And i will be some big bucks your shift ramps are still like new :)

​​@@zerofrictioncycling992great in Australia, I'm in Perth, and it's too wet to use wax - it's the Perth in Scotland I've butted in here to ask you directly, 0.5% replacement? My guage only gives an indication for 0.75% And it's replacement at 1.00% With the oil I have to use because we have this stuff we call "rain" over here, I wouldn't get 500 miles out of a chain replacing at 0.5% You're too fussy Tell you what I'm going to try Immersive wax in straight paraffin wax (candles) and then I'm going to oil on top - If it works I'll let you know

@@ΑΣΔΦΓΗΞΚΛ 0.75 or 1 is great if you are simply looking to always replace cassette as well as chain, and possibly chain rings. If you want to get multiple chains through the cassette, and usually 4 to 6 chains through chain rings, then 0.5%. How important this is, depends on cost of the other parts - but the chain should be by far the most consumable part - replace chain early ,and get vastly more life and kms and big savings over time vs just eating into cassette and chain rings from 0.5 to 1% - why do that. Such tools are sadly useless, what is the point in checking if you have eaten out drivetrain by then anyway - you are just going to be replacing everything. I dont understand too fussy? What i show is actually for most / many the easiest, and just so happens to also give the best results. I have covered also in a previous vid waxing and wet conditions. waxing is the best in wet conditions if a) a treatment lasts the typical ride length, and most immersive waxes have good longevity vs other options in wet condtions, b) you can just wipe chain and re lube with a compatible wax drip and keep doing that until practical to re wax and re set contamination, and or run multiple chains - you are always going to need a new chain, so pre buy next chain or two - if you run 3 chains on rotation, you get three chains lifespan through your cassette and rings guaranteed vs just one if you rip through one and run it too long. It costs you no more obviously to pre buy your next 2 chains that you would have bought anyway, makes it way easier to re wax - you can have two in / or just out of the pot and one on the bike and just keep rotating - and or do that as well with wax drip top up between waxings as needed. As long as post a wet ride the chain either comes off and goes into wax pot or is wiped and re lubed - then it is protected. There is no easier way to reset contamination post wet ride than just do a simple re wax vs flush cleaning. If you dont flush clean - after even a ride or two in harsh conditions, you dont have lubricant as such running in your chain, you have abrasive paste. So you pay the piper in a very small time investment to save a lot of wear, or you pay the piper in wear. Riding in wet is an extreme lubrication challenge, and IM waxing to easily re set and re coat is the easiest path to meet that challenge. Watch the waxing and wet vid for full info, and or watch waxed life like a boss. Oil is ok for a single ride - but then what are you doing after that ride? its job, and cost to degrease reset, and its a cost in wear to not do that. If parts are cheap and or you dont care about high wear - then all good - enjoy the high wear. IF parts are expensive and you do care about high wear, preventing that is very easy with just a little knowledge and very small time investment to reset.

​@@zerofrictioncycling992hey, thanks for the extensive reply OK, I haven't waxed a chain in my life, I've just got what I've picked up on YT so far, and that tells me it's pointless in the wet; "starts squeaking after a few miles", you're saying different and this is good news, I'll check out the wet waxing video, thanks Also, multiple chains might solve my problem - good idea! I'm touring, so if I carry two spares ready waxed I can just switch them out when the squeaking starts, wax three at once, sounds like it will make it practical The rationale for waxing then using oil as well was that I'd have a hard wax inside the rollers which ought to keep the grinding paste out just because it's there, and then a layer of oil to cope with water - I still might try this, I do use cheap chains. While the drip wax might save me from cleaning oil off I doubt it would work very well on a Scottish roadside in a torrential deluge - 4 hrs to dry after application? (In fact I use 3x 8 speed because the parts are cheap and I get useful ratios for the hills with 42-32-22 and 11-34 rear - but while that's 8 speed, I use a "brown steel" kmc 7 speed chain which lasts 1.5-2* longer than the "recommended" 8 speed one, I am absolutely convinced that lots of these newer parts are designed to increase sales) "Too fussy"? Well, the 'useless tool' seems to serve me well, I generally replace the chain when it indicates wear between 0.75 and 1% so "early" by this tool's recommendation and my *experience* so far is two chains per cassette and two cassettes per chain ring set. That's what I get If I follow 0.5% I might use four chains per cassette? Seems I'd just be using two more chains for the same mileage from the cassette FWIW I did come across an article about the controversial Italian king of the mountains through the 1950s, I forget his name, as an aside his training was load the bike with 100kg and go up the hill! But the germane bit I remember was the chain wax recipe, pot of beeswax, candle stub and a splash of kerosene, I just offer that part for interest

@@ΑΣΔΦΓΗΞΚΛ yes sometimes what you may read on forums or general anecdotal from riding buddies etc can be confused / conflated with some wax drip lubricants. Some wax drips have very good lifespan, some have very short. Pretty much all need proper set time after application as they are a wax emulsion, so water is their carrier. So if one applies most wax drip lubes before they go for a ride and that ride is wet, then it will just be washed out very quickly. Immersive waxing all parts of the chain are coated in a solid wax and the good IM waxes have lifespans that beat most drip lubricants / most wet lubricants. Alas the oil and wax plan wont work as you are hoping. Wet lube, even grease - wont keep water out. The chain is far from water proof, so water will run right through the chain, and it will bring with it whatever contamination it is carrying deep inside chain too. Once you add oil, then you have a job re any decent level of resetting post wet ride. If its wax only - you can either just re wax and change wax more frequently, or do a boiling water flush rinse which does a great job of getting rid of most of the contamination as it melts off the remaining contaminated wax. This is what i do post full wet offroad rides so i dont bring a whole lot of stuff into wax pot. And for sure your case with 8spd is different to what many are facing, and that tool is sorta still valid for 8spd. The 5 to 8spd chains are internally wider (3/32 of an inch), so wider rollers, wider teeth on cassette and chainrings. More metal on the teeth means they are more resistant to wear, and 8spd chains typically have MUCH LESS lifespan than quality 11 and 12spd chains so they are not above 0.5 for ages before they get to 0.75. From 9spd onwards chains went to and 11/128 internal width (thinner again for flat top 12spd) and so thinner teeth on cassette and rings that just dont hold up well going to 0.75, so over after 9spd began, good tool brands began bringing out a 0.5 and 0.75 tool vs 0.75 and 1. Nowadays that we are long ways past 9spd - it is very rare for 0.75 and 1 tool to be useful. And remember that A LOT 11spd and 12spd cassettes and chainrings can cost many hundreds of $$ to replace - the focus on the chain being the consumable part and replace by 0.5 max is really important to avoid a lot of wasted money - money that could instead be spent on that awesome winter jacket one was coveting or that new helmet or winter shoes or glasses - or sometimes one can buy all of that and more if they didnt have to buy a new cassette and chainrings with their new chain. So that is why ZFC focusses a lot on the easiest ways to run genuinely low friction low wear, and it for most they are surprised how easy it is to enjoy much longer lifespans and much cheaper (and cleaner) running. And ha that wax blend sounds terrible! FOr those riding a lot in wet and looking for easiest path of just putting chain straight into wax and changing wax often, just buy some paraffin (food grade is best) from ebay or amazon - its so cheap you can change wax every circa 10 or 15 re waxes so its not becoming too contaminated - you will still spend less on chain lube vs drip, and you will still smash the pants of the majority of commercial drip lubes re chain and DT lifespan

Totally agree. Look how long it took to go to wider tires.

Such an wax ignorant person is kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e9Ryi7hnvtuzaX0.html

Arleigh Greenwald AKA bikeshopgirl, says at 10 minutes 33 seconds on the 'shifter' YT channel video ... Bike mechanic reacts to viewer tips for keeping bicycles running smoothly " I personally have no time or patience to deal with waxing a bike chain " 1 minute into the video, she is introduced as an expert ! If you sort comments by 'newest first' on this video you will see an extra hidden comment of mine in this thread containing the link. There is a comment on that 'shifter' video by user @1ashen that could do with a few thumbs up !

@@dawn_rider Her smug dismissiveness--that smirk, and the derisive pity aimed at the the poor "geeks" who wax--is such a hallmark of the type too. Myself, I don't have the time or the patience for properly dealing with an oily chain.

@@sjh2114 i think we're imagining things here that aren't really there

Yes i must say his email stating that it is pointless getting such great wear life from a waxed chain is pointless due to wear of shift ramps is certainly a new take i just have never heard nor seen any evidence of a concern on that front in all this time and experience with long lasting chains. The best way to screw your shift ramps is to wear the teeth period from running a chain past its recommended replacement mark - that is what ensures you need a new cassette when you get a new chain. And yes why would lateral wear be out of proportion to elongation wear on waxing also makes no sense nor have i seen any evidence of that - a lubricant that protects chain from wearing protects all parts from wearing, not just elongation wear. I would very much like to get some more supporting information / data from Brad re those points raised....

Yeah for sure if one is nice and handy with a ruler / vernier - they dont need a chain checker. But for the masses - they really need something that is very quick and easy to use to check multiple spans of chain in about 30 secs. I can tell you if i gave digital calipers to 10 cyclists and asked for a chain wear measure, i would get at least 8 different results from its new to it should be replaced and everything in between. And when it takes some concentration and effort to do, checking is just often kicked down the road too much, and so by the time they do, they are caught out. A good drop in / or in this case - place on.. checker where it is simple and easy to do in a jiffy - they get used all the time - and that is the most important bit. Aussie retail is looking like $88, so will be a tool for the discerning - but - it isnt overpriced for the quality one gets with abbey - they are true to their slogan of precision is their religion. it will be a lovely tool for anyones workshop that will last however many generations of cyclists in the family come along, and since it is unlikely chains will move from 1/2 inch pitch standard anytime soon - it will be of use for..... a long long time.

Generally yes - 1x can present a greater loss of efficiency due to more extreme chain line angles due to a) greater angle from chain ring position and b) 1x typically can push ranges a bit - so large cogs can increase chain line angle over smaller cogs as chain cannot leave until later. Ie imagine if you had a 60t chain ring and a 60T largest cog - the chain line angle would be such that most chains would not run. As such greater efficiency losses on some 1x systems in largest cog can be quite high due to chain line angle, and these losses are going into laterally wearing chain. If that is the type of riding one does, and they prefer 1x (a lot of reasons still to prefer 1x) - some little hints and tips can really make a big difference. 1) Use cassette shims to space cassette outboard as far as frame clearance allows. 2) remove DS spacers on crank to move chain ring as far inboard as frame / crank allows, then use pedal washers (and or may need longer spindle for pedal) to re -centre q-factor. Even a couple of mm at both ends can make a big difference to losses in largest cog. if chain line angle remains within chains natural lateral flexibility, losses are very low, and pedalling in largest cog very smooth. Once chain line angle is beyond the chains natural lateral flex, then parts are loaded up quickly with every bit more angle, and this also places increasing pressure on the pin rivets that are now trying to prevent outer plate from being pried off pin. Over time these can fatigue fail - so chain line angles that are increasing lateral wear and efficiency losses also increase risk of chain failure over time - so if one is doing a lot of loaded up climbing - a bit of tinkering to have the least chain line angle in largest cogs is well worth the time.

Yes what will increase lateral wear vs elongation wear is riding frequently at more extreme chain line angles - ie someone who is bike packing, especially gravel / mtb - so loaded up, dirt and dust, and lot of time in larger cogs as soon as any elevation comes into play. but even then - it can be that the chain is getting a bit sloppy by the time it is approaching recommended elongation replacement mark, and so the small - maybe maybe not noticed degradation in shifting performance due to lateral wear is resolved when they replace the chain. And there is no negative effects from shift ramp wear.... For most normal cycling - lateral wear does not become an issue by the time one replaces chain at 0.5% elongation wear. It does start to become an issue for those running chain to 0.75 or 1% or greater. So all one needs to do is just replace chain when they should. An a lubricant that protects a chain from wear, protects the chain from wear - elongation and lateral. So if rider A on lubricant A gets 5000km to 0.5% wear and has X amount of lateral wear in the chain, if they move to a better lubricant and get 10,000km to 0.5%, their lateral wear will still be X at that time. Wear is wear, and the riders behavior re chain line angles typically ran as a % of total riding will determine their amount of lateral wear vs elongation wear. Moving to immersive waxing or a top wax lubricant or a top wet lubricant and greatly extending lifespan of chain will not then throw out their lateral wear ratio vs elongation wear. Without further information or clarification from brad i just do not understand what is driving his belief re all this...

I could see very little lateral wear with a single speed or tandem timing chain scenario. Since these chains are never seeing side forces at all.

There are cassette wear tools but i think they are still very approximate. i have a vid on how to measure chainring and cassette wear - and this works well for cassettes and shimano road chain rings, other chain rings it is more difficult, you need to take your own start measure and depending on tooth profile, remember exactly where you took the point to point measures from. For cassettes (non flat top - i dont have the measures for flat top yet) - using square teeth (so not measuring from a rounded shift ramp tooth) - they are 9.5mm tip to tip. For most a new chain will go fine if still measuring up to 9.7mm. By 9.8mm - a new chain is unlikely to jump under load, but it can run a bit rough / rumbly for awhile until chain breaks in a bit. Typically by 9.9 to 10mm - it is getting real 50/50 if a new chain will run well at all / jump under load, and really over 10mm its not recommended there are likely to be issues indeed.

If it is a very long ride with potential rain - then i would pack a top wet lube (synergetic, black diamond etc). Wax drip are not suitable for top up as need set time as they have water as the carrier, and so wash out very quickly when not set. Immersive wax doesnt wash off like many wet lubes (many easily wash out), it is abraded off by contamination the water brings in with it - but as it doesnt wash out, IM waxes have good lifespan in wet vs many other options. If its road, and so contamination initially is not a concern for top wet lube, then starting wet and staying wet or starting wax and moving to wet lube when needed - really not much difference. If its offroad, then starting waxed will have an advantage vs wet lube due to wet lubes start getting contaminated and abrasive from km zero in the world of dirt and dust, whereas IM wax will stay super low friction and resistant to contamination.

AND under far less force, compared to the tension the links are under. Silly argument. (Unless you shift like a morAn and have zero finesse. And even then, minuscule by comparison. Hey, there's an idea: "Zero Finesse Cycling!"

Yes it moved off really due to the variance between tools which is over 0.1 (or 20%) across my 3 plus a friends. It is ok in that you can easily calibrate your tool to an accurate 0.5% by checking that with verniers - but for what is now a $250 tool - they shouldnt be this far out from tool to tool requiring at home calibration. Also moving it off the recommended is the oversize roller flat top chains that through out the reading a lot for that tool as it has no way to adjust for different roller sizes. Other than that - it can be a great tool - if you have checked and yours is accurate, and you are running any chain thats not a flat top chain - then you can track wear extremely precisely.

Ah not really. For main hub - the NDS bearing is pretty exposed, but the DS main hub bearing is covered by the FH. The FH outer bearing is similarly exposed as per the NDS main hub bearing. Lifespan of main hub vs freehub - a bunch of factors come into play - such as stance of the main hub bearings - some hubs are narrower stance so higher lateral load, some hubs are wider stance. Bearing size is also a big impact - if its 6802 bearings in a rear wheel main hub taking load of a heavy rider - they dont last for peanuts unless very high quality - and even then, its undersized. If its 6903 bearings of decent quality and in a well designed hub - they can go and go and go - especially if maintained. Freehub bearings in my experience (my own bikes and customer) typically go before main hub (again, not always) as A) they are typically smaller than many main hub bearings - often 6802, or even 6702. If they are 6803 they often fair much better. But 6802 - its just as small bearing with thin races and typically not amazing lifespan. and then b) the hub & freehub design will also dictate how the load is driven into the bearings. it is not uncommon for a freehub to for instance always have the inner (and more protected from elements) bearing go before the outer - just the way its loaded up a bit laterally all the time. Others, the outer goes easily and the inner is fine. Some FH the inner bearing is mounted right on the edge of the FH, others it is mounted much more inboard and not easily serviced as there is a faffy c-clip to remove and get bearing out etc etc. it is not uncommon for FH bearings to be pretty toast by 10 to 15k, whilst main hub go 20 to 30k or more. For sure quite a number of hubs do have main hub and FH bearings of same size, this is more common with smaller lighter hubs, where the main hub shell is kept minimal for weight - ie any hubs like DT180. But many other hubs do spec larger bearings in the main hub vs FH, and even one bearing size up adds a pretty large amount to the bearings service life. So yep for sure overall your experience is not incorrect - just overall experiences will vary, and that on balance from what i have seen FH on average do tend to have smaller cartridge bearings than main hubs, and do tend to give out earlier. And they are often not checked. It is a common misconception that FH bearings dont matter much as they only come into play when rolling, when in fact the opposite is true and they dont rotate when one is not pedalling, but they take all ones pedalling load so if they are not going great, they are responsible for eating up a bit of pedalling power. FH bearings not going great have caught many a local racer out thats for sure as they just dont think about them or check them or have them checked during services.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks Adam for the thorough explanation (as per usual!). Indeed, I was getting confused about bearing names vs locations. Indeed, it has always been the "outer" two cartridge bearings on my rear wheels that have died early, which I was incorrectly naming (died = dry, gritty, and obvious lateral play in the wheel). As you suggested, that might be due to hub design, though we are talking about my gravel and commuter bikes, so they see a lot of dirt and wet weather riding! And you are spot on about bearing size. The only wheel bearings that I've had to replace with any frequency have been of the 6802 or 6902 variety (5mm wide and small bearings) on both front and rear hubs. I have two rear wheels that each have 4 of these smaller bearings -- a tradeoff of weight vs service life, I am sure. Again, this is great information and I have learned quite a lot from your post.

*L*ength *L*ateral

Predicting lubricant treatment lifespans in real world is extremely difficult. We have an attempt of some correlation in the control testing, but really that is mostly for relative purposes. Ie if lubricant A has double the lifespan in the control test vs lubricant B, then you can expect it will last similarly longer in your real world riding, even if in your riding the lifespan you are getting is much greater or much lesser vs the control test. It is really not that simple as per your example - ie you might coast for X time or kms, but if that is after spending 30 mins climbing at 250w doing 15kmh - then you are not going very far for the load and number of pedal revolutions - so they will more or less cancel each other out. The best way is to get to know the lubricant treatment lifespan for yourself. Over application for many lubricants is not optimal (wax drips will gunk up, wet lubes will be come a wet contamination gathering mess). Running too long will leave chain with insufficient lubrication and higher wear. A chain will start to sound and feel dry when the lubricant layer is getting too thin. Get to know that point, and the aim to re lube a bit before that. Personally i mostly use hours vs kms as hours is more reliable really - kms achieved varies a lot by your ride route difficulty. So if its definitely feeling and sounding a bit dry by 10 hours of ride time, re lube at 8 hours etc. And then make manual adjustments from there if conditions have been harsher etc. You dont have to be ultra precise, so dont stress about it, and if unsure, it is better to err on re lube vs push treatment lifespans - you can always just do some quick maintenance to clean if it is starting to look a bit over lubed / too much excess. But with just a bit of focus on it, most get to know when is the general ballpark of good time to re lube based on their riding and their lubricant choice, and have things looking and feeling great the majority of their cycling

@@zerofrictioncycling992 extraordinarily well explained, thank you. In my case, I'm doing immersive waxing and it's clearly a game changer. The first 150-200 km are basically silent and after that you start noticing some noise but even after 300-350 km is still more quiet than a wet lube so I never know when my waxed chain is actually asking me to rewax 😂

I love all questions, i dont care who they are or arent related to hahahaha :) Long mtb is hard - i have never seen one remotely long enough that would prevent much being thrown onto chain. Gravel they may exist i havent really checked, but if a good one for commuter etc does fit, it may still have limits re what tire width its made for - 40mm probs ok - 50mm maybe not. Also for many gravel bikes toe overlap - especially on larger tires - can be an issue, and a mud guard i think in many cases would hit a lot of shoes on tighter turns. Aero is a great question - i have no idea if anyone has ever tested mudguards as normally such are just not used in racing. I think for sure their will be a penalty on the front, but how bad it is, i really dont know. Of course there is a penalty for bags - but the then you would simply be adding to that with X more penalty - so it would really depend on how serious one is taking the event vs how much they would prefer not to have crap thrown all over chain (which will also carry a penalty in friction and wear) as well as legs and shoes.

​​@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks a lot for your answer i really apretiate it as well as your amazing content! I'm actually considering creating my own mudgard, since i have not been been able to find suitable one yet as you pointed out. I already plan to create a mudguard between the seat tube and chainstay which will have complicated design since i want to protect my bb bearings as well as the chain. So i think that the front mudguard will not be a problem. It hurts me when i see the "jet" of dirty water coming from the front wheel dircetly into the individual chain rollers. And from that i can't really understand why i don't see long mudguards on multiday races, so i wanted to ask somebody really into chain efficiency, if it is worth to try to minimise the dirt water spray into the chain. :)

@@brnenstifechteri3851 ah my pleasure - and i think that due to toe overlap etc really something like a chain guide that is just way suped up to cover the front of the chain and protect from all that stuff would be a better way to go, but it would have to be strong and stiff. it wont help re the bb - but - that is easier protected - just put a more solid seal on the outer (like kogel CX seal) and ensure 100% fill of long life or similar grease. Between the seal and the grease behind it, nothing will get past that for a long time unless you jet wash it in there. Many cycling bearings have light seals, or fast ones no contact seals. Seals also wear, and so light seals will become very very light, and if insufficient grease behind them to form a hydrodynamic barrier behind seal lip - thats when a wet ride goes bad for bb bearings. If properly protected, you could practically ride down a river for a good while and be fine re bearing protection. on one bike once i had a mud guard that strapped to downtube. so this only worked when front wheel was straight, but it was on an endurance road bike , so that was most of the time. Overall it did a great job, but yeah - it was a wind catcher thats for sure - ok for winter training, i never would have used it in a race... But a cover for the chain thats like an extended chain guide... - that could be something...

​​​@@zerofrictioncycling992 I considered that as well, but because i feared that it would trap the dirt from elsewhere and create a mud bath for the chain, but after you considering the idea seriously i already can thing of ways to minimise that problem (actually the seat tube - chainstay mudguard is big part of that solution already now that i think about it) I will try this solution, thanks a lot for your input!

​​@@zerofrictioncycling992 Since you advise the use of Kogel seals, would you reccomend Kogel bearings over Rotor, or even Chris King? :)

Thanks Phillip, and yes input like yours is exactly what i was looking for and asking for - i do wish to get info that supports the other side, as yes correct my own experience is not going to be as broad as the worlds mechanics. But yes for sure - i can say from my own personal experience - that replacing chains post a long long life thanks to waxing , replacing chain by 0.5% so i do not eat into cassette or chainring teeth - the next new chain - everything is perfect. Simply perfect. On my oldest road bike i did replace the big ring finally after 50,000km. it had seen 3 chains to an average of 5000km on wet lube to 0.5%, 4th chain was just under 15,000km on msw, 5th chain same, 6th chain on and shifting still perfect. I only changed as i wanted to try a 54t pyramid cycle design chain ring. Similar re cassette albeit dura ace cassettes would still only last for one chain due to soft wearing alloy for largest 6 cogs, moving to ultegra - 2 chains at 15k each no probs, and second chain and second 15k - shifting perfect to 30,000km. Same with replacing long term mtb chain on main training mtb, and i only just replaced my old 11spd mechanical drivetrain on my cx gravel bike (it was 3 years on one bike, 3 years on aspero - and again - cassette etc barely any wear - just 11spd mechanical with gear range pushed - i upgraded race mtb to T-Type, so i moved the xx1 from that to aspero to go 12spd and 10 to 50t vs 11 to 42. But the groupset itself after 6yrs of gravel and cx racing and training, and i replace chains a bit more frequently on that bike as full mudder cx races really do a number on chains - again - shifting with next new chain - on no bike ever if the cassette teeth or chain ring teeth have not been worn, i have not been able to detect at all any degradation in shifting vs 1st chain when it is brand new. And when i had the work shop going focussed just on drivetrain - i had never had a customer with a new chain on existing cassette or chain rings find that shifting was not where it should be or how they ever remembered it being. So the only evidence i have seen so far re when one needs to replace cassette, its when the teeth are simply worn, and same re chain ring. Prior to brad / your info - i have never heard of a case where the teeth are not worn, but the shift ramps. The amount of wear / friction that would wear out shift ramps, would wear teeth such that he cassette / rings would need replacing anyway due to that wear. It is something i have checked with other mechanic friends since, and it is also something they had never considered nor heard of in their time in LBS, which is extensive decades. If teeth are worn - replace. If teeth are not worn, new chain fine, shifting perfect again. So for sure its a new take. So to clarify, you are confirming in your experience that cassette / chain ring teeth can be not very worn and as such accept a new chain without issue, but shifting with that new chain will be compromised due to wear of shift ramps? if yes - is that after just one chain so it happens on next chain? Do you have an idea as to what would cause such wear to shift ramps if the teeth themselves are not worn? Do you have an idea as to why this concern is generally not common, and (in my view...) thus the vast majority of cyclists - including myself, can go through multiple chains on same components retaining perfect shifting, whilst others have worn shift ramps in one chain? Taking into account as well for my gravel ./ cx and main training mtb - they are seeing a lot of dust and mud, a lot of crap is always running in with chain and cassette teeth etc for a long time over the years - but next new chain - things are perfect. Trying to understand what could be happening is very interesting to me.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 To see if there is a issue of wearing cassette ramps , maybe coat some ramps with a thin layer of dyed wax , like with a crayon used for art , and see if it rubs off ? It would be even better if it was UV fluorescent dye as you could find a use for the Muc-Off C3 Dry Ceramic Lube light ! You could use the C3 lube as the dyed wax but the Boron Nitride would likely contaminate your chain. However you may be able to see where those parts are ( possibly the ends of the chain pins ) . Maybe it's a wacky idea, but it may be highly visual and you may be able to document the results ? I'd try it myself but I have no crayons and certainly no C3 !

@@dawn_rider Yeah i think anything like that would be too easily worn off but not really correlate to metal wearing. We know there is going to be some contact between chain plate and side of tooth / teeth, it is just this is much lighter load thank roller to tooth face - so again really the thing that will wear shift ramps will just be outright tooth wear. I know anecdotal is always tricky, but for me and others - when have put new chains onto existing cassettes and rings after getting big miles from previous chain/s and shifting is perfect - if the cassette teeth not worn via traditional wear, the case for worn shift ramps needs to have some evidence from the prosecution i think!

@@zerofrictioncycling992 My own experience indicates that the % wear area on each ramp is small ( most of the ramp area not being touched ). I should have said the wax was for indicating untouched areas . The chain being twisted is probably limiting the damage to the tooth edges , the wear chamfering them ? The forces involved must be reasonably high considering the Silca video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oriRh7ZzndyqoZ8.html , but of very short duration. As Josh indicates , electronic shifting increases these forces. Presumably Silca have used a high speed camera to watch the derailleur deflection. I would have liked to see a chain shift at high fps but probably the only channel on YT that has the correct gear is @theslowmoguys .

@@dawn_rider ah i see. And yes i am sure forces can be pretty high especially for those that shift under high load - but as you say, it is momentary, and pedalling load keeps forces very high ALL the time one is pedalling on main tooth face, still making overall tooth wear from rider load really the only wear one would have to worry about. To wear shift ramps prior to just overall tooth wear one would have to be shifting i think non stop a couple times a second which would be an undulating course indeed :)

@@guypolson the lateral wear one one being different to the other was interesting but I guess it obviously going to wear more being shifted up the cassette than down it

yep - and did you hear him complain about shift performance or worn shift ramps :). My long time eagle mtb training chain the lateral wear is perfectly in line with elongation wear really - the abbey tools is going to make it easier to prove the brad concern just very incorrect for IM waxing. At the end of the day and top lubricant protecting chain from elongation wear is protecting it from lateral wear just the same, and i cant understand the logic behind asserting it wouldnt. A top lubricant option - wax or wet, it simply a top lubricant option that will protect against wear in all ways.

Hey Paul! yes i understand request and that this may suit some, but im not sure - i can barely get these done as it is, and so normally will just be looking to cover one or two quick ish low friction news updates, and then the main topic - my time to record and edit and upload a vid is always pretty pressed. However i put chapters in to hopefully make it easier for peeps to jump to whatever bit they wish to get to

Yes it is designed to work with any chain - the start point self adjusts for different roller sizes, so it is accurate for all bicycle chains regardless of standard as long as they are 1/2 inch pitch chains which is pretty much all chains including all flat top chains

The only similarities I see are holes for measuring wear and one side of the tool is basically flat. The Abbey tool has a cradle for a roller that is supposed to make the measurements accurate despite roller diameter differences among chains. I'm not sure How the Speedtech tool fixed a chain in place so that tension could be applied to the chain to ensure accurate measurement. Maybe there's something from the pics of the Speedtech tool.

@@robinseibel7540 The Speedtech tool is not flat it had a _cradle_ to fit right over the roller to perfectly positioned the tool. I love people who are quick to make a negative and totally wrong assessment just to support their world's view. You didn't ask if it was flat. You assumed it all of this while possessing nothing more that access to a single photo. You don't like to think that Abbey copied a design but made it more expensive. It's almost as of you had some skin in the game.

Yes the Speedtech tool's cradle was only for a 7 speed chain. It's simply because at time people only had access to one type of chain. Abbey copied the design and simply adapted it to today reality.

@@robinseibel7540 BTW If you'd have taken the time to closely look to the right of the picture, you would have seen a very small picture wich is showing the other side of the package showing the _cradle._ Amazing what laziness and bad faith can make people do.

@@sylvainmichaud2262, actually I didn't see that. Sorry. There was no bad faith intended. There were several images that Google offered up and none showed a cradle. I didn't see an image of the cradle until going to a page at pardoDOTnet today. On that page, the image of the cradle is small but seems to show a cradle with a curved well. I would think that the Abbey cradle better holds the roller in position than the Speedtech tool. That's just a first-blush impression/assumption based on the geometry of the cradle. As for the "expensive copy" stuff, that can technically said about most products on the market. Current front derailleurs (mech and electric) are just expensive copies of the first cable-operated FD from Simplex, in the 50's. Every QR today is an expensive copy of Campagnolo's original design. The F-22 is just an expensive copy of the Wright Brothers 1903 Wright Flyer. Of course, the "expensive copy" claim ignores all that and ignores that improvements and better iterations happen. That's how tech improves and moves forward. Having a cradle that better fixes rollers of various sizes in place is an improvement, one that reduces measurement uncertainty (a goal of every metrologist). Having an additional measurement hole for elongation measurement provides better tracking of wear, and since elongation wear is non-linear that additional is definitely a benefit. Also, the Speedtech tool doesn't actually tell you the fraction of wear or the percentage of wear, and that makes it useless for anyone with 11 or 12-speed drivetrains. The Abbey Tool showing percent wear is most definitely an improvement. In fact, it's a necessary improvement given the variety of drivetrains and chain specs out there today. Adding lateral wear measurement may also turn out to be an improvement (gotta wait for studies and data before drawing a conclusion). So, hardly a copy. Is the Abbey Tool expensive? Maybe to some, but $49 isn't an outrageous price for a precision tool. I'd wager that Abbey's target market is not the average cyclist wrenching on their bike at home but rather shop mechanics. It's also worth remembering that the Speedtech Tool was on the market at least as far back as 1990 (going by the copyright date shown on the Pardo site). Things were less expensive in 1990 than they are now, much less expensive. And before it's suggested, I'm not an Abbey shill. I use a Park CC-4 chain wear measurement tool, and I love it. Honestly, the "nothing is original" claim is patently false, doubly so given the improvements that occur over time to an "original" idea, product, tech, or whatever. Moreover, it's a pointless claim. It's antithetical to not just the advancement of tech and further innovation. Worse yet, it hobbles that same advancement in tech. If you have further concerns, I suggest contacting Abbey Tools.

oh my goodness is that from sram website?! do you have link? That is monumentally wrong / stupid on both fronts - 0.8% is way too late to prevent a lot of damage to cassette and chain rings, and replacing early is the greatest way to prevent wear to cassette and chain rings. WT pro teams are changing chains normally between 500 to 1200km and thus get seasons from race bike cassettes and rings. For obvious tolerance and tooth eating reasons going beyond 0.5% is bad. And if new chains are great for your new cassette and chain rings (ie they dont ship an old chain with a new groupset..) why oh why would moving to new chain again early be damaging, there is no mechanism for a new chain to damage an unworn cassette or rings - only if they are worn such that a new chain is now a poor mesh. wtf is going there if thats from sram!!

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I think that youtube just deletes all my comments with links. You can find that on the Sram support website by googlig what I have in quotes. Interestingly, their own chain wear checker TL-CNTL-WEAR-A1 doesn’t even have 0.5% indicator. It only shows when wear is above 0.8%. Almost sounds like they want to sell their customers a new chainset and cassette per chain instead of 2-3 chains per cassette…

​@@zerofrictioncycling992 The quote is correct ! You will have to search for the sram article which is titled ... When should the chain on my SRAM RED AXS groupset be replaced?

@@dawn_rider heavens to betsy. Who is writing this stuff?

@@viljamip Your 2nd comment to Adam was hidden. To check , open the YT video in say 'Brave browser' but do not log into your account. Delete all browser data in the alternate browser by pressing the Shift + Control + Delete keys at the same time before you check.

The only chains I wax are the two that alternate between on my only bike. When it's time to re-wax, I only spend about 10-15 minutes doing anything: checking wax temp; agitating the chain when the wax is up to temp; hanging the chain up to dry; breaking links free after the wax dries; and installing the chain. Oh, and I wipe the chain down with a microfiber cloth before it goes in the wax. I don't race through the process. As a bonus, there's less to clean when I clean my bike since the wax keeps things pretty clean.

Yes that is overall a great point to raise and discuss. Whilst i will be faster than most - for me without stopping to talk about things - its a 3 mins max job. If someone is twice as slow as me - then its say 6 mins. The first couple times it may take someone longer than that, but as it is overall pretty easy - it doesnt take much practice to get pretty efficient with it. Ie the more difficult a task, the more gap there will be between someone with great experience and someone with little experience. If the task was to fill up and boil a kettle, the gap between a very experienced person and a not very experienced person wont be much. IM waxing is not that simple of course, but it is not that difficult - and one of the more common feedback we get from new waxers is oh man what on earth was i ever worried about - it is so easy and quick to do. One doesnt need a bike stand - i often re wax chain on a bike when i already have another bike in the stand being worked on - just squatting down doesnt increase the difficulty or time vs in stand. Maybe if i was moving like joe biden it would, but at the moment - its no issue, and those without bike stands would be used to squatting down to do chain stuff anyway. Set up - again whilst most may not have same as me, it doesnt take them much to get something practical going - and if they cant, then IM waxing is right for them. But one just needs a place for a pot, a place to hang chain - and then if cant figure out any way to pull chain around something to quickly break wax bond - then allow extra 1 to 2 mins to do by hand. And so this is again where the combo approach is simply the best middle ground for many rather than re wax every time - a re wax is still easier and faster labour time wise vs any method of effective solvent flush cleaning. The main aim of the vid however was simply to objectively show that for those who do IM wax - the benefits are in fact quite outstanding as opposed to minimal, and the physical labour time is actually very small, vs taking all afternoon. Even if one is two or three times slower than me - it is still faster than other chain flush clean maintenance paths.

I think the main point about immersive waxing is the chain reset back to a freshly waxed and clean chain. Yes, the time to do this can vary, but performing this step makes the largest difference and combined with the combo drip lube top ups, gives a happy medium of time spent vs component wear.

@@colinl2908, that's a valid point, but on the Geek Warning episode question, one of the things Brad kept coming back to was the large amount of time involved in immersion waxing. As to @bike314 's comment, one of his points was that regular folks won't be able to do the immersion wax thing as quickly. My comment was intended to show that even for us regular Joe's who just take care of our own bike(s), it doesn't have to take a long time to wax a chain. I'll also note that I don't have a workshop for my bike or some special place. I've got a cheap crockpot that goes on the porch when it's time to wax, and I've got a couple nails in a wall on the porch from which I hang my homemade swishers (crafted from old wire hangers). My chains hang from the swishers. FWIW, my swishers were made based on Molten Speedwax's instructions. If the concern is cost, my costs are: --$10 on crock pot --$25-30 USD on Molten Speedwax per year (I switch to a new batch of wax each year just to be sure there's not too much contaminant in the wax.). --$40 on an ultrasonic cleaner. This makes cleaning new chains easier, and I use it to clean other bike stuff and some stuff from around the house. Wax is the only recurring cost. Of course, waxing, immersion waxing, isn't for everyone. My points are basically centered around immersion waxing not being an onerous time and money vacuum.

@@robinseibel7540 I agree with all of your points, and think that Bike314's comment about time and workshop spaces may apply to some, but for many the payoff of a chain reset each IM with drip top ups in between will outweigh any small increase in time taken (even if a bit slower than Adams time). I think the point Adam was making about the Geek episode is that their method of just using drip wax lube alone doesn't have the 'reset' that IM provides, unless you spend possibly more time doing chain cleans/flushes using another method. Thanks for the discussion.👍

ah thanks so much - fixed!

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Now that I know you can change it , the "d" needs changing to an "s" in ... Epidode 23 Ultrasonic Clean and Chain Preparation.

@@dawn_rider ha oh heavens to betsy. Its good thing i dont write code hey. Would be more buggy than humanes AI pin :)