Totally agree. I just switched. Silky smooth and minimal flaking. I agree with Zero Friction vv making money and surviving. If the apocalypse hits, I will use paraffin. Until then, Silva gets my few $ more!

+1 on fewer flakes

At the moment i disagree re products like Mspeedwax, HM and rex being overpriced. They do have a higher mfg cost than A LOT of other products we pay a vastly higher margin on, and again there is the cost of bringing to market, marketing, distribution, all the other costs of doing business which are substantial, investing in future, and after all of that - having some left over to pay yourself a living wage. Remember from when mspeedwax create the product, and package it - most of that then moves to importers / w/salers - to sell to retailers, to then sell to customer - so their are also usually 3 layers that all need to make margin, and from that margin those business need to cover their costs from that and be left with some net profit. No one is running off to buy a yacht off selling bicycle chain lubricants! (maybe muc-off...). And so factoring all of that - comparing to the DIY mans own numbers - there is about a $35 gap from DIY to Mspeedwax per 15,0000km - I dont get to "way overpriced" from that place.

@zerofrictioncycling if Muc Off did buy a yacht, they better not get it in their heads that they should make an engine lubricant. The results might be not what they’re hoping for.

@@weiwenng8096 Gold!

@@zerofrictioncycling992I was actually referring to things like Trutension ($902), UFO drip ($626) and Silca Hot Wax X ($565) vs MSpeedwax (only $256) per 10km

Hi ! on the surface that comment doesnt make sense to me yet - can you expand? Lets see - waxing = lubing, thats done frequently enough. Waxing does the deep cleaning at the same time. Wax is solid so has the highest contamination resistance, many more times so vs wet lubricants. So why would one want to spend time and solvents faffing cleaning and rate that at 90% vs waxing at 10%? confused, can you explain more?

Yep for comparison workings i really have to work of normal pricing and i dont expect all will be waiting or hunting for sales, or risking buying knock off or potentially poor quality stuff from some sites. Not sure how common but i can for sure advised people are burned every day getting poor quality / knock off stuff from some sites, and then it costs you more money as you have to spend what you would have initially on the right product from a reputable site vs the money you just blew + then purchasing the right stuff. With experience some get to know the pitfalls, what to look for, what to avoid etc but that often comes with trial and error and wasted $$ to save $$

I think none of the "high viscosity oils" had low wear in the ZFC testing.

Correct - for waxes - jason smith had tested a lot of paraffin for UFO wax base in the early days. Less refined - so higher oil content - it can keep a treatment feeling smooth and long lasting, but it is slower. Other impurities that are common like soy and palm oil, and candle scents etc - are slower again. High grade paraffin has a very low oil content, so the wax polishes to a very slippery surface once broken in, and so has highest efficiency as for all the sliding surface friction movements (literally around 300,000 a minute in large chain ring at 90 cadence) - having the lowest stiction and basically zero viscous friction - that gives an efficiency advantage - independent of if both types are protecting metal from wear. Also high grade stays cleaner and attracts less contamination, so over time they tend to deliver lower wear as contamination is abrasive

@@jorgelucascouto oils always just attract contamination and become abrasive. Just the nature of running wet and external operation. there is a reason they never "oiled" key locks but used graphite powder! :)

AliExpress, you can pick size etc. Hope that helps.

@@MrVizzle that explains a lot. I can't do AliExpress. I have more respect for my drivetrain to stoop that low. No offence, each to their own. I'll leave it there. If I did go dyi I'd be looking for reputable established sources (manufacturers) with quality controls for the materials and not just looking for the cheapest listing from a random seller in what I view as an unregulated marketplace. It's not going to end well. It's a matter of when, not if.

@@clintmichigan9112 check Georg Rockall-Schmidt - How Teflon Poisoned the World for your reputable sources

There is a lot of shite sold as X that could be anything. I didnt bother going into that on this one as again i dont want to come across against DIY - but for sure some people have bought ws2 by the kg for like $15. Or graphene for similar. And yet what goes into ws2 and silca costs a fair bit, so it is not the same thing getting genuine quality and particle size from a tier 1 supplier vs getting something called that from alibaba for 1/100th the price

There is a lot of shite sold as X that could be anything. I didnt bother going into that on this one as again i dont want to come across against DIY - but for sure some people have bought ws2 by the kg for like $15. Or graphene for similar. And yet what goes into ws2 and silca costs a fair bit, so it is not the same thing getting genuine quality and particle size from a tier 1 supplier vs getting something called that from alibaba for 1/100th the price

why would you put PTFE in a very environmentally friendly, already super low wear and good longevity drip lubricant?! How are you going to tangibly track a benefit for doing such? what were you looking for in doing such? I would not do this going forwards..... Yes quick links should be part of wax cost but the cost of ones chosen links has a high variance, and thus this has become overly complicated especially as its all linked with omni-calc online calculator. Ie campy c-links cost like $30 for single use. YBN links cost a lot less but currently not compatible with sram axs flat top, whose links are more expensive, or T-Type. So for those you only have single use links, which are also expensive - and if one is stuck with only able to use officially single use links - the recommendation is to go hybrid approach, not to immersive everytime as that would be completely impractical to replace a $7 or $30 link everytime you re lube. So what to do re this is still be tinkered with with omni calc. the best ones are simply the officially re useable ones IF they are compatible with your chain, if not - hybrid approach of wax - re lube next approx 5x with immersive wax compatible drip lubricant like UFO drip - then re wax to reset any contamination starting to build and use a new link.

This is probably a compelling reason not to watch Oz ! You've turned a known quantity into an unknown one. It's possible you partially dissolved some of the wax in the alcohol , especially if it was hot. You may have created a gel instead of an emulsion of solid wax particles in water. This may have altered the penetration properties ? The PTFE may also have affected this and may possibly because of the presence of water , 'clump' or thicken the mixture ? I'm not sure that boiling water is effective at cleaning Flowerpower. Effetto sell a product ' Allpine Extra ' that contains pine oil. Pine oil alone is not water soluble. A possible substitute you could try if you already have some is turpentine as used by artists . This is not to be confused with mineral turpentine which is totally different. Turpentine is a lighter fraction from the distillation of pine wood than the pine oil. I've not tried this and It is only a suggestion. You could try the Connex wipperman quick links as they are removable by hand and should last the lifetime of your chain. I have some and they seem quite durable. At least here in the UK they can be difficult to buy at times and are expensive for >10 speed chains.

Sewing machine oil isn´t just very viscous, it´s also very easy to wash off with water if you stain your garment whilst sewing. For fishing reels, really?? Rgr

yes but it markets itself these days as "All purpose household and industrial use - high quality" - so from that i would singer says its good for both your sewing machine, garage door hinges, to your lathe's bearings and well - basically everything. I think in a pinch - its going to just pass for some things, but for just about anything, a quality product specialising in the use case you are looking for will way outperform singer.

Agree. A test with proper purified paraffin wax and some added modifiers would be a great comparison. But that might make some commercially available options not viable anymore.

Disagree on a couple of points there (and you can still disagree with me though). You can see in the test that new formula mspeedwax and silca hot melt are basically 1/3rd the total wear by end of block 6 vs original formula Mspeedwax. And i think that you are taking extremely rose coloured glassed to PTFE mfg. Yes it can be produced in a fairly low toxic manner now, but are you betting that it generally is? Just look at how many things are produced that could be produced in a very clean manner, vs just pumping toxic waste from production directly into rivers etc - in quite a number of countries. Here is a quote from Chemsec; “There are no regulations in place that require chemical producers to disclose PTFE production" Little is known about where PTFE and other fluorinated polymers are produced in the world as there are no regulations in place that require chemical producers to disclose this. Within the EU, the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register requires chemical manufacturers to report emissions into the air, water, and land from a number of pollutants. But producers of fluorinated polymers do not have to specify that they produce these particular substances. What you can do is measure the amount of PFAS in the air to indicate fluorinated polymer production sites, since you need PFAS as a production aid when manufacturing fluorinated polymers. In other words - production of fluorinated polymers can be a source of PFAS emissions. According to a recent report from the EEA, several harmful substances have been reported in wastewater or river water downstream of plants known to be manufacturing fluorinated polymers. So considering there are other friction modifiers that can be used that outperform PTFE, PTFE is now usually only used by lubricant MFG who do not want to spring for more expensive WS2 Etc. And for DIY, it is up to each own, but i think it is incredibly premature to think that even a handy % of PTFE is made you way you hope it is. SInce when do such companies do something in a manner that is more expensive without a gun being held to their head. They can clearly continue doing the old much cheaper way as there is no regulation or practical method of enforcing the cleaner way - so in my view the odds on that being widespread are basically nil, and information put out about oh now it can be so its ok - is the equivalent of PTFE greenwashing by those manufacturing PTFE. Same as X companies plant tree's to keep polluting etc.

I dont know what that means. Am i silver armour knight? Just in case it means what i think it may mean - ZFC has zero sponsors. An important part of the independent testing is holding to account mfg putting out rubbish products but marketing powerfully to get a lot of market traction, which equals a lot of drivetrains suffering early death by abrasion. The other important part balancing that is to highlight mfg and products that are genuinely outstanding in this space. I would hope you agree that doing both of those things is a rather obvious and important thing to be done from the findings from a very robust, very labour intensive independent testing process. Its pretty much a "Key findings" kind of thing. So, highlighting the top products and mfg is a pretty natural, expected and logical outcome from the testing that followers would expect. It would be very weird to operate otherwise. So if highlighting the top products and mfg found to date you class as ZFC protecting sponsors - then i would say there is not a conspiracy theory you wouldn't sign up to. If i am wrong about what you meant - disregard :)

@@zerofrictioncycling992 always enjoyed your content. even if you overthink things sometimes and take internet to serious. Very sorry that my comment took so much time off you, it was not vicious in intent.

@@MrVizzle ha no problems - i just do get the odd troll, durian sycophant, or just plain everything is a commercial conspiracy thinker. I work very hard and ferociously independent so i will alway fight any actual or possibly perceived attacks against my very hard work that i feel passionate is really important in this space as without ZFC, what else is there in this space atm?! :)

who is that one aimed at? lil zfc or big biz?

People are free to disagree with ZFC--but they had better be doing so fairly & honestly--and with facts, repeatable processes, and good evidence. Otherwise, Adam will rip their conclusions to pieces. Which isn't really a bad thing, right? DR doesn't understand the difference between unverified fact and fiction. OZ needs to back up his conclusions with evidence & facts before making extravagant claims. So, yes, Adam's "pattern" is to challenge these kinds of people--which I think is awesome!

@@SnaxNoCo could not have said it better myself! probably just longer :)

DR doesnt question anything - he makes a lot of very incorrect statments as well as outright lies - deliberately and maliciously so. I think i have a right to defend against such no? And despite DR being one of the most notorious malicious liars and defamers in this space (and you support him? if yes pls feel free to not come here) - Oz had him on his show to talk crap about zfc. Aside from that..... his test vs msw was VERY bad - again i have that covered in a document. His ratio's make no sense and appear to be based on moon phase or whether mercury is retrograde - and his formulas and ratio's change often - again based on zero data or info on these formula's or the changes etc etc. So it is great he is working in the DIY space, but for sure there are valid points to be raised re some of the information. Ie this one, do you not think it should be tested first before putting out video recommending this diy hack vs silca strip chip, vs doing so , and then saying hey i will back in 5 months with some data? ZFC work is based on extremely robust control testing. So why are you looking for a conspiracy, vs the basic obvious facts of the situation that are smacking you in the face?

I prefer the guesswork from someone who works with waxbased lubricants compared from someone who does NOT work with waxbased lubricants. If I have problems with my teeth, I listen to a dentist, not to a surgeon, although the surgeon has studied for a longer period of time. Rgr

that's some twisted logic. You're assumption that moron has a viable wax mix when there are a lot of good choices out there for not a lot of money.

I respectfully disagree. For one, we know the wax base is much cheaper and inferior vs mspeedwax, hot melt etc. There is a reason why he says to replace every 3000km vs others 10,000km. And mspeedwax, silca and others have spent a huge amount of time and resources and cost testing - both control and field. We can already see that new formula mspeedwax has 1/3rd the total wear vs original formula mspeedwax by end of block 6. The oz test of his vs mspeedwax (original formula), was in my view so flawed and so many base errors that it verges on concern re the errors being deliberate. I offered at the time for Oz to send me his blend for testing, and he did not. Now that ship has sailed, and we are far too busy with tests for mfg and other much higher value knowledge wise open lubricants tests vs his DIY mix. I would read the document in the instructions tab titled "That oz cycle video" for the full run down on that. Also - remember he has changed ratios for his wax blend A LOT, and still there is zero re what he has based both his original and updated lower numbers on. Same re wax drip - that has changed drastically over time. What was original based on? Then change X? then change y? then change z? So you are giving a vote of confidence to a product outcome based on numbers that for all we know could be derived from moon phases on what level of retrograde mercury is in, vs products with genuine huge amount of R&D and testing behind them. odds On oz diy matching the likes of mspeedwax etc are..... lets say... .low. Not saying its bad, it overall could be quite a groovy product. but its not mspeedwax of hot melt or rex, of that i am sure.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I'm not giving a vote of confidence to anything. I'm saying we have no data. None. We do not know that the wax is inferior. We have no data. We do not know what the commercial wax producers use for their base wax. All we know is what additives they are adding. We have no other data at all. I love the fact that you test this stuff. That's the important bit. You have data on how well the products actually work. If you were going to sit there and bad mouth Muc Off without ever having once tried it, I would write you off as just as big a crank as what I think Oz is. But you actually tested it. It performed objectively poorly. End of story. However, your opinion is biased, just like everyone. There will be times that you are right. There will be times that you are wrong. Opining how well or badly something will work when you have no data is what the other guys are doing. It's not helpful in any way. It detracts massively from the conversation. Just because you distrust the person, or their approach to a problem does necessarily mean that their solution is bad. It might mean that it's not worth your effort to evaluate. That's totally fair. I'm not saying that you need to chase up every crackpot's theory in the world. I'm just saying that if it's not worth your effort to evaluate objectively, then it's not worth your effort to reply at all. Why is this important? Because you are the only person with objective evidence in this field. There is nobody else. There is no other data. None. Tilting at windmills helps nobody and hurts many. You don't have to listen to me, but I hope that you do. This kind of poor reaction to cranks is what others use as ammunition to devalue your work.

@@urouroniwa I think it's fine for Adam to question & challenge unverified claims. OZ doesn't have ANY data to back up his rather grandiose conclusions, so I applaud Adam for holding him accountable.