Fastest lube on the market is Squirt Lube http://www.squirtlube.com/

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

Didn't see Friction Facts test this. Another analysis?

They did. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/..._latest_reply;so=ASC

http://velonews.competitor.com/...d-squirt-lube_251820

http://www.squirtlube.com/.../VeloNews2014-01.pdf

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

Recalling an earlier thread, I think the value-added is the combination of longevity and efficiency.

Just rechecked the report and see that now.

Any comparison to the Silca lube?

I don't have the Silca NFS lube. You can see that lube in the chart. It's labeled NFS.

Squirt lube is just cleaner and faster overall. I love it. You can buy it here at http://www.trisports.com/...ng-dry-lube-4oz.html

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

Dave is on it. Our independent FF data shows the NFS Pro is in between the Morgan Blue and NFS on the chart from Velonews.. the real advantage is that it beats everything even close in friction when it comes to durability, and has something like 10x the durability of squirt or hot wax in rainy conditions.

To be clear, it's not in the same league as a dipped and powdered waxed chain for friction if you are talking about less than a few hours on the bike and no rain..but add harsh conditions, rain, or extreme distance and NFS has proven hard to beat. We literally ship cases of this stuff to events like the Cape Epic where 7 hour days are common (for the non-pros!)

We don't make the stuff and we didn't invent it, we just found that so many pro athletes and mechanics were using and swearing by it that we tried it..loved it and then began selling a modified version of the original as a way to help extend the reach of NFS which is a small, one person, company in Maryland. Essentially, this is really excellent stuff made by a really amazing guy that we like..so we're thrilled to support it.

Lastly, not sure if PYF is around, but he's been using it in his rotation along with wax, squirt and others at the top levels of racing for the last year + and could probably provide additional insight for everybody as to where it excels and where it lacks.

Thnx
Josh

---

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

Thank you for the context Josh, very helpful. Is the Silca NFS formula wax-based?

Dave

It is not wax based.

I started using it last year after reading how it lasts longer. I just do a simple post ride wipe with rag and WD40. Every so often I put a few more drops of NFS on the chain and ride.

It's quiet and shifts great.

Silca NFS is no longer being made or sold so that ends all discussion on this lube, that's a bummer.

Actually the best now for (drip lube) friction is UFO Ceramic Speed but that stuff is $75 a bottle!! That much money to save a watt over the two other closest competitors is simply INSANE!! Let the pro racers use it because they got the money to spend on such craziness expenditures.

So now with Silca NFS out of production and UFO Ceramic speed being too expensive that really only leaves Squirt and Rock & Roll Gold and R & R Extreme as the leaders in reducing friction from a bottle. However after using Squirt myself I didn't like it, it made the chain sticky which of course meant that foreign stuff stuck to it like sand and metal particles which is great for chain wear! and it also seemed to make the chain a bit noisier which means where there is noise there is increased wear; so I gave the stuff a fair run by using the entire bottle to make sure it wouldn't improve over time and it didn't; I'm not sure why this stuff gets high reviews. So now I'm using Rock & Roll Gold and Extreme and I really like it, perhaps the best drip lube I've ever used to date.

Molten Speed Wax is still the best at reducing friction but it's a hassle to apply. I use to use paraffin wax about 40 years ago and when TriFlow came out I switched and never looked back to all of that work that real wax required. Molten Speed Wax is a ripoff too because all it is is Paraffin wax which you can buy from Walmart called Gulf Wax Household Paraffin wax for 4th of the price of exact same thing that Molten Speed Wax is! Or get canning wax. The only "advantage" to the Molten stuff is that it's granulated which all that does is melts faster than a chunk of wax which is no big deal. So if you want to do the hot wax thing get the Gulf stuff and save yourself some money. But I remember after I made the switch to TriFlow I couldn't tell the difference in friction and I was racing at the time, supposedly less friction means less wear but my chain life actually increased with TriFlow by roughly two times. Years later Sheldon Brown came out with a report that showed Paraffin wax NOT to be a lubricant suitable for chains and in fact would increase the wear on chains, which is the exact thing I experienced, and he recommended against it and instead use a drip lube either dry for dry conditions or wet for more wet conditions.

I've been alive long enough to remember I had to use regular non detergent motor oil or 3 in 1 oil on chains because the paraffin wax thing hadn't made it to our neck of the woods yet. I had to clean the chain in gasoline and reapply the oil after every ride, and no matter how much you wiped down the chain you still got some minor splattering onto the bike. But keep in mind this oil was being used on chains with bushings, when bushingless chains came out in 1981 I think that made oil less important since the oil didn't have to get inside the bushing any longer, so that's why motor oil and 3 in 1 oil was used exclusively and wax was not because the wax was too thick to penetrate inside the bushing vs oil. Bushingless chains were made because it allowed a bit more side to side flex in the chain which was critical to extend the life of the chain with 12 and 14 speed bikes and it made the shifting smoother and faster.

Going back to the paraffin wax thing since this seems to intrigue people nowadays, this is probably the best video to learn how to do this process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvJ7aAUWBz8. They do discuss that there is more noise with a waxed lubed chain, this is true, and they also say that a quieter chain doesn't necessarily mean a faster chain which from tests done that is correct as well, but what they don't tell you is that the noise coming from a chain is metal to metal contact going on and that contact is accelerating the wear on your chain, which is what I said earlier in this post, so you have to decide if you want a fast moving chain or a longer wearing chain, sure the chain is spotless even after using but metal to metal contact is simply bad for a chain. Also they mention they did about 250k which is only 155 miles then you have to repeat the waxing thing all over again, that's the work that I hated doing, in fact I recall having to re-wax the chain after every 100 miles at the most, I actually did it after every race and every other training ride. The chain wear situation was this, I waxed chains for about 8 maybe 10 years, the average life of a chain during that waxing period of my life was about 5,000 miles, after I switched to TriFlow my chain wear went to about 13,000 miles. Something to consider if you're planning on waxing chains, I found this to be true also with drip on wax lubes like Pedros and the such. So if you plan on doing the wax thing you need to do what I did and have on hand 1 or 2 already pretreated waxed chains ready to install so you can wax one and have it hanging while you ride on one of the pretreated chains; so basically you remove the chain off a bike while doing that your melting the wax, place the chain into the molten wax and then put one of the pretreated chains (after wiping and flexing the links) on the bike, by the time you finished that your close to having the chain in the cooker ready to be taken out, hang it up and wait till after your next ride or two to use it.

nice resurrection.

have you tried the premier lube?

You could just get the non-Silca branded version of NFS...

http://www.nixfrixshun.com/...e-bicycle-chainlube/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I use molten speed on the roadie and the premier and ufo on the tri bike. The ufo is really really nice. No clumping, pieces don’t peel off on the trainer and seems to last a while. But damn, you use a lot to coat a chain.

Premier is awesome from a price standpoint...little noisier than the ufo. Seems to chunk off a bit more as well.

Not exactly the same thing since Molten Speed Wax tested faster than ordinary household parrafin wax.

All they add in is a bit of teflon, we did that with our wax once Slick 50 came out using the real Dupont teflon, Slick 50 later was sold to another company and Dupont teflon was removed due to licensing issues and an inferior teflon was put in. But quite frankly I couldn't tell the difference between the teflon or just the wax with tallow. And all that Molten is adding is just 5 grams of teflon per pound of wax, we used about a 1/2 an ounce, some people I knew used graphite but that left a grey/black mess on the chain over prolonged use, plus the wax that won the friction contests done by Velonews didn't use anything but pure paraffin wax, not other added stuff.

There was all kinds of homebrews going on in the waxing era, from mixing beeswax or lanolin with the paraffin, to using toilet wax rings (because those had a higher grease factor to them) mixed with paraffin, mixing in chainsaw bar oil, and on and on the experimentation went.

While Molten does use a gram of Molybdenum Disulfide it's a non issue just as the 5 grams of teflon is a non issue because a lot of lubes on the market use that same stuff, so it's not that stuff that is causing Molten to be better, it's just the paraffin wax that's doing the heavy work. Besides you can copy all the ingredients and amounts I listed here that Molten uses and buy the stuff yourself and mix and use for a lot less money. Personally I think the two added ingredients don't account for anything.

I'm still using and recommending Cycle Star. Not sure how readily available it is, but the nano technology is not a gimmick. It really works.

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

I think the sticky and " balling" you experienced with Squirt is from not sufficiently removing the original petroleum lube from the chain. I have seen this when I applied Squirt to a normal chain, but this doesn't happen if you start with a chain that has been properly cleaned and waxed first. So I think the stuff works great when applied to a hot-waxed chain, after the first 100-150 miles of use.

I also think your dismissal of the molybdenum dysolfied is a bit off. I think it's purpose is to settle into the micro fissures of the rollers and pins. It "smears" when the lubrication film (wax) is penetrated. It is sort of a secondary form of lubrication. The lack of the moly additive could be why you saw additional wear using straight wax.

I have to put in a vote for the Premier lube. I think it is a wax with some sort of carrier/solvent, and other secret ingredients. I apply a thick layer and work it into the rollers with my fingers after a ride Then I let it dry overnight. The dried chain has the touch and feel of a newly waxed chain, though the wax is softer. I took the quick link out of the chain once and the penetration of the wax into the pins and rollers was very good. The fact that it is dirt cheap, relative to the other lubes is a added bonus.

I've been cleaning chains for 40 years, I think I have a tiny clue on how to do that, in addition to that I used the entire bottle, so it wasn't just one application then throw it away.

I didn't dismiss molybdenum disulfide, what I said was I don't think it improved the performance of just bare paraffin wax due to the tests that were done showing that bare paraffin wax had less friction (by a tiny amount) over Rock & Roll Gold that also uses the same stuff including teflon. Molybdenum disulfide which is also very similar to tungsten disulfide and has the appearance and feel of graphite with the same low friction properties. HOWEVER, please read this from Friction Facts:

Additional note: I’ve used both PTFE (Teflon) and Mos2 (molybdenum disulfide) in the soup, but an aerospace material engineer friend of mine is reasonably dubious these compounds are of measurable benefit, due to various technical explanations beyond the scope of my garage science. He thinks these are unlikely to decrease friction to any relevant measurable degree. It has to do with non-homogenous mixing, clumping, and surface non-bonding (don’t quote me on decidedly nonscientific terms).
—Ted
Ted,
I went straight to Jason Smith at Friction Facts for your question.
—Lennard
From Friction Facts:

Interesting observation about temperature-dependent longevity. This could be due to the fact that wax is a little softer at higher temperatures.
Your friend’s comments are also interesting, and generally correct. Teflon (and moly) can clump and can be difficult to disperse due to the high surface tension of the particles. Using a small particle can minimize these effects, and agitation with enough sheer stress will easily disperse the particles.
For example, the Friction Facts UltraFast formula uses a 3-micron Teflon particle. The Teflon is dispersed in the liquid wax using a hand blender (a basic milk frother works, too). The action of the high-speed blades cuts the particles into the liquid. Now, if larger particles are used, for example 10-12 microns, the particles will still disperse, but they will quickly settle to the bottom of the liquid. Smaller 3-micron particles will remain suspended and not settle out while dipping a chain. Similar effects occur with the moly particles.
I would have to agree with them on this since they are also the scientists that did the testing on various lubes and it seems to match my experience. I think the lubes that you buy that have a layered look to it where part has settled seems to always have a milky look to it which is what teflon looks like when it settles to the bottom, and those lubes require that you shake it before using it and disperses the larger particles as described by Friction Facts above is simply that, teflon and molybdenum disulfide, which means most lubes on the market use those two ingredients because most require shaking first before using.
My fonts and now spacing keep changing; anywho, as far a the wear goes by not using moly is doubtful too since Triflow never used moly in their original formula, not sure if they've add that in later but they probably use it now in their newer dry version but I can't confirm that. Regardless my chain wear decreased when I went to the TriFlow from wax and the different additives I tried to mix in the wax over the years I used wax.

From my 40 years of using various lubes on chains I can tell you this, that outside of using heavy formulated drip wax lubes that any that I tried like Pedros and White Light. stuff all resulted in shorter chain life by at least 1/2 as much, but all the other lubes the wear was about the same right around the 13,000 mile mark plus or minus a 1,000 miles before the chain had to be replaced, this told me that as far as wear was concerned there was no real difference between any of the lubes till you got to the heavy wax usage ones. Probably the reason some chains lasted 12,000 and some 14,000 and some in between probably had more to do with the make of the chain and not the lube, and maybe I ran into more rain with one chain vs another, or didn't clean one as well as I normally do vs another, so to say which lube got me to 14,000 miles would not be rational to say since other variables could alter the outcome.