Episode 20 Muc Off Files - Cycling’s most dishonest Marketing??? 

He's looking fit. That's what cycling does to you 😂

😂

😂

Thanks Flip for support!

Really I've seen muc off lube tested in the lab and 2nd least wearing on the chain and cassette out 10 other "top quality brands that's ment be the best but was worst in the lab testing

Thanks scott! yes i am continually surprised how many think the UV light makes sense. Why oh why oh why would one want to ensure all of the outside of chain is coated in contamination attracting wet lubricant. I do get that initially people will fall for it, but not once a couple simple points have been explained. However i have been learning more from some great podcasts like timesuck that a very common phenomena is that the more concrete facts are presented to some people, the more they double down on their original conviction against that viewpoint. Its fascinating stuff. I am humbled re your comparisons, Leuscher especially is a great person in the industry. Alas..... oooh i must say i really cringe at being put in any bracket with hambini. Whilst he does indeed do some great work, he has also (in my opinion) put out some very false information in his ceramic vs steel bearings vid (i have a document covering that, i think if you read you will definitely agree - i doubt you are part of the dig in against facts phenomena). But mostly.....i dont want to be a prude but i just personally cannot abide the severe bullying behavior, and i have pretty big concerns re chauvinism - some of the vids have been removed now but had things like the head of aerocoach as "Mr Vagina head" and "probably out riding fat bottomed womans bike" - along with prolific use of the C word - its 2022, is it still acceptable to be using female genitalia in the negative? But really instead of using his very large intellect to try and effect positive change with companies - the style of attack for me is just belittling and bullying - and this is apparently amusing - and that is just not me. I just would like to be separated from being anything like Mr H. The world was never improved in my opinion by more bullies, regardless of how charismatic they may be.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I completely understand re Mr H. I cringe myself at some of his outbursts and I think he’d have been taken seriously if he’d just toned that side down a bit. But saying that, the cycling industry does need more and more people like you (and he, if he could leave the ego out) calling them out. Companies like Canyon with the Aeroad seatpost creaking, Muc Off with wild wattage claims, Cannondale with the supersix steerer/headtube issue. All of these would be hidden if it weren’t for independent content creators because you can bet nobody in the cycling press won’t be biting the hand that feeds. I’ll take a look at the ceramic vs steel comparison paper. I’m always open to questioning what I thought/think is correct.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I hear you on the chauvinism argument against Hambini but I don't agree re: bullying. It's always seemed to me he's "punching up" when it comes to taking on the manufacturers and those who promote their products that seem to have serious flaws but are sold for big $. I mean if you've sold your soul to the point you lie to your customers to sell them expensive garbage you deserve everything dished out to you in my book. It's like Specialized suing small bike shops (Roubaix Cycles) for using the name Roubaix or Trek supporting Lance Pharmstrong over Greg LeMond, I'll never buy a product from either company because they chose which side of the moral divide they were going to be on. Re: Muc-Off, I haven't heard anything good about their tire sealant either.

@@Surestick88 Yep i think you have some very good points there. Honestly maybe i am / have been a bit harsh re hambini - i hadnt watched anything of his for a long time - as i was pretty put off initially - but a lot of those videos i see are now deleted - including his most misogynistic ones, and i watched a couple of his more recent vids , and whilst he may just not be my style (like i am no doubt as boring as paint drying to him hahahaha) - i can certainly see the value in what he does, and his appeal overall. I really do wish as well though that his information on steel vs ceramic bearings wasnt so.... wrong, and for reasons i worry that are just as commercial as other poor behaviors by others - if you get time read the "Bearings - Steel vs ceramic" in the instructions tab on ZFC website, if you dont share my concerns after reading that, i will be surprised. But that rather worrying aside...well... aside - i wish i didnt have these worries as he does do some truly unique work and insights in the industry, and i can see why many value him such.

Thanks Ricobasso - yes i actually think marketing has not only over ruled engineering, it has led engineering down a very bad path by way of driving them to use a base that just becomes so abrasive and dirty so quickly. And as such a major mfg with huge sales, it is just so many drivetrains around the world meeting a very early death by abrasion - it is key focus of ZFC to try to lessen the waste of drivetrains and cyclists hard earned $$ by best information on what products are worth using and what are definitely best avoided - M-O are just the most concerning case by far in this space that ZFC has come across to date. I cant imagine working for a company driving carnage on drivetrain components vs working to protect and extend their lifespan.... the latter purpose is somewhat more fulfilling....

Great decisions Kevin, it really is heartening to hear when bike stores remove a high margin product from shelves for the genuine good of their customers. Over a lot of years of testing now we can see from the data table that NOTHING remotely absorbs as much contamination so rapidly and becomes so abrasive - as the M-O lubricants tested, which are their top 3 lubricants. I dont have anything objective to base cleaning product performance on- but i do know that many other mfg's (like krush) make a great product and in my opinion anyone other than M-O is more worthy of ones hard earned $$. Anecdotally i havent heard good things about their sealant, but that is not uncommon for a lot of sealant brands - it is getting to be a pretty crowded market - but would need to see an object test like what singletracks do - will have to check to see if they have done one including M-O one day - i am sure the marketing behind what M-O sealant does is market leading however! :)

thanks david!

Many thanks horst for your feedback and super glad your are enjoying the vids and finding them helpful!

great to hear and yes those traditional type dry lubricants are just so bad in general. M-O dry is not really any worse than Finish line dry or other similar products on the market - they are just so poor as are so little actual lubrication, the bulk of volume is carrier designed to evap off. Chain is cleaner looking vs their wet lubricants, just not lubricated. WIth M-o we seemingly have a choice of pretend lubrication with their dry lube, or industrial griding paste lubrication with their wet lubricants. Very glad you are onto waxing! Grand times for drivetrain indeed :)

As to not having time to rewax before riding, I suggest getting an extra chain and keep on hand a waxed chain. Then as long as the chain you pulled off is not beyond wear limits, you have many trips to get the take off chain waxed and ready to go on the bike.

What is that something better? Using squirt for about a week now and i love it. Easy to clean and doesn’t make my chain black like muc off.

@@pinoyxbox I’m looking at making my own or using molten speed wax , but for now I will carry on with squirt until it runs out 👍

@@pinoyxbox Effeto Mariposa Flowerpower Wax gets excellent reviews, I've only just started using it, but so far it is working well.

Just switch to immersive waxing and realize you can wear pants and touch your drivetrain again.

Now that really is "acerbic" that moniker Suck-Off is something that famous 5 year old Hambini would come up with. Probably why zero friction didn't respond , fearing a video takedown or RU-vid de monetization. A lot of the "gains" are likely within the margin of testing error to begin with. Ease of application ,cleaning, and price may count for more.

Hi Glenn! Firstly thankyou for the feedback, i am very glad you are easily impressed as i am not a very good presenter / speaker (will keep slowly working on it....), but at least i can be on solid ground re the information itself being presented in the vids! And yes i used to use muc-off cleaning products back in the day too until i started to have concerns re what type of company they may be. All major industries i think have companies that are great companies in the space, some that do ok overall, and some bad actors. I think it would be wishful thinking indeed to think that cycling doesnt also have some manufacturers who completely lack morals when it comes to maximising profits. No marketing angle to be left unexplored, and let us do whatever we like especially if we can get away with basically any claim as their is no accountability. From the long, long investigation into what on earth is going on and M-O re their marketing, data, testing, AND their lubricants performance vs others in ZFC control testing, AND their complete inability to answer key questions / allay key concerns - it really has become - in my opinion - pretty clear what they have been doing, and continue to do. I believe they have been a very bad actor indeed re all this, and i do not believe they are worthy of consumers support until one day there is a complete clear out of the exec levels and a reset of the company culture. Google credit suisse and see what that bank gets up to. That is just one example of hundreds where you just would not believe what company cultures can exist out there. I personally think that M-O is doing some really poor behaviors for the mighty $$, and i would like to see manufacturers who deliver genuinely great products, and honest behavior, be rewarded with consumers patronage instead.

oh and sorry forgot to answer your question - yes of course all tests are conducted on shimano ultegra 11spd chains. There is always going to be some variance - overall from a huge amount of data from the best chain test project with cycling tips where 28 chains were tested using 28 ultegra as control vs the chain on test, i could confirm a test variance of +/- 5% overall at worst (usually +/- 1 to 2%). So, when its 5.9% wear vs 89% at same point in a test etc, we have a super concrete result.... Full test protocol is on website and also an earlier episode displaying testing and contamination etc

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks for answering my question Adam.I knew you used the same chains for your test just didn't know which one.After seeing your results for chain life I have switched to xtr chains both 11 and 12 speed (chain eating ebikes)but for my 11 speed I saw shimano offering the e-8000 chain claiming to last 50% longer then the slx chain so I bought 1 of those and a xtr chain we'll see how long it lasts,Once again thank you and keep up the awesome work!!!

Thanks Terence, and yes somehow i have to figure out a way to reduce this, M-0 c3 dry lube is just such a popular lubricant across the world as it is heavily sold out of LBS. I am not sure if overall there is a single other product that would be responsible for more early drive train deaths than c3, not because it is any worse than similar lubricants in that category (ie finish line dry seems to be just as poor, white lightning epic ride or clean ride etc) - just c3 is such a highly sold product. How to prevent LBS the world over from actively recommending and selling a murderous drivetrain product. Im not going to get any help from GCN or GMBN!!!

Yes correct - i promise i am working on it! Alas speaking / presenting appears to be very far from my forte, but i promise, i am working on getting better!

thanks for taking the time to post comment of your experience tony, the more exposure of real world experience the better for others to see and know, and hopefully avoid very expensive mistake.

Thanks Ovidiu and yes, i think it is too. Definitely there has been a strong trend with cyclists to want to use an enviro friendly lubricant, cleaning product etc - i think the same vein will carry over to wanting to support cycling companies of great integrity vs great concern - the main battle is getting cyclists to be aware - ZFC is still rather tiny vs muc-off, and my reach highlighting concern vs GCN / GMBN reach promoting - we have some work to do! :)

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I agree, GCN/GMBN will lose their status if they continue to promote companies that don't have high standards/ethics. They are becoming more 'commercial' and less the 'go-to' place for cycling related topics - just my take. Thanks again.

Thanks chris - and yes honestly M-O are EXTREMELY smart on the commercial front. From partnerships with the likes of GCN and GMBN - they get lots of advertising $$, M-O get great reviews and exposure - and also bike store penetration. I have been emailed by store in USA to advise the M-O rep pitched that if they stock exclusively M-O, they get a guaranteed 70% margin on all products. That is pretty huge. I maintain RRP on zfc online store and am generally happy with 30% margin if i can get that. And most LBS simply will not have any reason to question M-O marketing and testing, so they believe it is a win win for them - great products for customer, great margin for them. Even if not exclusive, i believe the stores generally get leading margins on product, so they are the leading product recommended to customers. And still 99% ish of cyclists are rather terrible at tracking wear rates - so despite oh so many products that would deliver oh so much longer drivetrain lifespans (*in my opinion - for legal reasons) - they simply are not aware, bike store not aware. I have been emailed by the odd bike store that have moved away from M-O as they did have sufficient evidence that the customer drivetrain lifespan was just so, so bad that it even without accurate km tracking, it was just clear enough it was just a really poor outcome for customer to have them running M-O lubricants - but again this is very very rare i think. I hope if people email this vid to their LBS, maybe some more will change - it isnt like we do not know some brilliant lubricant options they should be stocking instead - even if they think immersive waxing will take too much support time to sell, there is Rex black diamond, effetto mariposa flower power, revolubes, synergetic, ss drip, ufo drip, tru tension tungsten all weather - all of which deliver outstanding drivetrain lifespans. And yet how often do you find half of the above at an lbs vs M-O or finish line or the usual rnr line up (RnR are too bad in general - a good option 10 to 15 years ago, but things have really improved A LOT since then, and there are so many products out there that havent been updated in decades and have fallen way behind the top products now).

Recently it seems GCN has partnered with SILCA.

That is correct re the load, which is why wax lubricants are able to reset as needed through the bottom span, and why FTT test machines can only be accurate for very short runs. Which M-O know, and know that 4hr long runs produce - what they wanted to produce re test results. (in my opinion). What dont you get about wax and internal wear metals? I am not sure what you mean. The chain is not water proof, wax penetrates with no issue via immersive application, ultrasonic is not remotely necessary. The record breaking wear rates from uncountable immersive waxers in real world cycling are proof enough of that on top of control testing. Rusting is also not an issue for most, and those that ride a lot in wet and salted roads - all they have to do is either re wax, or wipe and apply a wax compatible drip lubricant to tide over until re waxing next. I am not sure what you are doing or using What wax are you using? There is no easier or cheaper way to clean your chain than just re wax it. How is solvent flush cleaning a chain cheaper and easier than this (and it is much less effective at preventing wear). We are not taling 90 to 100 saved for most, we are talking many hundreds to even thousands saved depending on groupset components and riding. Sure if you chains and parts are cheap - there is a lot less to worry about, but if your cassette costs $700 and rings $1500 and chain $150, whoa there is a lot to worry about, and all levels in between. And all that aside - we have the integrity of companies in question - from great companies in this space that deserve to be highlighted, to very concerning behavior that needs to be held to some account. In my opinion...

thanks timo much appreciated!

Hi Nuno! Firstly i believe any lubricant with "ceramic" in it is a marketing con (ie finish line ceramic, Muc-Off ceramic). In my opinion. The mental model one is sold is that the lubricant has ceramic particles in it that form a hard ceramic coating on chain that is very wear resistant. Well, thats not happening. THat would be quite something to have a drip lubricant able to leave a hard ceramic coating behind!!! it would take a lot of ceramic, quite a carrier base that would need to fully evaporate, and bake on the ceramic coating. Otherwise what you have, is a token amount of tiny ceramic particles. When, oh when, has adding tiny super hard particles to a lubricant been a low friction approach?! If the lubricants do have some small amount of tiny ceramic particles, that is just adding some really bad abrasive particles to the lubricant so it can be marketed as ceramic, and a completely false mental map of what is happening . Very glad to hear you have moved from that to the top wax products. That is saving so much wear of lovely components that take resources and energy to make and move around the world. I havent looked into that side but i dont have any information to suspect false claims on the enviro front. And i dont want to be too quick to judge them as dishonest on every front because they have executed a completely dishonest campaign (in my opinion) re their lubricants and testing. I definitely have huge concerns from this re any and all of their marketing claims, as it seems clear to me they do not bat an eyelid to claim absolutely anything if they think it will make them more money and more market share vs competition. So i have no specific reason to have concern on enviro or other claims, however vs mfg's that have a great track record of simply being great & honest mfg's - i think M-O claims simply carry a burden of proof - i,e i am suspicious of the claim unless it can be proven it is correct based on their - in my opinion - completely dishonest behavior on their lubricants. And who has time to investigate all the products. So if i want a bike cleaner, i will buy from a brand i have 100% confidence in from previous great behavior. I am not going to spend time to see if a really poor behaving mfg is maybe not behaving poorly on X product - they dont deserve ANY patronage at all on any front in my opinion. There are plenty of other cleaning products out there that will be just as great, if not better, and $$ going to a better place.

Thanks wturber - check out episode 11 for more info re the testing and why there are differing results from Muc-Off, ceramic speed & more. This one is a bit difficult with regards to muc-off refusal to answer specific questions on specific concerns - so really the major concerns i have are reading between the lines - i just think the reading is pretty clear - however without being able to be absolutely definitive, personally i believe the best approach in this case is to present what i have, what conclusions / concerns this leads me to at this time, and then viewers can decide (and hopefully feedback) if they agree or disagree with what i have presented and why. Alas i do absolutely disagree with your supposition that consumers connect the dots. If that is the case, why are a majority of cyclists buying horrendous lubricants like muc-off, like finish line and more (wend wax...) from lbs and online, all the time, and not connecting the big dot they are personally experiencing which is really poor drivetrain lifespan. What % of road cyclists accurately track chain wear & km's attained and then assess lubricant performance for them, even when their groupset costs a lot of money to replace cassette / rings. Take that % and reduce it by a factor of 100 for mtb riders. How great do you think things go when an mtb rider grabs some muc-off wet lube lathers that on, as per GMBN video's on looking after your chain viewed by hundreds of thousands of mtb riders. The dot of wet lubricant and the world of dust is not connected, unless they happen to watch ZFC vid where i connect that dot for them. That is just a quick basic example. In every area of cycling consumers struggle to see through marketing hyperbole (especially say aero claims for bikes, wheels, which also often has a lot of test data claims - how do people go connecting the dots figuring out which of the 15 bikes all happen to be the most aero in the world at the same time? - not well). So for a more complex situation like this, i dont agree the correct approach is to put out a bunch of detail information, but not advise where i have personally arrived after considering all that information. To me that would be weird. It is not me be condescending to consumer - it is simply i am the one who is spending their working day focussed in the area of chain lubrication and presenting best knowledge i have at the time - the consumer often is not going to spend countless hours focused on chain lubrication and trying to figure who's claims to believe, and who's claims are suspect. They have their own work and lives to focus on. THere are so many area's of interest i have and it is great when experts in those areas are able to present who is seeming to be doing well, and who is selling bullshit (ie - energy vault for renewable energy storage as one quick example). it is brilliant when a channel connects the dots for me re the concerns, as i don't have time to do my own deep investigations into all area's of interest - and i think this is the same for most. But of course, you can completely disagree with me, i may not be correct for you, i may be correct for others - its big world out there and everyone thinks differently, which in most cases = great discussion to consider other points of view and why they hold those points of view.

thanks edward! Im not sure if it is the case with M-O's cheaper lubricants (as opposed to their very expensive hydrodynamic and crazy expensive ludicrous AF) if they are just re branded existing industry products with a hefty bike tax + muc off marketing budget tax. It is believed to be very common across cycling industry re lubricants that they are just re bottled and re branded X lubricant from X other industry mfg. It beggars belief that there are 1000+ cycling specific lubricants that have been developed by the mfg or company selling them. Many of the top tested lubricants are absolutely developed specifically for use on a bicycle chain, and are absolutely worth the money. Your scott oiler may do an ok job depending on how contaminated the lubricant gets - just remember that in total cost to run (check the cost to run tables on website), that overall for all the genuinely high performing lubricants, the lubricant cost - even if it is $55 a bottle - is by far the smallest component in the cost to run ones drivetrain if it is genuinely preventing a lot of wear. Such products deliver such low drivetrain cost to run, because much more expensive parts in the equation just last oh so much longer. Ie one will save a lot of money by purchasing a $55 bottle of synergetic or black diamond vs a $15 bottle of rock n roll gold - even though RNR gold is not a bad lubricant. And thankyou yes Goldilocks looks a million bucks to me! i have been steadily adding more bling, the latest being those gold ingrid cranks that took me a year to get hold of! Since i greatly lack actual watts, i am going for as many style watts as i can :)

Yep - for ergo it wont be that bad thankfully, just still compared to the top lubricant options known........ but another part for me is simply what manufacturers deserve to be supported with our hard earned $$ - manufacturers who have invested and worked genuinely very hard to bring a genuinely great product to market, vs manufacturers who "MAY" be using convincing but concerning marketing (in my opinion) to sell a ton of - in my opinion based on robust testing, average to terrible products. Overall the more cyclists that support manufacturers doing a great job for cyclists vs acting in a concerning matter, i think this is better for the future. One day, I am sure, M-O will release a great lubricant. I think a complete change of culture (which means a complete change of exec leadership) will be needed before that happens, current culture (in my opinion) is to milk the existing cash cow due to overall lack of knowledge by cyclists & LBS re lubricant performance and a very well resourced marketing department. I am trying to work on the former of these two things...

Yep - there are a few layers to unpack re why this situation with the likes of muc-off / finish line etc is so prevalent - ie why are these products taking up so much shelf space in so many stores around the world, and actively recommended by LBS - i will have to do a vid on the main reasons why when i get the chance, it is very interesting (well i think so... capitalism / commercial / market forces do not always work in the best interests of the consumer). And i have to hand it to them, commercial strategy wise M-O are VERY clever. If only the actual products matched their commercial strategy, they would be a company of much impressiveness.

Thanks for the feedback steep trails - apologies for the typically rambling nature of my presentations - i will be continually working on improving - it is not my natural forte at all. I do not believe the extremely similar, and extremely high - wear rates for the 3 top M-O lubricants tested, and how this bodes for remaining low friction - is conjecture. There is going to be a pretty big link between wearing hardened steel parts at that rate and an accompanying increase in friction to achieve that wear rate. The concerns re how they test are again stepped out sufficiently that you can see overall this has been well understood (and covered more thoroughly in episode 11). FWIW i receive A LOT of emails from engineers of all types around the world, and scientists - praising ZFC testing and video's for the level of work being done and methods used. This is not to say i cannot improve, i am the first to admit public speaking / presenting is not my natural happy place. I will definitely ponder why this particular engineer was unable to follow when the majority of viewers below would not be engineers and were able to follow. If you can highlight specifically where / what points i lost you - i can try to understand and do better in future presentations.

Ha! Well what can i say other than ignorance in your case is definitely bliss, and willful ignorance / everything is a scam seems even more so! :) Erm...... no, motor oil is not going to be the best and or lowest wear bicycle chain lubricant by a long shot. When you say enough of the madness and your chains last forever etc - how about backing that with some solid data ie how many kms to a genuine 0.5% wear etc. Lubrication is a very specific field. There is a reason they dont use motor oil in bearings for instance, but use grease. There is a reason why wax rocks on your bicycle chain, but not in bearings. There is a reason you have very different weight greases and oils for different applications factoring pressure loads, stiction and viscous friction, contamination, temperature, speed and more. Ie the oil in the differential of truck is very different to that you find in an rc bearing or a mechanical watch. And it is a different lubricant that is best for a bicycle chain than an engine...Umm, rather.....obviously..... You for can of course use motor oil, but the experience sure wont be like using a proven top bicycle chain lubricant which will not only be a lot cleaner and save on maintenance cleaning time and cost, but also a lot of wear. Needing to clean = contamination. contamination = abrasive wear. Runawaytrain - not everything is a scam. somethings are logical, such as the right tool for the job. You havent learned really anything on this front if you are still at motor oil and task specific products are a scam. I dont think you will find anything here other than risking your bliss derived from ignorance :)

@@zerofrictioncycling992 My frustration wasn't directed at YOU in particular, ZFC. Overall I think you do great work, I just like to keep it simple. Sure, I think wax is superior, and that includes the few wax-based lubes and whatnot that you recommend.. The fairly new wax notion of course came from the Motorcycle industry. My personal input comes simply from my many years riding, and almost NO bicycle rider 20/30 years ago has ever complained much about bike chain ''wear", etc. That being said, I like your work, I think you're useful to the industry, and the attack wasn't in your direction, but to the bike lube industry itself. I've lost to how many bike chain lubes are out there. Too damn many. I'm sure you would meet me at least half-way on that one, yes? It's a madhouse out there. Keeping it simple works for me. That's it. Cheers.

@@runawaytrain9794 I think that ones personal anecdotal experience can sometimes be misleading - ie if you have never heard a cyclist complaining about wear etc. 20 or 30 years ago, cassettes, chains and chain rings sure didnt cost what the top tier stuff does now. We have cassettes that can cost 700 bucks to 1000 bucks for top tier. Chain rings can run up to $1500, and chains up to $250. The lower performing bicycle chain lubricants (which motor oil might beat...) absolutely rip through these parts - ESPECIALLY for gravel and mtb riders. Where as the top tested products save a huge amount of wear. And they stay a lot cleaner and less abrasive for a LOT longer = less maintenance. And so even if some of them comparatively cost a lot more vs say motor oil - they only need to say halve the wear rate - which would be an easy challenge for them, and in total cost to run per 10,000km cycling they are just miles ahead. We are here to save as many drivetrains as possible from an early death by abrasion, as well as less chemicals needing to be used for maintenance, and simply the top products achieve that very well, the not so good products just cost on every front. However - for sure depending on what you had seen - ie i would choose motor oil vs using muc off's wet lubricants or finish line wet that is for sure! If that has been ones exposure then i would go far out this bicycle chain lube stuff is just a rip off, motor oil is probably better and its 1% the price. However vs the actual best products - that really have had a lot of R&D and testing for this actual use case (vs possible just being re bottled X from industry with some scents added to it....) - it really would be no contest, and it really does save people a lot of wear and money and maintenance.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Anecdotes in general can mislead sometimes, yes. Great points on individual component prices nowdays too. Not cheap. Motor Oils themselves have also improved over the years BTW. I've used Royal Purple High Mileage Motor Oil for my chain, and whether it's "hype" or not, it claims it's "Formulated With Robust Zinc/Phosphorus Anti-Wear Compounds Combined With Royal Purple's Proprietary Additive Technology", etc. I'm not averse to wax one day, and not to brag, but I'm not hurting financially for new parts just in case. I own a used Kestrel 200 SCI road bike (Japanese-made, excellent condition), and knock on wood, so far so good with that oil. I see there's ONE place which sells pre-waxed chains online...I guess that's a million dollar idea for those who don't want to go through the B.S. with all the equipment you need to do the job. It's alot of work. Another million dollar idea would someone to come up with a much, MUCH easier method to wax them. Wishful thinking maybe lol. Thx for your input.

Hi - it will clean off pretty easily with any solvent (mineral turps is best if you can get it where you live cheaply, or white spirits - otherwise degreasers are perfectly groovy they just tend to be more expensive vs turps), finish with a couple of rounds of alcohol (methylated spirits). Check the chain prep guide - instructions tab on zfc website - that will step you through prepping a chain to run a top lubricant (and removing this will be same process as just removing factory grease) - zerofrictioncycling.com.au/

Hey James thanks for taking time to feedback, and i apologise for my poor presentation abilities. I am still not great now, but i was even worse when i made this vid! Part 2 is better, this first one was a mess. I felt the need for fair bit of disclaimer as one cannot level serious concerns vs behemoths like muc-off, their legal resources are about 1million x mine. The summary (in my opinion....) > They are fully aware of why they have both an FTT and FLT machine. > They are fully aware that long test runs on just the FTT machine give very incorrectly high results for many lubricants, especially wax base. > They used this knowledge to deliberately use a base in their lubricants that is unaffected by long runs on FTT testing. > This base is horrendous re gathering contamination and the lubricants quickly become abrasive and high wear in re world use. > To decide to embark and execute such a plan (Ie basically - how do we fudge testing to make us look great and key competitors look terrible) would have to be driven from the top, so i have concerns the corporate culture at MO is similar to like say what credit suisse was before that had to be dealt with. Alas many many many do not know that M-O is poor, they have very powerful and flashy marketing. They offer bike stores industry leading margins. So many bike stores genuinely think it is a win win, great products for customer , great margins for them. And bonus margins if offer exclusively muc-off. Hence the huge market penetration. Not enough people track chain wear to realise the poor performance. Not enough bike stores ask customers kms done and what lube using to check chain wear vs kms and thus lubricant choice performance to see if things are ok. If both of these things happened consumer choices would change, as would any moral bike store owner re what they stocked and recommended.

Indeed, and it makes me wonder how the stores that stock and push M-O somehow dont notice this on their customers drivetrains, and if they could be looking after them better. The industry needs more mechanics like yourself that are going to call it out and ensure the shop is running something from a mfg that deserves a place on shelves and will give a great outcome to that shops customers .

Thanks Garth and yes i will keep chipping away at trying to get better. Aside from lack of natural public speaking / presenting talent, a big issue is prep time. I always hope to get some good blocks of prep to plan and execute a better presentation before film day, but then every day is just flat out on normal ZFC work (i am still very very behind on many things and working madly to catch up) that prep time is just always way insufficient, and i end up mostly winging it. I even had planned a good summary and conclusion for this one, and then forgot :). I have recently started listening to PERUN and his ability to present a lot of complex information so well is amazing. if i get to 1% of his ability i will be happy.

oh and great work re mtb, however use of T-9 for wet and mud is interesting. wax i find is just so much easier to reset post wet muddy rides vs wet lubricants as i can just do some boiling water flush rinses with my mspeedwax or hot melt chain, but wet lubricants just flat out takes a bunch of solvent baths, which for those without distillers to re cycle back, is just a much more expensive way to reset chain post wet rides. Am testing the aerosol T-9 now as i havent tested an aerosol bicycle chain lubricant to date (for good reason, what a wasteful way to apply a lubricant...) - not going that well....

Thanks for taking the time to comment, it is really important for others to see just how many people try M-O once and have your experience! I get a lot of emails re this too. I do not understand how anyone could stick with m-o wet lubricants past a ride or two, they are the dirtiest i have ever seen. I would have it somewhere from the friction facts days, but alas pro link gold tested pretty poorly - it was 50th out of 55 lubricants tested by friction facts at 7w loss which is REALLY HIGH, and their claims of condition chain over time a) the claimed process defies physics and logic and b) velolab tested this in conjunction with friction facts and the claim did not bore out in reality. It might be clean and overall pleasant but i can assure you that for a wet lubricant - Rex black diamond, Silca Synergetic or revolubes will deliver VASTLY better performance and parts longevity. Also not entirely sure re stickiness desirable for cables!! i want lowest friction possible. I use time trial grease in my cables and they are lightning smooth and light and stay that way for until time to preemptively replace inner and outer (every circa 10,000km ish) to keep everything oh so amazing. Stickiness on pivots... the lube will stay on sure, but stickiness also will have contamination, and an over time abrasive lubricant on pivots is just a bad for them as it is for your chain. Effective dry spray lubricants are my preferred for pivots.

Use the internet to get lube

Yes definitely squirt is the best option by MILES vs the others. It isnt really matching to the top products tested over the last couple of years, but its a solid good choice. If you can get it (if shipping not too bad) then i would look at the new lubricant from effetto mariposa - their flower power wax has just set a new record low wear rate for a drip lubricant, it has no initial penetration issues, it is super smooth to ride, a treatment is long lasting, it is extremely enviro friendly, and not too costly for a bottle that will last AGES. Even if shipping was a bit, it would be worth grabbing a couple of bottles as you will be set then for a long time, and it is just such a great product - the shipping will be easily paid back by the extremely low drivetrain wear. have a look at the data table on website you will see it is well ahead of squirt in every block. and vs Muc-Off, well the difference is like choosing between running a top performing lubricant or sand + water as your lubricant - they would be about that far apart in performance!!

Buy online ? What country are you in ?

@@moserroman2083 Perú

thank you janusz - and that is a most excellent decision indeed, you will enjoy the switch very much, you drivetrain even much more so!

Hey Al! Ah i really wish that was true in this area! Alas, lubricant performance claims and testing has been the wild west, manufacturers can do and claim whatever they like. Lubricant performance is EXTREMELY hard even for competent tech writers to review, about 99% of lubricant reviews on cycling websites are just re wording of the marketing provided to the tester, with the usual "felt noticeably smooth even after X riding through X conditions" endorsement. But it is impossible to assess a lubricant (unless something goes very wrong) in a few rides, there is absolutely zero tangible data, everything is subjective feel, and we just are not a precision instrument. It is not difficult to find a lot of absolutely glowing reviews on major cycling websites for proven absolutely terrible products. And cyclists themselves are also unfortunately largely very ineffective, because few accurately track wear rate km's (not helped by the huge range of inaccurate chain wear checkers from major brands) - but even when Rider A attains X kms to 0.5% on Y lubricant - by and large they think that well that must be a decent result - on the bottle / website it says it is doing all this amazing stuff, so i reckon if i wasnt using this, my kms achieved would have been notably less. And so people just keep buying very very average or poor products. There are a thousand+ lubricants all trying to get traction in the market. and when there has been / is extremely little in the way of objective testing - everyone is just shouting a whole bunch of claims that may or may not have any bearing on reality, and are never pulled up for it. So many great products have made very little penetration as they do not have the marketing of a muc-off or finish line or wend wax, whilst those terrible (in zfc opinion) products have enormous market penetration - in M-O and finish line case over a very long period of time - due to effective marketing - cyclists by and large have not caught on or these line ups would not dominate 90% of the shelf space of 90% of bike stores for so long. I have a lot of work to do still....and i sure need all who are on board to help! :)

I must say i have seen some pretty comprehensive car cleaning bundles for a lot less........ but remember tis all part of the very clever commercial model - rrp is priced such that retailers can make industry leading margins - hence the huge online and lbs market penetration by M-O. When you have a lot of big bills to pay (staff, electricity, insurance, stock) - high margin products are very hard for most to pass on. So M-O price for great lbs margin and with enough margin left after that to make it viable for importers, and M-O to all make good margin. I don't criticize this at all, it is simply a very astute business strategy and it is a commercial world at the end of the day - i have nothing against LBS or M-O being profitable of course, thats the aim after all for everyones hard work - i just wish the lubricants they have been so successful at getting onto LBS shelves the world over werent so horrific to ones drivetrains (in my extremely robustly tested opinion).

that is a pretty common feedback for M-O wet lubricants!

Yes - that is a common story. I will do a vid one day covering why such products / brands so prevalent in stores and thus recommended. It is great for the store (high margin brand for them vs others, and some stores are not adverse to customers having high parts wear as that may lead to more component sales) - but it is not great for the customer following the bike store advice. A vastly better way for stores to go - if they can wrap their heads around it - is to look after customer to best of their ability, and the customer will look after them. If they recommend you onto a crap product, you are less likely to go back for more. If they put you onto a great product and you are happy, you are vastly more likely to go back to them not just for that product, but for advice and purchases in other areas as you trust them and that they understand looking after your interests = they are also ensuring their own long term success. SHort term high margin at the cost of customer confidence in their advice and recommendations and lower rate of customer return is just....... not very smart. In my opinion. Bike store owners tell me why i am incorrect!

@@zerofrictioncycling992 yeah what you describe is exactly what I was thinking. If I can't get good advice on this relatively low cost lubricant product then how can I trust them to advise me on other more expensive products etc. Thanks for taking the time to respond....and for running your site.

i think it is likely, that in many real world riding applications - the cheaper M-O products may be much lower wear than their higher level products, which appear to use a base specifically to be ok with FTT testing in a lab, but that absorb contamination like a sponge and become very abrasive. c3 dry has outtested ludicrous / nano etc. Unfortunately it did not last long enough to get to wet contamination block, and number of M-O lubricants are a bit notorious for being extremely poor in wet - i would have liked to control test that, but it just didnt make it very deep into test, and i dont have time faff a separate test just for them being poor. I have sooooo much testing to do and so getting to any other M-O budget lubricants anytime soon is not likely. All evidence suggests that if you are happy with a budget M-O lubricant, a proven high performing option will blow your socks off.

@@adamkerin4130 i am by no means a M-O fanboy, i just found the yellow PTFE drylube to be the best lube i have every used and also i found a couple of fictiontests on the internet that suggest a very low friction. As said the Green Drylube C3 is certainly worse the yellow one, but almost double the price. would be interesting if the cheap one is actually the best haha. but maybe someday you will have the time to test. but as you said i should probably test something like the Mariprosa, seems like a good and easy to use lube. by no means am i a professional, i am just a passionate engineer looking for a good "drylube" for all my bikes since i usually use them for dirt, gravel and gravity.

Thanks Catmando - yes it matters a lot to me too! As much as possible i try to avoid purchasing from companies that behave very badly. Not always possible as we are bit stuck when it comes to big tech companies... but where possible. I must say I really did expect - for a long time, that M-O would simply answer the questions that need answering - directly, to allay the concerns, that despite how clear the damning evidence was, that there was a viable explanation from their side, and here it is. But no. Even when finally managed to get call with Martin - the phd head lab tech - i could get not get an answer on specific questions very much needing answering, things were always quickly moved on to show me next flash machine they had. I sent in, again (i initially sent in questions years ago)., the questions needing answering, they replied they would they just needed a week to do so, follow up, follow up - nothing. I dont see how they can explain away the concerns, and the fact they refuse to do so - i just cannot draw any other conclusion at this time other than that they have - in my opinion - planned and executed a whole lot of extremely dishonest actions to achieve a marketing outcome. So the company culture at M-O, which would be driven from the top - to me is one of there really is not a moral line re making more money. Yes they are killing it marketing and sales wise vs competitors - but i believe in large part that is because they are crossing lines most people / most companies - are not willing to cross. And i think it is time people were aware so they can make their own decisions about which companies deserve their patronage - those that have brought out genuinely great products with honest marketing, or a product that acts more like liquid sandpaper and with the most dishonest (in my opinion) marketing i have ever come across to date in cycling.

Thanks Simon! Micro vibrations are simply that you have a thin coating of a solid lubricant between metal parts, there is just zero dampening like liquid lubricants - even drip on waxes set to more like a paste vs a solid. There are no penetration issues with immersive waxing. Shimano chains do tend to feel and sound a little more dry more quickly vs ybn, sram, campy. KMc exhibit this much worse in general. For shimano - ultegra showed only an approx 10% longevity increase vs 105, in shimano they basically use the same chain just apply siltec low friction coating to more parts in ultegra vs 105, and more again in dura ace. In general however gold rule from zfc since chain is your hardest working part by so much, dont skimp on chain and lubricant. IN shimano case there is no need to got DA vs ultegra, but 10% more for ultegra - i would still go that path - but it isnt the massive leap that can happen some sram chains where say GX is very fast wearing and X01 has astounding longevity. IF you want great lifespan and also longer period in the silky smooth zone before micro vibration - see if the ybn sla chain is available in your country - overall the rolls royce for 11spd as fast, long wear life, and their coatings having a better wax bond. Very very popular with zfc customers - sell them about 50 to 1 vs shimano and huge % are repeat purchases over the years from very happy users.

@@zerofrictioncycling992 appreciate the throughout answer. There is gold and black one from Amazon (I live in Poland), silver would be ideal but... Definitely gonna try this Rolls Royce of a chain anyway, too curious to pass on those satisfying gains.

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

@@zerofrictioncycling992 I’ll just use their stuff that was intended for cleaning~ it’s in their name! In the meantime I shall purchase silca products. I did get the ludicrous for nearly half price during a promotion where the indoor cycling record was broken- the offer was during the record attempt when purchased online.

sorry i like to ensure full context and information. i am unlikely to be a channel suitable for you!

I know - i promise i am going to really try and work on presentation this year :) (mind you first vid back in 2024 i failed again, but i am trying.....i am more of a fireside chat vs script - and i dont have time to script - so i erm.... have some challenges, it is not my natural skillset thats for sure and this leopard is finding it hard to change spots.... but i will try :))

that is very good!

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...

yes they sure know how to do marketing, if only they would address the concerns in the video that i have been asking them for around 5 years on most.... welcome to a much cleaner, lower friction path now - not even know what you are moving too - it will be cleaner and lower friction i am sure! :)

@@zerofrictioncycling992 Being a marketing professional myself, I'd like to respectfully disagree with your statement "they know how to do marketing". In my opinion, marketing can never be about manipulating the customer - it should be about making a great product in the first place, and then finding thoughtful/effective/creative/funny/... ways of communicating said product to their potential customers.

@@moodrootman i wish that was what marketing actually was. That is a utopia version that sadly is just not followed by so many. Marketing is about convincing people to buy your companies products, period. In some market segments there are strict regulatory rules around what you can claim vs what you deliver (ie a financial manager in australia who wants to keep their licence can't promise guaranteed returns of 200% per annum). In other markets - manufacturers can and do claim whatever they like with near zero accountability. And this is marketing, in the real world, not the idealised version. I wish i could agree with you, just - sadly - you are talking about what it should be, not what it is. Hence why zfc is here and working so hard to highlight companies who are delivering great products to market that match claims, and try to hold to some account companies that are behaving very badly, and going against what you believe - help by ensuring all your cycling friends watch and know re a very poor example

@@zerofrictioncycling992 many things we enjoy today, or even take for granted, were once considered utopian. Not everything needs to be regulated by government authorities… people are not stupid and truth reigns in the end, it’s just a matter of time.

@@moodrootman again - i wish. I dont think you have seen the countless channels with millions of subscribers, where the channel (pic a subject) puts out the most stupidly obvious complete rubbish content, and how that is gobbled up by the millions. Truth / fact to many does not matter. What rules is feelings / emotion. Despite living in an age where information is at our fingertips, sadly the species seems to rapidly getting dumber. Just follow some stuff by say joe rogan. Or the scams covered by coffezilla. Look at people like logan paul who has repeatedly scammed millions of his own followers - proven by coffezilla, and yet the millions of followers are still there.... How is the world doing overall on climate change? And just look at the absolute rubbish that comes out to tackle that, like hydrogen for cars, and carbon capture and storage - things which keep getting - globally - billions of dollars of government subsidy funding because then it sounds to their constituents like they are doing something re climate change - yet even 15 mins of research by anyone with more than about 58 IQ would find how unbelievably flawed and will never get off the ground these techs are. What about lobbyists who push laws that benefit their business vs the people, with oh so many laws driven to protect the capital interests of some very big industries, who then keep those politicians campaigns funded - despite many of these laws being rather terrible for the consumer / population. What about politician insider trading - have you seen how many are like the most unbelievable share traders ever (check out say nancy pelosi, and many more) - despite new laws in place (which were written to fail to enforce anything), and all the investigations, PROVING the insider trading so they make tens of millions, and yet nothing done to prevent. The truth just does not do so well these days.... I wish i had your rose coloured glasses!

hey eleanor and yep for sure, honestly i think quite a number of commuters just run whatever (or judging by the horrible squeaking noises - nothing) and ride whatever is on the bike to the point it simply doesnt work anymore - then take action. I dont think any such are watching my videos hahahahahahaha! or really reading much content at all on maintenance, friction and wear. This space is really aimed mostly at those who are running bits that cost some $$ and so we want to greatly extend time to replacement. Even on decent groupsets and derailleur chains - one CAN run them too the point that teeth start breaking off under load - i have done that in my younger days, it just seened like normal behaviour then.... but there are quite some downsides. For one - if one does have a bike they like and even a semi decent level groupset - even tiagra or sora or single speed etc - if one loves their cycling life can be a bit short to ride shite riding bikes. The bicycle is magnificent as it is the most efficient machine in the world, but when one has a good crack at making it ride like one is riding with brakes on and riding through glue - that just detracts from the experience for most i think, even if its just toddling around. sooner or later most will hit some gentle grades or a headwind, and having 50w lost to shite chain, bearings, tiress, of the 80 to 100w one might be cruising around on - its just not the most amazing riding experience vs easily zooming along - which can be easily achieved on most any bike, with really a very small focus on maintenance. Not to mention less mess in case of fixing rear flat vs motor oil. Next can be safety, very worn bits / chains - they are at much high risk of snapping, and a snap chain under stand up power can very easily lead to injuries, even significant ones. For the sake of replacing a $4 chain regularly - i think thats a small investment price to pay to not have an annoying chain snap in the rain, and or me hitting the deck or having my testicles on a hot date with my top tube, something that helped me break my youthful habit of running my drivetrain so long, a lesson i shall never forget no matter how many more decades i am lucky enough to live.

There is a lot of very clever commercial strategy on a lot of levels re why M-O are such a juggernaut, i should cover one day as it is very interesting. Part of it however is they offer industry leading margin to retailers, which by extension means that the retailers are able to purchase at very low prices, which means muc-off are able to sell w/sale at very low prices, and still make viable margin - and what may that say about the actual base cost of the product? Lets just say - it is low. Not always, and not saying it is definitively the case, but sometimes, if something is really cheap to produce - it may not be the greatest product. Alas the products i have tested have been the worst tested (aside from recent finish line test). So... thats a match. Other commmercial concerns are things like their ultrasonic that from what i can tell is a pretty average unit, likely something one to could buy for a around $100 if it is a cheap unit, $500 if it is a very high quality unit (it is hard to tell from the pics ). But they are selling for $1200+. That is...... a lot. Even if it is a very high quality unit that you or i would have to pay $500, I am sure that is not what M-O would be paying. www.tradeinn.com/bikeinn/en/muc-off-tanques-ultrasonic-cleaner-kit/138797277/p Very high quality unit that i use for standard prep - www.luxemed.com.au/products/gt-ultrasonic-cleaner?gclid=CjwKCAiAu5agBhBzEiwAdiR5tOR7fqav1IpZU2yaXWU76L3qen9RtDRN-D8RZwYqXBVAGDLYhTkr2RoC_fMQAvD_BwE what it may be similar to - we dont know; www.vevor.com.au/ultrasonic-cleaner-c_11064/vevor-ultrasonic-cleaners-2l-jewellery-bath-tank-industry-equipment-with-timer-p_010644428067?gclid=CjwKCAiAu5agBhBzEiwAdiR5tEnyyM6yshqQ87kxAXlXimY6xJOJ8jZWMt1T7QfMJvxo21AUbPCECRoCfDEQAvD_BwE I cannot find an ultrasonic of that size for $1200 in quality ultrasonic brands. And look at the uber wax kit - last i looked it was $100 - the auto equivalent of same thing is around $20? www.bicycleexpress.com.au/products/muc-off-uberwax-protect-kit-70ml Pressure washer is at least double the price of a karcher or ryobi etc - so yep, the muc off re branding comes at a massive premium; www.myride.com.au/products/muc-off-pressure-washer-kit?variant=39268879433868&currency=AUD&gclid=CjwKCAiAu5agBhBzEiwAdiR5tE8jVn2joEJUMe7b0bg10jChHEQgBxuRgY-q3pwJoait3FIydSM5FRoCmQkQAvD_BwE

Thanks Michael - honestly the more people like you that take the time to voice their real world experience i think is invaluable to helping little ZFC get the information across. M-O has huge penetration in bike stores, even those that are very mtb focussed - and wow what a combination it is for the lubricants with the highest rate of gathering contamination we have tested to be recommended for customers to take out into the world of dirt and dust. M-O are a bit of industry juggernaut - so we have a rather large task ahead to try to save a lot of drivetrains from an early death - but the job must be started. We will never make a meaningful dent into M-O sales of wrong lubricants to wrong people, i can only hope that one day i test a M-O lubricant and can report they have brought out a fantastic product, and so LBS have something excellent from M-O to sell. I am an optimist!

yes correct- i promise i am working on it..... i am just rather terrible at speaking. and being concise. I have a condition! but i am working on it.... I might need a therapist

Sure. But my area of focus is to help cyclists know what products / manufacturers are delivering great products in this space - which unlike many other area's - can save or cost them a lot of money over time, more and more so a groupset components become more expensive. Thus i am here to help highlight the products / manufacturers of greatest concern re their marketing vs product performance. If a company is to go so far as to completely fudge testing to support their product as well as tear down key competitor products - that is pretty noteworthy, and deserves to be covered in full. I feel rather passionately that there are indeed some great companies that can struggle to get traction despite great products, because they are being out resources & spent re marketing from other mfg who are taking advantage of their established position - selling crap products, with dishonest marketing. This is not good for the cyclist consumer. If you disagree an independent body helping highlight and improve such situations - dont follow. But may i say that is strange hill to make a stand on - just blah blah blah there is marketing always has been always will be - whatever etc. If thats you, this channel is not for you - why would you watch it? I dont watch channels that arent for me.

Hey spartan bike - its possible but as you know i certainly dont place much faith in M-O test data. DA 11 is very very fast chain, typically around 3w fully optimised. So if the 12spd is 36% slower, that has it at about 4w, which is still fast. Ie sram axs flat top - ceramic speed have tested at 5.5w recently, initially in test for best chain article with cycling tips that chain was 6.7w (in same test DA came out at 3w). And DA / XTR 12 has nearly double wear lifespan of DA 11, so it is still an outstanding chain - but i will be trying to get a test number for it from CS, whose testing is actually extremely accurate, and more importantly, honest. (note, if one is using M-O lubricants, they sure would want to prioritize the extra chain wear longevity of the xtr 12 over DA 11!!! The whole lops thing is a bit odd honestly. To me. LOPS 1.0 - i dont think that ever made it to market. Myself and others checked for years, as it has been marketed for years, and never could it be found to purchase, anywhere. Now 2.0 is out, not really anything special i dont think vs other OSPW systems that have been out for a long long time, and its 11spd only.... when the market is moving very steadily towards 12spd being the dominant (it isnt yet, but it wont be that much longer). I think as is not unusual for M-O, lops is more an exercise / FLex in marketing vs the actual product.

Yes unfortunely in so, so many commercial things the marketing is a nightmare for us. I have to check and check and check independent reviews on most everything i buy if it is even relatively important or expensive. And some areas even that is very hard as most reviews the reviewers are paid (try and find a non sponsored review for anti wrinkle cream!! Every single product you check, all you find is amazing reviews, and they are all by influencers getting free stuff to say it is amazing etc). So some product areas are even worse than - but.... at least a MEH moisturizer wont take your face out with it, unlike a poor lubricant choice that can eat though A LOT of $$ of lovely components. And when we have basically the most abrasive products we have seen, with the most powerful and clever marketing as well as very clever and powerful commercial strategy re penetration into bike stores..... I just wish they would answer the concerns raised at least vs running away from all questions to show some integrity. Alas, i will be doing what i can to try to hold some accountability to the most concerning actors for the time im doing ZFC

yes i am way overdue getting to detail reviews but about to start on the back log very soon now that i have sorted some background data updates on cost to run modelling so i have the more accurate modelling when doing the reviews - but WT-1 is really bady, very disappointed as they are a company that generally puts out very good quality products - i have a theory behind whats happened - stay tuned.

Overall yes. Without a governing standard (which would be complex as it needs to cover everything from key equipment such as torque sensors and chain tension to ring and cog size, to test temp and humidity, to ring and cog size, and cadence, - to chain prep, calibration protocol and actual test protocol etc). without a governing agreed standard, then all the facilities currently doing outright efficiency testing report rather wildly different results in most cases. Ie M-O testing has squirt at 8.6w, Ceramic speed 4.8w - pretty big difference for two fancy test facilities reporting on what a lubricants losses are. Such discrepancies are not seen in industry if two test facilities are testing a lubricant to the same ATSM standard. And without a governing standard, if one facility wants to test in such away that "cooks the books" in their favour - their is nothing to stop them and have them claim their test method is the superior one vs competitor. it is a hot mess, which little ZFC's wear correlation test helps to clarify who is doing what.

Thanks Baron, and no not really - the losses with o rings / x rings for motorcycle chains are far too high for cycling, but for most motorcycles it is not of any consequence - ie if its 50w loss but the bike is putting out 80,000watts, or 150,000 watts etc - it really doesnt matter at all, and its dwarfed by losses in tires, gearbox, aero etc etc - so even for racing they just buy new DID chains and run them as is as the lubricant is sealed behind the o-ring.

ah very glad to hear you have moved away from engine oil! That is definitely not the best option, and one can absolutely have a silky smooth and silent drivetrain, AND extremely low friction and wear day in day out. Squirt is a solid option. In zfc opinion there are definitely better options avail now, check out the latest news update on effetto mariposa flower power wax lubricant, no pesky penetration issues like squirt has, long lasting, lowest wear rate across test for any drip lubricant tested to date, very environmentally friendly, and it is SUPER smooth to ride. Absolutely brilliant new product. Market has gone nuts because lubrication is big big business. And, when may mfg can simply re bottle an existing lubricant developed by X for Y purpose as a bicycle chain lubricant, and they have complete open slather to claim whatever they want re the lubricant performance for a bicycle chain , it is for many very tempting to just step in to this market and have a crack. Other mfg's actually invest big $$ and human capital is a lubricant that is developed specifically for use on a bicycle chain, AND sometimes the result is not as hoped, but sometimes it is and the product is genuinely outstanding. ZFC works hard to highlight the products that are absolutely outstanding, and hold to account the worst products & marketing discovered.

Thanks Max! Ah good question - that im not sure of - havent paid any attention to juice lubes - at this time they are just one of a thousand such companies / products - so many havent really flagged much on my radar - but next cuppa i might try do some googling - things like that wouldnt be a surprise though for a company size of M-O, that would be interesting. If you find out anything let me know :)

Hey jerry! I dont make any lubricants - I have two sides of ZFC, the independent testing side, and then the retail side stocking the genuine best products found from testing. Alas no one has forgotten about graphite - lubrication is just not that easy. What is the base for the graphite & or the carrier? how much will be needed, how will it bond to the metal, how does it interact with what is used to get it in there, is the base or carrier going to attract contamination by being wet and much more - that is a very rushed typing snapshot. I can assure you, many many many companies in this space are absolutely looking how to make the next wonder lube and make a lot of money, and exploring all attractive options. If graphite was viable as a top contender, i feel very confident a major or other player would have well marketed option out. I am not aware of one. There will be a bunch of reasons re why ws2 or moly or graphene which are the most popular in the lastest best tested products over last couple of years, and why not graphite. A bicycle chain is a pretty specific application

Yes i know it is hard on many long term M-O users to watch that, but sadly unless M-O are going to be able to allay the concerns - which they so easily could if they were not a concern - we are pretty stuck re the conclusions on what they have been and are doing. Your frequent maintenance will have helped a lot re protecting drivetrain from premature wear - c3 dry tested not bad in clean block 1 - the big problem with M-O lubricants tested is just they gather contamination and become so much more abrasive so much more quickly than any other products tested - so regular maintenance will help against that a lot - but, then overall one is now spending more money and time to solve a problem, vs other proven top options that do not have this problem. WHen you re wax with msw and your chain comes out looking brand new again, and you have had to do no cleaning at all just re wax, and your parts lifespan is mega.... it is just a different league vs what you have been doing!! Good times ahead, and thankyou for not supporting a mfg who needs to change.

thanks so much paul!