|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
dimensions of wheels derailleurs chainwheels ...where?
ACQUIRE straight edges and large angle tools like factory plywood corners n a WAl metal yardstick, metal 1 foot ruler with metric
pens |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
dimensions of wheels derailleurs chainwheels ...where?
On 26/12/15 18:22, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/26/2015 11:59 AM, Edmund wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:54:22 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 8:29 AM, Tosspot wrote: On 26/12/15 13:24, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 5:40 AM, Edmund wrote: Hallo guys, I considering to make a hand_rowing_bicycle and need to know the dimensions of normal available/commonly used parts but so far I didn't find it. Does anyone have a source for this? Thanks Edmund Which part? Well the wheels derailleurs chainwheels ... obviously. Front wheels are mostly 9mm axles and 100mm face to face. Rear wheels are mostly 10mm axles and can be 120mm, 125mm, 130mm, 135mm and out to 160mm for various formats. In a drawing ( post from avagadro7 ) I see a with of 135 mm but that varies as well? Another thing I see is that the spokes are mounted asymmetrical on the rear wheel, that wouldn't be my first choice. I understand why they do this but on a ( my ) handbike this is not necessary, still I want to use common parts as much a possible for obvious money related reasons. Rim sizes span not only a large range but have more increments than can be readily absorbed. Beyond that, tire width choices for most popular diameters have grown greatly in recent years. I am looking for a smooth ride with low rolling resistance, what do you think? 26 or 28 inch for the rear wheel with what kind of tire?? The front won't carry much weight so that is less important. Derailleur compatibility with modern shifters has also become overly complex of late. Suffice to say that one ought to plan for matching brand/model shifters and gear changers in most cases. Bigger sized tooth wheels seems better to me but I read although that is true, the difference in efficiency ( between 11 tooth and 16 tooth ) is rather small, still if possible I like to fit a cassette with 16 teeth for the smallest tooth wheel. Now, what outer diameter I get with a tooth wheel with 53 teeth? ( 53 seems to be a "standard" size ) I think you are probably planning some sort of project for which in the abstract no simple advice will help. Sorta like planning a custom car and asking 'what's a good engine? do they work with every gearbox?' I have to start somewhere. Once you get to specific problems, the contributors here at RBT have deep knowledge and experience. Generally, there are too many standards exceptions and foibles. I noticed, they even use the width of there thumbs as measurements units :-) and decent units mixed through each other. Edmund The most efficient rolling resistance in a commonly available clincher will be a Michelin Pro 700-23 running about 115psi on a Velocity A23 (or similar setup)[1]. The rear rims are asymmetric which I think addresses your hub question. I think you're wrong there. Warsteiner showed in 2011 that the van der Waals forces were coincident to the sideways force of the drive chain, resulting in a slightly less than optimum performance of the Pro 700-23. He proved that the Schwalbe Marathon Plus was in fact optimal. 53t is nominally 53/3.14159 or 16.87 teeth=8.435" at rivet diameter. I measure 221mm dia at the tooth tops. 16t start on modern 9-10-11 cassettes will be s custom setup but not prohibitively difficult. Note that a 53x16 is equivalent to a 36x11 or a 40x12. But that assumes a typical 1/8th pitch. A 3/32 pitch saves another 4% on rolling resistance from the drive chain only. [1] for typical (150 to 230lb bike+rider) loads on typical paved road surfaces. Granted. We aren't talking off road here which is a *completely* different ball game. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
dimensions of wheels derailleurs chainwheels ...where?
The most efficient rolling resistance in a commonly available clincher
will be a Michelin Pro 700-23 running about 115psi on a Velocity A23 (or similar setup). I've been using the Michelin Pro 4 and was disappointed to see that it tested about 12 watts worse than the Continental GP 4000S II: http://velonews.competitor.com/where...ing-tires-fast |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
dimensions of wheels derailleurs chainwheels ...where?
On 12/26/2015 3:29 PM, Tosspot wrote:
On 26/12/15 18:22, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 11:59 AM, Edmund wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:54:22 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 8:29 AM, Tosspot wrote: On 26/12/15 13:24, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 5:40 AM, Edmund wrote: Hallo guys, I considering to make a hand_rowing_bicycle and need to know the dimensions of normal available/commonly used parts but so far I didn't find it. Does anyone have a source for this? Thanks Edmund Which part? Well the wheels derailleurs chainwheels ... obviously. Front wheels are mostly 9mm axles and 100mm face to face. Rear wheels are mostly 10mm axles and can be 120mm, 125mm, 130mm, 135mm and out to 160mm for various formats. In a drawing ( post from avagadro7 ) I see a with of 135 mm but that varies as well? Another thing I see is that the spokes are mounted asymmetrical on the rear wheel, that wouldn't be my first choice. I understand why they do this but on a ( my ) handbike this is not necessary, still I want to use common parts as much a possible for obvious money related reasons. Rim sizes span not only a large range but have more increments than can be readily absorbed. Beyond that, tire width choices for most popular diameters have grown greatly in recent years. I am looking for a smooth ride with low rolling resistance, what do you think? 26 or 28 inch for the rear wheel with what kind of tire?? The front won't carry much weight so that is less important. Derailleur compatibility with modern shifters has also become overly complex of late. Suffice to say that one ought to plan for matching brand/model shifters and gear changers in most cases. Bigger sized tooth wheels seems better to me but I read although that is true, the difference in efficiency ( between 11 tooth and 16 tooth ) is rather small, still if possible I like to fit a cassette with 16 teeth for the smallest tooth wheel. Now, what outer diameter I get with a tooth wheel with 53 teeth? ( 53 seems to be a "standard" size ) I think you are probably planning some sort of project for which in the abstract no simple advice will help. Sorta like planning a custom car and asking 'what's a good engine? do they work with every gearbox?' I have to start somewhere. Once you get to specific problems, the contributors here at RBT have deep knowledge and experience. Generally, there are too many standards exceptions and foibles. I noticed, they even use the width of there thumbs as measurements units :-) and decent units mixed through each other. Edmund The most efficient rolling resistance in a commonly available clincher will be a Michelin Pro 700-23 running about 115psi on a Velocity A23 (or similar setup)[1]. The rear rims are asymmetric which I think addresses your hub question. I think you're wrong there. Warsteiner showed in 2011 that the van der Waals forces were coincident to the sideways force of the drive chain, resulting in a slightly less than optimum performance of the Pro 700-23. He proved that the Schwalbe Marathon Plus was in fact optimal. 53t is nominally 53/3.14159 or 16.87 teeth=8.435" at rivet diameter. I measure 221mm dia at the tooth tops. 16t start on modern 9-10-11 cassettes will be s custom setup but not prohibitively difficult. Note that a 53x16 is equivalent to a 36x11 or a 40x12. But that assumes a typical 1/8th pitch. A 3/32 pitch saves another 4% on rolling resistance from the drive chain only. [1] for typical (150 to 230lb bike+rider) loads on typical paved road surfaces. Granted. We aren't talking off road here which is a *completely* different ball game. 1. OK, a tire something like that, we agree. 2. Chain rivets are one half inch apart. 3/32" is the nominal width of derailleur chain. 3. Right, offroad is a different set of problems and hardwood tracks are different yet again. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
dimensions of wheels derailleurs chainwheels ...where?
On 12/26/2015 3:40 PM, Bertrand wrote:
The most efficient rolling resistance in a commonly available clincher will be a Michelin Pro 700-23 running about 115psi on a Velocity A23 (or similar setup). I've been using the Michelin Pro 4 and was disappointed to see that it tested about 12 watts worse than the Continental GP 4000S II: http://velonews.competitor.com/where...ing-tires-fast Granted differences may be found but something of that type is indicated. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
dimensions of wheels derailleurs chainwheels ...where?
On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 4:29:31 PM UTC-5, Tosspot wrote:
On 26/12/15 18:22, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 11:59 AM, Edmund wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:54:22 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 8:29 AM, Tosspot wrote: On 26/12/15 13:24, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 5:40 AM, Edmund wrote: Hallo guys, I considering to make a hand_rowing_bicycle and need to know the dimensions of normal available/commonly used parts but so far I didn't find it. Does anyone have a source for this? Thanks Edmund Which part? Well the wheels derailleurs chainwheels ... obviously. Front wheels are mostly 9mm axles and 100mm face to face. Rear wheels are mostly 10mm axles and can be 120mm, 125mm, 130mm, 135mm and out to 160mm for various formats. In a drawing ( post from avagadro7 ) I see a with of 135 mm but that varies as well? Another thing I see is that the spokes are mounted asymmetrical on the rear wheel, that wouldn't be my first choice. I understand why they do this but on a ( my ) handbike this is not necessary, still I want to use common parts as much a possible for obvious money related reasons. Rim sizes span not only a large range but have more increments than can be readily absorbed. Beyond that, tire width choices for most popular diameters have grown greatly in recent years. I am looking for a smooth ride with low rolling resistance, what do you think? 26 or 28 inch for the rear wheel with what kind of tire?? The front won't carry much weight so that is less important. Derailleur compatibility with modern shifters has also become overly complex of late. Suffice to say that one ought to plan for matching brand/model shifters and gear changers in most cases. Bigger sized tooth wheels seems better to me but I read although that is true, the difference in efficiency ( between 11 tooth and 16 tooth ) is rather small, still if possible I like to fit a cassette with 16 teeth for the smallest tooth wheel. Now, what outer diameter I get with a tooth wheel with 53 teeth? ( 53 seems to be a "standard" size ) I think you are probably planning some sort of project for which in the abstract no simple advice will help. Sorta like planning a custom car and asking 'what's a good engine? do they work with every gearbox?' I have to start somewhere. Once you get to specific problems, the contributors here at RBT have deep knowledge and experience. Generally, there are too many standards exceptions and foibles. I noticed, they even use the width of there thumbs as measurements units :-) and decent units mixed through each other. Edmund The most efficient rolling resistance in a commonly available clincher will be a Michelin Pro 700-23 running about 115psi on a Velocity A23 (or similar setup)[1]. The rear rims are asymmetric which I think addresses your hub question. I think you're wrong there. Warsteiner showed in 2011 that the van der Waals forces were coincident to the sideways force of the drive chain, resulting in a slightly less than optimum performance of the Pro 700-23. He proved that the Schwalbe Marathon Plus was in fact optimal. 53t is nominally 53/3.14159 or 16.87 teeth=8.435" at rivet diameter. I measure 221mm dia at the tooth tops. 16t start on modern 9-10-11 cassettes will be s custom setup but not prohibitively difficult. Note that a 53x16 is equivalent to a 36x11 or a 40x12. But that assumes a typical 1/8th pitch. A 3/32 pitch saves another 4% on rolling resistance from the drive chain only. [1] for typical (150 to 230lb bike+rider) loads on typical paved road surfaces. Granted. We aren't talking off road here which is a *completely* different ball game. BBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZ IDEA THAT LARGER RINGS/COGS ARE EQUIVALENT TO smaller diameter cogs/rings is illogical |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
dimensions of wheels derailleurs chainwheels ...where?
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:29:27 +0000, Tosspot wrote:
On 26/12/15 18:22, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 11:59 AM, Edmund wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:54:22 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 8:29 AM, Tosspot wrote: On 26/12/15 13:24, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 5:40 AM, Edmund wrote: Hallo guys, I considering to make a hand_rowing_bicycle and need to know the dimensions of normal available/commonly used parts but so far I didn't find it. Does anyone have a source for this? Thanks Edmund Which part? Well the wheels derailleurs chainwheels ... obviously. Front wheels are mostly 9mm axles and 100mm face to face. Rear wheels are mostly 10mm axles and can be 120mm, 125mm, 130mm, 135mm and out to 160mm for various formats. In a drawing ( post from avagadro7 ) I see a with of 135 mm but that varies as well? Another thing I see is that the spokes are mounted asymmetrical on the rear wheel, that wouldn't be my first choice. I understand why they do this but on a ( my ) handbike this is not necessary, still I want to use common parts as much a possible for obvious money related reasons. Rim sizes span not only a large range but have more increments than can be readily absorbed. Beyond that, tire width choices for most popular diameters have grown greatly in recent years. I am looking for a smooth ride with low rolling resistance, what do you think? 26 or 28 inch for the rear wheel with what kind of tire?? The front won't carry much weight so that is less important. Derailleur compatibility with modern shifters has also become overly complex of late. Suffice to say that one ought to plan for matching brand/model shifters and gear changers in most cases. Bigger sized tooth wheels seems better to me but I read although that is true, the difference in efficiency ( between 11 tooth and 16 tooth ) is rather small, still if possible I like to fit a cassette with 16 teeth for the smallest tooth wheel. Now, what outer diameter I get with a tooth wheel with 53 teeth? ( 53 seems to be a "standard" size ) I think you are probably planning some sort of project for which in the abstract no simple advice will help. Sorta like planning a custom car and asking 'what's a good engine? do they work with every gearbox?' I have to start somewhere. Once you get to specific problems, the contributors here at RBT have deep knowledge and experience. Generally, there are too many standards exceptions and foibles. I noticed, they even use the width of there thumbs as measurements units :-) and decent units mixed through each other. Edmund The most efficient rolling resistance in a commonly available clincher will be a Michelin Pro 700-23 running about 115psi on a Velocity A23 (or similar setup)[1]. The rear rims are asymmetric which I think addresses your hub question. I think you're wrong there. Warsteiner showed in 2011 that the van der Waals forces were coincident to the sideways force of the drive chain, resulting in a slightly less than optimum performance of the Pro 700-23. He proved that the Schwalbe Marathon Plus was in fact optimal. 53t is nominally 53/3.14159 or 16.87 teeth=8.435" at rivet diameter. I measure 221mm dia at the tooth tops. 16t start on modern 9-10-11 cassettes will be s custom setup but not prohibitively difficult. Note that a 53x16 is equivalent to a 36x11 or a 40x12. But that assumes a typical 1/8th pitch. A 3/32 pitch saves another 4% on rolling resistance from the drive chain only. Do you have a source for that? I don't see why a larger pitch should have better efficiency and 4 % is quite a lot. Edmund |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
dimensions of wheels derailleurs chainwheels ...where?
On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 7:25:28 PM UTC-5, Edmund wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:29:27 +0000, Tosspot wrote: Snipped But that assumes a typical 1/8th pitch. A 3/32 pitch saves another 4% on rolling resistance from the drive chain only. Do you have a source for that? I don't see why a larger pitch should have better efficiency and 4 % is quite a lot. Edmund Tossport used the wrong terminology. There is NO difference in PITCH between a 1/8" chain (4/32") and a 3/32" chain. What is different, as A. muzi pointed out, is the width which is what the 1/8" and 3/32" indicates. Cheers |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
dimensions of wheels derailleurs chainwheels ...where?
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:59:11 -0000 (UTC), Edmund
wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:54:22 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 8:29 AM, Tosspot wrote: On 26/12/15 13:24, AMuzi wrote: On 12/26/2015 5:40 AM, Edmund wrote: Hallo guys, I considering to make a hand_rowing_bicycle and need to know the dimensions of normal available/commonly used parts but so far I didn't find it. Does anyone have a source for this? Thanks Edmund Which part? Well the wheels derailleurs chainwheels ... obviously. Front wheels are mostly 9mm axles and 100mm face to face. Rear wheels are mostly 10mm axles and can be 120mm, 125mm, 130mm, 135mm and out to 160mm for various formats. In a drawing ( post from avagadro7 ) I see a with of 135 mm but that varies as well? Another thing I see is that the spokes are mounted asymmetrical on the rear wheel, that wouldn't be my first choice. I understand why they do this but on a ( my ) handbike this is not necessary, still I want to use common parts as much a possible for obvious money related reasons. Rim sizes span not only a large range but have more increments than can be readily absorbed. Beyond that, tire width choices for most popular diameters have grown greatly in recent years. I am looking for a smooth ride with low rolling resistance, what do you think? 26 or 28 inch for the rear wheel with what kind of tire?? The front won't carry much weight so that is less important. Derailleur compatibility with modern shifters has also become overly complex of late. Suffice to say that one ought to plan for matching brand/model shifters and gear changers in most cases. Bigger sized tooth wheels seems better to me but I read although that is true, the difference in efficiency ( between 11 tooth and 16 tooth ) is rather small, still if possible I like to fit a cassette with 16 teeth for the smallest tooth wheel. Now, what outer diameter I get with a tooth wheel with 53 teeth? ( 53 seems to be a "standard" size ) Not to be snotty, but you probably need to gain some more knowledge about bikes/parts. Example: Chain wheels - the front chain sprocket - are commonly made in 44, 48, 50, and 52 tooth versions (and probably a multitude of other numbers), and even worse, the dimension of the bolt circle where they fasten to the crank vary both in diameter and in number of bolts. A better tactic might be to determine what you want to do and perhaps an outline of what you want to build and how you plan on building it and then ask for help in solving how to do it. Graeme Obree, for example, designed a bike that is powered by foot operated levers, rather then a crank, which is at least similar in concept to a rowed bike. See below for a video: http://road.cc/content/news/61807-vi...bent-rolls-out and https://www.google.co.th/search?q=gr...HcXGCZYQsAQIHw The gears are reported to be in the 200 inch range, or equivalent to about a 100 tooth chain ring and a 11 tooth rear sprocket :-) I think you are probably planning some sort of project for which in the abstract no simple advice will help. Sorta like planning a custom car and asking 'what's a good engine? do they work with every gearbox?' I have to start somewhere. Once you get to specific problems, the contributors here at RBT have deep knowledge and experience. Generally, there are too many standards exceptions and foibles. I noticed, they even use the width of there thumbs as measurements units :-) and decent units mixed through each other. Edmund -- cheers, John B. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
dimensions of wheels derailleurs chainwheels ...where?
On 27/12/15 00:44, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 7:25:28 PM UTC-5, Edmund wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:29:27 +0000, Tosspot wrote: Snipped But that assumes a typical 1/8th pitch. A 3/32 pitch saves another 4% on rolling resistance from the drive chain only. Do you have a source for that? I don't see why a larger pitch should have better efficiency and 4 % is quite a lot. Edmund Tossport used the wrong terminology. There is NO difference in PITCH between a 1/8" chain (4/32") and a 3/32" chain. What is different, as A. muzi pointed out, is the width which is what the 1/8" and 3/32" indicates. Cheers Irony is wasted on you guys isn't it? I worked bloody hard to get so many things wrong while still sounding plausible! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chainwheels sizes available | cmcanulty | Techniques | 21 | January 31st 08 01:37 PM |
FA: Campy Athena 7-speed brakes, wheels, derailleurs, downtube shift levers - like new! | nc.rr.com | Marketplace | 0 | July 7th 07 12:11 AM |
Chainwheels | elyob | UK | 4 | November 14th 05 10:08 PM |
FS: Multiple road & mtb items: stems, cranks, cassettes, wheels, pedals, derailleurs, etc. | joe_dante | Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 05 04:14 PM |
FA: T.A. Chainwheels | Don Jernigan | Marketplace | 0 | May 10th 05 01:47 AM |