David,

I have not heard many people challenge the claims of others quoting 7-11 watts from a chain only. I'm sure there are people questioning that claim, I haven't followed the threads. But based on the 2% concept, that would suggest an extremely high power output which is not within the grasp of anyone over a 112 mile bike, let alone a 56 mile bike. Of the pros I work with, over a 112 TT the highest power I know about is in the 320-325 watt range for the effort. Based on that, if we go conservative and assume a 7 watt savings, that is well over 2% and the chain does not account for 100% of the losses.

I know the testing protocol used when our products were tested and I know what we have done internally, and am confident in our numbers. What others test, claim, etc...I haven't a clue. I also know that we have a very deep repeat business in many forms of motorsports that have used our products for over a decade in NASCAR, IndyCar and many forms of road racing.

Best,
Andy

---

___________________________________________________
To go faster than ever before, visit: https://squareup.com/...mic-high-performance

Doing a bike build this winter, and ALMOST just pulled the trigger on this. But as a MOP'er (i'm guessing as I haven't done a tri yet), how does something like this benefit the average "joe" in tri? Wear different? every advantage helps, but I just couldn't quite pull the trigger on the Ultegra as teh cost is SIGNIFICANT over just a new cassette.

Wonder if you'd see greater marginal gains at slower speeds given the absolute loss of power in the drivetrain may not scale with speed, so much as cadence, which is more of a matter of proper gearing.

If that is the case, at lower speeds, drivetrain efficiency plays a larger proportion of power consumption.

Someone confirm/refute?

I can not speak for my self as I have recently taken a brief hiatus from racing triathlons, I can however speak on behalf of my business partner. He is currently riding a 2014 9 series speed concept ui2 with bontrager aeolus 7 d3 tubulars with a with a catalyst disc cover. After tweeking his fit/suit/helmet to get him as aero as possibly we started investigating in to reducing the mechanical friction of his bike. Before every race I will strip his bike to the bare essentials and make sure it is thoroughly clean. As for race day we have a race only cassette, a dura ace 9000 chain which gets cleaned then waxed using molten speed wax and prepared with molten speed waxes race powder and also have a set of race only pulley wheels from hawk racing. if any of you who read this are looking into reducing the mechanical friction of your bike i would strongly suggest getting a hawk racing bottom bracket. it spins as smooth as a ceramic bottom bracket at 1/5th the cost.

You can always send in your own stuff and get it coated as well. There are some conditions like it has to be new or newer.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

Also the TriRig brake saves about 2W over a non-aero brake, and it's certainly popular on this site. "Only" $180/brake. But if you get both that's nearing Ceramic Speed territory, and it's not even clear to me that the rear brake has any significant aero gains.

I'm not an expert on this, but from what I've read the standard line is that drivetrain losses scale linearly with power. I've seen no distinction between increased power by increased cadence or power by increased torque.



This is absolutely true because aero drag is proportional to squared velocity. It increases *much* faster than drivetrain drag as you get faster. If you're noodling around at 12MPH, drivetrain drag is going to be relatively huge compared to anyone on ST who all go 28MPH.

I don't know how this graph was produced, but it gives the general idea.

I've been working in this area of friction reduction as well as physical methods of micro surface engineering since 2004. I have not tested too many bike parts. I have tested crank teeth and chains. We have most of our experience in the "general" and "racing" automotive sector. Coatings, physical treatment, cryo etc...

Between 2004 -2007 almost every automatic transmission installed in a GM/Ford automobile had their (multiple) two T shaped sintered molded metal, heat treated parts go through our process so they could meet the Ra (surface roughness) requirements.

There are a lot of tests where coatings vs physical vs coatings and physical treatments for friction reduction data exists; these tests show that a meaningful friction reduction and extended product lifetime benefit is real. Coatings work for many automotive products but physical treatments prove a bit superior. But, those studies that show physical treatment superior are for automotive parts (automatic transmission, crank shaft journals, cam shaft lobes, lifters, springs etc..) as well as bearings when heat is also a big factor.

I would love to process "chain parts" and then have them assembled and tested against a normal chain made of the same parts un -processed. There may or may not be a difference in coated chains but it would be interesting.

---

Dan Kennison

facebook: @triPremierBike
http://www.PremierBike.com
http://www.PositionOneSports.com

One thing to note is that those figures are for the 4k pursuit, so presumably a single speed track bike on a velodrome with a rider putting out 550 watts. Going by Tom A's testing we know a good set of tires needs about 30 watts on a good road. That's more like 10-15% at more attainable power levels. If you add the losses of a drive train in I suspect it's more than 2%.

I'm going to respond to a several questions in this post.

Cully22 - based on percentages, if you are on the bike longer you will have a larger time savings. The percentage gain increases with higher power output, but if you save 1.2% over an hour ride or 1% over a 90 minute ride, you have a larger time savings. If you want to improve your bike split, even as a MOP, this will do it.

dkennison - agreed. There is a lot of data on coatings and other treatments as applied to high horsepower environments. We started in motorsports and moved into cycling because I personally race and own the company...we also do cryo treatments. It is an additional service and something we typically do for other markets. In cycling I do all BMX parts because they are generally of lower quality and more likely to bend or break. They are also much higher power ranges as compared to triathletes. Pros I deal with there are 2,500++ watts max and do it over and over because of the start gate in each heat. There is no question we get much longer life before the chainrings begin to develop divots at the base of every tooth.

Something in general that is worth noting, this product works regardless of conditions. If the wind is a certain yaw, doesn't matter, it the helmet isn't the perfect one for your position, doesn't matter. We all go out and buy race wheels and helmets but most don't bother visiting the wind tunnel to see what works. We do that stuff. Wind tunnel, ERO testing, yep... We are also constantly looking at different materials to improve our products.

Cheers,
Andy

---

___________________________________________________
To go faster than ever before, visit: https://squareup.com/...mic-high-performance

Thanks for your reply. We don't do Cryo but have certainly processed parts that have undergone those process's. I think you have a good product to offer the cycling industry. I agree there are gains to be had - based on our research and tests of similar coatings.

---

Dan Kennison

facebook: @triPremierBike
http://www.PremierBike.com
http://www.PositionOneSports.com

do you think chain prep is accretive to the gains? if you avail yourself of atomic's coatings and you also follow the protocol jason smith of friction facts recommends do they work together? does doing one mean you don't have to do the other? how do you feel about this? i guess to put it another way, if you were counseling kristen armstrong and every second counts, what would you counsel, all in, for reducing drivetrain friction?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

First let me qualify my post. I firmly believe that there are good friction reductions with coatings and surface treatments. I do, however, think the 40 seconds for a 40K is a bit of a stretch. Using the 1 watt = 3 or 4 seconds savings estimate, you are claiming 10-13 watts in savings. That would mean that if you cut all losses in half, then drivetrain friction was 20-26 watts, which is about 10% of the power needed to do a 40K in 60 minutes.

The report on my Friction Facts Campy Record chain had a drag of 4.4 watts, which is a savings of about 2-3 watts over a new chain with less than optimal lubrication. If I understand the testing protocol, this is including the frictional losses of what basically amounts to a chain ring and cassette. The total losses for jockey wheels are only a couple watts...

Now I can see a 10 watt savings over my nasty road bike drive train in January, but I wouldn't think that the savings will be more than 2-3 watts over the well maintained setup that most reasonable people would run for an A-race.

 

Most of us are interested in cycling faster, but It seems for every sponsored testimonial you present, more racers who cycle faster don't use your products, so someone who considers endorsements evidence could deduce that your products make cyclists slower.

Since your claims conflict with tests about drive train friction already published by others, and you've presented no new data to evaluate, it's impossible to intelligently engage. Please, can you share any?

DamonHenry - I'm not sure I understand I your post. Are you saying the cyclists that use our product go slower? Regarding presenting data, my contract w the group that tested our data prevents us from naming them. I have contacted FF to have them run independent tests which we can point to their process.

If you look at the results of the athletes that use our product, I would argue they are cycling faster. Kristin Armstrong - Olympic Gold, Sarah Hammer - 7 world championships and current world record holder, Tim Reed - multiple big race victories since starting on our product, Meredith Kessler - multiple big race victories since starting on our product. Where do you see our athletes are going slower?

Dan - regarding using our product w Jason's, we have not tested this combination yet so don't know. Our chain treatment uses what I would assume is a similar prep process. Ultrasonic cleaning, etc...

---

___________________________________________________
To go faster than ever before, visit: https://squareup.com/...mic-high-performance

Back do Dan's comments, there is little information on your site about maintenance practices.

What lubricant is preferred, or does it matter? (You have a "coming soon" link for the "lubricants" portion of your site).

From other sites, drivetrain cleanliness appears paramount. Is there a preferred cleaning method for the coating? Is regular ultrasonic cleaning OK? If so, with what solution?

trail - we manufacture our own wet lubricant. A clean drivetrain is absolutely a top priority. Cleaning wise, I suggest cleaning the chainring and cassette with a mild solvent or mineral spirits and a plastic brush. The chain will usually require a blast of solvent to get the big particles removed followed by a warm ultrasound in mineral spirits. Once clean and dry, lube chain well. I think one common mistake I see is people clean the chain well and do not follow up with enough lubricant. It is important for the lube to penetrate before riding, so make sure the lubrication process is done the night before, not as you are leaving for your ride.

Best,
Andy

---

___________________________________________________
To go faster than ever before, visit: https://squareup.com/...mic-high-performance