid points to be raised re some of the information. Ie this one, do you not think it should be tested first before putting out video recommending this diy hack vs silca strip chip, vs doing so , and then saying hey i will back in 5 months with some data?
ZFC work is based on extremely robust control testing. So why are you looking for a conspiracy, vs the basic obvious facts of the situation that are smacking you in the face?
What puzzles me most is why the DIY world cares about contaminating your wax with random crap when all we've been doing for years is using glass pickle jars and white spirit to clean the chains in the first place. It's really not that hard to clean a chain once you've found a solvent that works on chain grease.
I just bought the fanciest wax I could find, it claims under 0.5pc oil. I'll be curious to see how that compares with the paraffin pellets I've been using until now. It was 5usd/kg.
I think it's unfair to conclude that Oz's DIY wax is most likely inferior to the commercial wax. We have absolutely no data. I'll be honest, I think that's his claim, that it is as good. I think it would be fair to say that the claim needs some data to back it up. Either he needs to provide credible data, or he needs to convince you that it's worth giving it a try. Apart from that, there isn't anything to say. It might be as good. It might not.
If someone wants to try a DIY wax with additives, that's great. Maybe if enough people do it, then some data will come back to see if it is actually worth doing a rigorous test on it. Otherwise how is anyone going to provide evidence that it works or doesn't? You don't have to recommend it, but you also don't have to cast shade on it. Providing an opinion on how you think it's going to perform when you really have no data is a bad idea, IMHO. Even though it's based on paraffin wax and additives that other waxes are using, we don't know if it will perform better or worse. We can guess. But other people can guess just as well. I don't think you are intending to make these videos to guess how well lubricants will perform ;-) That's literally the opposite of what I think you are about!
I prefer the guesswork from someone who works with waxbased lubricants compared from someone who does NOT work with waxbased lubricants. If I have problems with my teeth, I listen to a dentist, not to a surgeon, although the surgeon has studied for a longer period of time. Rgr
that's some twisted logic. You're assumption that moron has a viable wax mix when there are a lot of good choices out there for not a lot of money.
I respectfully disagree. For one, we know the wax base is much cheaper and inferior vs mspeedwax, hot melt etc. There is a reason why he says to replace every 3000km vs others 10,000km.
And mspeedwax, silca and others have spent a huge amount of time and resources and cost testing - both control and field. We can already see that new formula mspeedwax has 1/3rd the total wear vs original formula mspeedwax by end of block 6.
The oz test of his vs mspeedwax (original formula), was in my view so flawed and so many base errors that it verges on concern re the errors being deliberate. I offered at the time for Oz to send me his blend for testing, and he did not. Now that ship has sailed, and we are far too busy with tests for mfg and other much higher value knowledge wise open lubricants tests vs his DIY mix.
I would read the document in the instructions tab titled "That oz cycle video" for the full run down on that.
Also - remember he has changed ratios for his wax blend A LOT, and still there is zero re what he has based both his original and updated lower numbers on. Same re wax drip - that has changed drastically over time. What was original based on? Then change X? then change y? then change z?
So you are giving a vote of confidence to a product outcome based on numbers that for all we know could be derived from moon phases on what level of retrograde mercury is in, vs products with genuine huge amount of R&D and testing behind them.
odds On oz diy matching the likes of mspeedwax etc are..... lets say... .low. Not saying its bad, it overall could be quite a groovy product. but its not mspeedwax of hot melt or rex, of that i am sure.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 I'm not giving a vote of confidence to anything. I'm saying we have no data. None. We do not know that the wax is inferior. We have no data. We do not know what the commercial wax producers use for their base wax. All we know is what additives they are adding. We have no other data at all.
I love the fact that you test this stuff. That's the important bit. You have data on how well the products actually work. If you were going to sit there and bad mouth Muc Off without ever having once tried it, I would write you off as just as big a crank as what I think Oz is. But you actually tested it. It performed objectively poorly. End of story.
However, your opinion is biased, just like everyone. There will be times that you are right. There will be times that you are wrong. Opining how well or badly something will work when you have no data is what the other guys are doing. It's not helpful in any way. It detracts massively from the conversation. Just because you distrust the person, or their approach to a problem does necessarily mean that their solution is bad. It might mean that it's not worth your effort to evaluate. That's totally fair. I'm not saying that you need to chase up every crackpot's theory in the world. I'm just saying that if it's not worth your effort to evaluate objectively, then it's not worth your effort to reply at all.
Why is this important? Because you are the only person with objective evidence in this field. There is nobody else. There is no other data. None. Tilting at windmills helps nobody and hurts many. You don't have to listen to me, but I hope that you do. This kind of poor reaction to cranks is what others use as ammunition to devalue your work.
@@urouroniwa I think it's fine for Adam to question & challenge unverified claims. OZ doesn't have ANY data to back up his rather grandiose conclusions, so I applaud Adam for holding him accountable.