I’m just seriously trying to understand how wax can actually compete with modern chemistry, like advances in lubrication? I mean, we don’t use 1930 oils in modern engines. I will admit that the engine:roller-chain analogy is stretch, but also think modern lube tech is the better choice. What am I missing?
Also, I feel if I “hear” the chain, I missed the re-lube window.
It is definitely a weird thing. From Zero Friction Cycling:
"Why is waxing so hard for drip lubes to match? Once one thinks about it – the main reasons instantly make a lot of sense re the challenge drip lubes face.
1) It sets to a solid – so the amount of contamination that the chain picks up is literally miniscule vs liquid lubes
2) The immersive nature of waxing means that every square nanometre is covered with lubricant
3) Each re waxing effectively resets the contamination level in the chain back to almost zero. With liquid lubricants – in most cases the level of contamination starts to build from km zero and simply continues to build unless periodically fully solvent cleaned.
Outright performance wise, when Friction Facts first tested paraffin wax the result surprised them. They then investigated why was paraffin so efficient and going through all the friction mechanisms in a chain found that things such as stiction (static friction) and viscous friction play an important role in the overall efficiency of a chains lubricant. Chains do not spin like bearings, they articulate a bit and then stop, reticulate back and stop – and that is happening at around 20,000 times per minute whilst pedalling. So a solid very slippery wax has extremely low static friction and zero viscous friction – and this adds up to great overall efficiency for wax as a chain lubricant. They also found that being solid it was pretty much unperturbed by water and contamination affecting its performance. With drip lubes one can generally expect they will begin to increase in friction from KM zero (there are apparently exceptions – will be testing them soon), solid paraffin does not. It doesn’t actively absorb contamination like liquids do, and nothing really sticks to it."
There's a lot more in here, but I think the excerpt above summarizes the comparison pretty well.