cleaning fun...(not)

[gravelmuncher]

Any suggestions on solvents for cleaning the drivetrain, and where
to buy them?



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Duncan]

"gravelmuncher" > wrote in message
...
> Any suggestions on solvents for cleaning the drivetrain, and where
> to buy them?

Kerosene, from a supermarket.

[Duncan]

"gravelmuncher" > wrote in message
...
> Any suggestions on solvents for cleaning the drivetrain, and where
> to buy them?

Kerosene, from a supermarket.

[Tim Jones]

"gravelmuncher" > wrote in message
...
> Any suggestions on solvents for cleaning the drivetrain, and where
> to buy them?
>

On the flip side...

Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
their chain?

Motorcycle chain oil?

Looking from the perspective of a comuter bike - not a racing bike. So it is
ridden in the rain with lots of crap going onto the drive train without
necessarily very regular cleaning or oiling ;-)

Tim

[Tim Jones]

"gravelmuncher" > wrote in message
...
> Any suggestions on solvents for cleaning the drivetrain, and where
> to buy them?
>

On the flip side...

Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
their chain?

Motorcycle chain oil?

Looking from the perspective of a comuter bike - not a racing bike. So it is
ridden in the rain with lots of crap going onto the drive train without
necessarily very regular cleaning or oiling ;-)

Tim

[Steve Reynolds]

>> Any suggestions on solvents for cleaning the drivetrain, and where
>> to buy them?

Kero or Diggers degreaser

Want to know how to clean your chain see:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html

>On the flip side...
>
>Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
>their chain?
>
>Motorcycle chain oil?

Yep works fine

SR

[Steve Reynolds]

>> Any suggestions on solvents for cleaning the drivetrain, and where
>> to buy them?

Kero or Diggers degreaser

Want to know how to clean your chain see:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html

>On the flip side...
>
>Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
>their chain?
>
>Motorcycle chain oil?

Yep works fine

SR

[Suzy Jackson]

"Tim Jones" > wrote in message
. au...
> Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> their chain?
>
> Motorcycle chain oil?

This is IMHO by far the best stuff to use. It foams when it comes out of
the can, to penetrate in under the rollers, and is a decent weight, so it
stays there. I use motorcycle chain oil on all my bikes (racing and
commuting).

Failing that, ordinary motor oil is good too.

Just don't use wax or white lightning, as its build up is _really_ hard to
remove.

Regards,

Suzy

[Suzy Jackson]

"Tim Jones" > wrote in message
. au...
> Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> their chain?
>
> Motorcycle chain oil?

This is IMHO by far the best stuff to use. It foams when it comes out of
the can, to penetrate in under the rollers, and is a decent weight, so it
stays there. I use motorcycle chain oil on all my bikes (racing and
commuting).

Failing that, ordinary motor oil is good too.

Just don't use wax or white lightning, as its build up is _really_ hard to
remove.

Regards,

Suzy

[David Trudgett]

Suzy Jackson wrote:

> "Tim Jones" > wrote in message
> . au...
>
>>Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
>>their chain?
>>
>>Motorcycle chain oil?
>
>
> This is IMHO by far the best stuff to use. It foams when it comes out of
> the can, to penetrate in under the rollers, and is a decent weight, so it
> stays there. I use motorcycle chain oil on all my bikes (racing and
> commuting).
>
> Failing that, ordinary motor oil is good too.
>
> Just don't use wax or white lightning, as its build up is _really_ hard to
> remove.
>

I use Singer light machine oil on mine, and it seems to work OK, but
I've never used anything else. so I can't compare it with anything...

David


--

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly
disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and
inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
already happened.

-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

[David Trudgett]

Suzy Jackson wrote:

> "Tim Jones" > wrote in message
> . au...
>
>>Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
>>their chain?
>>
>>Motorcycle chain oil?
>
>
> This is IMHO by far the best stuff to use. It foams when it comes out of
> the can, to penetrate in under the rollers, and is a decent weight, so it
> stays there. I use motorcycle chain oil on all my bikes (racing and
> commuting).
>
> Failing that, ordinary motor oil is good too.
>
> Just don't use wax or white lightning, as its build up is _really_ hard to
> remove.
>

I use Singer light machine oil on mine, and it seems to work OK, but
I've never used anything else. so I can't compare it with anything...

David


--

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly
disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and
inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
already happened.

-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

[Tim Jones]

"Suzy Jackson" > wrote in message
...
> "Tim Jones" > wrote in message
> . au...
> > Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> > their chain?
> >
> > Motorcycle chain oil?
>
> This is IMHO by far the best stuff to use. It foams when it comes out of
> the can, to penetrate in under the rollers, and is a decent weight, so it
> stays there. I use motorcycle chain oil on all my bikes (racing and
> commuting).
>
> Failing that, ordinary motor oil is good too.
>
> Just don't use wax or white lightning, as its build up is _really_ hard to
> remove.
>

Thanks for the answers everyone!

Tim

[Tim Jones]

"Suzy Jackson" > wrote in message
...
> "Tim Jones" > wrote in message
> . au...
> > Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> > their chain?
> >
> > Motorcycle chain oil?
>
> This is IMHO by far the best stuff to use. It foams when it comes out of
> the can, to penetrate in under the rollers, and is a decent weight, so it
> stays there. I use motorcycle chain oil on all my bikes (racing and
> commuting).
>
> Failing that, ordinary motor oil is good too.
>
> Just don't use wax or white lightning, as its build up is _really_ hard to
> remove.
>

Thanks for the answers everyone!

Tim

[Tim Jones]

"Suzy Jackson" > wrote in message
...
> "Tim Jones" > wrote in message
> . au...
> > Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> > their chain?
> >
> > Motorcycle chain oil?
>
> This is IMHO by far the best stuff to use. It foams when it comes out of
> the can, to penetrate in under the rollers, and is a decent weight, so it
> stays there. I use motorcycle chain oil on all my bikes (racing and
> commuting).
>
> Failing that, ordinary motor oil is good too.
>
> Just don't use wax or white lightning, as its build up is _really_ hard to
> remove.
>

Thanks for the answers everyone!

Tim

[Mike]

Tim Jones wrote:

> Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> their chain?
>
> Motorcycle chain oil?

Sure, thats good for regular riding. Its penetrating, and easy to apply.
But like any oil, dirt sticks.
So if you ride in dirt, consider a dry lube. It needs to be applied
much more often though.
And its only the inside of the chain that needs to be lubed, so
wipe excess oil off the outside.

[Mike]

Tim Jones wrote:

> Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> their chain?
>
> Motorcycle chain oil?

Sure, thats good for regular riding. Its penetrating, and easy to apply.
But like any oil, dirt sticks.
So if you ride in dirt, consider a dry lube. It needs to be applied
much more often though.
And its only the inside of the chain that needs to be lubed, so
wipe excess oil off the outside.

[Mike]

Tim Jones wrote:

> Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> their chain?
>
> Motorcycle chain oil?

Sure, thats good for regular riding. Its penetrating, and easy to apply.
But like any oil, dirt sticks.
So if you ride in dirt, consider a dry lube. It needs to be applied
much more often though.
And its only the inside of the chain that needs to be lubed, so
wipe excess oil off the outside.

[gravelmuncher]

Anonymous wrote:
> Tim Jones wrote:
> > Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for
> > oiling their chain?
> >
> > Motorcycle chain oil?
> Sure, thats good for regular riding. Its penetrating, and easy to
> apply. But like any oil, dirt sticks. So if you ride in dirt, consider
> a dry lube. It needs to be applied much more often though. And its only
> the inside of the chain that needs to be lubed, so wipe excess oil off
> the outside.



I found a spray/lube/displacer with zonyl in it, so i'll give it a go.
You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.
Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
to get water in bearings - but what about rain? and how the hell are you
to get the damn soap off?! So now my pride and joy is getting dirtier
and i'm still scared i'm gonna stuff something. I did buy some kerosene
to degrease it though...guess now i just need to figure the best way to
go about it.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[gravelmuncher]

Anonymous wrote:
> Tim Jones wrote:
> > Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for
> > oiling their chain?
> >
> > Motorcycle chain oil?
> Sure, thats good for regular riding. Its penetrating, and easy to
> apply. But like any oil, dirt sticks. So if you ride in dirt, consider
> a dry lube. It needs to be applied much more often though. And its only
> the inside of the chain that needs to be lubed, so wipe excess oil off
> the outside.



I found a spray/lube/displacer with zonyl in it, so i'll give it a go.
You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.
Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
to get water in bearings - but what about rain? and how the hell are you
to get the damn soap off?! So now my pride and joy is getting dirtier
and i'm still scared i'm gonna stuff something. I did buy some kerosene
to degrease it though...guess now i just need to figure the best way to
go about it.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[gravelmuncher]

Anonymous wrote:
> Tim Jones wrote:
> > Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for
> > oiling their chain?
> >
> > Motorcycle chain oil?
> Sure, thats good for regular riding. Its penetrating, and easy to
> apply. But like any oil, dirt sticks. So if you ride in dirt, consider
> a dry lube. It needs to be applied much more often though. And its only
> the inside of the chain that needs to be lubed, so wipe excess oil off
> the outside.



I found a spray/lube/displacer with zonyl in it, so i'll give it a go.
You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.
Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
to get water in bearings - but what about rain? and how the hell are you
to get the damn soap off?! So now my pride and joy is getting dirtier
and i'm still scared i'm gonna stuff something. I did buy some kerosene
to degrease it though...guess now i just need to figure the best way to
go about it.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Suzy Jackson]

"gravelmuncher" > wrote in message
...
> You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
> that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
> clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
> lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.

SRAM make neat little master links that you can open without tools. Their
chains are much better than the Shimano/Campy equivalents in terms of
useability.

> Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
> to get water in bearings - but what about rain? and how the hell are you
> to get the damn soap off?! So now my pride and joy is getting dirtier
> and i'm still scared i'm gonna stuff something. I did buy some kerosene
> to degrease it though...guess now i just need to figure the best way to
> go about it.

Don't worry - you'll scratch it soon, and then you'll be able to enjoy it
that much better.

Regards,

Suzy

[Suzy Jackson]

"gravelmuncher" > wrote in message
...
> You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
> that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
> clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
> lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.

SRAM make neat little master links that you can open without tools. Their
chains are much better than the Shimano/Campy equivalents in terms of
useability.

> Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
> to get water in bearings - but what about rain? and how the hell are you
> to get the damn soap off?! So now my pride and joy is getting dirtier
> and i'm still scared i'm gonna stuff something. I did buy some kerosene
> to degrease it though...guess now i just need to figure the best way to
> go about it.

Don't worry - you'll scratch it soon, and then you'll be able to enjoy it
that much better.

Regards,

Suzy

[Suzy Jackson]

"gravelmuncher" > wrote in message
...
> You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
> that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
> clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
> lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.

SRAM make neat little master links that you can open without tools. Their
chains are much better than the Shimano/Campy equivalents in terms of
useability.

> Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
> to get water in bearings - but what about rain? and how the hell are you
> to get the damn soap off?! So now my pride and joy is getting dirtier
> and i'm still scared i'm gonna stuff something. I did buy some kerosene
> to degrease it though...guess now i just need to figure the best way to
> go about it.

Don't worry - you'll scratch it soon, and then you'll be able to enjoy it
that much better.

Regards,

Suzy

[Cody]

"Tim Jones" > wrote in message
. au...
>
> Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> their chain?
>

Parrafin wax. the best, say goodbye to dirty hands! Chains seem to last as
long as using any other method.

[Cody]

"Tim Jones" > wrote in message
. au...
>
> Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> their chain?
>

Parrafin wax. the best, say goodbye to dirty hands! Chains seem to last as
long as using any other method.

[Cody]

"Tim Jones" > wrote in message
. au...
>
> Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> their chain?
>

Parrafin wax. the best, say goodbye to dirty hands! Chains seem to last as
long as using any other method.

[Deep Freud Moors]

gravelmuncher > wrote in message
...
> Anonymous wrote:
> > Tim Jones wrote:
> > > Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for
> > > oiling their chain?
> > >
> > > Motorcycle chain oil?
> > Sure, thats good for regular riding. Its penetrating, and easy to
> > apply. But like any oil, dirt sticks. So if you ride in dirt, consider
> > a dry lube. It needs to be applied much more often though. And its
only
> > the inside of the chain that needs to be lubed, so wipe excess oil off
> > the outside.
>
>
>
> I found a spray/lube/displacer with zonyl in it, so i'll give it a go.
> You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
> that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
> clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
> lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.

It's a problem with cheap and nasty chains. After a while though, you do get
good at breaking chains though. Oiling the link before breaking it can do
wonders (would you believe???). And naturally breaking it at a different
point each time makes sense.

> Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
> to get water in bearings - but what about rain? and how the hell are you
> to get the damn soap off?! So now my pride and joy is getting dirtier
> and i'm still scared i'm gonna stuff something. I did buy some kerosene
> to degrease it though...guess now i just need to figure the best way to
> go about it.

With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease, getting
water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease is
not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out. Dirt and poorly adjusted
cones are the two things that will kill bearings and cones faster than
anything else.

There are super-greases, like MBL, which definitely do assist in
lubrication, but you have to reapply it pretty regularly. The benefits of
the reduced friction are very small.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

gravelmuncher > wrote in message
...
> Anonymous wrote:
> > Tim Jones wrote:
> > > Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for
> > > oiling their chain?
> > >
> > > Motorcycle chain oil?
> > Sure, thats good for regular riding. Its penetrating, and easy to
> > apply. But like any oil, dirt sticks. So if you ride in dirt, consider
> > a dry lube. It needs to be applied much more often though. And its
only
> > the inside of the chain that needs to be lubed, so wipe excess oil off
> > the outside.
>
>
>
> I found a spray/lube/displacer with zonyl in it, so i'll give it a go.
> You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
> that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
> clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
> lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.

It's a problem with cheap and nasty chains. After a while though, you do get
good at breaking chains though. Oiling the link before breaking it can do
wonders (would you believe???). And naturally breaking it at a different
point each time makes sense.

> Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
> to get water in bearings - but what about rain? and how the hell are you
> to get the damn soap off?! So now my pride and joy is getting dirtier
> and i'm still scared i'm gonna stuff something. I did buy some kerosene
> to degrease it though...guess now i just need to figure the best way to
> go about it.

With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease, getting
water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease is
not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out. Dirt and poorly adjusted
cones are the two things that will kill bearings and cones faster than
anything else.

There are super-greases, like MBL, which definitely do assist in
lubrication, but you have to reapply it pretty regularly. The benefits of
the reduced friction are very small.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

gravelmuncher > wrote in message
...
> Anonymous wrote:
> > Tim Jones wrote:
> > > Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for
> > > oiling their chain?
> > >
> > > Motorcycle chain oil?
> > Sure, thats good for regular riding. Its penetrating, and easy to
> > apply. But like any oil, dirt sticks. So if you ride in dirt, consider
> > a dry lube. It needs to be applied much more often though. And its
only
> > the inside of the chain that needs to be lubed, so wipe excess oil off
> > the outside.
>
>
>
> I found a spray/lube/displacer with zonyl in it, so i'll give it a go.
> You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
> that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
> clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
> lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.

It's a problem with cheap and nasty chains. After a while though, you do get
good at breaking chains though. Oiling the link before breaking it can do
wonders (would you believe???). And naturally breaking it at a different
point each time makes sense.

> Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
> to get water in bearings - but what about rain? and how the hell are you
> to get the damn soap off?! So now my pride and joy is getting dirtier
> and i'm still scared i'm gonna stuff something. I did buy some kerosene
> to degrease it though...guess now i just need to figure the best way to
> go about it.

With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease, getting
water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease is
not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out. Dirt and poorly adjusted
cones are the two things that will kill bearings and cones faster than
anything else.

There are super-greases, like MBL, which definitely do assist in
lubrication, but you have to reapply it pretty regularly. The benefits of
the reduced friction are very small.
---
DFM

[Mike]

Deep Freud Moors wrote:
> gravelmuncher > wrote in message

>>I found a spray/lube/displacer with zonyl in it, so i'll give it a go.
>>You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
>>that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
>>clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
>>lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.

Its also less effort to clean it on the bike. Just get one of those
gadgets that clips onto the chain, and runs it between three brush
wheels, through a degreaser bath. Less than $20.

>>Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
>>to get water in bearings - but what about rain?

Slightly exagerrated. Don't run a HIGH PRESSURE hose intop the bearings.
ie, keep the pressure down, or be careful where you aim it.

> With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease, getting
> water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease is
> not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.

You forgot noise! I hate the squeal of dry bearings.

[Mike]

Deep Freud Moors wrote:
> gravelmuncher > wrote in message

>>I found a spray/lube/displacer with zonyl in it, so i'll give it a go.
>>You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
>>that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
>>clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
>>lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.

Its also less effort to clean it on the bike. Just get one of those
gadgets that clips onto the chain, and runs it between three brush
wheels, through a degreaser bath. Less than $20.

>>Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
>>to get water in bearings - but what about rain?

Slightly exagerrated. Don't run a HIGH PRESSURE hose intop the bearings.
ie, keep the pressure down, or be careful where you aim it.

> With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease, getting
> water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease is
> not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.

You forgot noise! I hate the squeal of dry bearings.

[Mike]

Deep Freud Moors wrote:
> gravelmuncher > wrote in message

>>I found a spray/lube/displacer with zonyl in it, so i'll give it a go.
>>You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
>>that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
>>clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
>>lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.

Its also less effort to clean it on the bike. Just get one of those
gadgets that clips onto the chain, and runs it between three brush
wheels, through a degreaser bath. Less than $20.

>>Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
>>to get water in bearings - but what about rain?

Slightly exagerrated. Don't run a HIGH PRESSURE hose intop the bearings.
ie, keep the pressure down, or be careful where you aim it.

> With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease, getting
> water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease is
> not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.

You forgot noise! I hate the squeal of dry bearings.

[Duncan]

"Tim Jones" > wrote in message
. au...
> "gravelmuncher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Any suggestions on solvents for cleaning the drivetrain, and where
> > to buy them?
> >
>
> On the flip side...
>
> Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> their chain?

85/140W oil (manual transmission or hypoiid gear oil) it's the heaviest
I've found.
It's a bit thick so I soak the chain on a baking tin in the oven so it heats
up and penetrates well.

> Motorcycle chain oil?

Some motorcyle chain lubes may be ok but avoid the heavier chain 'waxes'. I
used some once that almost seized[1] the chain at low temperatures, it's
designed to operate at much higher temps on a motorbike.

[1] was too stiff to change direction fast enough around the jockey wheels.

[Duncan]

"Tim Jones" > wrote in message
. au...
> "gravelmuncher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Any suggestions on solvents for cleaning the drivetrain, and where
> > to buy them?
> >
>
> On the flip side...
>
> Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> their chain?

85/140W oil (manual transmission or hypoiid gear oil) it's the heaviest
I've found.
It's a bit thick so I soak the chain on a baking tin in the oven so it heats
up and penetrates well.

> Motorcycle chain oil?

Some motorcyle chain lubes may be ok but avoid the heavier chain 'waxes'. I
used some once that almost seized[1] the chain at low temperatures, it's
designed to operate at much higher temps on a motorbike.

[1] was too stiff to change direction fast enough around the jockey wheels.

[Duncan]

"Tim Jones" > wrote in message
. au...
> "gravelmuncher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Any suggestions on solvents for cleaning the drivetrain, and where
> > to buy them?
> >
>
> On the flip side...
>
> Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for oiling
> their chain?

85/140W oil (manual transmission or hypoiid gear oil) it's the heaviest
I've found.
It's a bit thick so I soak the chain on a baking tin in the oven so it heats
up and penetrates well.

> Motorcycle chain oil?

Some motorcyle chain lubes may be ok but avoid the heavier chain 'waxes'. I
used some once that almost seized[1] the chain at low temperatures, it's
designed to operate at much higher temps on a motorbike.

[1] was too stiff to change direction fast enough around the jockey wheels.

[Deep Freud Moors]

>
> > With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease,
getting
> > water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease
is
> > not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.
>
> You forgot noise! I hate the squeal of dry bearings.
>

I've never actually come across squeaky bearings as yet. Seen plenty of
completely stuff ones, that have corroded and still been ridden, but usually
they just grind.

But it's the sound of a dry chain just sends shivers up my spine. I can't
stand that. Once I got this guy to pull his bike over, and I oiled his chain
for him!
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

>
> > With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease,
getting
> > water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease
is
> > not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.
>
> You forgot noise! I hate the squeal of dry bearings.
>

I've never actually come across squeaky bearings as yet. Seen plenty of
completely stuff ones, that have corroded and still been ridden, but usually
they just grind.

But it's the sound of a dry chain just sends shivers up my spine. I can't
stand that. Once I got this guy to pull his bike over, and I oiled his chain
for him!
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

>
> > With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease,
getting
> > water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease
is
> > not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.
>
> You forgot noise! I hate the squeal of dry bearings.
>

I've never actually come across squeaky bearings as yet. Seen plenty of
completely stuff ones, that have corroded and still been ridden, but usually
they just grind.

But it's the sound of a dry chain just sends shivers up my spine. I can't
stand that. Once I got this guy to pull his bike over, and I oiled his chain
for him!
---
DFM

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease, getting
> water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease is
> not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.

Not true. In bearings the primary purpose of grease is lubrication.
The primary purpose of seals is keeping water and dirt out.

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease, getting
> water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease is
> not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.

Not true. In bearings the primary purpose of grease is lubrication.
The primary purpose of seals is keeping water and dirt out.

[Deep Freud Moors]

Jose Rizal > wrote in message
link.net...
> Deep Freud Moors:
>
> > With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease,
getting
> > water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease
is
> > not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.
>
> Not true. In bearings the primary purpose of grease is lubrication.
> The primary purpose of seals is keeping water and dirt out.
>

Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is designed
as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a degree,
but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.

When you pack your bearings with grease, it gets pushed out of the way of
the bearings after a couple of turns, and does not return due to its
viscosity. The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually the surface
where the bearings run. Whilst that surface is clean, there are no probs.
Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have donut-shaped little
caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease to keep dirt
and water out.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Jose Rizal > wrote in message
link.net...
> Deep Freud Moors:
>
> > With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease,
getting
> > water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease
is
> > not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.
>
> Not true. In bearings the primary purpose of grease is lubrication.
> The primary purpose of seals is keeping water and dirt out.
>

Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is designed
as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a degree,
but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.

When you pack your bearings with grease, it gets pushed out of the way of
the bearings after a couple of turns, and does not return due to its
viscosity. The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually the surface
where the bearings run. Whilst that surface is clean, there are no probs.
Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have donut-shaped little
caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease to keep dirt
and water out.
---
DFM

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> Jose Rizal > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Deep Freud Moors:
> >
> > > With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease,
> getting
> > > water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease
> is
> > > not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.
> >
> > Not true. In bearings the primary purpose of grease is lubrication.
> > The primary purpose of seals is keeping water and dirt out.

> Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is designed
> as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a degree,
> but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.

And where did you get this little gem of a myth from? You may think you
have a new contrary insight into something that's been established by
tribology science hundreds of years ago, but I think you're just making
it up. Read any basic tribology book.

> When you pack your bearings with grease, it gets pushed out of the way of
> the bearings after a couple of turns, and does not return due to its
> viscosity.

So why do you think your bearings remain lubricated when only grease is
ever applied by the manufacturer/mechanic?

Grease consists of oil and carrier compound. The carrier is thick and
while the bulk of it may be pushed out of the way of the bearing/race
interface, the oil remains between the contact patch and the carrier/oil
compound which stays around the path ensures a steady supply of
lubricant.

> The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually the surface
> where the bearings run.

Please. The bearing/race contact path is not in fact dry, but
lubricated with a thin film provided by the grease. Even with a
tremendous load the film remains; the only way to eliminate the
lubricant is to wash it away with solvent or stop replenishing it, in
which case it may dry up eventually. Grease ensures adequate lubricant
supply for a longer time than mere oil.

> Whilst that surface is clean, there are no probs.
> Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have donut-shaped little
> caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease to keep dirt
> and water out.

Grease as water and dirt barrier is a secondary characteristic, not
primary. Grease in fact attracts dirt. It's not a substitute for
seals. If it were so, seals for bearings or any rotating machinery will
not be necessary.

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> Jose Rizal > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Deep Freud Moors:
> >
> > > With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease,
> getting
> > > water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease
> is
> > > not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.
> >
> > Not true. In bearings the primary purpose of grease is lubrication.
> > The primary purpose of seals is keeping water and dirt out.

> Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is designed
> as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a degree,
> but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.

And where did you get this little gem of a myth from? You may think you
have a new contrary insight into something that's been established by
tribology science hundreds of years ago, but I think you're just making
it up. Read any basic tribology book.

> When you pack your bearings with grease, it gets pushed out of the way of
> the bearings after a couple of turns, and does not return due to its
> viscosity.

So why do you think your bearings remain lubricated when only grease is
ever applied by the manufacturer/mechanic?

Grease consists of oil and carrier compound. The carrier is thick and
while the bulk of it may be pushed out of the way of the bearing/race
interface, the oil remains between the contact patch and the carrier/oil
compound which stays around the path ensures a steady supply of
lubricant.

> The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually the surface
> where the bearings run.

Please. The bearing/race contact path is not in fact dry, but
lubricated with a thin film provided by the grease. Even with a
tremendous load the film remains; the only way to eliminate the
lubricant is to wash it away with solvent or stop replenishing it, in
which case it may dry up eventually. Grease ensures adequate lubricant
supply for a longer time than mere oil.

> Whilst that surface is clean, there are no probs.
> Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have donut-shaped little
> caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease to keep dirt
> and water out.

Grease as water and dirt barrier is a secondary characteristic, not
primary. Grease in fact attracts dirt. It's not a substitute for
seals. If it were so, seals for bearings or any rotating machinery will
not be necessary.

[Mike]

>>Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is designed
>>as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a degree,
>>but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.
>
>
> And where did you get this little gem of a myth from?

OK guys, grease is definitely a lubricant, but what exactly is its
effect in a bike wheel hub?

How is this theory:
grease primarily lubricates the low-load ball-ball (or ball-race)
contact areas to reduce wear and prolong bearing life.
Friction on the _rolling_ hub/cone-bearing contact is minimal,
and doesnt directly need grease, just to keep the bearings in
good condition.

[Mike]

>>Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is designed
>>as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a degree,
>>but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.
>
>
> And where did you get this little gem of a myth from?

OK guys, grease is definitely a lubricant, but what exactly is its
effect in a bike wheel hub?

How is this theory:
grease primarily lubricates the low-load ball-ball (or ball-race)
contact areas to reduce wear and prolong bearing life.
Friction on the _rolling_ hub/cone-bearing contact is minimal,
and doesnt directly need grease, just to keep the bearings in
good condition.

[Deep Freud Moors]

Jose Rizal > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Deep Freud Moors:
>
> > Jose Rizal > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > > Deep Freud Moors:
> > >
> > > > With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease,
> > getting
> > > > water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the
grease
> > is
> > > > not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.
> > >
> > > Not true. In bearings the primary purpose of grease is lubrication.
> > > The primary purpose of seals is keeping water and dirt out.
>
> > Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is
designed
> > as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a
degree,
> > but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.
>
> And where did you get this little gem of a myth from? You may think you
> have a new contrary insight into something that's been established by
> tribology science hundreds of years ago, but I think you're just making
> it up. Read any basic tribology book.
>

You were the one that claimed it to not be true. Provide a couple of cites,
and I might just come around to your view.

> > When you pack your bearings with grease, it gets pushed out of the way
of
> > the bearings after a couple of turns, and does not return due to its
> > viscosity.
>
> So why do you think your bearings remain lubricated when only grease is
> ever applied by the manufacturer/mechanic?
>
> Grease consists of oil and carrier compound. The carrier is thick and
> while the bulk of it may be pushed out of the way of the bearing/race
> interface, the oil remains between the contact patch and the carrier/oil
> compound which stays around the path ensures a steady supply of
> lubricant.
>

That is what I would constitute as "treating" the metal surface.

> > The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually the surface
> > where the bearings run.
>
> Please. The bearing/race contact path is not in fact dry, but
> lubricated with a thin film provided by the grease. Even with a
> tremendous load the film remains; the only way to eliminate the
> lubricant is to wash it away with solvent or stop replenishing it, in
> which case it may dry up eventually. Grease ensures adequate lubricant
> supply for a longer time than mere oil.
>

I said "driest". I did not say dry. Yes the grease treats the metal causing
it to last longer. Whether or not this constitutes "lubrication" is up for
debate, but bugger all of the grease hangs around the bearing contact
surfaces.

> > Whilst that surface is clean, there are no probs.
> > Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have donut-shaped
little
> > caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease to keep
dirt
> > and water out.
>
> Grease as water and dirt barrier is a secondary characteristic, not
> primary.

Utter bull****. Dirt will kill bearings MUCH faster than an absence of
grease. Clean dry bearings will run for a long time, dirty bearings (even
when greased) will not.

> Grease in fact attracts dirt. It's not a substitute for
> seals. If it were so, seals for bearings or any rotating machinery will
> not be necessary.
>

That is why both seals and grease are used.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Jose Rizal > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Deep Freud Moors:
>
> > Jose Rizal > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > > Deep Freud Moors:
> > >
> > > > With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease,
> > getting
> > > > water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the
grease
> > is
> > > > not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.
> > >
> > > Not true. In bearings the primary purpose of grease is lubrication.
> > > The primary purpose of seals is keeping water and dirt out.
>
> > Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is
designed
> > as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a
degree,
> > but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.
>
> And where did you get this little gem of a myth from? You may think you
> have a new contrary insight into something that's been established by
> tribology science hundreds of years ago, but I think you're just making
> it up. Read any basic tribology book.
>

You were the one that claimed it to not be true. Provide a couple of cites,
and I might just come around to your view.

> > When you pack your bearings with grease, it gets pushed out of the way
of
> > the bearings after a couple of turns, and does not return due to its
> > viscosity.
>
> So why do you think your bearings remain lubricated when only grease is
> ever applied by the manufacturer/mechanic?
>
> Grease consists of oil and carrier compound. The carrier is thick and
> while the bulk of it may be pushed out of the way of the bearing/race
> interface, the oil remains between the contact patch and the carrier/oil
> compound which stays around the path ensures a steady supply of
> lubricant.
>

That is what I would constitute as "treating" the metal surface.

> > The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually the surface
> > where the bearings run.
>
> Please. The bearing/race contact path is not in fact dry, but
> lubricated with a thin film provided by the grease. Even with a
> tremendous load the film remains; the only way to eliminate the
> lubricant is to wash it away with solvent or stop replenishing it, in
> which case it may dry up eventually. Grease ensures adequate lubricant
> supply for a longer time than mere oil.
>

I said "driest". I did not say dry. Yes the grease treats the metal causing
it to last longer. Whether or not this constitutes "lubrication" is up for
debate, but bugger all of the grease hangs around the bearing contact
surfaces.

> > Whilst that surface is clean, there are no probs.
> > Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have donut-shaped
little
> > caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease to keep
dirt
> > and water out.
>
> Grease as water and dirt barrier is a secondary characteristic, not
> primary.

Utter bull****. Dirt will kill bearings MUCH faster than an absence of
grease. Clean dry bearings will run for a long time, dirty bearings (even
when greased) will not.

> Grease in fact attracts dirt. It's not a substitute for
> seals. If it were so, seals for bearings or any rotating machinery will
> not be necessary.
>

That is why both seals and grease are used.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Mike > wrote in message
...
>
> >>Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is
designed
> >>as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a
degree,
> >>but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.
> >
> >
> > And where did you get this little gem of a myth from?
>
> OK guys, grease is definitely a lubricant, but what exactly is its
> effect in a bike wheel hub?
>
> How is this theory:
> grease primarily lubricates the low-load ball-ball (or ball-race)
> contact areas to reduce wear and prolong bearing life.

The grease treats the bearings, but does not hang around in it's viscous
form as such, and so arguably it is no longer grease as such at this point.
You could debate this at end. The important thing is that grease was there
at one point, and that dirt has not gotten in contact with the rolling
surface.

> Friction on the _rolling_ hub/cone-bearing contact is minimal,
> and doesnt directly need grease, just to keep the bearings in
> good condition.
>

Sounds about right to me!
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Mike > wrote in message
...
>
> >>Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is
designed
> >>as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a
degree,
> >>but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.
> >
> >
> > And where did you get this little gem of a myth from?
>
> OK guys, grease is definitely a lubricant, but what exactly is its
> effect in a bike wheel hub?
>
> How is this theory:
> grease primarily lubricates the low-load ball-ball (or ball-race)
> contact areas to reduce wear and prolong bearing life.

The grease treats the bearings, but does not hang around in it's viscous
form as such, and so arguably it is no longer grease as such at this point.
You could debate this at end. The important thing is that grease was there
at one point, and that dirt has not gotten in contact with the rolling
surface.

> Friction on the _rolling_ hub/cone-bearing contact is minimal,
> and doesnt directly need grease, just to keep the bearings in
> good condition.
>

Sounds about right to me!
---
DFM

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> Jose Rizal > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > Deep Freud Moors:
> >
> > > Jose Rizal > wrote in message
> > > link.net...
> > > > Deep Freud Moors:
> > > >
> > > > > With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease,
> > > getting
> > > > > water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the
> grease
> > > is
> > > > > not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.
> > > >
> > > > Not true. In bearings the primary purpose of grease is lubrication.
> > > > The primary purpose of seals is keeping water and dirt out.
> >
> > > Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is
> designed
> > > as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a
> degree,
> > > but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.
> >
> > And where did you get this little gem of a myth from? You may think you
> > have a new contrary insight into something that's been established by
> > tribology science hundreds of years ago, but I think you're just making
> > it up. Read any basic tribology book.

> You were the one that claimed it to not be true. Provide a couple of cites,
> and I might just come around to your view.

For the principle behind grease lubrication, type "tribology" on
Amazon.com, and you'll get many references. Pick up ANY book on
tribology from your nearest tertiary institution library. For evidence
of grease as good lubricant, talk to any engineer or engineering
student. Talk to any mechanic. In fact, talk to anyone who's ever used
grease as lubricant. I'm not going to do the work for you. Your claim
that grease does not lubricate is what's ridiculously false.

> > > When you pack your bearings with grease, it gets pushed out of the way
> of
> > > the bearings after a couple of turns, and does not return due to its
> > > viscosity.
> >
> > So why do you think your bearings remain lubricated when only grease is
> > ever applied by the manufacturer/mechanic?
> >
> > Grease consists of oil and carrier compound. The carrier is thick and
> > while the bulk of it may be pushed out of the way of the bearing/race
> > interface, the oil remains between the contact patch and the carrier/oil
> > compound which stays around the path ensures a steady supply of
> > lubricant.

> That is what I would constitute as "treating" the metal surface.

You meant nothing of the sort and you know it. You're wrong in any
case. "Treating the metal surface" implies changing the property of the
metal, such as anodizing or any process that alters the structure of the
metal. Applying oil or grease does not "treat" the metal because it
does not change its basic structure.

You have not answered the question: why do bearings remain lubricated
when grease is applied, when according to your theory, the grease will
be pushed out by the bearings?

> > > The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually the surface
> > > where the bearings run.
> >
> > Please. The bearing/race contact path is not in fact dry, but
> > lubricated with a thin film provided by the grease. Even with a
> > tremendous load the film remains; the only way to eliminate the
> > lubricant is to wash it away with solvent or stop replenishing it, in
> > which case it may dry up eventually. Grease ensures adequate lubricant
> > supply for a longer time than mere oil.

> I said "driest". I did not say dry.

Semantics do not provide you with any refuge. The greased bearing/race
interface isn't "dry", "drier", or "driest". Oil exists between the
interface even when loaded to such an extent that the race surface is
deformed.

> Yes the grease treats the metal causing
> it to last longer.

No, grease does not treat the metal, it provides lubrication.
Lubrication lasts longer when using grease because the oil carrier that
sticks around keeps an oil supply to the interface, which would
otherwise just run off.

> Whether or not this constitutes "lubrication" is up for
> debate, but bugger all of the grease hangs around the bearing contact
> surfaces.

It's not up for debate, grease provides lubrication for the metal
contact areas in greased systems. It's obvious you know nothing about
basic tribology, so brush up on the basics before you spout myths about
lubrication.

> > > Whilst that surface is clean, there are no probs.
> > > Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have donut-shaped
> little
> > > caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease to keep
> dirt
> > > and water out.
> >
> > Grease as water and dirt barrier is a secondary characteristic, not
> > primary.
>
> Utter bull****. Dirt will kill bearings MUCH faster than an absence of
> grease. Clean dry bearings will run for a long time, dirty bearings (even
> when greased) will not.

Don't change the subject. Grease's secondary property as water and dirt
barrier is what's been pointed out, NOT whether dirt is destructive to
bearings.

> > Grease in fact attracts dirt. It's not a substitute for
> > seals. If it were so, seals for bearings or any rotating machinery will
> > not be necessary.

> That is why both seals and grease are used.

Stop making things up. If you have references to your dubious claims,
provide them. On the other hand, it's quite easy to check the falsity
of your claims from a multitude of easily accessible resources.

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> Jose Rizal > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > Deep Freud Moors:
> >
> > > Jose Rizal > wrote in message
> > > link.net...
> > > > Deep Freud Moors:
> > > >
> > > > > With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease,
> > > getting
> > > > > water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the
> grease
> > > is
> > > > > not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out.
> > > >
> > > > Not true. In bearings the primary purpose of grease is lubrication.
> > > > The primary purpose of seals is keeping water and dirt out.
> >
> > > Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is
> designed
> > > as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a
> degree,
> > > but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.
> >
> > And where did you get this little gem of a myth from? You may think you
> > have a new contrary insight into something that's been established by
> > tribology science hundreds of years ago, but I think you're just making
> > it up. Read any basic tribology book.

> You were the one that claimed it to not be true. Provide a couple of cites,
> and I might just come around to your view.

For the principle behind grease lubrication, type "tribology" on
Amazon.com, and you'll get many references. Pick up ANY book on
tribology from your nearest tertiary institution library. For evidence
of grease as good lubricant, talk to any engineer or engineering
student. Talk to any mechanic. In fact, talk to anyone who's ever used
grease as lubricant. I'm not going to do the work for you. Your claim
that grease does not lubricate is what's ridiculously false.

> > > When you pack your bearings with grease, it gets pushed out of the way
> of
> > > the bearings after a couple of turns, and does not return due to its
> > > viscosity.
> >
> > So why do you think your bearings remain lubricated when only grease is
> > ever applied by the manufacturer/mechanic?
> >
> > Grease consists of oil and carrier compound. The carrier is thick and
> > while the bulk of it may be pushed out of the way of the bearing/race
> > interface, the oil remains between the contact patch and the carrier/oil
> > compound which stays around the path ensures a steady supply of
> > lubricant.

> That is what I would constitute as "treating" the metal surface.

You meant nothing of the sort and you know it. You're wrong in any
case. "Treating the metal surface" implies changing the property of the
metal, such as anodizing or any process that alters the structure of the
metal. Applying oil or grease does not "treat" the metal because it
does not change its basic structure.

You have not answered the question: why do bearings remain lubricated
when grease is applied, when according to your theory, the grease will
be pushed out by the bearings?

> > > The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually the surface
> > > where the bearings run.
> >
> > Please. The bearing/race contact path is not in fact dry, but
> > lubricated with a thin film provided by the grease. Even with a
> > tremendous load the film remains; the only way to eliminate the
> > lubricant is to wash it away with solvent or stop replenishing it, in
> > which case it may dry up eventually. Grease ensures adequate lubricant
> > supply for a longer time than mere oil.

> I said "driest". I did not say dry.

Semantics do not provide you with any refuge. The greased bearing/race
interface isn't "dry", "drier", or "driest". Oil exists between the
interface even when loaded to such an extent that the race surface is
deformed.

> Yes the grease treats the metal causing
> it to last longer.

No, grease does not treat the metal, it provides lubrication.
Lubrication lasts longer when using grease because the oil carrier that
sticks around keeps an oil supply to the interface, which would
otherwise just run off.

> Whether or not this constitutes "lubrication" is up for
> debate, but bugger all of the grease hangs around the bearing contact
> surfaces.

It's not up for debate, grease provides lubrication for the metal
contact areas in greased systems. It's obvious you know nothing about
basic tribology, so brush up on the basics before you spout myths about
lubrication.

> > > Whilst that surface is clean, there are no probs.
> > > Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have donut-shaped
> little
> > > caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease to keep
> dirt
> > > and water out.
> >
> > Grease as water and dirt barrier is a secondary characteristic, not
> > primary.
>
> Utter bull****. Dirt will kill bearings MUCH faster than an absence of
> grease. Clean dry bearings will run for a long time, dirty bearings (even
> when greased) will not.

Don't change the subject. Grease's secondary property as water and dirt
barrier is what's been pointed out, NOT whether dirt is destructive to
bearings.

> > Grease in fact attracts dirt. It's not a substitute for
> > seals. If it were so, seals for bearings or any rotating machinery will
> > not be necessary.

> That is why both seals and grease are used.

Stop making things up. If you have references to your dubious claims,
provide them. On the other hand, it's quite easy to check the falsity
of your claims from a multitude of easily accessible resources.

[Jose Rizal]

Mike:

> OK guys, grease is definitely a lubricant, but what exactly is its
> effect in a bike wheel hub?

Grease is basically a source of oil for the lubricated system. It is
made up essentially of two compounds, oil and thickener (or carrier).
Either or both can have additives.

The carrier carries the oil and releases it at the appropriate
occassion, when the bond between the oil and carrier is broken. This
occurs at particular temperatures and/or pressures. The carrier can
also act as a lubricant by sticking to the surfaces of the contacting
elements. This carrier film eventually wears away and must be
replenished, either by more oil or more carrier. Since grease (ie both
carrier and oil) doesn't flow readily, most of the lubrication is
accomplished by the oil that is released from the carrier.

[Jose Rizal]

Mike:

> OK guys, grease is definitely a lubricant, but what exactly is its
> effect in a bike wheel hub?

Grease is basically a source of oil for the lubricated system. It is
made up essentially of two compounds, oil and thickener (or carrier).
Either or both can have additives.

The carrier carries the oil and releases it at the appropriate
occassion, when the bond between the oil and carrier is broken. This
occurs at particular temperatures and/or pressures. The carrier can
also act as a lubricant by sticking to the surfaces of the contacting
elements. This carrier film eventually wears away and must be
replenished, either by more oil or more carrier. Since grease (ie both
carrier and oil) doesn't flow readily, most of the lubrication is
accomplished by the oil that is released from the carrier.

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is
designed
> as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a
degree,
> but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.
>
> When you pack your bearings with grease, it gets pushed out of the way of
> the bearings after a couple of turns, and does not return due to its
> viscosity. The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually the surface
> where the bearings run. Whilst that surface is clean, there are no probs.
> Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have donut-shaped little
> caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease to keep
dirt
> and water out.

What the? Why the hell do they grease wheel bearings in cars then?

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is
designed
> as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a
degree,
> but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.
>
> When you pack your bearings with grease, it gets pushed out of the way of
> the bearings after a couple of turns, and does not return due to its
> viscosity. The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually the surface
> where the bearings run. Whilst that surface is clean, there are no probs.
> Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have donut-shaped little
> caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease to keep
dirt
> and water out.

What the? Why the hell do they grease wheel bearings in cars then?

Theo

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
>
> > Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is
> designed
> > as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a
> degree,
> > but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.
> >
> > When you pack your bearings with grease, it gets pushed out of the way
of
> > the bearings after a couple of turns, and does not return due to its
> > viscosity. The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually the
surface
> > where the bearings run. Whilst that surface is clean, there are no
probs.
> > Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have donut-shaped
little
> > caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease to keep
> dirt
> > and water out.
>
> What the? Why the hell do they grease wheel bearings in cars then?
>

Exactly the same reason of course.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
>
> > Yes true. Grease is grease, and not designed as a lubricant. Oil is
> designed
> > as a lubricant, grease is not. It does treat the metal surfaces to a
> degree,
> > but any lubricating effect disappears quickly.
> >
> > When you pack your bearings with grease, it gets pushed out of the way
of
> > the bearings after a couple of turns, and does not return due to its
> > viscosity. The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually the
surface
> > where the bearings run. Whilst that surface is clean, there are no
probs.
> > Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have donut-shaped
little
> > caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease to keep
> dirt
> > and water out.
>
> What the? Why the hell do they grease wheel bearings in cars then?
>

Exactly the same reason of course.
---
DFM

[Steve Reynolds]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:09:33 GMT, Steve Reynolds >
wrote:

>Want to know how to clean your chain see:
>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html

Forgot to mention in my last post.

The plastic jars that you buy Goulburn Valley fruit from the
supermarket in, are far better than the coke bottle that Sheldon
mentions in his article. The large diameter lid makes it much easier
to retrieve the chain from the jar, far easier than fishing around in
the coke bottle trying to hook the chain with an old spoke.

7,000 kilometres on my roadie's SRAM PC89R chain so far, with no
measurable wear after maintaining it using a Sheldon's method.

SR

[Steve Reynolds]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:09:33 GMT, Steve Reynolds >
wrote:

>Want to know how to clean your chain see:
>http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html

Forgot to mention in my last post.

The plastic jars that you buy Goulburn Valley fruit from the
supermarket in, are far better than the coke bottle that Sheldon
mentions in his article. The large diameter lid makes it much easier
to retrieve the chain from the jar, far easier than fishing around in
the coke bottle trying to hook the chain with an old spoke.

7,000 kilometres on my roadie's SRAM PC89R chain so far, with no
measurable wear after maintaining it using a Sheldon's method.

SR

[Deep Freud Moors]

> >
> > Utter bull****. Dirt will kill bearings MUCH faster than an absence of
> > grease. Clean dry bearings will run for a long time, dirty bearings
(even
> > when greased) will not.
>
> Don't change the subject. Grease's secondary property as water and dirt
> barrier is what's been pointed out, NOT whether dirt is destructive to
> bearings.
>

You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was originally
about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that last
comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't it!
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

> >
> > Utter bull****. Dirt will kill bearings MUCH faster than an absence of
> > grease. Clean dry bearings will run for a long time, dirty bearings
(even
> > when greased) will not.
>
> Don't change the subject. Grease's secondary property as water and dirt
> barrier is what's been pointed out, NOT whether dirt is destructive to
> bearings.
>

You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was originally
about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that last
comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't it!
---
DFM

[andrey]

Shimano 105 is not very cheap chain.
And I have much doubts that you can disassemble it easily without danger of
total chain destroy.
Construction of 73/93/DuraAce chain does not permit it to be re-assembled
without new special lock chain link. Even if you oil link which is subject
to be broken.

> It's a problem with cheap and nasty chains. After a while though, you do
get
> good at breaking chains though. Oiling the link before breaking it can do
> wonders (would you believe???). And naturally breaking it at a different
> point each time makes sense.
>

[andrey]

Shimano 105 is not very cheap chain.
And I have much doubts that you can disassemble it easily without danger of
total chain destroy.
Construction of 73/93/DuraAce chain does not permit it to be re-assembled
without new special lock chain link. Even if you oil link which is subject
to be broken.

> It's a problem with cheap and nasty chains. After a while though, you do
get
> good at breaking chains though. Oiling the link before breaking it can do
> wonders (would you believe???). And naturally breaking it at a different
> point each time makes sense.
>

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> Theo Bekkers wrote
> > "Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> > > viscosity. The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually
the
> surface
> > > where the bearings run. Whilst that surface is clean, there are
no
> probs.
> > > Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have
donut-shaped
> little
> > > caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease
to keep
> > dirt
> > > and water out.

> > What the? Why the hell do they grease wheel bearings in cars then?

> Exactly the same reason of course.

Are you saying that if we had a way of sealing dirt out, we could run
bearings without grease?

From my dictionary
grease n.
1. animal fat in a soft or melted condition.
2. any thick fatty oil, esp. one used as a lubricant for machinery,
etc.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> Theo Bekkers wrote
> > "Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> > > viscosity. The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually
the
> surface
> > > where the bearings run. Whilst that surface is clean, there are
no
> probs.
> > > Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have
donut-shaped
> little
> > > caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease
to keep
> > dirt
> > > and water out.

> > What the? Why the hell do they grease wheel bearings in cars then?

> Exactly the same reason of course.

Are you saying that if we had a way of sealing dirt out, we could run
bearings without grease?

From my dictionary
grease n.
1. animal fat in a soft or melted condition.
2. any thick fatty oil, esp. one used as a lubricant for machinery,
etc.

Theo

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> > Theo Bekkers wrote
> > > "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
>
> > > > viscosity. The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually
> the
> > surface
> > > > where the bearings run. Whilst that surface is clean, there are
> no
> > probs.
> > > > Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have
> donut-shaped
> > little
> > > > caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease
> to keep
> > > dirt
> > > > and water out.
>
> > > What the? Why the hell do they grease wheel bearings in cars then?
>
> > Exactly the same reason of course.
>
> Are you saying that if we had a way of sealing dirt out, we could run
> bearings without grease?
>

Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???

"The primary purpose of the grease is not lubrication, but to keep dirt and
water out."

Note that it says "primary", not "sole".

Grease does provide somewhat of a lubricating effect, but its role of
inhibiting dirt from getting into the bearings is much more important from a
reliability point of view. Dirt will kill bearings far quicker than an
absence of lubricant.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Theo Bekkers > wrote in message
...
> "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
> > Theo Bekkers wrote
> > > "Deep Freud Moors" wrote
>
> > > > viscosity. The driest part of the bearing assembly is usually
> the
> > surface
> > > > where the bearings run. Whilst that surface is clean, there are
> no
> > probs.
> > > > Basic wheels nowadays are not sealed either, but have
> donut-shaped
> > little
> > > > caps, which are designed to work in conjunction with the grease
> to keep
> > > dirt
> > > > and water out.
>
> > > What the? Why the hell do they grease wheel bearings in cars then?
>
> > Exactly the same reason of course.
>
> Are you saying that if we had a way of sealing dirt out, we could run
> bearings without grease?
>

Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???

"The primary purpose of the grease is not lubrication, but to keep dirt and
water out."

Note that it says "primary", not "sole".

Grease does provide somewhat of a lubricating effect, but its role of
inhibiting dirt from getting into the bearings is much more important from a
reliability point of view. Dirt will kill bearings far quicker than an
absence of lubricant.
---
DFM

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???
>
> "The primary purpose of the grease is not lubrication, but to keep
dirt and
> water out."
>
> Note that it says "primary", not "sole".

The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Grease is just very
thick oil. It is used in situations where a thin oil will escape.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???
>
> "The primary purpose of the grease is not lubrication, but to keep
dirt and
> water out."
>
> Note that it says "primary", not "sole".

The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Grease is just very
thick oil. It is used in situations where a thin oil will escape.

Theo

[Tim Jones]

"Deep Freud Moors" > wrote in message
...

<...>

> Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???
>

You can always tell when Steve Urwin has been on the TV ;-)

Very good interview on Denton's show.

Tim

[Tim Jones]

"Deep Freud Moors" > wrote in message
...

<...>

> Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???
>

You can always tell when Steve Urwin has been on the TV ;-)

Very good interview on Denton's show.

Tim

[Mike]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Grease is just very
> thick oil.

Not quite, Theo. In common english usage, "grease" can refer to
solid oils, such as animal fat. But lubricating "grease" is
completely different. It just looks the same, hence the same name.
As he said, its oil + thickeners.

http://www.lubems.com/Composition.htm

[Mike]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Grease is just very
> thick oil.

Not quite, Theo. In common english usage, "grease" can refer to
solid oils, such as animal fat. But lubricating "grease" is
completely different. It just looks the same, hence the same name.
As he said, its oil + thickeners.

http://www.lubems.com/Composition.htm

[Theo Bekkers]

"Mike" wrote
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> > The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Grease is just very
> > thick oil.
>
> Not quite, Theo. In common english usage, "grease" can refer to
> solid oils, such as animal fat. But lubricating "grease" is
> completely different. It just looks the same, hence the same name.
> As he said, its oil + thickeners.

I believe the context of the discussion was grease as used on
bicycles. I don't think anyone was advocating the use of chicken fat
in their bottom bracket. :-)

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Mike" wrote
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> > The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Grease is just very
> > thick oil.
>
> Not quite, Theo. In common english usage, "grease" can refer to
> solid oils, such as animal fat. But lubricating "grease" is
> completely different. It just looks the same, hence the same name.
> As he said, its oil + thickeners.

I believe the context of the discussion was grease as used on
bicycles. I don't think anyone was advocating the use of chicken fat
in their bottom bracket. :-)

Theo

[Arpit]

Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?

[Arpit]

Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?

[Al User]

Arpit wrote:

> Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?

Yes, but use a low pressure garden hose and try not to concentrate
the stream at the hubs, bottom bracket or steerer tube.

A shimano team mechanic I was talking with a few years ago said
that he only ever used a bucket, a small amount of dishwashing
detergent and a large soft brush (like a dustpan brush).
The point was that he washed and serviced the team bikes after
*every* ride, so the dirt was never caked on to a point that it
had to be blasted off

Al.

[Al User]

Arpit wrote:

> Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?

Yes, but use a low pressure garden hose and try not to concentrate
the stream at the hubs, bottom bracket or steerer tube.

A shimano team mechanic I was talking with a few years ago said
that he only ever used a bucket, a small amount of dishwashing
detergent and a large soft brush (like a dustpan brush).
The point was that he washed and serviced the team bikes after
*every* ride, so the dirt was never caked on to a point that it
had to be blasted off

Al.

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> > >
> > > Utter bull****. Dirt will kill bearings MUCH faster than an absence of
> > > grease. Clean dry bearings will run for a long time, dirty bearings
> (even
> > > when greased) will not.
> >
> > Don't change the subject. Grease's secondary property as water and dirt
> > barrier is what's been pointed out, NOT whether dirt is destructive to
> > bearings.
> >
>
> You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was originally
> about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that last
> comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't it!

Nope. You made several false statements about grease, and whether it's
used for bearings or turbine rotors or gears, the primary purpose of it
is lubrication. I see you skipped all the statements about grease being
a lubricant, and not provided an iota of factual data about why you
think otherwise.

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> > >
> > > Utter bull****. Dirt will kill bearings MUCH faster than an absence of
> > > grease. Clean dry bearings will run for a long time, dirty bearings
> (even
> > > when greased) will not.
> >
> > Don't change the subject. Grease's secondary property as water and dirt
> > barrier is what's been pointed out, NOT whether dirt is destructive to
> > bearings.
> >
>
> You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was originally
> about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that last
> comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't it!

Nope. You made several false statements about grease, and whether it's
used for bearings or turbine rotors or gears, the primary purpose of it
is lubrication. I see you skipped all the statements about grease being
a lubricant, and not provided an iota of factual data about why you
think otherwise.

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???
>
> "The primary purpose of the grease is not lubrication, but to keep dirt and
> water out."
>
> Note that it says "primary", not "sole".

It's still wrong, and it doesn't matter how many times you state it.
The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Educate yourself and you
won't have to make up things like this. It's annoying for most of
everyone of us who know better.

> Grease does provide somewhat of a lubricating effect,

It provides more than a "somewhat" lubricating effect, it provides *all
the necessary* lubrication required by the bearings.

> but its role of
> inhibiting dirt from getting into the bearings is much more important from a
> reliability point of view.

What rubbish. Why do you make up things like this? A secondary benefit
of grease is its water repellency, not dirt repellency. You might think
that grease prevents dirt getting into the rotating parts, but you are
again wrong. Dirt is a killer in being entrained in grease, as it will
eventually be carried into the moving parts.

You've been making all these wrong claims about grease, it's time you
cut your losses and go.

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???
>
> "The primary purpose of the grease is not lubrication, but to keep dirt and
> water out."
>
> Note that it says "primary", not "sole".

It's still wrong, and it doesn't matter how many times you state it.
The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Educate yourself and you
won't have to make up things like this. It's annoying for most of
everyone of us who know better.

> Grease does provide somewhat of a lubricating effect,

It provides more than a "somewhat" lubricating effect, it provides *all
the necessary* lubrication required by the bearings.

> but its role of
> inhibiting dirt from getting into the bearings is much more important from a
> reliability point of view.

What rubbish. Why do you make up things like this? A secondary benefit
of grease is its water repellency, not dirt repellency. You might think
that grease prevents dirt getting into the rotating parts, but you are
again wrong. Dirt is a killer in being entrained in grease, as it will
eventually be carried into the moving parts.

You've been making all these wrong claims about grease, it's time you
cut your losses and go.

[Jose Rizal]

Mike:

> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> > The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Grease is just very
> > thick oil.
>
> Not quite, Theo.

Yes, quite.

> In common english usage, "grease" can refer to
> solid oils, such as animal fat. But lubricating "grease" is
> completely different.

Now you're just trying to be smart. Animal fat has never been inferred,
implied, nor even remotely hinted at in the thread.

> It just looks the same, hence the same name.

It doesn't look the same.

> As he said, its oil + thickeners.

Correct. Oil *and* thickener/carrier. Nothing else he said was
correct.

> http://www.lubems.com/Composition.htm

[Jose Rizal]

Mike:

> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> > The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Grease is just very
> > thick oil.
>
> Not quite, Theo.

Yes, quite.

> In common english usage, "grease" can refer to
> solid oils, such as animal fat. But lubricating "grease" is
> completely different.

Now you're just trying to be smart. Animal fat has never been inferred,
implied, nor even remotely hinted at in the thread.

> It just looks the same, hence the same name.

It doesn't look the same.

> As he said, its oil + thickeners.

Correct. Oil *and* thickener/carrier. Nothing else he said was
correct.

> http://www.lubems.com/Composition.htm

[Suzy Jackson]

"Arpit" > wrote in message
...
> Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?

Not with the water restrictions. Use a bucket.

Regards,

Suzy

[Suzy Jackson]

"Arpit" > wrote in message
...
> Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?

Not with the water restrictions. Use a bucket.

Regards,

Suzy

[Cody]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> > Not quite, Theo. In common english usage, "grease" can refer to
> > solid oils, such as animal fat. But lubricating "grease" is
> > completely different. It just looks the same, hence the same name.
> > As he said, its oil + thickeners.
>
> I believe the context of the discussion was grease as used on
> bicycles. I don't think anyone was advocating the use of chicken fat
> in their bottom bracket. :-)

Probably closer than you think. The two main thickers of grease are soap or
clay (for high temp work) well, soap is just animal fat and caustic soda.

[Cody]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> > Not quite, Theo. In common english usage, "grease" can refer to
> > solid oils, such as animal fat. But lubricating "grease" is
> > completely different. It just looks the same, hence the same name.
> > As he said, its oil + thickeners.
>
> I believe the context of the discussion was grease as used on
> bicycles. I don't think anyone was advocating the use of chicken fat
> in their bottom bracket. :-)

Probably closer than you think. The two main thickers of grease are soap or
clay (for high temp work) well, soap is just animal fat and caustic soda.

[Deep Freud Moors]

Jose Rizal > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Deep Freud Moors:
>
> > > >
> > > > Utter bull****. Dirt will kill bearings MUCH faster than an absence
of
> > > > grease. Clean dry bearings will run for a long time, dirty bearings
> > (even
> > > > when greased) will not.
> > >
> > > Don't change the subject. Grease's secondary property as water and
dirt
> > > barrier is what's been pointed out, NOT whether dirt is destructive to
> > > bearings.
> > >
> >
> > You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was
originally
> > about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that last
> > comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't it!
>
> Nope. You made several false statements about grease, and whether it's
> used for bearings or turbine rotors or gears, the primary purpose of it
> is lubrication. I see you skipped all the statements about grease being
> a lubricant, and not provided an iota of factual data about why you
> think otherwise.
>

As opposed to the plethora of factual data you provided!!!!

I gave a comparison which no-one is disputing. Instead you just tried to
drag the topic into bike unrelated stuff, hoping to catch me out for some
reason.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Jose Rizal > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Deep Freud Moors:
>
> > > >
> > > > Utter bull****. Dirt will kill bearings MUCH faster than an absence
of
> > > > grease. Clean dry bearings will run for a long time, dirty bearings
> > (even
> > > > when greased) will not.
> > >
> > > Don't change the subject. Grease's secondary property as water and
dirt
> > > barrier is what's been pointed out, NOT whether dirt is destructive to
> > > bearings.
> > >
> >
> > You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was
originally
> > about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that last
> > comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't it!
>
> Nope. You made several false statements about grease, and whether it's
> used for bearings or turbine rotors or gears, the primary purpose of it
> is lubrication. I see you skipped all the statements about grease being
> a lubricant, and not provided an iota of factual data about why you
> think otherwise.
>

As opposed to the plethora of factual data you provided!!!!

I gave a comparison which no-one is disputing. Instead you just tried to
drag the topic into bike unrelated stuff, hoping to catch me out for some
reason.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Jose Rizal > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Deep Freud Moors:
>
> > Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???
> >
> > "The primary purpose of the grease is not lubrication, but to keep dirt
and
> > water out."
> >
> > Note that it says "primary", not "sole".
>
> It's still wrong, and it doesn't matter how many times you state it.
> The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Educate yourself and you
> won't have to make up things like this. It's annoying for most of
> everyone of us who know better.

It's annoying you because what I say stands up, and your only way of dealing
with it is to try change the subject. I suggest you take some time out and
do some yoga or some ****.

> > Grease does provide somewhat of a lubricating effect,
>
> It provides more than a "somewhat" lubricating effect, it provides *all
> the necessary* lubrication required by the bearings.
>

Which is somewhat of a lubricating effect, is it not?

> > but its role of
> > inhibiting dirt from getting into the bearings is much more important
from a
> > reliability point of view.
>
> What rubbish. Why do you make up things like this?

Now folks, watch as Jose completely misinterprets what I said, and starts
crapping on about something else...

> A secondary benefit
> of grease is its water repellency, not dirt repellency.

WHOAH!!! Yes, folks, that was a massive leap into something unrelated! Why
am I continuing with this guy? I dunno...

> You might think
> that grease prevents dirt getting into the rotating parts, but you are
> again wrong. Dirt is a killer in being entrained in grease, as it will
> eventually be carried into the moving parts.

Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you just
said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
correctly.

> You've been making all these wrong claims about grease, it's time you
> cut your losses and go.

Pretending that you're right will only delude yourself. You wont even
address the point I am making, choosing to change the subject instead.
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Jose Rizal > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Deep Freud Moors:
>
> > Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???
> >
> > "The primary purpose of the grease is not lubrication, but to keep dirt
and
> > water out."
> >
> > Note that it says "primary", not "sole".
>
> It's still wrong, and it doesn't matter how many times you state it.
> The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Educate yourself and you
> won't have to make up things like this. It's annoying for most of
> everyone of us who know better.

It's annoying you because what I say stands up, and your only way of dealing
with it is to try change the subject. I suggest you take some time out and
do some yoga or some ****.

> > Grease does provide somewhat of a lubricating effect,
>
> It provides more than a "somewhat" lubricating effect, it provides *all
> the necessary* lubrication required by the bearings.
>

Which is somewhat of a lubricating effect, is it not?

> > but its role of
> > inhibiting dirt from getting into the bearings is much more important
from a
> > reliability point of view.
>
> What rubbish. Why do you make up things like this?

Now folks, watch as Jose completely misinterprets what I said, and starts
crapping on about something else...

> A secondary benefit
> of grease is its water repellency, not dirt repellency.

WHOAH!!! Yes, folks, that was a massive leap into something unrelated! Why
am I continuing with this guy? I dunno...

> You might think
> that grease prevents dirt getting into the rotating parts, but you are
> again wrong. Dirt is a killer in being entrained in grease, as it will
> eventually be carried into the moving parts.

Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you just
said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
correctly.

> You've been making all these wrong claims about grease, it's time you
> cut your losses and go.

Pretending that you're right will only delude yourself. You wont even
address the point I am making, choosing to change the subject instead.
---
DFM

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> I gave a comparison which no-one is disputing.

I dispute that. :-)

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

> I gave a comparison which no-one is disputing.

I dispute that. :-)

Theo

[Damian Harvey]

Al User wrote:

> Yes, but use a low pressure garden hose and try not to concentrate
> the stream at the hubs, bottom bracket or steerer tube.
>
> A shimano team mechanic I was talking with a few years ago said
> that he only ever used a bucket, a small amount of dishwashing
> detergent and a large soft brush (like a dustpan brush).
> The point was that he washed and serviced the team bikes after
> *every* ride, so the dirt was never caked on to a point that it
> had to be blasted off
>
> Al.
>
That's what I do! Except for the part about every ride. After the wash I
wipe over the bike with a rag soaked in turps then I wash it again then
rinse it. For the chain I soak it in turps then rinse it then dry it
with metho.

--
Cheers
Damian Harvey

This space reserved for standard disclaimer, witty quote,
plug for own business in caps and large, bad ASCII art.

[Damian Harvey]

Al User wrote:

> Yes, but use a low pressure garden hose and try not to concentrate
> the stream at the hubs, bottom bracket or steerer tube.
>
> A shimano team mechanic I was talking with a few years ago said
> that he only ever used a bucket, a small amount of dishwashing
> detergent and a large soft brush (like a dustpan brush).
> The point was that he washed and serviced the team bikes after
> *every* ride, so the dirt was never caked on to a point that it
> had to be blasted off
>
> Al.
>
That's what I do! Except for the part about every ride. After the wash I
wipe over the bike with a rag soaked in turps then I wash it again then
rinse it. For the chain I soak it in turps then rinse it then dry it
with metho.

--
Cheers
Damian Harvey

This space reserved for standard disclaimer, witty quote,
plug for own business in caps and large, bad ASCII art.

[Not Very]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:28:55 GMT, Arpit >
wrote:

> Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?

Not under current water restrictions if you are in Sydney.

[Not Very]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:28:55 GMT, Arpit >
wrote:

> Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?

Not under current water restrictions if you are in Sydney.

[Cody]

"Not Very" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:28:55 GMT, Arpit >
> wrote:
>
> > Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?
>
> Not under current water restrictions if you are in Sydney.
>

Just stand the bike on the lawn and water the lawn.

[Cody]

"Not Very" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:28:55 GMT, Arpit >
> wrote:
>
> > Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?
>
> Not under current water restrictions if you are in Sydney.
>

Just stand the bike on the lawn and water the lawn.

[Arpit]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:03:37 GMT, "Suzy Jackson"
> wrote:

>"Arpit" > wrote in message
...
>> Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?
>
>Not with the water restrictions. Use a bucket.
>
>Regards,
>
>Suzy
>

I dunno what your personal attitude is on this, but I hosed my bike
thhe other day, I used really low pressure, just to get the ugly mud
off. More pressure than rain - I didn it while it was raining (i had
just come back from a cycle) but I certainly used less than necessary
to fill a bucket. Maybe reused washing water would be in order- its
soapy so thats good I guess. SO what are these water restrictions- no
hosing whatsoever?

[Arpit]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:03:37 GMT, "Suzy Jackson"
> wrote:

>"Arpit" > wrote in message
...
>> Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?
>
>Not with the water restrictions. Use a bucket.
>
>Regards,
>
>Suzy
>

I dunno what your personal attitude is on this, but I hosed my bike
thhe other day, I used really low pressure, just to get the ugly mud
off. More pressure than rain - I didn it while it was raining (i had
just come back from a cycle) but I certainly used less than necessary
to fill a bucket. Maybe reused washing water would be in order- its
soapy so thats good I guess. SO what are these water restrictions- no
hosing whatsoever?

[Arpit]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:39:08 +1000, "Deep Freud Moors"
> wrote:

>gravelmuncher > wrote in message
...
>> Anonymous wrote:
>> > Tim Jones wrote:
>> > > Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for
>> > > oiling their chain?
>> > >
>> > > Motorcycle chain oil?
>> > Sure, thats good for regular riding. Its penetrating, and easy to
>> > apply. But like any oil, dirt sticks. So if you ride in dirt, consider
>> > a dry lube. It needs to be applied much more often though. And its
>only
>> > the inside of the chain that needs to be lubed, so wipe excess oil off
>> > the outside.
>>
>>
>>
>> I found a spray/lube/displacer with zonyl in it, so i'll give it a go.
>> You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
>> that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
>> clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
>> lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.
>
>It's a problem with cheap and nasty chains. After a while though, you do get
>good at breaking chains though. Oiling the link before breaking it can do
>wonders (would you believe???). And naturally breaking it at a different
>point each time makes sense.
>

ssigh, my chain appears to be rivetted together, no breaking for me :(
>> Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
>> to get water in bearings - but what about rain? and how the hell are you
>> to get the damn soap off?! So now my pride and joy is getting dirtier
>> and i'm still scared i'm gonna stuff something. I did buy some kerosene
>> to degrease it though...guess now i just need to figure the best way to
>> go about it.
>
>With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease, getting
>water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease is
>not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out. Dirt and poorly adjusted
>cones are the two things that will kill bearings and cones faster than
>anything else.
>
>There are super-greases, like MBL, which definitely do assist in
>lubrication, but you have to reapply it pretty regularly. The benefits of
>the reduced friction are very small.
>---
>DFM
>

[Arpit]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:39:08 +1000, "Deep Freud Moors"
> wrote:

>gravelmuncher > wrote in message
...
>> Anonymous wrote:
>> > Tim Jones wrote:
>> > > Other than expensive bike store lubricant, what do people use for
>> > > oiling their chain?
>> > >
>> > > Motorcycle chain oil?
>> > Sure, thats good for regular riding. Its penetrating, and easy to
>> > apply. But like any oil, dirt sticks. So if you ride in dirt, consider
>> > a dry lube. It needs to be applied much more often though. And its
>only
>> > the inside of the chain that needs to be lubed, so wipe excess oil off
>> > the outside.
>>
>>
>>
>> I found a spray/lube/displacer with zonyl in it, so i'll give it a go.
>> You see, I've just bought a new Trek 1400 and i'm absolutely terrified
>> that i'll do something to hurt it. I've also heard that it's best to
>> clean the chain on the bike, as breaking the chain only shortens the
>> lifespan of that particular link(???) kinda makes sense really.
>
>It's a problem with cheap and nasty chains. After a while though, you do get
>good at breaking chains though. Oiling the link before breaking it can do
>wonders (would you believe???). And naturally breaking it at a different
>point each time makes sense.
>

ssigh, my chain appears to be rivetted together, no breaking for me :(
>> Although, the same person says not to run a hose over the bike so as not
>> to get water in bearings - but what about rain? and how the hell are you
>> to get the damn soap off?! So now my pride and joy is getting dirtier
>> and i'm still scared i'm gonna stuff something. I did buy some kerosene
>> to degrease it though...guess now i just need to figure the best way to
>> go about it.
>
>With regards to your bearings, if they are well packed with grease, getting
>water in should not be a big problem. The primary purpose of the grease is
>not lubrication, but to keep dirt and water out. Dirt and poorly adjusted
>cones are the two things that will kill bearings and cones faster than
>anything else.
>
>There are super-greases, like MBL, which definitely do assist in
>lubrication, but you have to reapply it pretty regularly. The benefits of
>the reduced friction are very small.
>---
>DFM
>

[hippy]

"Cody" > wrote in message
...
> Just stand the bike on the lawn and water the lawn.

Well, in Melbourne you aren't allowed to water your
lawn as far as I'm aware.. and a good thing too.
Silly english lawns in this country! pfft!

hippy
If my plants can't live without me maintaining
them, it wasn't meant to be ;-)

[hippy]

"Cody" > wrote in message
...
> Just stand the bike on the lawn and water the lawn.

Well, in Melbourne you aren't allowed to water your
lawn as far as I'm aware.. and a good thing too.
Silly english lawns in this country! pfft!

hippy
If my plants can't live without me maintaining
them, it wasn't meant to be ;-)

[Arpit]

Yeah, I had a look, bicycle isnt counted in the restrictions ;) still,
thats a technicality


On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:03:37 GMT, "Suzy Jackson"
> wrote:

>"Arpit" > wrote in message
...
>> Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?
>
>Not with the water restrictions. Use a bucket.
>
>Regards,
>
>Suzy
>

[Arpit]

Yeah, I had a look, bicycle isnt counted in the restrictions ;) still,
thats a technicality


On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:03:37 GMT, "Suzy Jackson"
> wrote:

>"Arpit" > wrote in message
...
>> Is it ok to hose a bike to clean it?
>
>Not with the water restrictions. Use a bucket.
>
>Regards,
>
>Suzy
>

[Allan Jones]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:26:10 +1000, "Deep Freud Moors"
> wrote:

snip
>
>Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you just
>said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
>correctly.

snip

>DFM

I'm sorry Deep, but grease provides no barrier at all. In fact grease
plus dirt equals grinding compound. This mixture will result in the
rapid erosion of metallic surfaces ( in a dynamic situation).

Thirty years working in foundries forces me to agree with Jose.
Bearings will always fail if the seals are damaged.
Bearings designed to be used in particularly aggressive conditions
will often be double sealed.

Allan Jones

[Allan Jones]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:26:10 +1000, "Deep Freud Moors"
> wrote:

snip
>
>Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you just
>said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
>correctly.

snip

>DFM

I'm sorry Deep, but grease provides no barrier at all. In fact grease
plus dirt equals grinding compound. This mixture will result in the
rapid erosion of metallic surfaces ( in a dynamic situation).

Thirty years working in foundries forces me to agree with Jose.
Bearings will always fail if the seals are damaged.
Bearings designed to be used in particularly aggressive conditions
will often be double sealed.

Allan Jones

[Deep Freud Moors]

Allan Jones > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:26:10 +1000, "Deep Freud Moors"
> > wrote:
>
> snip
> >
> >Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you
just
> >said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
> >correctly.
>
> snip
>
> >DFM
>
> I'm sorry Deep, but grease provides no barrier at all. In fact grease
> plus dirt equals grinding compound. This mixture will result in the
> rapid erosion of metallic surfaces ( in a dynamic situation).

So you are saying you shouldn't grease bearings? Did you read what I wrote?
When you pack bearings with grease, dirt is much less likely to get in. Thus
they work better.

> Thirty years working in foundries forces me to agree with Jose.
> Bearings will always fail if the seals are damaged.
> Bearings designed to be used in particularly aggressive conditions
> will often be double sealed.

So you weren't working on bikes all that time then? :o)

I was originally (somewhere miles up the thread) reffering to basic wheel
bearing assemblies. The subject of sealed bearings hadn't even come up!
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Allan Jones > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:26:10 +1000, "Deep Freud Moors"
> > wrote:
>
> snip
> >
> >Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you
just
> >said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
> >correctly.
>
> snip
>
> >DFM
>
> I'm sorry Deep, but grease provides no barrier at all. In fact grease
> plus dirt equals grinding compound. This mixture will result in the
> rapid erosion of metallic surfaces ( in a dynamic situation).

So you are saying you shouldn't grease bearings? Did you read what I wrote?
When you pack bearings with grease, dirt is much less likely to get in. Thus
they work better.

> Thirty years working in foundries forces me to agree with Jose.
> Bearings will always fail if the seals are damaged.
> Bearings designed to be used in particularly aggressive conditions
> will often be double sealed.

So you weren't working on bikes all that time then? :o)

I was originally (somewhere miles up the thread) reffering to basic wheel
bearing assemblies. The subject of sealed bearings hadn't even come up!
---
DFM

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> Jose Rizal > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Deep Freud Moors:
> >
> > > Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???
> > >
> > > "The primary purpose of the grease is not lubrication, but to keep dirt
> and
> > > water out."
> > >
> > > Note that it says "primary", not "sole".
> >
> > It's still wrong, and it doesn't matter how many times you state it.
> > The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Educate yourself and you
> > won't have to make up things like this. It's annoying for most of
> > everyone of us who know better.
>
> It's annoying you because what I say stands up, and your only way of dealing
> with it is to try change the subject. I suggest you take some time out and
> do some yoga or some ****.

Funny, since when do your statements stand by themselves? So far you've
dodged the challenge of providing any sort of reference to your mythical
claims, instead resorting to repetition to make yourself belive they're
true. Sorry, no cigar.

> > > Grease does provide somewhat of a lubricating effect,
> >
> > It provides more than a "somewhat" lubricating effect, it provides *all
> > the necessary* lubrication required by the bearings.

> Which is somewhat of a lubricating effect, is it not?

No. You need to learn English a little better, or you're being
deliberately dumb. "Somewhat" is different from "all that is
necessary". Dodge and duck all you like, you don't fool anyone.

> > > but its role of
> > > inhibiting dirt from getting into the bearings is much more important
> from a
> > > reliability point of view.
> >
> > What rubbish. Why do you make up things like this?
>
> Now folks, watch as Jose completely misinterprets what I said, and starts
> crapping on about something else...

Who do you think you're addressing, an audience for your comedy show?
Again you sidestep the issue, and try to divert attention. Pretty
juvenile, and quite futile. Show proof for your claims, some
references, otherwise live with the fact that you made wrong claims
about something you know nothing about.

> > A secondary benefit
> > of grease is its water repellency, not dirt repellency.
>
> WHOAH!!! Yes, folks, that was a massive leap into something unrelated! Why
> am I continuing with this guy? I dunno...

Because you're trying to save face? Unsuccessful...

> > You might think
> > that grease prevents dirt getting into the rotating parts, but you are
> > again wrong. Dirt is a killer in being entrained in grease, as it will
> > eventually be carried into the moving parts.
>
> Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you just
> said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
> correctly.

Now you add statements to try to change your previous statements.
Unfortunately, whether "applied correctly" or not, grease does not
provide an "effective barrier for dirt". No luck there, I'm afraid.

> > You've been making all these wrong claims about grease, it's time you
> > cut your losses and go.
>
> Pretending that you're right will only delude yourself. You wont even
> address the point I am making, choosing to change the subject instead.

Ah, the tried and tested Usenet method of accusing someone of what
you're guilty of. No luck there either. I've addressed all the
specific points you've made, and a cursory glance at previous posts show
this.

You, however, sidestep the issues, snip relevant passages proving your
claims are laughably wrong, and fail to show any kind of reference for
your claims. I'm not sure why you persist in making erroneous claims
showing an embarrasingly huge lack of knowledge; I can only guess that
you have pretensions and a desire to impress imaginary audiences in this
forum. Sorry, you failed in every respect. This has been a huge waste
of time.

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> Jose Rizal > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Deep Freud Moors:
> >
> > > Crikey, do I have to go back to my original statement yet again???
> > >
> > > "The primary purpose of the grease is not lubrication, but to keep dirt
> and
> > > water out."
> > >
> > > Note that it says "primary", not "sole".
> >
> > It's still wrong, and it doesn't matter how many times you state it.
> > The primary purpose of grease is lubrication. Educate yourself and you
> > won't have to make up things like this. It's annoying for most of
> > everyone of us who know better.
>
> It's annoying you because what I say stands up, and your only way of dealing
> with it is to try change the subject. I suggest you take some time out and
> do some yoga or some ****.

Funny, since when do your statements stand by themselves? So far you've
dodged the challenge of providing any sort of reference to your mythical
claims, instead resorting to repetition to make yourself belive they're
true. Sorry, no cigar.

> > > Grease does provide somewhat of a lubricating effect,
> >
> > It provides more than a "somewhat" lubricating effect, it provides *all
> > the necessary* lubrication required by the bearings.

> Which is somewhat of a lubricating effect, is it not?

No. You need to learn English a little better, or you're being
deliberately dumb. "Somewhat" is different from "all that is
necessary". Dodge and duck all you like, you don't fool anyone.

> > > but its role of
> > > inhibiting dirt from getting into the bearings is much more important
> from a
> > > reliability point of view.
> >
> > What rubbish. Why do you make up things like this?
>
> Now folks, watch as Jose completely misinterprets what I said, and starts
> crapping on about something else...

Who do you think you're addressing, an audience for your comedy show?
Again you sidestep the issue, and try to divert attention. Pretty
juvenile, and quite futile. Show proof for your claims, some
references, otherwise live with the fact that you made wrong claims
about something you know nothing about.

> > A secondary benefit
> > of grease is its water repellency, not dirt repellency.
>
> WHOAH!!! Yes, folks, that was a massive leap into something unrelated! Why
> am I continuing with this guy? I dunno...

Because you're trying to save face? Unsuccessful...

> > You might think
> > that grease prevents dirt getting into the rotating parts, but you are
> > again wrong. Dirt is a killer in being entrained in grease, as it will
> > eventually be carried into the moving parts.
>
> Dirt is a bearing killer whether in grease or not. Contrary to what you just
> said, grease provides an effective barrier against dirt when applied
> correctly.

Now you add statements to try to change your previous statements.
Unfortunately, whether "applied correctly" or not, grease does not
provide an "effective barrier for dirt". No luck there, I'm afraid.

> > You've been making all these wrong claims about grease, it's time you
> > cut your losses and go.
>
> Pretending that you're right will only delude yourself. You wont even
> address the point I am making, choosing to change the subject instead.

Ah, the tried and tested Usenet method of accusing someone of what
you're guilty of. No luck there either. I've addressed all the
specific points you've made, and a cursory glance at previous posts show
this.

You, however, sidestep the issues, snip relevant passages proving your
claims are laughably wrong, and fail to show any kind of reference for
your claims. I'm not sure why you persist in making erroneous claims
showing an embarrasingly huge lack of knowledge; I can only guess that
you have pretensions and a desire to impress imaginary audiences in this
forum. Sorry, you failed in every respect. This has been a huge waste
of time.

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> Jose Rizal > wrote in message

> > > You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was
> originally
> > > about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that last
> > > comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't it!
> >
> > Nope. You made several false statements about grease, and whether it's
> > used for bearings or turbine rotors or gears, the primary purpose of it
> > is lubrication. I see you skipped all the statements about grease being
> > a lubricant, and not provided an iota of factual data about why you
> > think otherwise.
> >
>
> As opposed to the plethora of factual data you provided!!!!

At least you recognise facts when you see them. Now learn and move on.

> I gave a comparison which no-one is disputing. Instead you just tried to
> drag the topic into bike unrelated stuff, hoping to catch me out for some
> reason.

Your comprehension is either deliberately or congenitally defective.
Anyone reading the previous posts on this thread will easily see that
your claims have been specifically addressed and shown to be wrong.
You've made no correct statements so far, provided no references, and
not even a hint of where you got your mythical claims from. There's no
backing out from that.

[Jose Rizal]

Deep Freud Moors:

> Jose Rizal > wrote in message

> > > You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was
> originally
> > > about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that last
> > > comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't it!
> >
> > Nope. You made several false statements about grease, and whether it's
> > used for bearings or turbine rotors or gears, the primary purpose of it
> > is lubrication. I see you skipped all the statements about grease being
> > a lubricant, and not provided an iota of factual data about why you
> > think otherwise.
> >
>
> As opposed to the plethora of factual data you provided!!!!

At least you recognise facts when you see them. Now learn and move on.

> I gave a comparison which no-one is disputing. Instead you just tried to
> drag the topic into bike unrelated stuff, hoping to catch me out for some
> reason.

Your comprehension is either deliberately or congenitally defective.
Anyone reading the previous posts on this thread will easily see that
your claims have been specifically addressed and shown to be wrong.
You've made no correct statements so far, provided no references, and
not even a hint of where you got your mythical claims from. There's no
backing out from that.

[Deep Freud Moors]

Jose Rizal > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Deep Freud Moors:
>
> > Jose Rizal > wrote in message
>
> > > > You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was
> > originally
> > > > about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that
last
> > > > comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't
it!
> > >
> > > Nope. You made several false statements about grease, and whether
it's
> > > used for bearings or turbine rotors or gears, the primary purpose of
it
> > > is lubrication. I see you skipped all the statements about grease
being
> > > a lubricant, and not provided an iota of factual data about why you
> > > think otherwise.
> > >
> >
> > As opposed to the plethora of factual data you provided!!!!
>
> At least you recognise facts when you see them. Now learn and move on.
>
> > I gave a comparison which no-one is disputing. Instead you just tried to
> > drag the topic into bike unrelated stuff, hoping to catch me out for
some
> > reason.
>
> Your comprehension is either deliberately or congenitally defective.
> Anyone reading the previous posts on this thread will easily see that
> your claims have been specifically addressed and shown to be wrong.
> You've made no correct statements so far

I have made no correct statements so far? Never ever? If I was truly always
incorrect, I would be a brilliant devils advocate. This illustrates your
penchant for incorrectly overstating stuff rather well.

Why have you not addressed my original comparison yet, Jose?
---
DFM

[Deep Freud Moors]

Jose Rizal > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Deep Freud Moors:
>
> > Jose Rizal > wrote in message
>
> > > > You are the one that is trying to change the subject!!! It was
> > originally
> > > > about wheel bearings, if you can recall correctly. You avoided that
last
> > > > comparison because it illustrates my point rather concisely, doesn't
it!
> > >
> > > Nope. You made several false statements about grease, and whether
it's
> > > used for bearings or turbine rotors or gears, the primary purpose of
it
> > > is lubrication. I see you skipped all the statements about grease
being
> > > a lubricant, and not provided an iota of factual data about why you
> > > think otherwise.
> > >
> >
> > As opposed to the plethora of factual data you provided!!!!
>
> At least you recognise facts when you see them. Now learn and move on.
>
> > I gave a comparison which no-one is disputing. Instead you just tried to
> > drag the topic into bike unrelated stuff, hoping to catch me out for
some
> > reason.
>
> Your comprehension is either deliberately or congenitally defective.
> Anyone reading the previous posts on this thread will easily see that
> your claims have been specifically addressed and shown to be wrong.
> You've made no correct statements so far

I have made no correct statements so far? Never ever? If I was truly always
incorrect, I would be a brilliant devils advocate. This illustrates your
penchant for incorrectly overstating stuff rather well.

Why have you not addressed my original comparison yet, Jose?
---
DFM