Some wax shavings appear during running-in.
The tests were
carried out outdoors on my test climb of The product dries the Salbert . By comparing Powertap! SRM! and
theoretical mechanical calculations! it was possible
to see if one lubricant was more efficient than another.
As a reminder! the Friction Fact measurement table indicated
a difference of 2.3 watts between the two lubricants on a clean chain.
UFO vs Squirt vs Finish line vs Hydro dynamic The product dries Muc off
For the measurements! I specify that I stayed on almost
the same gear. Indeed! it should not be forgotten that the friction losses
of a chain evolve according to the gears chosen as buy bulk sms service recalled in
the table below.
Yield 53×19 / 11×28. Friction Fact Document
To also facilitate the measurement of watts and limit the
sources of errors in the sensors! I stayed at a fairly low cadence
close to 65/70 rpm (see J.Pinot for recommendations).
I carried out 2 test runs for each lubricant!
the results are in the table below.
Finish line vs UFO
We can see that there is a loss of around 5 watts towards 300W between SRM and Powertap for the Finish line and only 3 watts for the UFO. Advantage UFO for 2 watts therefore! We note how much disk space are you using hat on the day of 05/09! the Powertap sensor indicated much more loss on the second
climb. However the time and the watts measured by the SRM are identical. I have
296 watts SRM for a time of 10’42 in the 2 climbs. The theoretical calculation allows each time
to confirm the differences (if stable temperature and betting email list limited wind)! it is therefore the Powertap which did not have the right measurement… I went back 2 days later to confirm the differences between SRM/Powertap and UFO.