I always enjoy all of your content...at this point, I don't believe that you need to spend time either defending the efficacy of waxing or debunking those who refuse to see the facts. I have great respect for the fact that you do take the time, both in comment replies and on video, to address the misinformation, however, you will never find the end for the sources of misinformation. I believe that you are very fair (and honest) in your presentation of waxing as an option (likely a better option), however, you also test and readily admit that there are good non-wax based lubrication options.
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
thanks shawn! and yeah some of these i find its a maybe more fun way to throw in some education on some fronts. Not everyone will have been following the journey of the testing and so not be aware of various ins and outs - and in those cases people can be easily incorrectly swayed by some..... interesting people.... And so when i have not had any time to prepare for a different topic update, covering some whackadoodle stuff that can educate on some fronts was easier for me to pump out as i can just talk through it. Hope that makes sense
@SnaxNoCo3 ай бұрын
Adam is consistently transparent about his methodology, equipment, and conclusions--so people can easily run their own tests if they want to challenge him. Alas, it never ceases to amaze me how various wackadoodles decide to choose ignorance & irrationality over knowledge & logic. It's almost like they believe that being loud & aggressive will prove superior to thoughtful & patient. Thanks for fighting the good fight of behalf of science and reason, Adam! Without your fine work, my drivetrain would still be filthy, difficult to maintain, slow, and more expensive.
@danme72753 ай бұрын
wax lubricant IS used in industrial settings , you can order Kluber wax by the drum, it is used in many industrial settings for a ton of different reasons from food contact to low dust environment.
@andyarchitect3 ай бұрын
I love your comment of "you simply want to be incorrect for the least amount of time possible".😊 Continuing to go along with something you now know to be wrong just because you don't want people to know you once got something wrong shows massive insecurity and is a really bad look, and too many people fall into this trap. Every day is a learning day and I'm sure there are new things I will learn that will contradict some of my current understandings. I'm happy to embrace new knowledge 😊
@ByronBNE3 ай бұрын
No-one is going to put power through a stripped chain anyway, so there is no great value in measuring stripped chains in my opinion. And for the sake of comparison, wear rates definitely make more sense than measuring efficiency. Your methodology is consistent and transparent which is what matters to me. Outdoors55 seems to proudly claim a hypothesis as fact, much is the same manner as cycling lubricant brands! In terms of comparing lubricants and cutting through marketing BS, there is no other resource on the same level as ZFC.
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
Yes you would think considering how strongly he puts forward the check measuring is completely incorrect he could have done some quick testing of his own. it isnt hard - check measure a chain on wax or other lubricant after a couple decent rides, then strip clean the chain and check again, and see the rather tiny difference. And he only thinks there is a potential issue re wax chains which is kinda silly as all lubricants will have some thickness to them. Has he thought about just how much difference that is vs the extremely thin wax coating....... No....... and has he thought about that difference re wet lubes that have absorbed contamination and started getting gritty and gunky.... no.... - so just clean super thin wax coating a show stopper issue apparently - that he has not even checked himself. Whats worse is that i have covered all this with him previously, starting with an old vid comment thread, and then by email. It is clear he is not an idiot - which sadly just leaves something worse - he is still putting out knowingly incorrect information for his own personal bias against zfc reasons - so, just poor character. He might be all that and a bag of chips re knife sharpening, and maybe whatever it is he does re metal for his job is all over that as well - so then when he jumps in pushing something obviously incorrect, and that he knows is incorrect - he must be embarrassment proof.
@mikezanconato2 ай бұрын
The whole world is dominated by feels now rather than critical thinking, scientific method, and data collection.
@LaurentiusTriarius3 ай бұрын
"cleaning as lubricating" reminds of pure loss lubrication on the earlier aero engines, with castor oil nonetheless. You can draw all sorts of funny parallels if you have some imagination to burn 😅
@paulwheatland73063 ай бұрын
I'm sorry you have to deal with negative shit,I find your content very helpful 👍 my son is sceptical for BMX use, I think it will be perfect, thank you for your honest advice
@steveedwards52803 ай бұрын
I'm normally one for watching a while video before jumping in the comments but couldn't help myself in this one. I really respect what Adam does. The fact that he does all this work and puts it out there for everyone to benefit from is amazing. When I heard that people are saying that low wear does not equal low losses and claiming its a flaw in the testing, my first thougt was the SRAM 11 speed chains. Ive just hought and prepped 3 of these. The reason I i bought this chain? Because of the work Adam has done. It's tested to be an incredibly long lasting chain, which is what I want. I ride in shitty abrasive conditions (UK Peak District if you know it) and I like to spend on good kit and look after it to make it last. While ZFC highlight the SRAM chain was being low wear/long lasting, they've also identified its not a fast chain. That's fine, im old, over weight and often have several kilos of mud on the bike. Point is, no one is claiming durable chains are fast chains. Second point about the wax "masking" wear. I want my chain to be as close to ½" pitch as possible so it meshes well and doesn't accelerate wear on my expensive cassettes. Surely if there's a substance that keeps those link the correct distance apart, its doing its job. Whether that's the original metal or lubricating wax, so long as under load, my chain is the right length, I don't care. Isn't that the point? Anyway, back to the video.
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
thanks Steve! And great chain choice for your riding :). And yes despite the fact i have already explained on vid, and to this guy in detail in person re losses & wear, and it covered in the test brief which he has also read.... Things like no it will not measure outright efficiency, so no it cannot tell difference between viscous friction, stiction etc between lubricants, but obviously abrasive wear becomes the dominant loss component, and so high wear vs low wear - we get a pretty clear picture on the lubricants performance - ie how well is it lubricating (which is protecting from wear....). For a guy with his apparent qualifications and smarts - it only leaves other reasons for his continued pestering which are emotional and anti me / zfc bias reasons. It is good to highlight such peeps if they are going to be providing prolific commentary on vids!
@simongreen45733 ай бұрын
Have a richly deserved and hugely enjoyable time in The States!!!
@georgec28943 ай бұрын
Sorry to bother you, my chain is reading 0.3% extension on my chain checker, but when riding what I believe is a properly lubricated (effetto mariposa flower power) chain (and properly indexed gears) I get the sensation of riding a worn chain (doesn't feel smooth, slightly 'tortured' but still near-quiet) - especially in my larger front chainring. Don't think my front chainrings or cassette are too worn either. Should I replace and not loose sleep, or stick to my usual rule of waiting for 0.5% wear to be exceeded? Thanks for your great work
@johnkasza23153 ай бұрын
hi...what chain checker are you using? what chain on what group?
@garynoble6683 ай бұрын
Besides the low wear rate of using a wax chain the bike as a whole is much cleaner. I started my new bike with a waxed chain from the first day. I no longer hose my bike off. No need to chance water getting in the hubs and bearings. I just wipe it down and it looks as it was when it was new. I have used it on gravel, sand and dirt only.
@paulwheatland73063 ай бұрын
I have speedway motorcycles and run a small primary chain on the front, I used to cook my chains in Duckams, definitely worth horsepower
@cyclingunboxed3 ай бұрын
Even on my channel I get so many comments against wax. I feel as if I can’t just let them as be as they come to me with no data, no testing, just suggestions that have already been tested by you and we know are inferior. So I send them the way of your website where actual testing has been done. Keep up the good work as you are the only place we can go do good knowledge!
@CoffeeAddictLee3 ай бұрын
Hey any chance you've got the new Decathlon drip wax on the bench? Pricing is very low here in Canada!
@dawn_rider3 ай бұрын
I know it has no Tungsten DiSulphide in it as it's pure white ! Did a quick check for an SDS sheet but couldn't find one so I don't know what it contains or what the carrier is ( water or organic solvent ). Had a look at the reviews on the Decathlon UK site ( Dry Weather Wax Bike Chain Lubricant ) and they are not ' stellar ' . With large potential economies of scale it would be useful If Decathlon could make a quality wax drip lube ? I get the impression that they generally seem to cater for the budget end of the market ?
@stephencharles69323 ай бұрын
So regarding showing a small false read on wear due to wax width in the chain ... I get the Shimano chain measure tool out just after rinsing in boiled water and drying with hair dryer and before the hot melt process starts again. So a perfect wear recorded IMHO. Zero wear on 6500km so far on one chain.
@mfeld423 ай бұрын
I always enjoy all of your content and reading throught your Tables and publications. But I am not australian nor native english speaking and was wondering about these "re" in all your texts and descriptions. What is meant with that? E.g "If immersive waxing simply isnt your bag baby and [...] in conjunction with an immersive re wax to reset every approx 5 re lube." (from key learning document). Can you help me understanding these parts?
@dawn_rider2 ай бұрын
This is not a perfect explanation as languages are not my strength ( I am English ! ) "Re" means 'again' . "Re-" means 'again and' Try exchanging "Re" for "repeat" / "refresh / "reapply" and in some instances "regarding" e.g. re lube = reapply lube , rewax = reapply wax , re-test = repeat test , re treat = repeat treatment re masterlink = regarding masterlink , pumped out re lubricants = pumped out regrading lubricants , little re lubricants = little regarding lubricants. There are also phrases which you may have difficulty understanding ? ... Page 2 all that and a bag of chips = impressive Page 3 spots wont change = habits won't change Page 3 hoohaa = fuss = too much attention about something not important Page 6 holy batman = expressing a diffcult task page 10 novella = long piece of text but not as long as a novel page 10 twigged re wet lubricants = realised about (regarding) wet lubricants page 13 throwing lipstick on a pig = putting good lubricant on top of bad factory grease and ruining it. page 13 woohoo = expression of joy page 17 alrighty = ok page 19 clicks as captain obvious = the obvious choice page 19 grand ol time = a good experience page 23 yeehaa = expression of joy page 24 cop = endure page 24 ouch = expensive page 25 are golden = will have no issues page 37 ol noodle = brain page 37 rocking up = arrive page 38 way to roll = thing to do page 42 whole shebang down = chain fail As a test I converted the document with google translate from English to German. I then converted the German document back into English. The result made sense in parts although it was far from perfect. You can try google translate but expect confusion !
@rtimbus3 ай бұрын
Speaking products from Europe, any plans to redo the test on Dynamic speed potion wax or to test Dynamic slick wax?
@user-ho4rv6kg8u3 ай бұрын
Just a thought Adam. It might be worth while creating a flow diagram, or some sort of graphic: that would help, with both Frequently Asked Questions and, guide people through the thought process of choosing and assessing various types of chain lubricants. The sort of diagram that has a question then a yes / no set of arrows. Eg are you happy with your current chain lubricant ? Yes > keep using that. No > .......
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
yeah i need to re do that entire thing thats for sure - its on the to do list for hopefully 2nd half this year!
@robinseibel75403 ай бұрын
I my not sure what commentary from Hambini would add. You've got empirical data, loads of it. You've got enough data that I'm pretty confident that your data trends as physics, and tribology specifically, theory would suggest. You've been pretty clear all along that you measure wear rates, not efficiency. You've pointed out several times that Jason Smith's testing is/was designed for that. Couple that with your published test criteria/method, it's pretty damned hard to find fault with the data you've published and the conclusions you've made.
@johnkasza23153 ай бұрын
Have you seen his bikes? Im sure cleaning a chain takes way more effort than banging your hairdresser..i could never film my bike and show to the world it never gets cleaned..
@neutronpcxt3723 ай бұрын
If you want to test efficiency at this point, your best bet would be to take a mid-drive ebike motor, limiting it to a specific current and measuring how much power is required to rotate at a specific RPM under a specific resistance :P
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
alas its not that simple. Many test facilities have tried to avoid the expensive torque sensor path and use volts x amps consumption as watts measure for drive and brake motors and use difference between the two. A motors efficiency - and thus power consumption - is influenced by its temperature. As it has to work harder, it generates more heat, and then uses more power. Especially if a lubricant starts to struggle, and the motor needs to work harder - it creates a feedback loop. A great example of this we believe was the wheel energy testing for absoluteblack - efficiency losses changing all over the place between short time data points - by multiple watts. This is obviously not reflective of what is actually occurring. You do not experience on your ride a 4w loss chain thats then 30 mins later a 7w loss chain that 30 mins later is a 5w loss chain (also keeping in mind perfect clean test conditions). for outright efficiency testing 0.1w accuracy is pretty much the minimum, and power consumption at this time just isnt giving any facility that. There could be ways to mitigate / largely eliminate the issue, but that would add more cost, and again - the problem with this whole area is that unless there is an agreed test protocol and equipment, one test lab just provides very different loss numbers for the same lubricant vs another lab. Which we already have, there are about 5 or 6 labs doing efficiency testing, and all give different results. by multiple watts. There is a long way to go, and thats why i use wear correlation.
@kovie91622 ай бұрын
From what I can tell all of your testing has to do with ways to decrease net power loss due friction, as opposed to ways to increase net power gain through more efficient cycling, be it having to do with proper bike sizing and fit including cleat position, pedaling technique, cadence, power zones and so on. But even though this isn't necessarily your area of expertise or what this site is about, given that you're a very data and testing-oriented person and surely keep up with much of the latest cycling-related findings, I thought I'd ask a question about the efficient cycling side of the net power equation, if that's ok. Specifically, about pedaling technique. For years I assumed, because all the experts seemed to preach it and it seemed to be working for me, that when pedaling you have to push, both forward and down, with your front leg and pull, both rearward and up, with your rear one. Perhaps not with as much power as the different muscle groups involved in pushing vs. pulling have different power capabilities, but certainly with as much power as is possible and efficient. But now I'm hearing that this isn't true and that pulling actually reduces your net power output, supposedly because it interferes with the muscles used for pushing, so whatever minor power gain you get by pulling results in an even greater power loss in pushing, with the net power output being lower than if you just pushed and let your rear leg just get carried along for the ride, all other things being equal of course, e.g. bike size, type and fit, fitness, health, terrain, fatigue level, etc. Which make no sense to me as you're not trying to pull as hard as you push but rather put the rear leg to some use and not just be dead weight along for the ride as the front leg pushes, but the only thing that ultimately matters is what the test data say. Do you have any views or insight into this?
@zerofrictioncycling9922 ай бұрын
In short my testing correlates a lubricants performance based on wear. If a chain is wearing rapidly on X lubricant, it simply cannot be a high performing / low friction lubricant. As we have clean and contamination blocks (dry and wet) - we can track the lubricants performance across a range of cycling conditions, vs just clean lab testing which is what pretty much all other facilities do. Re pedalling technique, - in short one person pedalling and generating 250w of power may do so more "efficiently" than another. What this means is there is a lower physiological or "energy" cost. They will consume less fuel, use less oxygen, produce less lactic acid. This comes from "good technique" - their neuromuscular timing simply ensures the circle they pedal is very "smooth", vs if you can imagine one mashing pedals and "pedalling squares" as they call it. One of the best local racing cyclists is from a track background (was on the aussie 1996 olympic squad) - and when you ride with him his pedalling is so incredibly smooth you could swear the crank is motor driven, it really is just quite stark how magnificent smooth he is, and so vs someone else comparatively mashing on the pedals and bobbing around on the bike - the ex pro is absolutely using less oxygen, fuel and lactate production to produce any given power, which means he will be able to go longer and harder even if both cyclists had the same V02 max and max lactate clearance ability etc. Same in running - some people run with great form, many do not. Just looking at recreational runners i see very few floating along using their forefoot, good core strength, correct stride length and cadence etc, vs the majority that land on their heels and transition to toes, land with heels in front of their body (effectively braking and having to re introduce propulsion each step), twisting side to side and more. The former at 5min per km pace will be using vastly less energy and oxygen and muscle fatige etc at same pace vs the latter runner. There are power lifters with incredible leg strength that will never be world class track sprinters because they cannot convert that power as efficiently into a circle as others who have the neuromuscular timing to do so (often trained from a junior on the track). So for one max sustained power over any time be it 10 seconds or 10 hours - pedalling efficiency . technique is huge. Huge. It can separate the best cyclists just like higher physiological values can. but it is like swimming - it is not easily learned and trained as an adult vs if it is learned and trained as a junior. It for sure can be done, or at least improved, but it often takes time, dedication and often a good coach who can help make sense of what to specifically change from the data you get and how to actually physically implement that change.
@jimbo90303 ай бұрын
Since you should be riding your bike with lubricant on/in the chain and not with a completey stripped chain then it makes sense that any measurements be taken with lubricant...duh 🤦
@peibol243 ай бұрын
Great to see cyclowax being tested by ZFC!! I've used their prewaxed chains and found the outer plates of the chain facing the frame pick up a little dirt over time, while all the plates facing the other way stay immaculate. What could be the reason? Might the chain be touching the cage of the front derailleur or something? Then I just flushed the chains with boiling water before rewaxing and the dirt came off easily, but I'd like to know how to avoid that dirt from appearing, because it doesn't make sense that one face of the chain gets dirty and the other doesn't, right? Also, 90% of my ride was in dry conditions. Thank you and forget about trolls! They're just looking for attention.
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
ah its all groovy - the trolls give me a great chance to explain stuff, and show them for what they are at the same time, win win!!! :)
@peibol243 ай бұрын
@@zerofrictioncycling992 that's true, yeah 👍 Also, regarding the issue that I have, where one face of my chain gets dirty and the other is clean, what could be causing it? I appreciate if you can think of something because it's driving me insane haha
@jamesrosar38233 ай бұрын
The inside of your chain is closer to that which brings the dust - your front tire. It picks up and releases road particulates which by static charge find and cling to the near/ inside chain surface. A microfiber cloth should remove most of that, unless a heat cycle occurs that allows the wax surface to swallow those particles, in which case the hot rinse should fix that.
@peibol243 ай бұрын
@@jamesrosar3823 wow, I never thought of that but it makes sense. I'll try to clean the chain with a rag every time I get home after a ride and hopefully that prevents the accumulation. Thank you very much 👍
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
@@peibol24 if riding offroad airborne dust can stick to chain from static elec of whizzing through the air, same way dust sticks to frame, wheel rims etc and you dont lube those (well, not normally :). A microfiber cloth with just a little alcohol spray onto it and wipe chain is a great way to lift and remove surface dust so it is not brought into pot on re wax, or dragged into chain if doing a top up lube in between. If its dark colour, then this could just be excess wax pressed onto outside of plates - possibly from running lightly against mech cage or chain guide or side of cogs in some gears that may have some build up on the sides you cant see (on inside of cassette)
@better.better3 ай бұрын
WD¹: also stripping the chain for measurements would not be a "real world" measurement to show a worst case scenario, representing a person who never cleans their chain. (ah, you covered this later) also I don't think it matters as long as the measurements are done in a consistent method for every test. setting aside the "real world scenario" consideration, if you start off measuring your results with a stripped chain then you should always measure stripped to get like for like measurements. since you are not stripping them then it should be fine as long as you never strip them. what you don't want to do is strip some of them and not strip others, because then it is no longer a like for like comparison. I guess if you wanted to, after you get your full length measurement you could take a link apart, strip it, and measure the actual rollers and pins, but that doesn't really seem necessary to me I think the results the way you're giving them is obvious enough. it's not like you would get vastly different results by doing that.
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
i deliberately dont do full length measurement as that does not pick up wear variances across the chain. sometimes the wear variances in a chain from one section to another are too great signaling a potential issue with that chain. If the variance is too great the test is voided and restarted. Which is a motherf#cking pain in the arse!!
@_Zane__2 ай бұрын
Finally bit the bullet and ordered 2 bags of silca hot wax and their slow cooker 😂 then I need to do like 7 chains 😅.... whats the best guide/process for degreasing chains and getting them prepped? (I was using Muc Off before so Im bad..)
@dawn_rider2 ай бұрын
The detailed answer is in the ZFC document zerofrictioncycling CHAIN-Prep-FAQ-Guide-V2 Using UFO drivetrain cleaner is most convenient for 7 chains ! You could also use Silca Chain Stripper which is not covered in the document. Adam will be back from holiday about mid June as he stated at 50:04. I tried to give you vid links but YT has stopped me 3 times 😞
@_Zane__2 ай бұрын
@@dawn_rider cool, thanks, I will try to find the document. Cheers
@michaelpeace12013 ай бұрын
Have a great holiday and keep safe
@Fosgen3 ай бұрын
Can you test candle wax + 1% 1.6 micron PTFE? Works great on my bicycles, wonder if it can beats some big brands wax.
@Surestick883 ай бұрын
PTFE isn't the most popular additive due to its environmental issues. You can get molybdenum disulfide or tungsten disulfide powder as easily as you can get PTFE powder, they test a bit better if memory serves, and don't have the same environmental issues. Candle wax might not be pure, it's better to use pure paraffin wax that's easy to get as it's used for making preserves. It's inexpensive and pure since it comes in contact with food.
@Fosg8n3 ай бұрын
Something interesting from my test. If you keep chain in hot wax while it cools down to about 50C, skin appear on top, then take chain off, wax will solidify very quickly. Chain "lubrication" last much longer than one I take off same wax while its still around 90C. I think many had same results.
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
that is not really correct - i have covered that previously. Pressures inside chain are hundreds to thousands of psi. After 10 to 15 mins of riding, everyone has the same thickness wax layer (for the same wax) if they removed at 100dg c and hang to set on a 40dg c day, or if removed when cool and hang to set some where cold to "lock in as much wax as possible". All you get for the latter is a lot more mess of excess wax flaking off and being pressed out, and so a lot more wasted wax. Many havent had same results and many havent objectviely tested, they just run with the incorrect theory that made sense to them. And no i cant spend resources testing never ending DIY blends. You dont need ZFC verification on your DIY blend, if you are happy with it, stay happy -but as other commenters correctly advise, it is time to move on from PTFE. Use moly or ws2 instead.
@zygmuntthecacaokakistocrat65893 ай бұрын
@@Surestick88 PFOA and certain PFAS are environmental problem chemicals. However, modern formulation PTFE no longer contains significant amounts of PFOA, so it does no break back down to a hazardous PFAS as it ages. See this: www.goretexprofessional.com/sites/default/files/research_insights/Gore%20PTFE%20Facts%20Aug%202021.pdf
@drayzen96783 ай бұрын
Really very funny this guy so stuck in his own thought bubble about his own area of expertise, metallurgy, and he's completely missed the fact that's not what is being tested.. Go get a masters in tribology then come back and your opinion might have some value..
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
he is pretty keen to extol his amazing qualifications, he has done this too me many times, and yet for all the bleeting about how the check measuring is incorrect, he didnt do a simple test of his own to check. Ie just check measure one waxed chain thats been ridden circa 10hrs, then clean it, then check measure again. Its fine to ask a question or a concern, and then take on board the reply. It is another to be always attacking someone on something - without actually just doing a basic check, or taking on board the information given in the discussion. I really have covered all this with him multiple times but there he is again. He could be one of those people who are so smart they have circled all the way back around to dumb again.
@dawn_rider3 ай бұрын
KZfaq is now suggesting to me Outdoors55's channel , even though I never asked for it 😞Although not a person, the YT AI should be classed as a Whackadoodle as it also frequently suggests DR and OZ. Considering what its probably being trained on, no wonder it feels like its got personality disorder and deletes rational comments. Can't be dealt with !
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
yeah you should check out ryan george short video re yt - that guy is brilliant (funny)
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
i will pop link here but YT may delete link comments - get in quick! :) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rsWGmMSc2bmzYoU.html
@dawn_rider3 ай бұрын
@@zerofrictioncycling992 This is truthful yet disturbing ! For about 10 seconds I thought my Adblocker wasn't working . The noisy house objects ( door , chair , monitor ) are different ! The baby & dog is just weird. Thanks 🙂
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
@@dawn_rider ooh this is exciting, we have dogs but if my wife has another baby somewhere, i am as yet not brought into the loop on that hahahaha
@kovie91623 ай бұрын
I get criticized often, including in cycling-related forums, for asking for verified proof of a given position on this or that "rule" or way of doing things. Like, I recently asked why you're not supposed to use a ratcheting torque wrench as regular ratchet wrench for occasional low torque applications, especially given that many ratcheting torque wrenches only torque clockwise but ratchet in both directions. Not in lieu of a breaker bar, of course, but for when the torque wrench is right there and you just need to turn say a 10mm bolt a few turns and don't feel like walking across the room to get a proper ratcheting wrench. And I got hammered, especially by this one guy but also by some others, for daring to question the received wisdom of omniscient experts. But no actual evidence that this can harm a torque wrench. I wasn't claiming that it doesn't, just asking for proof that it does. There are lots of "Oh everyone KNOWS" justifications for this or that view in literally every field, for which there is either no solid test data to back up, or which those who adamantly hold this view cannot provide. A now classic one is "Oh everyone KNOWS that narrow tires are faster than wider ones", despite mountains of evidence showing the opposite (under most conditions and inflated and used properly). I myself fell into this trap because it just seemed counterintuitive. And yet, the data shows otherwise. Not much to be done about it when confronting this mindset, especially when it's a hill that the other person is willing to die on (hopefully symbolically). Just wish them good luck, bye, I'm needed back on planet earth...
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
yeah i dont agree with behaviour like that all. i have asked oh so many "dumb" questions in my life - some of which turned out to be embarrassingly dumb, but some turned out not to be so in the end at all. And you wont know which is which until you ask (and if i do embarrass myself, there are worse things in life - i dont worry about it much). With guys like outdoors55 - papa and some others i have been dealing with, it is a completely different story. No matter what they are provided re reasoning, proof, facts, logic - the whole shebang - they just run the opposite direction from any reason to double and triple down the defense of a now painfully obviously explained 6 ways from 7 sunday wrong position. it would be like if you asked your question, and some people behind the mfg of torque wrenches managed to give you multiple great reasons why you shouldnt do that - which after receiving the answers were easy and logical to understand - but instead you decided to rail back against that information because you have an unbalanced hate for non torque wrenches. And walking. :)
@kovie91622 ай бұрын
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Sorry for the late reply, but yes, exactly. Once presented with solid and repeated data to prove this or that position that ran counter to how you always assumed things were, it's just silly to keep fighting back at it, unless you're prepared to run some proper tests yourself and your data, which is solid, proves you right. But that's rarely the case of course, if tests are indeed proper. But absent such solid test data, it's perfectly fine, if not essential, to ask such "show me" questions, because the history of cycling, and really anything, is riddled with "everybody knows" views that testing ends up proving wrong or at least exaggerated. I mean as I wrote above I used to assume than narrower tires at higher pressure were logically faster than wider tires at lower pressure, as it just seems intuitive and that's what all the pros rode years ago. But then massive test data showed the opposite to generally be true, however weird it seemed (and still seems to me). But, with the caveat that this only applies to certain situations, and that on top condition roads narrower and higher pressure is still often faster. It's just that most roads aren't in such condition. Btw I have another question in this same vein of "everybody knows" vs. what the test data show, to do with pedaling technique, but I'll ask it above, for wider exposure.
@timowandtke41523 ай бұрын
Discount Code for free shipping??
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
Get a bundle pack, free shipping is included in bundle packs!
@LaurentiusTriarius3 ай бұрын
I've been called a "wackadoodle" (less polite but meant the same) for making my own recipe, I usually do a ~90% pure paraffin wax + 8/10% ptfe, that's okay up to this point but when you start mentioning seasonal additives it gets rowdy 😂
@stephenringlee97393 ай бұрын
You're not a "whackadoodle" but many of us have decided to move beyond PTFE, not least because it is one of the "forever" chemicals that contaminate local water aquifers. Fluoropolymer manufacturers in the US are facing massive lawsuits over this issue. PTFE, which indeed is a polymer and not a liquid, is being called into question as well.
@neutronpcxt3723 ай бұрын
My gosh, that's too much PTFE.
@zygmuntthecacaokakistocrat65893 ай бұрын
@@stephenringlee9739 PTFE is a PFAS, however, it is not hazardous in most normal conditions. PTFE used to use PFOA (a PFAS) as a manufacturing precursor/catalyst, but modern PTFE has a very low/nil PFOA content, and has been shown to be non-dangerous/non-bioaccumulative/ non-bio-available in recent testing. Se W.L. Gore's take on this, as regards their firefighting garment treatment process: www.goretexprofessional.com/sites/default/files/research_insights/Gore%20PTFE%20Facts%20Aug%202021.pdf
@zygmuntthecacaokakistocrat65893 ай бұрын
@@stephenringlee9739 you could read this for more information. Personally, I'm convinced that PTFE is not a problem PFAS. www.goretexprofessional.com/sites/default/files/research_insights/Gore%20PTFE%20Facts%20Aug%202021.pdf
@dawn_rider3 ай бұрын
@@zygmuntthecacaokakistocrat6589 I read your linked document . My impression of PFOA and the GenX that replaced it is that they are transported via water into the environment via releases from PTFE manufacturers and thus spread around the world. There are no exposure limits considered safe for these chemicals ! In terms of the document , for PTFE itself , a 260°C breakdown temperature is not that high and there are always side chain reactions in a fire , depending on what other materials are in there. You have to be mindful that reference No 5 in your linked document was developed by the Plastics Industry Association ( there are always commercial interests at play ). PFOA is created at low parts per billion amounts from the manufacture of micronised PTFE powder by gamma irradiation. It can be removed but are all manufacturers going to do this ? I would give you external links but KZfaq deletes my comments. In your case it does not and I would like to know why !
@jonno-zu3jf3 ай бұрын
ok so here you go again getting stuck into people who disagree with you
@robinseibel75403 ай бұрын
It's not about disagreement at all. It is about, IMHO, people misrepresenting what ZFC does and how they do it, and about people getting the physics wrong or assuming use-case X is the same as cycling. When someone repeatedly misrepresents the physics or one's testing procedure and data, it's justifiable to correct that misrepresentation.
@johnkasza23153 ай бұрын
Hes dispelling myths and false information with FACTS..to help fellow cyclists to get longer wear rates on chains....no one is forcing you to watch this,,durainrider has his wife out in a bikini..maybe a better site for you
@zerofrictioncycling9923 ай бұрын
Jonno i felt this was a groovy way to help educate re some of the facts 1) testing and 2) why wax. By going through how incorrect a couple of nutters are, i get explain what is correct. And yep if nutters are going to try to shoot down the information ZFC has worked hard to obtain and educate - they can enjoy being used as an example :) There is a big difference between disagreeing and the examples shown here. I have had oh so many disagree on various things over the years - not everyone is going to agree on all aspects of the testing, or waxing etc - and that is perfectly fine, obviously expected, and over time have had some great discussions and debates. there is a rather a gulf between those people and the two used as examples here. And others like Larrytcycleitalia are yet another level! Other examples of me "getting stuck into" people - well we have Venereal D making up the most malicious crap - so i think that should be corrected, we had just riding along podcast with some of the worst knowledge re chain lubrication i have ever heard so that was good to correct, cade media Nick was just weirdly off base re waxing and master links - so information like that that is massively incorrect and reaching a lot of cyclists - it should be corrected, in my opinion. I work very hard to generate and get the correct information out and explained. Some media are doing a great job helping get excellent factual information out, some have some homework to do. And we have seen with the JRA and Cade examples, they speak from a position of authority on the topic despite clearly having extremely limited actual experience. So yes - these types of things give me a great chance to correct and educate to those who dont know better as not everyone will have been following ZFC information since day dot. Hope that makes sense. If you disagree with me doing this and the reasons, that is all groovy. Dont watch my vids like this. Hopefully i will make others that are what you are looking for. Lots of channels i follow i dont watch all of their vids, i watch the ones i want to watch.