Hey Austin- keep a close eye on wear, rival level does not have the hard chrome treatment that force and red level has. It will likely be similar to what we see with eagle where GX level chains wear rapidly, whilst x01 / xx1 have extreme longevity.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks for taking the time to give me some advice and educate me. Y’all are out here doing gods work, keep it up. Your work is much appreciated.

Glad here as been looking at red but wondering if red update first or not

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I understand you might not know but cheap Vs expensive bottom bracket, does it change the shell quality? I been looking to maybe buy cheap and put Enduro XD 15 bearings inside it instead of what in it

@@mlee6050 that is hard to answer concretely. All industries have brands that manage good quality for an impressive price, others may be poor material quality and mfg tolerances at more budget prices. It really would be brand and price level specific, what material quality do they use, and what % of product comes out in tolerance based on their mfg techniques and quality checks. Tolerance to a degree you can measure if you are very good with a good set of calipers - but not easily, and normally a micrometer is better but not many have those. Material quality is harder of course. At a race last weekend, a friends bb shell housing snapped off (bsa bb) - so that was his race done, and some fun now to get the threaded section out of frame. if it is an internal housing such a thing is a lower risk, it is more about tolerances and fit. Personally, if you have the budget for xd-15, i would rather just have everything guaranteed awesome with a quality housing as well.

Well, it's not about being bothered by 1 watt for most people. It is about which chain is worth buying if you have to buy one. According to their tests SRAM lasts longer while other chains have less friction, if i was buying a chain maybe i'd go for the longer lasting one.

@@sepg5084 as i commented above, in my opinion the (according to the chart) sometimes more than double the lifespan outweighs a 2watts saving max any day

You gotta lube this part by making appointments with another rider. Way easier to get up, especially in winter. Worked for me today, I wouldn't have made it outside today on my own.

@@sepg5084 Actually less friction means less wear on your drivetrain which in my opinion is a much more expensive component compared to a chain. My Shimano chains have lasted pretty decently as well, not as long as SRAM ones but long enough that the price wise it isn't really that expensive to replace. Though the wear is still pretty low even in SRAM chains considering these are all marginal, though the Shimano chains lasts decently long enough that the watt savings can be pretty good if you do century rides often even on a SRAM drivetrain.

That's the tradeoff of 1x drivetrain. But I don't think most MTBers are obsessing over the fractions of a watt that a perfect chain line would give. Even in XC racing a couple watts from chain choice and ceramic bearings isn't going to make up for even one bad line choice even over the course of a long race. and in DH and Enduro durability trumps efficiency because a broken drivetrain = DNF. TT seems to be where it would give the most benefit as that is the closest you can get to a pure watts per KG contest.

@@mrvwbug4423 I’ve seen some pretty bad chain lines with 1x setups but there’s certainly brands doing it better than others. I’ve even used spacers to move bottom brackets a 1-2mm to get the chain aligned to the middle of the cassette. Some frames are just bad.

@@tinshield Centered is not necessarly the best. Angles are not symetric top and bottom and you can tradeof some chainline on one side to get it better on the other.

@@TheAntoine191 much of my riding is in the inner half of the cassette. My bikes are pretty much in the middle. Quieter and smoother. Many bikes favor the smaller cogs which isn’t ideal IMO.

Used to be MTB chainline was 47.5-49mm. Boost showed up and everything moved 3mm to ~52mm. In the latest round of 12 speed Shimano cranks 52mm is non-Boost, and 55mm is Boost to make more room for frames to clear large wheels and still have room enough to have a meaty chainstay while tucking 29er wheels under the rider. Add to this the pinned together construction allowing the big cog to overhang the freehub, and the biggest cog moved inward about 4 mm compared to say an old 9 speed cassette, and that low cog is about 7mm more out of line with the chain ring than it would be historically. If you have an older frame not needing the extra clearance it is an unnecessary penalty on the hills.

which wax lube brand do you use?

@@robt8042 silca secret chain blend.

Wax for the win, it's clean, it's just so nice. I use store bought paraffin wax.

if it is a flat time trial or crit, 0.5 watts of pulley is about the same as 30lbs

No reason you can't improve both

That's a very good point and a pretty basic oversight for the people putting so much effort into saving a few watts. Still choosing gearing that gives you a straighter chain most of the time will be best. So his point is still valid.

I agree. Chain angle will be essentially the same for the various cog/ring positions, regardless of the size of the sprockets. That diagram was incorrect.

Don't forget that with an "optimised BB" you can probably throw it after any bad weather day. Also if you don't disassemble it before every race to check if it's sound you might ride a dead BB too.

Remember though that Adams business is selling products and making claims about them.

people are different. For me personal those 2 watts are a reason to not put Sram on my bike.

My current chain is the XX1 SRAM meant to be long lasting, according to FF. Does not shift as nicely as Shimano on my drivetrain, but I run Di2, so shifting is always good anyway. 1500k in, my chain checker has hardly budged. My next experiment will be with the Wippermann conex, as they are meant to last even longer. Not cheap, but I like the idea of producing less waste. I had no issues with Shimano chains and lifespan was good. I just stopped using them because their coatings have PFTE, as does YBN. SRAM/Wipperman are also made in Europe, which means less CO2 footprint for those of us living in this part of the world. PS: given this is also a marginal gains channel, I guess saving 2W fits into the category. I weigh 47kg and don't have a huge peak power on absolute terms. I recently found a better choice of tyres+tubes+chain+lube would save close to 1h in a 160k event on my own. And that is not even with the 'best in class' choice for each (I won't go latex or wax my chain, for instance).

Been exclusively using Shimano chains on SRAM groups exclusively for over 200k miles. There's no reason you can't just take out the worst offender

@@veganpotterthevegan I know that worked ok on 11 speed but 12 speed?

5,000 mi on a XX1 chain and still not worn. Chiefly dry, dusty climate and chain is regularly hot waxed every 300 miles. I’d say that’s an A+++ for durability.

Yes, unless one is competing or riding in a group I really don't understand why people spend money and waste time on these things that seem like marginal gains. If the bike is slower, you still get the same exercise anyway in 1h, you just did it going over a slightly shorter distance. I actually ride a 29er xc bike with "city" type tyres and am probably at least 5km/h slower than I would be on some good road bicycle but I had almost no technical issues in 10 years(0 flats), brakes are great in all conditions and I can ride for hours fairly comfortably and even ride easily when the road isn't perfect.

Totally. Adam's work is really useful in that regard. I have totally changed the lubes I was using on both my gravel and mountain bike chains and I'm really happy with the long-term results.

I agree, when I saw the chain chart my first reaction was - wow SRAM lasts a lot longer, I’m buying SRAM. I don’t race so I’ll take 1500 more kms vs a couple watts.

@@cyberfunk3793 Have you ever looked at how much you can gain through stacking a number of marginal gains? You can save quite a lot on tire choice, clothing(aero) and drivetrain efficiency that can yield > 50watts. Now figure out how long it would take to increase your baseline of riding by that much ;-) But to each their own for sure. As a recreational rider as well, I will definitely spend $$ in some areas, but not others, but it's all about optimizing for each person. You can sit there and ride the same bike for 10 years and be happy, when others buy new bikes every year .

@@pcericm I don't know what you exactly mean with baseline of riding, but I just ride to get to places like the supermarket and to exercise. I can get to the supermarket easily with any bike as it's about 5km away and for exercise I can ride with the same amount of watts with any bike also. So if I do 200 watts on my bicycle I just ride a shorter distance than I would on a more efficient bicycle to get the exact same exercise. Sometimes it is even a good thing when you don't need to go that far (bicycle roads here end at some point when you go further after which I would need to ride with cars on the road which I don't prefer for obvious safety reason). Added benefits includ things like that I can use 1 chainring in the front as I don't typically go much faster than 25 km/h, it's also perhaps a bit safer when I go a bit slower and have strong MTB brakes on bicycle with a bit wider tires. The bike is also fully suspended so driving over stuff like curbs and cobble is comfortable when I ride through places like the old town. When I ride through gravel and dirt paths through some park it's also doable even though the tyres are not nobby so not best for that. The only times I think a faster bicycle would really benefit me is when I decide to visit some place 50km or furher away to take photos for example and it would be best to get there as efficiently as possible when the trips is something like 100km or more both ways.

Yes, Me too! Tool time Tim

Try sram red mechanical properly tuned. WAY faster precise shifting and WAY lighter than the latest red stuff.

How often do you have to rewax them?

It doesn’t make sense to me, since the chain should leave the chainring near the center, not at the ends.

@@SeaCowsBeatLobsters that's not the issue. It's the fact that if you have a cadence zone and you change chainring sizes, you're going to be on a different cog.

@@veganpotterthevegan Yes, there’s cadence too, but look at 10:17. There’s exaggerating to make a point but good lord! LOL!

@@SeaCowsBeatLobsters That would be true only if you did not cross the chain and did not have different cassette cog sizes. If you look at how the chain exits the big ring when it's on the smallest sprocket, you will see it will touch a few more teeth beyond the center. The same for a big/big combination. Try the same on the smaller ring and the chain will stop touching any teeth much sooner. Then experiment back pedalling with your hand on different combinations and notice the difference.

Yes, I always noticed how a cross chainline on my 46 always sounds so much worse (more friction) than in the 34. After watching this I went to look at how the chain exits the big chainring on the cassette ends and it makes total sense. It rubs in a lot more teeth. I guess this shows bigger chainrings are only more effective if you can ride in the middle of a cassette most of the time.

Good point!

Yes - I noticed this - that point is incorrect the chain angle is the same whether it’s am 80:80 or a 30:30 - his subsequent point stacks up though as if you want a 1:1 ratio and you run an 11-34 cassette you’ll have a straighter chain line at 1:1 with a 30 tooth front than a 34 tooth front.

Depends on your W/Kg. A DA link is 2.4g and the OPSW requires 2 more links. So that's 5g + 22g more (over stock) for the OPSW itself. So at 5w/kg that would cost you 0.135w on a climb but you save 0.5-1.0w. But if you are an alien pulling 50w/kg that's a 1.35w penalty and you are better off using the shorter chain and stock pulley system

Hi, do you recemmend for full hollow KMC chain for shimano 11s gs?

​@@apair4002 Shimano chains shift better on their own group set is my experience.

On a road bike it’s more for bling since the gains are small, but on a TT, all the little watts here and there ad up.

​@@CarbonRider1 those same watts add up on a road bike and due to speed, it's a smaller percentage of the losses for a TT bike

Been riding SRAM for well over 200k miles... with Shimano chains🙃

@@veganpotterthevegan they do, but the gains are less when riding in a group, and really only become more of a gain when riding solo / doing an ITT on a road bike. It’s the same with some aero gains.

@@CarbonRider1 drag is very important in a peloton. If you're holding on at the back of a group at 250w, or it's a slow group you're trying to catch while pushing 250w, you'll still benefit fairly similarly from those gains

I'd like to see the wind tunnel data on a 62t chainring vs a 53. It may lose a sizeable percentage of the total gains. Less so on a TT bike(or with a classified hub) running 1x as you gain even more by not having the FD, FD hanger and small ring at low yaw. Haven't seen and 3rd party data about the efficiency of the classified hub either. A rohloff is the only internally geared hub that's tested and proven to be quite efficient. But it's absurdly heavy and you can't shift under much load.

The watt savings are more by not using an 11 tooth sprocket than by using a 56 or a 62. A 52x 11 is roughly the same as 56x12 but the chain doesn't have to do such a tight turn, also when using a large front sprocket the gaps between gears are smaller , so you don't get so much as one gear feeling too high and the other too low.

Your windtunnel data would be off cause the ice cream

When you're walking up the muur, don't think chain efficiency matters

I saw a video on KZfaq that did a rolling test. There is no difference. Rene Herse website also confirms this.

SRAM chain aside, i'd say it depends. My 11 speed drivetrain was 50/34 with 11-30 cassette. Upgraded to AXS 12 speed with 50/37 and 10-33. 12 speed setup is faster (equivalent to 55-11) and slightly easier. Yes the 10t cog is less efficient but now I'm pedaling whereas with the 50-11 I'd be coasting. Then when climbing the 12spd chainring and cogs are larger & more efficient than 11 speed setup. I use the force flat top chain cause it's a bit faster than the Red.

The non belief on this by some i find fascinating. Especially some of the responses to this i have seen by sram themselves. Its just straight up basic physics and math. Greater articulation = more losses, and there is more articulation with a smaller ring, and you will be running a smaller cog for desired gear inches with a smaller ring = mores losses. And there is more chain tension with a smaller ring, so the greater articulation at both ends is under greater tension / load. To balance, sram have done so much excellent pioneering work in many area's - but for from a Mr Low friction perspective, i would have like to see things move forwards in all aspects, not say a great move with wireless 12spd, but go backwards on efficiency. Work should be done to move efficiency in a forwards direction as well. Staying static on that front for X years is barely a pass mark, going backwards - to me it is a direction i cannot understand how it was signed off and put into production. Just imagine me at those meetings hahahaha. I have had the same information relayed to me from multiple sources that as soon as axs road came out, the first thing the pro teams on sram at the time did was demand 54/38 ring sizes and they locked out the 10t, so basically they made their new 12spd the same as the old 11spd. Whilst consumers were stuck with 48/32t rings , until after a couple of years, a 54/38t ringset, in red level was released, with an rrp of about 1 billion dollars. 52/36 and 54/38 chain sets should be widely avail, at reasonable prices, from rival level. A very fast friend of mine is looking at the Factor Hanzo tt bike - it looks amazing, but you can only buy specced with sram - with 48/32 rings. For a tt bike. Cmon sram...... So much great work..... why is efficiency not a focus for this company.

@@freakyPhred You're still riding a noisier and less efficient drivetrain. Besides, If you're spinning out 50x11 on 700c wheels, you don't need a 33tooth rear cog, or even a 30.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Sram's focus is to sell gimmicky tech to gullible consumers.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 if you're referring to my comment, I don't disagree with you at all. However, I'm coming from the practical standpoint of having 50/34 rings for my older legs. From my perspective upgrading to SRAM 50/37 got me less articulation when climbing and one faster gear. Guess I could run a 53/39 and an 11-36 which would be almost as easy.

Saving less than 100g at best though no?

@@SamuelBlackMetalRider It all adds up. Weight should be a part of every frame, component and tire selection.

@@danielrussell9416 Right,in the end all these little savings add up! 👌

​@@danielrussell9416 Only if you're going up. It does not help riding on flats or downhill.

Every bike Ive had with sram gets replaced by Shimano at some point. Shimano more refined and easier to set up. Just works better

I agree. I have 9 speed on a couple of my bikes. It didn't get better than this! (I have 8sp, 9sp, 10sp and 11sp bikes)

Bigger roller diameter means the wear spread over a lager surface I guess.

@@chrisridesbicycles most durable Eagle chains still have same diameter pins and rollers.

@@feedbackzaloop Ok, good point.

It's not per pedal stroke: watts are energy/time (specifically, Joules/second). To put these numbers in context, it's about 1.5 - 3% of you power being lost in the chain. Hope that clarifies.

@@75supercourse Thanks!

I think Dylan has a 1x vs 2x video. 2x is more efficient than 1x but classified says the opposite plus internally geared hubs are generally less efficient than roller chain.

Probably not. Most of the frictional losses are internal to the chain itself anyway.

I did the same just weeks ago. And I've run nothing but Shimano and I too think the kmc works excellent.

Paired with a modern 11-34t cassette, yes.

@@veloaa-montreal6924 Actually I run a 14-28 cassette-small steps between useable gears. And I have no delusions of grandeur of being able to spin out a 53x11!

totaly agree, big mistake!!

It can certainly fool the untrained eye, I can't say it's a piece of cake to identify except if a fake HG901 uses solid pins instead of hollow ones.

@@yonglingng5640 Generally speaking, one of the external ways is on the packaging. Some say they can spot a slight difference in the font, however it can be difficult. An easier way is to look at where the check box is for the number of links. If the check in the box looks like it was printed on as part of the package, that would be a likely indication of a fake chain, whereas a check in the box that looks like it was done with an actual pen or marker, by hand, would indicate a strong likelihood of a genuine product.

@@GNX157 Yes, that's one of them.

Don’t underestimate sponsorship money.

Regarding lubricants, you only need to remember one name…Silca.

I think what was in the pipeline was a big bag with a dollar sign on it 💰

Never underestimate how little this stuff matters when factoring in all of the potential “minimal losses” that occur during a bike race.

NEVER underestimate how much fat chex affect product choice! @@industryrule-4080