I tried chain waxing for a while, but never really liked it and moved on to T9. I think my problem was that I was commuting daily in all weather and some of it was wet, especially in the fall and spring. I think that it would have held up much better if it had been dry.
The biggest drawback for me was that I was screwed if my chain started squeaking on a long ride or when I was on a ride away from home and couldn't re-wax it. In those instances, I would just have to throw some conventional chain oil on anyway and the whole thing would be a huge mess. One suggestion that did seem to work though when I used wax was adding a teflon-based synthetic motor additive to the wax (just a very little amount though, maybe 5% or so). Although it's not as green as beeswax, it seemed to perform and lubricate much better than strait wax* *extremely unscientific claim On Feb 22, 3:45 am, Earl Grey <earlg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Surprised I didn't find the definitive answer in the archives, or a > riv reader for that matter. > > The 1992 Bridgestone catalogue mentions using a double boiler, thus > 212 Fahrenheit max. > > Riv Reader Vol 1 Issue 1 says Grant uses a 400 F bath, and says the > flash point is 425 F. Also says don't do this at home (liability > reasons, one assumes). > > So, what do the extra 188 F get you? Lower viscosity and better > penetration? Has anyone found this to matter, or has anyone the > necessary scientific background to theorize upon the topic? > > Winter here is bone dry season, so it seems like the time to finally > try wax after 20 years of cycling. > > Cheers, > > Gernot -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
