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

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.

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!

hi...what chain checker are you using? what chain on what group?

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 ?

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 !

yeah i need to re do that entire thing thats for sure - its on the to do list for hopefully 2nd half this year!

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..

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.

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.

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!!! :)

@@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

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.

@@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 👍

@@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)

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!!

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 😞

@@dawn_rider cool, thanks, I will try to find the document. Cheers

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.

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.

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.

@@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

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.

yeah you should check out ryan george short video re yt - that guy is brilliant (funny)

i will pop link here but YT may delete link comments - get in quick! :) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rsWGmMSc2bmzYoU.html

@@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 🙂

@@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

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. :)

@@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.

Get a bundle pack, free shipping is included in bundle packs!

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.

My gosh, that's too much PTFE.

@@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

@@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

​@@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 !

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.

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

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.