Yer that was great

Abbey and the Chipmunks

Gonna buy the Abbey when it’s released. I’m sitting on my hands at the moment regarding 39:32 buying some stuff from them.

Abby tools got Jipped!

It's credit to your video that I sat through the Alvin section regardless!

Yeah omg - honestly i was having a very, very low IQ day, i should have pulled the pin (bee sting a couple days before, i get a big reaction and so for 2 to 3 days i just cannot sleep as itch all through the night - taking every anti histamine and using every potentially helpful cream including the ones with anaesthetic, and icing, and omfg - its a nightmare. I tried to counter my zombie state with caffeine but it seems still at least two thirds of my neurons were offline hahahaha - i am hoping that is by far the worst vid attempt for me for the year, i already struggle!!!)

thanks cat!

Is the chain rotation to allow others to be waxed when not on the bike?

yes i beleive that to be mostly correct, but i need to have some more thinking time and a closer look at this in time. Take note of input from jason quade of abbey tools "The CC4 and other tools like it measure off the radius of the roller and don't capture the actual center of the roller. As a result they make assumptions as to roller diameter and they can produce bad readings on chains if the roller diameter is outside of the norm, like newer SRAM chains."

I want to believe that the owner of Abbey Tools has made a simple error of judgement. I'm sure they make some good tools. But it is not a good look to call the Park Tool CC-4 inaccurate as a competitor. Especially since the CC-4 is literally intended to be used for the SRAM Flattop and will work on any bicycle chain regardless of roller size (unlike the KMC digital tool which is restricted to a standard roller size).

Why CC-4 works with any roller size and thus with Sram Flattop and CC-3.2 does not is easy to understand with the above comment in mind. CC-3.2 measures roller inside to inside meaning the measurement is 2 times roller radius smaller than n*pitch. CC-4 measures roller outside to roller inside meaning the other end is adding one roller radius and the other end is subtracting a roller radius which cancels out assuming the rollers are the same size. This makes the measurement exactly n*pitch which we are after.

ah yep i see what you are saying there, cool cool - the squeeze up was new to me on vid yest so tis great to get around that one, will update in updates next vid.

Yeah roller size makes no difference with chain tools like the CC4/Shimano/Pedros because it’s measuring leading edge to leading edge. Tools like the CC2 or KMC digital are measuring leading edge to trailing edge, so rely on a systematic offset (being the roller diameter) to bridge the gap in the wear calculation.

The CC4 and other tools like it measure off the radius of the roller and don't capture the actual center of the roller. As a result they make assumptions as to roller diameter and they can produce bad readings on chains if the roller diameter is outside of the norm, like newer SRAM chains.

​@@jasonquade9284 The CC4 is designed to be used on chains with both standard and non-standard sized rollers, simply because it doesn't guess the final roller diameter. No the CC4 doesn't measure from the pin axis, the pin axis is not a quick and repeatable benchmark for a handheld tool. Yes the CC4 assumes even roller wear, so do all of these chain wear tools. The CC4 just has one less assumption built in. So in terms of metrology, the CC4 is slightly more sound than say the CC2. But tolerances are a major factor in these tools because they usually only measure the stretch over a seven inch pitch. So in terms of manufacturing tolerances, I have no Idea which is better. This is where ZFC is providing insight. But as Adam said he would need multiple samples to give a meaningful critique on manufacturing tolerance and QC.

@@ByronBNE If you're trying to judge how far apart two cylinders are center to center, but you're only measuring from the inside of one to the inside of the other, you just can't answer the question unless you know how big the cylinders (rollers) are in diameter. It's not about even roller wear, it's about some chains having bigger diameter rollers to start with. IE, SRAM flat top chains. If you're measuring pitch by measuring rollers and only indicating one side of the roller, you are making assumptions on roller diameter and as a result open yourself to error in some applications. Hope that tracks and makes sense. Sure it's splitting hairs, but that's kind of the point of ZFC in the first place.

Faff central ! Buy a CC-4 😅 Sorted

Yep that method is for sure all groovy, but again MANY cyclists do not remove their chains - even for (depending on lubricant choice) - much needed flush clean maintenance. So having a set up to remove chain and do full elongation measure and either using number of links x 12.7mm x 0.5%, or comparing to a new chain in waiting - simply 99%+ of cyclists will never do that method. Chain wear checking needs to be fast and easy, something that can be done in 20 seconds on bike, and then it has a chance of actually being regularly done. This is where accurate drop in chain wear checkers come in. Also full length do not pick up the variance in wear from one section of chain to another, which sometimes can be quite large. Ie one section might be at 0.4, another at 0.65. Overall average in a full length chain may be close to 0.5, but that 0.65 will be doing damage, and especially if your components are worth some good $$ - that is best avoided. Drop in checker one can check 5 sections in 20 secs, and use the most worn section as replacement mark. Over time we are driving to get a) vastly more people simply getting on top of chain wear checking and then b) matching that to kms attained so they can assess their lubricant of choice's performance. If the majority of cyclists did this, then some very common, very poor products / brands would see a much needed decline in sales....and mfg making actual great products would see a deserved upt ick..

ooh i better check that one out!

their target audience is pretty locked in, as we saw in his video before about the podcast, most MTB riders just don't care, probably a little bit to the fact that they're riding knobby tires anyway, so pedaling efficiency isn't very high on the list anyway, so SRAM probably figures they'll get more sales

​@@zerofrictioncycling992yeah it seems like kind of a miss not checking a major manufacturer's chain wear gauge. to be fair, before this video I didn't even know anyone other than Park Tools made one, besides all the sketchy Chinese knockoffs available on Amazon. Thinking about it now it makes sense that SRAM and Shimano would have their own. and in light of that what about the chain manufacturers like KMC? does Ceramic Speed have one? I think they sell their own chains too right?

@@better.better Yep for sure that was! i wont bother making excuses, that was just a low IQ miss on live filming chain checking with a couple new chain checkers (i havent physically been playing with some of the new models as close workshop side of ZFC years ago as too busy). For sure that should have been very obvious so apologies re all that. Now having paid some better attention and thought to the shimano and sram checkers it is obvious also how they adjust for roller size differences, so both the shimano and the park tool cc-4 should be perfect assuming park tool mfg consistency matches shimano. I would hope sram the same i have that on my list to purchase, and will check if kmc have a drop in checker as well, i will update the table over time. For this i am sort of surprise how many brands are spending the $$ to tool up (or have someone tool up) to make them a tool. Ie i think it would be much better for everyone if there was one or two tools that were dead on being mfg by X and simply re branded as needed for whomever wants to sell a chain checker. There are so many going their own way - with mixed accuracy - for what ostensibly is not the most exciting area for most - it is a utility tool that should be a buy once and have forever. But.... as always more and more are always coming out to keep everyone guessing...

@@better.better For sure mtb has been BY FAR the most challenging cycling demographic onboard with the basics of chain lubrication and wear. XC is getting there, slowly, but the more recreational and gravity focused - as a demographic they are literal couple of decades behind where road / tri / track is. Traditionally on an mtb in the triple chain ring days - one just slapped on wet lube, rode the DT until it just didnt ride anymore, then replace rings, cassette and chain. That continues largely to this day - and what is slowly changing that is not the rider thinking wow things might ride better if i didnt have a 20w loss chain vs a 5w loss chain (they dont twig to what that means) - but the cost of cassettes is forcing more to go ouch - and so after being burned the first time around, the smarter ones look to see if round 2 can go somewhat better. And often then...... a lot will depend on what their LBS wants to sell them. Again many of the more mtb focussed bike stores can stereotypically not have thought about bicycle chain lubes since tri-flow and finish line was released, not thinking that over the last couple of decades there may have been some improvements in this area. There are some brilliant mtb stores of course that stay up to date - but i would say definitely less so vs road, and even then many lbs in general have some catching up to do re what they stock and sell to customers. Some of the challenges in the mtb demographic i must say i find a mix of intriguing and frustrating - ie there are still so many that do not understand at all why a wet lubricant is (mostly) a very bad idea in the world of dirt and dust, and there are brands pushing wet lubricants specifically to the offroad market. It is such a huge miss match of product to purpose, and wow do many ride liquid sandpaper masquerading as chain lube. It is intriguing to me that this is still so common, but the waste of beautiful components that have a short and bad life is what i find frustrating. Some cassettes are things of beauty, and took quite some energy to bring to life, its almost physically painful for me to see them being ruined in short order (mtb is my own main riding / racing these days)

Hmm maybe.... really we want to educating that 0.5 is the mark, not 0.75, as in reality, on an accurate gauge - that is too late. And most quality chains the rollers are hardened such that there should not be such wear to affect a tool by the circa 0.5 mark. some more budget chains may have rollers that wear readily, but even if they are, officially the chain checkers are measuring elongation wear vs being concerned about whats happening at the two insert points for the rollers.

TonyGoonight is right. The instructions on the CC-2 say a measurement of 0.75 is the limit for 8 - 11 speed chains and a measurement of 0.5 is the limit for 12 speed chains.

The 3.2 is NORMALLY good- but over the years of the workshop days i did see a number that were out by a bit. Its anecdotal - but it was pretty common tool for customers that had chain checkers to bring in when dropping off / picking up bike so we could check - and if i had to guess i would say about 9 out of 10 would be pretty dead on, the odd one would be clearly out, normally measuring more wear than actual. the cc-2's were a shocker every time.

For sure there are mfg tolerance differences. Good brands on higher tier models its pretty tight, less so the lower you go. Jason smith did a great demonstration hanging a bunch of new chains up and showing the ends to be in quite different places. It is why for wear tracking it is great to always start with a net measure (important in testing etc) as you cannot be certain a chain is at 0.00 new. yes checking a freshly waxed chain that will be way under. But checking before due for rewax is very similar to stripped, the wax layer is extremely thin by then. Enough to make a difference, but not enough to upset things re time to replace or ok.

Just measure before next rewax. The wax coating left will be extremely thin by then. You may still get a very small error re lower wear than if stripped, but thats the same for all lubricants.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Cheers!

Yep rollers CAN have some external wear damage but this is rare. Rollers are sort of miss named, they dont actually do any rolling really. As soon as come into contact with chain ring / cassette teeth they are held static, and the inner link plate articulates inside roller bore, and around the also held static pin. So the main wear surfaces are pin, inner plate link bore, inner plate link shoulders and roller bore. So the roller will wear from the inside out, it will become a looser / sloppier fit on the inner link plate shoulders, but it wont be wear in a circumference shrinking manner except in rare outlier cases with other weird factors coming into play

Im glad too! yes its looking like the cc4 should be rock solid. Heavens to betsy a knock off of the cc2!! totally play your new checker against the old checker and see what you get, let me know!

Thankyou so much - i am working on it! (failing, but i am working on it) - with luck i may be able to be bestowed a new name in future of "Chief medium to intermediate wind"

thanks yes i am really going to focus on my presentation this year - sorry this one was a very bad first example of committing to that, i really was on a very, very low IQ day due to sleep (bee sting issues) but thought caffeine would see me through getting first one out. It wasnt :). but for sure i am not a natural at any of this - im much more of a fireside chat kinda guy - but will see if i can tidy meself up, thanks for any and all feedback / tips.

If you're new and not knowing where you gonna be landing, it might be good to pack all in each video. But for sure, if one's as big as you are, do split the videos and link to them (with words and links) for better navigation. Bring things on point, without blabla might be the most challenging for nerds you did not study communcation. But keep on, you will get it! Be our masterclass in quality and easy to find reference guide, when it comes to friction, chains and wear.

It is all good to be critical, where i should have done things better on the vid, i should have done things better - so question away :) yes i should have also demonstrated using roller to roller (the so called campy method), but i was already way, way long. > If i use 10 links roller to roller, then roller tolerances to inner link shoulder (and wear on those surfaces) and roller diam differences impact the measure notably. Hence the sight guage start of pin to start of pin. > Yes it is half inch pitch, but everything, everything, everything is better in metric. Below is great vid that explains my thoughts on imperial very well. So whilst they are referred to as a half inch pitch chain, there is no reason why the cannot be referred to as a 12.7mm pitch chain. No reason at all. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ns-Uaqh70N2ofp8.html Adding 0.5mm to 127mm baseline for 10 links is not a difficult thing. Adding whatever the heck that is as an inch..... I find it astounding that imperial is still a thing in this age, we may as well be using real gold doubloons as the main currency of the world whilst we are at it!! Watch the vid and / or look up the myriad of disasters in the modern age imperial is responsible for..... its pretty bonkers! Freedom units i hear they are referred to. is that freedom from logic?! ;)

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I not only engineer medical devices in metric, but I also manufacture them in metric, using a set of calipers just like in your video. 😁

My thoughts about Calipers, is why not use a set of good calipers to compare the actual numbers for each measuring tool instead of a worn chain so you can get a true accurate comparison of the measurement of different tools by different manufacturers ??? @@zerofrictioncycling992

i have had a bunch of emails as well re the cc2 that most times new chains 0.25 (and it has that marked on tool as "new"). And so they wonder if then the 0.75 is still 0.5 wear. And again its a maybe- why is 0.25 new? 0.0 is new. Maybe the 0.25 to 0.75 on the accurate ones is re others 0 to 0.5, but thats a weird way to go. Its like i have kitchen scales and instead of zero being zero, when i zero it it starts at 250 grams. So then i have to remember that if i need 450 grams of flour, thats going to be 700 grams on the scales. Or i have power meter where zero is actual 250watts, so when i am doing 250, its showing me 500w. And so if one moves from the cc2 to another tool that has 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 graduations, are they going to be across that 0.5 is now their replacement mark, not 0.75. I am not a fan of the cc2 still at this time

The Shimano tool is a 3-point tool and accurate. You did well.

yes what ybn model and where purchased from? I have been using mostly ybn for a long long time, and they have gained a lot of popularity of the years as also strongly recommended by silca for some time as well. Without checking the numbers for 11spd i would say we sell ybn sla at at least 10 to one over any other 11spd chain (ie shimano, campy) - 12spd is more tricky as sram flat top need sram flat top, shimano 12s for hyperglide + many go shimano - so sales of ybn sla 12 would be similar to total sales of sram / shimano / campy. But all up will have sold circa 8000 ybn sla chains over last circa 5 years - which is A LOT. To date we havent had a lateral chain wear issue. There is the very odd shift issue but this happens with all chains and unless chain is badly worn period (and thus components worn) - new / new ish chain and shift issues / drop chain issues - it is always something else other than the chain. So yeah the sheer volume of chains we sell, in peak times of the year we can have circa 50 ybn a week going out - and no lateral / floppy / shift issues - they are a great chain or i wouldnt stock them! so something is happening with yours thats unusual!

@@zerofrictioncycling992 talking about 11 speed ones. I got the SLA versions. One with the cut outs in the side, another without. Both in gold color. I also got two rainbow sla 11 chains. The one in my MTB I got from AliExpress, still going strong. The other ones I bought from R2bike in Germany (a reputable seller) and the wear has been horrible. Worked fine for 3000 or 4000 kms Measure almost zero but lots of shifting issues. I change just the chain everything is perfect, so I don’t suspect component wear. With a dura-ace chain and using the same waxing methods I got about 20.000 kms before getting to 0.5 wear. If I understand your comments on this, they should probably be fakes. If there was something off with my waxing methods it should also affect elongation and Shimano chains…

Yes the can be, it is general best practice to do on bike, large chain ring, large -ish cog so you have some tension in bottom span of chain from rear mech. On bench like i was doing is not the recommended way but i just didnt have a tripod for filming this well on bike. The drop in end really should "drop in" to be that measure - basically you can feel it brushing the roller, but you are not using any force to get it past the roller. Personally i always err on replacing slightly early, so if one finds they use a very slight amount of force to get past - that is often a good time to go yep, thats close enough to 0.5, lets ensure we protect the cassette and rings. However it can be a common error to use a lot of force and thinking well if i can get it in, thats 0.5 - with some tools if one tries hard enough you can get them in a on new chain, so it really is to use as "drop in" officially, with tension in the chain.

Oh thanks so much for lovely comment! And yes, honest thats a bit nuts by sram, i have to buy that tool and check if the 0.8 is an accurate 0.8, but in theory it should be, and for sure that is way too late - most especially for protecting what are often VERY EXPENSIVE sram axs road cassettes, chain rings potentially integrated power meters costing a fortune to replace, very expensive eagle cassettes, and even more expensive t-type cassettes. it has been established for a very long time that 0.5 is the recommended replacement mark. Coming out relatively recently with tool measuring for 0.8 is hard to understand. Impossible for me to understand. Unless i get some very interesting and compelling information to help me understand, my best guess is that someone/s somewhere on that little project really screwed up and forgot what decade we were in.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 ah, a great reply to match the great vid! 😀 It does seem totally bonkers. SRAM Themselves have a tech doc (I can't seem to link to it without having the comment deleted) which also calls out the Park CC-4 and Pedro's tools as approved for flat top & 12 speed. As you say, unless the tool actually measures 0.5% and the 0.8 is a typo, there's something really wrong! Unfortunately I don't have one either. Maybe it's a trick to have people ruin their super expensive cassettes and rings, so they buy more? 😂 P.s. My favourite tools here in the workshop are the Shimano and KMC digi, feels good to have that validated! Once again thanks for reading and commenting, and for all the exhaustive info and hard work. Keep it up!

@@zerofrictioncycling992 My conspiratorial take on this is that they want to cause people to buy more cassettes...

Yes as the hardest working mechanic part by miles, and completely exposed to contamination - budget chains are almost always a false economy. You dont have to go top tier normally, but at least 2nd highest level with a good brand is recommended, as some below that level they skimp wear longevity treatments. Cassette wear can be measured but it is difficult / ish for most but it is not too hard with practice. Chain rings can be very difficult as tooth profiles vary a good bit - but shimano its the same as the cassette wear measuring - i have a video on measuring chainring and cassette wear :)

I am also interested in the accuracy of Park Tool CC-3.2.

The cc 3.2 is a pretty long time popular tool, and so back in the workshop days a lot of customers had that tool. I would say they are mostly correct, but certainly saw a few over the years that were a bit out. Not badly so, shouldnt be out enough to really upset things ie replacing chains way early, or way late (ie out about 0.1 either way) - just not at the level of some of the better laser cut tools out there like the shimano

Yes - definitely, definitely NOT finish line. Squirt is ok in a pinch, but it is a different wax base and not optimal as a mix and match. Top choices that work perfectly are Silca SS Drip, Ceramic Speed UFO drip or Tru-Tension Tungsten all weather. I hope to add more to this list over time.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 brilliant, thank you for your advice. Since posting, I’ve gone through a lot of your videos and found the one where you recommended these three drip lubes. Some great advice amongst those videos 👍

Ive been using filmora wondershare. i tried a bunch of others prior but had difficulties cos im just not up to speed much on this stuff, and doing basic things was just so not obvious how the F to do. Filmora, all the basic stuff is basic (ie cutting, putting together, titles etc). But yep its been super weird re a clip appearing multiple times. only happens intermittently and cant put a finger on it yet, the first one i thought i must have brought in twice - but since then i do each one step by step. the odds on me bringing a clip in 3 times i would like to think is low!!! But then anything I.T. and PC related is stacked against me :)

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I'd recommend putting in the time to learn a proper video editor - the investment in good tools typically pays off in the long run. Personally I recommend Davinci Resolve, but that's partly because I'm a Linux only doofus and they support linux

long harsh conditions will affect treatment lifespan of lubricants. I would say a long lasting wax like to top immersive waxes will be what you are looking for as you are putting 100% lubricant on, not half carrier, half lubricant as you are with a wax drip. Othewise for wet lubricants synergetic, synerg-E and rex black diamond are very long lasting - but all wet lubricants to a degree are washed out and abraded off, whereas top wax are just abraded off- they are not washed out. Smoove is one of the longer lasting known - but it has penetration issues - so if you are applying to a clean chain, you likely wont have as much deep in the chain as you were hoping. Might be a bit of faff but if you were not going immersive, get two bottles of smoove, remove tops, pour into a 500ml screw top container - immerse cleaned chain into smoove, allow a little soak, gently swish, remove and hang to overnight set throughly wiping all excess. Use small funnel to pour smoove back into bottles and put nozzles back in and lids on. Not practical of course as a general training lube path - but if you have the odd long harsh conditions ride coming up and other stuff not working, an immersive prepped smoove chain is going to be right up there re being able to get through it. But again post such rides - re setting easily post such rides back to low friction again is key considering for regular riding. Smoove is a tougher clean. It is a very tough challenge and so getting the balance right that meets your riding and your maintenance preference can be a journey. If i was me...... the easiest way is immersive waxing by MILES. nothing is easier than just popping a chain into a pot and turning pot from off to low. Check waxed life like a boss video and see if the key hints and tips there help

Keep in mind I did not have any issues with Smoove in the higher temps. I make sure to lube each link. Currently the conditions are harsh, but I've not used Smoove now, as had Weldtite Wet Extreme on. Conditions now are thick and thin ice, icy puddles, frozen snow, melting snow and ice. But Smoove would handle this. Might put Smoove on later. I need something as easy as possible, least faff possible. I looked up Silca Synerg-E, no retailer in Norway has it in stock. seems to be a Silca shortage now. But European shops might have it. But I see a retailer has Silca Super Secret, Silca Super Secret, Synergetic. Rex only is only sold by an awful computer retailer, so bad rep it's not really making me want to risk not getting it, getting wrong item, so would have to find it in an international retailer, I see Nordic gravel series sells it, but no stock status, so don't know if they even got it. Immersive lubing means taking the chain off, and putting it in something, I guess maybe a jam jar could work, but as you said, probably need two lube bottles. @@zerofrictioncycling992

@@mtbboy1993 yep more work / testing for claimed extreme lubricants is on the long list but i cant test for cold and snow - just ability to survive water and contamination. It is good to get feedback on "extreme" lubricants from those like your riding in these conditions - but the more tangible the better - ie accurate wear rate tracking as its not that good if it hangs on but becomes sanpaper etc. So a product that lasts, one that is easily re set re contamination, easy to apply and no penetration issues - it is a tough area for any lube. Have you considered a clip on chain cleaner like park tool or pedro's chain pig? can make it it less mess do a good clean if taking chain off is not preferable. it is better to do a bit lesser clean more frequently that a better clean but hardly ever. You dont have to use the fancy cleaners they come with, for most just mineral turps if a wet lube is perfect.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I have one, from Weldite somewhere, but did not like using it, but I tend to use Finish Line Grunge Brush and degreaser if chain is really dirty, otherwise I wipe and relube. An might only just wipe a short ride. But 3 or 4 h ride or really wet ride and I always relube. It came with citrus degreaser which did not really do a good job, but that was years ago. But citrus degreaser is probably not a good idea on a chain. Muck off degreasees work well, ha shorirble stank, I see Muc Off dry degreaser soaks into clear coat on wood. So messes up the look of my table I use as a work bench. The rindavle degreaser really has to be rinsed off. But works well. Kärsher works really quickly, dirt come off fast, see the black come off and parts shine in seconds but needs to be rinced off. I guess a testing rig inside a freezer could work. The Weldite Wet Extreme is not as runny and is sticker than othe lubes I've tried yet it handles low temps well. But eco-friendly. I will try other lubes. All lube si tried apart from Rock roll stayed on well after washing the bike. Without washing the chain only rinsing. Of course washing might have rmeive soem but they did well. But Rock n Roll wa useless. But kept the chain super clean in comparison both dry and wet lube. Now as there are mor relube options on the market tin Norway I will try some.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 snow is water when wet, and when frozen it won't effect things much. It's when covering it in snow it would effect things I guess when temps get higher and snow is wet and melts, but puddles and wet snow will effect thing. But I think water test will suffice. But low temps seem to make lube more viscous, Smoove suffers then it seems. Atleast think that's the reason no matter what Smoove told me. The best options are likely the lubes you mentioned. But won't know for sure for winter before I test them in the winter. I will look into Silca I see they have various lubes, no idea on the difference yet.

most chain checkers can be forced into a brand new chain. The two prongs enable the tool to self adjust for differing roller sizes. They will already be compressed once inserted - that is what it is meant to do. Then simply tilt drop in end down, and if it hits roller and stops, not 0.5. When it touches roller but slides down it with no force and "drops in" = 0.5. I have checked so many them over the years from different batch orders, and every single one i have ever checked has been dead on 0.5 every time - ie it will in no way drop in on a new chain, and just slides past roller perfectly with no force on a 0.5% worn chain i use to check chain checkers. We sell a fair few of these as they have been the go to recommendation for awhile from ZFC - we get the odd feedback of it measuring new chain as worn, but then we simply correct them to use with no force, and all is grand after that.

Basically I can only tell between it falls in on its own vs it doesn't. In the video there clearly is some resistance, as insertion slows down, so there's no way I can learn what the right feel is without having worn and fresh and almost worn chains to actually go practice regularly. And when it falls into the chain on its own, it's arguably too late. That's why in forums people often say it checks 1% wear because that's how they use it. My safety net are the mechanics at the bike shop who generally use the Rohloff tool as German bike shops do, as it's only a two prong design presumably they may replace at 0.3%-0.4% adding more uncertainty (un-disclaimer: the mechanics are paid flat monthly service fees, and I don't buy the chain from them, but they also don't make money on parts). Probably should just get the KMC digital one, that is a nifty design and it's the same approach I just dreamt up, though I do wonder why there's no analogue version. Basically you just need a spring mechanism in the middle to move the prongs closer and some marks indicating wear like on a ruler. That would probably be the best balance of price/performance for people like me :D

@@JulianAndresKlode I think there is maybe some worry where there need not be. On the video the amount of resistance you are seeing is extremely small. It is extremely close to just sliding in with zero resistance. From a new chain, you simply check regularly - say each month. Then when you get to the point where it is no resistance to slide past or really basically just extremely low resistance- then thats close enough to 0.5, there is for sure no harm in erring on replacing a smidge early vs having to way until it has absolute zero resistance. So really with like one chain of experience, you will have gotten to know the tool, but basically - it wont go past without some force when new, it will go past with no force or close to no force = 0.5, thats it. The kmc digital checkers are VERY expensive, and each one does not read the same. i have 3, they all read different, and 2 of the 3 were a decent bit out. One was very close to accurate but i filed one end very carefully until it read 0.5, and then the others are marked how different to that tool (0.07 and 0.12). A friend bought one as well, and out of 4 kmc digital tools, we got 4 different measures. Just two prong design is overall fine, but just note it will not be able to adjust to differing roller sizes, so if one day you move to a flat top chain with oversize rollers, you will get a false low measure. And you will have to use force to get to the tool in, and try to calibrate your hand to how much force that is when to a 0.5 tool it going to think the chain is only at around 0.3 thanks to the larger rollers. I dont understand what you mean re rohloff tool and 0.3 or 0.4%. The rohloff i have seen are only 0.75 or 1%, both of which are useless for 11/128 or narrower chains. There is not much point being told cool chain is at 0.75, congratulations you need a new chain AND a new cassette, and you have made good inroads into your chain rings - vs chain is 0.5 or very close too, replace now and ensure cassette and rings are all ok. Tools like the shimano, the park tool cc-4, and the pedro's - the way they work with the dual insert ends is they adjust to varying roller sizes. The Pedros and the park tool are easier to stuff up in use as you need to firmly squeeze the chain towards the tool, or you get a false high reading. The sprung dual prongs of the shimano just take user error out of the equation, and its simply the easiest to use. Insert the two prongs, and does the other end slide past roller with zero / near zero effort - thats it. Really all the rest you are worrying about i have to say is needless worry - just use as above with one chain from new and you will find all is easy and groovy with the shimano.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Oh that's peculiar with the Rohloff, but essentially what happened is I ran a HG701 chain for 7000 km on dry lube back in 2021, I couldn't detect it as 0.5% worn with the Shimano tool, but the bike shop measured, told me it's way worn and worried that maybe even the cassette needs replacing (it didn't, but in any case that's why I said they're my safety net), so I had to assume it measured wear earlier. 🤷‍♂️

@@JulianAndresKlode ah yeah that would be a world record for a 701 chain on a dry lube! but sorry my memory might be failing me and im short on time to re read the chain, but i thought this started with your concern the shimano was able to easily measure new chains as worn, but now its it wasnt able to measure a clearly worn chain to 0.5% - im a bit confused! (maybe its my memory...)

Yep for sure there are going to be accurate ones out there. Hopefully the majority of them. But too many are not, and too many are damaged. Those pins are relatively easily bent by strong users thinking the need to use force to get the right measure. Remember every 0.1mm is around 20% of your wear allowance. Overall this tool has been the most problematic as a) its popular, and b) over the years by far the most number of cases of it way over reading wear. But, if you have an accurate one, dont bend the pins and enjoy for sure.

ah thanks for the offer - yeah cool - every day is a bit of flurry - it would work if able to drop in courier box, i check when i get a mo and pop back in courier box for pick up? if you tend to ride up the old fwy let me know :)

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I’ll send you and email later today

yes that could be good, but resources here are..... thin :). But i will try!

Ah yes i hoped to, i did have one from way back but i couldnt find it. I can say though from experience with that one it has proven to have too high a variance between tools - so some are for sure dead on, others have over read, others have under read (again it is another that is fairly popular so had lots of customers with that tool in the workshop days). You are best to double check it against another tool or two and or calipers (but duck to LBS or two and check what their tools say vs yrs - if you have an accurate one, thats all you need).

you can check zfc video on measuring chain and cassette wear - it is a little tricky and can take a little practice - but especially for cassettes checking wear can be done well with digital calipers - chainrings yes for shimano, maybe for some others but some unless you have taken a starting reference measure the tooth profile measures wont be known. However - yes if that is a genuine 1% wear measure you will be very very lucky indeed to get a new chain on without issues (jumping under load, or if lucky enough thats it is not jumping, it can be a pretty rough grindy sound and feel ride as poor mesh between new chain and worn bits)

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I'm now wondering if my chain checker (park tools cc2) was exaggerating the wear. I have a new checker on order (Shimano) to monitor the replacement chain.

Yes you are correct, if you have recorded a baseline for the tool, you should be ok to factor that in. But.... its not an optimal scenario as most wont / dont do that and just be caught losing circa 50% of their chains lifespan

Perhaps, though, such a tool could be made to work if the pins are carefully adjusted? As you mention in the vid, its easily done. Could manufacturers, though, make the pins more robust and also initially accurate (0.0 wear indicated on new chains)? I suspect that they could, as inexpensive sliding scale verniers can be made accurately yet still cost a fraction of the cost of the digital versions. Mine cost £12.50. And, speaking of verniers, why not a chain-measuring version of a vernier that would fit between a longer stretch of links and work by using the smaller (perhaps roller-shaped) jaws to both measure and tension the chain?@@zerofrictioncycling992

@@brotherfroe yep for sure such a tool can be made to work, but i think the mfg cost to do so would be too high. It is a difficult approach to get that design to 0.1mm accuracy in every tool in every mfg run. And for sure park tool needs strong pins, the unior is beautiful, just wish the two i have seen were not way out (and one customer one). The accurate drop in checkers like shimano / and hopefully park tool cc-4 / pedro's i think are simply the way to go for the masses - much easier to make to correct accuracy for a low cost, and almost zero risk of damaging through hard use.

ooh i will have to double check, i did have a quick google re one recently and saw they were now like $250 bucks! will have a look and see if any different or just cosmetic + price hike.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thank you Sir, more worried about the potential for a price hike and reduction in quality. You know how that goes.

@@justinfournier1285 just had a quick re google - looks like most are the same as what i have. I have 3, and i can say one (the one used in the vid) was pretty much dead one, two others were actually disappointingly different. Such that i have recorded how different they are to each other in case the tool i am using during testing dies and i need to swap to another tool. There is a slightly different looking version (that actuall looks older) - i might buy one of those.... but mostly it for sure looks like just a price hike. My three were $125 a pop, now most places have them for 200 to 300 aud. Ouch. thats Mitutoyo caliper money, and i can bet my arse they are not mitutoya accuracy each tool

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Appreciate your time and energy, thank you!

Ah it can be that if you insert in outer link plates the end of the tool can but up against the end of the inner plate link rather than the roller, and this give an incorrect low / zero measure reading. If you insert on the inner link plates it will always be up against roller. I know what it feels like against inner link plate end so can make sure its on the roller - but i should have thought to always demonstrate and explaining inserting in inner link plates

variable - that is another common tool (i used to have one but couldnt find it on the day) - back in the workshop days we did see some variations with that tool, so i think its more likely than not yours is good, but we for sure have seen some out both ways

not yet - i will try to keep adding to the collection over time and updating the table. i will have that uploaded to website soon in instructions tab - and any and all suggestions re checkers to check are very welcome :)

Hi there yes for sure "the best" is always going to be a bit of tricky goal especially depending on where you are (ie in some countries the venerable mspeedwax or hot melt might be more expensive to get). I have indeed been flagged to optimize and i have them on my long list to look at, alas the list is long. There are so, so many mfg now with an immersive wax. In amongst all those, some will have just bunged in some ws2 from alibaba to a cheap base wax to get on the immersive wax bandwagon, and others will have sourced and tested and blended a great wax base and using tier 1 supplier quality additives. Whom is whom out of that i just dont know unless i test, but testing is oh so busy and each test takes a long time. Ideally the mfg would have on website (or available on request) - a lot of very specific detail / objective data to back their claims. Non specific (ie we worked pro athletes / team to develop) - doesnt give you anything really. If they are making claims, they should have something tangible and objective that sits behind the claims - so a good first step if interested in a brand is to email them with re this and see what you get back. If you get something substantial, loop me in. Re wax drip - there are pro's and cons to all out there - but the default recommendations for using with a good immersive wax are silca ss drip or ufo drip all condtions or tru-tension tungsten all weather. i hope to add more to that list in time with more testing. Hope that helps!

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Yes, thank you! I will test the Optimize graphite and afterwards try the diy mixture proposed by oz cycling on youtube. Albeit it uses perfluorated chemicals, I think the environmental impact is still small. I would prefer somethig harmless, however.

​@@joggerino3284 I would avoid the Ozcycle blend, not because it doesn't work but because disposing of the unusable PTFE when the wax level in the pot gets to low will be problematic. I use the old blend of 50g PTFE and 500g wax which I started using before ZFC had a YT channel. It certainly bonds to the chain as I have difficulty breaking the metal / wax bonds after the wax cools ( might be easier on the KMC EPT chain than the standard Nickel coated so that is probably telling me something ! ). The one advantage the OZ blend does have is that the PTFE being white, you see every bit of contamination. You obviously don't want to put the unusable wax on a fire ( even at > 500C ) , unless you really don't like your neighbours and want to make them breathe a mixture of Fluorine gas and toxic Organofluorine compounds. I would go for the commercial products every time after this and really I should have known better.

@@joggerino3284 i would caution against the oz cycle one if thats the one that advised 50 grams of PTFE as that is nuts, and based on nothing other than safely covering the PTFE base. Ie original formula UFO and mspeedwax were 5 grams ptfe, not 50. That is extremely wasteful and not amazing re amount of PFAS chemical use. Also, everyones moral line they draw is different re when they would stop supporting someone / their channel, but considering he recently went to jail for horrific torture and murder of neighbors dog, he is way past my line. I would say there are plenty upon plenty of other cycling media channels to support and get information from on all fronts where the person is not a horrific human. Link to news covering below; www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-05/steven-john-leffanue-jailed-over-killing-neighbours-dog/101209462

@@joggerino3284Off topic, but: In my honest opinion, the environmental impact using PTFE is not small but way too big to even justify small amounts. Better use Tungsten Disulfide (WS2) and hBN (or both) instead!

oh my goodness. Thanks for letting me know! i need to um.... maybe diplomatically comment on that vid in the future.... if you have link to it maybe in a month i can link to this one - surely lots of gcn viewers would be pumped to see a 50min vid just on chair wear checking hahahaha

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I do find it ironic that so much of their comments section is taken up by people moaning about the cost, but when you tell them how to potentially save 1000's of £/$ over the bikes lifespan while simultaneously increasing efficiency and performance for relatively small initial cost and few hours of their time, its too much hassle.

@@chris1275cc true that indeed. My personal perspective is that in just about everything you can think of these days, there is far to much what i would call level 1 thinking. Ie it they just thought about things one level deeper, something would click into place, and false economy of first thought would be very apparent. In many cases you only need to save you from purchasing one cassette that by simply chain checking and running a proven lubricant and one has turned some tens of $$ in to some hundreds of dollars savings. And then they get to just keep doing that forever. Pretty grand ROI..... I am not going to run out of work on this front for awhile it seems :)

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I found that GCN vid kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ibCXgM2Cusyvpmw.html so you can give them your wisdom !

@@dawn_rider thanks steve, i will give that one a listen and........ very diplomatic input :)

yeah thanks i did look into that but sadly too many errors i had to re film 4 clips and i cant add them into existing vid. and doesnt seem to be away to bring comments across which is a bugger, i will just have to try to avoid stuffing up vids :)

​@@zerofrictioncycling992I think maybe there is a way because I've seen some "big" KZfaqrs post updated videos, but it might only just be a feature that they have available to them because of their size and the fact that they have a direct line to somebody at KZfaq. most notable recently during the Sssniperwolf debacle, when jacksfilms was doing videos about her posting content without permission, some of the people his videos she used without permission went and posted copyright claims and she was able to remove those clips, replace the clip with a different one (in a couple of cases ended up being a repeat of a clip shown earlier in the video) and re-upload it without losing the views or video length.

@@better.better very interesting, alas much of that will be way beyond my current YT / vid editing. i have had a look into it a little, and YT doesnt let you bring comments across (i think to stop people using X comments all the time on as many new uploads as they like). I can edit out a section - i still made a silly error which am removing - but i cant see yet how to insert new clips. If i can get my sh$t together from here hopefully i wont need to learn!

omg wtf is going on hahahahahahaha! that is so funny - i have NO IDEA. but im kinda keen to get some helium now for todays vid! but seriously vid software what the..... what will it do to me today i wonder!

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Which software do you use?

@@mtbboy1993 Filmora wondershare. Tried about 6 others before this one, but they were far too difficult for me to use without a very large time investment that i just dont have at the moment. Ie too many basic steps would take me half an hour of research to find out how to do. Filmora wondershare even a computer dumbarse like me can just go boom - put clips together like that, cut section like that, add transition, add title - all is easy as. But then its doing some weird stuff like duplicating clips, and making me sound like i was smashed in the balls. I swear i did not choose a smashed in the balls audio filter for that clip :)

I see, I would not touch that software at all. Filmora screwed customers over as customers had lifetime license and then you had to pay for updates anyway. but then they got complaints eventually they fixed that. But I'm not surprised there are issues, but these issues are weird. I use Resolve, it's free, Studio version has advanced features most won't need. But the price is reasonable and actually is lifetime license. I've not had any issues with Resolve. it doesn't do any of the weird stuff FIlmora did to your clips. In general the software is quite easy to use and learn, and more powerful than Filmora, but setting up multichannel audio is the most confusing part, but set it up once and save the project as Template, and load every new project from that template. @@zerofrictioncycling992

Apart from setting up multichannel audio, Resolve is very intuitive when it comes to colour correction, editing, cutting audio editing. But setting up the audio to work is advanced as it's a professional software intended to be used with multiple audio devices, microphones, tracks. Multichannel audio in resolve is requires more steps, audio inputs. I go into Fairlight to edit audio, add and each time line track so Camera audio, Voice Over Audio. in the top menu in Fairlight I click Fairlight, go to Bus Format, select Stereo, repeat the same step but select Assign Bus instead, and assign them al to it, and again Failight menu and but this time select Patch In/output, it's at Audio Inputs, I select the option below, in my case Line Rode Ai-1 On the right there Audio Outputs are two options I select both, on the left I select Monitor Out and and map both to both to the right side Line Rode Ai-1-L Line Rode Ai-1-R I go back to Track Inputs and select Track Inputs on the right, patch it to both Voice over-L Voice Over-R This means me talking into the mic will be recorded to a track and the other stuff that I can hear it. I have a playlist on my channel with Resolve vids I watched. Rode Ai-1 is just the audio interface I use. Keep in mind Resolve might not run so well on really old and low spec pc's. also it runs best with Nvidia cards. @@zerofrictioncycling992

sorry i can do weird analogies on the spot sometimes, but still - not sure if you are intimating a different concern...

Sorry, you're doing great work. It's just that Mother Teresa was kind of a monster who felt that forcing other people to suffer and die in terrible conditions somehow brought them closer to some imagined God of hers. It's kind of like using Henry Kissinger as some gold standard of statesmanship.

@@AndrewBushnell Oh my goodness! wow wow wow how have i missed knowing this about MT all this time!! I have never looked into her just followed the general cliche's that are thrown out about someone being like MT!! Deary me. Thankyou for flagging, i will have to check if my fave general interest podcast timesuck has done an episode on here, im about 50 episodes behind (started from the beginning, been a long catch up, but it is such a great guy doing the podcast - if you havent checked out Dan Cummins - Timesuck - what a legend he is, if anyone on earth thinks in a mirror image of how i do its him - he is just vastly more clever!) Right spare spot this week i am digging into MT. Im scared already.

Hi there, for sure all points of view and welcome and thankyou for taking the time to put yours forwards (and doing so respectfully). However - and this my opinion and you can vigorously disagree with no offence to me at all - i do have a very different take. For one - I dont think we can class M-O as a proper chemical company. I could be wrong but my belief is that most of their cleaning products are just other cleaning products with more scent and colour added and re branded with a big bike tax. Their lubricant performance in ZFC testing is of extreme concern, and worse, i have have even larger concerns re what they have done around their own testing and data. M-O have a very clever business strategy, part of which involves industry leading margins to retailers - why are they able to offer such higher margins i wonder? could it be their very low cost of goods? Are you telling me you have confidence that $99 for 50ml of ludicrous AF (or previously nano lube) is a good deal? Re silca - Josh has covered why he bought the old italian pump company and then the vision for what he wanted to make his own company so i wont type a bundle on that - you can find podcasts back in the day covering that if you wish to explore the other side of the coin for balance to opinion. I do no believe his high end pumps are made from low mid market stuff. Yes silca prices are high, and overall margin mark up on premium products is higher than mid to low price brands. That is part of being a premium brand. That is capitalism. I do not hold a grudge against a company looking to ensure they make viable margin to be a company that keeps surviving into the future. A product is not it cost X to mfg so i sell it for Y more. Cost of mfg is only a part of it. For many of silca's products there is a genuine heavy R&D cost to re coup, and a good % of gross revenue going into R&D on future products. There is cost of bringing a product up to volume production. There is cost to market product and establish / maintain a global distribution network and reps. There is administration, customer service, insurance, warranty costs, and so on and so on. All of which need to be covered - and with people being paid a market competitive wage - to be had from the margin of a product over and above the simple cost to mfg. If the cost of a premium brands products to a person are unpalatable - then for sure they shouldnt buy them. If too many do not, then the brand needs to re jig their strategy / market placement. If people do buy them and are happy with the product and its quality for the price paid - then the premium brand is delivering on its premium promise. In my area of focus, silca have not only delivered a number of leading lubricant products to the market, but - thanks to josh as you say being a great marketer - he has helped educate many more than i can with regards to having a lower friction and longer lasting drivetrain. As thats the key focus here, mfg that genuinely help that effort is much appreciated, vs mfg whose products test that they are hell bent on eating through chain and drivetrain as quickly as possible (ie - Muc-offs). Sorry not sure i typed that out right, monday mornings inboxes are mega and i am typing like the flash, but hope that came across ok re how i view in general.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks for your reply: I am prejudiced, I admit, and some of my friends use the Silca lubes and quite like them. I'm willing to give them a conceded pass in the lube department. But please, tell me why they are selling tools that come out of the same factory as SuperB/Bikehand (decent tools in themselves, but not top shelf, as they themselves admit), yet charge 5-6 times the price? Yes, capitalism, but that, as I've stated, verges on dishonesty, and does a disservice to genuine tool companies, such as Park Tool, Unior, VAR, and even Pedros (who manufacture all their tools in Taiwan yet use genuinely innovative designs and high QC standards to sell their product), who are proper tool companies, and not marketing/rebadging companies. BTW, I love your channel, I think you are doing brilliant work in dissolving large chunks of the BS within the industry, and long may you continue (BTW, my wife is a GP as well, and I get stick about my "hobby business" being subsidised by her hard work :) ) .

I also have my discrepancy with Silca. On one hand Josh brings good thoughts into the (mainstream) community. But also it leaves a bad feeling that he's driven by marketing his (expensive) stuff.