Chain vs Shaft

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:55:30 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:26:55 -0800, Colin Campbell
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:50:29 -0600, "Webster"
wrote:

Been away from cycling for awhile, (15 years since I was "serious" about
it), but I find that I again have the time and inclination to get back in
the saddle.

Checking with the experts here; has shaft drive technology evolved to the
point where it is a viable alternative to chain drives on medium to high end
road bikes?

Thanks in advance for any feedback beyond a simple "yes" or "no".

Dear Webster,

Shaft-drive bikes were popular back around 1900 for both touring and
racing.

During the bike boom, almost every major manufacturer shifted to
producing shaft-drives.

Major Taylor was paid to set records on a shaft-drive that used a
supposedly more efficient design than the typical bevel gears.

Nothing has changed. Shaft drive is always going to be heavier and
less efficient than a chain drive, but it still works. You can add
internal hub gearing, but that goes back to 1900, too.

You won't see any shaft-drive in the Tour de France because it's too
heavy and loses too much power.

You won't see many shaft-drives elsewhere because they're expensive
oddballs that offer no advantage over chain-drive derailleurs and
internal hubs except that they _might_ work better when covered with
ice and avoid chain oil.

You can buy a shaft-drive because it's fun to own something odd, but
there's no particularly new technology. The modern ones use the same
supposedly inferior bevel gears.

Here's Major Taylor on the supposedly superior Sager chainless bike,
which used rollers instead of gear teeth:
http://www.ltolman.org/chainless-b2.jpg

Details of the Sager and Victor chainless drive that used rollers are
on page 638:

http://www.la84foundation.org/Sports...XXXIII06zk.pdf



It is amazing to look at Major Taylor and his bikes (there is one of his
bikes on display at the ADT Event Center Velodrome on the grounds of the
Home Depot Center in Carson, CA).

The bikes are recognizable today as very similar to today's track bikes
(ignoring some of the carbon fiber concoctions ridden by the elite
racers). Handlebars look quite similar. The wheels have 32 spokes,
although the rims are made of different materials. Geometry looks much
the same, though no doubt the frame weighed a lot more.

Dear Colin,

It's hard to find many radically developments in bicycle designs after
1900.

What we see are usually either . . .

Refinements of a basic idea, such as ~300 tpi tires, 10 rear cogs
instead of 4, 24 spokes instead of 28, cables and controls set in a
slightly more convenient or smaller spot for racers, and so on.

Or else just revivals of old designs . . .

Most "new" bottom brackets, drives, hub designs, pedals, frames,
suspension, and so on.

The quick-release of 1927 strikes me as a lonely exception:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_release

The moving axle of the Cambio Corsa mentioned in the same article
pretty much disappeared and wasn't much of an improvement over
competing derailleurs, so it's hard to call that a success.

I hope that other posters will point out arguably radical developments
in bicycle design in the last 50 years, since I like to ponder such
things.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

The disk brake comes to mind as a possible contender, but I have no
idea when disk brakes were first tried on a bicycle.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:55:30 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:26:55 -0800, Colin Campbell
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:50:29 -0600, "Webster"
wrote:

Been away from cycling for awhile, (15 years since I was "serious" about
it), but I find that I again have the time and inclination to get back
in
the saddle.

Checking with the experts here; has shaft drive technology evolved to
the
point where it is a viable alternative to chain drives on medium to high
end
road bikes?

Thanks in advance for any feedback beyond a simple "yes" or "no".

Dear Webster,

Shaft-drive bikes were popular back around 1900 for both touring and
racing.

During the bike boom, almost every major manufacturer shifted to
producing shaft-drives.

Major Taylor was paid to set records on a shaft-drive that used a
supposedly more efficient design than the typical bevel gears.

Nothing has changed. Shaft drive is always going to be heavier and
less efficient than a chain drive, but it still works. You can add
internal hub gearing, but that goes back to 1900, too.

You won't see any shaft-drive in the Tour de France because it's too
heavy and loses too much power.

You won't see many shaft-drives elsewhere because they're expensive
oddballs that offer no advantage over chain-drive derailleurs and
internal hubs except that they _might_ work better when covered with
ice and avoid chain oil.

You can buy a shaft-drive because it's fun to own something odd, but
there's no particularly new technology. The modern ones use the same
supposedly inferior bevel gears.

Here's Major Taylor on the supposedly superior Sager chainless bike,
which used rollers instead of gear teeth:
http://www.ltolman.org/chainless-b2.jpg

Details of the Sager and Victor chainless drive that used rollers are
on page 638:

http://www.la84foundation.org/Sports.../outXXXIII06/o
utXXXIII06zk.pdf



It is amazing to look at Major Taylor and his bikes (there is one of his
bikes on display at the ADT Event Center Velodrome on the grounds of the
Home Depot Center in Carson, CA).

The bikes are recognizable today as very similar to today's track bikes
(ignoring some of the carbon fiber concoctions ridden by the elite
racers). Handlebars look quite similar. The wheels have 32 spokes,
although the rims are made of different materials. Geometry looks much
the same, though no doubt the frame weighed a lot more.

Dear Colin,

It's hard to find many radically developments in bicycle designs after
1900.

What we see are usually either . . .

Refinements of a basic idea, such as ~300 tpi tires, 10 rear cogs
instead of 4, 24 spokes instead of 28, cables and controls set in a
slightly more convenient or smaller spot for racers, and so on.

Or else just revivals of old designs . . .

Most "new" bottom brackets, drives, hub designs, pedals, frames,
suspension, and so on.

The quick-release of 1927 strikes me as a lonely exception:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_release

The moving axle of the Cambio Corsa mentioned in the same article
pretty much disappeared and wasn't much of an improvement over
competing derailleurs, so it's hard to call that a success.

Derailers (RIP Sheldon) existed in the 19th century? Hm. So they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailleur_gears#History

I hope that other posters will point out arguably radical developments
in bicycle design in the last 50 years, since I like to ponder such
things.

There have been two radical reshapings of the basic safety bicycle, both
from the 20th century: the recumbent and the full-suspension mountain
bike.

The recumbent has not much caught on, but has proven far and away the
fastest bicycle in pure speed trials. That deserves note. The mountain
bike frame has seen some radical designs--a few even successful--in its
journey into deeper extremes of specificity of purpose or speed over
rough terrain combined with pedaling efficiency.

Some of the linkages, especially things like the Horst link and the wide
variety of wheel-path-oriented linkages (especially the exotic
full-floating-shock designs) are quite radical.

But overarching that is a bigger issue: previous suspension designs
didn't work, and it seems to have come down to a lack of damping
control, which is pretty much why vendors with experience in
motorcycling were able to capture such a large chunk of the mountain
bike suspension business.

The disk brake comes to mind as a possible contender, but I have no
idea when disk brakes were first tried on a bicycle.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

It has to be at least as late as the Bowden Cable, right? Which, by the
way, was patented in 1897, thus amounting to possibly the last notable
innovation that created the modern bicycle.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=brN...9570&source=gb
s_selected_pages&cad=0_1

In pedals, I think the Crank Brothers mechanism is elegant and novel.

I wonder if part of the issue is that much of what we think of as "new
technology" was roughly conceived of by the ancients, but without the
design refinement (or construction/materials technology) that made them
work. So plunger derailers were not very nice, but parallelogram
derailers worked, and slant-parallelogram derailers worked very well
indeed.

The reason I bring up this argument about conception and production is
because of Leonardo da Vinci.

It's all well and good to say he sketched the helicopter, but he did so
in a way that did not show its ultimate shape, and it required numerous
technological innovations that did not appear until later, and even the
basic mechanism was impossible.

On the other hand, it's no revelation that production technologies and
process control have been quiet but immense forces in the history of
20th century manufacturing (and thus in the 20th century). But
refinement is still only refinement.

Wait, what was the question?

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Feb 21, 9:37 pm, still just me wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:24:06 -0800, Larry Dickman

wrote:

I disagree, unless you're talking about a sealed chain case. Cleaning
and lubing the chain is my biggest maintenance item besides airing up
tires. Derailleurs, once adjusted properly, don't require much
attention. Internal geared hubs have a cable too, which demands some
attention.

I have to agree from a strict engineering viewpoint. External gears,
oiled chains, alloy chainwheels, all running around in a dirty,
sometimes wet environment. It's not exactly what we'd design for
longevity.

But, considering the cost/weight of the alternative, it seems to get
the job done with acceptable wear and cost.

The strict engineering viewpoint is that as service life goes to
infinity there are going to be some clear trade offs in other areas.
A hundred years ago, when there was a valid shaft vs. chain debate in
the marketplace, everyone agreed that the lifespan of a chain was
"long enough" to justify other advantages. Interestingly enough, it's
the standardization and near monopoly of chain drives that has allowed
manufacturers to push towards more expensive and less durable by
adding more gears. Shaft drives have been languishing in part because
they haven't developed any standards. Nobody wants to buy one because
they won't be able to get proprietary parts when the company selling
them goes out of business because nobody's buying. With manufacturers
recently agreeing on a 10x11mm standard for belt drives, look for them
to become the go-to pairing for internally geared hubs.

On Feb 21, 6:32 pm, "Webster" wrote:
"A Muzi" wrote in message

...



Webster wrote:
Been away from cycling for awhile, (15 years since I was "serious" about
it), but I find that I again have the time and inclination to get back in
the saddle.
Checking with the experts here; has shaft drive technology evolved to the
point where it is a viable alternative to chain drives on medium to high
end road bikes?
Thanks in advance for any feedback beyond a simple "yes" or "no".

Compared to a fixed gear chain bike in sal****er slush, today's shaft
drives are probably better (as long as there's no economic analysis).

For a road bike in normal conditions, the chain wins, hands down.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Thanks for all of the quick and informative replies. It sounds like the
chain wins. Dang it. I ride motorcycles too and the shaft drive is just so
maintenance free.

My primary riding was, and will be, Texas backroads; 15 to 18 mph pace;
rides up to 50 miles.

If you were willing to spend for a shaft drive, you might be willing
to spend for a Rohloff 14-speed rear hub. Then search around for the
most enclosed chain case you can get. The combination would be at
least as good as any shaft drive bike. (And you could save a bundle
by settling for fewer speeds and a less expensive hub gear.)

If a chain is reasonably well lubricated and (much more importantly)
is sealed from road grit, its life is _extremely_ long. I'd bet you
wouldn't wear one out in ten years.

For examples of this, think about the timing chains on many cars,
driving the camshafts. Or primary drive chains on Harleys. Or
millions upon millions of drive chains operating factory machinery.

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:00:10 GMT, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
Dear Colin,

It's hard to find many radically developments in bicycle designs after
1900.

What we see are usually either . . .

Refinements of a basic idea, such as ~300 tpi tires, 10 rear cogs
instead of 4, 24 spokes instead of 28, cables and controls set in a
slightly more convenient or smaller spot for racers, and so on.

Or else just revivals of old designs . . .

Most "new" bottom brackets, drives, hub designs, pedals, frames,
suspension, and so on.

The quick-release of 1927 strikes me as a lonely exception:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_release

The moving axle of the Cambio Corsa mentioned in the same article
pretty much disappeared and wasn't much of an improvement over
competing derailleurs, so it's hard to call that a success.

Derailers (RIP Sheldon) existed in the 19th century? Hm. So they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailleur_gears#History

I hope that other posters will point out arguably radical developments
in bicycle design in the last 50 years, since I like to ponder such
things.

There have been two radical reshapings of the basic safety bicycle, both
from the 20th century: the recumbent and the full-suspension mountain
bike.

Dear Ryan,

Recumbents appeared as early as 1896:
http://www.bicycleman.com/history/history.htm

By 1934, the UCI banned recumbents:

For outdoor races like Paris-Limoges, a more upright seating
position was used, as in this picture of Morand:
http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/misc/velocar.htm

The text below the picture of Morand leading the 1934
Paris-Limoges race is a little misleading, since it explains
that Morand was often dropped on hills and says that he did
not win that day--but it fails to mention that he'd won the
same race the previous year.

***

It could be argued that suspension damping is modern and that
motorcycle-style telescopic forks are different, but full suspension,
front and rear, was commonplace on bicycles around 1900:

An 1890 US patent for full suspension:

http://patentpending.blogs.com/paten...uspension.html

Full-suspension ~1900 Pope shaft-drive:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/ONTHEM...bject_299.html

Full-suspension ~1900 Pierce chain-drive:
http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/1775.htm

See far below for picture and long description of the 1889 Don No. 2
full-suspension bicycle.

***

Endless bicycles had front or rear suspension, but not both.

Rear suspension, 1885 Whippet safety, same year as the Rover appeared
as the first commercially successful safety bicycle:

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...2&imagepos=112

An 1887 Columbia poster with front suspension:
http://jimlangley.com/page.cfm?pageID=44

An 1889 example of the famous Victor half-heart front suspension:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/ONTHEM...object_22.html

The 1891 Gormully & Jeffrey rear suspension:
http://www.metzbicyclemuseum.com/Bike19a.html

A 1903 Tribune 2-speed shaft-drive with front suspension:

http://www.nostalgic.net/index.asp?S...ft+drive%2Ejpg

***

Here's the 1889 full-suspension Don No. 2:

http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac....cycles/Don.gif

"The Don Spring-Frame No.2 Dwarf Safety Roadster. We have here a
practicable spring frame without complication in design or working. On
the top of the rear forks there is a double link, connecting them with
the top of the seat pillar, which receives the saddle-pin. The lower
forks are horizontal, and are taken forward beyond the bracket; and
between the end and lower frame tube there is a strong coil spring.
The bracket, where the seat-pillar and front tube unite, is hinged, to
permit of a downward motion which is checked by the action of the
spring. This produces a very easy motion for the rider, and, so to
speak, smoothes the road, reducing concussion and vibration to a low
point. The front forks are double, and not continuous. The straight
ones run to within 3in. of the axle, and are connected by a spring
with the pilot wheel forks, to which they are pivoted in the centre;
this also helps to take the strain off the forks when the brake is
applied. The machine is a very good one, and with balls all parts,
etc., the price is £18."

http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac....cles/Devey.htm

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Andrew Muzi wrote:
Webster wrote:
Been away from cycling for awhile, (15 years since I was "serious"
about it), but I find that I again have the time and inclination to
get back in the saddle.
Checking with the experts here; has shaft drive technology evolved to
the point where it is a viable alternative to chain drives on medium
to high end road bikes?
Thanks in advance for any feedback beyond a simple "yes" or "no".

Compared to a fixed gear chain bike in sal****er slush, today's shaft
drives are probably better (as long as there's no economic analysis).[...]

What is sal****er slush?

For places like the upper US Midwest, a sealed case with the chain
running in an oil bath would be the low maintenance option for winter
riding.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:55:30 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:26:55 -0800, Colin Campbell
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:50:29 -0600, "Webster"
wrote:

Been away from cycling for awhile, (15 years since I was "serious"
about
it), but I find that I again have the time and inclination to get back
in
the saddle.

Checking with the experts here; has shaft drive technology evolved to
the
point where it is a viable alternative to chain drives on medium to
high end
road bikes?

Thanks in advance for any feedback beyond a simple "yes" or "no".

Dear Webster,

Shaft-drive bikes were popular back around 1900 for both touring and
racing.

During the bike boom, almost every major manufacturer shifted to
producing shaft-drives.

Major Taylor was paid to set records on a shaft-drive that used a
supposedly more efficient design than the typical bevel gears.

Nothing has changed. Shaft drive is always going to be heavier and
less efficient than a chain drive, but it still works. You can add
internal hub gearing, but that goes back to 1900, too.

You won't see any shaft-drive in the Tour de France because it's too
heavy and loses too much power.

You won't see many shaft-drives elsewhere because they're expensive
oddballs that offer no advantage over chain-drive derailleurs and
internal hubs except that they _might_ work better when covered with
ice and avoid chain oil.

You can buy a shaft-drive because it's fun to own something odd, but
there's no particularly new technology. The modern ones use the same
supposedly inferior bevel gears.

Here's Major Taylor on the supposedly superior Sager chainless bike,
which used rollers instead of gear teeth:
http://www.ltolman.org/chainless-b2.jpg

Details of the Sager and Victor chainless drive that used rollers are
on page 638:

http://www.la84foundation.org/Sports...XXXIII06zk.pdf



It is amazing to look at Major Taylor and his bikes (there is one of his
bikes on display at the ADT Event Center Velodrome on the grounds of the
Home Depot Center in Carson, CA).

The bikes are recognizable today as very similar to today's track bikes
(ignoring some of the carbon fiber concoctions ridden by the elite
racers). Handlebars look quite similar. The wheels have 32 spokes,
although the rims are made of different materials. Geometry looks much
the same, though no doubt the frame weighed a lot more.

Dear Colin,

It's hard to find many radically developments in bicycle designs after
1900.

What we see are usually either . . .

Refinements of a basic idea, such as ~300 tpi tires, 10 rear cogs
instead of 4, 24 spokes instead of 28, cables and controls set in a
slightly more convenient or smaller spot for racers, and so on.

Or else just revivals of old designs . . .

Most "new" bottom brackets, drives, hub designs, pedals, frames,
suspension, and so on.

The quick-release of 1927 strikes me as a lonely exception:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_release

The moving axle of the Cambio Corsa mentioned in the same article
pretty much disappeared and wasn't much of an improvement over
competing derailleurs, so it's hard to call that a success.

I hope that other posters will point out arguably radical developments
in bicycle design in the last 50 years, since I like to ponder such
things.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

The disk brake comes to mind as a possible contender, but I have no
idea when disk brakes were first tried on a bicycle.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Don't know how radical this is.. but whatever became of the idea (from the
'80's, if my mind serves) that elliptically shaped front cranks provided
some kind of benefit? Are they still being used?

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:33:37 -0600, "Webster"
wrote:

Don't know how radical this is.. but whatever became of the idea (from the
'80's, if my mind serves) that elliptically shaped front cranks provided
some kind of benefit? Are they still being used?

Dear Webster,

Some riders love their oval chain-rings, but I don't think that anyone
is making them in 2008.

Oval chain-rings appeared shortly after the safety bicycle became a
commercial success in 1885 and keep re-appearing. This post has
examples, including oval shaft-drive:


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...35a1559232c34\

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

-snip snip snip-
Webster wrote:
Don't know how radical this is.. but whatever became of the idea (from the
'80's, if my mind serves) that elliptically shaped front cranks provided
some kind of benefit? Are they still being used?

And you thought helmets were a bitter subject...
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:33:37 -0600, "Webster"
wrote:

Don't know how radical this is.. but whatever became of the idea (from the
'80's, if my mind serves) that elliptically shaped front cranks provided
some kind of benefit? Are they still being used?

Dear Webster,

Some riders love their oval chain-rings, but I don't think that anyone
is making them in 2008.

Actually, there are several boutique makers selling non-round rings. One
notable version:

http://www.osymetric.com/

Check out that eccentricity! A few pros like these things, especially
TTists.

The Rotor Q-Ring distinguishes itself by being position-adjustable:

http://www.bikeparts.com/search_results.asp?id=BPC328976

Set it to either traditional or Biopace mode!

Oval chain-rings appeared shortly after the safety bicycle became a
commercial success in 1885 and keep re-appearing. This post has
examples, including oval shaft-drive:


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...35a1559232c34\

One is tempted to say about this and other cycling technology that
they're here to stay, but not very popular.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."