Something I've been wondering about.

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.

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.

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

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/

On 2019-03-19 13:43, 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.


I meant $12-14. They cost surprisingly little and that wasn't even an
online price but LBS.


Lesson learned: If you find good stuff like this buy a larger stash. A
much larger one.


--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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.

KMC Z 72 is $10 at the LBS. Work great for 8 pseed and down.


--
sig 56

On 2019-03-19 14:16, David Scheidt wrote:
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.

KMC Z 72 is $10 at the LBS. Work great for 8 pseed and down.


Thanks, duly noted in the bike wiki file. That is a very good price.

Though the other reason why I prefer longer lasting parts is
environmental. We can't put spent bike chains in the recycling bin here.
They have to go into the regular household trash, with oil and all on there.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:43:33 -0700, 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.


I'm not sure that a good businessman would considering maintaining a
large inventory as being more efficient than the same money invested
in a profit making part of his bluishness.

We can of course ask Andrew to comment as he seems to have been in
business since getting off the Ark. Successfully, one assumes :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

On 3/19/2019 7:11 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:43:33 -0700, 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.


I'm not sure that a good businessman would considering maintaining a
large inventory as being more efficient than the same money invested
in a profit making part of his bluishness.

We can of course ask Andrew to comment as he seems to have been in
business since getting off the Ark. Successfully, one assumes :-)


Economics papers are written on the subject which is
complex. One balances opportunity cost of inventory=cash,
time value (NPV) of inventory=cash, expected inflation vs
expected depreciation and then there's always the fact that
you can't sell it if you don't have it (or a reliable
source, which adds cost & uncertainty)

short answer- I don't know and neither does anyone else.

I did see in the paper Saturday that Adidas expects $400
million in reduced US revenue for 2019 from ongoing
inventory shortages and supply chain disruptions. They
employ some expensive and skilled people and yet...

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

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:45:43 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/19/2019 7:11 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:43:33 -0700, 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.


I'm not sure that a good businessman would considering maintaining a
large inventory as being more efficient than the same money invested
in a profit making part of his bluishness.

We can of course ask Andrew to comment as he seems to have been in
business since getting off the Ark. Successfully, one assumes :-)


Economics papers are written on the subject which is
complex. One balances opportunity cost of inventory=cash,
time value (NPV) of inventory=cash, expected inflation vs
expected depreciation and then there's always the fact that
you can't sell it if you don't have it (or a reliable
source, which adds cost & uncertainty)

short answer- I don't know and neither does anyone else.

I did see in the paper Saturday that Adidas expects $400
million in reduced US revenue for 2019 from ongoing
inventory shortages and supply chain disruptions. They
employ some expensive and skilled people and yet...

Years ago the "JIT" - "Just In Time" supply system was considered an
innovation, introduced I believe, by the Japanese. When we were
involved in supporting the international oil companies in Indonesia we
used an abridged system of that sort in our computerized inventory
system.

Our system used the time taken to deliver in Indonesia (shipping and
customs time) from our Singapore warehouse and added the delivery
time, if any, from the source to the warehouse, which varied from an
hour or so if sourced in Singapore to a month or more if sourced in
the U.S. The system automatically updated the times with each item
supplied. It wasn't perfect but it did go a long way to keep the
customer(s) satisfied.

--
Cheers,
John B.

On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:46:03 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/19/2019 7:11 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:43:33 -0700, 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.


I'm not sure that a good businessman would considering maintaining a
large inventory as being more efficient than the same money invested
in a profit making part of his bluishness.

We can of course ask Andrew to comment as he seems to have been in
business since getting off the Ark. Successfully, one assumes :-)


Economics papers are written on the subject which is
complex. One balances opportunity cost of inventory=cash,
time value (NPV) of inventory=cash, expected inflation vs
expected depreciation and then there's always the fact that
you can't sell it if you don't have it (or a reliable
source, which adds cost & uncertainty)

short answer- I don't know and neither does anyone else.

I did see in the paper Saturday that Adidas expects $400
million in reduced US revenue for 2019 from ongoing
inventory shortages and supply chain disruptions. They
employ some expensive and skilled people and yet...

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

I would think Adidas would attribute their $400 million revenue decline to the ongoing NCAA basketball FBI criminal bribery investigation. And Nike can probably expect a $400 million decline in revenue due to the Duke basketball player breaking his shoe at the beginning of the game and injuring his knee.