Friction study to chew on
I don't know squat about this guy/his protocols, but just when you thought you had all the variables sorted out, here we go again...
Friction Facts: Measuring Drivetrain Efficiency | Cyclingnews.com
Will trade for some chicken.
Very interesting! Its tempting to drop the ten bucks.
Interesting. I also know nothing about him but his test results really don't surprise me.
With so little power to give every watt counts and even a gummy derailleur pulley can drag you down. It may seem insignificant but every point of friction matters which is why a well tuned, lubed, and clean bike will have less drag- especially under load, than a dirty one.
People have been working on chain design, platings and coatings, and chain lube for many years with the intent of reducing friction so to me it only makes sense that there is more improvement to be had.
Very cool. Surprising there can be so much of a difference with brands of chain and lube!
If every person gave more than they took, this world would be a much different place.
He doesn't happen to have an mtb lab where he throws dirt, mud, sweat, twigs, leaves, and other mtb debris on the chains while he tests them, does he? It would be really cool if someone went full bore on this as I bet the differences end up being larger over time with mtb use.
I can barely get my mouth around it.
No, but Tour Magazine did, kind of. They tested 10 and 11 speed chains for wear with a machine, adding grit and oil as they tested. However, they were testing for wear performance, not power loss. However, you could easily argue that these are directly correlated.
Originally Posted by Pedalphile
The test showed that Shimano chains are the best, starting with Dura Ace 7901, and then it was 105 chain. After that for 10 speed were KMC, and SRAM and Wippeman were the worst. PC-1050 was the worst chain they tested, wearing basically 4 times as much as the 105 chain, and they're almost the same price.