Belting!

Posted on
Page
of 4
  • i'm getting one of these on the polo bike


    that could work with a 3/32 ;)

  • yeah, can't afford that model, the diamond bits aint cheap.

    appears chainsaw chain is 5/32" or 3/8"

    no good i guess. shame!

  • I don't like the look of that.
    Reckon it would snap.

    in the same way some riders think they 'need' a 1/8" chain cos they'd snap a 3/32", a belt drive will not snap, even fixed. they use them in all sorts of high rev engineering applications, with much higher tension than pedalling a bike.

    i think the only current problem with belts are the problems getting it on the frame, if they fix this, and lower the price somewhat, they'll be doing alright.

  • and so long as the efficiency stays above 95%

  • well, chain-based drivetrains are already around 95% efficient. actually, if they belts are quieter than a chain they could be operating at closer to 100% efficiency.

  • just because they generate less noise doesn't make them more efficient, they could have high friction and generate heat, thus reducing efficiency further. anyway, i don't particularly care, shaft drive is what it's all about...

  • soo so much better than having a coupler in the frame.

    you don't have to cut the frame to get the belt on, the rear dropout can separate.

  • Less maintainance, no oiling etc, seems good for town riders where getting A to B is the issue.
    Presume you can just hose it down if its manky and you wouldnt have to concern yourself with lubing it nicely for the next trip, just tip a bucket of water over it and scrub the grime off.

    Can't understand why it would break under cycling pressure, if they are used in some motorcycles etc... surely the belt can handle the torque and stress of pedalling, even fixed! Its not an elastic band after all.

    What about tamper proof though? How easy are these belts to cut with tools?

    ..and... Why the eccentric hub? Can anyone explain why thats important?

    I like it.

  • eccentric hub as they have a seatstay and chainstay which join at one single point; to connect the belt.

    would work with horizintal dropouts, only if you find a way of splitting the frame to get the belt in the rear triangle.

  • you don't have to cut the frame to get the belt on, the rear dropout can separate.

    not on thats frame now, but the point was you cant simply add it to an old frame

  • Why do they have the rear triangle come apart on the drive side? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the non-drive side come apart, as there will be less stress on that side, and thus less chance of something going wrong due to improper fitting or something?

  • Think about it, then you'll work out why.

  • Doh

  • I don't like it....

  • i think all you haters need to chill out. no one is forcing you to use a belt drive.

    What about tamper proof though? How easy are these belts to cut with tools?
    why are you worrying about this, when was the last time someone came along with a chain tool and stole your chain

    chains are very efficient though. would be very difficult to match the same efficiency... i wonder what the friction on the belt is like.
    Chains are that efficient when they have the right tension , chain line and care from the user.

    "It's a totally different feel. I got tired of explaining this at Eurobike. I just let people ride the bike. Everybody was very impressed."

    Chipps of Singletrack magazine said: "You expect to feel the 'give' in the belt, but there is none at all. None! The ride feel is more akin to a track bike with a super tight chain."

  • Not sure I'd be convinced until I had a chance to try it out for myself, the only thing is that if you wished to switch to a 17t/18t down to a 15t for example it's not as simple as moving it further back in the drop outs or changing the links in your chain.......wittering now....... I guess you'd just buy two belts if you were to run two different GI's.

  • How much would the belts be on their own anyway? A lot I imagine.

  • It'll never catch on...........

  • Isn't it a bit concerning that there is only a lip on one side of the chainring. Wouldn't want to be brakeless is the belt slipped off the other side!

  • If the only thing you take care in your messengering bike is chain, that would be perfect.
    But that belt needs much more force to get tensioned properly right?

  • Not sure I'd be convinced until I had a chance to try it out for myself, the only thing is that if you wished to switch to a 17t/18t down to a 15t for example it's not as simple as moving it further back in the drop outs .

    What the fuck are you talking about? Of course you could move your wheel back.
    Average chain length must be somewhere around 100 links so that'd make 200 moving joints. Add the bottom bracket, pedals, hubs, freewheel, headset and 2 brakes and levers and you have 211 moving parts on a s/s freewheel bike. Now consider that by replacing the chain with a belt you would go from 211 moving points of wear to 11.
    Thats almost a 95% reduction in the moving, wearing parts on a bicycle.
    Sounds pretty revolutionary to me.

  • The whole thing looks a little bit restrictive to what frame you can put this system on, of course no including the obvious that you need to be able to move the chainstay away from the frame. Also looks like there are in this case only 4 ratios you can get. I believe that the sprockets and chainrings (not sure what the belt version names are!!) are proprietary, so you would be stuck with whatever ratios they provide!

    Some random CDrive chart here:

    Some more info on the CDrive system.

  • Personally I think they are awesome, low maintenance and I expect pretty easy to keep clean.

  • i also think they look fucking good.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Belting!

Posted by Avatar for fasteddy @fasteddy

Actions