Thanks for that, Dan. This test expands horizons of chain wear we hadn't reached before.
Lots to absorb here but three items strike me at first read-through:
1. Somewhere in our discussions on chain wear it was mentioned that any chain does not necessarily wear equally over time (standing in for use). Zinn's graph of time v wear proves that our caution was prescient. Some of the chains wear faster at first and then have a long slow rate of wear to where they are discarded. A few others wear slowly at first and then wear accelerates until the agreed point where the chain is thrown off. Some wear near enough proportionately over their entire lives. All of this under the same treatment and very accurately measured.
2. The fact that the factory lube and the general clashing of derailleurs consume power until the chain is run-in (Zinn's choice of phrase -- mine would be "bedded-in", a different matter) has not been mentioned in the literature as far as I know. Perhaps someone else more familiar with the racing literature than I am may have seen something. Since so many of us have Rohloff gearboxes, it is worth noting that bedding-in period would clearly be less for a single speed chain on a Rohloff than for a derailleur chain on a cluster transmission, and the power lost would also from the beginning be less for the Rohloff transmission but, all the same, is not likely to be zero.
3. Those per hour costs as a summary of the table are cockeyed. Zinn says that in real life they'd be lower. They'd better be. You can operate a very flash car for $3 an hour if you buy it secondhand so that the major depreciation is shifted onto the first owner, and without the inconvenience of cleaning a chain and derailleur system after every time you use it. Bicycling used to be a workingman's transport and sport, but these chains, in the Wippermann telling via Zinn, aren't for workingmen.
Some of the more obvious personal implications:
1. I'm right, given our ignorance of the proportional/disproportional rate of wear of my chosen chains and my personal circumstances (difficulty of bending over the bike, chain inside Chainglider), to throw chains off at roughly 0.5% wear (on the argument -- until now -- that they they are a lot cheaper and less bother to fit than new chainrings and sprockets) rather than either 0.75% as generally recommended and popular on the forum or 1% as used to be permissible in days of yore when good steel chainrings and sprockets were in use. (I still use steel chainrings and the Rohloff sprocket is known to be very long-lived.) Though my reasoning was different, the Wippermann tests bear loud witness.
2. At the risk of sounding like a smartass, these Wippermann tests also vindicate my choice on my Rohloff transmission of the derailleur KMC 8-xx for its extra flexibility and therefore faster bedding-in over the single-speed KMC equivalent. At the far end of the KMC 8-xx's life, but irrelevant to me as I will throw the chain off at around 0.5% wear, that may give an overall shorter life on any derailleur chain used on a Rohloff as compared to its exact single-speed equivalent from the same factory. Gee, I paid about Euro 12 each for the last lot of KMC 8-93 chains I bought... You'd have to do about 20,000 miles a year before the saving buys you a cup of coffee.
3. I do not share Wippermann's clear but untested (at least we haven't been told whether they tested it) implication that the factory lube would remain a drag after the running-in period. As is well-known, I operate my chains for their entire lifespan on their factory lube, inside a Chainglider, and the 4506km to approximately 0.5% wear that is my benchmark, while perhaps not impressive to some of the commuters with onerous cleaning schedules, is in fact nearly three times the mileage I achieved on a chain before. For me, that's adequate proof. Now, my experience is that the factory lube is worked by the chain action into a much thinner liquid than the Oil of Rohloff which in my earlier use proved to be a pretty efficient chain lubricant (and very economical too, as very little spreads an incredible way). More to the point, the liquified KMC factory lube is very much less stiff and much more liquid than the Liquid White Wax I used at another time inside a Dutch type chances, which came from the bottle liquid but which solidified on the chain and then did not liquify again under the working of the chain, instead stiffening and falling off in balls, carrying dirt with the balls (effective range before reapplying was perhaps 100km...). I think that, given the 3x distance compared to chains with other lubes that the factory lube inside the Chainglider carries me, that Wippermann might carry the chain lube on the chains in their test a good deal further into the test.
As I say, these are personal implications, given under my usual caution that I'm into zero maintenance bikes and that the cost of replacement components are irrelevant to me if they add to my convenience or extend my cycling life, and chains are one of the cheapest components needing regular replacement. Someone who earns his living with his bike would obviously take a different view on the longevity of even inexpensive components.
