|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 10:26:50 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
4On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:08:12 +1100, James wrote: On 20/3/19 8:21 am, JC wrote: On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 4:48:11 PM UTC-4, James wrote: On 20/3/19 1:16 am, wrote: I believe John is focused on the efficiency of the chain drive system alone, not the biomechanical efficiency of the person plus the chain. He was, and I explained why it was irrelvant - biomechanical efficiency. 3. Make matters worse by introducing a spring tension system. Now in addition to the bio mechanical inefficiencies, you're adding the ability of the chain drive to take up slack in the system, which allows _you_ to pedal even more inefficiently. Here's a graphic representation: https://hanswinter.wordpress.com/200...your-spinscan/ I think that, and the rest of your post is complete ********. Anything to add? No. Any mechanical or bio mechanical counterpoints you wish to address? I think we'd all be interested in reading what exactly it is you disagree with, and why. *You* might be interested, but I doubt the royal "we" is interested. You made a whole lot of statements that are ********, and irrelevant. Ah but that is usually the mark of someone that just has to see him/her/it/self in print :-) Seems like a great deal of projection on both your parts |
Ads |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On 20/03/2019 8:37 a.m., JC wrote:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:38:21 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:47:58 +1100, James wrote: On 20/3/19 1:16 am, wrote: On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:32:42 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed cassette) and I got to thinking. Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in line. But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed range. What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain is not perfectly aligned? And should one worry about it? -- Cheers, John B. The short answer is no. The long answer is: The efficiency due to misalignment in a derrailleur/freehub system is negligible, here's why: 1. The 98% efficiency you mentioned is in fixed systems with a drive providing constant smooth torque. 2. Once a freehub system is installed (like a single-speed (NOT fixed gear)), the efficiency depends almost entirely on the the bio-mechanical pedaling efficiency. In other words, if you don't apply even power throughout the pedal stroke, the efficiency of the entire system drops off dramatically, at this point, losses due to chain misalignment are barely measurable, let alone being perceptible by the rider. I believe John is focused on the efficiency of the chain drive system alone, not the biomechanical efficiency of the person plus the chain. Certainly I was... After all one's "pedal stroke" while it can be altered by practice, to an extent, is essentially a down and back power stroke for even the best riders and a sort of "built in" part of one's riding. So, pedal stroke efficiency isn't anything a cyclist should be concerned with....got it. Funny, I've never read or heard any reputable coaching source say that learning to pedal circles isn't beneficial. You still haven't. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 8:13:11 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
You seem to have ignored the subject of which I spoke and blundered off onto a totally different subject. You asked if chain misalignment was anything to worry about, adding the context of efficiency. I answered no, and explained why in the context of efficiency. That you don't see the linkage is disappointing considering that this is a cycling news group. Rather like an individual that doesn't quite understand the subject under discussion and is only intent on saying something simply to see his own immortal words in print. Sort of like two people responding to a post that offer no salient discussion points, rather, simply stating the information offered is bull****, right? You seem intent on "proving" that chain angle is of little effect on the world It seems you're the one with little understanding of the issue. First off, you asked the question - indicating you would like some comment on it. Second, you fail to grasp that the issue of efficiency loss due to chain misalignment is irrelevant due to the other losses in the system - which was my main point. and then you immediately disclaim that theory in your last paragraph when you tell us that chain misalignment causes chain wear. The wear due to misalignment is still negligible, even in the context of general wear due to the cog/chain interface and chain tension. Is that better? Unless, of course, you intend to maintain that wear due to misalignment that, somehow, is unrelated to a loss in chain drive efficiency. The losses due to misalignment strictly in the context of mechanical efficiency are measureable but still not significant at first, and become less significant to the point of negligible as the chain wears in. It would be something that could be calculated, or simulated in a solidworks analysis, but given he fact that neither you nor James seem interested in really discussing the point, rather, you are both more interested in posting something simply to see his own immortal words in print. It's been real. I'm out. -- Cheers, John B. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 8:42:19 AM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 20/03/2019 8:37 a.m., JC wrote: On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:38:21 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:47:58 +1100, James wrote: On 20/3/19 1:16 am, wrote: On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:32:42 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed cassette) and I got to thinking. Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in line. But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed range. What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain is not perfectly aligned? And should one worry about it? -- Cheers, John B. The short answer is no. The long answer is: The efficiency due to misalignment in a derrailleur/freehub system is negligible, here's why: 1. The 98% efficiency you mentioned is in fixed systems with a drive providing constant smooth torque. 2. Once a freehub system is installed (like a single-speed (NOT fixed gear)), the efficiency depends almost entirely on the the bio-mechanical pedaling efficiency. In other words, if you don't apply even power throughout the pedal stroke, the efficiency of the entire system drops off dramatically, at this point, losses due to chain misalignment are barely measurable, let alone being perceptible by the rider. I believe John is focused on the efficiency of the chain drive system alone, not the biomechanical efficiency of the person plus the chain. Certainly I was... After all one's "pedal stroke" while it can be altered by practice, to an extent, is essentially a down and back power stroke for even the best riders and a sort of "built in" part of one's riding. So, pedal stroke efficiency isn't anything a cyclist should be concerned with....got it. Funny, I've never read or heard any reputable coaching source say that learning to pedal circles isn't beneficial. You still haven't. This is a good article, which denotes the difference between "pulling up" on he up stroke versus un-weighting the leg, and why single legged drills are good for making a smooth pedalling circle: https://sites.google.com/a/mpstraini...alingincircles Then.... https://www.bicycling.com/training/a...ing-mechanics/ "Pedaling in a simple circle is a complex thing, but mastering it can save energy, says Todd Carver, biomechanist at Colorado's Boulder Center for Sports Medicine." https://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/tec...fficiency.html "James Spragg of Spragg Cycle Coaching [points] out that many amateur cyclists pump their legs down, in a style which results in ‘spikes’ in torque, rather than a smooth, consistent application of power. “For most cyclists who haven’t been coached, it’s all start-stop-start-stop, leading to torque spikes,” says Spragg. “Therefore, consistent pedalling means no torque spikes with each pedal revolution as you push down through the pedals.” https://www.hauteroute.org/riders-co...you-should-too "A more efficient cyclist will change the angle of their foot as their pedal, so that they are applying as much force as possible throughout the entire revolution of the crank. " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1goZGa1UNcI - At 3:25 they discuss fixed gear riding and how it helps develop a smooth pedal stroke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5HWRdoQoGs - At :45 pedal stroke efficiency is discussed and demonstrated https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/s...-pedal-stroke/ "You can always tell an experienced rider by their pedaling style.....Their cadence is at a good 90+ rpm and pedaling in a full circle not wasting a bit of energy. The knees are tucked in and there is a slight drop in the ankle on the downstroke and pulling up the ankle during the upstroke. Having a fluid spin allows you to conserve energy on the flats and on long climbs. Pushing the pedals with excessive force burns muscle (anaerobic work) while keeping a smooth circle allows your body to work more efficiently and save energy (aerobic work). Of course, none of this is relevant to to someone obsessing over the miniscule detriment of chain misalignment. It's sort of like a weight-weenie trying to save a few grams on a carbon seatpost, whne there is a much greater effect of putting down the ****ing donut. Have fun with your crullers, kids. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On 20/03/2019 10:03 a.m., JC wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 8:42:19 AM UTC-4, duane wrote: On 20/03/2019 8:37 a.m., JC wrote: On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:38:21 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:47:58 +1100, James wrote: On 20/3/19 1:16 am, wrote: On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:32:42 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed cassette) and I got to thinking. Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in line. But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed range. What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain is not perfectly aligned? And should one worry about it? -- Cheers, John B. The short answer is no. The long answer is: The efficiency due to misalignment in a derrailleur/freehub system is negligible, here's why: 1. The 98% efficiency you mentioned is in fixed systems with a drive providing constant smooth torque. 2. Once a freehub system is installed (like a single-speed (NOT fixed gear)), the efficiency depends almost entirely on the the bio-mechanical pedaling efficiency. In other words, if you don't apply even power throughout the pedal stroke, the efficiency of the entire system drops off dramatically, at this point, losses due to chain misalignment are barely measurable, let alone being perceptible by the rider. I believe John is focused on the efficiency of the chain drive system alone, not the biomechanical efficiency of the person plus the chain. Certainly I was... After all one's "pedal stroke" while it can be altered by practice, to an extent, is essentially a down and back power stroke for even the best riders and a sort of "built in" part of one's riding. So, pedal stroke efficiency isn't anything a cyclist should be concerned with....got it. Funny, I've never read or heard any reputable coaching source say that learning to pedal circles isn't beneficial. You still haven't. This is a good article, which denotes the difference between "pulling up" on he up stroke versus un-weighting the leg, and why single legged drills are good for making a smooth pedalling circle: Thanks for the links but you're preaching to the choir. g Maybe you intended to reply to someone else? https://sites.google.com/a/mpstraini...alingincircles Then.... https://www.bicycling.com/training/a...ing-mechanics/ "Pedaling in a simple circle is a complex thing, but mastering it can save energy, says Todd Carver, biomechanist at Colorado's Boulder Center for Sports Medicine." https://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/tec...fficiency.html "James Spragg of Spragg Cycle Coaching [points] out that many amateur cyclists pump their legs down, in a style which results in ‘spikes’ in torque, rather than a smooth, consistent application of power. “For most cyclists who haven’t been coached, it’s all start-stop-start-stop, leading to torque spikes,” says Spragg. “Therefore, consistent pedalling means no torque spikes with each pedal revolution as you push down through the pedals.” https://www.hauteroute.org/riders-co...you-should-too "A more efficient cyclist will change the angle of their foot as their pedal, so that they are applying as much force as possible throughout the entire revolution of the crank." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1goZGa1UNcI - At 3:25 they discuss fixed gear riding and how it helps develop a smooth pedal stroke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5HWRdoQoGs - At :45 pedal stroke efficiency is discussed and demonstrated https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/s...-pedal-stroke/ "You can always tell an experienced rider by their pedaling style.....Their cadence is at a good 90+ rpm and pedaling in a full circle not wasting a bit of energy. The knees are tucked in and there is a slight drop in the ankle on the downstroke and pulling up the ankle during the upstroke. Having a fluid spin allows you to conserve energy on the flats and on long climbs. Pushing the pedals with excessive force burns muscle (anaerobic work) while keeping a smooth circle allows your body to work more efficiently and save energy (aerobic work). Of course, none of this is relevant to to someone obsessing over the miniscule detriment of chain misalignment. It's sort of like a weight-weenie trying to save a few grams on a carbon seatpost, whne there is a much greater effect of putting down the ****ing donut. Have fun with your crullers, kids. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On 3/20/2019 9:03 AM, JC wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 8:42:19 AM UTC-4, duane wrote: On 20/03/2019 8:37 a.m., JC wrote: On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:38:21 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:47:58 +1100, James wrote: On 20/3/19 1:16 am, wrote: On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:32:42 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed cassette) and I got to thinking. Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in line. But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed range. What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain is not perfectly aligned? And should one worry about it? -- Cheers, John B. The short answer is no. The long answer is: The efficiency due to misalignment in a derrailleur/freehub system is negligible, here's why: 1. The 98% efficiency you mentioned is in fixed systems with a drive providing constant smooth torque. 2. Once a freehub system is installed (like a single-speed (NOT fixed gear)), the efficiency depends almost entirely on the the bio-mechanical pedaling efficiency. In other words, if you don't apply even power throughout the pedal stroke, the efficiency of the entire system drops off dramatically, at this point, losses due to chain misalignment are barely measurable, let alone being perceptible by the rider. I believe John is focused on the efficiency of the chain drive system alone, not the biomechanical efficiency of the person plus the chain. Certainly I was... After all one's "pedal stroke" while it can be altered by practice, to an extent, is essentially a down and back power stroke for even the best riders and a sort of "built in" part of one's riding. So, pedal stroke efficiency isn't anything a cyclist should be concerned with....got it. Funny, I've never read or heard any reputable coaching source say that learning to pedal circles isn't beneficial. You still haven't. This is a good article, which denotes the difference between "pulling up" on he up stroke versus un-weighting the leg, and why single legged drills are good for making a smooth pedalling circle: https://sites.google.com/a/mpstraini...alingincircles Then.... https://www.bicycling.com/training/a...ing-mechanics/ "Pedaling in a simple circle is a complex thing, but mastering it can save energy, says Todd Carver, biomechanist at Colorado's Boulder Center for Sports Medicine." https://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/tec...fficiency.html "James Spragg of Spragg Cycle Coaching [points] out that many amateur cyclists pump their legs down, in a style which results in ‘spikes’ in torque, rather than a smooth, consistent application of power. “For most cyclists who haven’t been coached, it’s all start-stop-start-stop, leading to torque spikes,” says Spragg. “Therefore, consistent pedalling means no torque spikes with each pedal revolution as you push down through the pedals.” https://www.hauteroute.org/riders-co...you-should-too "A more efficient cyclist will change the angle of their foot as their pedal, so that they are applying as much force as possible throughout the entire revolution of the crank." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1goZGa1UNcI - At 3:25 they discuss fixed gear riding and how it helps develop a smooth pedal stroke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5HWRdoQoGs - At :45 pedal stroke efficiency is discussed and demonstrated https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/s...-pedal-stroke/ "You can always tell an experienced rider by their pedaling style.....Their cadence is at a good 90+ rpm and pedaling in a full circle not wasting a bit of energy. The knees are tucked in and there is a slight drop in the ankle on the downstroke and pulling up the ankle during the upstroke. Having a fluid spin allows you to conserve energy on the flats and on long climbs. Pushing the pedals with excessive force burns muscle (anaerobic work) while keeping a smooth circle allows your body to work more efficiently and save energy (aerobic work). Of course, none of this is relevant to to someone obsessing over the miniscule detriment of chain misalignment. It's sort of like a weight-weenie trying to save a few grams on a carbon seatpost, whne there is a much greater effect of putting down the ****ing donut. Have fun with your crullers, kids. You left out glucose absorption rates, mix of gut biota, dietary trace minerals, aerodynamics, film strength of chain lubricant, durometer rating of tire tread, spoke count, casing dernier and possible leg length discrepancy. None of which affects chain line efficiency. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 1:43:31 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-03-19 05:37, AMuzi wrote: On 3/19/2019 6:32 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed cassette) and I got to thinking. Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in line. But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed range. What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain is not perfectly aligned? And should one worry about it? Classic chain is roller chain and yes those run dramatically worse when chainline is askew. But after Sedisport, modern derailleur chain has interrupted sideplates with no full roller so they are quite forgiving of misalignment or, viewed another way, better shifting on derailleur systems. One downside is much faster wear but since they are relatively cheaper to make, we just throw them out sooner. I don't know the numbers for efficiency of derailleur chain at various angles but I think you're right although it may well be a reasonable tradeoff for other features. The Sachs-Sedis chains were the best and longest lasting I ever had on the road bike. The bad news is that I used up my last one in 2018 :-( As for cheaper, I don't think that's true. A good KMC 7-speed costs around $20. The Sachs-Sedis used to retain for $5-6 which would probably be $12-23 in today's Dollars. Lesson learned: If you find good stuff like this buy a larger stash. A much larger one. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ The Wipperman Conex chain is supposed to wear almost twice as long as the second best but they are heavy as hell. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 4:38:21 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:47:58 +1100, James wrote: On 20/3/19 1:16 am, wrote: On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:32:42 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed cassette) and I got to thinking. Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in line. But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed range. What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain is not perfectly aligned? And should one worry about it? -- Cheers, John B. The short answer is no. The long answer is: The efficiency due to misalignment in a derrailleur/freehub system is negligible, here's why: 1. The 98% efficiency you mentioned is in fixed systems with a drive providing constant smooth torque. 2. Once a freehub system is installed (like a single-speed (NOT fixed gear)), the efficiency depends almost entirely on the the bio-mechanical pedaling efficiency. In other words, if you don't apply even power throughout the pedal stroke, the efficiency of the entire system drops off dramatically, at this point, losses due to chain misalignment are barely measurable, let alone being perceptible by the rider. I believe John is focused on the efficiency of the chain drive system alone, not the biomechanical efficiency of the person plus the chain. Certainly I was... After all one's "pedal stroke" while it can be altered by practice, to an extent, is essentially a down and back power stroke for even the best riders and a sort of "built in" part of one's riding. 3. Make matters worse by introducing a spring tension system. Now in addition to the bio mechanical inefficiencies, you're adding the ability of the chain drive to take up slack in the system, which allows _you_ to pedal even more inefficiently. Here's a graphic representation: https://hanswinter.wordpress.com/200...your-spinscan/ I think that, and the rest of your post is complete ********. -- Cheers, John B. Ahh, that may be the common transportation rider pedal stroke but pedaling circles is normal for a high performance rider. Though I can no longer hold it up for long and now reserve it for climbing or sprinting. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Something I've been wondering about.
On 2019-03-20 09:21, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 1:43:31 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2019-03-19 05:37, AMuzi wrote: On 3/19/2019 6:32 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: Last Sunday I was on my usual weekly "long ride" (which was hardly as long as it used to be). And I was sort of looking down and the chain was on the big chain ring and the 5th cassette sprocket (9 speed cassette) and I got to thinking. Note the friction losses for a chain drive are usually considered to be very low, the usual efficiency of a chain drive is usually reckoned to be "up to" 98%. But the instructions for installing a chain drive is always to ensure that the drive and driven sprockets are exactly in line. But the conventional bicycle with it's multiple front and rear sprockets does not have the sprockets aligned except in two instances, assuming the usual chain line dimensions. When on the large front chain ring and (usually) the center cassette sprocket on an uneven numbered cassette, and when on the small front chain ring and a larger cassette sprocket. Perhaps two sprockets larger than center. So, if the usually chain efficiency figures are used the chain is delivering the 98%+ efficiency only twice in a possible 18 speed range. What efficiency is being delivered during the periods when the chain is not perfectly aligned? And should one worry about it? Classic chain is roller chain and yes those run dramatically worse when chainline is askew. But after Sedisport, modern derailleur chain has interrupted sideplates with no full roller so they are quite forgiving of misalignment or, viewed another way, better shifting on derailleur systems. One downside is much faster wear but since they are relatively cheaper to make, we just throw them out sooner. I don't know the numbers for efficiency of derailleur chain at various angles but I think you're right although it may well be a reasonable tradeoff for other features. The Sachs-Sedis chains were the best and longest lasting I ever had on the road bike. The bad news is that I used up my last one in 2018 :-( As for cheaper, I don't think that's true. A good KMC 7-speed costs around $20. The Sachs-Sedis used to retain for $5-6 which would probably be $12-23 in today's Dollars. Lesson learned: If you find good stuff like this buy a larger stash. A much larger one. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ The Wipperman Conex chain is supposed to wear almost twice as long as the second best but they are heavy as hell. I used Wippermann "Schaltkette" in my younger days but they sure wore out faster than the Sachs-Sedis. Both were heavy. On a bicycle heavy is usually good because then stuff tends to last. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Just wondering | Davey Crockett[_13_] | Racing | 3 | July 24th 17 10:35 AM |
Just wondering | The UniSLAB | Unicycling | 5 | August 11th 07 05:51 PM |
just wondering???? | rem48 | Unicycling | 11 | August 6th 07 08:56 PM |
Been Wondering Where Tam Is?? | Gags | Australia | 13 | June 25th 07 10:10 PM |
Just wondering | Terri | Rides | 1 | June 23rd 06 06:38 PM |