Chainless Shaft Drive bicycle - £75.00
Eric Marcus
go. I've had this about 2 years but it's about 10 years old. I gather it
was bought in the US and shipped over here, I bought it on Ebay.
Photos are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/44718953@N07/
There's no chain, no grease, no mess - just a smooth single-speed mechanism
that's a joy to peddle. Shaft drive bikes are an old idea but they're a bit
more expensive to manufacture than chain drives. There are bevel gears in
the pedal hub, a drive shaft in the bike frame leading back to the rear hub
and another set of bevel gears to drive the wheel. Everything is enclosed
so there's nothing to get muddy.
This is a "beach cruiser" style bike designed for an upright riding style
that suits Cambridge pretty well. It has a steel frame and wide balloon
tires that absorb the bumps in the road. The frame is in good shape with
normal scuffs and wear. It has 26" wheels and about an 18" frame size. I'm
6-ft tall and this is perhaps a bit too small for me although the seat post
can go up pretty high. One interesting point - the brake controls are
reversed i.e. the right hand brakes the rear wheel and the left hand brakes
the front.
Whenever I ride this in town people stare and I've had more than a couple
come up and say "How does that work ?!?!"
�75.00 Available to test ride at Trinity Hall near the Market Square.
Eric Marcus
07919 058225
01223-(7)65958
Jules
> There's no chain, no grease, no mess - just a smooth single-speed mechanism
> that's a joy to peddle. Shaft drive bikes are an old idea but they're a bit
> more expensive to manufacture than chain drives. There are bevel gears in
> the pedal hub, a drive shaft in the bike frame leading back to the rear hub
> and another set of bevel gears to drive the wheel. Everything is enclosed
> so there's nothing to get muddy.
Nifty! Wonder what the frictional losses are like compared to chain drive?
charliejuggler
> There's no chain, no grease, no mess - just a smooth single-speed mechanism
> that's a joy to peddle.
And indeed, that's what you're doing.
:-)
C
Jon Green
Probably rather better. With chains, you've friction points at every
roller and plate face in every operating link (every link that's on a
sprocket). And as soon as any road gack gets into the chain, it gets worse.
With an enclosed shaft drive (as shafty* motorcyclists know very well),
there's very little build-up of crud, so provided you keep the transfer
gears and shaft well lubricated*, it's a very efficient system that also
gives an almost instantaneous power transfer. And no bloody chain
retensioning every week! (Or belt every month.)
Jon
(*ObOohErrMissus)
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Eleanor Blair
>
>With an enclosed shaft drive (as shafty* motorcyclists know very well),
>there's very little build-up of crud, so provided you keep the transfer
>gears and shaft well lubricated*, it's a very efficient system that also
>gives an almost instantaneous power transfer. And no bloody chain
>retensioning every week! (Or belt every month.)
*blink* I don't think I've ever had to retension my bike chain. Am I
doing something wrong?
Kieran Mansley
> Jon Green wrote:
>>
>>With an enclosed shaft drive (as shafty* motorcyclists know very well),
>>there's very little build-up of crud, so provided you keep the transfer
>>gears and shaft well lubricated*, it's a very efficient system that also
>>gives an almost instantaneous power transfer. And no bloody chain
>>retensioning every week! (Or belt every month.)
>
> *blink* I don't think I've ever had to retension my bike chain. Am I
> doing something wrong?
You probably have a derailleur which as well as letting you change gear
maintains the chain tension. People running a bike without one do have
to manually re-tension the chain.
Kieran
Brian Morrison
> Jon Green wrote:
>> With an enclosed shaft drive (as shafty* motorcyclists know very well),
>> there's very little build-up of crud, so provided you keep the transfer
>> gears and shaft well lubricated*, it's a very efficient system that also
>> gives an almost instantaneous power transfer. And no bloody chain
>> retensioning every week! (Or belt every month.)
>
> *blink* I don't think I've ever had to retension my bike chain. Am I
> doing something wrong?
>
I think he meant motorbike, bike chain tension is less of a problem and
dérailleur gears do it for you.
--
Brian
Ben Harris
Eleanor Blair <ele...@the-blairs.co.uk> wrote:
>Jon Green wrote:
>>
>>With an enclosed shaft drive (as shafty* motorcyclists know very well),
>>there's very little build-up of crud, so provided you keep the transfer
>>gears and shaft well lubricated*, it's a very efficient system that also
>>gives an almost instantaneous power transfer. And no bloody chain
>>retensioning every week! (Or belt every month.)
>
>*blink* I don't think I've ever had to retension my bike chain. Am I
>doing something wrong?
If you have a derailleur, it's obviously unnecessary because the
derailleur takes up the slack itself. If you've got a single-speed or a
hub gear, it might be necessary to adjust the position of the back wheel
to take up the slack as the chain wears -- with 100 links and a 1% wear
limit, there's about half an inch difference in length (and hence a
quarter inch in wheel position) between a new chain and an expired one,
which is probably just about large enough to pay attention to if you
manage to go that long without having some other reason to take the
wheel off.
--
Ben Harris
Jon Green
> Jon Green wrote:
>> With an enclosed shaft drive (as shafty* motorcyclists know very well),
>> there's very little build-up of crud, so provided you keep the transfer
>> gears and shaft well lubricated*, it's a very efficient system that also
>> gives an almost instantaneous power transfer. And no bloody chain
>> retensioning every week! (Or belt every month.)
>
> *blink* I don't think I've ever had to retension my bike chain. Am I
> doing something wrong?
Sorry LNR, that's more of a motorbike thing (unless you've
Sturmey-Archer hub gears, or similar). As Kieran and Brian point out,
derailleurs aren't affected.
Also, bicycle chains rarely snap at 70mph (m'lud) and wrap themselves
around either the back sprocket (instant seize) or the motorcyclist's
leg (instant amputation).
Jon
The Natural Philosopher
Eleanor Blair
>
>I think he meant motorbike, bike chain tension is less of a problem and
:) I did wonder.
Eleanor Blair
>
>Also, bicycle chains rarely snap at 70mph (m'lud) and wrap themselves
>around either the back sprocket (instant seize) or the motorcyclist's
>leg (instant amputation).
*grin* thankfully I was going only about 5mph when mine came off on
Addies roundabout the other day, since I've only just set off. Neither
horrible thing occurred.
Thanks all for clarifying. I hadn't thought of the non-derailleur
options either.
The Natural Philosopher
> Jules wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:56:16 +0000, Eric Marcus wrote:
>>> There's no chain, no grease, no mess - just a smooth single-speed mechanism
>>> that's a joy to peddle. Shaft drive bikes are an old idea but they're a bit
>>> more expensive to manufacture than chain drives. There are bevel gears in
>>> the pedal hub, a drive shaft in the bike frame leading back to the rear hub
>>> and another set of bevel gears to drive the wheel. Everything is enclosed
>>> so there's nothing to get muddy.
>> Nifty! Wonder what the frictional losses are like compared to chain drive?
>
> Probably rather better.
Actually rather worse..
> With chains, you've friction points at every
> roller and plate face in every operating link (every link that's on a
> sprocket). And as soon as any road gack gets into the chain, it gets worse.
>
however the chain is acting at the 'high torque, low speed' part of
things. Shaft drives run much faster as unless you want a really bulky
one, the shaft is run at much higher RPM than either the road wheels or
the pedals.
Since frictional shit is more or less constant irrespective of load your
power losses are more or less a function of RPM.
Also, bevel geras pomose side thrust on teh bearings, loading them up
that chains do not.
The chain and sprocket is widely acknowledged to be about the best
gearing system ever for low power use.
> With an enclosed shaft drive (as shafty* motorcyclists know very well),
> there's very little build-up of crud, so provided you keep the transfer
> gears and shaft well lubricated*, it's a very efficient system that also
> gives an almost instantaneous power transfer. And no bloody chain
> retensioning every week! (Or belt every month.)
>
on Derailleur gears? Chain retensining?
Shaft drives are inefficient, but clean and low maintenance. IF you have
a big enough engine, who cares? If you dion't, stay with chains.
>
> Jon
> (*ObOohErrMissus)
The Natural Philosopher
About once every 5 years, or when it starts to slip..
> Kieran
Jon Green
> If you've got a single-speed or a
> hub gear, it might be necessary to adjust the position of the back wheel
> to take up the slack as the chain wears -- with 100 links and a 1% wear
> limit, there's about half an inch difference in length (and hence a
> quarter inch in wheel position) between a new chain and an expired one,
> which is probably just about large enough to pay attention to if you
> manage to go that long without having some other reason to take the
> wheel off.
It's usually a Good Idea to check chain tension regularly anyway, if you
have fixed sprockets. When you step on the pedal to get going, that
snap as the slack chain comes taut really increases the wear level. OK,
it's unlikely to break, but it'll mean replacing the chain more often.
Jon
Kieran Mansley
> Kieran Mansley wrote:
>> You probably have a derailleur which as well as letting you change gear
>> maintains the chain tension. People running a bike without one do have
>> to manually re-tension the chain.
>>
>>
> About once every 5 years, or when it starts to slip..
I do my pushbike, and did my motorbike when I still had it, considerably
more often than that.
Kieran
Steve Kimberley
news:hdui4c$2vu$1...@news.albasani.net...
...
> Also, bevel geras pomose side thrust
Isn't that a Welsh martial arts technique?
Steve
Paul Bird
That's not even the half of it. A trawl of TNP's postings over the years
would reveal his distant Polish ancestry ;-) I think the funniest one I ever
say about 2001 was when following a spectacular bout of opruqf;lhoiea
somebody asked him if he would please remove his gloves before typing.
--
Paul Bird
Jules
> Also, bicycle chains rarely snap at 70mph (m'lud) and wrap themselves
> around either the back sprocket (instant seize) or the motorcyclist's
> leg (instant amputation).
I homebrewed a temporary belt tensioner for our ancient lawn tractor using
the hub from a (pedal) bike - some rough calculations said it was turning
at a speed that would have equated to about 100mph on the bike it came
from. I was surprised that it managed to last almost a whole cutting
season (somewhere around 36 hours of constant use) before it went bang in
quite spectacular fashion.
In other words, don't try riding a pedal bike at high speeds for any
length of time :-)
The Natural Philosopher
Fat fiungers and fiorgot to pillchuck
>
> Steve
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
Jules
> Fat fiungers and fiorgot to pillchuck
"pillchuck" haha! :-)
Michael Kilpatrick
> I have too many bikes in the garage, says my wife, so this one is next to
> go. I've had this about 2 years but it's about 10 years old. I gather it
> was bought in the US and shipped over here, I bought it on Ebay.
>
> Photos are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/44718953@N07/
>
>
> There's no chain, no grease, no mess - just a smooth single-speed mechanism
> that's a joy to peddle. Shaft drive bikes are an old idea but they're a bit
> more expensive to manufacture than chain drives. There are bevel gears in
> the pedal hub, a drive shaft in the bike frame leading back to the rear hub
> and another set of bevel gears to drive the wheel. Everything is enclosed
> so there's nothing to get muddy.
Just curious, has anybody ever made a shaft-drive bicycle with gears? Is
there a multi-speed mechanism that can fit sensibly to such a drive train?
Michael
Kieran Mansley
> Just curious, has anybody ever made a shaft-drive bicycle with gears? Is
> there a multi-speed mechanism that can fit sensibly to such a drive
> train?
I would have thought matching one up to a hub gear wouldn't be too hard.
Kieran
The Natural Philosopher
I am sure it has been done. No reason not to use a Sturmey archer system ..
> Michael
Eric Marcus
"Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4vmdnXlXXav1gJjW...@pipex.net...
yes, Sturmey Archer and Shimano Nexus have both been used for this.
That's my next project...
Malcolm
> Just curious, has anybody ever made a shaft-drive bicycle with gears? Is
> there a multi-speed mechanism that can fit sensibly to such a drive train?
Michael Kilpatrick
Duh! Heaven knows why I had completely forgotten that hub gears existed!
Brain failure!
What I didn't know was that they were made in 7 or 8 speed varieties as
well as the age-old 3-speed model that most people will probably have
seen. There must be some strength issues for the 8-speed models when
cramming such a multi-speed planetary gear system into a hub, surely?
Hmm, and why not put a heavy duty 2-speed hub at the pedal hub and a
more modest 4-speed hub in the rear wheel to give an 8-speed bike rather
than having it all at the wheel hub? Wouldn't that result in greater
overall drive-train strength?
Michael
John Burnham
>
> What I didn't know was that they were made in 7 or 8 speed varieties as
> well as the age-old 3-speed model that most people will probably have
> seen. There must be some strength issues for the 8-speed models when
> cramming such a multi-speed planetary gear system into a hub, surely?
>
Pah. 7 or 8 ? Boring. What you want is
http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/rohloff1.shtml
14 speed - gives you about the same range as a 27 speed derailleur system
apparently.
J
Jules
> Brain failure!
>
> What I didn't know was that they were made in 7 or 8 speed varieties as
> well as the age-old 3-speed model that most people will probably have
> seen.
Ahh, my claim to fame is having a Grifter and managing to bend the frame... ;)
But anyway, I didn't know that, either. Taking one apart would be
interesting - I remember dismantling a 3-speed when I was a kid to see how
it all worked.
> Hmm, and why not put a heavy duty 2-speed hub at the pedal hub and a
> more modest 4-speed hub in the rear wheel to give an 8-speed bike rather
> than having it all at the wheel hub? Wouldn't that result in greater
> overall drive-train strength?
Well on a typical bike the chain drive comes from the sprocket attached
directly to the pedals, so you'd have to have some sort of contrivance
with an outer and inner shaft the the pedal hub. Might end up with a
weak spot there, certainly adds complication.
With a shaft drive you could probably put a gearbox on the longitudal
driveshaft, though. Whether that would feel really odd due to the weight
being slightly off-centre, I'm not sure, but I suppose having derailleur
gears all off to one side doesn't bother people.
Actually, arses to it. What's obviously needed is a shaft-drive bike with
the gears at the pedal hub, then you could run a forward shaft up the
frame and down the forks to the front wheel, and get two wheel drive ;)
The Luggage
wrote:
> Actually, arses to it. What's obviously needed is a shaft-drive bike with
> the gears at the pedal hub, then you could run a forward shaft up the
> frame and down the forks to the front wheel, and get two wheel drive ;)
That's been done too, but I can't find the link just now.
TL
Paul Oldham
> Pah. 7 or 8 ? Boring. What you want is
>
> http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/rohloff1.shtml
>
> 14 speed - gives you about the same range as a 27 speed derailleur system
> apparently.
Gorgeous. ;-)
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Timing has an awful lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance"
John Burnham
> John Burnham wrote:
>
>> http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/rohloff1.shtml
>>
>
> Gorgeous. ;-)
It is a VERY impressive piece of engineering.
J
Paul Rudin
Jon Green
Oh, I _like_ that! Hmmm, wonder how easy it would be to convert my
derailleur system...and how expensive...
Jon Green
Ummm ... was that meant to be a pun?
John Burnham
> John Burnham <jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/rohloff1.shtml
>>
>> 14 speed - gives you about the same range as a 27 speed derailleur system
>> apparently.
>>
>
> I have one... currently not using that bike :/
Ah, someone with actual experience of them. Would you be so kind as to let
us know how well it works, what you think of it and so forth ?
J
Jules
> On Nov 19, 1:43 pm, Jules <jules.richardsonn...@remove.this.gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Actually, arses to it. What's obviously needed is a shaft-drive bike with
>> the gears at the pedal hub, then you could run a forward shaft up the
>> frame and down the forks to the front wheel, and get two wheel drive ;)
>
> That's been done too
I figured it probably had been :) Wonder what it'd be like to actually
ride? I can't decide if running power through the same joint used
for steering would make it feel a little odd or not...
I'm not sure how much traction you'd get from a front wheel, either... and
it's probably a little unnerving if it ever does start slipping...
Mark Ayliffe
John Burnham <jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk> illuminated us with:
With a similarly impressive price. I was nearly tempted when buying my
last bike:
http://www.fahrradmanufaktur.de/T400_Rohloff_Speedhub_14G_34.html but
ended up with it's significantly cheaper brother.
--
Mark
Real email address |
is mark at | Clones are people two.
ayliffe dot org |
Paul Rudin
It's a great gizmo. The only thing you can say against it that there is
a minor bit of noise at around gear 7/8. It's apparently a common
phenomenon, and goes away as the unit "wears-in", this can take a few
thousand miles apparently.
It's essentially maintenance free for day to day use, which is the big
draw. The gears never go out of alignment or need adjusting. There's no
mech to get knocked about.
The interior is filled with oil, which you're supposed to change
occasionally. I've done mine once, and it's easy enough to do.
It's really overkill for the roads around here - you don't need 14
gears. I'm now riding a singlespeed around town.
I have plans to build a tourer around the wheel with the speedhub.
I suspect that the ideal application would really be off-road biking
where getting your mechs clogged up with mud and chain suck can be real
problems in wet conditions. A speedhub pretty much solves those
problems while still giving you a good range of gears.
Espen H. Koht
Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> Jules wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:56:16 +0000, Eric Marcus wrote:
> >> There's no chain, no grease, no mess - just a smooth single-speed
> >> mechanism
> >> that's a joy to peddle. Shaft drive bikes are an old idea but they're a
> >> bit
> >> more expensive to manufacture than chain drives. There are bevel gears in
> >> the pedal hub, a drive shaft in the bike frame leading back to the rear
> >> hub
> >> and another set of bevel gears to drive the wheel. Everything is enclosed
> >> so there's nothing to get muddy.
> >
> > Nifty! Wonder what the frictional losses are like compared to chain drive?
>
> Probably rather better. With chains, you've friction points at every
> roller and plate face in every operating link (every link that's on a
> sprocket). And as soon as any road gack gets into the chain, it gets worse.
I was under the impression chain drives were very efficient and hard to
improve upon. 98.6% measured in these tests:
<http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home99/aug99/bike.html>
Duncan Wood
Mike Clark
Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote:
> John Burnham wrote:
>
> > Pah. 7 or 8 ? Boring. What you want is
> >
> > http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/rohloff1.shtml
> >
> > 14 speed - gives you about the same range as a 27 speed derailleur system
> > apparently.
>
> Gorgeous. ;-)
>
I'm really glad I opted to splash out the extra money for the Rohloff on
my last purchase (well two Rohloff's actually because I bought one for
my other half!).
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Mike Clark
John Burnham <jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The only issue I've encountered with mine is the transition between 7-8
when pedalling with a lot of pressure on the pedals. The planetary gears
have a habit of throwing you into 14 until you back off the pressure
slightly when you make the transition into the correct gear. But
otherwise it's a dream in use. You can select any gear whilst
stationary, or whilst free-wheeling, and you can change gear up or down
one at a time whilst pedalling. The 14 gears are evenly spaced, and as
is pointed out they are equivalent to a 27 speed derailleur, but of
course without the need to hunt for the correct combination of front and
back cogs.
Mike Clark
Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> It's a great gizmo. The only thing you can say against it that there is
> a minor bit of noise at around gear 7/8. It's apparently a common
> phenomenon, and goes away as the unit "wears-in", this can take a few
> thousand miles apparently.
And it can lead to a problem changing gear under heavy pedal pressure,
which currently I get on mine.
>
> It's essentially maintenance free for day to day use, which is the big
> draw. The gears never go out of alignment or need adjusting. There's
> no mech to get knocked about.
>
> The interior is filled with oil, which you're supposed to change
> occasionally. I've done mine once, and it's easy enough to do.
They recommend once a year.
[snip]
>
> I suspect that the ideal application would really be off-road biking
> where getting your mechs clogged up with mud and chain suck can be real
> problems in wet conditions. A speedhub pretty much solves those
> problems while still giving you a good range of gears.
Funny you should mention off-road, you could combine it with small
wheels and a folding frame too......
http://www.airnimal.eu/Rhino/Black.php
and photos of ours in use
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/mrc7cam/ExploringTheImberRanges#
Tony Finch
>
>Funny you should mention off-road, you could combine it with small
>wheels and a folding frame too......
I would have thought that small wheels would be worse offroad than
larger ones.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
HEBRIDES BAILEY: SOUTH OR SOUTHWEST 6 TO GALE 8, OCCASIONALLY SEVERE GALE 9 IN
BAILEY. VERY ROUGH BECOMING HIGH, OCCASIONALLY VERY HIGH IN BAILEY. RAIN OR
SQUALLY SHOWERS. MAINLY MODERATE.
The Luggage
> The Luggage wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 1:43 pm, Jules <jules.richardsonn...@remove.this.gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Actually, arses to it. What's obviously needed is a shaft-drive bike with
> >> the gears at the pedal hub, then you could run a forward shaft up the
> >> frame and down the forks to the front wheel, and get two wheel drive ;)
>
> > That's been done too, but I can't find the link just now.
>
> Ummm ... was that meant to be a pun?
>
Here's a link to a 2WD bicycle:
http://machinedesign.com/article/all-wheel-drive-bike-1108
Shaft driven to both wheels. Even has bouncy front forks. Not sure how
the drive copes with that!
TL
Jon Green
> I'm really glad I opted to splash out the extra money for the Rohloff on
> my last purchase (well two Rohloff's actually because I bought one for
> my other half!).
Just found a few sites selling them. Whew! £870-1100! It's a gorgeous
piece of engineering, but I could get several whole bikes for that
price! Blimey.
Kieran Mansley
> Oh, I _like_ that! Hmmm, wonder how easy it would be to convert my
> derailleur system...and how expensive...
Chris's Bikes converted my old bike to use a Nexus 8 speed hub gear a few
years back, and the hub has well outlasted the rest of the bike.
Check the drop outs on your frame for the rear wheel: if they're roughly
horizontal, it should be easy, as you can move the rear wheel forward and
back to adjust chain tension. If they're vertical, you might still need
a derailleur to provide tension.
Kieran
Paul Rudin
> Oh, I _like_ that! Hmmm, wonder how easy it would be to convert my
> derailleur system...and how expensive...
>
Buy the hub and then you need to get someone to build a wheel around the
hub for you (unless you're able to build a wheel yourself). With a
torque arm and chain tensioner you can then use it with more or less any
frame. (This is what I did with my old round-town hybrid.)
So the cost over that of the hub depends a bit on what kind of quality
wheel you want. I've seen at least one web shop selling wheels ready
made with a speedhub.
However! It is definitely preferable to have a frame designed to take
one of these - you can then do away with the torque arm and chain
tensioner. Most likely your current frame will not be suitable. Bob
Jackson have a special dropout that can be retrofitted to steel frames-
but you need to send it to them to be done (not sure how much they
charge for this.)
Mike Clark
Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> Mike Clark wrote:
> > I'm really glad I opted to splash out the extra money for the
> > Rohloff on my last purchase (well two Rohloff's actually because I
> > bought one for my other half!).
>
> Just found a few sites selling them. Whew! �870-1100!
Yes I think we're suffering from the exchange rate with the Euro.
> It's a gorgeous piece of engineering, but I could get several whole
> bikes for that price! Blimey.
>
> Jon
My viewpoint is that I could have a really flash car and an OK bike or
flash bikes and an OK car. I get more pleasure out of riding my bikes.
Jon Green
> I was under the impression chain drives were very efficient and hard to
> improve upon. 98.6% measured in these tests:
> <http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home99/aug99/bike.html>
Except that they tested clean chains (with and without lubricant) in a
laboratory environment, where the chains aren't picking up seven kinds
of crud from the road, and then grinding it into the rollers, plate
fascia, etc.
A chain exposed to real-world conditions is unlikely to keep its
efficiency for that long, whereas a shaft drive is enclosed, and not
subject to environmental wear in the same way. Dunno if that makes up
the difference, though.
Espen Koht
Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> Espen H. Koht wrote:
> > I was under the impression chain drives were very efficient and hard to
> > improve upon. 98.6% measured in these tests:
> > <http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home99/aug99/bike.html>
>
> Except that they tested clean chains (with and without lubricant) in a
> laboratory environment, where the chains aren't picking up seven kinds
> of crud from the road, and then grinding it into the rollers, plate
> fascia, etc.
>
> A chain exposed to real-world conditions is unlikely to keep its
> efficiency for that long, whereas a shaft drive is enclosed, and not
> subject to environmental wear in the same way. Dunno if that makes up
> the difference, though.
'The researcher speculates that a bicycle lubricant does not play a
critical role under clean lab conditions, using a brand new chain. But
it may contribute to energy efficiency in the rugged outdoors. "The role
of the lubricant, as far as we can tell, is to take up space so that
dirt doesn't get into the chain," Spicer says. "The lubricant is
essentially a clean substance that fills up the spaces so that dirt
doesn't get into the critical portions of the chain where the parts are
very tightly meshed. But in lab conditions, where there is no dirt, it
makes no difference. On the road, we believe the lubricant mostly
assumes the role of keeping out dirt, which could very well affect
friction in the drive train."'
Jon Green
Exactly my point. Now, quick pop quiz: what proportion of Cambridge
cyclists _ever_ lubricates their cycle chains? And of those, how many
are daft enough to use WD-40 or similar*, rather than a proper chain lube?
Point being: for most cyclists, the chain's probably the one of the
least-maintained parts of the bike. So long as it doesn't actually
break, or seize links, it's ignored. Gathering crud from everywhere.
Note also that the researchers' comments about lube properties in the
Real World[tm] are basically speculation. They haven't done any science
to verify them; they're just guessing. Which makes them no more valid
than commentary on cam.misc!
Jon
(* Why's WD-40 daft? Because it acts as a light solvent, dissolves any
solid chain lube and washes it out, without leaving any lasting
lubrication effect of its own. It'll unseize links ... and then set
them up to seize again, pronto. The best stuff is motorcycle chain
lube, which penetrates really well, then solidifies. Or "cook" the
chain -- removed from the bike, obviously -- in a pan of melted
medium-temperature solid lube, let it cool, and wipe off the excess.)
Duncan Wood
Or just use stainless steel chain.
--
Duncan Wood
Espen Koht
"Duncan Wood" <nnt...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:
I think that misses the point. The lubricant is not there to protect the
chain but to prevent dirt from entering spaces "where the parts are very
tightly meshed" (see above)
Duncan Wood
It's an interesting theory, but as Jon points out, apparently untested in
the real world. There seems to be almost negligible difference in losses
between my rarely greased & left out in the rain stainless chain & a brand
new shiny chain. Letting one go rusty on the other hand makes a noticeable
difference. Lubing the stainless seems to make a slight difference to its
lifespan but not its efficiency.
--
Duncan Wood
Alex Selby
>
> (* Why's WD-40 daft? Because it acts as a light solvent, dissolves any
> solid chain lube and washes it out, without leaving any lasting
> lubrication effect of its own. It'll unseize links ... and then set
> them up to seize again, pronto. The best stuff is motorcycle chain
> lube, which penetrates really well, then solidifies. Or "cook" the
> chain -- removed from the bike, obviously -- in a pan of melted
> medium-temperature solid lube, let it cool, and wipe off the excess.)
I realise that that's the conventional wisdom, but I reckon it's
slightly exaggerated. WD-40 is good at cleaning gunk out and preventing
rust, and I'm pretty sure there is some remaining lubrication effect -
in effect a light oil. (Wouldn't a heavier oil stick to dirt more
readily? That's a bit of a guess.) Given that chains have limited
lifetimes anyway, I don't think it's a big mistake to use WD-40 (though
I can believe there are better substances).
Duncan Wood
One of chain waxes big plus points is that it's less sticky. Castrol chain
wax is much better than the Halfords stuff from a mess point of view.
--
Duncan Wood
Fevric J. Glandules
Why oh why oh why is it that if anybody dares to top-post in cam.misc,
they get shat on, but the habit of quoting enormous screeds before
adding a short comment generally goes unremarked?
Tim Ward
news:he9tv1$jtt$1...@news.tornevall.net...
Bizarre, innit. One way you can see enough of the new comment to know
whether you can be arsed to read it properly, the other you can't.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
J. Glandules) wrote:
A friend has a signature which explains it quite well.
> --
> A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
> Q. Why is top posting bad?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Fevric J. Glandules
<sigh>
That does *not* explain why one obnoxious posting habit is treated like
a pork pie at a bar mitzvah and the other goes unchallenged.
Simon Morris
IIRC, the prolific offenders have been asked to stop, but refused, and
people got tired of asking.
S.
Tim Ward
news:%Q8Om.17997$492....@newsfe18.ams2...
That doesn't answer the original question either.
Simon Morris
> "Simon Morris" <si...@letusgothen.org> wrote in message
> news:%Q8Om.17997$492....@newsfe18.ams2...
>> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>>> Why oh why oh why is it that if anybody dares to top-post in cam.misc,
>>> they get shat on, but the habit of quoting enormous screeds before
>>> adding a short comment generally goes unremarked?
>> IIRC, the prolific offenders have been asked to stop, but refused, and
>> people got tired of asking.
>
> That doesn't answer the original question either.
>
*thinks* I suppose that's true. It didn't occur to me that the original
poster might have thought the execration of top-posters was
questionable, but that'd just be my preconceptions.
S.
Jon Green
> Jon Green wrote:
>> (* Why's WD-40 daft? Because it acts as a light solvent, dissolves any
>> solid chain lube and washes it out, without leaving any lasting
>> lubrication effect of its own. It'll unseize links ... and then set
>
> I realise that that's the conventional wisdom, but I reckon it's
> slightly exaggerated. WD-40 is good at cleaning gunk out and preventing
> rust, and I'm pretty sure there is some remaining lubrication effect -
> in effect a light oil.
There certainly is, but it doesn't last long. The point about a solid
lubricant is that it sticks. It isn't subject to "fling" (being ejected
at speed), and it tends not to migrate out of where it's put, at least
by comparison.
Jon
Jules
... and tired of reading. If I don't see any new text on my screen when I
open a post, I tend to just skip it (or I figure someone might reply to
them and edit their post as part of their quoted reply, so I get to see
the useful stuff that way).
I'll at least read top-posted messages, although whether I reply to them
hinges on whether I can be bothered to sort out their mess or not :-)
cheers
Jules
Fevric J. Glandules
> execration
Excellent word.