On Sunday, 12 January 2020 19:30:04 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:56:47 -0800, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 1/12/2020 3:28 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:31:40 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:14:09 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
https://bikerumor.com/2020/01/06/pat...don-wave-tech/
-- Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Doesn't it seem sort of silly that you would drill a million holes in
a chainring to make them as light as possible and then stick steel
magnets on them? On 1 x's I suppose the problem is going to be chain
retention what with very wide rear cog ratios nd no front derailleur
to hold them in place. But don't you think a plastic retention cage
would both work better and be lighter?

Or just taller teeth on the chainring.

Clearly I don't understand how the magnet idea would work. My first
impression is that it would really exaggerate any chain suck, which is a
bad thing.

I mean, how is the chain supposed to know "/here/ I'm supposed to work
with the magnet and stay on the ring, but /there/ I should roll neatly
off the ring and ignore the magnet?"

Mark J.


I suppose that as a chain link reached the bottom of the sprocket the
magnet would in essence move away from the link and thus the magnetic
attraction would lessen.

On the other hand I have read that a substantial part of the cost of
making a cellular phone, as much as 30%, is the payment of patent fees
to other companies that hold these patents. Perhaps the "magnetic
sprocket" is simply an effort to patent everything in sight and thus
(perhaps) inflate the value of one's company.
--
cheers,

John B.

I wonder how long it'd take for the chain itself to become slightly magnetized - enough to hold all that fine grit as the chain wears thereby hastening chain and chainring and sprocket wear?

Cheers