Jun 17, 2002 1:01 PM
|Check this out...
Jun 17, 2002 1:43 PM
|I'd like to see some efficiency and weight numbers. Nonetheless, it seems like it's intended users (based upon the bike style) may not care. Would be nice for a commuter or cruiser.
Jun 17, 2002 4:47 PM
|This basic design was patented in the 1890s, and has been "implemented" several times in commercial products. Heavy, expensive, and inefficient. Heavy & inefficient would be fine for the clunker market if it were cheap. Expensive would be OK if it were high performance. Three stikes. Yerrrrrr out! Every 5 years or so someone promises to "get it right this time" with belt drives, front drives, cam cranks, odd shaped chainrings, shaft drives, funky pedals, etc. Having watched this stuff going on 35 years, it gets boring - they NEVER succeed.|
|re: Chainless Bike?||Walter|
Jun 17, 2002 6:54 PM
|If you're willing to go singlespeed or internal geared hub it seems there's no technical reason a belt drive wouldn't work. Most H-D motorcycles are belt driven as is just about every scooter from 50-250cc. I doubt there'd be much weight reduction but it would eliminate the need for lubing. For many people who might be interested in a singlespeed or modern English style roadster that'd be a plus.
OTOH at present there's no belt that'll work with a derailleur so no chainless drives on lightweights anytime soon. The shaft drive is sort of silly to me for the reasons listed in an above post.