" . . . prevent damage to cassette and chainring"? sorry, but if you shagged your chain that quickly, then the rest of your DT will be toast as well. You can use Wippermann's chainring tooth wear gauge or something similar to check it, and I'd be saving your pennies for a new ($$$$ no doubt) cassette.

OK thank you I will check that out. The new chain is working fine at the moment but I will keep a close eye on it.

i do something similar but depending on the thermal inertia of your source of heating, you can get significant over shoot. In my experience using a hot plate to heat ~500ml of water and temp target set to 75degC, i saw upto ~90degC by the time the temp levelled off.

@@Phantom0309 The thing I use has a probe that sits in the hot wax so it's being measured directly I checked it with a few other thermometers and its within a few deg'. Also I should have explained better. The pot plugs into the thermostat and the the thermostat controls the mains. Once it hits an upper set temp it cuts the power to the pot, when the temp drops to a lower set temp it turns back on effectively holding the the temp.

@@chris1275cc I have a thermocouple in the pot also, but the heating element has a heavy slab of metal as the pan support so holds a lot of heat. Sounds like your solution is much better

@@Phantom0309 yes was worried about same thing

Ha yes that is quite interesting, i can see it is correct that chains may snap slowly in some circumstances, if one is very lucky! And yeah.... will be very interesting how the other neo 2 goes. I could have just an unlucky situation with the one that just went, but my fear is gamin have cheapened a bunch of stuff from neo one when tacx was owned by tacx and not garmin. Possibly garmin thought why are we building these things to last well over 100,000km, people never do that much on an ergo before upgrading ergo - so its waste of money to build for that lifespan. Most people also wont do 50,000km before replacing / just not using either, so it might be just me that encounters and issue. If i have to replace neo 2's every circa 50,000km that will hurt.....

@@zerofrictioncycling992 i can definetly see people reaching 50.000 km on an ergo my kicker snap is at 28.000 now with about 7000 per year. And i am pretty sure i will not replace it until something breaks. More mileage = less total runnig cost ;)

Thanks! I dont have a partnership with silca. They have had a number of their products tested, but that is not unique to silca, and silca also have mentioned ZFC testing numerous times since a number of their products tested have performed extremely well, and so any mfg will want to reference to independent testing showing they have excelled. You will see other mfg doing similar - Such as Rex, Effetto, mspeedwax etc - it is normal that mfg who do well in independent testing to refer to that testing as part of their marketing. ZFC doesnt have partnerships with any companies, but we test for many, and if tests go well, ZFC reports that, and the company will report that and reference ZFC. Hope that helps!

Thanks for the reply!@@zerofrictioncycling992

Like many people, I was a fan of Finish Line. Argh, to think of how many drivetrains I destroyed. Oh well, better to know later than never!

There can be quite a difference between how one product is able to get rid of some of the contamination it gathers vs others. Ie some products there is a very small application amount, which can limit what amount of flush cleaning can take place. Others it can be a fairly high application amount where the lubricant is drizzled on as back pedal vs one small drop per roller. From memory the Dumonde Tech was the latter. Not sure what you mean re "But on the Chart on your homeage is no drop and totally different data. How is that?" - if you can clarify that question and which lubricant i should be able to help on that one. And yes synergetic for sure if riding wet, something going on with Synerg-E in the wet block 4 and the wet S.A.L test. It wont be a problem if you just occasionally get caught in wet rides, and especially if the wet ride is not too long so that it wont exceed its treatment lifespan in those conditions - it would not be cause for one to worry about switching away if enjoying its great benefits in dry conditions if that is most of their riding. But if one is doing a lot of wet riding, then i would switch from E to normal synergetic.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 When you look at your chart in this video at 27:30 Dumonde Tech has a rate of 68% in the 2 Block but in the 3. it drops to 21,7%. The chart on your homepage here says for Dumonde Tech 84,9% in the 2. block but 106,6% in the 3.

Hey Paul - yes on website you will see a page for chain efficiency testing - and we have charts for tested chains efficiency and wear life. Sometimes there is a link between outright speed and wear life, whilst some chains strike a great balance of both. I cant put a link in or YT can delete comment, but just head to ZFC website and click on chain efficiency tab

Hey there - no not yet, they are sort of maybe one day on the long list but there are quite a number of such brands / products out there like this, with varying levels of impressive claims to very vague (Mountain Flow is really vague). So it really could be anything from outstanding to terrible, it would be handy if mountain flow would provide more information on the product, their own development, testing, results from that testing vs key competitors etc - just something that helps justify why this product exists and competing in a space with 1000 other options vying against it. There is really very little to justify ZFC testing it vs other products unless this becomes requested like a lot. If you use i would track your chain wear to kms to conditions well and see what you get, and then trying something proven (ie one from the top 15 on the league table) and see how those two go for a start - real world has a lot of variability but still the best products vs meh or poor still easily beat them when people do their own proper assessing (if everyone did that then the likes of M-O and Finish line etc would be in big trouble....)

Thanks Cat and i need to get a little legend present there - i think i have it noted somewhere but not easily seen on the sheet - I.P means initial penetration issues. That means that initial high wear due to initial penetration issues will have impacted the wear rates of the test and thus the cost to run. If the IP issues are negated by a) advanced application techniques outlined in the lubricant application guide, or via immersive - those wear and cost to run figures would drop. For some cyclists IP issues are not much of a concern as after the first prep - if they ride dry road - then periodic maintenance can be very infrequently needed. It really can become an issue though if one is riding frequently in harsh conditions and so really need to frequently re set contamination in the chain, in which case drip lubricants with IP issues can become a fair bit of work, or if one skips the work - they will pay for it with higher wear from the IP issues. D.A - means double application rate - some lubricants that have had a stated very short treatment lifespan - such as original UFO and also Tru-Tension Tungsten Race - they are applied twice as often during the main test vs standard protocol as they lack the treatment lifespan to last the standard test intervals, so pushing them past their stated treatment lifespan would not assess their performance at all as high wear could simply be attributed to treatment was done, and we want to assess how it performs whilst the treatment is still there. This is very rare as most lubricants can easily last the standard intervals. TT Race is a bit of a fascinating product - i actually use that a lot myself as top up lube as it is the cleanest drip lubricant on the planet, by miles i think - it is just astoundingly clean, and works amazing - for about 100km :). So its far too expensive to recommend as one only gets about 6 short lasting applications per $25 bottle, but wow is it clean and amazing for that short time per treatment!

Ha! thanks Austin but im really not sure on the logic of the thinking there........ > For a start for some - it sure can make a difference. You can play yourself with bike calc and what 3 to 5watts in on X climb etc. For most just training - sure - the speed difference is nothing. For an avid racer - it could be the difference between being on at the top or off, or breaking away or not. I wont type out a ton of numbers now - you can do your own if interested. > Next - if you save an easy 3 to 5watts of friction in your chain, then that is 3 to 5watts of energy every pedal stroke no longer going into wearing out your chain and drivetrain faster. Why wouldnt want someone want to do that when it is a simple as a better lubricant choice. It doesnt have to be immersive waxing, just a proven top drip lubricant vs a poor lubricant. So its just a simple win win. As the chain does simply so much mechanical work, at extremely high pressure loads due to small parts size, and it and its lubricant is completely exposed to contamination - the difference in friction and wear between the genuinely top performing products to the poor to meh to who knows... why wouldnt one simply choose to save those watts even if they never care about speed, because it will save them a lot of wear and running costs. And normally also save time re maintenance which needed much less for the top products vs those that quickly become abrasive etc. When its a comparison of say hey - why dont your run these Time trial tires - they will save you 5 watts. But the will last half as long, cost more, and are more puncture prone. So one is giving up some key other benefits to get those 5 watts they hope they will notice. With you chain lube - hey here's 5 watts. And its cleaner and less maintenance. And you lovely parts will last 2 or 3 or more times longer. So nothing personal, but i dont think you have understood what we do here and why, and why it is an easy win win for all regardless of if they care about their speed or not.

I have an extreme conditions for the S.A.L which is a good check for block 4 as well. If a lubricant is not handling water it will show up clearly in both. If it didnt show up in one vs the other that would be cause for double checking something.

yes that would be great, alas it is a bit tricky as it is a fair bit of time overall to really check how a wax drip gets along with immersive waxing - it really as to done via field testing more so that machine test as you really need to feel how its going - and field testing properly takes a bit of time, and im always field testing usually what is currently on test wax wise. And i only get so much ride time! Generally we can go a fair bit off wax base and type. If its refined paraffin base - then things will be sweet. If its a different wax base, and or if the wax lube remains quite wet - like boeshield - likely it will be not a great mix. For sure a bigger definitely compatible list will be the aim just not sure when.....

me too. And if the maxima has a carrier designed to evap and leave a wax coating - the rest of the lube may thicken up a lot meaning it was a one bottle, one application.

I'm getting the audio.

Also had that, reloaded app a couple of times and ytube finally woke up.

I got the audio the 3rd time trying.

A couple. Firstly - i approached wahoo importer looking to order 3 kickr + roams to control - they advised would get back to me with a price for 3 of each, i chased, and i chased, and i never got a reply from the wahoo rep after the first contact. Also, when i checked a long time ago (and not this may have changed since then as this info is now quite dated) - GP lama who is our premier tester for such things advised there was more chance of power drift over time doing what i was doing vs the neo. So due to that plus the fact i couldnt be bothered trying to force wahoo to sell me stuff, i went with tacx. The first neo when owned by tacx was amazing. The neo 2's - since garmin taken over - i fear they have been cheapened, but overall are very stable and aweseom and mostly sort of relatively low maintenance for pretty hard duty. interestingly had another good catch up with Squirt on monday, as they are using the exact same testing protocol as ZFC as part of development for their next gen lubes - they are using wahoo, and just had their first one blow up at circa 50,000km as well - so similar to what i had with one of my neo 2's. Will be interesting over time how the neo 2's and squirts Kickr's fair - if they all go circa 50k, or will any get near my original neo 1's 225k!!

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Your original Neo is still working fine?

ah no stress - cant help what YT may or may not do - but i really dont think YT have it right. Makes me wonder if i have missed some really good input and comments on some of mine that get deleted before i see them. If i get a chance sometime i will pop another comment on there, and i will save it so i can just cut and paste periodically :)

@@zerofrictioncycling992I will try to find another comment by Awake not woke and reply to it to tell them. Otherwise they will think you or I deleted it. There is no easy way to search for comments by specific users across YT so I will likely fail. I can understand now why you seemed reluctant to watch that BG US channel guys vid. It took a lot of effort to convince him to even consider immersive waxing rather than just drip lube. Told him he should have actually tried immersive waxing before dismissing it , otherwise he would stay skeptical forever . Also that doing no cleaning on any chain is not a fair test. The Silca advice he quoted definitely makes waxing harder than it should be and puts people off.

no it was a good option circa 15 years ago but its well behind now. bit like an i-phone one was a powerhouse once but is not really there now. The mfg just living off legacy and never updating product - they are simply going to fall behind. It is unlikely many of the products that are decades old like Tri-Flow, RNR, Finish line, white lightning etc will be remotely near the top products released in the last 5 years with genuine R&D behind them to be a top bicycle chain lube. And even on a lubricant cost base, your decades old RNR gold which would now be costing them a pittance to make - its more expensive than buying Synergetic or Synerg-E. You need to apply a lot more, and a lot more often. So whilst its $15 a bottle, you will go through $60 worth twice over before you go through a $50 bottle of Synerg-E etc. So even just looking at the lubricant cost, and not even factoring higher component wear - you are paying more for the dated old lubricant than you are the fancy new stuff.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I just ordered some moltenspeedwax and six YBN chains. Going to finally jump in to the waxing thing!

no idea what you mean, but i can say if it came out of DR's mouth, it isnt true. you can pretty much apply that universally to him

I think they are just bots or smth spamming your videos, ignore them!

2 videos in a week ? Thats not DR...something weird is going on.

??? what am i getting over and why? Or is mysterious posting your thing...

You can't decide how I feel!

"Get over it." WTF does that mean in this context? I personally hope that ZFC never "gets over" testing, evaluating, analyzing, and reporting on chain lubes. He's saving people a lot of time, money, and fuss--which is awesome!

Ok, I'll say it...what do you mean?