I will read this entire thing at some point. I will say that it is nice to see a company put docs like this out regardless of how influenced they may be marketers. I would love to see the same thing for any performance related product in triathlon.

---

---

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

fastest lube, ok. Good on them for posting more information on it.

But if you want to appeal to the kind of people who will pony up the $$$ for this product, they totally missed what they should be comparing to imo.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

Interesting. I'm giving up almost 3 watts with my current lube!

I guess I need to switch from RockNRoll Gold to Squirt. :)

---

_________________________________
Fit Endurance Coaching - Head Coach|Facebook
USAT L1 Coach | BikeFit Certified Fitter | Contributing Writer - Triathlete Magazine | ROKA

I use rock n roll gold. Giving up just over 1W compared to UFO. That's fine. We already knew the comparative data for most common chain lubes from this study:

http://www.acatalepsia.org/...ads/2017/01/velo.jpg

So hwy no reference to ASTM or other standards for test protocols to describe lube properties? Testing on representative hardware is great, but basic testing of the lubricant itself would lend even more credibility.

I wonder how it compares to something like "Molten Speedwax".

It's interesting and a step ahead of the usual marketing guff, but for all of their self-proclaimed efforts it still comes across more of a promotional pamphlet than a scientific report. The data as presented still falls way short of the rigour required for any meaningful analysis and the omission of error bars on their data sets along with zero mention of any statistical validation is a fundamental shortcoming and certainly lends a lot of skepticism to their results and subsequent claims.

As a quick example, what is the variability in their chain preparation technique and how does this compare to the differences they're claiming to measure between lubes? If they were to take three identical chains, strip them down, coat them in UFO Drip(TM) and measure the frictional losses, what is the variability here? Is there a statistically significant difference when doing this with a different lube? If they want to present their claims as "backed up by data" they could at least conduct the most basic of statistical analyses; it's the fundamental basis of making a claim that x is different to y.

Sure, when it was just one guy in his basement testing on his own and at his own expense then you could certainly excuse it, but when it's a company trying to sell me a $75 bottle of lube on claims based around very tight margins, I'd place the bar a little higher. It's hard to say whether they've actually done this and have cut it out for editorial reasons or whether they genuinely haven't bothered to conduct a robust study and verify their results, but either way it makes it impossible to judge the validity of their claims.

Having said all that, I certainly appreciate the breadth of the issues that they discuss even if it is just essentially anecdotal; the chain contamination, component wear and drivetrain noise issues are all interesting to hear some feedback on.

I don't think its omission from the dataset is an accident.

The whole paper is written to make it painfully clear that it's the fastest "drip lube", from which we can probably infer that it's slower than solid waxing protocols. I can't be bothered to cross reference with the old Friction Facts data sets that included Paraffin Waxing (although it would be easy, using Squirt as a reference), but I would hazard a guess that the UFO Drip lube is very similar if not slightly slower.

not based on any of the previous results from friction facts. even molten was high 4's this is high 3's

First time I've seen any data on T-9. Looks like it's time to switch to Squirt, or just start waxing. Side note, Dan from Premier Bike did mention that he is developing a drip lube to go with his optimized chains. Something to look out for I think, because I suspect it will be very close to this and much cheaper.

All in an effort to gain about 1 watt over easy to use, and cheap, rock n roll?

This right here ^^^^^^

ETA: Every time I read one of these tests, my takeaway is how great a deal Rock n Roll is

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

We have completed all the formulation work, testing and labels are printed. Our lube will be available for shipment November 1st.

Our wax based lube will be a perfect compliment to our Ultra Optimized Chain.

If you decide to choose another brand chain (without our physical friction reduction process) and do a really good job cleaning off the factory grease/gunk, place the chain in a jar with our lube and agitate it, remove and let the chain dry - it will be just as good as the melted paraffin method - without all the fuss. It will not be as low friction as the Ultra Optimized Chain - but very very good.

The price of the lube will make you happy.

---

Dan Kennison

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

I think it's all just a plot to make noisy chains acceptable...so the motor noises are less noticeable.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Dude...get with the times. Using anything but RnR Purple or Squirt is soo 2014...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Would love to try it out Dan. I'll keep my eyes open for it. Thanks so much for all you do......

Gary

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

I used to have a sticker on the back of my Harley about noisy pipes saving lives. This is how Ceramicspeed is going to save cyclists.

Exactly what is the fuss with using paraffin?
Remove chain and dump in waxing saucepan, leave it there while you wipe down the bike, take it out, wipe off, leave to cool while you check brake pad adjustment, put on bike.

And to the CHEAP Rock and Roll, how long does that bottle last?
Not very long as you have to pour it on.
I cannot see using up my $10 candle in years doing all of my bikes.
If you want to go further, then teflon from your local piano tuner is not expensive.

Rock and Roll bottle lasts a year. I only use it once every few weeks while training, and before races.

Differences are mostly pretty small especially in the middle of the range. How many times were these measures replicated? Where are the error bars indicating standard deviations of the mean of the measures for each product? Where are the statistics that indicate which differences - if any - are statistically relevant? Lots of marketing. Scientific rigor *looks* good, but is nonexistent. If you *think* that you are saving a W or two using lube X vs. lube Y, well, then you are!

I'm with you. It's just not that hard. Did 6 chains this week - road, gravel and MTB - about an hour of total time to clean and wax. Hate to waste a pin on shimano road/gravel every 300-400 miles, but the performance and cleanliness is worth it.

---

__________________________________________________

Looking for a place to swim? check out http://swimradar.com
Mountain Bike and Adventure Guiding - http://fivestaradventure.com

i find it interesting that RnR extreme (blue) narrowly beats RnR gold - the MTB wet conditions lube beats "the king of lubes"?
Both well better than RnR absolute dry which is the road specific lube

the pre and post-ride tests are interesting. the small difference between UFO and squirt/RnR pre-ride become 3-4W after just 30 minutes of simulated road gritting which is significant and maybe even worth the cost. that test would be very easy to manipulate through protocol though

sounds like we should all wait for the premier lube :)

At the very least it suggests to me they've put an impressive amount of thought into this.

I still trust the integrity of FrictionFacts, and their access to their own equipment in development means they're likely to have tested sufficiently to identify superior coatings. It would be nice to have an independent arbiter, but I don't think we will.

Surprisingly, they're marketing the product but it's not available through their website.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'