Latest News 62 – Mega Marketing Concern Spotlight Edition 2

Prestacycle One – Part 1. 

Hey ho everybody – welcome to the second edition of deep dive in to mega marketing concerns in this fun little corner of cycling.

This will be the first of likely just 2 articles covering this product.

The reason this product makes the cut for a deep and fascinating investigation;

• The product performance claims are extraordinary
• In the product information, there is a concerted attack on testing of lubricants via using them on a bicycle chain – which is very odd – testing in ACTUAL use case is generally going to yield most useful results
• Use of industry and milspec testing standards which really have nothing to do with how it may perform on a bicycle chain.
• Concerted attack in general of manufacturers using more realistic (aka – bicycle chain) testing vs using ASTM or Milspec testing as hiding behind something.

As you will see, the bullet point of claims by Prestacycle re their “One” lubricant are beyond extraordinary – they defy in some cases – in my opinion – logic, or physics, or both.

I sent the owner / founder or Prestacycles a bunch of questions to delve into these claims and his thoughts around testing, and I have copied and pasted these questions below.

The owner responded quickly but advised they would need a few weeks to respond to the questions. I have given them a month, and like Muc-Off, I am not going to chase him – he will either respond and be able to substantiate claims, or respond and possibly raise more questions, or not respond at all – that is up to him.

Should he respond, there will a be a part 2 covering their substantiation of the claims, if not – this will be it – use this as an example of some basic questioning processes around manufacturer claims in general.

But just quickly before I put up the claims and my questions to Prestacycle, in case it doesn’t come across clearly in the questions, I would like to make clear why from my / ZFC perspective that use of industry standard – such as ASTM or Milspec testing (or tribology testing) is an issue for claiming high performance in use case on a bicycle chain.

Unfortunately, there is no governing industry standard to test bicycle chain lubricant performance in their actual use case – on a bicycle chain. I could type for too long why, and if its ever coming, but just for now, there isn’t one. If there was one, I would be testing to that standard (if it wasn’t a rubbish test).

In lieu of such a standard – what we do have is the likes of FTT / FLT testing for outright efficiency as pioneered by Friction Facts and used by the likes of Ceramic Speed and Silca. We have the very concerning (in my opinion – refer episode 20 on you tube – (657) Episode 20 Muc Off Files – Cycling’s most dishonest Marketing??? – YouTube) testing by muc-off.  These tests are quite short duration and are for obtaining outright efficiency loss of the lubricant – generally in clean lab conditions.

Then we have ZFC wear correlation-based testing where the lubricant is tested over thousands of km’s on an actual bicycle drivetrain – with dry and wet contamination, and key variables (load, re lubrication intervals, contamination type, amount, when added etc all controlled). At the moment, ZFC testing widely regarded to give the most robust overall performance picture for a lubricant in its actual use case on a bicycle chain.

There are countless industry standard tests – set up to test a lubricant for a very specific industry application. In the huge majority of cases, the test has no bearing whatsoever re its ability to perform on a bicycle chain.

So what if a lubricant shows great lubricating properties at 75 degree’s at 600rpm for 10 minutes on some steel balls at X newton load. If it gathers contamination readily when used outside and becomes very abrasive very quickly – which a lot of industry lubricants re bottled for cycling do – then it will be a poor lubricant for your bicycle chain. That is just one example – again I could type for days on this, even with tests like brugger, pin on disc tests and oh so much more.

In short in ZFC opinion, the absolute opposite to what Prestacycle are claiming is true. All too often a manufacturer may hide behind industry standard testing to back lubricant claims, vs anything to substantiate how it actually performs on a bicycle chain.  And to be fair to manufacturers, sometimes that is all they have or been able to go on as getting specific testing like that conducted by ZFC is extremely difficult – I can only test so many lubricants per year, and there is only one of me globally. I’m busy.

So whilst I don’t begrudge in many cases manufacturers going to market with industry standard testing to back marketing claims as they may be all they have been able to access, I do feel (strongly) that Prestacycle’s attempts to shoot down application specific testing as inferior to Industry standard testing where the standard has no bearing whatsoever on the application to be a very concerning marketing tactic that may – from the way he words this in the claims – be capable of persuading many readers of something that I feel is really very incorrect. Which is no doubt the aim.

Righto, here we go, get ready for this one;

Prestacycle one lubricant claims;

• Dry Lube
• Wet Lube
• Bike Wash
• Degreaser
• Rust Remover
• Rust Preventer
• Anti-Seize
• Paint Protectant
• Metal Polish
• Leather Conditioner

For the full read of their claims and testing – link to product page here;

https://www.prestacycle.com/product/prestacycle-one-liquid/

Just for fun, here is a little bit about Prestacycle’s grease;

Prestacycle One Creme

• Bearing Grease
• “Wax” (application style) Lube
• Bike Wash
• Degreaser
• Rust Remover
• Rust Preventer
• Anti-Seize
• Paint Protectant
• Metal Polish
• Leather Conditioner

So just in case you thought that it was rather odd for the lubricant to be a dry lube and wet lube at the same time, it is good to know the trend continues with them also having a bearing grease that is also a degreaser.  One could get into quite the circular situation with that product looking to degrease your bearings by using bearing grease – I’m not sure where one would end up in that case. Holy batman.

Anyhoo, back to the marketing investigation for this lubricant, pls find below the questions sent to Prestacycle, which they have committed to answer – albeit I am awaiting, eagerly.

*********If you have used this product please email me at info@zerofrictioncycling.com.au to advise of your experience / and or post experience on FB / Instagram post comments******************

Instructions shown on bottle label state;

1. Clean / Degrease / Polish with One.
2. Wipe off with a clean cloth
3. Re-apply to lubricate
4. For Wet lube, apply liberally
5. For dry lube, wipe with a clean cloth.

Question 1

Removing factory grease from a chain usually takes a good bit of solvent / degreaser to clean. Even very concentrated solvents it is expected around 100ml is needed to properly dissolve and remove factory grease.

Let me assume for an initial application in case of One, that a fairly heavy application is applied, let us say 10ml. Chains are normally over 100 links long, but let us round it to 100. This would mean approximately 0.1ml of One per link. A percentage of One must be lubricant, it cannot all be degreaser. Let us say half? So now 0.05ml per link.  Pls correct my assumptions, however whatever the figure remains – you confirm this is;

1. Sufficient to remove factory grease lubricant such that the factory grease does not impact the performance of One.
2. It leaves behind lubricant. So it is able to remove other lubricants, but leave its own lubricant behind?
3. Have you tested the performance difference for One on chains that have been stripped cleaned with a more traditional approach of properly degreasing chain with solvent, vs the performance of the chains “degreased” with One to remove factory grease – and if yes can you share the results of this testing?

Question 2

Dry lube / wet lube.

If one wants to use One as a dry lube, all they need to do to achieve this is wipe excess from chain – is not what remains in the chain still wet? Will not this wet lubricant work its way back to the outside of the chain if the lubricant itself does not set to a dry lubricant?

The instructions for most wet lubricants is to wipe excess clean. However, it is not possible for the chain to remain dry on the outside if the lubricant applied is a wet lubricant.  An amount of lubricant always moves back out, making the chain externally wet. I have tested so many wet lubricants – control and real life, and always thoroughly wiped excess, and all of them are again wet on the outside after the next ride.

Are you claiming / confirming this is not the case with ONE, and that if excess is removed, the outside remains dry after riding?

Question 3

Metal polish. By what mechanism is a polishing action achieved?

By its very nature – to polish metal – i.e to smoothen out peaks and troughs by removing surface roughness – this is removing metal. This takes abrasive friction. If one sets to polishing metal with a frictionless cloth – nothing happens. A polishing agent may be mildly aggressive for initial stages, then much less so to achieve a very smooth surface. But less abrasive, thus less friction, is not lowest friction.

It is EXTREMELY rare for a lubricant to also try to act as a polish, unless the outright low friction performance of that lubricant is not the aim, the polishing is the aim.

I will be moving to later, however I note the claims of One being so low friction it “Broke” the ASTM test standard you used.

This apparent extremely low friction does not match the characteristics needed for One to also be able to polish, as there would not be sufficient friction to affect any physical surface change to the metal.

Can you pls clarify how One can be extremely low friction, and a metal polish?

Question 4

The overall variety of claims for One is, frankly – concerning. Ie Rust remover, leather conditioner, bike wash, paint protectant.

Usually when ANYTHING tries to be many things, there are compromises vs a product that specialises in being outstanding at one thing. In this case that one thing is bicycle chain lubricant.

I cannot grab a bottle of another proven top lubricant, let us say UFO drip, or Silca Synergetic, or Rex black diamond, and use those products to degrease the factory grease off my chain, lubricate my chain as an extremely low friction lubricant, wash my bike with it, apply it to the bike after this to then to protect the paint on my next gravel ride, polish the silver cutlery at home, then condition my leather couch.

It is akin to me looking for a bike that will be able to be highest level performance bike for my next Time Trial event, followed by a gravity enduro event, then a criterium race, then a cyclocross race etc. To have one bike able to be actually ridden in all of the above events, there would be some compromises to that bikes performance in each event category.

Can you confirm that a) you absolutely stand by all of the claims for Prestacycle one, and that it is a high performing product in ALL category claims listed, and b) can you provide information to substantiate these claims, as frankly, the claims are extraordinary – I have not seen its like, really for any product in anything I can recall in my life.

 

Moving to Testing

Test Question 1

“Tests performed using chains are flawed because chains are already lubricated with something else during manufacture and cleaning is never absolute”

Would it not be crucial to assess how One performs on a bicycle chain since that is going to be where it needs to perform?

Tests using bicycle chains (as performed by myself) are assessing the lubricants in their actual use case. On bicycle chain, on a bicycle drivetrain. If a chain cannot be perfectly cleaned for the lubricant, that is the starting conditions for all lubricants that then need to be able to perform in those conditions.

Considering the recommended degreasing in the case of One is to use one to degrease the chain, I would say that One has a definite use case of previous lubricant being present that may affect how One performs.

Surely – as previous lubricant present, and on a bicycle chain being its actual use case – testing the actual use case would in fact be extremely relevant (as in, THE most relevant testing) as opposed to flawed?

That statement is to me completely at odds with itself, and logic. Can you explain your position such that I understand how it avoids being completely at odds with itself.

Test Question 2

“Making claims they don’t believe in Standards testing is just a way of hiding from the fact that they won’t like the results”

I have raised concerns myself with numerous manufacturers using just tribology or standards testing, as often these tests do not realistically replicate the conditions the lubricant needs to meet at all. Many lubricants that have extremely good results in X tribology test or Y standards test, have shown to deliver poor wear rate results in its actual use case – on a bicycle chain on a bicycle.

There are so many standards to choose from, that manufacturers can choose a standard that most suits their lubricant, even if that test standard is far removed from what the lubricants actual use case.  There have definitely been cases of a particular test standard being chosen that shows one lubricant to perform brilliantly, and a competitor to perform poorly. Ie, a pin on disc test where a liquid lubricant can retain a lubricating film for a longer time vs a paraffin wax base solid lubricant where the pin will scrape the wax off the surface. That is hardly an applicable test to use to assess lubricants for use on a bicycle chain, yet that has been done.

Also, with many cycling lubricants on the market being just a re branded and re bottled lubricant from another industry manufacturer, they can simply use the ASTM or tribology test that was conducted to certify that lubricant as a good choice for that industry application. That standard often bears no indication at all as to whether or not the lubricant will be a good lubricant on a bicycle chain, being ridden outside completely exposed to the elements.

As such, I find that a manufacturer is much more likely to hide behind an ASTM test standard that has little to do with how it will perform in its use case on a bicycle chain, as opposed to hiding behind something else to say they don’t believe in standards testing.

I might believe in standards testing for bicycle chain lubricants, if there was an ASTM standard for testing bicycle chain lubricants. There is not one, so why are test standards developed for different industry applications superior to testing bicycle chain lubricants in their actual use case?

Test Question 3

“We openly post our ASTM lubrication results which chart our extremely low resistance and “broke the test” results proving our product will not fail even under the most extreme circumstances”

I cannot find this. Where is the link to this ASTM test standard?

I have been able to look up the Falex 4 ball test, it is this one yes?

https://www.kelid1.ir/FilesUp/ASTM_STANDARS_971222/D5183.PDF

Can you provide more information that your lubricant “Broke the test”, and what do you define as breaking the test?

To me, and I think to a lot of readers, breaking the test means that the result was so exceptional the test applied was insufficient to properly assess the full performance potential.

Ie, if I was looking to conduct V02 max testing, but my test machine maxed out at 250w resistance – that test would have no problems assessing my Mum’s v02 max, but if I was to test Filipo Ganna, then yep, he would for sure break the test.

In the report on your website, we can simply see, that for the test – the report result is No fail.

Reaching the end of the test with no fail – is that what you are claiming as “breaking the test” – or is this simply passing the test?

What about a harder ASTM test? We know that many lubricants will in no way struggle to pass the same standard test you used for One.

Honestly, such testing is typically – what standard is needed for the lubricant to assess its performance in its use case. A no fail is typically passing what the lubricant needed to pass to be cleared for use. If a higher level of assessment is needed, a harder test standard is chosen – especially if the manufacturer wishes / needs to know where the lubricants limit is.

I feel that claiming passing a standard with no fail as “Breaking the test” is extremely disingenuous and misleading.

If I was to pose the question to Polaris Laboratories re One “Breaking the test” by simply achieving a No fail in that standard – what answer do you expect I would receive?

May I state also that the temperature and speed of that test is quite far removed from the expected operating environment use case in a bicycle chain – leading back to points raised in Test questions 2.

Test Question 4

This statement here;

All of these certifications are irrefutably just as applicable to Bicycles as they are to every other piece of machinery in the world.

I believe that is just manifestly, and obviously not true. If this was the case, there would just be a single ASTM test standard. Pass that, and alrighty this lubricant is applicable to be used in every machine in the world from a bicycle chain to a jet turbine main thrust bearing.

The fact there are countless standards, so that industry can ensure the lubricant they need passes a test standard that is directly applicable to the use case needed, completely rules that sentence as to be – extremely obviously – incorrect.

Can you please comment on this?

Test Question 5

Can you please provide the test standards for the “Milspec” testing that One has also been subject too, and how they relate to the performance of One for use on a bicycle chain?

1. MIL-PRF-6340E ASTM D93 Flash Point
2. MIL-PRF-6340E ASTM D445 Kinematic Viscosity 104 F
3. MIL-PRF-6340E ASTM D4172 Wear Preventative Characteristics
4. MIL-PRF-6340E ASTM D5620 Load Carrying Capacity Jaw Load
5. MIL-PRF-6340E ASTM Corrosion Production

**Note – this investigation into Prestacycle one by Zero Friction Cycling will be public – again a key focus of ZFC is assessing manufacturer claims. This enquiry sent to you, and your responses – will be published on the Zero Friction cycling website.

I am happy to discuss via zoom or similar if you wish, however I would like the responses to the above in writing first so that I have your input to consider for the conversation as that will greatly help with any clarifications during that discussion.

I know that was a bunch of reading and lot of questions – and everyone is busy so I understand you can’t just quickly smash back a full response to this email. If you can however advise a date when you will be able to respond to the questions raised that will be greatly appreciated.

I have also purchased some One to test in the ZFC control test, and I will advise you of the results and look to obtain your input on the results before I review the product.

**Addendum – sorry almost forgot, re Prestacycling Crème – can you please advise how it is a grease, and a degreaser – in the same product? One could get into quite a circular situation there applying more grease to degrease their chain?