dimensions of wheels derailleurs chainwheels ...where?

ACQUIRE straight edges and large angle tools like factory plywood corners n a WAl metal yardstick, metal 1 foot ruler with metric

pens

On 26/12/15 18:22, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/26/2015 11:59 AM, Edmund wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:54:22 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/26/2015 8:29 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 26/12/15 13:24, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/26/2015 5:40 AM, Edmund wrote:
Hallo guys,

I considering to make a hand_rowing_bicycle and need to know the
dimensions of normal available/commonly used parts but so far I
didn't find it.
Does anyone have a source for this?

Thanks

Edmund


Which part?


Well the wheels derailleurs chainwheels ... obviously.



Front wheels are mostly 9mm axles and 100mm face to face. Rear wheels
are mostly 10mm axles and can be 120mm, 125mm, 130mm, 135mm and out to
160mm for various formats.

In a drawing ( post from avagadro7 ) I see a with of 135 mm but that
varies as well?
Another thing I see is that the spokes are mounted asymmetrical on the
rear wheel, that wouldn't be my first choice.
I understand why they do this but on a ( my ) handbike this is not
necessary, still I want to use common parts as much a possible for
obvious money related reasons.


Rim sizes span not only a large range but have more increments than can
be readily absorbed. Beyond that, tire width choices for most popular
diameters have grown greatly in recent years.

I am looking for a smooth ride with low rolling resistance, what do you
think? 26 or 28 inch for the rear wheel with what kind of tire??
The front won't carry much weight so that is less important.

Derailleur compatibility with modern shifters has also become overly
complex of late. Suffice to say that one ought to plan for matching
brand/model shifters and gear changers in most cases.

Bigger sized tooth wheels seems better to me but I read although that is
true, the difference in efficiency ( between 11 tooth and 16 tooth ) is
rather small, still if possible I like to fit a cassette with 16 teeth
for the smallest tooth wheel.
Now, what outer diameter I get with a tooth wheel with 53 teeth?
( 53 seems to be a "standard" size )

I think you are probably planning some sort of project for which in the
abstract no simple advice will help. Sorta like planning a custom car
and asking 'what's a good engine? do they work with every gearbox?'

I have to start somewhere.

Once you get to specific problems, the contributors here at RBT have
deep knowledge and experience. Generally, there are too many standards
exceptions and foibles.

I noticed, they even use the width of there thumbs as measurements
units :-) and decent units mixed through each other.

Edmund


The most efficient rolling resistance in a commonly available clincher
will be a Michelin Pro 700-23 running about 115psi on a Velocity A23 (or
similar setup)[1]. The rear rims are asymmetric which I think addresses
your hub question.

I think you're wrong there. Warsteiner showed in 2011 that the van der
Waals forces were coincident to the sideways force of the drive chain,
resulting in a slightly less than optimum performance of the Pro 700-23.
He proved that the Schwalbe Marathon Plus was in fact optimal.

53t is nominally 53/3.14159 or 16.87 teeth=8.435" at rivet diameter. I
measure 221mm dia at the tooth tops. 16t start on modern 9-10-11
cassettes will be s custom setup but not prohibitively difficult. Note
that a 53x16 is equivalent to a 36x11 or a 40x12.

But that assumes a typical 1/8th pitch. A 3/32 pitch saves another 4%
on rolling resistance from the drive chain only.

[1] for typical (150 to 230lb bike+rider) loads on typical paved road
surfaces.

Granted. We aren't talking off road here which is a *completely*
different ball game.

The most efficient rolling resistance in a commonly available clincher
will be a Michelin Pro 700-23 running about 115psi on a Velocity A23 (or
similar setup).

I've been using the Michelin Pro 4 and was disappointed to see that it
tested about 12 watts worse than the Continental GP 4000S II:

http://velonews.competitor.com/where...ing-tires-fast

On 12/26/2015 3:29 PM, Tosspot wrote:
On 26/12/15 18:22, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/26/2015 11:59 AM, Edmund wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:54:22 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/26/2015 8:29 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 26/12/15 13:24, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/26/2015 5:40 AM, Edmund wrote:
Hallo guys,

I considering to make a hand_rowing_bicycle and need
to know the
dimensions of normal available/commonly used parts
but so far I
didn't find it.
Does anyone have a source for this?

Thanks

Edmund


Which part?


Well the wheels derailleurs chainwheels ... obviously.



Front wheels are mostly 9mm axles and 100mm face to
face. Rear wheels
are mostly 10mm axles and can be 120mm, 125mm, 130mm,
135mm and out to
160mm for various formats.

In a drawing ( post from avagadro7 ) I see a with of 135
mm but that
varies as well?
Another thing I see is that the spokes are mounted
asymmetrical on the
rear wheel, that wouldn't be my first choice.
I understand why they do this but on a ( my ) handbike
this is not
necessary, still I want to use common parts as much a
possible for
obvious money related reasons.


Rim sizes span not only a large range but have more
increments than can
be readily absorbed. Beyond that, tire width choices for
most popular
diameters have grown greatly in recent years.

I am looking for a smooth ride with low rolling
resistance, what do you
think? 26 or 28 inch for the rear wheel with what kind of
tire??
The front won't carry much weight so that is less important.

Derailleur compatibility with modern shifters has also
become overly
complex of late. Suffice to say that one ought to plan
for matching
brand/model shifters and gear changers in most cases.

Bigger sized tooth wheels seems better to me but I read
although that is
true, the difference in efficiency ( between 11 tooth and
16 tooth ) is
rather small, still if possible I like to fit a cassette
with 16 teeth
for the smallest tooth wheel.
Now, what outer diameter I get with a tooth wheel with 53
teeth?
( 53 seems to be a "standard" size )

I think you are probably planning some sort of project
for which in the
abstract no simple advice will help. Sorta like planning
a custom car
and asking 'what's a good engine? do they work with
every gearbox?'

I have to start somewhere.

Once you get to specific problems, the contributors here
at RBT have
deep knowledge and experience. Generally, there are too
many standards
exceptions and foibles.

I noticed, they even use the width of there thumbs as
measurements
units :-) and decent units mixed through each other.

Edmund


The most efficient rolling resistance in a commonly
available clincher
will be a Michelin Pro 700-23 running about 115psi on a
Velocity A23 (or
similar setup)[1]. The rear rims are asymmetric which I
think addresses
your hub question.

I think you're wrong there. Warsteiner showed in 2011 that
the van der Waals forces were coincident to the sideways
force of the drive chain, resulting in a slightly less than
optimum performance of the Pro 700-23. He proved that the
Schwalbe Marathon Plus was in fact optimal.

53t is nominally 53/3.14159 or 16.87 teeth=8.435" at rivet
diameter. I
measure 221mm dia at the tooth tops. 16t start on modern
9-10-11
cassettes will be s custom setup but not prohibitively
difficult. Note
that a 53x16 is equivalent to a 36x11 or a 40x12.

But that assumes a typical 1/8th pitch. A 3/32 pitch saves
another 4% on rolling resistance from the drive chain only.

[1] for typical (150 to 230lb bike+rider) loads on typical
paved road
surfaces.

Granted. We aren't talking off road here which is a
*completely* different ball game.


1. OK, a tire something like that, we agree.
2. Chain rivets are one half inch apart. 3/32" is the
nominal width of derailleur chain.
3. Right, offroad is a different set of problems and
hardwood tracks are different yet again.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/26/2015 3:40 PM, Bertrand wrote:
The most efficient rolling resistance in a commonly
available clincher will be a Michelin Pro 700-23 running
about 115psi on a Velocity A23 (or similar setup).

I've been using the Michelin Pro 4 and was disappointed to
see that it tested about 12 watts worse than the Continental
GP 4000S II:

http://velonews.competitor.com/where...ing-tires-fast


Granted differences may be found but something of that type
is indicated.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 4:29:31 PM UTC-5, Tosspot wrote:
On 26/12/15 18:22, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/26/2015 11:59 AM, Edmund wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:54:22 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/26/2015 8:29 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 26/12/15 13:24, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/26/2015 5:40 AM, Edmund wrote:
Hallo guys,

I considering to make a hand_rowing_bicycle and need to know the
dimensions of normal available/commonly used parts but so far I
didn't find it.
Does anyone have a source for this?

Thanks

Edmund


Which part?


Well the wheels derailleurs chainwheels ... obviously.



Front wheels are mostly 9mm axles and 100mm face to face. Rear wheels
are mostly 10mm axles and can be 120mm, 125mm, 130mm, 135mm and out to
160mm for various formats.

In a drawing ( post from avagadro7 ) I see a with of 135 mm but that
varies as well?
Another thing I see is that the spokes are mounted asymmetrical on the
rear wheel, that wouldn't be my first choice.
I understand why they do this but on a ( my ) handbike this is not
necessary, still I want to use common parts as much a possible for
obvious money related reasons.


Rim sizes span not only a large range but have more increments than can
be readily absorbed. Beyond that, tire width choices for most popular
diameters have grown greatly in recent years.

I am looking for a smooth ride with low rolling resistance, what do you
think? 26 or 28 inch for the rear wheel with what kind of tire??
The front won't carry much weight so that is less important.

Derailleur compatibility with modern shifters has also become overly
complex of late. Suffice to say that one ought to plan for matching
brand/model shifters and gear changers in most cases.

Bigger sized tooth wheels seems better to me but I read although that is
true, the difference in efficiency ( between 11 tooth and 16 tooth ) is
rather small, still if possible I like to fit a cassette with 16 teeth
for the smallest tooth wheel.
Now, what outer diameter I get with a tooth wheel with 53 teeth?
( 53 seems to be a "standard" size )

I think you are probably planning some sort of project for which in the
abstract no simple advice will help. Sorta like planning a custom car
and asking 'what's a good engine? do they work with every gearbox?'

I have to start somewhere.

Once you get to specific problems, the contributors here at RBT have
deep knowledge and experience. Generally, there are too many standards
exceptions and foibles.

I noticed, they even use the width of there thumbs as measurements
units :-) and decent units mixed through each other.

Edmund


The most efficient rolling resistance in a commonly available clincher
will be a Michelin Pro 700-23 running about 115psi on a Velocity A23 (or
similar setup)[1]. The rear rims are asymmetric which I think addresses
your hub question.

I think you're wrong there. Warsteiner showed in 2011 that the van der
Waals forces were coincident to the sideways force of the drive chain,
resulting in a slightly less than optimum performance of the Pro 700-23.
He proved that the Schwalbe Marathon Plus was in fact optimal.

53t is nominally 53/3.14159 or 16.87 teeth=8.435" at rivet diameter. I
measure 221mm dia at the tooth tops. 16t start on modern 9-10-11
cassettes will be s custom setup but not prohibitively difficult. Note
that a 53x16 is equivalent to a 36x11 or a 40x12.

But that assumes a typical 1/8th pitch. A 3/32 pitch saves another 4%
on rolling resistance from the drive chain only.

[1] for typical (150 to 230lb bike+rider) loads on typical paved road
surfaces.

Granted. We aren't talking off road here which is a *completely*
different ball game.

BBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZ


IDEA THAT LARGER RINGS/COGS ARE EQUIVALENT TO smaller diameter cogs/rings is illogical

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:29:27 +0000, Tosspot wrote:

On 26/12/15 18:22, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/26/2015 11:59 AM, Edmund wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:54:22 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/26/2015 8:29 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 26/12/15 13:24, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/26/2015 5:40 AM, Edmund wrote:
Hallo guys,

I considering to make a hand_rowing_bicycle and need to know the
dimensions of normal available/commonly used parts but so far I
didn't find it.
Does anyone have a source for this?

Thanks

Edmund


Which part?


Well the wheels derailleurs chainwheels ... obviously.



Front wheels are mostly 9mm axles and 100mm face to face. Rear wheels
are mostly 10mm axles and can be 120mm, 125mm, 130mm, 135mm and out
to 160mm for various formats.

In a drawing ( post from avagadro7 ) I see a with of 135 mm but that
varies as well?
Another thing I see is that the spokes are mounted asymmetrical on the
rear wheel, that wouldn't be my first choice.
I understand why they do this but on a ( my ) handbike this is not
necessary, still I want to use common parts as much a possible for
obvious money related reasons.


Rim sizes span not only a large range but have more increments than
can be readily absorbed. Beyond that, tire width choices for most
popular diameters have grown greatly in recent years.

I am looking for a smooth ride with low rolling resistance, what do
you think? 26 or 28 inch for the rear wheel with what kind of tire??
The front won't carry much weight so that is less important.

Derailleur compatibility with modern shifters has also become overly
complex of late. Suffice to say that one ought to plan for matching
brand/model shifters and gear changers in most cases.

Bigger sized tooth wheels seems better to me but I read although that
is true, the difference in efficiency ( between 11 tooth and 16 tooth
) is rather small, still if possible I like to fit a cassette with 16
teeth for the smallest tooth wheel.
Now, what outer diameter I get with a tooth wheel with 53 teeth?
( 53 seems to be a "standard" size )

I think you are probably planning some sort of project for which in
the abstract no simple advice will help. Sorta like planning a custom
car and asking 'what's a good engine? do they work with every
gearbox?'

I have to start somewhere.

Once you get to specific problems, the contributors here at RBT have
deep knowledge and experience. Generally, there are too many
standards exceptions and foibles.

I noticed, they even use the width of there thumbs as measurements
units :-) and decent units mixed through each other.

Edmund


The most efficient rolling resistance in a commonly available clincher
will be a Michelin Pro 700-23 running about 115psi on a Velocity A23
(or similar setup)[1]. The rear rims are asymmetric which I think
addresses your hub question.

I think you're wrong there. Warsteiner showed in 2011 that the van der
Waals forces were coincident to the sideways force of the drive chain,
resulting in a slightly less than optimum performance of the Pro 700-23.
He proved that the Schwalbe Marathon Plus was in fact optimal.

53t is nominally 53/3.14159 or 16.87 teeth=8.435" at rivet diameter. I
measure 221mm dia at the tooth tops. 16t start on modern 9-10-11
cassettes will be s custom setup but not prohibitively difficult. Note
that a 53x16 is equivalent to a 36x11 or a 40x12.

But that assumes a typical 1/8th pitch. A 3/32 pitch saves another 4%
on rolling resistance from the drive chain only.

Do you have a source for that? I don't see why a larger pitch should have
better efficiency and 4 % is quite a lot.

Edmund

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 7:25:28 PM UTC-5, Edmund wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:29:27 +0000, Tosspot wrote:

Snipped
But that assumes a typical 1/8th pitch. A 3/32 pitch saves another 4%
on rolling resistance from the drive chain only.

Do you have a source for that? I don't see why a larger pitch should have
better efficiency and 4 % is quite a lot.

Edmund

Tossport used the wrong terminology. There is NO difference in PITCH between a 1/8" chain (4/32") and a 3/32" chain. What is different, as A. muzi pointed out, is the width which is what the 1/8" and 3/32" indicates.

Cheers

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:59:11 -0000 (UTC), Edmund
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:54:22 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/26/2015 8:29 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 26/12/15 13:24, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/26/2015 5:40 AM, Edmund wrote:
Hallo guys,

I considering to make a hand_rowing_bicycle and need to know the
dimensions of normal available/commonly used parts but so far I
didn't find it.
Does anyone have a source for this?

Thanks

Edmund


Which part?


Well the wheels derailleurs chainwheels ... obviously.



Front wheels are mostly 9mm axles and 100mm face to face. Rear wheels
are mostly 10mm axles and can be 120mm, 125mm, 130mm, 135mm and out to
160mm for various formats.

In a drawing ( post from avagadro7 ) I see a with of 135 mm but that
varies as well?
Another thing I see is that the spokes are mounted asymmetrical on the
rear wheel, that wouldn't be my first choice.
I understand why they do this but on a ( my ) handbike this is not
necessary, still I want to use common parts as much a possible for
obvious money related reasons.


Rim sizes span not only a large range but have more increments than can
be readily absorbed. Beyond that, tire width choices for most popular
diameters have grown greatly in recent years.

I am looking for a smooth ride with low rolling resistance, what do you
think? 26 or 28 inch for the rear wheel with what kind of tire??
The front won't carry much weight so that is less important.

Derailleur compatibility with modern shifters has also become overly
complex of late. Suffice to say that one ought to plan for matching
brand/model shifters and gear changers in most cases.

Bigger sized tooth wheels seems better to me but I read although that is
true, the difference in efficiency ( between 11 tooth and 16 tooth ) is
rather small, still if possible I like to fit a cassette with 16 teeth
for the smallest tooth wheel.
Now, what outer diameter I get with a tooth wheel with 53 teeth?
( 53 seems to be a "standard" size )


Not to be snotty, but you probably need to gain some more knowledge
about bikes/parts.

Example:

Chain wheels - the front chain sprocket - are commonly made in 44, 48,
50, and 52 tooth versions (and probably a multitude of other numbers),
and even worse, the dimension of the bolt circle where they fasten to
the crank vary both in diameter and in number of bolts.

A better tactic might be to determine what you want to do and perhaps
an outline of what you want to build and how you plan on building it
and then ask for help in solving how to do it.

Graeme Obree, for example, designed a bike that is powered by foot
operated levers, rather then a crank, which is at least similar in
concept to a rowed bike. See below for a video:
http://road.cc/content/news/61807-vi...bent-rolls-out
and
https://www.google.co.th/search?q=gr...HcXGCZYQsAQIHw

The gears are reported to be in the 200 inch range, or equivalent to
about a 100 tooth chain ring and a 11 tooth rear sprocket :-)


I think you are probably planning some sort of project for which in the
abstract no simple advice will help. Sorta like planning a custom car
and asking 'what's a good engine? do they work with every gearbox?'

I have to start somewhere.

Once you get to specific problems, the contributors here at RBT have
deep knowledge and experience. Generally, there are too many standards
exceptions and foibles.

I noticed, they even use the width of there thumbs as measurements
units :-) and decent units mixed through each other.

Edmund
--
cheers,

John B.

On 27/12/15 00:44, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 7:25:28 PM UTC-5, Edmund wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:29:27 +0000, Tosspot wrote:

Snipped
But that assumes a typical 1/8th pitch. A 3/32 pitch saves
another 4% on rolling resistance from the drive chain only.

Do you have a source for that? I don't see why a larger pitch
should have better efficiency and 4 % is quite a lot.

Edmund

Tossport used the wrong terminology. There is NO difference in PITCH
between a 1/8" chain (4/32") and a 3/32" chain. What is different, as
A. muzi pointed out, is the width which is what the 1/8" and 3/32"
indicates.

Cheers

Irony is wasted on you guys isn't it? I worked bloody hard to get so
many things wrong while still sounding plausible!