Pretty soon wireless electronic groups will cost less than chains. $350 for the Ti YBN chain bundle. Ouch.

I'm sure the cost is justified based on the materials and work-hours, but this is one silca product that I will pass on. If i had the talent, desire, etc to go for an hour record then i'd probably have to think long and hard about this. It's cool they are doing it...it's just not a product for me.

I agree with you this will not work as a product for me but for some people it is a reasonable item to consider. When you look at basic numbers say that drive train losses are 1-2% of over all power, unless you are pushing 300 watts or more you are maybe saving less than (because the comparison is another prepared low friction chain not sure how that compares to the 1-2% drive train loss chain system).. does that mean you save say 1 or 2 watts by using this chain? over another prepared chain, or vs a normally lubed chain? I would love to know what it means for certain situations like plebeian 200 watts or pro 300+ watts of power input what does this chain save vs other chain prep options?

I have played around doing something similar in the past (but not with diamond dust as I am not a baller) - sadly don't have a good setup to test efficiency gains/losses. I tell myself it's faster though and that + the effort put into it has to count for some placebo watts at least.

It's a niche product, but I would guess it has an audience. At a certain point of course, it's hard to get that last percent of a percent of efficiency, at any cost.

---

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

The standard for testing comes from Ceramicspeed.. and it's watts of loss calculated on 250w input. 2.8-3.0w loss is really good.. a Molten speed waxed DuraAce chain might cost 4.5 watts. A SecretBlend waxed DA chain will cost 3w and a Ceramicspeed prepped/waxed/powdered chain might do 2.8w. With this process, we can get that same DA chain into the 2-2.1w range, and if you maintain it properly, you can keep it under 2.5 w for thousands of km.

I should also point out that if you take out the cost of the SuperSecret Drip and the Secret Blend, our chain really isn't all that much more expensive than some of the other offerings out there..but we feel you really need that other stuff to keep the investment running as long as possible.

---

http://www.SILCA.cc
Check out my podcast, inside stories from more than 20 years of product and tech innovation from inside the Pro Peloton and Pro Triathlon worlds!
http://www.marginalgainspodcast.cc

Will the chains be stocked by international distributors?

I'm already partway down this path - sonic stripping chains to sell paired with a bottle of SSL

I wonder how it compares to Dan’s Ultra Optimized Chain, which is a great chain and about half the cost:
https://www.premierbike.com/...ucts/optimized-chain

It's not half the cost when you factor in that you're getting both the hot melt and drip lube as well.

---

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors

I’ll weigh in - I have been doing metal finish optimization for a long long time (almost 20 years). Many sports, industries and products.

SILCA has a nice bundle. Thier chains are very very good - as are our Connex chains.

We carry the Connex 11 speed chain.

SILCA is offering a wide range of chains - so good on them for that. Thier bundle includes their drip wax and hot melt which is really what you need to keep a chain like this efficient, smooth and long lasting.

As for watt savings and driveline efficiency - our testing shows that a physicaly polished chain (plates, pins and rollers) gives you around 2.3 watts additional savings over a chain that has only been cleaned, run-in and waxed.

---

Dan Kennison

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

Very true. And I hope I wasn't coming across as critical, I love Silca's stuff. I'm just genuinely curious since I race with one of the Premier chains.

What about when I run the powder... how does it change the 4.5w loss?

And while I have you if you don’t mind ... any idea how much I’m giving up with my Sram 1130 chain vs a Dura Ace as you quoted?

Seems like your chain could be much more than 2w faster than what I do today

Thanks for the info Josh, for crude comparison what is a "normal out of the box chain watts loss? The other data is really informative. I also saw your video, again 10,000 km of life vs what one would expect from say a non prepared chain? what I seem to see on Adam's site is the worst case is 1000 km life for a chain? so is it fair or accurate to say 5 or more (maybe 10x) the life of a normal untreated chain? So then the math starts to make sense for even punters like me?

I remember leaving a comment on one of the early ask Josh episodes about polishing a chain... never got mentioned... now I see why :D

---

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

maybe math is not my strong point but to me the cost is not that exorbitant if one assumes that the chain will last 3x longer than a typically prepared (home prepared) chain.. chains say YBN cost about $50 so the YBN chain option with Silca is $225... then back out the costs of the added items ca $80 so that leaves 145 for a highly and carefully prepared chain. Then the math works at 3 chains, so if it did last 3x as long you are break even at worse case but you also get the benefit of a chain prep you can not do at home.... the economics do not sound so bad and the upside is worth maybe a few watts saved or a few extra KPH each ride. God Josh please stop innovating! it is getting hard to explain to my spouse why I have so many Silca things!

So would one be able to extrapolate that taking a chain that has been ridden for some time, then degreased, cleaned, and lubed with this super special wax will save watts as well over a fresh chain?

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

To a point. As a chain is worn it - it streaches. When it streatches the high points of the metal surfaces move.

If a new chain is treated properly all the high points are eliminated creating a honed platue surface. If kept lubrucated the fast chain lasts longer as it streaches.

---

Dan Kennison

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

I may be wrong here, but my understanding is the source of the elongation of a chain is not that the metal actually stretched but that as the rollers wear they cause the chain to elongate. Now saying that the places where the outer plates touch each other does move in this case. I believe one of the fast chain companies does a run in before preparing with the super lubricants to glaze the surface but that is not the same as diamond polishing which physically removes the imperfections from the surfaces. I actually wonder if a run in would actually cause more problems than solutions because the imperfections may cause grooves in the opposite plate?

What I understand is the reason a well lubricated chain lasts longer is not due to stretch but rather the reduction in the wear of the roller and pin interfaces, so in fact it does not "stretch" since the elongation is the basis of chain replacement and therefore the longer it takes to reach the elongation point is a tribute to the quality of the lubrication to protect the pins and rollers from wear.

In the end this whole idea of polishing then impinging with WS2 is not really new it is just new in this application.

 
thanks for this info. to clarify, over just a normal off the shelf chain and a normal non-wax lube, this prepared chain would save 3-4 watts at 250?

OK, so here is a rough breakdown of the scale of things.
Ceramicspeed 250w input testing

11speed chain with WhiteLightning: 9.1w
11speed chain with Tri-Flow: 7.2 w

11 speed chain with factory grease: 5.5-7.5 watts loss
11 speed chain with straight paraffin: 4.8-5.0 watts
11 speed chain with Synergetic: 4.7-4.9w
11 speed chain with MSW: 4.4-4.6 watts
11 speed chain with SuperSecret: 3.8-4.0w
11 speed chain with SILCA hot wax: 2.8-3.0
11 speed chain Ceramicspeed race prepared/powdered: 2.6-2.8w
11 speed chain SILCA Diamond polish/wax prepared: 2.0-2.2w

---

http://www.SILCA.cc
Check out my podcast, inside stories from more than 20 years of product and tech innovation from inside the Pro Peloton and Pro Triathlon worlds!
http://www.marginalgainspodcast.cc

Wow that is very interesting data. So the old belief that chain loss in the whole picture of where your power goes of say 1-2% if off by a bit, for the worst case it is 3.6% and the best case it is 0.8% power loss due to the chain friction. That is eye opening. If I understand correctly then at the pedal you are inputting 150 watts and when the rubber hits the road so to speak there is worst case 241 watts and best case 248 watts actually moving the bike forward. Is that correct?

No test for rock n roll gold? A lot of us use that.

Anyway, manufacturers need to stop greasing their high end chains. Civilians aren't buying dura-ace chains. Those that do buy them know how to take care of them. It is sad that 1st step after obtaining a new chain is an ultrasonic bath....

Hey Josh- I heard a rumor that 12sp xtr chains have better shifting performance than 11sp dura ace on an 11sp system. Any idea/opinion if true?

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

Rock n Roll Gold 11sp chain ~5.1-5.3w

If you're a wet lube person look at Synergetic.. faster and significantly reduced wear according to data that isn't mine.. AND no PFAS we are working hard to bend the industry away from PFAS

---

http://www.SILCA.cc
Check out my podcast, inside stories from more than 20 years of product and tech innovation from inside the Pro Peloton and Pro Triathlon worlds!
http://www.marginalgainspodcast.cc

I DO want manufacturers to keep greasing their chains.

As otherwise by the time it get to me, it's been in a warehouse in Japan for fortnight, in steel box on a Quay for week. On a ship stuck in the Suez for 6 weeks, on another Quay for 2 weeks, in another warehouse for a week or 3, in post office van, and then left dumped on my doorstep in a thin cardboard packet whilst it pisses down for several hours until I get home. It'll be a rusty POS.


And secondly, the grease will slow down those who don't know anything about friction and have left the grease on along with a top up of nice thick mineral oil.

Thanks for sharing the data. I’ve been waiting to try out one of your chains since you mentioned in the podcast that pre-waxed chains were on the horizon

---

Matt

I'm not 100% convinced the figures are true on the real bike. Comparable definitely, but absolute values? Not convinced.
Reading the CeramicSpeed Web site, as U read it the measurement of friction losses are done on a Chain Efficiency Tester (CET) that loads up the chain in equal tension on both halves (top and bottom) running around 2 sprockets (doesn't say what size sprockets). So doesn't represent the real bike situation (other than on a tightly tensioned single speed) where the top of the chain is tensioned by the pedalling power and the bottom only tensioned by the derailleur spring - a tiny fraction of the force in the top part of the chain between chain ring and rear sprocket. Also doesn't reflect the losses from running over the derailleur jockey wheels.

If the installed tension in the CET is high, that will distort the results on an absolute value on-a-bike basis (Try over-tensioning a single speed track bike - and see how much stiffer it is to rotate the cranks !)

So this is one of the hardest things in my world to really accurately measure as an absolute value. The gold standard here is most definitely the system that Jason Smith at Friction Facts, now Ceramicspeed, built, and it uses two separate tests to get to an actual final number. Believe me, everything you can think of related to this test, Jason has thought through 1000 times more deeply.. and in some aspects your point about tension is hot the FTT actually functions.

He and I discuss this with some detail in this interview from Marginal Gains here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcMWqp_8FWM

While Ceramicspeed and SILCA are competitors in some spaces, we are also friends and I have immense respect for what he has done.. and can promise that his numbers are as good as they come.. there are a lot of brands spouting a bunch of nonsense, they are not one of them.

Having said all of that, your intuition here is correct.. there are so many variables that finding the absolute loss number is insanely hard. One of the big reasons that we do not openly publish loss data is that we don't do FTT testing, we've built a machine that really can only test delta's between chains or between lubricants.. so I can tell you with insane accuracy that this chain is 0.2 watt faster than that one.. but I can't 100% certain tell you what the absolute value of the loss is. For my numbers above, I actually started with absolute values created by Jason on his machine, and then calculated in all the deltas to get to all the other data!!

---

http://www.SILCA.cc
Check out my podcast, inside stories from more than 20 years of product and tech innovation from inside the Pro Peloton and Pro Triathlon worlds!
http://www.marginalgainspodcast.cc

Hope my comment wasn't too 'arsey' - I defo agree it's ever so tricky with so many variables, and measuring pretty small values.

Thanks for the data you've been able to post- really useful to make comparisons and decisions.

I've always understood the "default" powertrain loss to be ~3% for a well-maintained system, not "1-2%".

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Certainly agree, and understand the rationale for the bundling, but still think a chain-only offering makes sense, both for those customers who have already purchased lube and those who may order more than one chain (e.g. for different bikes with different chain lengths). First world problems to be sure.

---

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099

Hi Tom, though this is older data the study by Martin et al Validation of Mathematical Model for Road Cycling they found that it was 2.3% so it is likely in the range 2 % +/- so 3 is a good conservative number. The paper does not provide any insight into the chain. I was thinking that this model might be able to tease out the number for chain loss. In the paper they compared an SRM to a Monark bike system and found the difference was 2.3% and felt it was due to the chain/ drive system loss. If one were to assume the only change in the system was the chain then one could maybe figure out the impact of the lubrication? What is interesting is they found that the loss was a constant regardless of the power input. So at 80 watts it was ca 2.3% and at 280 watts still ca 2.3%.

So I tend to agree I was just pulling a number from memory (hence the would "say") and so I agree 2-3 would have been a better statement and still makes the argument that chain loss and lubrication can be very important.

If one looks at the data Josh presented with a 9 watt loss for a white lightning (or even triflow at 7 w) chain vs a 2 watts for a super prep'd chaiin that is at a ca. 3-4x improvement.

So assuming say a loss of 2.3% at 280 is 6.4 watts then divide that by 3 and the outcome is an improvement of 4 watts. Does this sort of make sense?.

I'm pretty sure a Monark erg has a drivetrain like a fixie/track bike (i.e. fixed chainring/cog), so add in the additional losses of a derailleur-type transmission, and 3% is looking like the better number.

And yeah...the improvements discussed can, in total result in some pretty good power savings (relatively speaking).

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

So Tom what you are talking about is drive train losses, what Martin et al and I are talking about in the context of this thread is chain losses. So then if the chain and bottom bracket (since it is almost impossible to isolate the bb alone) loss per Martin is 2.3% then the improvement with the super efficient chain is actually less than 1% per my previous calculation if going from a regular lube to the super prepared chain assuming their chain was a typical lube at that time. So you are probably right for the complete drive train at 3% but for the chain it seems likely it is about 2% and could go down to 1% or better. So a Monark might get you to the chain loss and changing chains should be observable?

edit: I found another indication of an estimate of drive train loss as 2.4% per Dr. Rodger Kram. But the more one looks the more difficult it is to get at the true effect that a chain has on the system much as Josh said above. Another interesting thing that seems to be hard for me to understand is the efficiency gets better the more watts input. That indicates that the chain power loss is not a simple % over the power range but varies and gets less with more input. So yeah it ain't simple it seems..... but drive train losses of 3% can be reduced with a number of things and obviously chain lubrication is a big one? and may be the best cost /performance option vs the cost of most of the other things like ceramic bears, over sized pulleys with low friction bearings etc.

No I think he's still talking about chain loss. With a derailleur present, the chain has to wrap around four time instead of two, even if the pulley friction is zero. Not only that, the derailleur pulleys require greater articulation since they're smaller. So while they aren't under tension, they may still contribute significantly.

ceramic speed say clearly that they have measured the relative loss at pulleys, part of the loss is articulation and part is bearings. Ceramic speed say even staying with 11 tooth pulleys better bearings can save 1.3watts. They also say 2.4 watts for over sized pulleys... So 3% loss due to drive train, but the hard part is how much of that 3% is due to the chain?

My response was about the comment regarding Monark, not Silca