From my understanding, belt is actually more efficient than a chain. Due to less friction, no moving parts and sh!t.The forementioned drag comes from the gearbox...
From my understanding, belt is actually more efficient than a chain. Due to less friction, no moving parts and sh!t.
The forementioned drag comes from the gearbox. That said, it's really overblown on the internet. I'd say there's more drag in a regular drivetrain at the end of a big ride, assuming I cleaned and lubed it before.
Have you ever held a belt, and flexed it? Even a car engine belt Belts absolutely have more friction than a chain, it's not even close really.
I can't speak for every locale, but I could ride my waxed chains with no maintenance at all in my dry dusty location for 100+ miles with zero change in friction or performance.
Have you ever held a belt, and flexed it? Even a car engine belt Belts absolutely have more friction than a chain, it's not even close...
Have you ever held a belt, and flexed it? Even a car engine belt Belts absolutely have more friction than a chain, it's not even close really.
I can't speak for every locale, but I could ride my waxed chains with no maintenance at all in my dry dusty location for 100+ miles with zero change in friction or performance.
Agree. While I love the idea of ditching the derailleur, gearbox/belt driven drivetrains are measurably less efficient (even when accounting for a chain drive that isn't perfectly clean). This isn't up for debate, it's a fact.
Have you ever held a belt, and flexed it? Even a car engine belt Belts absolutely have more friction than a chain, it's not even close...
Have you ever held a belt, and flexed it? Even a car engine belt Belts absolutely have more friction than a chain, it's not even close really.
I can't speak for every locale, but I could ride my waxed chains with no maintenance at all in my dry dusty location for 100+ miles with zero change in friction or performance.
Agree. While I love the idea of ditching the derailleur, gearbox/belt driven drivetrains are measurably less efficient (even when accounting for a chain drive that isn't...
Agree. While I love the idea of ditching the derailleur, gearbox/belt driven drivetrains are measurably less efficient (even when accounting for a chain drive that isn't perfectly clean). This isn't up for debate, it's a fact.
Just to clarify, that's the gearbox's fault, not the belt.
Above 150W or so, belts are more efficient than chains as long as they have proper tension.
The belt vs chain efficiency difference is negligible once you throw the 5-10% power loss from a gearbox into the mix.
The derailleur in a box might work for DH, but not for anything that has to be pedalled. There's not enough range and you're not putting a 50T cassette inside your frame.
The whole gearbox/belt moment right now is solely due to a massive decline in sponsorship of the traditional bike industry. Gates has been huge enough for decades to make their pitch… Shimano and Sram clearly aren’t capitalized well enough to fight them anymore, due to poor pandemic vision and blowing so much money on useless electronics, but the science on belts v chains is pretty clear. Belts suck for the low power applications we see in cycling, and they are super duper draggy, and generally horrible to live with.
Anyone who has ever worked on any belt driven bicycle will tell you how much better chains are at every junction. Gates could do a hell of a lot more for the health of mtb racing by giving out free hoses for the excavators to trailbuilders so we can build your local trails better than splashing out a little bit over one product manager’s yearly salary in hopes of a world cup win, but clearly Gates aren’t interested in supporting the growth of mountain biking as much as they are hoping to grow a market segment that has been a failure to launch for more than a decade.
Chains are amazing. No belt can ever match the performance of modern chains and cogs.
I feel a lot of people that would complain about the gearbox efficiency making a perceivable difference to their enduro or all mountain ride would be the same people with overbuilt wheels, fox 38, cushycores, and downhill casing tires for multiple blues a maybe a black diamond trail for their saturday ride. Then finish it off with pounding back 4 IPAs and some cake later that day.
Have you ever held a belt, and flexed it? Even a car engine belt Belts absolutely have more friction than a chain, it's not even close really.
I can't speak for every locale, but I could ride my waxed chains with no maintenance at all in my dry dusty location for 100+ miles with zero change in friction or performance.
Agree. While I love the idea of ditching the derailleur, gearbox/belt driven drivetrains are measurably less efficient (even when accounting for a chain drive that isn't perfectly clean). This isn't up for debate, it's a fact.
Just to clarify, that's the gearbox's fault, not the belt.
Above 150W or so, belts are more efficient than chains as long as they have proper tension.
The belt vs chain efficiency difference is negligible once you throw the 5-10% power loss from a gearbox into the mix.
The derailleur in a box might work for DH, but not for anything that has to be pedalled. There's not enough range and you're not putting a 50T cassette inside your frame.
I mentioned this in the gearbox thread, but 2 cassettes back to back would actually work. And it's been tried in the past actually, though not to much success:
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/first-look-phaser-gearbox
https://www.sicklines.com/2007/03/19/phaser-gearbox/
A setup like this would give REALLY smooth gear ratios. And 11-25T cassettes mounted oppositely would give just over 500 % range.
The whole gearbox/belt moment right now is solely due to a massive decline in sponsorship of the traditional bike industry. Gates has been huge enough for decades to make their pitch… Shimano and Sram clearly aren’t capitalized well enough to fight them anymore, due to poor pandemic vision and blowing so much money on useless electronics, but the science on belts v chains is pretty clear. Belts suck for the low power applications we see in cycling, and they are super duper draggy, and generally horrible to live with.
Anyone who has ever worked on any belt driven bicycle will tell you how much better chains are at every junction.
Gates could do a hell of a lot more for the health of mtb racing by giving out free hoses for the excavators to trailbuilders so we can build your local trails better than splashing out a little bit over one product manager’s yearly salary in hopes of a world cup win, but clearly Gates aren’t interested in supporting the growth of mountain biking as much as they are hoping to grow a market segment that has been a failure to launch for more than a decade.
Chains are amazing. No belt can ever match the performance of modern chains and cogs.
I feel a lot of people that would complain about the gearbox efficiency making a perceivable difference to their enduro or all mountain ride would be the same people with overbuilt wheels, fox 38, cushycores, and downhill casing tires for multiple blues a maybe a black diamond trail for their saturday ride. Then finish it off with pounding back 4 IPAs and some cake later that day.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation