Bicycle bearing greases – explained - article comments

[BikeGremlin]

To prevent article pages from being miles long, but preserve all the useful questions and answers provided over time, I've decided to copy/paste the website comments to the forum - and "move" further discussions here.

These are the comments from the article:
Bicycle bearing greases – explained

This topic is closed for further replies.

If you can't find the answer to your question in this thread, please open a separate thread with your question/problem, in an appropriate forum section (this is the Maintenance and repairs section).

Relja

 

[BikeGremlin]

1. Reason
   08/03/2017 at 07:05
   Serious levels of conjecture given here. I have to applaud the amount of conclusions made about which greases are suitable with zero science to support it.
   – Why NLGI2? Why is that optimal? NLGI1 or 1.5 is perfectly fine for bicycle applications, NLGI2 is the primary grease to automotive applications.
   – Lithium base is the best somehow? Shimano’s grease is calcium based, Park Tool’s grease is polyurea (which you really don’t cover), Buzzy’s Slick Honey is calcium based, Phil Wood is a marine grease variant… it seems your ‘ideal’ type of grease isn’t agreed by the industry at all.
   – The working temperatures of literally all the greases you listed is perfectly fine for 95% of riders out there. Trying to make recommendations by a maybe 30*F change in ambient is not based on science.
   – If you want to draw all these far fetched conclusions, back them up. You literally write off many perfectly fine greases with less than a sentence. With all the stuff you’d actually put down literally none of it is backed by science – just personal belief and conjecture.
   – Zero data to show the actual properties of the actual greases to washout or corrosion inhibitance even though it is listed as a requirement.
   – You mention your requirement stress test of 4 ball 1000 N weld test, only to never mention of show any test data of this.
   – Tons of other issues due to absolute lack of real substance.
   For all that is written (or possibly plagiarized again, who knows) it’s ironic how little actual science is here – it’s just your giving your opinion on certain types of grease with nothing to back it up. Fortunately a bicycle and its bearings is a low load and low thermal arena so literally anything will work, but basic NLGI 2 basic lithium grease being “optimal?” Please… It has one of the highest washouts of all the greases listed AND lithium based greases have one of the worst anti corrosion properties of all greases. Also consider that 1lb of grease will serve a bike owner their entire life so price in all honesty isn’t an issue so cheaping out here buying a $8 tub vs a $18 tub is really trivial. All in all another poor showing here showing you can copy and paste but don’t really understand.
   • 
     
     Relja
     08/03/2017 at 11:47
     NLGI 2 hardness grade has shown as the best in practice – both personal, and colleague mechanics. Softer greases don’t provide noticeably lower friction (when riding), while they leak out of the bearings more easily. Also NLGI 2 greases hold balls in place better than softer greases, which enables easier servicing.
     To be technically more specific: a grease used for (high speed) automotive bearings applications needn’t be less thick for lower speed (bicycle) bearings. Quite the contrary. Besides, viscosity of used base oil plays a great role here as well. However, that is beyond the frame of a cycling blog post.
     I never said lithium grease is the best. Optimal, considering both grease characteristics, as well as price, availability and compatibility with other greases – yes. In my opinion and experience.
     Polyurea greases deserve their “place”, so I’ve added them – thanks for noting that.
     Working temperatures were mentioned in grease descriptions and they are also noted on grease packages. Each will choose for themselves. Siberia and Africa riding conditions and temperatures surely differ. I don’t see a problem there.
     Any recommendations you have to offer, or links to scientific researches/tests are more than welcome. Likewise, any correction of incorrect data are also welcome, in order to make the text better.
     For water washout and most other properties/characteristic: ISO and DIN standards have strict scientifically based testing procedures that lubricants need to pass in order to fulfill the standard grades. Properties, such as water washout resistance are printed on the grease label, and are explained in detail in the post. Easily compared.
     Minimal 4 ball weld test of 1000 N or better was a safe margin recommended by the post’s co-author, an expert on the subject, Stevan Dimitrijević. If you have relevant data that proves otherwise, please share it, I’d be more than happy to link it and correct the data in the post.
2. 
   
   Reason
   09/03/2017 at 01:30
   “NLGI 2 hardness grade has shown as the best in practice – both personal, and colleague mechanics. Softer greases don’t provide noticeably lower friction (when riding), while they leak out of the bearings more easily. Also NLGI 2 greases hold balls in place better than softer greases, which enables easier servicing.
   To be technically more specific: a grease used for (high speed) automotive bearings applications needn’t be less thick for lower speed (bicycle) bearings. Quite the contrary. Besides, viscosity of used base oil plays a great role here as well. However, that is beyond the frame of a cycling blog post.”
   How many bearings on a bicycle are held in by grease? Nearly all, except Shimano’s wheel bearings, are cartridge bearings thus don’t need the grease to “hold balls in place.” The whole NLGI 2 concept you’re trying to push really has no science backing it as in pure conjecture. Speed is only one reason that NLGI 2 greases are used in automotive but also the loads which are much in excess to bicycle needs.
   “Working temperatures were mentioned in grease descriptions and they are also noted on grease packages. Each will choose for themselves. Siberia and Africa riding conditions and temperatures surely differ. I don’t see a problem there.”
   Sorry but basing it purely on base oil composition isn’t the issue there. You can have a huge variance of working temperatures based on what the grease is made for. It’s not like all lithium greases are within X and Y working temperatures – far from it.
   “Any recommendations you have to offer, or links to scientific researches/tests are more than welcome. Likewise, any correction of incorrect data are also welcome, in order to make the text better.”
   That’s part of the problem, you have no data to refute. You only list what’s involved in determining NLGI and DIN ratings – the rest is pure conjecture. There’s absolutely no data (I’ve already provided this but you subsequently deleted the comment) in this entire article about how greases compare to one another in regard to wear and pitting, prevention of oxidation, washout, among any number of other scientific indicators. Just pure conjecture. You ever wonder why your white lithium grease looks a little brown when you pull it out even after short intervals? It’s because of oxidation, it’s not near the top of greases in it’s oxidation prevention properties. But since you never actually look into this data you’ll never understand greases in general.
   “For water washout and most other properties/characteristic: ISO and DIN standards have strict scientifically based testing procedures that lubricants need to pass in order to fulfill the standard grades. Properties, such as water washout resistance are printed on the grease label, and are explained in detail in the post. Easily compared. ”
   Easily compared yes, but you don’t do it once in the entire article. Not once do you actually compare the greases on any scientific metric. It’s a half sentence of base properties and then conjecture, absolutely zero knowledgeable comparison done. What’s the typical lithium grease washout when compared to marine grease, when compared to aluminum grease, when compared to polyurea? You have absolutely ZERO numbers to give comparison. thus this ENTIRE article is basically how NLGI and DIN is determined with your unsubstantiated opinion on a list of greases are. That’s it.
   “Minimal 4 ball weld test of 1000 N or better was a safe margin recommended by the post’s co-author, an expert on the subject, Stevan Dimitrijević. If you have relevant data that proves otherwise, please share it, I’d be more than happy to link it and correct the data in the post.”
   That’s the point. You NEVER show or indicate if ANY of these greases passes this arbitrary test. Not to mention which greases ended up protecting better than another or not just a random “industry standard” test that’s pass/fail that you just assume seemingly all passed? Again, you mention it as a requirement of your pick and then never mention the test again. It’ just further shows the absolute failing of this post and the subsequent failing of this post to prove or indicate anything beyond you just babbling your unsubstantiated opinion on greases.
   Fact: Lithium grease is one of the cheapest greases on the market and is by far inferior to nearly all polyurea greases in all aspects besides price. Same deal with most aluminum based. And again, a 1lb tub of grease will last you 50 years so there’s literally no reason NOT to use it.
   In addition, on a bicycle ultimate reduction in friction numbers isn’t all that important as we’re talking about percent of a percent here. Protection and longevity (washout and ability to stay) is likely most riders primary issue which would mean that they want to keep their bottom bracket and headsets clean of sweat, sports drinks and road grime and their wheels primarily free of water and grime… why in the world do the majority of your not “optimal” greases have much better washout properties? You’d think that would make you think, but no, you’ve been steadfast on basic lithium grease with literally (no, there’s no data in this entire article on comparing grease types) no data to support it besides your own very limited experience.
   • 
     
     Relja
     09/03/2017 at 09:44
     “How many bearings on a bicycle are held in by grease? Nearly all, except Shimano’s wheel bearings, are cartridge bearings thus don’t need the grease to “hold balls in place.” The whole NLGI 2 concept you’re trying to push really has no science backing it as in pure conjecture. Speed is only one reason that NLGI 2 greases are used in automotive but also the loads which are much in excess to bicycle needs.”
     1) Not trying to push anything. Giving (correct) facts and experience – so each can choose for themselves. NLGI 1 will leak out of the bearings more quickly. Without giving measurable benefits of lower drag.
     2) I think most bicycle wheels on the planet still use cup and cone system. 99% of the wheels used (and serviced) in my country are either Shimano, or cheaper versions of other manufacturers, with a cup and cone system (no scientific data for this either, you’ll have to take my word for it ). Or call Serbian bike shops and ask how many cartridge bearing wheels are sold/serviced per year, not per month . For cartridge bearings – yes, grease needn’t hold those in place, of course. There still is the problem of grease staying in place for longer.
     3) Bottom line, for reasons noted in this reply, as well as in the post, NLGI 2 is “the sweet spot” of grease consistency in my opinion and experience. Those who think differently can choose for themselves. Since you mention science all the time (though this goes under engeneering IMO), I’m open to any comparative tests and results. My data comes from primitive non-scientific experience of hundreds of serviced bearings and seeing how they fare after a year (or two-three for “lazy” customers) has passed, as well as lots of books read and experts consulted. And I’ll repeat – if you see any errors, bad info, please correct – I’m grateful for any imput to improve the data.
     “Sorry but basing it purely on base oil composition isn’t the issue there. You can have a huge variance of working temperatures based on what the grease is made for. It’s not like all lithium greases are within X and Y working temperatures – far from it. “
     No, working range of each grease is (usually) written on the label, as well as within the ISO and DIN standards it complies with. Guide for deciphering those labels is given in the post.
     “That’s part of the problem, you have no data to refute. You only list what’s involved in determining NLGI and DIN ratings – the rest is pure conjecture.”
     That’s like saying: ‘you have no data on the expiry rate of this product, you only state the expiry rate printed on the package’.
     What else is needed?
     ” There’s absolutely no data (I’ve already provided this but you subsequently deleted the comment) in this entire article about how greases compare to one another in regard to wear and pitting, prevention of oxidation, washout, among any number of other scientific indicators. Just pure conjecture. You ever wonder why your white lithium grease looks a little brown when you pull it out even after short intervals? It’s because of oxidation, it’s not near the top of greases in it’s oxidation prevention properties. But since you never actually look into this data you’ll never understand greases in general.”
     As I will delete all the trolling comments in the future. I’m very liberal, but there is a line between criticsm and trolling. I’ve looked into those links and tables – yes, some greases are more easily washed off than the others.
     Needed water washout resistance, unless a bicycle is ridden through over half a meter deep sea water is ISO E. Bicycle bearings are usually not sprayed with water under pressure, nor ridden throgh seas/rivers. You want better – look for any grease satisfying ISO I water washout resistance. There are lithium complex ones, calcium based ones, aluminium soap based ones (probably the best for sea water application, minding compatibility when re-greasing) etc. All the data is provided in the post.
     “Easily compared yes, but you don’t do it once in the entire article. Not once do you actually compare the greases on any scientific metric.”
     That is correct. I leave that to the reader – to compare data that are critical to them and choose for themselves. General recommendations for certain purpouses are given in chapter 7 and they’ve been proven good enough through decades of experience, including my personal.
     A man cycling in Siberia will look for a grease with better low temperature working range, while a man riding in Africa will not bother with water washout resistance.
     ” It’s a half sentence of base properties and then conjecture, absolutely zero knowledgeable comparison done. What’s the typical lithium grease washout when compared to marine grease, when compared to aluminum grease, when compared to polyurea? You have absolutely ZERO numbers to give comparison. thus this ENTIRE article is basically how NLGI and DIN is determined with your unsubstantiated opinion on a list of greases are. That’s it”
     Read the ISO labels on the particular grease you’re considering. General comparisons are given in table 1. But there are lithium (complex) soap based greases with better water washout resistance than calcium soap based ones – depending on the particular grease (model and manufacturer).
     “That’s the point. You NEVER show or indicate if ANY of these greases passes this arbitrary test. Not to mention which greases ended up protecting better than another or not just a random “industry standard” test that’s pass/fail that you just assume seemingly all passed? Again, you mention it as a requirement of your pick and then never mention the test again. It’ just further shows the absolute failing of this post and the subsequent failing of this post to prove or indicate anything beyond you just babbling your unsubstantiated opinion on greases.”
     I respect your opinion, but disagree. The answer would be the same as for previous paragraph. For a particular grease performance – look at the standards it complies with. For general comparison, look at the given tables, or research more.
     Bicycle bearings don’t require any special grease IMO, as I’ve (tried to) explained in this post. Most any will do, while you can hardly go (measurably) better than a good quality lithium complex soap based grease with mineral base oil.
     “Fact: Lithium grease is one of the cheapest greases on the market and is by far inferior to nearly all polyurea greases in all aspects besides price.”
     Exactly. To put it plainly, if you want a Ferrari, you can buy a Ferrari. But I will give myself the liberty to say: it will not make your grocery shopping quicker, or easier. I have, however, given relevant data for reference and comparison.
     ” Same deal with most aluminum based. And again, a 1lb tub of grease will last you 50 years so there’s literally no reason NOT to use it.”
     Except the price. There’s also no reason not to re-pack the bearings each day, except the price (paid in time in this case). Set your priorities and choose for yourself. But you’ll get very marginal (if any) benefits – both by repacking bearings daily and by using expensive greases.
     Besides, open grease shelf life is about 5-7 years, closed new lid can be safe to use for about 10. After that, they might degrade – drying out, or base oil separating.
     If you want a best possible, expensive grease for a piece of mind – go for it, by all means. It is an overkill, but each choose for themselves.
     “In addition, on a bicycle ultimate reduction in friction numbers isn’t all that important as we’re talking about percent of a percent here. Protection and longevity (washout and ability to stay) is likely most riders primary issue which would mean that they want to keep their bottom bracket and headsets clean of sweat, sports drinks and road grime and their wheels primarily free of water and grime… why in the world do the majority of your not “optimal” greases have much better washout properties? You’d think that would make you think, but no, you’ve been steadfast on basic lithium grease with literally (no, there’s no data in this entire article on comparing grease types) no data to support it besides your own very limited experience.”
     I’ll repeat: water washout and corrosion resistance depend on particular grease model. They are not carved in stone per the thickener type used.
     Choose water washout resistance level of your liking. ISO E is good enough though. I’d also give myself the liberty to recommend annual cleaning and re-greasing of bearings as a better choice for longetivity, than using super-greases. Because of dirt and dust contamination. Cheapest grease changed annually will outperform the best grease changed once in a 2-5 years. Not because of grease degradation, but because of dirt contamination.

 

[BikeGremlin]

Reason
10/03/2017 at 08:50
1) NLGI1 does not leak out of bearings faster especially with many of these are sealed bearings with covers. Please support WITH DATA.
2) Shimano is the primary wheel manufacturer that uses cup and cone. MOST others do not. Please update your own knowledge base. In addition Shimano bearings do not use grease to ‘hold them in place.’ So that argument is worthless again.
3) You have provided NO DATA AT ALL. NLGI2 is fine but is it ‘ideal’ or ‘optimal?’ No, because bicycles don’t need it. Please provide ONE study that shows NLGI2 is necessary for typical bicycle loads as thus far you haven’t provided ANY data so that would be a first.
4) Yes, the working range of the grease is written on the label of said grease. Duh. However, the working range ISN’T determined by grease type! All lithium grease are NOT ONE RANGE!
5) Bicycles that are ridden in acclimate weather receive constant water for HOURS of the ride. Having a grease with a 15% washout rating will NOT last months without servicing. In addition don’t address oxidation at all in your response showing you don’t take that into account.
6) You’ve still yet to prove (you using actual scientific studies…) why NLGI 2 AND having a basic lithium composition is the ‘optimal’
“Exactly. To put it plainly, if you want a Ferrari, you can buy a Ferrari. But I will give myself the liberty to say: it will not make your grocery shopping quicker, or easier. I have, however, given relevant data for reference and comparison.”
Garbage as we’re not talking about Ferrari’s here. We’re talking about $8 vs $16 grease that will last decades.
“Except the price. There’s also no reason not to re-pack the bearings each day, except the price (paid in time in this case). Set your priorities and choose for yourself. But you’ll get very marginal (if any) benefits – both by repacking bearings daily and by using expensive greases. ”
Who said you need to pack your bearings every day? Now you’re making up arguments to refute. Fact is lithium greases will wash out faster than marine, calcium, aluminum and numerous others. Fact is lithium grease has a poor oxidation prevention agents. Yet it’s still optimal or the best choice? Why? Again, prove WITH DATA not belligerent conjecture.
“I’ll repeat: water washout and corrosion resistance depend on particular grease model. They are not carved in stone per the thickener type used.”
Are you serious? THE ENTIRE ARTICLE the first thing you list in each type is water resistance. Literally. Yes there’s variation between each exact formula but no, lithium soap is lithium soap. It washes out.
Again, you take ZERO account for oxidation in your grease consideration. Again you’ve provided ZERO data to support your assertions. Again the cost of the greases becomes trivial considering how little you use and how long each tube will last but yet you let that over ride. Again you water down your opinion by saying it’s NOT about which is best or even “optimal” it’s whatever passed ISO E – which most manufacturers don’t even list! Here’s an ACTUAL DATA SHEET.
Your lithium greases from some of the largest manufacturers in the world:
http://content.valvoline.com/pdf/multipurpose_grease.pdf
http://lucasoil.com/pdf/TDS_White-Lithium-Grease.pdf
http://api.crcindustries.com/auto-services/get-pds/SL3360
Marine grease:
http://api.crcindustries.com/auto-services/get-pds/SL3120
Because it isn’t designed for prolonged water exposure, because it’s not designed for what you’re trying to make it claim, it’s NOT on the data sheets. There is no “ISO E” universal standard that all data sheets have so you’re looking for a statement that very few, if any, manufacturers claim.
Furthermore this entire series has been a showing of just how stubbornly ignorant you are toward actual science and actual data. Not a single thing you’ve brought up has been substantiated with scientific data.
Datasheets like this:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.434.1778&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Actually show that aluminum is a better grease at typical bicycle temperatures. In addition data sheets like this show exactly how much variation there is in lithium greases and they’re wholly dependent on additive package to protect, polyurea is just a superior grease.
http://eb-cat.ds-navi.co.jp/enu/jtekt/tech/ej/img/no1003e/1003e_10.pdf
But that’s actual data from actual studies by actual science. Not your conjecture an ‘experience’ that seemingly trumps science. Maybe some of that will stick, maybe it won’t but if anything it shows the complete lack of actual science backing up your opinion. Again, fortunately a bike isn’t that complicated of a machine and doesn’t have strenuous demands. But the epic levels of stubbornness you exhibit in your beliefs goes to show why much of this blog is questionable at best.

• 
  
  Relja
  10/03/2017 at 14:14
  
  “1) NLGI1 does not leak out of bearings faster especially with many of these are sealed bearings with covers. Please support WITH DATA.”
  Don’t have links to test data – just like I don’t have data proving oil will leak out of the bearings faster. However, you needn’t take my word for it – do a test yourself on any cup and cone wheel bearing. Pack one with NLGI 1, the other with NLGI 2 and see how they turn up after 6 months.
  Also, while you’re at it, see how packing the new balls goes with NLGI 1 grease.
  
  “2) Shimano is the primary wheel manufacturer that uses cup and cone. MOST others do not. Please update your own knowledge base. In addition Shimano bearings do not use grease to ‘hold them in place.’ So that argument is worthless again.”
  When packing the bearins, grease helps keep the balls in place.
  As far as numbers go, I think most wheels on bikes worldwide today are not with cartridge bearings. Not yet.
  In my coutry for sure – ratio is about 100 to 1, in favour of cup and cone.
  
  “3) You have provided NO DATA AT ALL. NLGI2 is fine but is it ‘ideal’ or ‘optimal?’ No, because bicycles don’t need it. Please provide ONE study that shows NLGI2 is necessary for typical bicycle loads as thus far you haven’t provided ANY data so that would be a first.”
  Already answered the logic behind my thinking. However, I have no “scientific” data proving that softer greases don’t stay in place as well as the harder ones. Except experience. Both first hand and other mechanics’.
  
  “4) Yes, the working range of the grease is written on the label of said grease. Duh. However, the working range ISN’T determined by grease type! All lithium grease are NOT ONE RANGE!”
  Never said that. Give rough general estimates – yes. Noting the reader to check for particular grease properties before buying/using it.
  
  “5) Bicycles that are ridden in acclimate weather receive constant water for HOURS of the ride. Having a grease with a 15% washout rating will NOT last months without servicing. In addition don’t address oxidation at all in your response showing you don’t take that into account.”
  This is not true. Bicycle bearings are not open with water flowing over them – not even the cup and cone. Not even in pouring rain. They all have at least some kind of dust seal. So they don’t get that much water and don’t need to be 100% waterproof.
  
  “6) You’ve still yet to prove (you using actual scientific studies…) why NLGI 2 AND having a basic lithium composition is the ‘optimal’
  Already explained. Not really sure what you are looking for. Standard trolling in my opinion.
  
  “Garbage as we’re not talking about Ferrari’s here. We’re talking about $8 vs $16 grease that will last decades.
  Who said you need to pack your bearings every day? Now you’re making up arguments to refute. Fact is lithium greases will wash out faster than marine, calcium, aluminum and numerous others. Fact is lithium grease has a poor oxidation prevention agents. Yet it’s still optimal or the best choice? Why? Again, prove WITH DATA not belligerent conjecture.”
  My analogy was aimed at the overkill side of the comparison. You can pay double the price with questionable benefits (if any).
  Pack bearings annually with lithium grease and they won’t rust.
  Buy super-grease and re-lube less often – if here’s no dirt contamination, it will probably be fine. But I’d always recommend checking, cleaning and re-lubing annually.
  
  “Are you serious? THE ENTIRE ARTICLE the first thing you list in each type is water resistance. Literally. Yes there’s variation between each exact formula but no, lithium soap is lithium soap. It washes out. ”
  Yes, serious. For each soap (and non-soap) type I’ve given general properties.
  I’ve also explained what the minimum requirements are, how to read and compare characteristics of a particular product.
  
  “Again, you take ZERO account for oxidation in your grease consideration. Again you’ve provided ZERO data to support your assertions. Again the cost of the greases becomes trivial considering how little you use and how long each tube will last but yet you let that over ride. Again you water down your opinion by saying it’s NOT about which is best or even “optimal” it’s whatever passed ISO E – which most manufacturers don’t even list! Here’s an ACTUAL DATA SHEET.
  Your lithium greases from some of the largest manufacturers in the world:
  http://content.valvoline.com/pdf/multipurpose_grease.pdf
  http://lucasoil.com/pdf/TDS_White-Lithium-Grease.pdf
  http://api.crcindustries.com/auto-services/get-pds/SL3360
  Marine grease:
  http://api.crcindustries.com/auto-services/get-pds/SL3120
  Because it isn’t designed for prolonged water exposure, because it’s not designed for what you’re trying to make it claim, it’s NOT on the data sheets. There is no “ISO E” universal standard that all data sheets have so you’re looking for a statement that very few, if any, manufacturers claim.”
  If you don’t find ISO, or DIN labels, you can do several other things:
  1. Trust what is written on the label, as a marketing slogan. However, there are lithium complex greases with better washout resistance than some “marine greases”. Same goes for other properties.
  2. See what standards or other data producer provides, and see how they compare.
  3. Judge by thickener and base oil types – general guides are provided and explained in this post – quite in detail.
  
  “Furthermore this entire series has been a showing of just how stubbornly ignorant you are toward actual science and actual data. Not a single thing you’ve brought up has been substantiated with scientific data.”
  When they talk about others, people say a lot about themselves too.
  
  “Datasheets like this:
  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.434.1778&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  Actually show that aluminum is a better grease at typical bicycle temperatures. In addition data sheets like this show exactly how much variation there is in lithium greases and they’re wholly dependent on additive package to protect, polyurea is just a superior grease.
  http://eb-cat.ds-navi.co.jp/enu/jtekt/tech/ej/img/no1003e/1003e_10.pdf
  But that’s actual data from actual studies by actual science. Not your conjecture an ‘experience’ that seemingly trumps science. Maybe some of that will stick, maybe it won’t but if anything it shows the complete lack of actual science backing up your opinion. Again, fortunately a bike isn’t that complicated of a machine and doesn’t have strenuous demands. But the epic levels of stubbornness you exhibit in your beliefs goes to show why much of this blog is questionable at best.”
  Very good, informative links.
  My main “objections” to aluminium and polyurea greases are price and compatibility. Put plainly: for traffic safety, “the best” option is a tank, while an optimal recommendation most people would be well served with is just a plain old Volvo car.

 

[BikeGremlin]

1. Reason
   11/03/2017 at 01:12
   Basically we can conclude that you have literally zero data comparing the greases to substantiate your opinion. This is what you’ve shown thus far.
   1) Zero data actually showing NLGI 2 will leak out more than NLGI 1 in a sealed system. The “leaking” point is the dropping point you mention but seemingly fail to understand. The only argument here is NLGI 2 is easier to find.
   2) Zero data or even practical knowledge (as you’ve never used it) showing that NLGI 1 or NLGI 1.5 won’t “hold” bearings well enough just to install into a cup and cone system.
   3) Zero data or practical knowledge to understand that bearing shields are just that, shields. They are not water proof and even if just 10% of your rides are wet you’re talking dozens of hours of being exposed to water. In addition your bottom bracket and headset takes sweat and your drink of choice constantly. You purely ignore this for “good enough” when looking for the “optimal” grease. ZERO grease is “100% waterproof.”
   4) No understanding that virtually all bottom bracket standards and headsets today use cartridge bearings and not open ball bearings so your argument of grease “holding” bearings is a very weak argument. In addition NLGI 1.5 and 1 will hold the balls just fine during assembly and basically only Shimano and Campagnolo use angular bearings in their wheels today.
   5) Zero data actually comparing the different greases on any physical measurable level. Be it friction, be it pitting/wear, be it wash out, be it oxidation, be it load capacity, be it literally anything. The only metric you’ve measured them on is price – which is one of the absolute weakest metrics due to how little grease a bicycle uses. A single tire will cost more than you spend on grease during the next 30 years regardless of which type.
   You say…
   “Judge by thickener and base oil types – general guides are provided and explained in this post – quite in detail.”
   Fact: Lithium grease without direct injection of rush inhibitor additives perform just as bad as sodium grease. Specific grease formulations matter and NOT this over generalized drivel purely based on thickener that you have posted here. It’s takes pure ignorance to NOT see that additive packages matter nearly as much as base thickener.
   You say…
   “My main “objections” to aluminium and polyurea greases are price and compatibility. Put plainly: for traffic safety, “the best” option is a tank, while an optimal recommendation most people would be well served with is just a plain old Volvo car.”
   Idiotic comparison made by someone who has a very weak stance – really. Comparing two different types of grease that will cost pennies per application is the difference between a tank and an old Volvo? Anyone with half a brain will be able to tell you there’s a vast difference between a tank and Volvo. There’s not that much of a difference between greases but further showing you fundamental lack of understanding on this and many other subjects.
   Bottom Line:
   You don’t understand the science, you don’t understand the physical properties of each type, you don’t understand how much additives can change the base properties of each base, you over emphasize to a ludicrous degree (many we’re talking about less than a 20% difference in that) over price. Your best and only defense is conjecture with a healthy helping of “read the label” and “my [limited] experience.” The amount of things you say, “I have no proof” about is insane! You really don’t know what you’re talking about and to call this a research paper of any sort as it is an insult to anyone who’s worked in any scientific field or written a real paper. You have a very limited understanding with a very narrow viewpoint and I hope to anyone who reads your blog understands just how limited and questionable your opinions are and weigh them as such.
   • 
     
     Relja
     11/03/2017 at 06:25
     Allowing this, in my opinion, trolling post, just for objectivity sake. Because I think vanity is a dangerous thing, so deleting what I consider trolling might prevent me, in the future, from considering valid objections and arguments. I’ll go far enough to quote Friedrich Nietzsche:
     “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
     I’ve answered all your objections with arguments, now you’re just giving the same objections all over again. So I won’t bother arguing with a demagogue with lots of time on their hands. Life’s too short for that.
     Cheers
2. 
   
   Reason
   12/03/2017 at 02:31
   You haven’t answered numerous questions unless your only answers are “not in my experience” and “read the label.” Considering that you likely haven’t had any direct or prolonged experience with the vast majority of these greases the only thing we can take away is “read the label.”
   Further more this is long before you even consider that for headset bearings they generally have a range of motion of less than 20 degrees during a ride. You’d WANT a less viscous grease in the headset because of this short range of motion as the grease will have an easier time lubricating and protecting the bearings on this short arc when softer ala NLGI 1 or 1.5.
   You fail to address cartridge bearings at all as your primary argument is to “hold” angular bearings in place. Bottom brackets, headsets and numerous wheels use cartridge bearings so your primary argument is moot for most users. You’ve never addressed this and will continue to sidestep the issue as you have no answer for your position. If you want to solely address open angular bearing cups for certain wheels, fine, do so. You don’t in this entire spiel.
   When you claim this is a study to find the “optimal” grease with no science or practical knowledge on the subject and constantly fail to differentiate lithium and lithium complex greases (VERY different properties) and completely ignore additive packages it really goes to show your incredibly limited understanding on the subject and in addition, when shown other actual scientific data that refutes your claims you don’t have the open mindedness or understanding to even possibly consider revising your initial conclusion. This is NOT a trolling comment, this is a critical series of comments demanding data be provided to back up your recommendation. You’ve failed to do anything beyond being incredibly generalized summaries with no actual number substantiation.This isn’t an investigation, this isn’t science. This is just your conclusion based on what limited stuff you’ve used and no one will ever be able to refute your limited experience – because it is just that, drawing on only your own experience which doesn’t even include other types and formulations. Again, I hope people only read this and realize just how shallow and limited your “research” is and treat it for how much it’s actually worth.

 

[BikeGremlin]

1. trevdog
   10/05/2018 at 12:51
   This is a great post – thank you. This provided basic understanding of grease metrics I needed to compare technical specs of greases. So now I can make my own choice about the best grease for my situation, my bike, my riding conditions.
2. 
   
   trevdog
   10/05/2018 at 13:05
   I am considering Mobil SHC 100. Very similar to SHC 220 recommended by Relja, but with a base oil viscosity of ‘100’ instead of ‘220’. Both have NLGI 2 thickness. With ‘100’ I would sacrifice on washout potential and price but in my present situation I judge that to be OK. The synthetic base oil is part of my attraction to the SHC range – not withstanding that it will make minimal difference to the riding experience.
   I like to hear other’s views if you care to comment.
   I came close to choosing MotorEx which is used by at least one local bike shop.
   I looked at 16 vendors selling grease for bicycles. MotorEx was the only one that provided technical specifications for the product. Other vendors web sites provided minimal information for their grease beyond ambit claims that their grease was excellent for bicycles (washout, temperature, corrosion/wear, etc) – no evidence to back their claims (well not that I could find): Bel-Ray, Buzzy’s, Cylion, Finish Line, Herschell, MorganBlue, MUC-Off, Park Tool, Phil Wood, Orontas, Shimano, TriFlow, Weldtite, Whitelightning, Zephal.
   • 
     
     Relja
     10/05/2018 at 14:31
     For what it’s worth, based on my practical and theoretical experience and knowledge, for bike use, if servicing bearings annually, practically any grease is OK. If one is riding in extremely wet/muddy/sandy conditions, a 6-month service makes some sense – if one wants to be on the safe side.
     With a better quality grease, this can be extended somewhat, but most problems in bike bearings come from dirt contamination, even more than from water washout. To be more specific – water washout creates a problem if bearings are not serviced at least annually, with riding in wet conditions AND not using a higher quality grease.
     To be on the safe side, since many customers don’t remember to do (or bring their bike in for) regular service, I use lithium complex soap grease (locally made and available – Forplex 2 – about 5 euros per 800-gram container). Link:
     http://www.fam.co.rs/en/products/lu...ium-complex-lubricating-greases/813-forplex-2
     This grease is good enough in resisting water washout and it doesn’t get dried out after some years of “neglect”.
     As for Mobil – any of the two should be OK. 220 has a slightly better washout resistance, while the 100 is a bit better at low temperatures. For extreme heat, I’d prefer 220, for extreme cold, the 100. The more rain/mud/water, the more I’d be inclined toward the 220 – which is a slightly better “multipurpose grease” as well I think.
     About manufacturers’ specifications:
     Some (many?), even well renowned, manufacturers don’t state ISO, or DIN standards, but make claims about superiority of their products. Even such greases (of renowned manufacturers) are usually of relatively high quality and do the job they are meant for very well. I prefer to pay less for the same/similar quality AND know exactly what I’m getting for that money. However, it would be unfair to say that the companies you noted don’t make good greases: one wouldn’t do wrong with Phil Wood, Bel-Ray, or Shimano, just to name a few.
3. 
   
   trevdog
   10/05/2018 at 14:07
   I disagree with most of the criticism from ‘Reason’. I value the contest-ability Reason brought and improvements to the article this provided. I also think comments by Reason lack encouragement deserved for the effort that went into the post. On balance, I thought the criticism went beyond ‘reason’. Reason advocates for ‘science’ and ‘data’ and ‘research’ and ‘evidence’ then miss applies the research of others in a most unfair and unscientific way. So, in the spirit of bringing contest-ability, I will challenge points made:
   The research paper provided by Reason as evidence that “aluminium is a better grease at typical bicycle temperatures” actually makes no such claim. The research is into how each soap-type is effected by temperature. It does not purport to compare friction between different greases. In its conclusion the paper makes no claim that the aluminium soap formulation has lower friction: only that friction lowered with heat irrespective of the soap used. Additionally the conclusion is very careful to say the results were derived with respect to a particular base oil, using specified RPM, and specified load. Given that base-oil, RPM, and load all contribute significantly to friction it is unfair to draw the conclusion that grease with Aluminium soaps have lower friction generally.
   The research paper provide by Reason as showing that “… polyurea is just a superior grease” is likewise flawed. The results do show that, on a friction/wear test, polyurea grease – with no additives – outperform Lithium – with no additives. However of the three additives tested, Lithium outperforms Urea when used with ‘MoDTC’, and they are equivalent when ‘ZnDTP’ is used. So when it comes to comparing the two – with additives – there is no clear winner.
   Reason seems to be advocating for research and evidence that substantiate Relja’s views/opinions. I say the value of the post is in the explanation of grease technical specifications that allow others (like me) to make our own evaluation based on local conditions and habits. I thought Relja clearly made the point that there is no ‘optimal grease’ for every situation. Personally, Relja’s recommendations were a most welcome addition to the post.
   Congratulations to Relja and Stevan Dimitrijević for a constructive post.
4. 
   
   Vagabond
   23/05/2018 at 09:39
   I’m of the exact opposite mindset. I agree with ‘Reason’, while they may have driven the points too far his points are still valid. If you need a study to explicitly conclude the exact situation you’re imagining then you’re never ever going to find answers to most of your science related questions. However, you can look at data from the two studies ‘Reason’ gave and see inferring data indicating barium, aluminum and magnesium greases have marginally lower coefficient of friction levels at typical environmental temperatures (eg. under 50 degrees C). Just purely as a base oil, additives will only improve that. Additionally we see basic lithium grease, which Relja links as his recommendation, in the second white paper is measurably worse in friction and than the other greases. So one must minimally one must have some level of additives but we see in the study that molybdenum or zinc suffice to help make basic lithium grease a much better grease. What you’re trying to refute just isn’t there.
   It pains me to see this type of ‘information’ constantly being posted by Relja on the forums and how I ended up here. With all the data points he likes to draw out, most of the technical sheets won’t have all these tests that he stipulates necessary to be considered a good grease from section 3.1 . All it does is create a sense of pseudo intelligence without any actual understanding. The washout the potential you’re worried about isn’t related to the specific NLGI number or the viscosity number you’re quoting as nothing NLGI 1-2 will ‘wash out’ without a presence of a carrier or temperatures near the dropping point! Going on you see Relja being adamant about price when taking to ‘Reason’ and then recommends some of the most expensive synthetic lithium complex greases available just on the basis they’re lithium/Mobil/more compatible? If you’re doing your maintenance correctly compatibility will never be an issue, you flush out the grease when you clean it and put new fresh grease in – compatibility is a non-issue if you’re maintaining it yourself. Add in the fact that numerous parts manufacturers test and spec different base oil greases should tell you that there’s many more ways to skin a cat, basic lithium is just the cheapest. One technical fact that gets overlooked is lithium grease and lithium complex greases in general have one of the higher flush out rates and poorer performance in the presence of salt water (sweat or environmental) should tell you something regarding how well thought out this entire article and actual thought that goes into these articles. Hence the reason why the actual conclusions drawn in this article (section 5 on) are so sparse of all those requirements outlined in 3.1 But one thing Relja got right is basically anything will work if you service it often enough.
   BTW nearly all the specific bicycle manufacturers grease is repacked grease from larger grease manufacturers. If you want to find specific data sheets it’s out there if you know where to look. Motorex grease is the same grease as Shimano’s. Buzzy’s is Slickoleum and so on.
   • 
     
     Relja
     23/05/2018 at 23:40
     Lots of “objections”, I’ll address each in a separate paragraph.
     Friction
     Friction differences at bicycle bearing speeds and loads between molybdenum additive grease and an “ordinary” one are negligible. Molybdenum as an additive has its place, but this is not it.
     Mobil SHC 220 vs SHC 100
     For the water washout, SHC 220 is better at it than SHC 100 – according to Mobil’s technical data
     https://www.mobil.com/Xomfl/Core/Ha...ish-US/Grease/pds/GLXXMobilith-SHC-Series?p=1
     Lithium grease water washout resistance
     As for water washout of “lithium greases” in general – as I’ve noted, looking at any grease’s technical data is a safe bet – there are DIN and ISO standards that I hope are scientific enough by your (and Reason’s) merits, so one can look up there. Some lithium complex greases are very good at water washout resistance.
     Compatibility
     Sure, one can completely clean the old grease, but if there’s not much to gain with an incompatible grease, I’d rather avoid it. Shimano freehubs come to mind first – not convenient to disassemble, and if some service grease finds its way into the freehub, I’d prefer it to be compatible with the grease already inside (though much NLGI2 grease intrusion into a freehub creates other problems).
     Recommendations
     I’ve recommended 3 different greases, with an explanation of every recommendation. Don’t like it? Find what you do.
     3.1 requirements
     The fact that many manufacturers don’t state greases attributes is not my fault. How else can one rate various greases? Do a personal lab test for each?
     Thickening soap generalizations
     Thickening soap is (just) one of the ingredients. There are better and worse lithium soap based greases, just like any other thickener type used. Product data sheets, DIN and ISO standards are a way to compare and tell which one is better. Personal experience and lab tests are also fine, but they take a lot more time and effort.

 

[BikeGremlin]

Vagabond
24/05/2018 at 03:39
Relja – This is the same consistent misunderstanding you gave to ‘Reason’ earlier. You simply don’t understand the topic as well as you believe.
Friction:
The white papers already included refute these new claims already. Lithium soap without any additives show increased wear and friction compared to ones with moly or zinc by statically significant margins. It’s actually the thesis of the second white paper included. When you state “Molybdenum as an additive has its place, but this is not it.” you’re completely oblivious the Mobil XHP 220 grease you recommend contains .75% molybdenum. Further highlighting a lack of research or knowledge in your own recommendations.
Water washout of Mobil lithium complex greases:
Why you chose to compare Mobil SHC 220 vs SHC 100 I have no idea. It’s the same base oil with varying viscosities/thickener, you’re comparing like for like. Lithium complex vs lithium complex. It doesn’t compare anything against the other types of grease. However when you compare against other base oil greases, there’s good reasons why marine greases and other greases designed to work within humid and salt exposed environments aren’t lithium based. Expand and compare beyond lithium greases if you’re actually trying to compare different types of grease against on another.
Lithium grease water washout resistance:
Please indicate which DIN and ISO test you’re reiterating and relying upon which indicates performance not only in prolonged water exposure (wet weather rides where bottom brackets are lower fork crowns are consistently exposed to water) or salt water (sweat and electrolyte drinks). There is no standardized test. Water washout tests show other greases fairly consistently washout less grease by weight simply by being exposed to water (eg. how much converts into a water suspended soap). Simply put there’s specific waterproof greases and none of them are lithium based and I don’t know why it’s so difficult for you to wrap your head around that as this is something brought up a lot earlier if that’s going to be one of your core arguments.
Compatibility:
Your argument here is the hub grease will not only leak out of the sealed hub, cross over the pawls, pass then through the freehub seals in sufficient quantity to contaminate the freehub grease to render it ineffective before environmental contaminants would require you to service the hub anyway? That’s one desperate argument and Shimano’s grease is calcium based which is compatible with calcium and poly by your own charts. It’s simply not a concern to be worried about as by the time ANY hub grease crosses that many barriers in sufficient quantity environmental contaminations would of already done much more damage.
Recommendations:
Your recommendations in 3.1 are SET BY YOU or did you copy and paste this article from somewhere else? They’re your own claimed guidelines and you can’t answer half of them trying to compare greases in section 5. Even attacking for lacking of information by saying, “Do a personal lab test for each?” forgetting they’re YOUR guidelines. If you can’t justify and find data to support your own guidelines don’t use them as guidelines! It’s a fool’s argument to force other people to justify your guidelines for your own lack of data in establishing those guidelines.
Thickening soap generalizations:
DIN and ISO standards are just that, standards that are pass/fail. None of commonly available greases will fail any of the DIN and ISO standards you’re harping upon so how are you differentiating anything? Which greases are you trying to highlight fail these standards? This emphasis on DIN and ISO standards not realizing that none of these greases will fail those tests again indicates the level of understanding in the area. This is exactly the pseudo intelligence I am speaking to, you hype up and reiterate the importance of DIN/ISO/NLGI standards not realizing ANY of the greases available for automotive/bicycles won’t fail those standards based upon base oil composition. Even your personal experience, by your discussion with Reason, shows you have no experience with other types of grease on a bicycle and zero experience with any in a lab environment so that’s not a relevant point either.
Final comments:
One would be fine with ANY of the commonly available bicycle greases. Lithium grease is just the cheapest, but it doesn’t have the top half washout resistance and doesn’t perform great when compared to others in wet or salty environments. Fortunately bikes bearings are not a high load or harsh environment so going with Relja’s “it hasn’t failed” recommendation won’t hurt anyone but this article (among others on this site) shows just how much information can be posted but very little knowledge or understanding resulting from it and I’m sure any response given won’t address any of these issues or introduce any comparative data to actually allow for a more educated choice about grease choice exactly the points that ‘Reason’ first introduced.

• 
  
  Relja
  24/05/2018 at 07:25
  You are trying very hard to find objections, but I don’t understand why. I’ll reply to each, one by one. One more time.
  Molybdenum
  For molybdenum, I’ve stated it’s not needed – but won’t do any harm. It does increase the price and take up space. XHP 220 is a very good grease for bike bearings. I can’t tell Mobil to make a bike specific one.
  Friction
  For applications of higher loads, other thickener type based greases make sense. With bike bearings, you won’t see a difference. I have stated the general pros and cons of each thickener type. So each can choose for themselves. The recommendations I give are based on my knowledge and experience, with explanations why. That, along with the previous 6 “chapters” is a decent base for people to choose for themselves.
  SHC 220 vs 100
  A man asked for a recommendation between the two, hence the comparison.
  Lithium water washout
  I have stated in the thickener type general specs which ones are better at water washout and rust inhibition protection. DIN and ISO standards, as well as technical data, give the info on those. If that’s not enough, I can’t help you – you’d have to look elsewhere.
  I ride all year long, including winter when roads are full of very salty melted snow – no problems with bearing rust when using lithium (complex) grease.
  Compatibility
  Bicycle hubs are not sealed. They are “sealed”. It is a valid argument. If they were really sealed, water washout attributes would be irrelevant. Bike bearings have covers that both leak and allow dirt and water intrusion. So it’s more of a “dust protection” that doesn’t seal, advertised as a seal.
  3.1
  The attributes are given with help of a few experts on the topic, including the co-author. For manufacturers that don’t state the corrosion resistance, water washout etc, the only thing left is to do a lab test, or relly on the general properties of a grease’s thickener type – if it is stated.
  DIN and ISO
  Read the chapters on those standards and find various greases that have those stated. They don’t all satisfy the same criteria and have different DIN and ISO labels. Differences being temperature range, water washout resistance etc. It is all nicely explained. You are trolling, aren’t you?
  Final comments
  Among other things (like explaining the DIN – ISO labels, thickener types, compatibilities, base type oils… you know, the whole article), the basic idea for the article was to show and explain why (low loads and speeds etc.) most any grease will and does do, like you’ve said. And I’ve said. Yes. No need to go for expensive, branded “bicycle bearing grease”. You can if you like. Won’t get (measurably) better results, than with a good quality lithium complex soap based grease, in my knowledge and experience.
  Similar arguments (or “arguments”) as Reason. Complete misunderstanding of the whole post (and subject), trying to find something to criticize. Don’t know why. Why do trolls troll?

 

[BikeGremlin]

1. trevdog
   16/06/2018 at 13:53
   On washout… the reason I knew SHC 100 was weaker on washout was indeed because I looked up the data sheet and eye-balled the washout figures. [It had nothing to do with the NLGI number or the viscosity of the bas oil. Sorry you miss-understood me Vagabond.]
   Vagabond – what would you recommend for my situation? Noting that:
   * I rarely ride in wet conditions (in rain or through creeks/puddles etc).
   * I don’t have salty conditions where I live (I’m not near the coast, nor are roads salted here for ice).
   * Temperatures here range from medium frost conditions up to about 38 Celsius.
   * I have old style bearings (i.e. not sealed bearings) on my older steel-framed road-bike.
   How would you suggest I evaluate the best grease for my situation?
2. 
   
   Avalon
   01/10/2018 at 10:50
   There is interesting XADO revitalisant grease that can actually regenerate wear in ball bearings. I asked manufacturer if they could be used in bicycles and they told me that due to low revolutions and friction effect would be little. Although as daiy commuter friction and wear is more significant but at extended time, so I’m not sure if heat for example is important for regeneration. Here is XADO video where on purpose damaged ball bearing race is regenerated using lubricant: XADO REVITALIZANT
   • 
     
     Relja
     01/10/2018 at 12:02
     Yes, I’ve seen the advert, but haven’t had the chance to see the product, much less test it. I would GUESS that heat and/or pressure are required for any protective layer to be formed by the grease’s ingredients.
     Bicycle bearings don’t bear high loads, pressure, or rotating speed (they go up to about 100 rpm). So I don’t see the required conditions for any “regeneration” forming.
     Also, I’m more than skeptical, since I don’t see XADO products in a widespread use. I’d expect something like this to be used as a good choice, either to prevent damage, or “repair” damaged bearings. Unless the price is so high it turns out cheaper to just replace the bearings/worn parts.
     To put it shortly – IMO – snake oil, until proven otherwise, by independent testing. If you happen to have any such testing data, or links, I’d be happy to look into it.
3. 
   
   Avalon
   01/10/2018 at 16:57
   I’m also curious why this grease so little known, maybe because developed by ukrainians or being new on market. In Eastern Europe XADO revitalisants are mostly used as car oil additives. I want to use grease for NEXUS 7 internal hub and generator hub ball bearing cup and cone lubrication for parts to last as long as possible because they are expensive to replace unlike in ordinary bicycle ball cup and cones. Although ball bearings themselves are standart and pretty cheap.
   I found one XADO patent describing process of revitalisation: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9388360B2/en
   I do not understanding all technical terms but in Wikipedia it is explained simply as treatment forming a protective cermet or ceramic-metal coating on the friction metal parts of the mechanisms directly during the process of their operation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revitalizant
   XADO patent also mentions use of “roller nanobearings” which further reduce friction. I actually remember hearing once about revitalising car engine additive that forms metal ceramic coating on friction surfaces. What is not clear to me are conditions of this protective layer formation. If I’m correctly understanding there are mentioned conditions for revitalizant nanostructure to form – optimal temperature (700-1,200° C.) and time (1-3 hours) conditions. Since bicycles are so much more efficient than engines, have lower friction and temperatures in bearings how well revitalisation would work out.
   • 
     
     Relja
     01/10/2018 at 19:22
     Serbia is technically in Central Europe, but we’ve had a fair share of “engine revitalization/protection” additives and “super lubes”, “special Russian military lubricants” etc.
     Promising to prevent engine wear and repair worn engines (so they stop consuming oil, producing black/blue smoke at the exhaust etc.). Economic crisis made a lot of people turn to such “snake oil” products, since they couldn’t afford engine overhaul, much less a new car. Promises were big. Effects? Well, the best ones did nothing, meaning they did no harm. :/
     I would expect Germans for one to be using such, or similar products if they were as effective as promised.
     From what I could gather, the product(s) require high pressure and temperature to really work. Not something present within bicycle bearings.
     For Shimano NEXUS, unlike “ordinary” cup and cone hubs, I haven’t had the chance to test how they perform with non-factory (non-“original Shimano grease”). Those hubs are expensive and I haven’t had any of my own to first test, before testing on friends’ hubs, and then with customers (like I did with “ordinary” hubs). Safe bet is the “original Shimano NEXUS grease”. It works fine and regularly serviced hubs last for ages. As I’ve tried to explain in this post, bicycle bearings don’t put special requests to grease – as long as they’re regularly cleaned and re-lubricated, they’re golden. Much like soap: doesn’t matter which one is used, as long as it’s used regularly. Original Nexus grease works well, and, although more expensive than “automotive grease”, it is still cheaper than XADO products (from the prices I could find).
4. 
   
   Old coot
   17/09/2019 at 02:57
   Having used scores of lubes over fifty years, I still fall for the hype now and then. Random observations: First major bike rebuild, circa 1965, saw me using some ancient Texaco canned pumpkin-colored grease my father had forever. It was sort of NGLI 1.5-2, smelled strong, and worked – yet, upon the next overhaul a year or two later, found rusty bearings still coated in brown wet grease.
   Mobil 1 worked well enough for about fifteen years, but is very stiff for most bike bearings. Zero corrosion but may be bearings were stainless anyhow; it displayed very little separation unlike other greases.
   Phil grease and oil just seemed too sticky, attracted dirt. No apparent shortcomings in bearing life.
   The original Park grease seemed fair, but definitely would allow and absorb more water into emulsion which could lead to bearing corrosion.
   Some “Green” grease showed a very peculiar behavior in spin-testing in exposed idler pulley tests – it would spin inwards, like a tiny tornado, until the majority had coated the spinning center axle leaving the bearings naked. I did find a technical term for this but can’t find it now.
   Viperlube tested well in both spin and water tests, very high coating specs, worked fine in various hubs, not any better than Slick Honey or Pedro’s older Synthetic grease.
   Earlier Finish Line teflon grease is inconsistent, okay in some enclosed bearings, but eventually dried out leaving waxy chunks that clearly weren’t protecting or lubing at all.
   Pure Krytox greases in two softnesses I’ve saved for very specific applications, analogous to the SS couplings joining takeapart frames where this lube is the only certified type. It does leave remarkably slick film, but in hubs I don’t find it worth more than other greases.
   As bike parts and tech have become ever more exotic and finicky, it is harder to just assume any standard grease or oil from basic suppliers is really up to a special application. No doubt bike companies obtain their stuff from the “Big Guys,” but those real experts may well customize to suit the needs of the bike folks, and nothing analogous will be found on auto parts shelves.
5. 
   
   STAVROS GKERLES
   07/11/2019 at 08:16
   I’ve found that best applications for simple basic costructions , like a bicycle for example, you do not need nlgi 2 grease. it is unnecessarily thick fir the application. I’ve found that nlgi 1.5 (shell makes one) and nlgi 1 (for some reason pretty rare) , are the best thickness for hubs and bottom bracket. They don’t wash out easy, especially the shell one, nor do they leak outside the bearings. And if you don’t make the mistake of overgreasing , the wheels spin for longer time.
   nlgi 2 is pretty hard for a bicycle.
   Maybe for a mountain bike that has drops and jumps , mos grease with nlgi 1 is even better. ANd not at all expensive. Not like the marin grade stuff.
   • 
     
     Relja
     07/11/2019 at 08:43
     I agree – NLGI 1 is technically good enough. With a few notes:
     Loads, even with MTB jumps, are not the problem with bicycle bearings – their number one nemesis is the dirt intrusion (even more than water washout, except for very wet/salty conditions). NLGI 1 hardness will do the job just fine.
     The main “problem” with NLGI 1 hardness in my experience is not being able to keep the bearing balls in place well enough, during the re/assembly (regular bearing overhaul).
     Any gains from using NLGI 1 grease for bicycle bearings, in terms of lower friction and better lubrication, compared to NLGI 2 hardness are marginal (regular overhaul – cleaning and re-greasing – is by far more important). While NLGI 1 is a lot harder to find/buy, at least in Serbian shops.
     Bottom line – you won’t go wrong with NLGI 1. In my experience it does leak out from the bearings a bit more (cup and cone hubs especially), but with regular service, that in and of itself is not a problem. For reasons explained above, with all the pros and cons, I go with NLGI 2 hardness and consider it an optimal choice.

 

[BikeGremlin]

1. STAVROS GKERLES
   07/11/2019 at 12:08
   i ‘ve even tried nlgi 0 grease but as you can guess leaked pretty good at high reps.
   i’ve been using 1 and 1.5 for years now , and i have an electric spinner that uses 25x37x7 bearngs. Pretty similar to what shimano uses in their hollowtech bottom bracket. the spinner goes to 30,000 rpm and nlgi 1 hasn’t leaked not once. A bicycle bottom bracket can max out at 100 per minute, so it is impossible to displace grease. But if someone, for some reason see leaked grease than it is certain that he or she has overgreased it. That is also why i included grease nlgi 1.5, if someone doesn’t feel confident with nlgi 1, he/she can go with nlgi 1.5 and be done with it.
   And like you said above, performance wise, it is better to know how much grease to implement rather than the thickness itself.if you overgrease , the balls tend to slide than to rotate , but at 25%, the balls start rotate smoothly and not slide.
   you wrote something above. That nlgi 1 doesn’t hold bearings well enough. Are you referring to loose bearings? because in newer years there are no loose bearings anymore and the cage their in hold themin place.
   • 
     
     Relja
     07/11/2019 at 13:39
     In my opinion, the main problem with using too much grease is bearings overheating.
     For 30,000 RPM, grease hardness and amount have a lot more significant impact.
     Rotation speeds seen with bicycles are ridiculously low in that account, so that is not a worry. Not even with wheels (and even much less so with bottom brackets, or steering – headset – bearings).
     For bearings – yes, by “cup and cone” I meant the “loose ball bearings”. The ball holding “power” is relevant to those only. As for the “no loose bearings anymore”: how many people use them is not relevant for any particular person choosing grease – because one chooses for their own application. For example, I like Shimano hubs (price/quality ratio and availability are the least bad for those in my region), they are still using cup and cone (loose ball, angular contact) bearings. Also, most bicycle wheels in my city are still cup and cone (either Shimano, or Quando hubs – well over 50%) – and same goes for most headset bearings and still a relatively high percentage of bottom brackets (some 5 to 10% of the bikes I see have cup and cone bottom brackets… yes, ancient tech and rather poor quality – my road bike included).
     Those using cartridge bearings needn’t be concerned with that, of course.
     Also, from the experience with yearly wheel bearing overhauls (for cup and cone bearings), even the “MTB hubs” (that are supposed to be a bit better sealed than the “road hubs”), don’t hold the softer grease well enough. Sure, it also depends on the grease quality, but from my (and the mechanics I’ve discussed this with) observations, softer greases get “lost” from the bearings more quickly.
     In addition to that, I haven’t noticed any problems with using NLGI 2 grease. Lubrication, water washout resistance, even drag – none. On the other hand: price, availability and convenience (if servicing loose ball bearings) – all go in favor of NLGI 2, at least in my region.
     Having said all this – there’s nothing wrong with NLGI 1. Loads that bicycle bearings take do not require NLGI 2 grease. The most important thing is regular service (and dirt intrusion prevention – but that’s down to the bearing / hub manufacturer mostly).
2. 
   
   Emanuele
   24/11/2019 at 16:47
   Many thanks for the informative article.
   I’m a professional bike mechanic and always used (out of habit) medium hardness lithium “green” grease, which is what you also suggest. I would be interested however in more considerations on lithium vs calcium soap as there seems to be little difference between them according to your data, but I had bad results with reddish-brown calcium greases in practice (washout and aging) however it was with cheap all-purpose products whereas the lithium soap ones in the shop are branded. Also does colour have a reliable meaning? I and some colleagues go with the colour traditionally.
   ps small typo: rpms of a wheel at 30kph would be around 250 not 500 you might want to correct that
   • 
     
     Relja
     24/11/2019 at 18:52
     First to thank you for the correction – I find such input invaluable, in order to improve all the data. Re-checked twice: 250 it is. Probably had forgotten to divide the number of meters per minute with the wheels circumference (which I rounded to 2 meters).
     As for the greases, good quality calcium based ones aren’t bad. Not much worse than good quality lithium based ones.
     Even better are complex “versions” – both lithium complex and calcium complex greases.
     I use relatively cheap all-purpose lithium complex grease and it’s performed very well over the years – both with mine and customer bicycles.
     Can’t really say I’ve noticed the colour to have any relation to greases quality. Didn’t pay much attention to it though. Thinking, retrospectively, some of the more expensive (synthetic based) lithium complex greases I’ve used were of red colour, with a relatively clear texture (“clear” as coca cola texture vs muddy water texture). But that could be just marketing.
     Washout and aging is a problem with both calcium and lithium greases – complex versions (all else being equal) seem to be better at staying “greasy” and staying in place.
3. 
   
   Alvaro Aedo
   06/01/2020 at 14:14
   Thank you very much for the knowledge. It is clear that lithium-based grease is the best, but what to do in cases where there are rubber or seals. Is it true about the deterioration of these with lithium-based grease? What would be the alternative, calcium grease?
   • 
     
     Alvaro Aedo
     06/01/2020 at 14:53
     MY doubt is specifically focused on the lubrication of shimano m8020 pedals that have a rubber seal
   • 
     
     Relja
     06/01/2020 at 16:14
     Nitrile and polyurethane rubber is not too sensitive to petroleum based lubricants. With those, general lithium based grease (with mineral oil lubricant) should be fine. I can’t say what kind of rubber seals are used by Shimano, but didn’t have any problems with Shimano rubber hub seals while using lithium grease, for example. I’d go with that (complex lithium grease).
     Generally “rubber friendly” greases are:
     PTFE greases (where PTFE is used both the soap keeping the lubricant suspended and the lubricant) are safe for most rubber types for all I know (though quite expensive).
     Or Silicone greases, where the lubricant is silicone oil held in suspension by silica or PTFE.
     Consulting manufacturer tech. specs can also be useful:
     https://www.super-lube.com/Content/...Purpose Synthetic Grease with Syncolon (PTFE).pdf
4. 
   
   drizt
   29/08/2020 at 17:43
   Hello. Big thanks for amazing technical article. No other alternativies in internet.
   I have couple questions.
   First. Some days ago I bщгпре a calcium grease Motul Nautic Grease. It has temperature range from -30 C to +120 C. Also I have bicycle lithium TF2 Grease with temp. range from -20 C to +120 C. In this case calcium grease has better temperature range than lithium grease. But in article “These greases have a relatively narrow working temperature range. I.e. if bicycle is ridden below -20 °C, or it stays in hot summer sun before riding (over +35 °C), then they are not the best choice”. I ride in any temperature range (-30 – +35) and in any weather conditions. Also salt protection is very matter for me becouse salt applied to roads to protect against ice. So is my choose enough good and calcium grease have better temp. range than lithium grease?
   Second. What to use on bearing seat before pressing pivot bearing in links? I saw in GMBN youtube channel they used Parktool grease. In White Bikes, Marine Bikes and Specialized frame manuls sayed to use Loctite 608/638/641. It is very expensive in my country it costs about 35$ for 50 ml. For comparision Motul Nautic Grease costs 9$ for 400 ml.
   P.S. sorry for my poor English. It’s not my native language.
   • 
     
     Relja
     30/08/2020 at 07:42
     Hello,
     There are thousands of different products – article was aimed at providing some guidelines, with “rule of thumb” properties. Motul and Mobile, to name a few, make some exceptional quality greases (and sell them at premium/higher prices).
     For your riding conditions (intended use), that Motul grease looks like a good choice, if the cost is not prohibitive.
     In my city, temperatures rarely go below -20, mostly stay up to -10 in the coldest of months, but as far as salt protection goes (our road companies don’t spare on the salt as soon as there’s any snow), Lithium soap based grease seems to work fine – I also ride all year long.
     For pressing in the bearings (not for lubrication of moving parts), I prefer (and recommend) using some kind of anti-seize, not grease. Because it provides long(er) term protection from seizing (corrosion), helping both with mounting and dismounting. Grease can be relied upon for only up to one year, if not even shorter period, for anti-seize protection. Products sold as “copper grease” are quite good for that task.
     Relja
5. 
   
   Long_Rider
   05/12/2020 at 20:03
   While I agree that “Dropping Point”, a proxy for max working temp of a grease, is largely irrelevant, hubs, especially front hubs with disk brakes can get very hot, and is a primary reason the industry moved away from QR hubs for these applications (the skewers would stretch so much under heat they’d open)
   Also, headsets would seem to have about zero lube requirements as they move very slowly, but “Pound-Out” is actually very important for headsets, and grease thicker than NLGI #2 could be helpful here.
   Finally, NLGI #2, nor greases with high cohesion, would be good for lubing shifter cables. You want the grease to adhere to the cable and the housing, but not itself, and the thinner the better so long as it doesn’t all leak out in the year or so between cable replacements.
   • 
     
     Relja
     05/12/2020 at 21:21
     I would argue that the main reason for abandoning quick release hubs was a bit different:
     Placing the disc caliper behind the fork (a copy of a common design used in motorcycling) results in the braking force trying to pull the hub out of the flanges – downwards.
     Motorcycles have been using through axles for ages, so that was not an issue with them. But for bicycles – while the rear disc brake, being placed in front of the axle, in fact pushes the hub deeper into the flanges when braking (where it is locked against the frame), the front one was problematic. Also, when using one, not two front brake discs (weight saving important with bicycles), another advantage of a thru axle is that it does transfer more torque to both fork legs.
     So I don’t think that heat buildup was what caused the QR front wheels to get loosened. It was the braking torque that tended to pull the hubs out. And it worked in many small movements, slowly unscrewing the nuts (when there’s any movement, tightened nuts tend to rotate in the “direction” of lower preload, i.e. get loosened). Lever can become open only after the nuts have been loosened enough – because QR mechanism is a self-securing one (more torque is needed to open a lever of a properly tightened one, than it is needed to keep the lever locked). Braking force pulling hub out of the flanges (and rider weight pushing the hub back into the dropouts) provided the movement needed to cause the nuts to start slowly loosening.
     I would also add that I haven’t noticed discs transfering a lot of heat to the hub itself. There’s a lot of aluminium and steel there, and when braking is hard, there’s usually a lot of wind and rotation to cool it all down. Would expect the discs to warp from overheating long before hub grease gets hot. Might put this to the test in the summer.
     As for the headsets – what kills them are two things:
     1) Dirt intrusion (the main reason why bottom headset bearings get busted a lot sooner than the top ones).
     2) road vibrations, as the fork steerer tube flexes – practically moving back and forth, displacing the lubricant. On fast, long road descents, when there’s not enough turning of the bars in order to replentish the lubricant displaced by the vibrations, bearings get fretting damage.
     Road shocks (“pounding”) are often a concern – but, as far as I know, a misplaced one, when it comes to headset bearings. In fact – I’d argue that a softer grease, that is more easily smeared/replentished as the bars are turned would probably be a better choice. So I see no reason to use any grease harder than NLGI #2 for this application. Regular service is the best cure for dirt intrusion, while the road vibes and turning of the bars is what it is when one is riding. Can’t really influence that.
     Where gear (and brake cables) are concerned – I agree. Suppose it depends on the conditions, but I would generally avoid any thick grease for those. In my climate, both in the summer (with lots of dust), and in the winter, I’ve gotten the best results using a very “thin” oil (marketed and sold as “Motip PTFE lubricant”, though I sincerely doubt there’s nearly any/enough PTFE added to make any difference – but it’s a very good lubricant, that doesn’t attract dirt, and prevents moisture from rusting the cables).
     Hubs where grease temperature resistance does get put to the test are hub brake models (coaster brakes, “Shimano Roller brakes” etc.). There, the temps inside the hubs can get really high, especially if braking a lot (long descents etc.).

 

[BikeGremlin]

1. Paweł
   10/12/2020 at 18:15
   More food for thought here:
   https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=121287
   The guy seems to have very thorough knowledge about mechanics and chemistry, so I’d rely on him. What he says, contrary to your views, is that solid lubricants, like graphite or MoS2, are actually very beneficial for a bicycle bearing.
2. 
   
   Long_Rider
   11/12/2020 at 03:46
   I don’t believe I expressed a view on solid lubricants, and the excellent blog post you linked clearly shows that the Stribeck Curve dictates that for a given load, the slower the bearing moves the higher the viscosity (thicker, more adhesive & cohesive) grease is called for.
   My ’06 Specialized Roubaix came with press-in cups, loose balls, and a split-crown race – pretty much the worst piece of crap bearing possible, and despite NEVER riding in the rain, I could have grown potatoes in the lower headset after 3yrs. Rusted, pitted and absolutely filthy. I rode it all yr around too, so it didn’t get FUBAR sitting around in my bedroom, it got FUBAR from dust and the occasional puddle splash from rouge irrigation systems.
   With 20-20 hindsight, I think Marine grease would have been excellent for that application, and annual servicing as well. Like many others, I replaced those bearings with a Cane Creek 110 sealed bearing system, BUT, those have much less engagement area, 8-10mm vs ~30mm with the original press-in. As you might expect, and Chris King and others have been very vocal about, in time the small engagement area results in the slow, steady peening of the aluminum bearing face inside the headset. My RX for AmsOil’s Off-Road grease is for stopping the creaking that has resulted by resisting Pound-Out so it continues to take up the tiny space peening has created. Of interest to you, that grease has Moly in it, although Moly isn’t really meant as a lube, it’s meant to fill in the pores of hot metal to create a less toothy surface so the oil film can work better at any speed and load.
   As for heat, as the linked blog discussion indicates, while overall heat is usually not an issue, momentary micro heating, resulting in welding occurs regularly, and Moly might help here too, as would a high 4-Ball test due to a superior synthetic oil or Teflon film.
   As for disk brakes transferring heat to hubs, it’s been a big problem in the past, and given the rather solid surface on road disks between the caliper engagement area and the hub, probably still is on road bikes. This seems like a perfect test for https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com to conduct. I idea is to put a disk braked wheel on their drum and brake while using an IR sensor to record temps with the idea to continue until hub temps become a problem – or not.
   Since professional European tour riders have gotten branded from disk brakes on road courses there’s plenty of heat that needs dissipation, and based on 3 generations of designs to address that problem by brake mfgs, it seems likely it’s a problem. Beyond that, and they may have their own data set, Santana tandems stopped putting disk brakes on their bikes because there were none with rotors large enough to handle the heat. I will contact them and see if they would like to add to this discussion.
   My favorite grease is still pure 100% PTFE – Teflon grease, but it’s too expensive to fill large cavities with, so I use FinishLine’s 100% on the balls (or needles) and then fill the space left with their Teflon-fortified grease, based on the fairly safe assumption that grease with Teflon in it will be compatible with still more Teflon if they mix.
   BTW, the Stribeck Curve doesn’t say where oil film failure will occur for any particular grease, just that viscosity, velocity and load all affect it. In particular, that for a given load, as velocity slows, viscosity should rise to keep the equation in balance. Teflon’s film is over 2 orders of magnitude tougher than some oils, like WD-40, but that said, oil film integrity isn’t the only consideration, though, is it?
   For example, if I were routinely riding a loose-ball mtb in wet conditions I’d probably select a Marine grease because it’s made to keep water out, not wash out, resist corrosion, and maintain a good oil film even in the presence of water. In part it does this by using solids like Moly. Ditto for the pedals and headset, but probably not the hubs, but wouldn’t it be nice to know? I mean, WTF, for the price we pay for bicycle grease, and the cost of what it protects, why the hell don’t we know what’s in the grease we buy? There should be standardized “nutrition labeling” for grease, for some of the very reasons we’ve been discussing. NLGI standards are a joke, and everybody in the industry knows it and devises their own tests to prove performance, as Gareth Fish’s White Paper makes clear.
   http://coastlubricants.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Lubrizol-WhitePaper-2016.pdf
3. 
   
   Martin Holm
   10/03/2021 at 09:59
   I have been looking for information about lithium complex grease vs. calcium complex grease. I will use the grease for multi purposes. Bicycle, car and motorcycle. Your article was very helpful. I have chosen til lithium complex grease.
   Best regards
   Martin Holm
   • 
     
     Relja
     10/03/2021 at 12:44
     Glad it was helpful.
     I also go with Lithium complex (for both the push, and the motor-bikes ), but it’s fair mentioning:
     regular cleaning and re-lubricating (i.e. regular maintenance) is a lot more important than the grease type, or even quality
     (as long as it’s not something completely inappropriate for the application, and/or of a surprisingly low quality).
     Still, I sleep better when using the best matching grease type, of a high quality, and I would say that lithium complex is probably the “most universal” and probably the best choice for your intended use (multi-purpose grease).
     Relja
4. 
   
   John K
   06/08/2021 at 21:28
   Hi Relja,
   I would like to hear your thoughts on what you recommend for DT-Swiss’s star ratchet system in their freehub body. They recommend their own product “DT-Swiss special grease” which is actually TP-42 Molykote + 5% Mineral oil. However this is quite expensive and not that readily available near me (East Coast US). Would you recommend any other grease that is readily available for this specific application ( teeth of the freewheel body). You can see their maintenance recommendations here as well: https://www.dtswiss.com/pmt/00/00/00/00/00/00/00/10/00/00/04/19/3/MAN_HXD10000004193S_XXX_EN_001.pdf
   Also, they have a general grease that they recommend for the hub. Would the ones you recommended (Mobil XHP 222) be fine for this? Thank you in advance!
   • 
     
     Relja
     09/08/2021 at 17:25
     Hi John,
     What Long_Rider replied does make a lot of sense. Gear oil has proven to be a good option for Shimano freehubs.
     Having said that, very soft grease should also do the job. Semi-liquid, like NLGI 0, or even NLGI 00. Shimano gear-hub grease is premium price soft grease suitable for such fine mechanisms (I usually use that, because I have it at hand, for its original intended purpose on other people’s hubs).
     Mobil XHP 222, if used sparingly (with any excess wiped off) could do the job, but I’d use a soft version (NLGI 0), i.e. XHP 220.
     I could be wrong but I expect hard grease to increase the risk of the mechanism sticking and not working perfectly (with Shimano freehubs that’s definitely the case, haven’t risked it with DT-swiss).
     Relja
5. 
   
   Long_Rider
   07/08/2021 at 20:17
   John,
   I hope you don’t mind me chiming in here. I found your question intriguing.
   Chris King uses the same star ratchet system, which is a ratchet implemented by two face ratchets pushed together under only slight pressure. It has the characteristic “Angry Bees” sound. For such an application you do NOT want a sticky grease, IE: one with high cohesion, and probably not much adhesion either, as a thick layer of grease would tend to hold the ratchet plates apart, as is warned of in DT’s Maintenance Document.
   Given DT generally has excellent seals, I would opt for no grease at all, but a thick-ish gear oil designed for high gear loading. It will have excellent wear resistance at the ends of the teeth where loads are the highest, & where DT directs you to check for wear. This oil is engineered for the very high gear loading of hypoid gears AND has an additive to protect and extend the life of seals. More importantly, it is very thermally stable, so should NOT be adversely affected by cold weather, which would thicken a grease to a point where ratchet engagement failure is almost certain. It will also not degrade in heat, even when riding hard in 125F heat in Phoenix.
   I would RX a special treatment of the ratchet faces though. Clean them absolutely bone dry by using carburetor cleaner and 99% rubbing alcohol or boiling them in distilled water and Simple Green. Then put them in a metal container and heat them to ~ 350F in the gear oil for 15mins. This will bond the gear oil to the metal very strongly and provide a base of lubrication that is unparalleled. PLEASE do make sure the oil does not affect the tempering of the metal, which I assume is either stainless, maraging steel, CroMo or tool steel, so probably not a problem until well over 500F, but 350F should do the trick. I have used this technique extensively to restore steel parts on vintage bikes and it works wonders.
   Cheers!
   https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants...ants/products/mobil-delvac-1-gear-oil-75w-90/

 

[BikeGremlin]

1. uhc pro cycling
   08/08/2021 at 07:26
   I would like to find out whether lithium or calcium complex grease works best for a range of applications: my bicycle, car, and motorcycle. Your article is really helpful as I have chosen to buy lithium complex grease.
2. 
   
   Zalmay
   09/12/2021 at 03:46
   If lithium grease is better & cheaper, why doesn’t Shimano ship their hubs with it? If lithium grease is better, why are sealed bearings lubed with polyurea? If lithium grease is better, why don’t major bike lube manufacturers sell it?
   True, proper maintenance is more important than lubricant, but good bike grease is relatively inexpensive & a big can lasts forever. Why skimp? You’re only saving a few crumbs.
   • 
     
     Relja
     09/12/2021 at 06:47
     Hi Zalmay,
     I haven’t been able to measure any benefits of more expensive greases. Dirt intrusion is what kills the bearings and past lithium complex grease any additional extra quality seems to make no difference in durability and prolonged service intervals.
     Having said that – I think I’ve provided enough information for everyone to make a choice for themselves and by themselves.
3. 
   
   Drew
   20/05/2022 at 02:43
   Great writeup! Somehow never stumbled upon this particular page before. For what it’s worth, I agree that “Reason” is just a troll and not being remotely constructive. I’ve easily spent 100+ hours on Machinerylubrication(dot)com as well as the Bobistheoilguy forums and love to nerd out on grease… also was a nuclear/steam plant mechanic long before I was a bicycle mechanic. I think you put together a great summary. I can’t vouch for every word written but I trust that you vetted your sources and the info is accurate (nothing stands out as incorrect to me). You also made it quite clear what was opinion vs standard industry practice.
   I suspect Mr. Reason is just obsessed with buying grease with “bicycle” written on the label and feels the need to defend themselves. Who argues for polyurea? Only someone with limited experience with it… the Park Poly formula is good, highly compatible, but it’s the exception not the rule. It’s usually a grease used in high speed bearings that are sealed and never serviced. Why do they choose it for a bicycle? I have no clue, but the fact that they use it for their general purpose grease doesn’t make it better than a lithium complex. For as much as Mr. Reason demands evidence, they certainly didn’t make much of an argument besides “but that’s what this company does although I have no idea why!!!” (how informative, not).
   I’ll steal his argument to support yours though, everyone uses NLGI#2 for a reason.. the only place you ever see NLGI#1 or “#1.5” in actual production is when it gets used in suspension forks. Which also happens to be why Slickoleum uses a calcium thickener, because lithium is not compatible with o-rings. Slick Honey and SRAM butter just being repackaged Slickoleum. The old Judy Butter from Rock Shox, before SRAM bought them up, was a lithium grease btw so obviously that particular lithium grease was ok with the seals Rock Shox used. Park HPG-1 is another lightweight grease that I’d consider a suspension grease (calcium sulfonate)and maybe a weightweenie grease if you repack your hubs frequently but not a long term “set and forget” sort of grease. I consider the NLGI #1 a high maintenance grease, although I haven’t had issues with washout or anything it’s just so hard to find that I don’t really consider it worthwhile unless you need a winter-specific grease that happens to be NLGI#1 with a good cold operating band (which most of us do not need). For summer riding, with wheel bearings, NLGI#2 makes the most sense, and industry supports that claim; there’s a reason that’s what most stores stock.
   A few things I’d add to this article… a discussion on how grease itself is like a sponge for the oil, that can soak it back up and release it. Grease itself doesn’t lubricate, the oil lubricates and I think that is lost on a lot of people; the purpose of grease is just to hold it which you touch on when you discuss oil but I think this could be emphasized more. This leads into another aspect of grease that you didn’t discuss, which is how much do you pack into a bearing. Industry standard seems to be about 1/3 to 1/2 of the free space.. beyond that there’s a point of diminishing return in terms of rolling efficiency where instead of having a set path, the bearing balls have to constantly do work pushing the grease out of the way similar to what a snow plow does. This often leads to the bearing balls sliding along the races rather than actually rolling which is less efficient and can lead to premature wear and flat spots. It can be argued that less is more, from a performance perspective. On the other hand, over packing as much grease as possible does help with weather proofing and preventing water ingress so it’s a tradeoff (isn’t everything).
   Would be useful to have some discussion on “carbon safe” as well as rubber o-ring safe and even plastic (grease for shifters) safe. Not that I blame you for not diving into that as there’s a lot of mixed opinion out there. Really that’s about the only reason I’d ever recommend someone buy a bicycle specific grease is that it may specifically guarantee compatibility while an automotive grease wouldn’t (which doesn’t mean it’s not compatible, it’s just not explicitly stated).
   Personally I just use whatever grease I have open, which at the moment is either Mobil1 Synthetic lithium or some generic lithium marine grease. I also have a tube of Super Lube silicone grease for o-rings but not for bearings. I don’t currently have any suspension but if I did I’d pick up some Slickoleum which is about the only brand name I’d go out of my way for.
4. 
   
   Drew
   20/05/2022 at 05:18
   Pot, meet kettle.
   The thing with data and science is that it actually needs to be relevant to the conversation and support what you’re arguing. You can’t just grab the first thing that pops up in a google search and say “SEE!!” that doesn’t make you scientific, data-based, or objective.
   So I read your last two links, because I was actually just bored and wanted to read them. The PSU study had to do with how the friction coefficient changes with temperature. You use the base of aluminum being 0.09 at room temperature vs lithium being 0.11 at room temperature as evidence that aluminum grease is somehow superior… perhaps it is, all else equal, but the researchers didn’t pull 10 different aluminum based grease formulations to compare and establish an average or standard because that wasn’t the point of the experiment; it would have been completely irrelevant to the experiment in question. So, you just cherry picked something completely out of context to “prove” your point but it doesn’t prove anything because that’s not what was being evaluated. Perhaps it was the isopropoxide that only the aluminum formulation used which was the difference maker; the other greases used hydroxide… you can’t rule that out because it wasn’t evaluated or controlled for, because that wasn’t the point of the experiment in question.
   Maybe aluminum actually is a better lubricant, and this would be one data point to that end. But how does it compare to different formulations, it’s a really bad idea to generalize a type of grease when a specific product may be completely different than another even with the same thickener. You have a hypothesis to test, but the study in question doesn’t test it.
   You’re comparing apples to oranges using that study as supporting evidence, because the formulations used were made specifically for the purpose of the study, not for real world use. Throw a commercial product through the same exact testing and you may get entirely different numbers for both aluminum thickener and lithium thickener formulations… but again, WE DON’T KNOW. Don’t be so high and mighty about how you are so evidence based when your argument is this easy to pick apart.
   The last link in the above comment, from Jtekt. You’re takeaway is “polyurea is just a superior grease.” It doesn’t say that anywhere in the article. Superior is subjective… superior for what specific use? Per that article it is superior in the reciprocating sliding friction tester. Anything else? Who knows; that was the only direct comparison. Clearly Urea without any additives is superior to Lithium (at least in this specific test), no argument there… but we don’t buy grease without additives, we buy a manufactured product designed to minimize the shortcomings and maximize the strengths, so the data is useless other than to show the importance of additives with a lithium formulation. With the right additive, they had similar curves. So sure, not all lithium greases are equal… but that’s not the point you were attempting to make here.
   Perhaps one of the referenced studies in the linked study would provide more information but I’m just evaluating what you linked. And frankly, it doesn’t actually state what you imply that it states/proves. This isn’t an argument against polyurea, it’s well known to be a great grease when you need a “sealed for life” application so it would be a good choice on non-serviceable bicycle bearings for that reason. But it’s also a fairly incompatible grease, Park’s formulation being an exception, presumably. So if you use it, then make sure to clean out all the old grease first. But superior? Why? Because Park uses it? Because it’s better in a given test without additives (ignoring incompatibility issues)?
   There’s nothing scientific or objective about your arguments. A gish gallup of links that we need to then debunk doesn’t change that. You aren’t making a specific argument then supporting it, you’re just firing a shotgun of BS along with a bunch of insults. If you don’t mean to troll, you sure come off as a troll. You completely miss Relja’s point which was looking at multiple factors including price and availability, not just optimal lubrication coefficients. The reality is, as you said yourself, a bike doesn’t have strenuous demands… any of these greases will work granted it’s not mixed with another incompatible grease.
   I think you read this page as if it was supposed to be an academic argument instead of just general advice and an intro to grease for a curious home mechanic that isn’t trying to find the most optimal bicycle grease in the entire universe. As a 3rd party observer, I think you’re the one being stubborn and missing the point of this page entirely. You don’t need to be a white knight for polyurea and I’m really not sure why you are taking it that way. If I even wanted to use polyurea other than Park’s polylube I’d have to special order it from Grainger or something, it’s not even commonly available. On a similar note, there aren’t a lot of aluminum based marine greases around either, most are calcium or lithium… but if you really think that aluminum is superior based on a single study taken out of context, Royal Purple’s marine grease uses an aluminum thickener (and it looks cool, so there’s that).
   Above a certain point, the differences with one thickener vs another is going to be marginal, especially in light of the finished product that we can actually buy. Lithium is “best” because if you walk into any store that’s what you’ll likely see, and if they have a good selection, half of that selection is going to be lithium based. Similarly, walk in to any store and you’re going to see NLGI #2. You want #1, you need to special order it. The lithium being widely available might soon change due to global economic demand for lithium in other products, but for now, it’s what you’ll typically see. Unless you are rebuilding suspension, or a freehub, it’s good enough and thus recommended as a general purpose grease. I could wax poetic about my specific preferences for specific work (which would include NLGI #1 for my winter build) but that was never the point.
5. 
   
   Nicolas Boisvert
   15/06/2022 at 07:01
   Any suggestion for Grip Shift greasing instead of SRAM Jonnisnot?
   • 
     
     Relja Novović
     15/06/2022 at 10:21
     Hi Nicolas,
     It’s always a safe bet to use what the manufacturer recommends, of course.
     Having said that, my first-choice alternatives would be Slick Honey or Slickoleum (Amazon affiliate links) – whichever one I can find cheaper.
     As far as I know, those are decent-quality calcium-based greases, that are softer than NLGI2 hardness, not aggressive on plastics, rubber or metal.
     My second choice would be a more frequent application of some PTFE spray lubricant (low-viscosity, “thin” oil-based lubricant) – i.e. just not WD40 (to emphasize that just to be on the safe side).
     Hope this helps.

 

[BikeGremlin]

This topic is closed for further replies.

If you can't find the answer to your question in this thread, please open a separate thread with your question/problem, in an appropriate forum section (this is the Maintenance and repairs section).

Relja