almost - 330 to go. How many family members do you have hahahahahaha

good idea - i may look to add that one but then i may run out of time resources a bit - already based on initial results i may be re testing bath one in fresh 200ml of UFO and Stripper and fresh wax each with the existing sram budget chains, and then repeating this yet again with Ultegra chains as well as an ultegra solvent control chain - so the rather inconvenient initial results which alas due to variance in chain measure right from the start check measure before waxed has added at least 5 more tests - which is less than ideal !!! i really wanted to be able to crack on with the main test plan and then move on to adding some other cleaning products / methods - but here we are.....

I should add that I washed the chain in plain water after using the Silca chain stripper, then dried it with a heat gun. I wonder if the chain stripper residue (if not washed off in water) is actually interfering with wax adhesion rather than helping with it.

@@northkyt it shouldnt as that is their instructions. I know for UFO specifically that the water is what activates that final step re film for adhesion, i would imagine Silca should be similar. And yes i am very much hoping it is a chain issue vs product issue so as soon as finished testing silca stripper chain one, i am going to have to repeat these first 3 tests using ultegra 11 chain where i dont have to worry re chain variance. So a real pain in the butt and will add much time onto this test project before i can start to assess further but alas the variance from new in these sram pc1130 chains was just not expected at all - i expected still near perfect tolerance just that they are sans the fance low friction and wear protection coatings of the higher level chains, i did not expect over 20% variance in start measures. Very disappointing, and it is just an unexpected variation i need to double check by repeating with rock solid chain model before i can really point the finger at a concern with the fancy cleaning prep products. Stay tuned!! im on leave next two weeks with school hols but will try keep the test machine running on this project for a good update on vid after im back.

Thanks Drivemenuts - i think in the early days of friction facts that was what jason smith used - but over time he moved to basically same turps / metho etc widely used and recommended. There are so many solvent options out there alas we havent focussed at all on trying to find what hardware solvents do / dont work, how much needed of X type etc as control testing to do so is very resource intensive and we would end up with a very complicated recommendation chart!

ha yes computer / IT stuff - bloody heck i would make the worst IT support operator in history i think. I have just bought a new desktop pc - just finished full windows re install and spent an hour re loading apps and trying to get things up and running on the super gaming laptop here - still not going right and temps high so no confidence it wont just screw my week again. I will start setting up new pc shortly and then get the laptop professionally looked at and see if it can be saved as a good hand me down to mini me for Fortnite or Starfield. Oh shit i mean schoolwork. Definitely schoolwork!!! ;)

my concern would be you moving the sand/dust/grit further inside the chain with each drip wax application and subsequent riding

Thanks, a genuine concern but I ride in clean dry road conditions and give chain a wipe with alcohol on a cloth before applying the wax drip. I can see some grey dust build up though inside links. So I ran chain backwards with a pair of nail brushes either side and could see a line of dirt on brushes after. Ongoing monitoring this.@@markifi

for offroad riders that is a concern for drip lubricant application every time whether waxing or not. Pre adding drip lubricant one should wipe chain with microfiber cloth and alcohol spray to lift off surface dust (and handy to do before re wax to greatly lessen amount of dust brought into wax pot).

yes thats a great approach - the circa 300km applies to the immersive waxing as the treatment lifespans are generally longer than the refined wax drip (ufo, ss drip etc) which are half carrier, so they will typically want to re apply circa 150 to 200km if using in between waxing.

Note that this doesn't work on more recent Intel CPUs without actual overclocking support.

oooh that sounds exciting - but i would be confused why i have to do it!! this very expensive things should be zooming along still. This is the process from the receipt; 10th Gen Intel® Core™ i7 10700 (8-Core, 16MB Cache, 2.9GHz to 4.8GHz w/Turbo Boost Max 3.0

Nah tis an aliemware area 51m r2, loads of power tis basically a desktop laptop! (sorry out on mobile so not logged in as zfc)

i don't understand why people process video. just use losslesscut. i can cut video 99% as fast as the storage device allows on an old computer in a public library. no colour grading, no futzing with layers, just raw footage cut

I dont even understand what im doing re above. I just use basic easy software to record from camera, and screen record, and it allows me to put them together, cut them if need, and then i just follow the bouncing ball to export to device so i can then upload to you tube with a thumbnail i make. I dont know if that counts as processing video, it just seems to be the most basic way of putting a vid together and then exporting from the software to the pc. Dont know that it would let me not do this and still have a video.

hey squires are you talking about prepping new chains? if yes then likely not need coffee filters as i am not sure how they would go filtering grease vs contamination. It can depend a bit on chain brand. Lets say its ybn. then likely bath one - you should likely dispose that bath. baths 2 and 3 can absolutely be kept for bath 1 next chain - quite potentially bath 1 and 2 as over time the grease will settle to bottom and you can decant top. For alcohol, bath 2 can be bath one next chain. So all up if prepping new chains - total solvent use can be relatively low if you are able to safely store final baths for next chain. yes you can use less solvent for multiple chains but you may need more baths. I have simply used 250ml per chain for a long time as i do chains 4 at a time in a 1litre bath - and so i know how many baths per chain brand that needs (3 for ybn / shimano, 4 for campy, 5 for sram). More ml per chain - less baths, less, potentially more baths. with wax it is not so much re getting X percentage benefits, it is just that if doing the process, you may as well prep properly and have a 100% prep outcome / wax bond as there would be very little difference between prepping properly and half arse-ing it and having poor wax bond and dry sounding / feeling chain soon after waxing / poor experience / potentially higher wear. For the sake of just doing the correct number of baths / solvent amount for a 100% perfect prep - its just worth doing what is known works perfectly every time especially if shelling out for proper great wax.

Hey there! Simply i hadnt yet tested an aerosol lubricant and T-9 aerosol had been requested a bit over time. I am certain the drip version would be better, and that overall it is probably a decent product, but note that this is not what T-9 was developed for, it is just packaged and marketed up for as many applications as they think they can sell it for, using its "aerospace" credentials as it is always tempting to market that if it rocks good enough for aerospace industry, it will just slay anything in more tame industries like the humble bicycle etc. So no doubt it is a good lubricant, for whatever Boeing developed it to do, but that was not a bicycle chain. I do not think it will be competitive against the top tested products with a lot of genuine R&D for them as a bicycle chain lubricant. The top bicycle chain lubricants wouldnt be competitive as the best bearing lubricant vs top bearing lubricants, nor the best combustion engine lubricants, nor the best for mechanical watches etc etc - the genuine top products specifically for the purpose they were designed are almost always going to be the best. Unlike no doubt many other products from industry that have been simply rebranded and re bottled for use in cycling, at least T9 looks to be decent performer, and i think many will be happy enough indeed if that has been their lubricant of choice, but yes we shouldnt lose site of the fact that there is a pretty big commercial factor behind a lot of the markets T9 is sold in re them just capitalising on "aerospace" to sell to a lot of markets that the product was not specifically developed to excel in.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks for your reply and I agree, Im a geek (like you ) no offense intended ! and love the details of performance in all things. After I watched both your test videos, I made the decision to go for the silica line of Hot wax products and just today bought a complete setup But I went with the Ultrasonic heater combo vs just the heater. not sure if it will help in the hot wax application. I did purchase the Silica Stripper as well to start the process correctly, and will be watching your video follow up once you get your chain standardization fixed. Thanks for the detail. How are you measuring wear after the stripper applications? I will certainly follow up on your advice to wax at an initial shorter interval.

Thanks cat and yeah my normal plan re computers has been grand till now! Very disappointed with the alienware as it has also been BY FAR the most expensive computer i have ever purchased and so was expecting at least 5 trouble free years. Have bought a new desktop will get cracking on starting to get that set up after this coffee and comment chat :) And no just the one wax after prep then see how that coating holds up across 6 x 10hr test interval blocks

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks, Adam! I thought it was just one waxing but I wanted to be sure. Definitely makes the test more interesting. I would expect more from Alienware as well but I've been out of the Windows PC world for a long, long time now. Hope the new desktop works out for you!

Alas unless i test that i cant really advise - and i will be a bit tied up for a bit with extra tests thanks to this inconvenient initial result!

Thanks Darryl! i aint ignoring the suggestion, it is filed in a mental folder devoted to chain prep - i just cannot promise when i will have the spare time resources to start testing all possible solvent preps as there are so many. But if i do, i promise that will be at or near top of the list :). But i need to assess the fancy stuff first as that is to hopefully be the way for many around the world to go for an easier and overall cheaper prep approach vs who knows what solvent they can/ cannot access and for who knows how much $$ and one product in one place can be cheap and cost a bomb in others. Ie acetone is cheap in usa but very expensive here.

Thanks! and yes i am really hoping it is a chain issue not a UFO clean issue, about to start testing with ultegra 11spd so will have a double check result to solve soon ish (possibly a little interrupted due to holidays). And yes sram chains always have a whitish residue post cleaning via the recommended solvent method, but this does not hinder bond if prepped as per the guide - srams chains typically have a good wax bond, just yeah, what a pain for the extra baths (at least it sure is a pain here prepping them all the time, its amazing how much it slows things up needing 5 turps baths vs normal 3 for most brands). Stay tuned..... double check test has me on the edge of my titan gaming chair...... :)

I am not sure that will prep chains well for wax bonding as needed for immersive waxing or top wax drip lubricants...

ah the super b trident? this is a very handy tool as does both connect and release, and unlike ones like park tool that is pretty needs both hands on the tool to do the connect, this one enables you to squeeze master link plates together with one hand and then just squeeze tool with the other so it is more assured you get pins in locking channel first time every time. zerofrictioncycling.com.au/product/superb-master-link-tool/

Sorry delay i missed this one! No havent heard of that before, i would worry if it could remove any film left behind like the recommended alcohol bath does

here in aus they are pretty darn expensive. I havent had much experience with xylene, but acetone is also very fuming which adds an element of potential harm for those using if using without caution. But yeah acetone in aus costs a BOMB, and xylene up there as well - mineral turpentine and metho literally around 1/4 the cost.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 well, I guess the ladies need to be careful when they remove their nail polish, because nail polish remover is frequently acetone, and nothing more

@@zerofrictioncycling992 thanks for the reply, just curious

but is he right with stating that acetone or xylene would eliminate the need for different solvents? because here also acetone is not a high cost product@@zerofrictioncycling992

What makes you think that they are specifically designed for wet contamination? If you go to his webpage on lubricant testing and scroll to the second table, there you'll see the wear by block (so not the cumulative wear from previous blocks included). And you'll see that for each of the wet lubricants tested (like Silca Synergetic, Finish Line Dry, Rex Black Diamond, etc. All have higher wear rates in block 4 - the wet contamination block than in the previous blocks. Which from a theoretical viewpoint makes total sense as Adam so often explains. In an oil based lube (a.k.a wet lube) the dirt that gets in there will stay in and becomes a grinding paste, wearing out your chain. So this is especially the case in wet conditions where you'll have a lot of mud/grind/dirt on the road. In contrast, wax is hard and dust can dust not really stick into it. Only a bit on the surface and on your remaining carrier/emulsion from the drip waxes. Since you're talking about wet commuting rides. What does this mean, like 5-10, maybe max 20 km rides? And with what kind of bike? A road race bike or some other bike for which it's harder to quickly get the chain off, like some E-bikes perhaps? The disadvantage for this can be that you need to take off your chain a lot when you do every day wet commuting rides to prevent your chain from rusting with an immersive wax. So, what you could do is use one of the high-end wet lubes like Silca Synergetic or Rex Black diamond. They don't require a lot of lube to be put on, thus not attracting a lot of dirt and can last quite a bit, even in the wet. So when yu clean your bike it still rather easy to clean your chain since it's not very grimy and you can easily relube afterwards. But, it will always be less efficient than an immersive wax.

Hey there! - yes i understand your thinking on this but in reality that approach simply is not needed. EVERY single lubricant tested has returned notably higher wear rates in wet contamination block 4 vs dry contamination block 2. So if their wear is so high they do not make it to block 4, they are not worth a look even if one is planning only to use for wet riding. You can look at their block 2 result and add about 20%. I cant alter the maint test protocol order, as there is no cleaning throughout the test, the extra contamination brought in during block 4 would render all other blocks results not comparable - and yeah whilst a wet conditions lubricant may not be washed off as such - simply more contamination will be brought in during block 4 vs block 2 (and it is the same 5 grams of contamination added in block 4). So block 4 result will always be worse. If it doesnt make it to block 4, it just is not worth buying.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks for your well thought out feedback. I think many bike shops think most of their customers will not wipe down chains in winter and reapply lube. So they prefer to avoid customers complaining about rusty chains. Rather use wet lubed chains with high invisible wear. I think drip waxes need a lot of care in wet winter conditions which is better for chain wear and is more visibly needing attention. However many cyclists can't be bothered with the care needed and chuck bikes in garages after a day at work.

@@92redferrari yes absolutely correct - many lubricants designed to cling on well during wet conditions, will cling on well to all the contamination thrown at the chain as well, and cyclists just wont feel that they have created a liquid emery file as their lubricant. Riding in wet conditions is an extreme lubrication challenge - few machine parts have to put up with what the chain does in cycling. One has to pay the piper one way or the other - either a lubrication and maintenance plan that resets contamination easily post wet ride ready for next ride so pay the piper with a little bit of time and attention, or just add more lube and wipe and pay the piper with much greater friction and wear, even if next rides are in the sun. If one is riding 10spd tiagra on a commuter bike, the later can be overall the more practical approach to get through winter and then replace cheap components. If one is running a decent cost groupset, the former would be the way to go!

Thanks for extensive reply

It’s not worth it unless you’re doing a bunch of chains or other parts cleaning.

@@industryrule-4080 cheers that’s saved me some cash for sure. I’m sure I’ll get faster with time.

yes ultrasonic of course is perfectly fine it is just unless you are looking to go for every fraction of a watt preparing race chains - if just prepping a new training chain - you would never be able to track an advantage of prepping via ultrasonic vs prepping via container method. So you just want to be clear on why looking to get an ultrasonic and what you think it will bring to you. It can be great if want to prep fully optimised chains (follow guide - instructions tab). they can be great for periodic maintenance if want the most perfect clean - if used correctly. but just bunging a new chain in an ultrasonic vs to soak then shake in a container .... most doing this are buying ultrasonics for the fun and tinkering vs tangible benefit.

Hi and thanks for the information. My thinking was it would do a decent job of cleaning the chain, new and used, it would be a faster process as I’m always seem to take longer than I should by the traditional method of shaking them with white spirit. And I also I thought after the initial purchase the cost would be less. Now I may be wrong on all these that’s why I thought it would be a good idea to ask the experts who know.

The film is supposed to help the wax bond - tis a waxy bondy promoter thingy so say the claims and the creator. More will be known in time - i will add the above to the test IF my next double checking with ultegra chains still show an issue. I am solvent prepping an ultegra 11s now for next test run, and straight after that will UFO prep same, and the we shall see - if i get two tests with different chains with same issue - we have a problem to discuss with CS, and i will re test again with alcohol bath/s final step. if the test matches solvent prep - then likely the issue is with the cheap sram chains and i will have to basically skip the plan for use those sram chains and continue test project using ultegra.

in the interim though just re wax early for a bit post ufo prep - in case there is any bond issue, re wax early (circa 150km for first few re waxes) should ensure get out of any wear danger period re wax bond until that prep film is gone and should be able to move to normal operations

i'd recommend stop re-encoding videos altogether and just use losslesscut or ffmpeg -safe 0 -f concat -i. the camera already encoded the video! why process it further

@@markifi Because upload sizes :P

i wish i understood what that sentence meant hahahahaha

last vids i have been doing 1980 by 1080. but friday i barely even got to hit the record button after each re boot before it froze again requiring another re boot. After 1.5hours of trying, and then 2 hours getting set up on travel laptop as had to get a usb hub - i ran out of time.... will see what i accomplish this weekend on things :)

i'd ask for the opposite of this. while requesting to test pure paraffin wax, to compare how far is 2023's best wax lubrication progressed compared to ~2016's best is a perfectly reasonable, i hope this doesn't open up a pandora's box of testing beeswax and maple syrup and other random crap

yes i hope to test gulf canning wax which is a great refined food grade paraffin - but after that that really will be it for DIY stuff there is just far, far too much other testing work to be done of vastly higher value to cycling world re useful information overall. If people are curious re esoteric stuff, they can test on their own bikes! :)

I think you have an untested assumption that this hasnt been tested. It has, not just with immersive wax, but with wax drip lubricants. It is a gunky mess. It absolutely hinders wax bonding to the chain metal, and can contaminate the wax in the pot. This is a comparative test you can also easily do yourself. Get some msw or food grade paraffin, prep one chain proper as per ALL immersive wax retailers instructions - which they did not arrive at unnecessarily, at all, beginning from testing in the friction facts days and development of the first UFO wax, and also sans prep. I think we had this chat before, but in 7 years in this space, you are the only person to posit that paraffin is a strong solvent for grease and oil. but remember - the solvent prep baths remove the solvent into a liquid that we then dispose. Even if your belief has some validity to it (insert dubious here based on all previous test observations by all in this space) - it would be removing factory grease into a place where it is not being disposed, by contaminating - in many cases - rather expensive wax. It would be like your dishwasher using the dirty water from the washing cycling for the rinse cycle. Not exactly a great way to go. And - what if you have more than one chain to do as you have multiple bikes or 2 training chains on rotation - and maybe a race chain - just how much FG do you want to supposedly dissolve into your 500ml of wax. Im sorry andy i would give up on beating that horse here - perhaps some forums might get some bites - but it will never be a recommended approach from ZFC, mspeedwax, silca, black diamond, all top wax drip lubricant mfg's - and for good reasons, based on testing, and not assumption. It is a flawed approach even if the paraffin was a sufficient solvent as we are keeping the FG in what we want as the wax lubricant - not ideal.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 drip wax is a totally different thing as you know. obviously that will turn into a gunky mess as the concentration of grease will totally overwealm the wax. im talking about immersion waxing. and i thought you agreed with me that paraffin is indeed a solvent, at least as good as white spirit or petrol. strangely, that attribute has been forgotten, or maybe it was never widely known. if you seemed to have backtracked for some reason. if it wasnt a solvent, why would generations of mechanics have used paraffin baths to clean parts. im not trying to annoy you, im honestly asking for test data to confirm the need for prepping. i think theres an untested assumption here, and its quite aggressively defended by a little industry thats built up. i see the same unthinking defence when i criticise ecars and renewable energy. why do people not question the idea you need to prep chains before dropping in the wax pot. same reason any cult defends its beliefs. because they are sheep and can't think your themselves and are personally benefitting in some way.

@@andy-the-gardener Hey andy no i agreed that you found one bit of information from the internet that referenced paraffin as being a solvent after you sent that. I couldnt find any reference to paraffin being a solvent when i did some initial searching. I do not believe the information you referenced gave it any comparative strength to other solvents from memory. Im not back tracking, just one swallow doesnt make a summer. I have no idea why generations of mechanics would use paraffin as a solvent as vs many other solvents i am sure that would be more messy? but perhaps there are other reasons. but perhaps the fact that it does not seem prevalent now also says something? There is no conspiracy or aggressive defence blah blah blah - it is just not prevalent information, and it does not seem logical to want to prep in a manner where one is dissolving off factory grease in a manner that it will now be part of ones lovely (and oft times) expensive wax, vs not contaminating the wax and cleaning factory grease via other methods that have one feeling confident they are not contaminating their wax. Even if i had indisputable proof that paraffin was a brilliant solvent, still no way would i use my wax to clean my factory grease - i dont want that in my lovely wax. We do not know at all if it may impact the speed or other properties of the wax, and again - many of us have multiple chains we run - we really, really would not want multiple chains of FG in our wax when we do not want one. So likely 99.999999999% of people will simply think same as above, and thus chain prep so it is lovely ready for lovely wax is the path. There is no sheep and whatever else crap you are throwing at us. If it makes sense to you to use you wax to prep your factory grease - go for it. but if you cannot understand why the vast majority would not - dont put your inability to understand on us as some conspiracy or sheep thinking crap. It is not a cult to simply not want factory grease being dissolved into our lovely waxes. Do you not think that if other industry heavies with a lot of experience re this such as josh poertner of silca , john thomson of Mspeedwax and more - that if it was fine - that they would be woohoo, that removes a big faffy barrier of entry for people if they can just simply wax without need to remove FG first?! How many years has silca had hot melt on the market and only just released their chain stripper. So for years they have had to manage customers through properly cleaning chain before waxing - which places a big barrier of entry for those looking to go waxing - do you not think if it was not necessary they would have been enforcing this all this time. And for what reason?! Some anti paraffin as solvent cabal??!! Honestly ---- sorry im am rarely a strong speaker but FFS what is your thinking here - can you not see how your assertions are just illogical. Pls take that question as rhetorical, pls dont reply, please can we move on from this. If you are so passionate about reinstalling paraffin as a solvent like generations past - take up that crusade elsewhere pls - can we just park it here.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 i am forced to reply because you are wrong or confused on several points and those need addressing. i am not saying mechanics used hard wax for cleaning oily parts. im talking about liquid paraffin, also known as kerosene, which is used to make our home brew chain waxes soft, and presumably used by expensive proprietary brands to do the same. but it does not alter my point. hard waxes, (or mixtures of hard wax and liquid paraffin hard at room temps), when in a molten state act exactly like liquid kerosene (as a solvent) does at low temps, and might even be even be better, as chemical reactions occur faster at higher temperatures. thats just basic chemistry. kerosene is a solvent. ask any petrochemist! to deny this just makes you look ignorant. what im trying to get over to you is that factory grease will dissolve off from a chain immersed in hot wax in literally seconds and come out pretty much squeaky clean. and the relative amount of grease on a factory chain, compared to the wax in the pot, is so infinitesimally small as to make no measurable difference whatsoever. and also, that grease is not necessarily bad anyway, or particularly different in kind to wax anyway, and certainly not going to effect a test result much. certainly not enough to bother cleaning it off separately first anyway. but who knows, if it aint been tested. without disproving it, my claim is entirely reasonable. theres a continuum between them all anyway. waxes, oils, greases etc are all hydrocarbons. any wax, oil or grease is going to have each in them to some extent. so this 'purity' idea of yours is utter bullshit. i'm sorry i have offended you by challenging the orthodoxy that seems to have built up in chain waxing circles. but as you mention 'woo', it does seem like mild woo. i think the vehemence of your defence of 'the orthodoxy' proves my point. fact is, you reject my claims out of hand, without even testing them. i have not even claimed the factory grease wont make the wax worse. it prbably does, infinitesimally. im just saying, for the end user, its probably a bit silly to bother cleaning it off separately. for someone like yourself, testing products and needing to be scrupulously fair and accurate, its completely different. you are entirely correct in cleaning chains before testing! as to any respect we shopuld have for the opinion of companies making chain cleaning products, it should make you suspicious of them. they have vested interests and their claims should be treated with a pinch of salt. you of all people should know that.

@@andy-the-gardener sorry andy i am replying without even reading as far too much time already invested in helping understand why we are not interested in your crusade. Apologies i couldnt get you to understand my side, i dont understand yours or you passion for this issue. pls lets move on, or just move on from ZFC if you cant get along here.

there are decent pc-s you know. there have been since ~1995. hodge-podge systems always gave them a bad name but that's no reason to support such a terrible company instead

Mac peeps gotta mac! :). Yep i have seen some information that certainly points to mac are not immune from issues. And this is my first every weird pc issue really - normally i would get 5 to 7 years before it has become a bit old and slow, and time to update. Mostly just disappointed because this crap happened to occur on me spending the big bucks on a coveted alienware. Possibly a case of never meet your hereo's :).