|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Inside a Chainglider after 3500km with zero chain maintenance
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 19:37:14 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote: John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:55:28 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:12:40 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:31:42 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:43:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2015 11:48 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 10:25:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2015 4:22 AM, James wrote: On 12/04/15 16:26, Ralph Barone wrote: Could you squeeze a 2 gear cluster onto a Rohloff hub? A 17-16 with a derailleur would split the Rohloff ratios quite nicely (admittedly, by throwing away the one main advantage of the hub). You can get SA IGH that takes a cassette. You can then effectively do away with the triple chainring and front derailleur. That's a popular setup with Bike Friday folding bikes. See "What is the SRAM 3x9 Dual Drive? " at https://www.bikefriday.com/bicycles/faqs/ (However, our Fridays have more conventional gears: front triple cranks, 9 speed rear derailleurs.) Or use a two or three chain rings and shift the front, which would be a relatively easy modification. A 50-16, for example, gives a 84.38 gear inches while a 49-16 ration is 82.69 which is less then a shift from a 16 to 17 tooth cassette cog which is from 84.38 to 79.41. That's probably the easiest way to split the ratios on a Rohloff, but rear derailleurs shift better than the front ones, so I was just exploring the idea space. I've still got half-step gearing on three old bikes. That means the freewheels are wide spaced, and the two big chainrings are very close in tooth count - for example, 52 & 47 teeth. When chainring tooth counts are that close, shifting between them is very easy. It's nowhere near as difficult as, say, shifting 42 to 52. Not that I'm advocating half-step gearing, BTW. Modern setups do shift easier. While I've never tried it I think that it is likely that if the front sprockets varied by only one or two teeth, as the cassette usually does that shifting would be very similar to the rear. It is probably a bit radical but one could design a 10 or 11 speed chain wheel setup. Say 11 speeds on the front and 14 on the back. Bragging Rights! For real bragging rights you really need an intermediate gearshaft between the bottom bracket and the rear hub, especially if that intermediate drive had an SRAM Dual drive 3x9 on it. With a single chain using entirely off-the shelf parts, it would be hard to beat an SRAM Dual Drive 3x9 with triple front chainrings (81 gears, although clearly many duplicates). Adding the intermediate Dual drive shaft to that would give 1458 gears (including duplicates), but finding them all with 5 changers might be challenging! Not really, given that electric gear changers are becoming more and more common. A single chip added to the changer could turn 1,458 options into just click - click - click :-) In theory, yes - a bit more like F1 gearboxes though, as you need to be able to get direct access to "favourite" gears instead of having to go through all of them sequentially - so extra buttons needed. And of course, it would all need setting up with the sprocket sizes in use at the time, so that duplicates could be skipped. Nothing that couldn't be programmed into a fairly simple chip, although you'd need to select carefully to get enough interrupts for the control buttons. Apparently a modern F1 steering wheel has more processing power than was used - in total - for the lunar landings. Likely so. If you only count CPU frequency, cores or cache. But if you look at the entire system, memory, I/O, lines of code, etc., then I doubt it. But "power", per se, is highly overrated. My first "electronic calculator" had, if I remember correctly, a 4 bit CPU and could do add, subtract and divide as fast as you could punch the keys. I doubt that a super fast 4 core CPU would have been faster. -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Inside a Chainglider after 3500km with zero chain maintenance
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 19:37:14 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote: John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:55:28 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:12:40 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:31:42 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:43:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2015 11:48 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 10:25:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2015 4:22 AM, James wrote: On 12/04/15 16:26, Ralph Barone wrote: Could you squeeze a 2 gear cluster onto a Rohloff hub? A 17-16 with a derailleur would split the Rohloff ratios quite nicely (admittedly, by throwing away the one main advantage of the hub). You can get SA IGH that takes a cassette. You can then effectively do away with the triple chainring and front derailleur. That's a popular setup with Bike Friday folding bikes. See "What is the SRAM 3x9 Dual Drive? " at https://www.bikefriday.com/bicycles/faqs/ (However, our Fridays have more conventional gears: front triple cranks, 9 speed rear derailleurs.) Or use a two or three chain rings and shift the front, which would be a relatively easy modification. A 50-16, for example, gives a 84.38 gear inches while a 49-16 ration is 82.69 which is less then a shift from a 16 to 17 tooth cassette cog which is from 84.38 to 79.41. That's probably the easiest way to split the ratios on a Rohloff, but rear derailleurs shift better than the front ones, so I was just exploring the idea space. I've still got half-step gearing on three old bikes. That means the freewheels are wide spaced, and the two big chainrings are very close in tooth count - for example, 52 & 47 teeth. When chainring tooth counts are that close, shifting between them is very easy. It's nowhere near as difficult as, say, shifting 42 to 52. Not that I'm advocating half-step gearing, BTW. Modern setups do shift easier. While I've never tried it I think that it is likely that if the front sprockets varied by only one or two teeth, as the cassette usually does that shifting would be very similar to the rear. It is probably a bit radical but one could design a 10 or 11 speed chain wheel setup. Say 11 speeds on the front and 14 on the back. Bragging Rights! For real bragging rights you really need an intermediate gearshaft between the bottom bracket and the rear hub, especially if that intermediate drive had an SRAM Dual drive 3x9 on it. With a single chain using entirely off-the shelf parts, it would be hard to beat an SRAM Dual Drive 3x9 with triple front chainrings (81 gears, although clearly many duplicates). Adding the intermediate Dual drive shaft to that would give 1458 gears (including duplicates), but finding them all with 5 changers might be challenging! Not really, given that electric gear changers are becoming more and more common. A single chip added to the changer could turn 1,458 options into just click - click - click :-) In theory, yes - a bit more like F1 gearboxes though, as you need to be able to get direct access to "favourite" gears instead of having to go through all of them sequentially - so extra buttons needed. O.K. two chips and it can remember favorite gears too. Maybe one more chip and it could remember gears used for, say more then 3 minutes, which would make it essentially self programming. It could be sold as a "Turing Gear Changer" for huge sums of money. And of course, it would all need setting up with the sprocket sizes in use at the time, so that duplicates could be skipped. Nothing that couldn't be programmed into a fairly simple chip, although you'd need to select carefully to get enough interrupts for the control buttons. Apparently a modern F1 steering wheel has more processing power than was used - in total - for the lunar landings. -- Cheers, John B. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Inside a Chainglider after 3500km with zero chain maintenance
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 1:50:09 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 19:37:14 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: Not really, given that electric gear changers are becoming more and more common. A single chip added to the changer could turn 1,458 options into just click - click - click :-) In theory, yes - a bit more like F1 gearboxes though, as you need to be able to get direct access to "favourite" gears instead of having to go through all of them sequentially - so extra buttons needed. O.K. two chips and it can remember favorite gears too. Maybe one more chip and it could remember gears used for, say more then 3 minutes, which would make it essentially self programming. It could be sold as a "Turing Gear Changer" for huge sums of money. And of course, it would all need setting up with the sprocket sizes in use at the time, so that duplicates could be skipped. Nothing that couldn't be programmed into a fairly simple chip, although you'd need to select carefully to get enough interrupts for the control buttons. Apparently a modern F1 steering wheel has more processing power than was used - in total - for the lunar landings. Er, why complicate matters? Especially when you guys are already such a long way behind the cutting edge? Check out http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLINGsmover.html for a fully adaptive electronically shifting setup I had ten years ago, including an electronic adaptive suspension system, all powered by the dynohub. Note that the bike is actually a Trek, albeit a model designed by Trek Benelux, and so could, at least theoretically, have been offered by Trek to its loyal customer base in the States. I don't *know* why they didn't, but details on the bike made me think they decided up front that Americans aren't sophisticated enough for such a bike, so why not go all-out for what Shermie and the other begrudgers call "a euro-elite bike". This Trek, incidentally, by always automatically keeping me in the right gear for any grade and any speed and any input (or any desired performance according to several selectable programs), cut around ten per cent off my time for a measured section I rode most days, compared to the same Shimano HGB with manual changing that I had on another comparable bike. Trek sold this luxuriously fitted-up, completely trimmed bike, nothing extra to buy, zero options list because they were all fitted as standard, zero aftermarket because nothing else was necessary, for 1449 Euro including sales taxes in Belgium or, then, less than USD1200 if you remove the huge eurotaxes. I paid very much less than that, of course. A superior modern approach to the mindless proliferation of mechanical ratios you want is to use a steplessly variable transmission, and NuVinci makes a reliable SVT inside a bicycle hub with the range of 300+% sanctioned by Joe Riel. Andre Jute The cutting edge of cycling |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Inside a Chainglider after 3500km with zero chain maintenance
https://www.google.com/#q=planetary+...le+hub+reviews https://www.google.com/#q=nuvinci+n360+hub+review uhuhuh first glance 2 reviewers cannah build wheels ! S. Brown-Harris has a good piece..... |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Inside a Chainglider after 3500km with zero chain maintenance
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:55:07 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote: AMuzi considered Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:57:00 -0500 the perfect time to write: On 4/15/2015 1:37 PM, Phil W Lee wrote: John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:55:28 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:12:40 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:31:42 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:43:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2015 11:48 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 10:25:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2015 4:22 AM, James wrote: On 12/04/15 16:26, Ralph Barone wrote: Could you squeeze a 2 gear cluster onto a Rohloff hub? A 17-16 with a derailleur would split the Rohloff ratios quite nicely (admittedly, by throwing away the one main advantage of the hub). You can get SA IGH that takes a cassette. You can then effectively do away with the triple chainring and front derailleur. That's a popular setup with Bike Friday folding bikes. See "What is the SRAM 3x9 Dual Drive? " at https://www.bikefriday.com/bicycles/faqs/ (However, our Fridays have more conventional gears: front triple cranks, 9 speed rear derailleurs.) Or use a two or three chain rings and shift the front, which would be a relatively easy modification. A 50-16, for example, gives a 84.38 gear inches while a 49-16 ration is 82.69 which is less then a shift from a 16 to 17 tooth cassette cog which is from 84.38 to 79.41. That's probably the easiest way to split the ratios on a Rohloff, but rear derailleurs shift better than the front ones, so I was just exploring the idea space. I've still got half-step gearing on three old bikes. That means the freewheels are wide spaced, and the two big chainrings are very close in tooth count - for example, 52 & 47 teeth. When chainring tooth counts are that close, shifting between them is very easy. It's nowhere near as difficult as, say, shifting 42 to 52. Not that I'm advocating half-step gearing, BTW. Modern setups do shift easier. While I've never tried it I think that it is likely that if the front sprockets varied by only one or two teeth, as the cassette usually does that shifting would be very similar to the rear. It is probably a bit radical but one could design a 10 or 11 speed chain wheel setup. Say 11 speeds on the front and 14 on the back. Bragging Rights! For real bragging rights you really need an intermediate gearshaft between the bottom bracket and the rear hub, especially if that intermediate drive had an SRAM Dual drive 3x9 on it. With a single chain using entirely off-the shelf parts, it would be hard to beat an SRAM Dual Drive 3x9 with triple front chainrings (81 gears, although clearly many duplicates). Adding the intermediate Dual drive shaft to that would give 1458 gears (including duplicates), but finding them all with 5 changers might be challenging! Not really, given that electric gear changers are becoming more and more common. A single chip added to the changer could turn 1,458 options into just click - click - click :-) In theory, yes - a bit more like F1 gearboxes though, as you need to be able to get direct access to "favourite" gears instead of having to go through all of them sequentially - so extra buttons needed. And of course, it would all need setting up with the sprocket sizes in use at the time, so that duplicates could be skipped. Nothing that couldn't be programmed into a fairly simple chip, although you'd need to select carefully to get enough interrupts for the control buttons. Apparently a modern F1 steering wheel has more processing power than was used - in total - for the lunar landings. My girlfriend has a coffee machine with more power than the Apollo systems. Including everything used in design, simulations, and for all ground based monitoring? That's why I said "in total". Heck, I've had wris****ches with more processing power than the Apollo systems themselves! Would that be what they call "overkill"? The Apollo program computer did what it was intended to do :-) and after all, I've owned a number of watches that had no computer power at all and still told me what time it was :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Inside a Chainglider after 3500km with zero chain maintenance
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:00:57 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote: John B. Slocomb considered Thu, 16 Apr 2015 07:50:05 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 19:37:14 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:55:28 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:12:40 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:31:42 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:43:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2015 11:48 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 10:25:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2015 4:22 AM, James wrote: On 12/04/15 16:26, Ralph Barone wrote: Could you squeeze a 2 gear cluster onto a Rohloff hub? A 17-16 with a derailleur would split the Rohloff ratios quite nicely (admittedly, by throwing away the one main advantage of the hub). You can get SA IGH that takes a cassette. You can then effectively do away with the triple chainring and front derailleur. That's a popular setup with Bike Friday folding bikes. See "What is the SRAM 3x9 Dual Drive? " at https://www.bikefriday.com/bicycles/faqs/ (However, our Fridays have more conventional gears: front triple cranks, 9 speed rear derailleurs.) Or use a two or three chain rings and shift the front, which would be a relatively easy modification. A 50-16, for example, gives a 84.38 gear inches while a 49-16 ration is 82.69 which is less then a shift from a 16 to 17 tooth cassette cog which is from 84.38 to 79.41. That's probably the easiest way to split the ratios on a Rohloff, but rear derailleurs shift better than the front ones, so I was just exploring the idea space. I've still got half-step gearing on three old bikes. That means the freewheels are wide spaced, and the two big chainrings are very close in tooth count - for example, 52 & 47 teeth. When chainring tooth counts are that close, shifting between them is very easy. It's nowhere near as difficult as, say, shifting 42 to 52. Not that I'm advocating half-step gearing, BTW. Modern setups do shift easier. While I've never tried it I think that it is likely that if the front sprockets varied by only one or two teeth, as the cassette usually does that shifting would be very similar to the rear. It is probably a bit radical but one could design a 10 or 11 speed chain wheel setup. Say 11 speeds on the front and 14 on the back. Bragging Rights! For real bragging rights you really need an intermediate gearshaft between the bottom bracket and the rear hub, especially if that intermediate drive had an SRAM Dual drive 3x9 on it. With a single chain using entirely off-the shelf parts, it would be hard to beat an SRAM Dual Drive 3x9 with triple front chainrings (81 gears, although clearly many duplicates). Adding the intermediate Dual drive shaft to that would give 1458 gears (including duplicates), but finding them all with 5 changers might be challenging! Not really, given that electric gear changers are becoming more and more common. A single chip added to the changer could turn 1,458 options into just click - click - click :-) In theory, yes - a bit more like F1 gearboxes though, as you need to be able to get direct access to "favourite" gears instead of having to go through all of them sequentially - so extra buttons needed. O.K. two chips and it can remember favorite gears too. Maybe one more chip and it could remember gears used for, say more then 3 minutes, which would make it essentially self programming. It could be sold as a "Turing Gear Changer" for huge sums of money. The simple way is to do it like radio presets - hold down the button for more than a couple of seconds and it stores the current gear combination under that button. You could probably lift the controller from a radio and just slot it in. Nope, that is Apollo era work. It has to be totally automatic to sell these days. Modern man(kids) don't need no stinking badges. -- Cheers, John B. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Inside a Chainglider after 3500km with zero chain maintenance
like SpaceX...
say cut the XXXX here...how many gears does Hebe friction loose the rider ? or gear inches ? now some drk isgona write A HEBE G FLOATS ON NO FRICTION LUBE uhu...there's drag on shallow lube films, unintended contact...wear...embeeded grit leading to lube inefficiencies....in transoit damage causing pinch frictions...you call it. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Inside a Chainglider after 3500km with zero chain maintenance
On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 01:34:21 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote: John B. Slocomb considered Fri, 17 Apr 2015 06:59:50 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:55:07 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: AMuzi considered Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:57:00 -0500 the perfect time to write: On 4/15/2015 1:37 PM, Phil W Lee wrote: John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:55:28 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:12:40 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:31:42 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:43:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2015 11:48 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 10:25:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/12/2015 4:22 AM, James wrote: On 12/04/15 16:26, Ralph Barone wrote: Could you squeeze a 2 gear cluster onto a Rohloff hub? A 17-16 with a derailleur would split the Rohloff ratios quite nicely (admittedly, by throwing away the one main advantage of the hub). You can get SA IGH that takes a cassette. You can then effectively do away with the triple chainring and front derailleur. That's a popular setup with Bike Friday folding bikes. See "What is the SRAM 3x9 Dual Drive? " at https://www.bikefriday.com/bicycles/faqs/ (However, our Fridays have more conventional gears: front triple cranks, 9 speed rear derailleurs.) Or use a two or three chain rings and shift the front, which would be a relatively easy modification. A 50-16, for example, gives a 84.38 gear inches while a 49-16 ration is 82.69 which is less then a shift from a 16 to 17 tooth cassette cog which is from 84.38 to 79.41. That's probably the easiest way to split the ratios on a Rohloff, but rear derailleurs shift better than the front ones, so I was just exploring the idea space. I've still got half-step gearing on three old bikes. That means the freewheels are wide spaced, and the two big chainrings are very close in tooth count - for example, 52 & 47 teeth. When chainring tooth counts are that close, shifting between them is very easy. It's nowhere near as difficult as, say, shifting 42 to 52. Not that I'm advocating half-step gearing, BTW. Modern setups do shift easier. While I've never tried it I think that it is likely that if the front sprockets varied by only one or two teeth, as the cassette usually does that shifting would be very similar to the rear. It is probably a bit radical but one could design a 10 or 11 speed chain wheel setup. Say 11 speeds on the front and 14 on the back. Bragging Rights! For real bragging rights you really need an intermediate gearshaft between the bottom bracket and the rear hub, especially if that intermediate drive had an SRAM Dual drive 3x9 on it. With a single chain using entirely off-the shelf parts, it would be hard to beat an SRAM Dual Drive 3x9 with triple front chainrings (81 gears, although clearly many duplicates). Adding the intermediate Dual drive shaft to that would give 1458 gears (including duplicates), but finding them all with 5 changers might be challenging! Not really, given that electric gear changers are becoming more and more common. A single chip added to the changer could turn 1,458 options into just click - click - click :-) In theory, yes - a bit more like F1 gearboxes though, as you need to be able to get direct access to "favourite" gears instead of having to go through all of them sequentially - so extra buttons needed. And of course, it would all need setting up with the sprocket sizes in use at the time, so that duplicates could be skipped. Nothing that couldn't be programmed into a fairly simple chip, although you'd need to select carefully to get enough interrupts for the control buttons. Apparently a modern F1 steering wheel has more processing power than was used - in total - for the lunar landings. My girlfriend has a coffee machine with more power than the Apollo systems. Including everything used in design, simulations, and for all ground based monitoring? That's why I said "in total". Heck, I've had wris****ches with more processing power than the Apollo systems themselves! Would that be what they call "overkill"? The Apollo program computer did what it was intended to do :-) and after all, I've owned a number of watches that had no computer power at all and still told me what time it was :-) Well, yes, they did do more than just tell the time, so in that sense they were overkill. The downside of the very low processing capability of the Apollo on-board computers was they were so primitive that there was nothing that we would nowadays recognise as a user interface, instead, the user had to learn to operate the computer interface. Heck, they didn't even have any non-volatile storage! Each time it was started from scratch (cold boot), it had to be manually configured by entering codes directly into the registers to tell it to accept program & data either from memory (in which case you had to manually enter that - as machine code - as well) or from the data uplink from mission control. I can remember when your description was "state of the art" and I suspect that in Apollo days it wasn't exactly an antique. Somewhere I read that NASA was using IBM 360/75 computers in those days with an amazing 8.000 words of core memory, although MIT (I believe) built the actual module computers. The computer on the LM actually didn't do what it was intended to do, which was why Eagle had to be hand-flown to her landing. The computer couldn't cope with the data rate from the simultaneous inputs from the inertial navigation and radar altimeter, and kept resetting itself. -- cheers, John B. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Inside a Chainglider after 3500km with zero chain maintenance
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Inside a Chainglider after 3500km with zero chain maintenance
On 4/15/2015 1:42 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Well, I have a dualdrive 3x9 lying around, which I may get around to building into a rear wheel for my Bacchetta if I can find a suitable 36 hole 559 rim. The additional gear range just might make it possible for me to ride again, if I can stay upright at a low enough speed. Spinning makes low-speed balance easier on a 'bent than mashing. -- T0m $herm@n |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Factory lube/chaincase experiment (X8 chain, Chainglider chain case,Surly SS & Rohloff gears) | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 15 | July 14th 13 08:07 PM |
4605km from one chain: KMC X8 and Hebie Chainglider does the business | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 26 | June 19th 11 04:54 PM |
Chain rub on inside of Front Derailleur | [email protected] | Techniques | 5 | July 3rd 06 01:46 PM |
Front Derailleur problems (chain falls off inside) | Post to newsgroup | General | 11 | October 25th 03 03:18 AM |
Front Derailleur problems (chain falls off inside) | Post to newsgroup | Techniques | 1 | October 23rd 03 08:23 PM |