traffic lights nklr

[Ben Williams]

A little more technical info on the ingredients- http://www.wd40.com/Download/?/Brands/pdfs/msds-wd40_aerosol.us.pdf Blake Sobiloff wrote:

On 4/13/05, clint lee jin yew wrote: > wd40 is carosine based if i'm not mistaken. Actually, its not--see : "What does WD-40 contain? While the ingredients in WD-40 are secret, we can tell you what WD-40 does NOT contain. WD-40 does not contain silicone, kerosene, water, wax, graphite, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), or any known cancer-causing agents. " -- Blake Sobiloff San Mateo, CA (USA) Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Randy Shultz]

I don't use WD40, but I use a product of similar consistency. I just never found WD40 to be a very good lubricant. Nor do I remember hearing that the manufacturer ever claimed that it was a good lube. But I sure do want a water displacer and a rust preventative, so I use a similar product, just one that has better lubrication abilities based on my prior experience using it on firearm slides and what not. I'm not sure I understand exactly what factors are most important for chain wear with o-ring chains, since obviously the pins are factory lubed. I would assume you still need lube at your bearing/roller, and your sprocket interfaces. But I've often suspected that just reducing the dirt and grit caking, which I found so prevalent back when I used chain wax, contributes the most to reducing o-ring chain wear. What do you think?

[Blake Sobiloff]

On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:33 AM, Randy Shultz wrote:

> I don't use WD40, but I use a product of similar consistency. I just > never found WD40 to be a very good lubricant. Nor do I remember > hearing that the manufacturer ever claimed that it was a good lube.

Folks, go read the WD-40 website FAQ that I linked to earlier (http://www.wd40.com/Brands/wd40_faqs.html>). WD-40 *is* marketed as a lubricant. However, reading the comparison between WD-40 and 3-in-One (both from the same company), it sounds like they'd recommend 3-in-One for chains over WD-40. Maybe this has to do with the penetrating capability of WD-40, which worries me. If it can penetrate between metals, what keeps it from penetrating past o-rings and displacing the grease? Good o-rings that seal well, I guess. Can't argue with the large body of experience that shows WD-40 works fine on chains. -- Blake Sobiloff San Mateo, CA (USA)

[Eric L. Green]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Randy Shultz wrote:

> lubed. I would assume you still need lube at your bearing/roller, and > your sprocket interfaces. But I've often suspected that just reducing > the dirt and grit caking, which I found so prevalent back when I used > chain wax, contributes the most to reducing o-ring chain wear. What do > you think?

Agree. The problem with the sticky chain loob was that it basically turned my swingarm into a belt sander for the chain. -E

[Randy Shultz]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Blake Sobiloff wrote: WD-40 *is* marketed as a lubricant. > --- I stand corrected. On the manufacturer's page I read they did not state that it was being sold as a lubricant. Instead they featured its' anti-corrosion and water displacement properties. But on the page you linked it IS stated that it is a "light" lubricant. I won't argue that, as it's a liquid. But, in terms of chain lubrication, is a light lubricant sufficient? I question that.

[Ben Williams]

After a bit more digging on the WD40 site I found this- "3-in-one high performance dry lube." "A synthetic polymer lubricant that provides superior, long-lasting lubrication and corrosion protection. It leaves no oily residue, preventing the buildup of airborne dirt and dust. It's a no mess, no stain lubrication solution for all types of surfaces, including metal, vinyl, wood and rubber." http://www.wd40.com/Brands/3in1pro.html Randy Shultz wrote:

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Blake Sobiloff wrote: WD-40 *is* marketed as a lubricant. > --- I stand corrected. On the manufacturer's page I read they did not state that it was being sold as a lubricant. Instead they featured its' anti-corrosion and water displacement properties. But on the page you linked it IS stated that it is a "light" lubricant. I won't argue that, as it's a liquid. But, in terms of chain lubrication, is a light lubricant sufficient? I question that. Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Bogdan Swider]

> > I won't argue that, as it's a liquid. But, in terms of chain > lubrication, is a light lubricant sufficient? I question that. >

There's theory and there's praxis. As I've posted ad nausea: First chain, 19.5k miles with gear lube. Second chain 21k with only WD. Current chain, 18k and still going strong also only WD. Seems it's sufficient. Bogdan

[Randy Shultz]

I should have been more specific. Sufficient was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said best. I use a product very much like WD40, but with better lubrication in my experience. I'm completely sold on the idea of not using something that cakes dirt, sand and other abrasives on the chain, and that, I suspect, is what allows us to get more life out of our chains. I posted that previously. I was simply saying that I would like to get the benefits of a corrosion fighter, water displaser and even de-greaser, like a WD40, with better lubrication than a "light" lubricator. Randy

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Bogdan Swider wrote: > > > > > I won't argue that, as it's a liquid. But, in terms of chain > > lubrication, is a light lubricant sufficient? I question that. > > > > There's theory and there's praxis. As I've posted ad nausea: First chain, > 19.5k miles with gear lube. Second chain 21k with only WD. Current chain, > 18k and still going strong also only WD. Seems it's sufficient. > > Bogdan

[Randy Shultz]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, Ben Williams wrote:

> After a bit more digging on the WD40 site I found this- > > "3-in-one high performance dry lube." > "A synthetic polymer lubricant that provides superior, long-lasting

lubrication and corrosion protection. It leaves no oily residue, preventing the buildup of airborne dirt and dust.

>

--- So is 3-in-One a different product than the WD40 we are talking about here? I think it is.

[Eric L. Green]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Bogdan Swider wrote:

>> I won't argue that, as it's a liquid. But, in terms of chain >> lubrication, is a light lubricant sufficient? I question that. >> > > There's theory and there's praxis. As I've posted ad nausea: First chain, > 19.5k miles with gear lube. Second chain 21k with only WD. Current chain, > 18k and still going strong also only WD. Seems it's sufficient.

Save your breath, ideologues are never interested in facts, only in their theories. Us practical engineers who care more about what works than what's theoretically correct according to some ideological point of view are a tiny majority. The state of American politics (which is utterly dysfunctional) ought to be proof enough of that. -E