What is the case with belt drive?

z wrote:

Chalo wrote:

The Buell Blast
motorcycle uses fixed axle location to provide correct tension with
the specified belt over the rated lifespan of the belt.

The Buell Blast _did_. Not anymore.

http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/oct...l-motorcycles-...

Ah.

Well I guess that serves 'em right for making American bikes to fit
the median Singaporean.

One day someone will take the hint.

Chalo

On 19 Oct, 03:19, RonSonic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:41:12 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six
wrote:



On 18 Oct, 17:08, Chalo wrote:
SMS wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Seems like belt drive would be a good companion for a coaster brake,
airless tires, one-piece crank, etc. *A bike equipped this way could
provide an unmatched degree of readiness.

For when the oil dries up.

There were several belt drive models at this year's Interbike. Of course
there have been several belt drive models at Interbike for as far back
as I can remember and it's rare to ever see one on the road, other than
the occasional Strida.

The vast majority of multispeed bikes are equipped with derailleurs,
too, even though those are inelegant, unreliable, fragile, high-
maintenance, filthy, and only rarely kept in proper adjustment. *The
rarity of gearhubs is not a reflection on their relative suitability
for most users' needs.

For most people, deraillers are probably not the best choice. *They
were created for racing and adopted by tourists. *Without the land of
the rising sun tour and shimano minimising their costs to supply the
bicycle manufacturers, the hub gear would still be ubiquitous on the
everyday bicycle. *

Except that people have the silly idea that what racers ride is what is best so
that's what they should have.

I have made comments elsewhere about the
suitability of a derailler geared bike in a cyclo cross environment.
Using regular modern road equipment is not the best choice in harsh
conditions, but there are systems which can stay functional in the
worst environment.

Cyclocross is racing, it's a one hour race. Ders are just fine for it. Lather
and slather and go back out tomorrow. Yeah, sometimes they break. Sometimes they
break on a sunny day out on perfect pavement too.

My other post explains that I am supportive of deraillers for rough
use. I have ridden clay soil and 1/8" chain running on 3/32"
sprockets works. I still managed to jam such a setup, but it is rare
and steel mechs will take this abuse.


The old S-A three speed had a combination of birth defects that kept them out of
the woods and except for the Rohloff none of the modern multi speed hubs are
recommended for off road use by their manufacturers.

In what way do you see SA hubs inherently unsuitable for off road
use? I have a temptation to set up a bike with a wide ratio SA hub
with chain case for riding soft sand dunes.

On 19 Oct, 03:37, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...

What is the case with belt drive? Efficiency? Reliability? Advantages
and disadvantages? Likehood of seeing it in the hood soon?

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

What's cool about the current belt drive bikes, from my own personal
experience, is what's missing.

You simply have no concept of how much a chain imparts to the feel of a
bike until you ride one with a belt. You don't know "smooth" until you
try one.

The idea that a belt drive is going to do wonders in terms of lower
maintenance won't bear out, at least not from my talks with the folk at
Gates and from reading the literature. OK, that's not quite right. It
*is* lower maintenance, but it's not lower cost. Belts will run around
$100 and lifespan could be as little as 6,000 miles (they're not totally
clear on that). *But the positive side is that it is, in fact, much
lower maintenance. The belt doesn't have to be lubed, the cog &
chainwheel should last almost forever, and the belt apparently doesn't
vary in efficiency throughout its life. So you just slap on a new belt
ever 6,000 miles or so and you're good to go. No more drivetrain
cleanings. No mess transporting the bike.

But seriously, those things aren't as attractive to me as the different
feel. You just have to ride one and see if it's for you or not.


Using heavier chain lubrication will improve the feel of a chain
drive. Start with thin oil and go thicker for each re-lube, go to
soft grease, then stiffer. You should find the feel you like. Stick
a chaincase around it to keep your legs clean.

On 2009-10-17, Andre Jute wrote:
What is the case with belt drive? Efficiency? Reliability? Advantages
and disadvantages? Likehood of seeing it in the hood soon?

Advantages: clean, no oil, no maintenance.

Disadvantages: probably less efficient, belts can't be broken so frame
needs a detachable stay (or bolt-on seatstays perhaps like those old
1950s "Standard Raleighs" or whatever they are that Muzi rides, which
had the same problem I understand when it came to removing the
chainguard), need to use hub gears.

I think a belt would be worth doing on a folder. On a normal bike that
you just use without trying to fold it up and put it in your pocket,
it's quite easy just to stay away from the chain.

Trek make a hybrid with a belt that you can just buy in the shops. That
chap who most recently did a round-the-world ride (James Bowman I think
his name is) used a belt-drive bike.

On Oct 17, 11:46*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Rereading Lou's posts, I just discovered that a special frame is
required... That makes it expensive to buy one "just to try"!

Unless, perhaps, you have an old elevated stay frame.

On 19 Oct, 15:02, RonSonic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:59:03 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six
wrote:

In what way do you see SA hubs inherently unsuitable for off road
use? *I have a temptation to set up a bike with a wide ratio SA hub
with chain case for riding soft sand dunes.

The tendency to discover a neutral gear when you stand up and stomp on the
pedals had a terrible, horrible negative synergy with the relatively tall gears
that were native to the species.

I have experienced the neutral selection and found that getting thin
oil into the hub tended to fix it simply if it wasn't caused by
selector adjustment issues.

Used to be almost impossible to find anything
other than the 19t cog for them. Even with a 34 (like there was a chainwheel
that small back in the day) you're going to have to get out of the saddle to go
up stuff with that. Probably what kept them off the first few generations of
mountain bikes and those set the pattern for the breed.

If I cant find a big enough SA sprocket I'll just tack weld on a
cassette or freewheel sprocket to the SA sprocket.


TBH, I'm not up to speed with what the present owners, SR are doing so they may
have fixed this stuff. But the old AW serieshad problems off road.

What problems? I'm Ok with the neutral selector, I have a permanent
fix, its called oil.

I'm
interested in trying an IGH setup for JRA and light touring.

?? cant even guess what your trying to say.

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
What is the case with belt drive? Efficiency? Reliability? Advantages
and disadvantages? Likehood of seeing it in the hood soon?

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

What's cool about the current belt drive bikes, from my own personal
experience, is what's missing.

You simply have no concept of how much a chain imparts to the feel of a
bike until you ride one with a belt. You don't know "smooth" until you
try one.

I'm pretty sure that shaft drive will take over the market by next year.

"Andre Jute" wrote:
What is the case with belt drive? Efficiency? Reliability? Advantages
and disadvantages? Likehood of seeing it in the hood soon?

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
What's cool about the current belt drive bikes, from my own personal
experience, is what's missing.
You simply have no concept of how much a chain imparts to the feel of
a bike until you ride one with a belt. You don't know "smooth" until
you try one.

SMS wrote:
I'm pretty sure that shaft drive will take over the market by next year.

Well, it's about time. Big technical breakthrough of 1896.
http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/1638.htm

Benjamin Harrison ... seems like only yesterday...
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:21:21 GMT, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:

[---]

As the owner of Alfine-8 and a Sturmey-Archer bikes, I'd point out 'hubs
are heavy, expensive, and adjustment is fussy. The S-A, in particular,
will repay any mis-adjustment with intermittent freewheeling, a
surprisingly dangerous failure mode.

I knew about the SA problem, but is the Alfine-8 really so difficult
to adjust, say, compared with a bog-standard Nexus hub?

On Oct 19, 7:57*pm, SMS wrote:
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
....
What is the case with belt drive? Efficiency? Reliability? Advantages
and disadvantages? Likehood of seeing it in the hood soon?

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

What's cool about the current belt drive bikes, from my own personal
experience, is what's missing.

You simply have no concept of how much a chain imparts to the feel of a
bike until you ride one with a belt. You don't know "smooth" until you
try one.

I'm pretty sure that shaft drive will take over the market by next year.

What's new, Scarfie, since they tried to sell shaft drive with plastic
gears? And have they overcome the problem of having to machine the
bottom bracket? What about retrofits?

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar