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.

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.

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

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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.

On 4/17/2015 8:07 PM, wrote:
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.


Ask a tribologist.

--
T0m $herm@n

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