New chain should I oil it?

softlad

rake wrote:

no no no.
the stickier and thicker the better.heres why. teflon is no good either. the engineering principle that 'lubrication' works on is keeping metal surfaces that are being ground together apart with a hydraulic type action. this happens when two surfaces are close together and VISCOSITY takes over. the thinner the lubricant the less load it can carry before it squashes out and metal contacts. if its sticky it stays on longer. it will be sucked back into the chain in the same way its squashed out.
if chains were tight tolerance like in an engine then yes thick stuff would be no good simple because its too thick to get easily into the gaps, but chains are nothing like that tollerance since they wear and have loose fitting rollers and have to flex enough to change across the block, they also dont operate at anything like high speed and dont have much contact area so need thick oil or grease to support the load with bigger gaps and small contact area .
get a plastic bottle put a small hole in the top and fill i with oils of differing thickness.then try and squeeze the oil out. your squeezing represents the load on a bearing and the size of the hole is the tollerance. see the difference.
yes_ chainsaw oil , mtorcycle chain oil , thick oil,engine oil ok with regular application
no_ anything thin or teflon based, wd40,gt85 ,water , expensive.

there is so much wrong with this, I'm not sure where to start.

Your point about metal-to-metal contact is relevant, but the loads, stresses, flow dynamics and heat tolerance issues in engines are totally different to those on a bicycle chain, so you cannot use one argument to justify the other. A thick oil may provide longer lasting lubrication, but only at the expense of attracting dirt and dust into the transmission - which ironically may have the effect of actually shortening its life.

A thin, or teflon based lubricant is perfect as a cycle chain lube, in my opinion. You may need to apply it more regularly, but it works perfectly well. Personally, I use GT85 and have done so for many years. I used to use WD, but of the two, I prefer GT, specifically because of its teflon content. Incidentally, it is recommended for use on cycle transmissions, so perhaps you should be directing some of your comments to them.

dennisn

I remember back in the 60's when I had a 1966 Triumph Bonneville motorcycle, that
the manual said you could use automatic transmission fluid instead of oil for the primary chain / clutch side of the bike. Worked fine and actually improved clutch function over oil.
Now that was a high speed chain and it worked in a fluid(ATF) that is not really an IDEAL
lubricant, or at least so I've been told. Not sure why I threw this out there but....... :? :? .

rake

softlad wrote:

rake wrote:

no no no.
the stickier and thicker the better.heres why. teflon is no good either. the engineering principle that 'lubrication' works on is keeping metal surfaces that are being ground together apart with a hydraulic type action. this happens when two surfaces are close together and VISCOSITY takes over. the thinner the lubricant the less load it can carry before it squashes out and metal contacts. if its sticky it stays on longer. it will be sucked back into the chain in the same way its squashed out.
if chains were tight tolerance like in an engine then yes thick stuff would be no good simple because its too thick to get easily into the gaps, but chains are nothing like that tollerance since they wear and have loose fitting rollers and have to flex enough to change across the block, they also dont operate at anything like high speed and dont have much contact area so need thick oil or grease to support the load with bigger gaps and small contact area .
get a plastic bottle put a small hole in the top and fill i with oils of differing thickness.then try and squeeze the oil out. your squeezing represents the load on a bearing and the size of the hole is the tollerance. see the difference.
yes_ chainsaw oil , mtorcycle chain oil , thick oil,engine oil ok with regular application
no_ anything thin or teflon based, wd40,gt85 ,water , expensive.

there is so much wrong with this, I'm not sure where to start.

Your point about metal-to-metal contact is relevant, but the loads, stresses, flow dynamics and heat tolerance issues in engines are totally different to those on a bicycle chain, so you cannot use one argument to justify the other. A thick oil may provide longer lasting lubrication, but only at the expense of attracting dirt and dust into the transmission - which ironically may have the effect of actually shortening its life.

A thin, or teflon based lubricant is perfect as a cycle chain lube, in my opinion. You may need to apply it more regularly, but it works perfectly well. Personally, I use GT85 and have done so for many years. I used to use WD, but of the two, I prefer GT, specifically because of its teflon content. Incidentally, it is recommended for use on cycle transmissions, so perhaps you should be directing some of your comments to them.

they are trying to sell the stuff so will recommend it for eveything. i didnt justify it with engines i said why it has to be thicker because its totally different,as i said and teflon based is thinner. temperature has nothing to do with the lubrication, only how much the oil thins out which is compensated for by having it thicker at cold. my whole point is relevant. the viscosity is matched to the type of load and tollerance.

softlad

dennisn wrote:

I remember back in the 60's when I had a 1966 Triumph Bonneville motorcycle, that
the manual said you could use automatic transmission fluid instead of oil for the primary chain / clutch side of the bike. Worked fine and actually improved clutch function over oil.
Now that was a high speed chain and it worked in a fluid(ATF) that is not really an IDEAL
lubricant, or at least so I've been told. Not sure why I threw this out there but....... :? :? .

ATF is oil Dennis. Works fine in chaincases, and some gearboxes - as well as autoboxes. I've used it in the chaincase of a B25 and I think KTM still recommend it in some of their gearbox applications.....

softlad

rake wrote:

they are trying to sell the stuff so will recommend it for eveything. i didnt justify it with engines i said why it has to be thicker because its totally different,as i said and teflon based is thinner. temperature has nothing to do with the lubrication, only how much the oil thins out which is compensated for by having it thicker at cold. my whole point is relevant.

sorry, I've kind of lost track of what you are trying to say....

of course temperature is an important consideration for lubrication (although not on bicycles, obviously) - which is why engine oils are available in different mono and multi-grade weights.....it's all about viscosity versus flow.....

rake

softlad wrote:

rake wrote:

they are trying to sell the stuff so will recommend it for eveything. i didnt justify it with engines i said why it has to be thicker because its totally different,as i said and teflon based is thinner. temperature has nothing to do with the lubrication, only how much the oil thins out which is compensated for by having it thicker at cold. my whole point is relevant.

sorry, I've kind of lost track of what you are trying to say....

of course temperature is an important consideration for lubrication (although not on bicycles, obviously) - which is why engine oils are available in different mono and multi-grade weights.....it's all about viscosity versus flow.....

temperature is only important because they viscosity thins out as the oil heats up. thats why its thicker than ideal when its cold so as when its hot its at the correct consistency. it doesnt alter the fact that the viscosity is matched to the job. they multigrade is just to try and limit the effects of temperature to make it thin out less. thats why i said bike chains dont operate at high speed so temperature and drag dont matter. your right about viscosity versus flow and if it flows too easily it will hold little load with loose tollerance which bike chains are.thats why engines knacker when they wear, the tollerance gets greater the oil pressure drops because it squeezes out easier and the bigends ride metal to metal. thats why high mileage engine oil is thicker.

Bear77

+1 above.

Even though most of it is jibberish to me. :?

I clean the chains on some of my bikes so that they look nice. The hack bikes I don't bother with. Vanity is the only good reason for chain maintenance.

dennisn

softlad wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I remember back in the 60's when I had a 1966 Triumph Bonneville motorcycle, that
the manual said you could use automatic transmission fluid instead of oil for the primary chain / clutch side of the bike. Worked fine and actually improved clutch function over oil.
Now that was a high speed chain and it worked in a fluid(ATF) that is not really an IDEAL
lubricant, or at least so I've been told. Not sure why I threw this out there but....... :? :? .

ATF is oil Dennis. Works fine in chaincases, and some gearboxes - as well as autoboxes. I've used it in the chaincase of a B25 and I think KTM still recommend it in some of their gearbox applications.....

I only brought it up to show that just about any lube will work WELL on a simple bicycle chain. I'm definitely starting to rethink my buying of expensive little bottles from "The Lube of the Month Club", so to speak.

giant_man

softlad wrote:

giant mancp wrote:

WD40 is NOT a chain lubricant. Its a releasing agent. For gods sake, only a numpty would say the opposite.

http://bicycletutor.com/no-wd40-bike-chain/

The 'sticky stuff' that appears on your new chain is in fact, factory lubricant that's better than anything you or I could find to put on a chain. Don't get rid of it. Just look after your chain and keep it clean, lubricating it with decent lube such as Pedros syn lube or Phil Wood tenacious oil. Finish Line cross country for wet weather is good.

try reading the label, 'numpty' - it IS a lubricant. WD is simply a light oil in a carrier solvent - of course its a feckin lubricant. It may not be ideal for cycle chains, but it works adequately, nonetheless....

Yes numpty. It is a lubricant, But not one for bike chains. Numpty.

giant_man

softlad wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Of course I forgive you - Yamaha obviously have a vested interest in getting you to use their own product. I don't think the same applies in this instance, however. Healthy scepticism is a good thing, choosing your own methods, fine. As for the out of date comment, yes, chains used to be shipped with a product entirely designed to prevent rust during shipping, things have moved on and it is a suitable lube, and one that Sheldon Brown and others recommend that you don't remove. It will be replaced with your own lube soon enough, but it poses no performance issues, and the process of cleaning the chain if done too aggressively, may cause more problems than it solves. I speak as an ex-chain stripper, so maybe I am the worst type! But I have seen the light.

dear old sheldon - his is just another opinion, but one that many people fall back on in the event of a disagreement, because he is so easily linked to.

Perhaps if I started my own website, people on forums would eventually begin to link to that too - and eventually, my own views would become accepted as the 'industry norm' - because in terms of establishing personal opinions on what works or doesn't work, I am certainly no more or less qualified than he is....

God forbid!

softlad

giant mancp wrote:

Yes numpty. It is a lubricant, But not one for bike chains. Numpty.

works fine on bike chains - numpty. if it is a lubricant, it will lubricate...

STEFANOS4784

Errr, think people have forgotten the question. I wouldn't lubricate a new chain on the scientific basis that it has already got some kind of greasy type stuff on it and i'm lazy 8)

Not had a catasrophic failure yet :roll:

wilshawk

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

Errr, think people have forgotten the question. I wouldn't lubricate a new chain on the scientific basis that it has already got some kind of greasy type stuff on it and i'm lazy 8)

Not had a catasrophic failure yet :roll:

This is more or less what I have concluded too, as there are conflicting arguments for and against the factory lube, might as well stick just stick with it seeing as its already on the chain until it gets covered in filth anyway, that shouldnt take very long as I ride throught the gutters of south London.

strodey

Durex slide, no good for the winter as it washes off but comes in a racge of flavours to make your bike smell nice, strawberry i can recommend.

dennisn

strodey wrote:

Durex slide, no good for the winter as it washes off but comes in a racge of flavours to make your bike smell nice, strawberry i can recommend.

What about taste though?????

strodey

What about taste though?????

Tastes better than engine, chainsaw and general bike chain oil.

I better not say it tastes better than WD40 though as im sure that would result in abuse from the 'WD40 is the best lube ever' brigade

dennisn

strodey wrote:

What about taste though?????

Tastes better than engine, chainsaw and general bike chain oil.

I better not say it tastes better than WD40 though as im sure that would result in abuse from the 'WD40 is the best lube ever' brigade

I sort of get the idea that the WD40 crowd is somehow related to the Duct Tape crowd.
You can do almost anything with one or the other. And this may be true????

softlad

I think the most positive thing that anyone has said about WD40 on this thread is that it is 'adequate' as a chain lube.

That's hardly a glowing recommendation...

rake

its good for freeing rusty hinges type things.

the_hundredth_idiot

I wonder how the cost of a new chain every so often compares with the cost of obsessive cleaning rituals. I just bought three decent quality 10-speed chains for £30. The chain cleaning gizmo I bought a couple of years ago cost over £20 and I had to buy some cleaning fluid on top and it takes a lot of lube to relube the chain afterwards.

Somebody said they remove their chain every 100 miles! :shock: That's madness - I would be taking it off once or twice a week - and I'm barely at home during daylight hours at this time of year.

How about some middle ground? Wipe off the worst of the crap off the chain, add a bit of fresh lube, check the chain regularly and replace when it's knackered?

Having said that, this weekend's plan is to remove the cassettes on both my bikes, scrub clean and dunk in cleaner, refit to bike. :? That should get rid of all the gunk that's built up over the last couple of months. I might even give the chain a good clean with my overpriced gizmo while I'm at it.

Headhuunter

softlad wrote:

pbt150 wrote:

BTW WD40 isn't a good enough 'lubricant' to use on chains. It's alright for loosening bolts etc. but not as anything to keep your chain working.

different poster - same old nonsense.

WD is perfectly adequate as a lube - granted it is not marketed specifically as a chain lube, but I have used it on road, MTB and heavy duty motocross chains without issue.

The 'sticky' factory coating has more to do with preserving the condition of the chain while it is in the box. I have always wiped this off and re-applied a more regular lube...

WD is better than nothing but it's not thick enough to properly lube a chain, especially in nasty weather, the rains just washes it right off. If you really love yuor bike don't rely on WD40, get something specifically designed for the job, even if it's just the Decathlon cheap own brand stuff

carrock

according to wiki- wd40 is 50% hexane (similar to kerosene ) and 10-15% light oil, plus a propellant.

I would imagine the kerosene equivalent is what cleans away dirt, and the light oil lubricates- so a less effective substitute for degreasing and oiling then.

Better than nothing, but not as good as properly degreasing then applying a proper lube IMHO

strodey

Somebody said they remove their chain every 100 miles! That's madness - I would be taking it off once or twice a week - and I'm barely at home during daylight hours at this time of year.

That is every week, twice in the summer.

softlad

sod that - the only time I take my chain off is to replace it with a new one.....

geordieindevon

When I bought my bike last year, from a highly regarded bike shop in Exeter, I asked this exact question - What do I put on the chain?

Answer I got - 3 in 1 oil....so thats what I have used and its done the job, as well as running a rag along the chain every now and again to keep it clean.

not exactly rocket science!!!!

Klippy

WD40 IS too thin to use on a bike chain. It will keep it from forming stiff links but won't help with general wear and shifting.
Clean off the initial sticky stuff using disk brake cleaner / degreaser / other solvent stuff.
Then attach to bike. Take out links to get the right chain length. Fit back together.
Now lube the thing...shift the chain to the middle of the cassette, with your hand turn the cranks backwards and drizzle a little lube (specific bike lube) over the moving chain. Shift through all the gears to coat all the teeth on the chainrings/cogs.

Lube that is too thick will stay on longer but will hold onto crud from the road until you clean it.
Lube that is too thin will require more frequent application and can get washed off easier. It will run cleaner than a thicker lube.

DON'T do what I saw one plonker do, and use chip pan oil (used oil I'll add) to coat the chain/cassette/chainrings AND the rear rim "because the brake pads were squeaking"!!!

SiFundracer

First time poster and newbie to the cycling game so please don't come down too hard on me

I started off on an old cannondale R400 road bike a few months ago. Everything worked fine but as I am doing a 600 mile ride for charity soon i needed a new bike.

I bought a brand new Cube Aerial 2009. Loved the look of the bike so had to have it. I went out on my first outing on it, just a 20 miler to ease it in, get used to clipless pedals etc. It snowed and was raining quite heavily. I stupidly didnt clean the bike as soon as I got in and as I cleaned it the next morning i noticed that a slight amount of rust had formed on the chain. After cleaning it I went out on a 40 miler, Except i quickly realised that something was very wrong with the chain/gears. The first 6 gears would not work, they grinded, clunked and clicked, made a hell of a racket and felt like they were missing something, like they werent aligned correctly. As you can imagine doing that distance with hills in 7th gear wasn't the nicest experience! :x

Would you think that if I gave the chain a good clean and re-lubed it and greased it, would it disappear or does it sound like a problem with the alignment? I ordered it from a shop in Scotland and live in Wales so it's not like I can just pop it back to the shop unfortunately and so far have limited knowledge of the bike set up.

Also would it be better to use a dry chain lube at this time of year? Rock N Roll Absolute Dry Chain Lube was something I had my eye on. Anybody had any experience of this product?

Any help is greatly appreciated, Cheers

Si

fenski

Sounds to me like your gears need adjusted, especially the indexing. Most new bikes need this after a few miles use, to compensate for the cables bedding in and stretching.

This is a pretty straightforward job - there's plenty of guides on the Internet.

kieranb

well, I use only the highest quality fair trade extra virgin organic olive oil for my chain.

Actually once, I was stuck for oil and used some ordinary household sunflower oil, did the job although a bit of a dirt magnet. In ye olde days animal and vegetable fats were used as lubricants.

saladfunky

A confusing thread. . . I have used the terrible wd40 for 20 years with a regular wipe with a rag!! TUTT TUTT!!! Mind you my chain was always fine for use. I have recently been using one of these teflon type lubs, quite smelly and expensive. . . God I do hope this os ok???
:oops: