Funny you should mention this. I've been using my own lube for a couple weeks now, and I noticed that it's probably not nearly as good as hot melt at keeping the drivetrain clean.

For mine, this may be because I have a little bit of pure mineral oil in the mixture, fractionally <1% by volume, but maybe just enough to attract gunk. I don't know what ingredients Squirt uses, but someone above mentioned the possibility of the use of "slack wax" which is essentially paraffin before it's had all the natural oils removed. Those oils may be having the same effect. Just speculation, though, maybe Squirt is oil free.

I could try again without using the mineral oil. I just used it because most publicly available wax emulsion recipes include it.

But I may have to move on to figuring out how to get a wax-alcohol suspension. Or just give up and start fanning dollar bills at Silca.

Resurrecting this thread to discuss the new UFO drip lube by CeramicSpeed. Two interesting things:

- it's more than 4 times "cheaper" compared to the Absolute Black graphene lube, and
- they claim it's even faster than the AB lube, although both products tested very close. I doubt the CS test was conducted independently (?)

---

Instagram
Youtube Channel
Meta Endurance

well Absolute black have come out with a hot melt graphene wax that is not paraffin based.. and so on goes the lube wars.

Another aspect that I thought was odd that they shot down tungensten disulfide and maolydenum disulfide as not being effective:
Why we don't use Tungsten Disulfide (WS2) nor Molybdenum Disulfide (MoS2) additives.
While these substances can exhibit super low friction, they do it only in vacuum or inert gas. In normal humid air they not only have high friction but also very short life because of the rapid oxidation process. Using these additives in chain lubricant, where water is often present, is simply pointless.
We also don't use any oils or paraffin oils in the mixture because it adversely impacts the friction.

Somehow this seems counter to the info that Zero Friction provide. Were what is said here practically true then I would think that the long term friction and thus the chain stretch would be evident in these tests which seems not to be the case. So is this their way of trying to diss their competition? I think it reduces their credibility if the statements are untrue.

MoS2 and WS2 are great in vacuum environments. They also stick very well to steel. So well that wax may have a hard time adhering.

MoS2 definitely has problems in humidity. I'm assuming this goes for WS2 as well. I have some old papers that discuss this, but don't have any recent research. Can dig some of the old stuff up if people are interested.

These materials properties can vary a huge amount depending on processing to give different platelet size and purity. Dispersion is a huge problem as the particles tend to clump together.

If tests are reproducible and show a performance improvement, then maybe humidity is not such a big issue.

Edit: Dispersion is also a huge problem for graphene. There was one recent study that examined 30 or so graphene sources from different suppliers and none of them had remotely the properties claimed. I think AB claim that they source from a different supplier that provides genuine nanoplatelets, which should be a lot better. Graphene is still essentially 2D graphite, despite what AB might claim.

thanks for that info, I have to accept that the data to date is credible though as always time will tell. Adam at Zero Friction assumes (and probably correctly) that if lubricity is good then it improves the durability of the chain and that can be seen in chain stretch, as well of course chain noise, though I do not think he quantifies that. Friction Facts are the only ones that seem to publish chain efficiencies but they have a dog in the race now so it is not 100% unbiased or independent. On any account we the user are getting all sorts of new and probably really good lube options these days.

Not buying those assertions. WS2 is used in MANY application not in a vacuum or inert gas. Sounds like a "deflection" to me...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

"Not buying those assertions. WS2 is used in MANY application not in a vacuum or inert gas. Sounds like a "deflection" to me..."
I tend to agree Tom, but I am no materials scientist but my gut tends to go with what you are saying. Wonder how Josh@Silica would respond? though I know he probably would not slag another brand directly I would like his thinking on the statement.

I don't buy anything that AB or any company say.

However, there is absolutely no question that MoS2 and WS2 are highly sensitive to humidity. So much so that they can even be used as humidity sensors.

To be used in a humid environment they need to be functionalized in some way, or incorporated as part of a composite or isolated from humidity. It may be that suspending the particles in an oil-based lubricant is enough to preserve their tribological properties, but humidity is always a concern and cannot be dismissed.

interesting so if humidity is an issue but you enrobe the tungsten disulfide in paraffin, a very hydrophobic material, that should render humidity a non issue until at some point the paraffin wears away to the point that the WS2 is exposed to the humid air which I would think is a pretty long time and within the interval for addition of more lube so maybe in this application humidity is not an issue? So what absolute black are saying is a partial truth however is not the truth in the application of the competition lubricants? There is absolutely no doubt that the new oil based Silca lube form a tribofilm and is very high lubricity, their test video shows that pretty well. It would be interesting to see how different lubes fair in the wear test Josh was using for the oil based lube?

WS2 seems to do just fine as a "pure" coating for many different uses, especially as a mold release coating: https://www.microsurfacecorp.com/...7QuZ06IaAqgmEALw_wcB

So...it's not like it's something that can ONLY be effectively used in applications of vacuum or inert gas environments...unlike AB's claims.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Very difficult to predict in advance how an additive will behave. You use some basic principles to choose the best candidates and then try a few tests for friction and durability. To figure out what is actually happening takes a lot of extra testing and extensive inspection with SEM and other techniques. Most companies have no interest in figuring out why and few have the resources to do so. They leave that up to universities to figure out later.

The explanation you propose is quite plausible..

Three's still a lot we don't understand about tribofilms and our knowledge changes. In some cases the pressure transforms the material into another compound that actually does the lubrication.

Pure MoS2 and WS2 are definitely affected by humidity. This is not up for argument. Any version that lasts has to be modified in some way or protected from any humidity.

thanks carlosflanders for that explanation. What you say makes sense. When Josh was talking about the WS2 and the ZDDP in a synthetic oil base it was just that a trial and error until suddenly it worked really well. So yeah I get your point, I have been both in research and industry and they are different as you say.

Personally, I think this is pretty awesome.. doesn't matter who or what you believe in terms of the how and why a tech works, but the fact that a competitor is taking a whole paragraph on his site and in his launch material to talk implicitly about us certainly says something IMO.


I got into this a few months ago with Marcin from AB over on Paceline and he backed his assertion that WS2 with 2 papers showing the degradation of WS2 performance in humidity when spray impinged into metal for use as a dry film surface lubricant. The problem, of course, is that we are NOT dry film impinging the WS2 into metal to be used as a dry lubricant.. so the whole assertion is a red herring as far as I'm concerned, and saying it over and over again doesn't make it any more applicable to the situation.

The reality is that the additives blended into an oil or wax along with anti-oxidants and are highly protected over long periods of time. This isn't all that dissimilar to modification that has to be done to graphene to get it to properly disperse in lubricants.. there are interim steps, in our case ones that prevent oxidation, in the case of graphene it has to be modified so that it doesn't just all clump back together.. but in neither case would you say that it just doesn't work. Google this, lots of good papers out there trying to solve graphene dispersion in lubricants..

You all know me, we are pretty open with our processes, we tell you what's in the stuff, and in the case of our lubes, we even made public the original University of Lyon paper that discovered this unique synergy, here it is again if you missed it: https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01461622/document

The reality of MoS2 and Ws2, is that they are being used in many applications worldwide and have been for some time with very proven results and durability. So using them in interesting and new combinations, and at nano scales isn't reinventing the wheel so much as taking proven technologies and combining and refining them to new levels.

Past that, I think that it is safe to say that both the Friction Facts and ZeroFriction data show that MoS2 and WS2 certainly seem to work.. with Molten Speed as the previously fastest lube according to FrictionFacts AND the most durable lube at ZeroFriction, and now our SuperSecret drip beating Molten for friction according to CeramicSpeed and matching/beating MSW in ZeroFriction durability.. and not yet published but Silca hot melt beating all of them..I think it is safe for all of us to say that micro scale MoS2 works, and that nano WS2 works a bit better.. and none of that is our data, so this is what others are saying.

---

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 agree Josh, I think the fact they said it makes me wonder about their stuff except that there has been some independent data that shows it works but as Adam likes to do when you look as the cost performance ratio graphene is a bit on the expensive side for the use case I think. I like the Silca approach and the fact you let the product stand on its own without slagging other products. The data should always speak for itself. I personally find the use of half truths to mislead a very poor method of argument and it brings into question other things said by the same source regardless who they are.

Thanks for your input Josh!

Just out of curiosity, is there an issue with mixing wax treatments on a chain? eg, I usually run regular old paraffin wax (cuz I'm cheap), but if I were to get a bag of Silca or MSW, is there an issue with treating my paraffin-waxed chain with the "good" wax? or is that a bad idea?

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

There shouldn't be any issue of mixing with MSW or SILCA as we are both paraffin based. You might still want to really clean/strip the chain to ensure you are getting the full experience..I know some people advocate just tossing a previously waxed chain into new wax but I'm not a fan of that method as you can both dirty your pot of wax but also potentially leave contaminates trapped in the chain.

---

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

Interesting perspective from Adam at ZeroFrictionCycling on this topic, including AB claims re MoS2 and WS2:
https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/...g-news-graphene-wax/

---

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

the sad part is that the trolling and shading of the truth against other products does them no service and in my view actually reduces their credibility. As Adam said let the product stand on its own. If it is good then say so without trashing others. I would not buy the Graphene drip and am somewhat thinking of the graphene wax but I am not sure it has the benefit I would want most of which is a clean well lubed drive chain/train. Anyhow it is amazing how many new lubes have come out in the last year? Is it because of COVID these guys have time for R&D? pretty amazing bunch of leaps forward. Who will or what will be the next cool new super lube?

I spend half my time reading or writing dry technical reports. Will go to no end of nerdery if I consider it important. But, I have to admit, Adam's reports completely defeat me. I have attempted many times in the past year but have yet to get more than halfway through any. I find it impossible to imagine someone doing a better job of hiding the essentials in the details and emasculating whatever they want to say. I just put up the white flag and admit defeat.

He does tend to repeat a lot of background info in each lube report. He also is not the most concise writer. Writing technical documents for a non- or semi-technical audience is a skill, it's not easy, it's something you have to learn. And even after you learn and you put in the effort, people are going to vary in that skill. And Kerin is ... BOP, maybe rear end of MOP in that skill, let's just put it that way. It's OK, it takes all sorts to make the world go round.

However, each report does have a number of standard elements, so you can just focus on the wear testing, or the main table in front. Each block is standardized. He starts with a new chain, does an initial wear measure (many Shimano chains measure slightly when new), and then he cleans it thoroughly and applies the lube thoroughly. First 1,000km block is no contamination, and chains wearing high in that segment have issues with initial penetration of the lube. Many drip lubes will do OK here, unless they're fundamentally poor lubes. Second block is dry contamination (sand, IIRC). Then the third block is clean again, and sometimes lubes can clear out prior contamination. Fourth block is wet contamination. There's a 5th block, which is back to clean, after that, but many chains die before then.

Then he gives some overall performance ratings in various conditions, e.g. dry road riding, race day, MTB/CX/other harsh conditions, single application for a long event (e.g. 24h MTB, long gravel, etc). Then there's some discussion about the lube. You can ignore that, as (spoiler alert) it does tend to be long.

You're absolutely right.

Adam is beyond thorough. I'll try to find a table or quantified results and search through the text if I need clarification. Feel bad about doing so because it's not the right way to do things and you can miss out important points.

I think Adam falls into the trap as said well by Mark Twain, I didn't have time to write a short letter so I wrote a long one. It takes considerable time and effort to be brief and concise.

Interesting...i just listened to the latest Conan Obrien podcast with John Cleese last night while riding and they talked about that quote.

Not only for writing, but for product design as well. It's easy to make things needlessly complicated. It's much more difficult to make things elegant.

Speaking of Adam, I just listened to part of Josh's latest Marginal Gains Podcast with him. I was laughing a bit because he basically talks like he writes! Almost "stream of consciousness".

Dude, take a breath every once in awhile <LOL>...poor Josh might've only spoken 3 complete sentences through it ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/