|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Elliptical Chainrings
Seems more people are riding elliptical chainrings than I remember in
years past. Not a new thing but has never become a majority preference in the TdF, either. Comments? Everything I've ever read, including a quick Google just now, says there is no evidence to support the idea that they're in any way better. -S- |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Elliptical Chainrings
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 9:33:17 AM UTC-7, Steve Freides wrote:
Seems more people are riding elliptical chainrings than I remember in years past. Not a new thing but has never become a majority preference in the TdF, either. Comments? Everything I've ever read, including a quick Google just now, says there is no evidence to support the idea that they're in any way There is a resurgence of these things since the orientation (clocking) of the ellipse was found to be off. Marketing.....get a winner to ride them and sell a million. Phil H better. -S- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Elliptical Chainrings
"Steve Freides" wrote in message
... Seems more people are riding elliptical chainrings than I remember in years past. Not a new thing but has never become a majority preference in the TdF, either. Comments? Everything I've ever read, including a quick Google just now, says there is no evidence to support the idea that they're in any way better. Elliptical chainrings are a GIMMICK. Why? Because gearing depends upon the number of teeth on the chainring and the number of teeth on the cassette. When spinning the crankshaft it doesn't matter one iota what shape the chainring is. All that matters is the relationship between the number of teeth on the chainring and the number of teeth on the particular cassette ring. Any idiot who thinks otherwise is just that, an idiot! -- Sir Gregory |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Elliptical Chainrings
" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" a écrit profondement:
| Elliptical chainrings are a GIMMICK. Why? | Because gearing depends upon the number of teeth on | the chainring and the number of teeth on the cassette. | When spinning the crankshaft it doesn't matter one iota | what shape the chainring is. All that matters is the | relationship between the number of teeth on the | chainring and the number of teeth on the particular | cassette ring. | Any idiot who thinks otherwise is just that, an idiot! The original concept, way back, was that the eliptical shape allowed one to transmit the same, or reasoably the same, power to the drive train whether the cranks were at TDC, BDC or any other aspect. (TDC=Top Dead Center) Davey remembers Jeff Bernard proudly sporting the "BioPace" decal on his regular (round) chainring. He didn't believe the Shimano BS either apparently. -- Davey Crockett Fly your Flag http://inconnu.freeshell.org/rbr/portugal-flag.gif **** the New World Order. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Elliptical Chainrings
Davey Crockett wrote:
" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" a écrit profondement: Elliptical chainrings are a GIMMICK. Why? Because gearing depends upon the number of teeth on the chainring and the number of teeth on the cassette. When spinning the crankshaft it doesn't matter one iota what shape the chainring is. All that matters is the relationship between the number of teeth on the chainring and the number of teeth on the particular cassette ring. Any idiot who thinks otherwise is just that, an idiot! The original concept, way back, was that the eliptical shape allowed one to transmit the same, or reasoably the same, power to the drive train whether the cranks were at TDC, BDC or any other aspect. (TDC=Top Dead Center) Wouldn't it make more sense, then for the pedaling circle to be elliptical, rather than the chainrings? I'm not quite sure how one would achieve that end, but Sir Gregory Hall seems to have a point here - if you're still pedaling circles, it doesn't matter how the chainrings are shaped. Davey remembers Jeff Bernard proudly sporting the "BioPace" decal on his regular (round) chainring. He didn't believe the Shimano BS either apparently. Ah, yes, I did try BioPace back in the day. NB: they, nor any other non-round chainrings, are terribly useful on a fixed gear. -S- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Elliptical Chainrings
On 18/07/2013 9:26 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
Davey Crockett wrote: " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" a écrit profondement: Elliptical chainrings are a GIMMICK. Why? Because gearing depends upon the number of teeth on the chainring and the number of teeth on the cassette. When spinning the crankshaft it doesn't matter one iota what shape the chainring is. All that matters is the relationship between the number of teeth on the chainring and the number of teeth on the particular cassette ring. Any idiot who thinks otherwise is just that, an idiot! The original concept, way back, was that the eliptical shape allowed one to transmit the same, or reasoably the same, power to the drive train whether the cranks were at TDC, BDC or any other aspect. (TDC=Top Dead Center) Wouldn't it make more sense, then for the pedaling circle to be elliptical, rather than the chainrings? I'm not quite sure how one would achieve that end, but Sir Gregory Hall seems to have a point here - if you're still pedaling circles, it doesn't matter how the chainrings are shaped. Davey remembers Jeff Bernard proudly sporting the "BioPace" decal on his regular (round) chainring. He didn't believe the Shimano BS either apparently. Ah, yes, I did try BioPace back in the day. NB: they, nor any other non-round chainrings, are terribly useful on a fixed gear. -S- Isn't it the point that elliptical chain rings actually vary the gear ratio? Forget the number of teeth, they're only there 'cos a chain is used. Think of diameter. Variable diameter. Honest. Think drive belt? Big pulley vs small pulley? -- Chris 'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.' (Oscar Wilde.) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Elliptical Chainrings
Mower Man wrote:
On 18/07/2013 9:26 PM, Steve Freides wrote: Davey Crockett wrote: " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·" a écrit profondement: Elliptical chainrings are a GIMMICK. Why? Because gearing depends upon the number of teeth on the chainring and the number of teeth on the cassette. When spinning the crankshaft it doesn't matter one iota what shape the chainring is. All that matters is the relationship between the number of teeth on the chainring and the number of teeth on the particular cassette ring. Any idiot who thinks otherwise is just that, an idiot! The original concept, way back, was that the eliptical shape allowed one to transmit the same, or reasoably the same, power to the drive train whether the cranks were at TDC, BDC or any other aspect. (TDC=Top Dead Center) Wouldn't it make more sense, then for the pedaling circle to be elliptical, rather than the chainrings? I'm not quite sure how one would achieve that end, but Sir Gregory Hall seems to have a point here - if you're still pedaling circles, it doesn't matter how the chainrings are shaped. Davey remembers Jeff Bernard proudly sporting the "BioPace" decal on his regular (round) chainring. He didn't believe the Shimano BS either apparently. Ah, yes, I did try BioPace back in the day. NB: they, nor any other non-round chainrings, are terribly useful on a fixed gear. -S- Isn't it the point that elliptical chain rings actually vary the gear ratio? Forget the number of teeth, they're only there 'cos a chain is used. Think of diameter. Variable diameter. Honest. Think drive belt? Big pulley vs small pulley? But big pulley versus small pulley, first of all, means something different for belt drive than for one with teeth. If one pedal revolution gets you 39 teeth spaced evenly apart, what's the difference what the shape is? For a belt driven system, a change in shape could at least mean a change in circumference. -S- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Elliptical Chainrings
In article ,
Steve Freides wrote: Mower Man wrote: Isn't it the point that elliptical chain rings actually vary the gear ratio? Forget the number of teeth, they're only there 'cos a chain is used. Think of diameter. Variable diameter. Honest. Think drive belt? Big pulley vs small pulley? But big pulley versus small pulley, first of all, means something different for belt drive than for one with teeth. If one pedal revolution gets you 39 teeth spaced evenly apart, what's the difference what the shape is? For a belt driven system, a change in shape could at least mean a change in circumference. For 1 complete revolution, there is no difference. Absolutely correct. However what about 1/4 of a revolution or 1/8 of a revolution? Then the diameter of the "big pulley" does differs. Yan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Elliptical Chainrings
Yannick Tremblay yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) wrote:
In article , Steve Freides wrote: Mower Man wrote: Isn't it the point that elliptical chain rings actually vary the gear ratio? Forget the number of teeth, they're only there 'cos a chain is used. Think of diameter. Variable diameter. Honest. Think drive belt? Big pulley vs small pulley? But big pulley versus small pulley, first of all, means something different for belt drive than for one with teeth. If one pedal revolution gets you 39 teeth spaced evenly apart, what's the difference what the shape is? For a belt driven system, a change in shape could at least mean a change in circumference. For 1 complete revolution, there is no difference. Absolutely correct. However what about 1/4 of a revolution or 1/8 of a revolution? Then the diameter of the "big pulley" does differs. I think that's the point of Biopace and this new system (has it got a name yet?). The strength needed to rotate 1 cycle is equal, but with an elliptical chainring this strength is supposed to be more equally distributed. Given the way everything is shaking and non-smooth there must be an effect. I would think this effect is negative, also given the silent passing of Biopace, but given the performance of Froome that doesn't make sense. I wonder: is it still possible to stand up on your pedals when you're going uphill, or is this why Froome is almost always sitting? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Elliptical Chainrings
none (Yannick Tremblay) wrote:
In article , Steve Freides wrote: Mower Man wrote: Isn't it the point that elliptical chain rings actually vary the gear ratio? Forget the number of teeth, they're only there 'cos a chain is used. Think of diameter. Variable diameter. Honest. Think drive belt? Big pulley vs small pulley? But big pulley versus small pulley, first of all, means something different for belt drive than for one with teeth. If one pedal revolution gets you 39 teeth spaced evenly apart, what's the difference what the shape is? For a belt driven system, a change in shape could at least mean a change in circumference. For 1 complete revolution, there is no difference. Absolutely correct. However what about 1/4 of a revolution or 1/8 of a revolution? Then the diameter of the "big pulley" does differs. Yan You misread what I wrote. I don't assume that a change in circumference matters, either - you could accomplish the same thing with a larger or smaller, but still round, pulley. The reason tests cannot confirm that this idea works is simple - it doesn't. Neither the rear wheel nor your legs care about the shape of the chainring. When you're pulling one tooth's worth of chain, that's what you're doing, period. -S- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Schwinn 438 Elliptical Trainer! Highly Recommend! | rapee | Techniques | 0 | May 28th 08 07:39 AM |
New Schwinn 438 Elliptical Trainer! Highly Recommend! | rapee | Techniques | 0 | May 28th 08 07:38 AM |
Precor Elliptical: Watts vs Cyclist's? | (PeteCresswell) | Techniques | 3 | January 21st 08 08:08 PM |
How to quiet elliptical? | Dan | Techniques | 2 | November 13th 07 07:44 PM |
Headlight that mounts on Elliptical Handlebar ? | swamprun | Techniques | 5 | May 24th 06 03:21 AM |