The Murky World of ZFC Zero Friction Cycling: Botched Testing, Frigged Results

This article is not questioning the merits of chain waxing vs other methods. It’s an engineering investigation into the methods, results and the marketing behind Zero Friction Cycling who appear to be not as legitimate or technically adept as they may portray.

Zero Friction Cycling is a one-man operation run by Adam Kerin, a former policeman with no formal engineering qualifications or engineering experience (His words). Adam’s business revolves around selling friction-reducing products through his YouTube channel, Facebook, Instagram, and his accompanying website.

A quick buck without putting the work in

A few years ago, Adam reached out, requesting access to test data, protocols, and detailed information related to tribological practices – data that is typically sensitive and not freely shared. Not surprisingly, he received a similar response from Muc-off and other companies, though he chose not to publicize those rejections as much. Adam appears somewhat naïve about what information is customarily disclosed in the business world, particularly given that, in this case, we are essentially competitors.

His narrative seems to suggest that anyone who is not entirely transparent with their protocols or testing must be concealing something and engaging in questionable marketing practices. The reality, however, is that Adam was unwilling or unable to acquire the required technical standards and seemed reluctant to undertake the necessary research himself.

Nonetheless, Following his request, I responded politely, suggesting that he start with some foundational reading, specifically the book Tribology: Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials by Hutchings. His questions were typical of someone without technical experience or understanding of the field. In response, he claimed he didn’t have the time to read the recommended material:

“Ah yes I won’t quite have time for that unfortunately, my theory is those who know more than me will be able to explain to a non engineer layman, in layman terms why.”

The exchange continued, with Adam insisting:

I should be able to have the correct clear picture without reading engineering books to know what I should sell. If something is fact, there should not be counter information or intuitive question marks…

Adam’s motives became blatantly clear from that statement: he intended to conduct minimal research and focus solely on selling products that he could market at high margins. His claims of independent testing were nothing more than wishful thinking. Adam’s persistent questioning continued, and he eventually asserted – after supposedly consulting with SKF and an unnamed “top bearing supplier” in Australia – that the data I provided was incorrect. His primary assertion was:

“When subjected to vibration, hybrid bearings are significantly less susceptible to false brinelling (formation of shallow depressions in the raceways) between the silicon nitride and steel surfaces.”

Despite my repeated efforts to clarify – seven times in our email chain, to be precise – he either did not grasp or chose to ignore the critical differences between false brinelling and brinelling. False brinelling occurs due to vibrating static load and is associated with static bearings and not those that are rotating.

False brinelling occurs through vibrating static load and is generally not associated with rotating shafts. This photograph from SKF shows the damage clearly as regular dimples, this would not occur in a bearing that was rotating.

This level of misunderstanding was evident throughout our correspondence, illustrating a significant knowledge gap that should be concerning for someone marketing themselves as an expert in tribology for cycling components.

The Ceramic Bearing Narrative

Adam Kerin later published a 27-page article attempting to justify his support for ceramic bearings, but it was riddled with amateurish inaccuracies and misconceptions. He continued to harp on the supposed “fishy marketing” due to the lack of openly available information, failing to grasp the costs (standards are expensive), complexities and proprietary nature of the data he was seeking.

In 2004, Schaeffler, through their bearing brands, developed a martensitic hardened steel that would later carry the trade name Cronitect. This material was exclusively used by Campagnolo for two years from ~2008 in their Super Record bottom brackets. Schaeffler conducted extensive testing of several million cycles to validate the product’s performance in comparison to their regular offering; they were a supplier to Hope at this time. This segment of Schaeffler’s business would eventually evolve into Schaeffler Velosolutions.

Despite well-documented marketing material produced by Schaeffler, Kerin has repeatedly claimed these tests never took place (likely, he could not find it on google) even though it’s widely known that this type of bearing has specific applications—namely, inner ring interference only – due to its poor shock performance. Campagnolo has generally only used the bearing in inner race interference applications.

This dialogue made it abundantly clear that Kerin had little knowledge of S-N curves, the basic loading calculations of bearings or test standards such as Fafnir testing. He also has the deluded mindset that a competitor (Hambini Engineering) would provide this data and knowledge for free.

Even basic calculations are wrong..

Kerin’s continued shallow depth of engineering extend further, as he incorrectly states:

“Torque (turning force) x RPM = power.”

This statement is fundamentally incorrect. Power is calculated as the product of torque and angular speed (in radians per second), not simply RPM. Even the most junior engineering students would recognize this basic principle. Kerin also claims that power and loss can be measured directly, disregarding the fact that power is not a fundamental unit within MLT (mass-length-time) or FLT (force-length-time) systems, it must always be calculated and is typically timed. Similarly, friction does not have standalone units, it is a coefficient and is always derived through calculations despite his assertions that it can be measured directly.

These misstatements highlight a significant lack of technical understanding, raising concerns about his authority on such topics.

Ceramic Bearings and Vibration – Kerin Ignores his own supplier’s Data

Ceramic bearings are notoriously poor performers under shock and heavy loading, which is why they are not suitable for applications like car wheel bearings and power tools. Instead, they are typically used in high-speed, pressure-lubricated machinery, medical devices or electric motors, where their insulating properties offer distinct advantages.

Interestingly, these conclusions align with data from Kerin’s own supplier, HSC Ceramics, which he conveniently chose to omit and completely contradict in his narrative. HSC states under shock conditions or high loads, ceramic bearing life will be at the very best, equal and more likely to be less than a steel bearing. This is due to a high hertzian contact stress – essentially brinelling.

Kerin’s comments on the matter

Quality hardened steel races are not troubled by harder ceramic balls in cycling application due to vibration.

Had Kerin taken the time to read the recommended material, he would know the difference between brinelling and false brinelling. He would have also understood why plastic cages are a poor choice for highly loaded bearings.

Chain Lubricant Testing: A Critical Examination

At the time of writing, standards bodies such as ISO, DIN, ASTM, and API define basic standards for lubricants; however, there is no specific international standard for testing bike chain lubricants. The main focus of Adam Kerin’s testing methodology is the correlation between friction levels and wear, which is gauged by chain stretch. For bike chains, however, this strategy is essentially unproven.

Currently, there are no peer-reviewed studies or published articles that support Kerin’s chain testing approach, particularly when it comes to cycling. Even though he claims that his methodology is “open and therefore valid,” no acknowledged standards or impartial assessments have been able to verify it. The veracity and precision of the findings generated by his testing techniques are seriously questioned in light of the absence of scientific support.

Flaws in the Testing Setup

Kerin’s testing setup is riddled with critical flaws that severely undermine the credibility of his findings. He employs multiple uncalibrated TACX turbo trainers at clamped loads, attached to various bike frames driven by reduction gearboxes through flexible couplings. The retained drive-side crank arm introduces a fundamental imbalance in the drivetrain, immediately compromising the test’s validity. Additionally, the drive motor and gearbox are precariously positioned on unstable bases, one on wheels and another on unsteady legs. Neither of which are securely fixed to the bike frame or the floor, allowing for excessive movement and misalignment. The motors themselves will have some element of slip, and the use of multiple different frames further compounds the inconsistency of the tests. This chaotic setup introduces significant variability, making any results highly questionable and unreliable.

In essence there is no repeatability across the tests because:

• The Bike Frames are different (the stay length is unlikely to be uniform)
• The Test cranksets are different, FSA and Shimano are pictured (the imbalance will be different across bikes)
• The motor drive units are neither calibrated nor installed similarly
• The rear mechs are not consistent, Ultegra and 105 are both used.
• The chain tension on each bike will be different

Video evidence of the setup shows the claimed12 kg motor visibly vibrating due to the imbalanced forces in play. Such instability introduces unrepeatable errors even before the testing begins, making it implausible to measure the minute variations in wear (friction) that Kerin claims to detect. The overall lack of control and precision in the setup undermines any claims of accuracy and repeatability, raising serious concerns about the legitimacy of the results.

Industry Experts Raise Concerns

At a recent power transmission event, representatives from two large chain suppliers, Sedis and Renold criticized the chaotic test setup used in Kerin’s experiments. Concerns were raised about repeatability and errors in combination with the unbelievably accurate metrology equipment (see below). They highlighted that this configuration inherently favours lubricants with good damping characteristics, such as those using immersed wax lubricants. Wax reduces wear by minimizing chain vibration and prevents dirt and debris from embedding into the links, as the continuous wax layer leaves no pockets for contaminants to settle.

However, both representatives, who are avid cyclists pointed out that the test conditions do not accurately reflect real-world cycling. In Kerin’s setup, the chain remains on a single pair of cogs, failing to simulate the lateral forces and movement involved in actual gear shifting. In real riding scenarios, gear changes would cause the wax to flake off, significantly reducing its claimed longevity and effectiveness. The representatives argued that this critical factor is entirely ignored in Kerin’s testing, which skews the results in favour of immersed wax-based lubricants. A drip type wax such as squirt would likely give similar levels of friction.

They also pointed out that the inconsistent chain tension and differing rear derailleurs across his three different bikes would make the results largely unreliable and effectively meaningless.

Practical Implications of Lubricant Performance

The representatives from Sedis and Renold emphasized that any perceived performance advantage of waxed chains over properly formulated drip lubricants is minimal, if it exists at all, in real-world conditions. They noted that any potential benefits of wax are largely negated by the inconvenience of frequently removing the chain for immersion – a cumbersome and time-consuming process that most cyclists are unlikely to undertake. In contrast, drip lubricants offer far greater convenience, as they can be easily reapplied without dismantling the drivetrain. One representative even suggested that motorcycle chain wax could deliver 90% of the benefits of a full wax treatment, without the hassle and at a fraction of the cost.

Ultimately, both industry experts stressed that while immersed wax lubricants might excel in controlled testing environments, such results do not always translate to everyday cycling conditions and are largely affected by the rider’s local climate and shifting patterns. They argued that test setups failing to account for real-life factors such as gear shifts, chain flex, and wax flaking are unreliable predictors of a lubricant’s performance on the road. One estimated that under certain conditions, 50 kilometres of real-world riding would be sufficient for a drip lubricant to surpass the efficiency claims of immersed wax, occurring even sooner with frequent cross-chaining.

Both representatives emphasized that maintaining chain cleanliness is the single most crucial factor in achieving low friction and optimal performance. They argued that no lubricant, regardless of its properties, can compensate for the increased friction and wear caused by dirt, grime, and debris buildup on the chain.

To ensure the best possible friction performance, they advocated for deeper cleaning methods, including ultrasonic cleaning and the use of specialized solvents designed to thoroughly remove contaminants from every part of the chain without attacking or corroding the metal. Ultrasonic cleaning, in particular, is highly effective because it uses high-frequency sound waves to agitate and dislodge particles that traditional cleaning methods might miss, ensuring a deeper clean that minimizes friction.

They also highlighted the importance of regular maintenance routines, including periodic degreasing and re-lubrication, to prevent the accumulation of dirt that can degrade the chain’s efficiency over time. According to these experts, a clean chain not only reduces friction but also extends the lifespan of the chain and drivetrain components, ultimately providing better performance and value for cyclists.

Their stance challenges the common misconception that a specific lubricant can singularly transform chain performance. Instead, they argue that the real key lies in a diligent cleaning regimen that ensures the lubricant—whether wax, wet, or dry—can perform at its best in a contaminant-free environment. The representatives underscored that investing in proper cleaning tools and techniques is far more impactful than relying solely on lubricant choice when it comes to minimizing friction and maximizing efficiency.

Fundamental Flaws in Measuring Chain Wear to Presume Friction

Additionally, both representatives highlighted a critical flaw in Kerin’s methodology: his assumption that chain wear can be directly correlated to friction. Even his email signature implies a close connection between the two “…saving you watts of friction…otherwise eating your drivetrain”. The reality is that a lubricant can demonstrate low friction yet still perform poorly in wear tests, particularly if the testing setup is biased toward a straight chain with high damping characteristics, as seen in Kerin’s rig. This fundamental misunderstanding undermines the validity of his test results and casts serious doubt on any claims made regarding lubricant performance based on this flawed approach.

A closer look at ZFC’s Testing Results

Kerin proudly boasts in his email signature

ZFC conducts the worlds most exhaustive independent testing to find and stock the best in class products only, saving you watts of friction that are otherwise going into eating through your drive train components faster.

A contentious statement that is far from the truth. He regularly claims to do testing on behalf of other manufacturers with suitable NDA’s in force.

Kerin’s testing methodology is based on a wear tolerance of 0.5%. On his charts, 100% equates to reaching the full wear tolerance of 0.5% chain elongation, while 200% indicates 1% chain elongation. To put this in absolute numbers, Kerin employs a KMC digital chain checker to measure wear. For a 10-link section of a chain with a 1/2″ pitch, the nominal length is 127 mm, and 0.5% wear corresponds to a 0.64mm extension. **The test section length is unknown but appears to be 10 or 8 links; the numbers will scale in any case.**

Kerin’s KMC chain checker is essentially a modified digital vernier caliper with jaws adapted to interface with the chain rollers. After consulting with two retailers, it appears the tool does not come with a calibration certificate or setting standard, and it’s claimed accuracy is 0.1mm, the screen displays measurements to 0.01 mm.

Kerin claims that his testing can detect a measurable difference of 0.3% of 0.64 mm – equating to 0.0019 mm (2 microns). However, these results are 50 times more precise than the stated accuracy of his uncertified and uncalibrated measuring equipment, which has a tolerance of +/-0.05 mm. Even a Mitutoyo caliper, the benchmark in industry, has a certified accuracy of +/-0.02 mm, which is still far less precise than the accuracy Kerin is asserting. This does not take into account the level of user error associated with such devices either.

When extrapolated over a full chain length of 116 links (approximately 1.47 meters), he asserts that his setup can detect a variance of just 0.22mm (the thickness of 2 sheets of paper) on a chain that is inherently flexible.

To put this into context, Kerin is claiming his measuring equipment can detect the presence of a single rod of E-coli bacteria (2 microns) on the bike chain over 10 links.

Conclusion

Kerin has expressed reluctance to adhere to established engineering principles, choosing instead to develop his own testing methods that align with his business interests. While he claims to be “independent,” selling products while asserting independence presents a conflict of interest. It appears that his testing is used as a promotional tool to enhance his credibility and encourage potential buyers to trust his results.

Despite stating that his work is a hobby and that he could shift to something else at any time, his actions suggest a strong focus on marketing products that can be quickly sold, sometimes at the expense of thorough engineering research. Rather than contributing to genuine knowledge, this approach seems primarily focused on crafting a narrative that maximizes sales. His disregard for established industry standards and best practices raises concerns about his commitment to the rigorous processes required for reliable, credible engineering.

Concerns have been raised about Kerin’s technical knowledge and expertise, with instances suggesting a limited understanding of fundamental concepts. His lubricant testing setup appears to lack precision, repeatability, and proper controls, which undermines the credibility of his findings and casts doubt on the validity of any product performance claims he makes.

This apparent disregard for scientific integrity and sound engineering principles is a significant concern. Kerin seems more focused on marketing than on providing consumers with reliable, verifiable information. His testing methods and conclusions should be approached with caution, as they are based on unverified procedures that appear to be designed to support his narrative rather than reflect real-world performance.

The disorganised nature of his test rig, combined with the precise results he claims to measure are contradictory and to put it bluntly, unbelievable.