Video

Hey Alex! yes im digging a bit deeper on "GO wax", as they also recently launched i believe pre waxed chains using squirt - so i am wondering if GO Wax is just re branded Squirt. Either way overall any move away from factory grease and onto a good wax lube gives more people a better start to their chain and drivetrain lifespan, and with wippermann also selling pre waxed (i believe immersive waxed), it will be interesting to see how all this goes and if others will also follow, i will cover this a little on todays vid i think as there are some challenges for the bigger OEM's like shimano and sram to do.

Yep - there was a time when i was commuting a solid distance that building up a dream commuter bike with a belt drive and alfine hub was on the plans. But as i now work from home and thus the commute from the dining room to the work shop is quite short and its rarely raining inside (nor does the wife allow me to salt the passageway) - I just cant justify a commuter bike :) But yep - otherwise 4 months of the year is solid, and if it is a dedicated commuter bike - you are more or less committing to a new chain, cassette and likely chainring/s each winter season. Over 5 years? maybe this still adds up to the cost of an alfine hub rear wheel and belt drive conversion - especially if add in the cost of maintenance time, mess and faff etc. But....... offsetting that is hub drive is not maintenance free either, typically you would need to get it serviced, cleaned and regreased at end of each season - im not sure how much that costs but it would be worth checking with LBS that services Alfine hub (or any geared hub) before making that decision. Depending on groupset, just accepting going through a chain, cassette and chain rings at lower tiers ie 10spd tiagra - thats cheap running. A lot of the information i am putting out is more aimed at those who do want to not destroy a drivetrain over a season etc as it will cost something ouch vs paths to keep it low friction and very low wear.

yes it really is! oh man - a wet lube and offroad especially - its just a constant nightmare. I have a racing buddy who has been using wet lube for ages - every week, every single week - he does a full off bike degreaser flush clean (he trains an average of 15 hours a week - he is a gun). How much time and how much degreaser a year does he go through..... but i cant even get him onto wax drip - he is just comfortable doing what he is doing, and that is not that uncommon. but i do always find the contrast with some quite humorous. Remove chain for full degrease clean = normal behavior. Remove chain to put in a pot of wax = batshit crazy who has time for that!!!

what? why?! What bicycle has an o-ring chain? Motorcycle chain lubes are mostly for o-ring chains, and so are a different focus / purpose than bicycle chain lubricants that have a much more difficult challenge. Testing is flat out, and test resources are precious, and so mostly the focus needs to be where it is at the moment vs hail mary curiosity tests.

Yes based on the fact that ludicrous, M-O Wet, and Nano all had near exactly the same 70% increase in wear rate as soon as exposed to contamination - i think there is a high chance they are all using the same base (the same base deliberately chose to skew / fudge / cheat - pick which one you like - in my opinion - their FTT testing). So sure if it is in a very clean environment - Ludicrous AF may be fine, but oh man it is SO EXPENSIVE - one could use a number of other top wet lubes for much less, and likely still have much lower wear as ludicrous AF didnt exactly slay it in clean block 1 either with 8.9% wear from memory, vs say 0.0% for synergetic at half the price

ooh no not yet, there have been a few articles on some publications as IM waxing was more present this year (ie Team visma with a groovy set up). Every year it will be more and more present from the simple fact it is the lowest friction and with the highest contamination resistant so it remains the lowest friction across a stage (most especially gravel stages). Despite the known benefits for a long, long time (key riders for key stages have used pre prepped wax chains from ceramic speed and others for a long time, now more top end players in the field such as wattshop etc), and key events, and really there has been barely any successful world record attempts (hour records etc) not on wax chains for about a decade or more. Just the pro mechanic scene is a) resistant to change from processes they have been doing for decades - ie degreaser in a cut open bidon and brush, and go over chain, and re lube - changing to a new process that requires new / different equipment - some teams get all over that in a jiffy, other teams the head mechanic will hang on to how it has been done for the last 3 decades till the death. And yes absolutely correct re sponsorship - when lubricant MFG is part of helping you achieve the budget you need to run the team, it is hard to pass that up. But - as more and more mfg either come to market with an IM wax, or existing mfg add an IM wax to their line up - then more teams sponsored by the mfg - it will also make it easier vs trying to sneak in key riders on key stages on a non sponsor correct wax chain. It will be a little bit like tubeless i think - slowly slowly at the start, teams play with for X event, then expand a bit, then go all in, and then more teams follow. About 2 decades later the majority of world tour XC mtb mechanics will catch up despite greater benefits for them, and about another 2 decades after that WT enduro and downhill mechanics will be on it. I hope i live long enough to see wax chains dominate the gravity world hahahaha.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks Adam for the detailed reply. I'm sure all the head mechanics will eventually catch up.😃

Yep - thus far i am being very diplomatic and giving them some time to provide further detail and clarification re these claims, as - whilst we had a really good chat, and my impression from them is they are really genuine re their efforts behind halo product line, i just could not get to grips or understand with the rolling effect claims, and also that these spheres are exfoliating layers at the same time, and also that these spheres being hollow spheres is key part of the reducing vibration in chain claim which i dont think i even really went into on this vid. in short, there is a lot going on with these spheres that is very difficult to square away the claims vs physics and logic - the summary in the end for the moment is i have sent off an email that took even my fast typing fingers a long time to type with follow up questions and clarifications, and they advise that really from their side - marketing to try to easily highlight to the average non mechanically minded cyclist some really complex goings on in a simple manner has maybe not put forward the most correct explanation. I have been pretty gentle on it at the moment, due to the fact they were willing to actually have a deep chat and take lots of deep questions without acting in any way defensive - but at the end of the day by the time i do the first detail review (halo IM wax has just started the brutal zfc test now) - we need to get to the bottom of it all because they have to be responsible for marketing claims that are factual and accurate or they will be called out for marketing claims that simply defy a whole bunch of things and are misleading the average non mechanically minded cyclist. Going to be interesting where we end up on these little hollow tungsten spheres.... so far they are proving to be a riot.

Thanks Paul! you should start a channel!

@@zerofrictioncycling992 you welcome - use the feed back to get better. length is killing your views

A lot of great thoughts there - and yes correct indeed they did advise the particles "compress" under load as shown in the diagram - but as you say that would then make rolling rather tricky - but also simply being hard enough to retain say an oval shape, and remain hollow - at that scale that would just be so hard it would carve furrows into the steel surface. And at the same time they are also exfoliating layers. How many layers does a particle that size (that is hollow) have to give each load cycle before the particle has exfoliated itself away? is that... 100 load cycles? or 1 minute of cycling at 100 cadence? or is it 1000 so 10 minutes of cycling, or 100,000? Once the particle is no longer there as hollow sphere as it has given all it has to give, what does that mean regarding the vibration reduction from high torque pedaling - that claim is linked directly to the hollow spheres.... So these hollow spheres are a complex claim to dissect and understand indeed, and i have already sent off an email that took me about an hour to type out to ask a pretty large amount of follow up questions and clarifications that we couldn't nail down in our first call catch up. I really hope their Halo line up tests extremely well, it would be brilliant to see a legacy Mfg like FL step into what i class as a much more modern line up of products and nail it. However even if the products test extremely well, understanding their marketing claims is still going to be a bit of journey, as they have made some claims that are really difficult to understand what is going on and why, and where these claims have come from - and i dont want any mfg making marketing claims to consumers that are just not accurate - ie there really cannot be any rolling effect from particles at that scale, they are not going to roll like ball bearings, which is the mental map being presented - most cyclists reading that marketing and seeing those pictures will be thinking that in the lubricant there are all these tiny ball bearings the parts of their chain are rolling on helping reduce friction - and it simply cannot be so. So despite how awesome Hank and Daniel were to chat with - the technical details of exactly what is going on with sub micron size spheres, that retain a shape (spherical to oval), that are able to remain hollow, and that are also exfoliating, and that despite retaining their shape to a degree are not abrasive to the metal surface by being hard enough to do so - it is a lot to try to understand what is actually happening and how - and so yeah - will be chatting a fair bit more with them i think and hopefully the right person in R&D can explain it too me such that i can then explain it to viewers during the detail review on the test results.

I think a few things - testing is a) a grind and one that is very difficult to make money from and b) he had side business of UFO chains (ultra fast optimization) - so then had a product in the space he was an independent test facility - what happens another product tests faster than his UFO wax? and then c) Ceramic speed offered $$ to buy friction facts and give him a job as chief technical officer. So he did a lot of brilliant and pioneering work in this space, and really was the starting catalyst for all the focus on just how massive a difference chain lubrication makes - but it was going to be difficult to keep FF going and make viable income vs stability of a great position with ceramic speed.

​@@zerofrictioncycling992 Oh, ok. I had no idea about the side business. I just remember following him for ages and then the whole thing disappeared without me realizing (until now). Do Ceramic Speed do anything with FF then? Or did they buy it just to control it/shut it down? I know that can be a standard tactic in business...

Thanks Fritman! Yes pls send vid link, would be great to see. I have nothing against great marketing, however - i really would like more making fairly specific claims to have SOMETHING tangible to back those claims, even though i know it is tricky in this area. Re testing its funny as for awhile i was getting a request re testing optimize wax just about every day, and i was pretty sure it was optimize :). When i mentioned that on a reply - yes it was optimize. I sympathize a bit of course as alas due to the very large time resources involved (and some parts cost) the zfc main test is not cheap, and it can be a big cost for smaller companies / starts ups. But whilst i do try to do open tests of products that either a) i believe have a great chance of being a top product or b) i am most concerned about marketing claims vs reality or c) the most requested product test - in Optimize case they are just one of many many IM wax companies sprung up over the last 5 years on the back of IM wax growth in popularity, and they are fairly localized re distribution so global interest is low. They are just a long way from ever making it to be tested on ZFC own curiosity as i just have so many much higher knowledge and interest value tests to get done when i can in between booked private tests. In short he would really need to book a private test - the above i went through with him by email. He seems to be nailing the marketing side overall - attractive looking products, strong performance claims, pitched at a premium end and the more in depth tech side with Ultrasonics etc which will give an impression to many that Optimize are at the performance end of the market. So i think it would be great if he did provide some substantiation of the marketing claims with some independent test data - even some robust field test data (which is not easy, but can be done).

Hey Derek! The gas that may be evaporating is simply because the paraffin is boiling. Liquids boil at lower temps the lower the atmospheric pressure, so at near vacuum, that temperature is going to be very low. I have tried vacuum as well as it just never stops - i kept it going for 3 days and nights straight. And it just keeps bubbling. So the vacuum application is not removing trapped gas / air in the wax etc that may be a negative for the coating going on the chain, you are simply boiling the wax and creating a never ending conversion of paraffin to gas. Again the chains do not have penetration issues submerged in low viscosity liquid. They are far from water proof. So if the parts are coated in wax - it is hard to "coat them more" - and the case that the coating will contain air bubbles or gas that would impact vs a vacuum application is lets say very far from established. If an improvement cannot be measured via treatment lifespan, chain wear lifespan or efficiency - is that improvement worth extra faff and equipment etc. I would say likely no harm in doing, however you may well be going through wax faster if you are boiling it off, and are you breathing in gas thats not necessarily optimal vs not breathing in gas...

yes, and thats great, the more mfg's offering chains with wax vs factory grease is my cyclists starting a great low wear journey and not having to use solvents or other to move to a proper useable chain lubricant vs something made for packing. They have been supplying cyclowax in belgium chains sans factory grease for fair while now so that CW dont have to immediately just strip FG off for their pre waxed chains, so i guess since doing that they have decided to go the next step themselves which is excellent. And yep also heard about kmc but not 100% sure what using yet, however even if its squirt - thats still way better than FG and so still a good move. And you too cat, im about to layer up for 4hrs gravel ride in ummm mixed conditions! I am very much going to be Princess Layer.

Thats a fair way off. If a lubricant rapidly becomes very abrasive in offroad conditions, whereas others do not - then why would this product be a good choice. Who wants to use a product where they would have to flush clean re set their chain basically every ride, to try to keep wear in a not terrible place, when other products remain very low friction and wear for many, many rides? Lets take say two vaccum powerheads - one clogs with hair every few minutes and need to remove the brushes, untangle the hair etc. The other does not tangle or clog and you just keep going and get rooms done efficiently. Do we just go oh just clean your shit - if you unclog it every 3 mins its fine, its not its fault your using it improperly and trying to use it clogged etc I dont understand how your takeaway from the detail review is that a lubricant that becomes many times more abrasive than others very quickly - that the answer to that is to just constantly throw more time and cleaning product at it, vs simply choosing from a number of vastly better products.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 my point is to not use wet lube for those conditions in the first place. It's not intended for that use.

@@jackserna3440 it is heavily marketed by WT as an offroad lubricant. And an all conditions lubricant. Even for dry road conditions, it is very wet, and so becomes very dirty and more abrasive more quickly than many other wet lubes. It is just flat out not a competitive choice in any conditions. And the marketing claims re cleaning agent that will clean as it lubricates are extremely misleading, because it is complete BS. So even for perfect riding conditions a product that quickly becomes a mess, has higher wear, has bullshit marketing claims, is expensive, and needs a lot of time and cleaning product cost to maintain to a level thats not flat out shite - to me does not class it as "The lube is just fine". WT do a lot of great stuff. This product is a stain on their reputation. If they allowed themselves to be fooled by Scc Slick to sell that lubricant under their name - they just need to check the bloody wear rates of their chains using it vs other competitor products - any in the top 5 on the league table - and then they should quickly pull this product from their line up and put their name to a lubricant that does not become liquid sandpaper in new york minute - especially in the demographic they mainly market this product too. Your analogy re bars replacing suspension etc is not valid at all. All chains need lubricant. Bicycle chain lubricant is a nightmare for cyclists because any mfg can claim anything they like - and they do - with zero to substantiate. But the difference in wear rates, maintenance and cost to run between the genuine excellent products vs poor performing products is MASSIVE. And for those that end up on a poor product thanks to BS marketing = big ouch in wear rates and costs. And that is not cool. And mfg who have a great product struggle to stand out in the sea of products when anyone can claim anything, even if the product is terrible. So part of ZFC work in the league table from the worlds most exhaustive and realistic test is to make it easy to see which products are genuinely great products brought to market, and who has just brought great marketing to market but a terrible product. It really is not a difficult one with WT-1 which category this one sits it. It is a very poor product. It is marketed such that the word "misleading" is being very kind. It is painful to me that mfg bring such products and marketing to sale which will hurt the wear and running costs and maintenance costs of those who buy them vs good products. They need to be held to account. Being an apologist for crap products can simply further more cyclists using a poor product vs one that would be excellent for them, and supporting MFg's bringing excellent products to market vs drivetrain eating shit. Sorry that may all sound harsher in typing that if i was to talk through the point - im not trying to sound harsh directly back at you - im just pretty harsh on shite vs genuinely good products, and pretty harsh on BS marketing - because it really has an impact on a cyclists hard earned $$. It is a wild west in this space and that just leaves everyone vulnerable to BS marketing - any ol shite can be bottled up as a bicycle chain lube and put out whatever you want to make up about what it does and how and just have at it to gain market share. Me / ZFC work very hard to combat that, its a big job of one tiny little independent test facility - and so i push back strongly against situations where there is support for bad products that should not be out there, and definitely not marketed by otherwise excellent brands like WT. its like pick your favourite nutrition and supplements brand - and then they start pushing vaping and cigarettes. Be like wtf. Why is a good company like WT pushing a drivetrain eating cutting fluid with obvious complete BS clean as lube claims (for legal purposes - in my opinion - based on robust testing however). They should not, and hopefully in time ZFC testing and reviews and then public support of that helps reverse such situations.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Well done 👍🏻 It is the wild wild west. We definitely need better products as tested by theoretical and applied research in all conditions. I'll subscribe and follow for more information

yes what ybn model and where purchased from? I have been using mostly ybn for a long long time, and they have gained a lot of popularity of the years as also strongly recommended by silca for some time as well. Without checking the numbers for 11spd i would say we sell ybn sla at at least 10 to one over any other 11spd chain (ie shimano, campy) - 12spd is more tricky as sram flat top need sram flat top, shimano 12s for hyperglide + many go shimano - so sales of ybn sla 12 would be similar to total sales of sram / shimano / campy. But all up will have sold circa 8000 ybn sla chains over last circa 5 years - which is A LOT. To date we havent had a lateral chain wear issue. There is the very odd shift issue but this happens with all chains and unless chain is badly worn period (and thus components worn) - new / new ish chain and shift issues / drop chain issues - it is always something else other than the chain. So yeah the sheer volume of chains we sell, in peak times of the year we can have circa 50 ybn a week going out - and no lateral / floppy / shift issues - they are a great chain or i wouldnt stock them! so something is happening with yours thats unusual!

@@zerofrictioncycling992 talking about 11 speed ones. I got the SLA versions. One with the cut outs in the side, another without. Both in gold color. I also got two rainbow sla 11 chains. The one in my MTB I got from AliExpress, still going strong. The other ones I bought from R2bike in Germany (a reputable seller) and the wear has been horrible. Worked fine for 3000 or 4000 kms Measure almost zero but lots of shifting issues. I change just the chain everything is perfect, so I don’t suspect component wear. With a dura-ace chain and using the same waxing methods I got about 20.000 kms before getting to 0.5 wear. If I understand your comments on this, they should probably be fakes. If there was something off with my waxing methods it should also affect elongation and Shimano chains…

You might be right about the Tungsten spheres ? I'm not so sure about using metallic lead as a lubricant. Looking at the static and dynamic coefficients of friction for lead - lead and lead-steel on the ' roymech coefficients of friction ' site suggests this would be a bad idea. I can't find values for lead - paraffin wax ( not a common combination ) . Having thought about it for a few hours I replaced a previous comment with this one. I think the toxicity issues would prevent its use in bike chains. Although I have not read it explicitly , I have the impression that Lead is used to prevent wear, rather than for low power loss / efficiency ? Anyway , you got me thinking about it so kudos for suggesting it.

that would be very odd mistake...

yes that is best practice, hence for cleaning its usually best for aqueous US solutions. It is unlikely to be an issue for wax tho

Groovy if that is working in your pot - i think though a lot of pot sizes you wouldnt get much swishing in, and the normal bit of bent wire is pretty easy to thread chain on, but also in handling to unthread and hang over something. I think you would have a field day with my waxing like a boss video. I can predict at least 10 more hacks for that one :)

Yep cant argue too much with that hack except the stick blender (or milk frother) wont score the bejeezus out of yr pot if you go too low.

Why do I want to agitate my wax?

@@alastairstedman7840 if you have a groovy commercial wax, then you want to ensure the friction modifier additives are event distributed through the wax vs all settled to the bottom of the pot.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I do use Silca Secret wax. I just tend to swish my chain vigorously in the wax and I also swirl the pot kinda like a giant wine glass (gotta get the smell of the wax on the back of the pallet) Is that not enough?

@@alastairstedman7840 ha, yes that is for sure plenty, any ol decent swishing is fine :) Im now looking for a pot shaped like a cognac glass....

no thats a great thought / question. Yes, the chain should be the consumable part as it is typically much less expensive than the cassette and chain rings - and this gap can be very large on high end groupsets where cassettes can be many hundreds, and same re rings. A long term issue is that a frankly huge % of cyclists do not keep check of chain wear. So chains wearing fairly rapidly to 0.5% and beyond (made worse the also huge amount of lubricants that do an average to poor job as they quickly become abrasive) - meaning that the majority of cyclists are caught out needing to replace cassette and sometimes also chain rings when get a new chain, and this can be after not that many kms really. So - Sram going an approach that makes chains extremely hard wearing - for the cyclists that would have needed to replace everything with a new chain anyway - this is all groovy - for them. However for the lesser, but hopefully increasing number of cyclists that are on top of their chain wear, and have been replacing chains by 0.5% and getting multiple chains to a cassette and rings - the much increased lifespan of the hardchrome chains is seemingly causing some issues, and a change in recommendations. So in srams view it seems rather than the usual 0.5% and then potentially have issues with new chain - it is too awkward to go hey replace at say 0.3% - it will be same or more anyway by then as other chains at 0.5%, and go multiple chains - instead it is an approach of hey just run yours out to 0.8% and then replace everything.

Ha if i am i am so doing it wrong - where is my influencer money and affiliate link cheques... oh wait i dont do affiliate links or anything like that..... :) And no i would not do that. I can't say for certain that it wouldnt improve - maybe in dry conditions, but i can say from a lot of testing here and also efficiency testing data from ceramic speed that over the years some patterns are emerging (again this is not conclusive, just - the case for going too heavy is not strong). > Too high a concentration of friction modifier MAY increase treatment lifespan, and MAY increase wear protection, but beyond a certain amount it MAY make the wax slower. > High concentration mixes so far have all tested notably higher wear in wet conditions. Low concentration mixes thus far have always tested notably better. I believe also very much that there is ws2 and ws2. Silca / Mspeedwax etc obtain from Tier 1 suppliers, and it is not cheap, and i think silca also does this but i know that Mspeedwax also have their supply independently tested that what they ordered is what they received. Over the years a number of big mfg have had a product batch issue because a key additive has not been what it was supposed to be. What people buy from ebay or alibaba - sure it may claim its X - but is it? when it costs 1/10th or 1/20th what it costs to get from a tier 1 supplier? If you buy the genuine good stuff from a genuine chemical supplier who typically supplies to labs etc - then sure - mixing in some more - you may get a longer lasting, more wear protective mix FOR DRY conditions - and a worse mix for wet conditions. If you just buy something claiming to be 99.9% pure 1/2 micron ws2 from ebay and mix that in - if i was me i just wouldnt mix that with a quality wax, i would only faff doing that if making my own diy wax

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thank you, good to know.

its is possible, but the fact they have made a conscious decision to go to 0.8% when 0.5% has been the recommended mark for over a decade now - again i think we can see what they are doing and why.

Generally yes - 1x can present a greater loss of efficiency due to more extreme chain line angles due to a) greater angle from chain ring position and b) 1x typically can push ranges a bit - so large cogs can increase chain line angle over smaller cogs as chain cannot leave until later. Ie imagine if you had a 60t chain ring and a 60T largest cog - the chain line angle would be such that most chains would not run. As such greater efficiency losses on some 1x systems in largest cog can be quite high due to chain line angle, and these losses are going into laterally wearing chain. If that is the type of riding one does, and they prefer 1x (a lot of reasons still to prefer 1x) - some little hints and tips can really make a big difference. 1) Use cassette shims to space cassette outboard as far as frame clearance allows. 2) remove DS spacers on crank to move chain ring as far inboard as frame / crank allows, then use pedal washers (and or may need longer spindle for pedal) to re -centre q-factor. Even a couple of mm at both ends can make a big difference to losses in largest cog. if chain line angle remains within chains natural lateral flexibility, losses are very low, and pedalling in largest cog very smooth. Once chain line angle is beyond the chains natural lateral flex, then parts are loaded up quickly with every bit more angle, and this also places increasing pressure on the pin rivets that are now trying to prevent outer plate from being pried off pin. Over time these can fatigue fail - so chain line angles that are increasing lateral wear and efficiency losses also increase risk of chain failure over time - so if one is doing a lot of loaded up climbing - a bit of tinkering to have the least chain line angle in largest cogs is well worth the time.

thanks for taking time to report your experience, it is always great to get real world use information to discuss. This one is tricky though as based on the test - it is difficult to support that there is any protection of any type occurring. Remember instead of the usual 400km stint in big ring - re lube, 200km small ring, re-lube - 400 km in big ring - to make the first 1000km block 1, as the chain was squeaking so badly towards then end of each 100km distance, i changed to re lube every 100km. So it had many re lubes just in block 1 (an entire 4oz's - in 1000km), and still it struggled badly to reach even 100km of running, and all up returned a wear rate similar to no lube. There can be differences in power (lower power = longer lasting, lower wear), And perhaps there is difference with your chain vs an ultegra 11spd. Re no wear on park tool - remember they are a go / no go tool - so by the time it drops in - thats 100% worn. Not dropping in doesnt = 0% wear. but all up - thats a remarkable result for you on that lubricant. only other think i can think of is potentially batching issue / differences - but the FL wax on test here was literally about as effective as taking a wee on your chain. Most other comment experiences i think have been more in line with the test result - so at the moment i am puzzled with your excellent result, but very pleased you didnt have a worn drivetrain from this product!

maybe, its a wild sentence - but the fact they have brought out a tool that goes to 0.8, when 0.5% has been the recommended for so long, for good reason - it points to them taking a completely different approach which is not good. however i am working to try to get the right contact at sram to discuss.

Honestly that would be amazing. But currently that is about 1000 levels of YT creator above where i have the time & skills to do. I am just an everyday cyclist focusing in this area with ZFC as a hobby business. If i can get more time and skills over time then some better presentation skills would be great, but oh so many other YT channels, they have real creators on them (many with a whole team for scripting, filming, editing and effects). What i have is typically a 1 to 2hr recording block on a friday as well as a lack of numerous skills. My apologies.

not it certainly isnt abrasive as such, however it is possible it does not have the absolute outright speed of some other surface treatments, and MAY be part of why sram chains typically test on the slower end of the scale in ceramic speeds efficiency testing of chains.

yes and also MOST cyclists also lift or at least lower their pedalling load when shifting. Actual wear pressure on shift ramps themselves i expect is so low as to not be any factor at all vs simply wearing teeth period (which in itself will wear the shift ramps, and so i think shift ramp wear is being conflated with just outright teeth wear).

>3000km on a cheap Microshift CS-H083 12-42T cassette and maybe 90% of of the ED Black coating on the ramps is still there. It's on a road bike so it doesn't see mud. Nearly all the missing coating is within 1mm of the outer edge of the cog ( more near the teeth tips ). Each ramp has a missing patch of about 5mm2 at the bottom of the valley between teeth pointing rearward. There are several ramps on the largest cogs so wear will be spread between them. Chain wax may collect on the ramps protecting them ? The surface of mine seemed slippery and polished. I currently only immersive wax.

@@dawn_rider nice, yes i think many cheap cassettes - being steel - would have greater wear resistance than a number of high end cassettes - ie dura ace - with alloy cogs.

I havent yet had any real look into tools that attempt to measure chain ring wear. Chain ring tooth profiles from one brand to another simply vary so much i am just skeptical how well they could work. So absolute end of life measurements would be very chain ring model dependent. Best ways to get best lifespan from chainrings (and cassette) is to run multiple chains on rotation as you basically guarantee to get those 2 or even 3 chains through a set as everything wears together and keeps mesh in a happy place. There are limits (ie likely hardchrome chains - 2 will be your max rotation before chainring wear on mtb would outstrip chain wear by enough that even with chains not worn, chain ring wear would be and issue, and possibly any alloy cogs on a cassette - for non hardchrome chains 3 chains will likely be the practical limit for mtb rings. Most road chainrings should see out 2 x 2 chains on rotation to 0.5 or a little under or even 2 x 3 if non hard chrome). I would simply go that path vs trying to faff with actually measuring chain ring wear as this would be very approximate, and still not help if next new chain runs rough

yep. For mtb it is VERY common that the chainring will not survive past one chain, even to 0.5%. They are often varying levels of hardness re aluminium alloy - ranging from pretty durable to really not. One fairly small ring doing all the work - its a tough gig. Cassette varies a lot. Srams x01 / xx1 eagle - the 11 smallest cogs are tool steel and extremely hard wear. If you mostly keep it out of the alloy 50/52 cog - the cassettes will typically have no issue seeing out even the super long lasting x01 /xx1 chains - at least my oldest xx1 cassette the steel cogs still measured basically new. GX is a lower steel grade, aftermarket cassettes are also typically much faster wearing than the tool steel used on srams x01 /xx1 level. T-type is going to be interesting, seeking more info on the cassette material

yes that seems to be the issue - its not that their cassettes / rings are fast wearing - in fact overall we believe they are on the hardier side of things as well, it is just that the hardchrome treatment they use on higher level 12spd chains is incredibly wear resistant, it is way ahead of other chains on the market regarding wear durability. This is basically bringing up this new issue that by the time their chains are reaching the normal 0.5% wear mark - it can be unlikely a new chain will go onto existing components without issues. And so they are basically say look dont risk that, push them out to 0.8%, and then replace everything. So if they want to explicitly say that - thats fine, and we can discuss the pro's and cons of srams vs others based on that. but what you cant say is that replacing chains early "causes premature wear" to cassettes and chain rings. They are saying this to avoid people replacing chains earlier than their own recommended 0.8%, and then having mesh / running rough issues. So basically putting out a knowingly very false statement, as explaining the actual situation is a little too messy for them

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Damn that is a complete mess. WTF indeed!

Yet there are a bunch of interesting questions after. Maybe just not your preferred way to get this type of content. I learned a few things along the way, so worth it for me.

CS have tested one of the t-types from memory and it was same as red, but they havent tested a variety of T-Type yet to see if any weird things going on at different chain levels, nor the new red e1. Not sure when / if they will get to, they have been building and calibrating a very fancy new test machine. nearly done, but im not sure what the managment have backed up the test man there to do before he can start doing curiosity tests like this again. For the moment, still assume all flat top are on the slower side of chain efficiency, and but hardchrome are the best training chains, racers should look to the ybn sla mk 12 as race chains which is lightning fast, but will have much lower wear life vs hard chrome

its not a typo - it is clear why they are saying what they are saying (well, at least i am 99.999% certain it is what i have covered here) - however for sure i am trying to get the right contact, i have someone working on that for me, and will update how this all goes.

I get what your saying, but - in reality the odds on them planning and executing such would be nil. Remember they are competing at the world level, they their high end products to compete at the world level - so chains and drivetrain components will be designed to run perfectly when new. Due to efficiency reasons, at high level racing chains are changed very frequently, and so a WT riders cassette and chainrings will see many new chains in a season, whilst remaining basically not affected by wear. SRAM nor anyone else in cycling would try to tolerance parts such that initially they dont run as well new as when they are X thousand kms old. That would be nuts.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 okay but lots of things have a brake in period. like brakepads, some firearms, pedals. It isnt X thousand kms unless X << 1. You are probably right and maybe its a typo, but some times things are designed in such a way that it works best in its typical configuration. The SR71s fuel tanks leaked when on the ground since it was designed for cruising at mach speed. idk not a chain engineer.

@@bermchasin yes for sure - and for sure there is a break in period with chains too - it is just that we are talking (depending on brand and model) 30 mins to a few hours. So you could almost think of it similar to bedding in new pads (except more steps to do it properly). But it is a rather minute thing overall, and certainly not something that can account for srams information which is something very different.

it is likely just the material that the chainrings are made of. Like cassettes there is huge variance in brands / models chain rings hardness against wear, and some are simply very soft and do not hold up well at all, whereas others if people are replacing chains at 0.5 will likely have no hope wearing out rings for however long they keep that bike

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Oh, okay, I misunderstood. I thought you’d been saying chainrings and cogs will only wear out this soon if chains are run beyond the .5 wear mark or develop excessive lateral wear before going beyond .5 elongation wear.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 BTW it would be really helpful to get your take on how to use the Abbey LL tool for measuring lateral wear. My results vary drastically depending on whether I do it as shown in Abbey’s CZcams video or as shown in your video (applying pressure to the extended part of the chain).

@@williambracken9339 yes true that - using on length of chain just running past is easier to exert a lot more leverage, the way i did there i simply pressed hard, and without pressure it springs back up to about measure 3 - but yes will confirm for sure