Loading comment...
Readit NewsLoading parent story...
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
ofalkaed commented on People who know the formula for WD-40 wsj.com/business/the-secr... · Posted by u/fortran77
Wax is great for road riding. I ride in Auckland where it’s wet half the time (all the time this summer). I re-wax every 400 or so km. It’s clean running and beautiful compared to the expensive oils I was using, and lasts longer.
Wear appears to be down too. The reduction in grease and dirty chain makes is so nice.
It is much better than the expensive oils, but not as good as old fashioned 3in1. The expensive chain lubes are mostly meant for racing, they give you the least friction by a long shot but don't last and most of them do not take well to reapplying without cleaning, you end up with grinding paste.
Wax holds up quite well against water but does hold grit and tends to deposit it on chainrings, sprockets, and pulleys, and it wears them quicker than 3in1 will. Wax shares the downside of PTFE, you need to clean off the old before applying more or things start wearing fast, which is not an issue for everyone. It is nice and clean.
Here in the winter of northern Minnesota, one good snowy ride with the road salt and sand will strip wax. Not that you would want to use wax in this sort of cold even if the road salt and sand were not an issue, wax gets stiff and brittle in the sorts of cold we get. I am an everyday rider and bike is my mode of transportation for everything, in this climate I need ease of reapplication or I will be replacing chainrings yearly.
ofalkaed commented on People who know the formula for WD-40 wsj.com/business/the-secr... · Posted by u/fortran77
> I would expect WD-40 to work fairly well because it cleans the chain and gets the filth out of the links
That it does, but it doesn't leave much lubricant behind, which you need for a properly functioning chain. As you know, you want something that will get between the pins and rollers and stay there, minus the grime that would turn it into grinding paste. Which is probably why some people swear by wax, but that sounds like a giant hassle.
What I meant is that you can reapply WD-40 as needed, it may not lubricate the chain but it will clean it. Try that with PTFE.
Wax is up there with PTFE for making grinding paste in my experience, especially on long, hot, wax softening rides.
ofalkaed commented on People who know the formula for WD-40 wsj.com/business/the-secr... · Posted by u/fortran77
That's not really true. There's lots of research out there showing that waxed chains result in less power loss over longer time compared to no lubrication and most other lubricants (both bicycle specific ones and more general ones). Now waxing your chain is admittedly annoying, but it does work.
3in1 is actually bike specific, it fell out of favor with the rise of the modern bike lubes. Wax collects dust and dirt, especially when friction or the sun cause it to soften, which turns your waxed chain into a drive train eater and will cause power loss. More for the track than the road.
ofalkaed commented on People who know the formula for WD-40 wsj.com/business/the-secr... · Posted by u/fortran77
One hilarious fact about WD-40 is that there is a bicycle chain lubricant by Muc-Off that does WORSE than original WD-40 in chain wear tests.
(I know WD-40 is a bad lubricant, that's what makes this so funny)
Bike chain lubes are mostly terrible, they are meant to work properly for maybe a few hundred miles assuming they were applied to a properly cleaned chain, properly applied and the weather cooperates. They all wear chains and chain rings quickly unless you are very good about cleaning and relubing your chain. 3in1 is still king unless you are racing.
I would expect WD-40 to work fairly well because it cleans the chain and gets the filth out of the links, filth is a big part of drive train wear and we really don't need much in the way of lube as long as things are kept clean and rust free so the links move smoothly.
> "you are assuming the reader will find your ideas as important and interesting as you do. It is the writer's job to show the reader why they should be interested, why they should care."
This is writing-as-bookselling and marketing. If you find your ideas interesting and want to write about them, it's not your job to show the reader why, you only expect readers who share your interest to be potential readers. You may not think the reader should be interested or should care at all?
>You may not think the reader should be interested or should care at all?
You can but that does not mean you should. If you write under such assumptions your writing will likely not be of much interest to people who don't share your interest, you will be preaching to a choir and much of the choir may be interested in a different aspect or care about it in a very different way than you do. Writing under such assumptions means your writing depends on those assumptions. No idea why you think this is writing-as-bookselling and marketing, preaching to the choir is almost always better for sales than trying to win over people who don't care and are uninterested.
We seem to be of like mind on this matter then. I look forward to us reconvening the next time Gwern hits the front page and we each feel compelled to voice some kind of informed dissent on the subject. Dissent probably isn’t the right word here because I don’t think either of us actually disagree with what he’s saying.
How fun is a conversation once it’s established that both parties are in agreement about something in principle? Does one probe to be provocative?
I place high expectations on writing that 1) I feel is right up my alley because I think I’m already familiar with the topic and 2) I’m unfamiliar with but am eager to learn about—it sparks my curiosity. Not all writing meets these expectations and this is probably why I’m disgusted by the though of using LLMs for information about subjects I have a genuine enthusiasm for and can care less about doing so for others, at least until I can figure out whether I want to know more about it. Then the subject becomes forbidden to prompt about.
> For me, it is the way he presents and develops ideas that prevents me from reading, it reminds me of reading a tutorial on how to reach his conclusion.
My assumption is that this kind of writing exists somewhere along the same strand of writing that lends itself to what’s expected from some writing in public school (‘Good writing is what shows the reader/teacher that you correctly grasped the material that was taught to you’); writing that is received well by ’The Masses™’ or some in-group (‘Good writing is what shows the reader/audience that you’re beliefs are in correct alignment with theirs’); something like a mathematical proof (a more literal representation of how to reach a conclusion if I correctly understand what a mathematical proof is); and a well-formed atomic note written for private consideration.
If your goal is communication, isn't being well received by the masses a very applicable measurement of good writing? David Foster Wallace's contribution to the world is primarily indirect, filtered down to the masses by "bad" writers who are more pragmatic about things and take into account that most people don't want to spend 1000 pages analyzing a topic, don't even want to spend 10 pages doing it, they want it boiled down to a simple choice so they can decide if it is of value to them, if it can improve their life and I can't blame or judge them for that. Wallace certainly did not blame them for it, just felt they should be conscious of why they came to a conclusion instead of blindly accepting it because it is their conclusion.
His general style is simple and direct, how we all learn to write essays in school. He writes his outline, diligently follows it while writing his draft, edits the draft and then publishes it. There is nothing inherently wrong or bad about this, I just would rather read something which explores the idea instead of makes an assertion about it, but he is writing about what he looks for in his reading. I would not call it good writing but I also would not call it bad, it is just uninteresting to me.
https://youtu.be/gU1UfNQXAKQ
Link is bassoon, not tracker.