tttiltheend wrote:
So Velo just did a test of lubes and the winner was... paraffin wax! I've long been aware that a few eccentric and OCD cyclists would engage in elaborate chain prep rituals involving hot wax, but I always figured it would be too much of a PITA. But now that I'm getting, ahem, a bit older, and I train harder to go slower, I start looking for free speed in whatever nooks and crannies I can find -- such as drivetrain efficiency. The velo test found a 3 watt difference between various lubes under ideal conditions, and a 6 watt difference under dirty conditions. I know there is regular discussion of marginal exotica such as ceramic bearings, but drivetrain efficiency isn't a very sexy topic even though I've long felt that the difference in efficiency can be substantial between a really nice running drivetrain and a dirty, poorly maintained one.
The velo article really talks up the wax, despite the fact that the best conventional lube, Rock n Roll Gold, was only 1/4 watt slower. There's also some pretty mixed feedback on wax on the interwebs, there are people saying they only get 50-100 miles out of a wax job rather than the 650 miles mentioned in the article. I think very few of us would be willing to do all the work of using wax to gain only 1/4 watt. It seems the real potential for gaining watts is under less than ideal conditions; wax was about 2.5 watts better than Gold when tested under dirty conditions, and over 4 watts faster than some other lubes.
On the one hand, it seems like a no brainer to at least do some simple things to maximize drivetrain efficiency, such as using a faster lube, and if you have a choice between purchasing a chain that's more efficient right out of the box and one that's less efficient, why not buy the faster chain (see the paid reports at friction facts for more details)? On the other hand, if waxing can give me an extra edge, why not? Is it really worth the hassle?
So who's going to be boiling crock pots of wax in search of those last few watts, and who thinks it's a crock of crap?
Right...and good ol' cheap and plentiful 3-in-1 oil was within less than 1W of the paraffin as well IIRC. That's GOTTA be the "bang for the buck" leader in the non-paraffin selections
They didn't test 3-in-1 in their "durability" test, but judging on past experience, I know which one I would expect to last longer between applications, if comparing it to paraffin. As they said in the article, you might get about a half dozen rides on the paraffin before having to redo it and when it "goes", it goes FAST.
One other thing I'd have liked to have seen in their durability test is for the chain to be shifted up and down the cassette. IME, that sideways flexing really "works" the paraffin and causes it to degrade and "go away" faster (i.e. flake off).
That said, I might have to dig out that old can of paraffin that I mixed some moly powder into to do some "1 day" chain treatments for "A" events ;-)
http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/