A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Something I've been wondering about.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 19th 19, 10:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Something I've been wondering about.

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/
Ads
  #12  
Old March 20th 19, 12:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Something I've been wondering about.

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.


  #13  
Old March 20th 19, 01:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Something I've been wondering about.

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.


  #14  
Old March 20th 19, 01:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Something I've been wondering about.

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 07:16:26 -0700 (PDT), 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.

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/

The figure 8 graph is where your power is being applied. The pinched points are the dead spots in your stroke. With concentration, you can achieve a much more linear application, as is shown in the second graph. However, this was on a trainer, indoors. Most riders,even good competitive amateurs, can't achieve pedaling efficiency on the road without good training and coaching.

To be more succinct, any losses due to misalignment are not only negligible, but nearly moot until the rider can achieve the most bio mechanically efficient pedal stroke, and even then it won't make a helluva lot of difference.

This is why riding a fixed gear bike is more efficient - the lack of the freewheel and tension spring force a more effective pedal stroke - it smooths you out. Once the rider can develop a smooth power curve, a fixed gear becomes eve more efficient.

And no, before anyone starts prattling on, we are _NOT_ talking about getting more out of the system than you put in (oh no, he's talking about perpetual motion machines!!!) it's purely a less lossy system. You get more _OF_ what you put in, NOT more _THAN_ you put in.

Biomechanical efficiency is the real point here. This is why it's better to be able to shift to an easier gear on the climbs - It keeps the _rider_ in an efficient pedaling zone. The rider biomechanical efficiency is significantly more important than the mechanical losses in the system.

I know, I know...there are people in this forum who have a pedal stroke so efficient that the losses from the freehub and sprung chain are irrelevant. Sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

In reality, the most noticeable effect of misalignment is chain wear.


You seem to have ignored the subject of which I spoke and blundered
off onto a totally different subject. 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.

You seem intent on "proving" that chain angle is of little effect on
the world and then you immediately disclaim that theory in your last
paragraph when you tell us that chain misalignment causes chain wear.

Unless, of course, you intend to maintain that wear due to
misalignment that, somehow, is unrelated to a loss in chain drive
efficiency.

--
Cheers,
John B.


  #15  
Old March 20th 19, 01:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Something I've been wondering about.

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


  #16  
Old March 20th 19, 02:08 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Something I've been wondering about.

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.

--
JS
  #17  
Old March 20th 19, 03:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Something I've been wondering about.

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.


  #18  
Old March 20th 19, 03:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Something I've been wondering about.

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 :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.


  #19  
Old March 20th 19, 03:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,041
Default Something I've been wondering about.

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.
  #20  
Old March 20th 19, 01:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JC[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Something I've been wondering about.

On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 9:08:26 PM UTC-4, 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 may be right.


You made a whole lot of statements that are ********, and irrelevant.


Both of those claims are demonstrably false.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.