|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On 2019-03-19 14:16, David Scheidt wrote:
Joerg wrote: :On 2019-03-19 05:37, AMuzi wrote: : On 3/19/2019 6:32 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: : : Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as : long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain : was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed : cassette) and I got to thinking. : : Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to : be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned : to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive : is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in : line. : : But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear : sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, : assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front : chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven : numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger : cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. : : So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is : delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed : range. : : What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain : is not perfectly aligned? : : And should one worry about it? : : : Classic chain is roller chain and yes those run dramatically worse when : chainline is askew. But after Sedisport, modern derailleur chain has : interrupted sideplates with no full roller so they are quite forgiving : of misalignment or, viewed another way, better shifting on derailleur : systems. One downside is much faster wear but since they are relatively : cheaper to make, we just throw them out sooner. : : I don't know the numbers for efficiency of derailleur chain at various : angles but I think you're right although it may well be a reasonable : tradeoff for other features. : :The Sachs-Sedis chains were the best and longest lasting I ever had on :the road bike. The bad news is that I used up my last one in 2018 :-( :As for cheaper, I don't think that's true. A good KMC 7-speed costs :around $20. The Sachs-Sedis used to retain for $5-6 which would probably :be $12-23 in today's Dollars. KMC Z 72 is $10 at the LBS. Work great for 8 pseed and down. Thanks, duly noted in the bike wiki file. That is a very good price. Though the other reason why I prefer longer lasting parts is environmental. We can't put spent bike chains in the recycling bin here. They have to go into the regular household trash, with oil and all on there. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ads |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:43:33 -0700, Joerg
wrote: On 2019-03-19 05:37, AMuzi wrote: On 3/19/2019 6:32 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed cassette) and I got to thinking. Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in line. But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed range. What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain is not perfectly aligned? And should one worry about it? Classic chain is roller chain and yes those run dramatically worse when chainline is askew. But after Sedisport, modern derailleur chain has interrupted sideplates with no full roller so they are quite forgiving of misalignment or, viewed another way, better shifting on derailleur systems. One downside is much faster wear but since they are relatively cheaper to make, we just throw them out sooner. I don't know the numbers for efficiency of derailleur chain at various angles but I think you're right although it may well be a reasonable tradeoff for other features. The Sachs-Sedis chains were the best and longest lasting I ever had on the road bike. The bad news is that I used up my last one in 2018 :-( As for cheaper, I don't think that's true. A good KMC 7-speed costs around $20. The Sachs-Sedis used to retain for $5-6 which would probably be $12-23 in today's Dollars. Lesson learned: If you find good stuff like this buy a larger stash. A much larger one. I'm not sure that a good businessman would considering maintaining a large inventory as being more efficient than the same money invested in a profit making part of his bluishness. We can of course ask Andrew to comment as he seems to have been in business since getting off the Ark. Successfully, one assumes :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 07:16:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:32:42 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed cassette) and I got to thinking. Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in line. But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed range. What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain is not perfectly aligned? And should one worry about it? -- Cheers, John B. The short answer is no. The long answer is: The efficiency due to misalignment in a derrailleur/freehub system is negligible, here's why: 1. The 98% efficiency you mentioned is in fixed systems with a drive providing constant smooth torque. 2. Once a freehub system is installed (like a single-speed (NOT fixed gear)), the efficiency depends almost entirely on the the bio-mechanical pedaling efficiency. In other words, if you don't apply even power throughout the pedal stroke, the efficiency of the entire system drops off dramatically, at this point, losses due to chain misalignment are barely measurable, let alone being perceptible by the rider. 3. Make matters worse by introducing a spring tension system. Now in addition to the bio mechanical inefficiencies, you're adding the ability of the chain drive to take up slack in the system, which allows _you_ to pedal even more inefficiently. Here's a graphic representation: https://hanswinter.wordpress.com/200...your-spinscan/ The figure 8 graph is where your power is being applied. The pinched points are the dead spots in your stroke. With concentration, you can achieve a much more linear application, as is shown in the second graph. However, this was on a trainer, indoors. Most riders,even good competitive amateurs, can't achieve pedaling efficiency on the road without good training and coaching. To be more succinct, any losses due to misalignment are not only negligible, but nearly moot until the rider can achieve the most bio mechanically efficient pedal stroke, and even then it won't make a helluva lot of difference. This is why riding a fixed gear bike is more efficient - the lack of the freewheel and tension spring force a more effective pedal stroke - it smooths you out. Once the rider can develop a smooth power curve, a fixed gear becomes eve more efficient. And no, before anyone starts prattling on, we are _NOT_ talking about getting more out of the system than you put in (oh no, he's talking about perpetual motion machines!!!) it's purely a less lossy system. You get more _OF_ what you put in, NOT more _THAN_ you put in. Biomechanical efficiency is the real point here. This is why it's better to be able to shift to an easier gear on the climbs - It keeps the _rider_ in an efficient pedaling zone. The rider biomechanical efficiency is significantly more important than the mechanical losses in the system. I know, I know...there are people in this forum who have a pedal stroke so efficient that the losses from the freehub and sprung chain are irrelevant. Sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night. In reality, the most noticeable effect of misalignment is chain wear. You seem to have ignored the subject of which I spoke and blundered off onto a totally different subject. Rather like an individual that doesn't quite understand the subject under discussion and is only intent on saying something simply to see his own immortal words in print. You seem intent on "proving" that chain angle is of little effect on the world and then you immediately disclaim that theory in your last paragraph when you tell us that chain misalignment causes chain wear. Unless, of course, you intend to maintain that wear due to misalignment that, somehow, is unrelated to a loss in chain drive efficiency. -- Cheers, John B. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On 3/19/2019 7:11 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:43:33 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2019-03-19 05:37, AMuzi wrote: On 3/19/2019 6:32 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed cassette) and I got to thinking. Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in line. But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed range. What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain is not perfectly aligned? And should one worry about it? Classic chain is roller chain and yes those run dramatically worse when chainline is askew. But after Sedisport, modern derailleur chain has interrupted sideplates with no full roller so they are quite forgiving of misalignment or, viewed another way, better shifting on derailleur systems. One downside is much faster wear but since they are relatively cheaper to make, we just throw them out sooner. I don't know the numbers for efficiency of derailleur chain at various angles but I think you're right although it may well be a reasonable tradeoff for other features. The Sachs-Sedis chains were the best and longest lasting I ever had on the road bike. The bad news is that I used up my last one in 2018 :-( As for cheaper, I don't think that's true. A good KMC 7-speed costs around $20. The Sachs-Sedis used to retain for $5-6 which would probably be $12-23 in today's Dollars. Lesson learned: If you find good stuff like this buy a larger stash. A much larger one. I'm not sure that a good businessman would considering maintaining a large inventory as being more efficient than the same money invested in a profit making part of his bluishness. We can of course ask Andrew to comment as he seems to have been in business since getting off the Ark. Successfully, one assumes :-) Economics papers are written on the subject which is complex. One balances opportunity cost of inventory=cash, time value (NPV) of inventory=cash, expected inflation vs expected depreciation and then there's always the fact that you can't sell it if you don't have it (or a reliable source, which adds cost & uncertainty) short answer- I don't know and neither does anyone else. I did see in the paper Saturday that Adidas expects $400 million in reduced US revenue for 2019 from ongoing inventory shortages and supply chain disruptions. They employ some expensive and skilled people and yet... -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On 20/3/19 8:21 am, JC wrote:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 4:48:11 PM UTC-4, James wrote: On 20/3/19 1:16 am, wrote: I believe John is focused on the efficiency of the chain drive system alone, not the biomechanical efficiency of the person plus the chain. He was, and I explained why it was irrelvant - biomechanical efficiency. 3. Make matters worse by introducing a spring tension system. Now in addition to the bio mechanical inefficiencies, you're adding the ability of the chain drive to take up slack in the system, which allows _you_ to pedal even more inefficiently. Here's a graphic representation: https://hanswinter.wordpress.com/200...your-spinscan/ I think that, and the rest of your post is complete ********. Anything to add? No. Any mechanical or bio mechanical counterpoints you wish to address? I think we'd all be interested in reading what exactly it is you disagree with, and why. *You* might be interested, but I doubt the royal "we" is interested. You made a whole lot of statements that are ********, and irrelevant. -- JS |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:45:43 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/19/2019 7:11 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:43:33 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2019-03-19 05:37, AMuzi wrote: On 3/19/2019 6:32 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed cassette) and I got to thinking. Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in line. But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed range. What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain is not perfectly aligned? And should one worry about it? Classic chain is roller chain and yes those run dramatically worse when chainline is askew. But after Sedisport, modern derailleur chain has interrupted sideplates with no full roller so they are quite forgiving of misalignment or, viewed another way, better shifting on derailleur systems. One downside is much faster wear but since they are relatively cheaper to make, we just throw them out sooner. I don't know the numbers for efficiency of derailleur chain at various angles but I think you're right although it may well be a reasonable tradeoff for other features. The Sachs-Sedis chains were the best and longest lasting I ever had on the road bike. The bad news is that I used up my last one in 2018 :-( As for cheaper, I don't think that's true. A good KMC 7-speed costs around $20. The Sachs-Sedis used to retain for $5-6 which would probably be $12-23 in today's Dollars. Lesson learned: If you find good stuff like this buy a larger stash. A much larger one. I'm not sure that a good businessman would considering maintaining a large inventory as being more efficient than the same money invested in a profit making part of his bluishness. We can of course ask Andrew to comment as he seems to have been in business since getting off the Ark. Successfully, one assumes :-) Economics papers are written on the subject which is complex. One balances opportunity cost of inventory=cash, time value (NPV) of inventory=cash, expected inflation vs expected depreciation and then there's always the fact that you can't sell it if you don't have it (or a reliable source, which adds cost & uncertainty) short answer- I don't know and neither does anyone else. I did see in the paper Saturday that Adidas expects $400 million in reduced US revenue for 2019 from ongoing inventory shortages and supply chain disruptions. They employ some expensive and skilled people and yet... Years ago the "JIT" - "Just In Time" supply system was considered an innovation, introduced I believe, by the Japanese. When we were involved in supporting the international oil companies in Indonesia we used an abridged system of that sort in our computerized inventory system. Our system used the time taken to deliver in Indonesia (shipping and customs time) from our Singapore warehouse and added the delivery time, if any, from the source to the warehouse, which varied from an hour or so if sourced in Singapore to a month or more if sourced in the U.S. The system automatically updated the times with each item supplied. It wasn't perfect but it did go a long way to keep the customer(s) satisfied. -- Cheers, John B. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
4On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:08:12 +1100, James
wrote: On 20/3/19 8:21 am, JC wrote: On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 4:48:11 PM UTC-4, James wrote: On 20/3/19 1:16 am, wrote: I believe John is focused on the efficiency of the chain drive system alone, not the biomechanical efficiency of the person plus the chain. He was, and I explained why it was irrelvant - biomechanical efficiency. 3. Make matters worse by introducing a spring tension system. Now in addition to the bio mechanical inefficiencies, you're adding the ability of the chain drive to take up slack in the system, which allows _you_ to pedal even more inefficiently. Here's a graphic representation: https://hanswinter.wordpress.com/200...your-spinscan/ I think that, and the rest of your post is complete ********. Anything to add? No. Any mechanical or bio mechanical counterpoints you wish to address? I think we'd all be interested in reading what exactly it is you disagree with, and why. *You* might be interested, but I doubt the royal "we" is interested. You made a whole lot of statements that are ********, and irrelevant. Ah but that is usually the mark of someone that just has to see him/her/it/self in print :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:46:03 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/19/2019 7:11 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:43:33 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2019-03-19 05:37, AMuzi wrote: On 3/19/2019 6:32 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed cassette) and I got to thinking. Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in line. But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed range. What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain is not perfectly aligned? And should one worry about it? Classic chain is roller chain and yes those run dramatically worse when chainline is askew. But after Sedisport, modern derailleur chain has interrupted sideplates with no full roller so they are quite forgiving of misalignment or, viewed another way, better shifting on derailleur systems. One downside is much faster wear but since they are relatively cheaper to make, we just throw them out sooner. I don't know the numbers for efficiency of derailleur chain at various angles but I think you're right although it may well be a reasonable tradeoff for other features. The Sachs-Sedis chains were the best and longest lasting I ever had on the road bike. The bad news is that I used up my last one in 2018 :-( As for cheaper, I don't think that's true. A good KMC 7-speed costs around $20. The Sachs-Sedis used to retain for $5-6 which would probably be $12-23 in today's Dollars. Lesson learned: If you find good stuff like this buy a larger stash. A much larger one. I'm not sure that a good businessman would considering maintaining a large inventory as being more efficient than the same money invested in a profit making part of his bluishness. We can of course ask Andrew to comment as he seems to have been in business since getting off the Ark. Successfully, one assumes :-) Economics papers are written on the subject which is complex. One balances opportunity cost of inventory=cash, time value (NPV) of inventory=cash, expected inflation vs expected depreciation and then there's always the fact that you can't sell it if you don't have it (or a reliable source, which adds cost & uncertainty) short answer- I don't know and neither does anyone else. I did see in the paper Saturday that Adidas expects $400 million in reduced US revenue for 2019 from ongoing inventory shortages and supply chain disruptions. They employ some expensive and skilled people and yet... -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I would think Adidas would attribute their $400 million revenue decline to the ongoing NCAA basketball FBI criminal bribery investigation. And Nike can probably expect a $400 million decline in revenue due to the Duke basketball player breaking his shoe at the beginning of the game and injuring his knee. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 9:08:26 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 20/3/19 8:21 am, JC wrote: On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 4:48:11 PM UTC-4, James wrote: On 20/3/19 1:16 am, wrote: I believe John is focused on the efficiency of the chain drive system alone, not the biomechanical efficiency of the person plus the chain. He was, and I explained why it was irrelvant - biomechanical efficiency. 3. Make matters worse by introducing a spring tension system. Now in addition to the bio mechanical inefficiencies, you're adding the ability of the chain drive to take up slack in the system, which allows _you_ to pedal even more inefficiently. Here's a graphic representation: https://hanswinter.wordpress.com/200...your-spinscan/ I think that, and the rest of your post is complete ********. Anything to add? No. Any mechanical or bio mechanical counterpoints you wish to address? I think we'd all be interested in reading what exactly it is you disagree with, and why. *You* might be interested, but I doubt the royal "we" is interested. You may be right. You made a whole lot of statements that are ********, and irrelevant. Both of those claims are demonstrably false. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Just wondering | Davey Crockett[_13_] | Racing | 3 | July 24th 17 10:35 AM |
Just wondering | The UniSLAB | Unicycling | 5 | August 11th 07 05:51 PM |
just wondering???? | rem48 | Unicycling | 11 | August 6th 07 08:56 PM |
Been Wondering Where Tam Is?? | Gags | Australia | 13 | June 25th 07 10:10 PM |
Just wondering | Terri | Rides | 1 | June 23rd 06 06:38 PM |