quote:
Originally posted by TxRider:
If dry film lubricants like Moly are a key ingredient for minimizing chain/sprocket wear, then regardless of the carrier, whether it's a slow thickening type grease or thin solvent it gets the moly where it does some good; that is, between the roller and pin.
You will not find a moly fortified chain lube that is full of tackifier. Moly is a polar solid, and has a natural affinity to adhere to the asperities of the metal's surfaces.
Thick petroleum lubes and waxes will often times NOT get to where they can do some good. They will often set up before the lube can reach the friction area. It is also possible for thick lubes to actually create an air pocket at the pin/bushing area, in which situation none of the lube got where it was intended to go.
Another benefit of a solvent base carrier is that it cleans the metal asperities as it is penetrating and depositing lubricating materials.
One thing I need to add JFYI...you mentioned "between the roller and pin"... the roller never comes in contact with the pin. The construction of a roller chain is two sideplates seperated by pins, around these pins are bushings, and around these bushings are the rollers.
Spocket teeth contact the rollers, rollers contact the OD of the bushings,ID of the bushings come in contact with the pins.
quote:
Originally posted by TxRider:
If one wipes down a chain next morning to remove the excess tackified lube from the chain exterior then what advantage is there to using a solvent based moly lube?
You can wipe a dry-film lube off with ease at any time.
Takified lubes are hard enough to wipe off before they set, let alone after. After the lube has set, it takes a solvent just to get it off.
quote:
Originally posted by TxRider:
If it's true that o-rings need some lube of their own how does a solvent based moly lube provide that? Moly, as I understand it, is a metal to metal dry lube and should serve minimally if at all to do the orings any good.
True, the moly will not serve to keep the rings fortified. However, a well built moto chain specific dry-film will contain other synthetic fluids that will keep the rings supple and fortified.
Moly is a very tenacious mineral when suspended in a solvent. It is quite evident that moly does indeed help with a bit of the friction caused by the rings. Roll the suspended wheel of a bike using a ring chain, then lube it with a moly-rich dry-film and spin the wheel. The difference is dramatic.
quote:
Originally posted by TxRider:
Your assertion that countershaft sprockets don't wear except as a function of chain elongation due to pin/roller wear- do you have and would you share test results with numbers or do you have some other meaningful information we could examine to see for ourselves how dry film lubes are superior to what we've been using both in countershaft sprocket wear as well as chain wear?
I began reading these 2 threads about chain lubes and have to admit to coming into this with some preconceived notions but I'm ready to be convinced with data, and or factual info.
One small bit of data that I have, is that a ring chain is constructed with a given amount of lubricant supplied to the pin/bushing area. This finite amount of lube results in the chain only being able to survive a finite amoount of hours before the lube is violated and wear begins on a grand scale. Nothing can be done to reverse the wear. The chain is soon toast.
The standard roller chain on the other hand, can last as long as the ring chain and then past that, due to the ability we have to continually lubricate the friction points.
And I know this goes against the conventional wisdom that a ring chain will out survive a standard roller chain. BUT...perhaps folks simply haven't been pulling the proper maintenance or using the correct products to enjoy the benefits of a standard chain.
I have proven this both on the bench and in the field.
I only have certified testing numbers of dry-films compared to other dry-films of similar make-up. We have never had any certified testing done in comparison of dry-films and petroleum chain lubes. We know from our in-house testing with Timkin type wear machines that there is no petro or parrafin lube on the market that can compete. I've got a shelf full of just about any popular brand chain lube on the market as well as other "all purpose" and exotic boutique lubes.
The only thing that comes close to the performance of moto specific dry-films are other dry-films of similar make-up.
One thing that may help you make a decision is to try it for yourself. I have yet to find a person who goes to a moto specific dry-film and returns to the old way.
But, let me add some more food for thought...(if that's what thought eats)
When we understand the differnce between full fluid film or "hydrodynamic" lubrication, and barrier or "boundery" lubrication it helps us to decide what is best for roller chains.
When we use a petroleum lubricant, we mostly depend on the lube to form a wedge between the metal surfaces. If this wedge is not maintained, the sharp edges of the metal will shear one another off, resulting in elongation from wear.
With no vehicle to keep the lube refreshed, petroleum lube will be useless in short order. Especially lubes like motor oil that have no heavy tackifier in them. Centrifugal force slings the lube outwards and out from the friction area.
If you do use a thick takified lube, it will contain very little lubricant to do a sufficient job for a long period of time. Comman sense tells us that the more tackifier in the lube, the less lube by volume.
When the fluid film protecting an auto engine is violated, the piston wall and the rings for example, there are barrier additives in motor oil that will take over the job of protecting the surfaces. But, with a roller chain, there is very little lube available in the first place, let alone an abundance of barrier lube to help protect, nor a vehicle to keep it refreshed.
However, when we use a dry-film, we are bypassing the hydrodynamic range of lubrication and going straight for the barrier rhelm.
The solid lubricants and chemo-absorbed fluids in dry-films are made just for the sort of situation that a roller chain encounters.
And as I stated above, the lubricants in dry-films are polar, so they need no help in adhering to the surfaces. The carrier can leave as soon as the products are distributed...and as in the case of dry-films, the solvent evaporates leaving the chain effectively lubricated, and looking dry and new.
ON SPROCKET WEAR...
I know what I know from working with chains sprockets and power transmissions for years.
I have done extensive research on the subject and what I have stated about the wear of sprocket teeth is comman engineering data. I can't give you links just now, but I can find something that will help those still in question about the wear of sprockets.
Although I did state previously that only misalignment (and/or incorrect tensioning) and elongated pitch will wear the sprockets...but there is another factor to consider, especially for those off road motorcylists. And that is dirt, grit, and mud.
Road, trail, and track debris can wear at the working faces of sprocket teeth. That is why many off road sprocket mfg's will cut recess grooves into the sprockets that serve as a mud relief.
[ September 19, 2005, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Jaybird ]
