Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 110
  1. #51
    Reviewer/Tester
    Reputation: Rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,205

    Noise?

    Ash... I ride a lot of miles. Mostly off-road, but quite a bit of on-road stuff too. Honestly, I have never noticed any increase in chain noise over the 'wet' lubes when I switched over to the Squirt. As far as wear rates go, i've been keeping a close eye on this as well, and can see no increase in the amount of wear over other lubes. I'm still using the original test chain on the same cogs as when I started, with no cleaning or degreasing of the drive train whatsoever.
    I can only report on what I see, feel and hear from using this Squirt lube.... ymmv, but for me, it seems to be "The Lube".


    Rainman.
    It is inevitable ...

  2. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman
    Ash... I ride a lot of miles. Mostly off-road, but quite a bit of on-road stuff too. Honestly, I have never noticed any increase in chain noise over the 'wet' lubes when I switched over to the Squirt. As far as wear rates go, i've been keeping a close eye on this as well, and can see no increase in the amount of wear over other lubes. I'm still using the original test chain on the same cogs as when I started, with no cleaning or degreasing of the drive train whatsoever.
    I can only report on what I see, feel and hear from using this Squirt lube.... ymmv, but for me, it seems to be "The Lube".


    Rainman.
    I ride every second day. At least 30kms. I picked the best wet lube I could find which gave me a quiet drive chain, minimal wear but was messy. It's quite possible you were using different lubes and picked one that suited your needs yet was not able to reduce friction to the level mine was. That would explain the lack of difference in noise as would many other factors. Such as a noisy drive chain.

    How have you checked wear?


    I DID email them and got an idiotic, unhelpful and flippant reply. I have never found ANY business to reply in such a stupid manner. I am kind of lost for words about it.
    LOTS of claims by them yet they can't provide any information. Anytime I see a lot of claims and no supporting information I get worried. When you get a stupid reply like I did I really wonder which claims are true and would be very careful to ignore all "information" and use sounds judgment before buying into the "faith" of a product. Even then, this would have to be a stand out product to be worth giving them money. Maybe it is.
    I just find it odd that they can't support the claims being made.


    If I can find the time I will make a test rig for this and see what I find. By measuring the current of a motor driving a gear set and chain with this product on over xx hours I can find out just how valid the claims really are. Really easy to prove at a consumer level and I'm pissed off enough to find the time asap and see how this really stacks up.

  3. #53
    Reviewer/Tester
    Reputation: Rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,205

    Good job!

    Well, that's not too good, and bad for their business, imo. I never contacted the parent company, my lube was supplied by an Australian distro, so I have no experience with their CS.
    I measure the chain wear both visually and also by measuring the chain stretch with a guage and a steel ruler. I regularly inspect the drive train, front and rear cassette, etc.

    For me, it's not about "faith" .... any product or component I test either stands or falls on it's test results, and that's all there is to it. If this lube didn't perform like advertised, I would say so...immediately. After all, I have nothing to gain or lose by hiding any faults in a product or component.
    If you plan to run a similar test on Squirt, please do so, and write up your own results.


    Rainman.
    It is inevitable ...

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman
    Well, that's not too good, and bad for their business, imo. I never contacted the parent company, my lube was supplied by an Australian distro, so I have no experience with their CS.
    I measure the chain wear both visually and also by measuring the chain stretch with a guage and a steel ruler. I regularly inspect the drive train, front and rear cassette, etc.

    For me, it's not about "faith" .... any product or component I test either stands or falls on it's test results, and that's all there is to it. If this lube didn't perform like advertised, I would say so...immediately. After all, I have nothing to gain or lose by hiding any faults in a product or component.
    If you plan to run a similar test on Squirt, please do so, and write up your own results.


    Rainman.
    You used an identical drive chain and checked the lubes for particulates?
    I'm not picking but trying to get a point across. We don't know what is going on with the lubrication properties of this product. My primary interest is protecting my drive chain, not keeping it clean. I want long life first. On a "short" test, so far I feel I know just how well this lubricates which is why I wanted some proof of the claims. I'm concerned about the lubrication properties. Quite concerned that they do not match what is being pushed.
    So I wanted to find some proof that I was wrong.


    I replied to them and have gotten a more reasonable but not informative reply.

    Testing is "in house" and they will not supply any information. There was also the claim that the "competitors would love to see the testing" which is bullsh!p. They would be doing there own testing. That pro riders use it so it must be good, that "review" sites say it's good so it must be good. We also have no information about the environmental claims.

    In my opinion, so far I find this lube does "shed" but it nosier and I suspect offers far less lubrication that a normal lube. At this stage there is no available scientific testing, I suggest people do NOT run this product until they have seen some REAL proof this does not shed particulates and then grind your gear system into each other. We have NO PROOF this product acts as a reasonable lubricant.

    It may well be "cleaner" but not actually do what we need done, Lubrication.
    The company can't show it does.

    I have some ideas for some more scientific testing. Dye testing to see if we have much metal to metal contact (If guys don't understand what I mean by this and think that is a stupid statement then they don't know enough to comment) and a friction testing rig using current measurement to see the comparable frictions levels on different products.


    Let's be 100% clear here. I requested some information to support the claims they make, they are not able to supply ANY formal or scientific testing. Now, if you had a product this good wouldn't you have been using facts NOT marketing rubbish to sell it?
    Wouldn't you be saying "here, here is PROOF the product is good"?
    Would you use the same sort of "testing" fuel saving scams use?
    That's what is going on.
    Lots of claims, no proof. Nothing to back up environmental claims, nothing to say this is not grinding your gear life away.
    A real shame.

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MikeDee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,106
    Quote Originally Posted by ash240
    You used an identical drive chain and checked the lubes for particulates?
    I'm not picking but trying to get a point across. We don't know what is going on with the lubrication properties of this product. My primary interest is protecting my drive chain, not keeping it clean. I want long life first. On a "short" test, so far I feel I know just how well this lubricates which is why I wanted some proof of the claims. I'm concerned about the lubrication properties. Quite concerned that they do not match what is being pushed.
    So I wanted to find some proof that I was wrong.


    I replied to them and have gotten a more reasonable but not informative reply.

    Testing is "in house" and they will not supply any information. There was also the claim that the "competitors would love to see the testing" which is bullsh!p. They would be doing there own testing. That pro riders use it so it must be good, that "review" sites say it's good so it must be good. We also have no information about the environmental claims.

    In my opinion, so far I find this lube does "shed" but it nosier and I suspect offers far less lubrication that a normal lube. At this stage there is no available scientific testing, I suggest people do NOT run this product until they have seen some REAL proof this does not shed particulates and then grind your gear system into each other. We have NO PROOF this product acts as a reasonable lubricant.

    It may well be "cleaner" but not actually do what we need done, Lubrication.
    The company can't show it does.

    I have some ideas for some more scientific testing. Dye testing to see if we have much metal to metal contact (If guys don't understand what I mean by this and think that is a stupid statement then they don't know enough to comment) and a friction testing rig using current measurement to see the comparable frictions levels on different products.


    Let's be 100% clear here. I requested some information to support the claims they make, they are not able to supply ANY formal or scientific testing. Now, if you had a product this good wouldn't you have been using facts NOT marketing rubbish to sell it?
    Wouldn't you be saying "here, here is PROOF the product is good"?
    Would you use the same sort of "testing" fuel saving scams use?
    That's what is going on.
    Lots of claims, no proof. Nothing to back up environmental claims, nothing to say this is not grinding your gear life away.
    A real shame.
    I think there are some misconceptions here. In a clean environment, wet type lubes lubricate better. However, it is dirt that causes wear, and wet lubes attract a lot of dirt thereby creating grinding paste, especially if you keep applying lube on a dirty chain. The end result is the chain wears faster. Wax lubes keep the chain clean, and while they don't lubricate as well, overall the chain lasts longer because it stays clean. Wax lube is also noiser than wet lube. I read an old article in a defunct bicycling magazine, where the author lubed his chain with various lubes of the day, rode bike, and measured wear. The heavy lubes like grease, gear lube, etc. wore the chain the fastest. The paraffin wax chain lasted longest. Note that they didn't have any bicycle specific lubes at the time.

    I've been using Squirt on my road bike. The chain is a bit noisier than when lubed with ProLink. It looks pretty clean, although there are those wax flakes. I may switch back to ProLink. I haven't tried Squirt on my mountain bike yet (I've been using Dupont Teflon Multi-Purpose).

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    192
    @ash240 any claimed proof or technical data in my opinion is utter waste and so much of it is fudged so the only way too truly see is too try it yourself because my data I collect is 100% spot on for my use and that will determine if I continue using it or move on. From that and my experience using it for a long period of time I have come too the conclusion Squirt out shines all other products I have used but in the wet I have to apply it more often. In my experience this product while lubricating also seals the rollers from allowing dirt and gunk in so wear and tear has been reduced by a massive amount.

    From my observation and checking my cassette along with chain rings have had hardly any wear if any that is noticeable. Best of all chain stretch from my experience has been greatly reduced so from my point of view the cost of my running gear has reduced greatly since using Squirt plus as a bonus my whole drivechain is clean.

    I have had no noise but simply put a quite drivechain and far slicker shifting so I'm very happy to be using a product that works and gets very little air time. You go too just about any bike shop and ask for Squirt and they screw there faces up with HUH what's that. All you hear about is brands that ram there product down our throats or what gets pushed upon us.

    Do all the testing you like be it scientific or other wise all that twaddle won't make me change my mind because I'm using it and have seen the results for myself and that right there is all that is needed but I look forward to reading your experiences.

    As MikeDee also said I too also use "Dupont Teflon Multi-Purpose" to lube up all the pivot points on all my drive chain because again from my experience of use it and others Duponts is the one that out shines them all. It lubricates without allowing a build-up of grunge to work it's way into the tight joints like wet lube does and most of the dry lubes sold in bike shops at over inflated prices Dupont supplies and the other brands just added there own crap too.

    Like most of us that have used Squirt we have nothing too gain by giving out results but too let other see them and maybe give it a try as another solution to lubing your drivechain.

    I will say it sucks that your emails were responded too in such a way by Squirt that right there could of been handled better even if they were not prepared to point you in the direction of tech data. Anyway good luck and most of all enjoy your riding............

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDee
    I think there are some misconceptions here. In a clean environment, wet type lubes lubricate better. However, it is dirt that causes wear, and wet lubes attract a lot of dirt thereby creating grinding paste, especially if you keep applying lube on a dirty chain. The end result is the chain wears faster. Wax lubes keep the chain clean, and while they don't lubricate as well, overall the chain lasts longer because it stays clean. Wax lube is also noiser than wet lube. I read an old article in a defunct bicycling magazine, where the author lubed his chain with various lubes of the day, rode bike, and measured wear. The heavy lubes like grease, gear lube, etc. wore the chain the fastest. The paraffin wax chain lasted longest. Note that they didn't have any bicycle specific lubes at the time.

    I've been using Squirt on my road bike. The chain is a bit noisier than when lubed with ProLink. It looks pretty clean, although there are those wax flakes. I may switch back to ProLink. I haven't tried Squirt on my mountain bike yet (I've been using Dupont Teflon Multi-Purpose).
    There are no issues with my understanding of how lubricants work
    A wet lube CAN perform VERY well in dirty conditions IF it does not gum up, break down or migrate away from pressure points. Wax lubes WILL migrate away from pressure points (which is where we get wear) so they must perform quite a bit better than wet lubes to protect a drive chain.

    Your understanding about wet lubes is only correct under the conditions the wet lube has gummed up or is not able to work as it should (which many do, not even lasting through a ride). A decent wet lube should "carry" particles away from the pressure points, the lubricant will still have a surface coating to protect the friction points so it may well look dirty but not be doing any real harm. This is quite BASIC lubricant theory.

    I want to use a wax for certain conditions but gave up as I couldn't find any that performed in a manner I found acceptable (like lasting through a whole ride). This product makes a lot of claims so I tried it. The results I have found (so far) do not match the claims or what I was expecting. So I tried to find ANY information supporting the claims they made, was unable to do so, contacted them and they were unable to support the claims (after 6 years on the market).

    Your drive system got nosier as you now have more wear and friction.
    I suspect if I looked through some of my old mags/books I can find an article showing Castor oil is a decent lubricate for chains, this would of course have been tested before the modern lubricant era and so it would be quite silly for me to think it is of any use to raise this.

  8. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by }SkOrPn--7
    @ash240 any claimed proof or technical data in my opinion is utter waste and so much of it is fudged so the only way too truly see is too try it yourself because my data I collect is 100% spot on for my use and that will determine if I continue using it or move on.

    If you make public claims to support a product it is dishonest not to be able to supply ANY proof. Not even the environmental claims. The attitude that companies do not need to back up claims (which is what you are stating) is idiotic and in many countries quite illegal. That would seem to make your statements invalid and pointless
    I DID try this product which is why I then attempted to find ANY real poof of the claims.
    After 6 or so years on the market there is NOTHING other than the same marketing tricks "fuel saver" scams use.


    From that and my experience using it for a long period of time I have come too the conclusion Squirt out shines all other products I have used but in the wet I have to apply it more often. In my experience this product while lubricating also seals the rollers from allowing dirt and gunk in so wear and tear has been reduced by a massive amount.

    Not my experience and I seem to have a far greater understanding of lubrication than you do. Waxes CANNOT perform as well as a decent wet lube. They MUST migrate (which is one of the selling points of this one) away from friction points. If they cannot leave a protective film you MUST have higher friction (more wear). Claims of a "new generation" lubricant seem to have no factual basis. At least the company cannot provide it.
    It is unbelievably simple to get an independent product test and publish the results.



    Do all the testing you like be it scientific or other wise all that twaddle won't make me change my mind because I'm using it and have seen the results for myself and that right there is all that is needed but I look forward to reading your experiences.

    Right, you have a closed mind and don't care about facts. guys like you tend to have a very limited understanding and "buy in" to something, then defend it to the ground even if they are quite wrong. I tried this product, found the results did NOT match the claims (very quickly) so wanted some proof. I looked and found nothing. Now, IF you had posted anything to show me you understood how lubricants work I would have put some weight on your opinion. You haven't.

    As MikeDee also said I too also use "Dupont Teflon Multi-Purpose" to lube up all the pivot points on all my drive chain because again from my experience of use it and others Duponts is the one that out shines them all. It lubricates without allowing a build-up of grunge to work it's way into the tight joints like wet lube does and most of the dry lubes sold in bike shops at over inflated prices Dupont supplies and the other brands just added there own crap too.

    Any wet lube that does not carry particles away from friction points is NOT working. Particles should be forced out due to the "pumping" motion on parts, a lubricating coating should be left and protect from metal to metal contact.
    Waxes cannot do this. It's NOT possible so they need to have much better lubricating properties and perform better than an average web lube. You should apply them more often. (hoping to make things simple enough for you)
    It's quite impossible for a wax to perform as well as a decent oil BUT in some conditions a wax can be better. I was hoping this product would meet the claims made. It has not. The flaking off of excess and "dirty" particles is nice but I wouldn't trade lubrication for this. I would have loved for this to do everything they claim, it does not. It does have uses but for an all around lube I REALLY think it's a BAD idea and without ANY real proof my suggestion of people avoiding the product stands. It DOES concern me that the company won't backup the claims after 6 years on the market. I do not like this sort of behavior and marketing games. A company would have to have a VERY good product for me to ignore this and they don't seem to.


    Like most of us that have used Squirt we have nothing too gain by giving out results but too let other see them and maybe give it a try as another solution to lubing your drivechain.

    I will say it sucks that your emails were responded too in such a way by Squirt that right there could of been handled better even if they were not prepared to point you in the direction of tech data. Anyway good luck and most of all enjoy your riding............
    Let's really think about this. Claims are made and they refuse to back any of them up. Including environmental claims. That's a damn site worse than "sucking".
    My understanding is that type of marketing is quite illegal in many countries.
    I also find it VERY odd that they wouldn't love to provide proof.
    If you had something THIS "good" (as claimed) you could gain a massive market share and really get some money out of it. so why haven't they?

  9. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    192
    If you make public claims to support a product it is dishonest not to be able to supply ANY proof. Not even the environmental claims. The attitude that companies do not need to back up claims (which is what you are stating) is idiotic and in many countries quite illegal.<---I have never stated that I have just said it's twaddle and too much of it is fudged That would seem to make your statements invalid and pointless No just my opinion from using the product over a lengthy amount of time too which the product works for me in every area I have stated nothing more nothing less and will continue too use it due to my own personal success
    I DID try this product which is why I then attempted to find ANY real poof of the claims.
    After 6 or so years on the market there is NOTHING other than the same marketing tricks "fuel saver" scams use.
    Not my experience and I seem to have a far greater understanding of lubrication than you do. <---Bold statement coming from someone who seeks proof Waxes CANNOT perform as well as a decent wet lube. They MUST migrate (which is one of the selling points of this one) away from friction points. If they cannot leave a protective film you MUST have higher friction (more wear). I have already said I have noticed less wear and chain stretch but thanks for pointing that out at least I can rule out Squirt as the saving grace for that.Claims of a "new generation" lubricant seem to have no factual basis. At least the company cannot provide it.
    It is unbelievably simple to get an independent product test and publish the results.
    Like I said I'm looking forward to what you find out because I have never bothered to seek out any data or technical info on Squirt because it's not my field of expertise.

    Right, you have a closed mind and don't care about facts. guys like you tend to have a very limited understanding and "buy in" to something, then defend it to the ground even if they are quite wrong. No I don't have a closed mind but you are right I couldn't give a crap about the facts they don't interest me I just simply tried it and it worked far better than all the other lubes for the reasons I said above. As for defending it too the ground if the product was taken off the market right now I would be in trouble because myself I would loose a product that works for me so hardly defending it too the ground just happy to give an opinion on something I have tried and has worked. Pretty much the same as you trying the product but found it didn't work in your case which is fine no skin of my nose you can now move on and try something else or go back to what you use before. I tried this product, found the results did NOT match the claims (very quickly) so wanted some proof. I looked and found nothing. Now, IF you had posted anything to show me you understood how lubricants work I would have put some weight on your opinion. You haven't.
    I haven't got a clue how lubes work since you do seem to have an understanding again I await your findings on Squirt through your own testing just don't forget to provide all the tech data and proof much like what you seek to put weight to your opinion.

    Well I'm not here to argue with you I have given my opinion on a product I know bugger all about that works for me nothing more nothing less anyone can take that with a grain of salt just as you have done and I can't prove any of my claims either. Except to give my experience from using it because I don't have a lab to test the proof you seek out I can only give results from using it and the differences I have found so thanks to who ever it was that pointed me in it's direction it's worked for me.

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by ash240
    I suggest people do NOT run this product until they have seen some REAL proof this does not shed particulates and then grind your gear system into each other. We have NO PROOF this product acts as a reasonable lubricant.
    One other thing ash240 I would much prefer to rely on the info given by Rainman and the way he presented it as it's been documented well both images and through user experience over a lengthy period of time. It doesn't contain all the so called lab testing results that you seem to seek but gives a true account for someone to read be it a pro or novice to make an informed decision for themselves.

    Unlike your statement in red that hasn't shown any images nor have you explained the method in which you prepared your whole drivetrain before applying Squirt. So as a novice I would hardly lay weight to your opinion as your most certainly lacking all the ingredients so far to back up your statement in red.

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by }SkOrPn--7
    One other thing ash240 I would much prefer to rely on the info given by Rainman and the way he presented it as it's been documented well both images and through user experience over a lengthy period of time. It doesn't contain all the so called lab testing results that you seem to seek but gives a true account for someone to read be it a pro or novice to make an informed decision for themselves.

    As an "informed" consumer I bought the product based on what others had said (such as Rainman) and when I found it did not meet the claims made started to look into it and see if I could find ANY proof it does. Not even the maker is able to show any. IF it was as good as claimed they would easily be able to show up.



    Unlike your statement in red that hasn't shown any images nor have you explained the method in which you prepared your whole drivetrain before applying Squirt. So as a novice I would hardly lay weight to your opinion as your most certainly lacking all the ingredients so far to back up your statement in red.
    Not true. I clearly stated my application method. It's a bit "rich" to whine at me and ask for "proof" when you have already said you are not interested and I have already posted some of what you are asking for and have said I am going to do the rest. It's also quite impossible to "prove" anything to an individual who is not even capable of thinking through what has been said to him.


    It WILL take me some time to put together a testing rig and continue to look at this product (and I suspect any other lubricants I can).

    Now, the reason why I looked this post back up.
    First images show polishing and uncoated metal that has no sign of any lubricant film.
    THIS is one of the reasons why I suspected claims being made were not accurate.
    Much easier to see this in real life or in the full size images.

    http://img191.imagevenue.com/img.php..._122_176lo.jpg
    ^ After a ride or two in clean conditions. Notice lack of any apparent lubricant film (on contact surfaces) to protect from metal to metal wear.

    http://img203.imagevenue.com/img.php..._122_402lo.jpg

    http://img175.imagevenue.com/img.php..._122_251lo.jpg

    http://img143.imagevenue.com/img.php...122_1003lo.jpg

    (Can't be bothered resizing images now, simply open and view them until I can )



    After 30kms in wet weather and reasonably clean conditions. Bike was rinsed in low pressure water (such as using a Camelback) Note NO protective film, NO lubrication on MOST of the wear surfaces and at this stage I really do wonder about the product.
    Clearly there is NOTHING protecting my drive chain (this is a term inclusive of everything) and I AM getting a lot of metal to metal wear after 1.5 hours in a cleanish environment. Not lots of mud and crud.

    I was looking at doing some dye testing to prove there was no protective film left after the product had migrated off (which is what I felt was going on) but this result (FAR worse than I could imagine) means there is no need. We can CLEARLY see the product has completely gone from metal to metal contact surfaces.

    A decent wet lube would be gummy and dirty BUT there would be a protective film between bearing surfaces AND I would not have rust all over it.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  12. #62
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,911
    I am not suprised. I have followed this thread from the beginning with great interest. I was hoping this would pan out since I have tested every other "wax" based lubricant that I could find with similar results.

    I have the perfect situation to do real world testing on chain lube since I ride between 5-7000 road miles a year and have 4 bikes plus a tandem and wife and kid bikes. I can use a particular lube with a particular bike and follow the same maintenance procedure for thousands of miles and since I precisely measure chain over a 4 foot length, I have a very good indicator or actual chain wear.

    I use Tri-Flow industrial lubricant. It is very similar to Pro-link Gold but maybe just a little better and way cheaper because I can buy it by the gallon. I use an old Pro-link bottle to apply it but because I buy it by the gallon it only costs about $2 for a 4 oz serving.

    Basically, my procedure is to use a quick link and every 300 miles or at least by 400, I remove the chain lay it on a newspaper and dribble a drop across every roller. The lube carries most of the gunk to the paper and then coats the chain anew. I let the chain sit for an hour or longer and then reinstall. That is all I do and my chains last around 5000 miles and I have yet to wear out one of my DA7800 cassettes with this system. Every 1000 miles or so, I hang the chain from a small headless nail in the pole barn and there is a gray mark exactly 48" below and another red mark 48.25" below. When the chain stretches to the red mark I ditch it. The gray mark is where a new chain would measure.

    By the way, if you have one of those chain checker tools, throw it away. They don't work properly and will cause you to throw away chains way too soon. They often measure new chains as half worn out right out of the box.

  13. #63
    Reviewer/Tester
    Reputation: Rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,205

    Porn??? Rust???

    Those pics you posted up are linked to a porn site...

    Apart from that porn crap... I have the same Shimano chain on my test bike that I started this test of Squirt lube with. I've run this chain through some very dry dusty and also some very wet sloppy conditions .... and no rust, none at all on the chain...
    You say that there is no lube on your SRAM chain after the ride, but Squirt, being a wax based lube turns clear after it dries, making the chain appear to be not lubed. This is how it is supposed to look. The lube is there on your chain if properly applied as per the Squirt directions, even though you can't easily see it.....that is, if you applied it correctly.
    I can't understand why your chain is showing rust...unless the rust was there right from the start of your testing. I see from reading your old posts that you used an old chain which you supposedly "cleaned"...

    It looks to me like you didn't clean it properly, the rust was still there from your previous use of the original lube you were using *before* Squirt.

    If you are going to test this new Squirt lube properly, I suggest that you get a new chain and carry out your testing procedure correctly, right from the start, instead of using an old pre-rusted chain.
    Your "testing" results are skewed and currently unreliable, imo.

    I can post up more pics of my still-in-use Shimano test chain if you wish, but there is no sign of rust or undue wear at all on my test rig using this Squirt lube. The lube and the chain continue to function smoothly and quietly, no shifting problems, no cassette wear or chain wheel wear and NO rust.


    Rainman.
    It is inevitable ...

  14. #64
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,911
    The problem with using a new chain is that the factory grease will last for 6-700 miles unless you totally degreese it. Even then, most methods can't get the grease out from under the rollers. That is why I like to start with a new chain and use the lube I'm testing for thousands of miles.

  15. #65
    Reviewer/Tester
    Reputation: Rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,205

    Testing Components...

    There is no problem in using a new chain that has been thoroughly degreased straight out of the box.
    It isn't hard to remove every trace of factory grease from a new chain.

    Correct testing procedure is everything when testing components and products. A sloppy method skews results, and is unreliable...

    This Shimano chain which I have been testing with Squirt shows no signs of rust or undue wear, it functions perfectly.

    If you guys are going to test components and products, the least you can do is to to follow the factory recommendations for the product/component. Slapping some Squirt on an old rusty chain is *NOT* the way to test this product correctly, nor is using a new chain without proper cleaning and degreasing of said chain.


    Rainman.


    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy
    The problem with using a new chain is that the factory grease will last for 6-700 miles unless you totally degreese it. Even then, most methods can't get the grease out from under the rollers. That is why I like to start with a new chain and use the lube I'm testing for thousands of miles.
    It is inevitable ...

  16. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    125
    I must say I am completely puzzled regarding your findings ash240.
    It's not that I do not believe what you are experiencing, but it is the complete opposite of my own experience with this product.

    This because the longer I use this product, the more I am positively surprised by how long it stays effective.
    As everybody agrees in this thread, my own experience with other wax based products was also that they did not survive more than one ride or even just one ride.
    However, I have until now never encountered an insufficiently lubed (waxed actually) chain with Squirt and am therefore continuously increasing the time between two applications. Due to the product not accumulating dirt, I do not feel restrained however to put on too much, which probably also explains I never encounter a dry chain while I in fact did experience this regularly when using a regular lube. But even with these generous applications I must say I am still surprised regularly that the product is still effective the day after a ride in the pouring rain, something that was never the case for me with regular lubes.

    I have been using this product both with a very used as well as with a new chain by the way, both degreased by submersion and shaking in a large bottle of degreaser, with the same positive results.

    But what puzzles me most is that you are not describing any issue with highly increased noise on your chain yet conclude from a visual inspection that there is no lubricant whatsoever left on the metal to metal contacts. If that was the case, the chain must have made a huge amount of noise, even in the wet, and you should have noticed a problem way before the visual inspection.

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    192
    ash240 your using this right...........?
    Last edited by }SkOrPn--7; 05-04-2009 at 07:24 PM.

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    93
    Why not ask Travis & Ned? If two of the best mountain bike racers in the world use the product, It must be pretty good, imo.

  19. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gdl357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    278
    That's a false statement...generalizing here...and not talking about Squirt.

    Sometimes they are forced or paid to use a product even if they don't like it...as their sponsor tells them to.

    this system of false marketing works because you think the product is good because if champions are using it, it MUST be good. BS. Maybe they are champs because of their Skill ???

  20. #70
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,911
    Also, Pro riders get a new chain every race. A chain lube endorsement from a pro rider means nothing especially with regards to durability.

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    93
    I read a review of Squirt Lube in Mountain Flyer magazine which stated that Ned Overend preferred this lube & was not being paid to do so. This was last year so maybe things have changed but this does not sound like the usual bs associated w/ product endorsements. I could be wrong but this ain't like Nike & Tiger Woods or something.

  22. #72
    Reviewer/Tester
    Reputation: Rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,205

    Good job! Solution ...

    There is a simple and easy solution to this.... Just try Squirt for yourself on a properly cleaned chain like I did.

    It's not rocket science, and if your results parallel my own, you will be pretty pleased with the product.

    It really doesn't matter to me if you don't like the Squirt after proper testing, you can all always go back to your previous chain lubes. Just do the correct cleaning of the chain and the application of the Squirt like I did, try it out and see what you think. Personally, I think it's a damn good product, so far.


    Rainman.
    It is inevitable ...

  23. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    14

    Dupont Teflon Multi-Purpose

    mikedee

    what did you think of the Dupont Teflon Multi-Purpose
    i have used it on a mtb in hardpack tracks and it seems OK but after a short distance (about 15km) the chain starts to get noisy
    seems this is a characteristic of wax lubes
    just got some squirt and will apply tomorrow
    so far, ProLink is the best lube i have used (and i have tried lots)
    hope squirt performs as rainman says

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: IPA Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    303

    Availability

    I'd try it if it was reasonable to get ahold of some.

  25. #75
    Gnar
    Reputation: Jet Fuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by IPA Rider
    I'd try it if it was reasonable to get ahold of some.
    Likin' Bikin' has Squirt Chain Lube. Easy ordering and super fast delivery!
    http://www.likinbikin.com/Products/lubes_cleaners.html

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •