Why the hell is no one doing doing this for ss bikes?
its more efficient and lighter then a chain/sprocket drive
its more efficient and lighter then a chain/sprocket drive
I Want A Belt Drive!!
- Thread starter rbx
- Start date
dont ask me
I've played around with an internal drive system and or an external belt drive utilzing the Rolhoff 14 speed internal hub. I've got numerous sketches, and am working on a CADD drawing for it. For the internal system i'm working on, it has zero chains, and uses small sprockets driven off the bottom bracket in the shell, fed to a shaft inside of the chainstay, then again using small sprockets by the hub. I doubt it would work, with small internal parts, hard to service/high mainenence. Just an idea to see what I could come up with.
maybe because an exposed belt drive + dirt and small debris = broken belts and damaged cogs. Might be neat for strictly urban, but then again, what would be the point?
wait, why arent you doing it for SS bikes?
wait, why arent you doing it for SS bikes?
it would make to much sense...
who says im not
timing belt can be VERY durable in abrisive conditions
Maybe a year ago I remember hearing of/seeing an ad for belt-driven SS mountain bikes. I believe it was Jericho putting them out.... Then again I can't remember what I ate for breakfast yesterday so I could be totally off... I suppose it's worth checkin out though.
Two words... Gilmer belt!!! It WILL work.
Thats a good point! I remember the Jerico too, but dont remember if they did something special to get the belt on.
.....of cource, all the 4 bar ss bikes will accept a timing belts
e
.....of cource, all the 4 bar ss bikes will accept a timing belts
e
that jerico (sp) proto had you slipt the frame instead of the belt. There was one of those threaded couplers right above the dropout, and you unscrewed it , flexed the stay out a bit and shoved the belt in
E
endtroducing
Guest
sideways and i had a many hour discussion about this a few months back. the possibilities are very interesting.
Ok, and a "Blur style" dropout would do the job too.
E
E
search the archives
Plenty of info on this subject in there.
Belts are incredibly succeptible to damage by debris, so an off-road system would have to be sealed. This means enclosed casings, seals, etc... As you can imagin this adds weigt and friction. Belts can be very efficient for high RPM use, but for low RPM high torque use, they are seldom the most efficient or longest lasting alternatives.
dw
Plenty of info on this subject in there.
Belts are incredibly succeptible to damage by debris, so an off-road system would have to be sealed. This means enclosed casings, seals, etc... As you can imagin this adds weigt and friction. Belts can be very efficient for high RPM use, but for low RPM high torque use, they are seldom the most efficient or longest lasting alternatives.
dw
Chains are ultra efficient.
2002 Sea Otter...
Attachments
So, why would belts be significantly better for this use than a chain? Pardon my ignorance, but I simply don't get it.
its been done i saw it in DIRT. some trials guys build one. looked kinda cool.
as for the belt idea. i think that there is a reason for using a chain.
1. look at the size of the "cogs" on the belt driven bikes. they look heave dont they?
2. you have yo have a "brake" in your frame.
3. mud and stuff gettting jammed uner the belt.
4.chains really are not that heavy, and belts arn't all that light ether.
IMO rule of thumb do as moto X does. :devil:
i think belt would provide a smoother ride/pedal stroke and the pulleys woulndt have to be that much heavier then sprockets
as for the effiency issue thats open for debate..
as for the effiency issue thats open for debate..
I guess. But in order for a belt drive to be as efficient as a chain, it can't stretch more than a chain, which is one problem with belt drives under load, so the belt has to be the reinforced variety. Then it's heavy and stiff, and still inefficient because it's now harder to bend around the cog, which is the second place where belt drives are inefficient. They lose more energy bending around the cog than a chain does rotating on its pins. So they aren't as efficient as chains for bicycle usage. Maybe that will change one day.
This topic is addressed in the book, Bicycle Design.
Bike chains are very efficient. The larger the cog, the greater the efficiency according to Johns Hopkins.
Even though they have a bike with a belt drive, Jericho themselves have said that it sucks in muddy conditions.
really? i think lab testing can quash that debate.
unless of course you wanted to keep this in the armchair engineering field
did this back in 92 for some world champ tandem roadies .
Light saved about 2lbs.
no slip Gates ( Kevlar cords)
Tooth profile fritionless(pat.by Gates) develped by Schiele (a tactrix mathematical function) as an evolute form of catenary.
To make a long story short slick as sh8t..(gus/Arrow)
Light saved about 2lbs.
no slip Gates ( Kevlar cords)
Tooth profile fritionless(pat.by Gates) develped by Schiele (a tactrix mathematical function) as an evolute form of catenary.
To make a long story short slick as sh8t..(gus/Arrow)
Attachments
i am arm chair engineering as much as you areOriginally posted by zedro
really? i think lab testing can quash that debate.
unless of course you wanted to keep this in the armchair engineering field
Just don't try to change your gearing.
Or fix your bike in your roadtrip to the middle of nowhere, er, Canada.
Or fix your bike in your roadtrip to the middle of nowhere, er, Canada.