Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 85
  1. #51
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by jkidd_39 View Post
    Pics please?!

    A man willing to customize a frame with a hacksaw is someone that needs to be taking lots of pics..

    I like your style sir!
    wish granted!

    pretty much just pulled it out of the box and cut it before i even unwrapped it.

    before the mod:



    about to cut:



    the cut:



    finished product:



    more info and pics here and here.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  2. #52
    Pixie Dust Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,308
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle View Post
    why? just like carbon...and 29er wheel size...and 650b....and suspension.....and hydraulic brakes....absolutely no reason whatsoever other than MARKETING and thank goodness for companies that retardation runs rampant in the MTB community.

    there is nothing better about any of the aforementioned dynamics, to include belt drives, other than to pose a little better at the trailhead to compensate for your insecurities.

    the only radical improvement in the entire MTB market that is tangible is a gravity dropper post.
    I have to say that my single speed cred on our weekly club rides went through the roof when I rolled up on my belt drive Ventana. I really enjoy it when the belt is clean and my bike is silent when I'm pedaling. I've never had a problem with the belt breaking or derailing, even when my 200+ pounds are mashing the pedals as hard as I can to make it up a climb. With Industry Nine hubs, the connection from my feet to the rear wheel feels more direct than any other bike I've owned. The only downside I've experienced is when I ride in dusty conditions much, the belt will start making noise and I need to clean it with soap and water and put some silicone spray lube on it to quiet it back down.

    If I was going to do it again, I would definitely keep my options open and get a frame that was belt-capable.

  3. #53
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,563
    Quote Originally Posted by PoisonDartFrog View Post
    So, to summarize:

    Cons:
    Limited to single speed No, you can get internal geared hubs
    Need a special frame Yes
    Non-repairable if it breaks, must be entirely replaced Yes

    Pros:
    Slightly more efficient than a chain (debatable) I would say the opposite and not debatable since it is on Gates own website
    Slightly less maintenance than a chain I would say a lot less since other than hosing it off I have done nothing to maintain mine in almost 1000 miles
    Novelty factor I guess. It does strike up a lot of conversations but I like chatting with people.
    ...
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  4. #54
    psycho cyclo addict
    Reputation: edubfromktown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by PoisonDartFrog View Post
    So, to summarize:

    Cons:
    Limited to single speed
    Need a special frame
    Non-repairable if it breaks, must be entirely replaced

    Pros:
    Slightly more efficient than a chain (debatable)
    Slightly less maintenance than a chain
    Novelty factor
    I'll add:

    According to long time local guru who was a huge proponent until ~6 months ago:

    Better chance for success for a belt implementation on a road/cross frame where there aren't so many rocks, logs, etc.

    Best use case of all is on commuter bike.

    I'm sticking with ring/cog and Whipperman White Star 108 mondo beefy chain on my latest rigid 29er creation.
    【ツ】 eDub 【ツ】

  5. #55
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    i'll add that neither a belt nor a chain are designed or suited for constantly bashing rocks and logs and NEITHER will hold up well doing so. thus, for someone who's constantly bashing logs and rocks with their chainring a belt wouldn't be a good choice and they should go with a standard chain setup with a beefy bash guard. or learn how to properly clear obstacles.

    sounds like your "guru" was using parts for applications they weren't designed for, has poor riding skills (or both) yet then wants to bad mouth the equipment.

    weak sauce...
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  6. #56
    psycho cyclo addict
    Reputation: edubfromktown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,956
    Sure- neither belt or chain are designed for contact with rocks or logs however, particularly the latter happens on trails at times for me and I imagine others too (some logs are too large for my aging/sagging bones to get all air over).

    I've run all my single speeds with no bash guard and they've left an imprint on many logs with no ill effects on chain or ring. I had run cheapy Nashbar 8-speed chains on my SS and now have gone to beefier Whipperman's that are reminiscent of a smaller version of a moto chain.

    The big rings on my geared bikes have also left plenty of bite marks in wood and haven't ended up worse for wear either (occasionally a rock hit has bent or snapped a tooth- like 1 out of 40 which is no biggie over 3-4 years of hammering on it).

    The gent I speak of has mucho MTB skills of long duration- gravity stuff too (freeride, pump track, ...) that I no longer mess with. He had also ridden a belt drive for years.

    He launches off TTFs such as this for example:

    Just Curious- Belt Drive- WHY?-dangerwillrobinson.jpg
    【ツ】 eDub 【ツ】

  7. #57
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,563
    The funny thing is, most the belt hatters have never had one.
    The majority of those who have had one and don't like them, were 1st gen belt owners.
    There is a very small percentage of people that have had the new system and don't like it.

    Is it perfect? No but neither is a chain. So if you haven't had one or hadn't had experience with one then maybe you really shouldn't comment on it no matter what guru or who's friend's uncle's brother's coworker's bike mechanic said.

    Mine goes through some of the worst conditions possible 50+ miles a week for 6 months now with zero issues. Not one squeak, slip, etc. My trails are always wet, muddy sandy, rocky, etc and I have hit a few rocks and logs with it too. Anyone who has ridden Pisgah or anywhere else in Western NC can vouch for that. So far, it gives me a lot less grief than my chained bike.

    Also, Monogod has been around a while and has way more experience with Belts than me. I don't think he would have cut the frame of his Surly if the belt was purely a novelty.

    I still guess I probably should eventually buy a spare belt to have on hand for when this one does eventually break so I don't have any down time but I doubt I will carry it around with me.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  8. #58
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,953
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    Zero maintenance for 10,000 miles.
    Quote Originally Posted by Max24 View Post
    That's a pretty good reason over there.
    It's also complete BS... like about 95% of what he posts, unfortunately.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  9. #59
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,953
    Quote Originally Posted by jomissa View Post
    Why?
    Just because... something different, new and cool to play with and push the envelope.

    There's a reason you don't see belts on dirt bikes.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  10. #60
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    Less efficient than a chain especially the newest incarnation. And not really debatable, since Gates admits this.
    from their website:

    At the core of the drive is the CenterTrack belt. Custom made, this 11-mm pitch, carbon-fiber belt is stronger than and as efficient as a traditional bike chain.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  11. #61
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,916
    That is from marketing, they rounded up. I read an interview with the engineer (a woman by the way) who admits it is less efficient.
    Full rigid SS, Hardtail SS, Hardtail Geared, Full Suspension Geared.

  12. #62
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,953
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    And not really debatable, since Gates admits this.
    where?
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    from their website:

    At the core of the drive is the CenterTrack belt. Custom made, this 11-mm pitch, carbon-fiber belt is stronger than and as efficient as a traditional bike chain.
    He just makes things up. I think some call it pathological.
    Nice avatar, btw.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  13. #63
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,953
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    Do all the Harley Davidson riders carry an extra belt?
    Is there a single off-road motorcycle that uses a belt drive?
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  14. #64
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    That is from marketing, they rounded up. I read an interview with the engineer (a woman by the way) who admits it is less efficient.
    produce it.

    more propaganda from gates' website of lies:

    Repeated testing has found new belt drives equally efficient to new chain drives, including a third party test evaluating the Carbon Drive system on a bicycle.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jkidd_39's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    756
    Monogod, thanks for the pics. Great idea to use that spot to cut.

    And to this huge sh!tshow of a thread.. a Harley or any cruiser belt drive system vs. a Gates system is a gigantic apples vs. oranges comparison. And if you don't see that then please do not post in this thread.. cuz your retarded..

    Those systems have a tensioning system that could crush your hand.. ohh and it's a floating system so it will grow and move.. The Gates system is nothing of the sort.

    I think we have already established that the gates system is pretty much a niche type system that will reward someone with mechanical know how or at least will invest the time to screw with it enough to get it right..

    Does the efficiency of the gates vs. traditional chain really make or break the one guy on this thread looking to get one? Nope.. they will buy it or they won't.. but no one will be swayed by 4%. and If they are they are prob a jackass anyways.

    If you wanted to compare a belt drive system prevalent in the market then you would look at the clutch drive system the RZRs use. And the reason they use them is you can shred the belt instead of eating clutches.. This is still an apples to oranges comparo but it's closer than a motorcycle system.. The main advantages of the belt drive on motorcycles is the reduction in noise and smoothness of a belt system.. added plus of not chain growth.. which is pretty much a non issue on 99% of crusiers cuz most guys put almost no miles on either system.. if your stretching chains on a moto your prob at a track eating miles like no other or you are being some sort of tool and abusing the bike..

    That 1% I spoke of prob eat serious highway but to stretch a moto chain takes a long time..

    and besides crusiers are for the homosexuals or mid-life crisis folks..

    let the games begin...

  16. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,527
    Quote Originally Posted by jkidd_39 View Post
    If you wanted to compare a belt drive system prevalent in the market then you would look at the clutch drive system the RZRs use. And the reason they use them is you can shred the belt instead of eating clutches..
    If they could engineer/figure a way to make a clutch like this (cvt) work imo it would be freakin awesome. This type clutch puts the load where the max rpm/output is automatically/by design which is an obviously good thing. But the output of an engine is constant/predictable, where a riders energy varies. And the weights and springs take energy to work, and that energy would only be coming from the rider. As well as the sheaths of the clutch contact the sides of the belt for contact, unlike the groves and gears on the bicycle systems of topic, which makes dirt/dust/slippage much more of an issue too.
    Round and round we go

  17. #67
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,953
    snatched from the misplaced response that polluted the tubeless brew thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    Ok, so JH found that chain drive was 98.6 percent efficient. So instead of me saying that a chain drive is 98% efficient, I should now round that to 99 % efficient? I will update my spiel.
    What you claimed as the efficiency of the chain is not the issue.

    I'm curious why you ignored the fact that measured efficiency ranged from 81% to 98.6%, only referenced the highest value recorded, and now present that as if all chain drives are that efficient.

    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    Typical error from someone that has never ridden a bike and is a researcher.
    Error? By your judgement? lol
    It's actually a pretty typical selection from someone actually employing the scientific method to try and control variables so that their results mean something. Jason Smith uses the same methodology, not surprisingly.
    Your "butt dyno" is meaningless.
    Oh, and Spicer rides bikes.
    btw: here's Smith's set-up:

    and here is Spicer's:

    It is ridiculous to attack the research that you disagree with by saying it is not real-world and then turn around and cite bench tests from someone else who uses a nearly identical set-up.
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    So the CyclingNews experiment that is about a year old with the current technology says that a chain with no tension is almost 100% efficient (maybe they meant 98.6) and a 15 year old study (the JH study was done in 1999) that was done before cellphones were invented with all new parts and probably eliminated bearing efficiency says that increasing tension is more efficient.
    Cell phones are definitely relevant.
    Smith's results do not show what you claim (surprise).
    I realize that pointing out the pervasive and blatant disregard for facts in your posts is like pissing in the wind, so I'm not going to engage that.
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    Also, you site a study that says that increasing tension is more efficient for chains and the question is whether more tension is more efficient for belts.
    I just pointed out that the Cycling News article contradicted some peer-reviewed scientific work on a similar topic... you're the one who delved into the article in an attempt to confuse the issue evade the question about where your "Gates admits 93%, it's not debatable" came from.
    I'll point out that the scientist you like reported a 1W difference between a typical chain and the Gates drive.
    At the constant 250W loads he uses that's an efficiency difference of 0.4%.

    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    That is not the point of this thread.
    I know it's not. You took it there.
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    I complimented you for contributing, but you are again resorting to your normal obfuscation/confusion/BS/take them off the topic spiel.
    lol
    pot, meet kettle.

    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    you somehow come here to dominate not just me, but many of the posters.
    I come here to learn and contribute like most people. When posters like you spew blatant misinformation it is detrimental to the community. People might actually believe some of the stuff you say.
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    If someone posts something that is not in conjunction with what you know, instead of telling the internet that they are an idiot (in so many words); just post what you think is the correct information
    That's mainly what I do.
    You are probably the most prolific repeat poster of misinformation I've seen across an incredible range of topics and you post a lot in the forums I read, which is why we cross paths.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    If they could engineer/figure a way to make a clutch like this (cvt) work imo it would be freakin awesome. This type clutch puts the load where the max rpm/output is automatically/by design which is an obviously good thing. But the output of an engine is constant/predictable, where a riders energy varies. And the weights and springs take energy to work, and that energy would only be coming from the rider. As well as the sheaths of the clutch contact the sides of the belt for contact, unlike the groves and gears on the bicycle systems of topic, which makes dirt/dust/slippage much more of an issue too.
    I think that it would be tough to make it work right at the very low RPM of a cyclist. The gear ratios are determined by the centrifugal force on the pulleys. Moreover, even if you could make it work, you'd be losing a lot of efficiency in friction between the sides of the belt and pulley.

    That said, it would be probably be quite marketable just because of the sheer awesomeness.
    '12 Santa Cruz Superlight 29 | '12 Santa Cruz Butcher | '06 Specialized Allez Comp | '81 Schwinn Converted Fixie

  19. #69
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    If they could engineer/figure a way to make a clutch like this (cvt) work imo it would be freakin awesome. This type clutch puts the load where the max rpm/output is automatically/by design which is an obviously good thing. But the output of an engine is constant/predictable, where a riders energy varies. And the weights and springs take energy to work, and that energy would only be coming from the rider. As well as the sheaths of the clutch contact the sides of the belt for contact, unlike the groves and gears on the bicycle systems of topic, which makes dirt/dust/slippage much more of an issue too.
    a cvt for bicycles has been available since 2007 (nuvinci) and gates makes a cog for them. the new n360 is a vast improvement on the original, just as the cdx is over the cdc.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,527
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    a cvt for bicycles has been available since 2007 (nuvinci) and gates makes a cog for them. the new n360 is a vast improvement on the original, just as the cdx is over the cdc.
    Call it what you want but that's nothing like the clutch Jkid, Ghost and I were referring to, but it looks promising.
    Round and round we go

  21. #71
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Call it what you want but that's nothing like the clutch Jkid, Ghost and I were referring to, but it looks promising.
    in over your head again, meat, as i said nothing of the sort. although they are both continuously variable transmissions at no time did i state, imply, nor could anyone with even moderate reading comprehension infer that i was drawing a similarity between the functional design of either the operation or "shifting" of the two CVTs.

    what i said is simply that a CVT has been available for bicycles since 2007 (nuvinci) and that gates made a cog for it. in other words, a belt-driven CVT has been available on bicycles for quite a while and both components were superior to their predecessors. nothing more, nothing less.

    so in your haste to be argumentative and confrontational you errantly inferred that which was neither said nor implied.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,527
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    in over your head again, meat, as i said nothing of the sort. although they are both continuously variable transmissions at no time did i state, imply, nor could anyone with even moderate reading comprehension infer that i was drawing a similarity between the functional design of either the operation or "shifting" of the two CVTs.

    what i said is simply that a CVT has been available for bicycles since 2007 (nuvinci) and that gates made a cog for it. in other words, a belt-driven CVT has been available on bicycles for quite a while and both components were superior to their predecessors. nothing more, nothing less.

    so in your haste to be argumentative and confrontational you errantly inferred that which was neither said nor implied.
    Say what? I even said it looks promising and I'm hastefully confrontational?
    When it comes to the cvt that was being discussed i'm not in over my head with many, and i'm also not ashamed to admit i don't know something (hint). Like I don't know squat about bicycle belt drives, except for the fact that everyone i know that's tried it has gone back to a chain. Albiet none of them were as smart as you think you are lol. As well i think it's cool that people try to experiment with new tech, whether it's an attempt to be a show stopper or not. And i also think it's cool of you to share your experience with this, whether or not it's another look at how smart and cool I am attempt on your part. It's not surprising that you're the expert and absolute authority on everyfreakinthing that comes up, no matter how unrelated, and that you buddy around with everyone who bows to or agrees with you, and turn righteous troll psycho on everyone who doesn't. Except of coarse the mods which you kiss up to. Sorry if it's surprising to you that people can figure this out.
    Wish you could stay OT for once but go ahead, say whatever you want, it changes nothing, that's the way it is with you. If it makes you feel better to let you think you're one up on me by having the last word on any thread we're on that's fine. Even if the truth is I let you have the last word because i know you must and I just want you to stfu. Now, to leave this on a positive note, like i thought i did with the previous post, it's appropriate to say that many find you entertaining, and your grammar is excellent.
    Round and round we go

  23. #73
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Say what? I even said it looks promising and I'm hastefully confrontational?
    When it comes to the cvt that was being discussed i'm not in over my head with many, and i'm also not ashamed to admit i don't know something (hint). Like I don't know squat about bicycle belt drives, except for the fact that everyone i know that's tried it has gone back to a chain. Albiet none of them were as smart as you think you are lol. As well i think it's cool that people try to experiment with new tech, whether it's an attempt to be a show stopper or not. And i also think it's cool of you to share your experience with this, whether or not it's another look at how smart and cool I am attempt on your part. It's not surprising that you're the expert and absolute authority on everyfreakinthing that comes up, no matter how unrelated, and that you buddy around with everyone who bows to or agrees with you, and turn righteous troll psycho on everyone who doesn't. Except of coarse the mods which you kiss up to. Sorry if it's surprising to you that people can figure this out.
    Wish you could stay OT for once but go ahead, say whatever you want, it changes nothing, that's the way it is with you. If it makes you feel better to let you think you're one up on me by having the last word on any thread we're on that's fine. Even if the truth is I let you have the last word because i know you must and I just want you to stfu. Now, to leave this on a positive note, like i thought i did with the previous post, it's appropriate to say that many find you entertaining, and your grammar is excellent.
    wow.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  24. #74
    I should be studying...
    Reputation: frank daleview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    827
    It would seem to me that of all the "problem" places to attack on current bike design, the chain is a pretty poor place start. The chain can easily be repaired or modified to suit the needs of it's user, it is efficient enough that any gains would be irrelevant, and it is not particularly heavy.

    Now, since these are used on single speeds... I would be very interested in chain tensioner that worked without creaking or requiring constant adjustment...
    Formerly known as iceaxe

  25. #75
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by frank daleview View Post
    It would seem to me that of all the "problem" places to attack on current bike design, the chain is a pretty poor place start. The chain can easily be repaired or modified to suit the needs of it's user, it is efficient enough that any gains would be irrelevant, and it is not particularly heavy.
    curious about a couple things... where'd you get the impression the impetus of the belt was to attack the "problem" of the chain? have you ever ridden a belt drive?

    discounting the below, what do you see as problem places of current bike design and which would you rectify first?

    Quote Originally Posted by frank daleview
    Now, since these are used on single speeds... I would be very interested in chain tensioner that worked without creaking or requiring constant adjustment...
    wish granted!

    just a few:

    • niner biocentric 2
    • spot's kobe sliders
    • carver's sliders
    • carver's delron wedge ebb
    • philcentric ebb
    • WI eno eccentric hub
    • good old fashioned track ends
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. belt drive
    By JUNGLEKID5 in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-14-2013, 04:30 PM
  2. Belt drive?
    By slopok in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-08-2013, 07:46 PM
  3. Belt Drive
    By Graham77 in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-06-2013, 07:21 AM
  4. MTB Belt Drive CVT..........Please?
    By NEPMTBA in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-05-2012, 12:28 PM
  5. I'm DONE with Belt Drive!
    By drMP in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 04-30-2011, 10:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •