Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 1

Shimano variable chain line patent for 1X drive trains.

The double and triple chain ring drive train set ups that many are eschewing these days are, in my opinion, misunderstood, unfairly maligned, and have benefits for certain applications that outweigh their negatives. To be sure, I have tried and use 1X set ups. So, please do not read this as a "1x's are a bad thing and should go away" post. It isn't that at all. But on the other hand, 2X and 3X have a place, and they shouldn't go away either. 

A little over a year ago now I wrote this post about some new ideas Shimano and SRAM patented which would address some inefficiencies inherent in 1X drive train set ups. That points up the fact that whenever you move to innovate in one area of bicycle design, you will in turn compromise something else. There is never any free lunch, it seems, no "win-win" situations. Something gets presented as a benefit but some other area suffers.

In my opinion, this is due mostly to the fact that in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the bicycle's mechanical properties were honed to a point where the efficiencies and mechanical properties, at least on paper, were optimized to their furthest extent. Consider the lowly chain. Nothing- not even belt driven drive trains- in real world use have been proven to be more efficient. There are many more examples of this which I could share. So, when we tweak out one area of the system, some other part suffers. We are tinkering with a device that was honed to its zenith over a 100 years ago.

SRAM's solution involves an articulating chain ring system.

So, 1X has inefficiencies having to do with chain line. The most efficient chain line is "dead straight" from one cog to another, front to back. In other words, think "single speed" chain line. Derailleurs, by their very nature, introduce an inefficiency merely by the fact that the chain line has to deflect from straight to accommodate using multiple cogs out back. The more the chain goes sideways, the less efficient the mechanism becomes. This was a compromise introduced in the early 20th Century and has reached its zenith now with 1X 12 systems and their sibling 11 and 10 speed variations.

The public perception is that "front derailleurs are bad", so marketing has asked R&D to solve the inefficiency issues with these patented ideas being shown again today on the blog. Now, I want you to consider, if you will, what this would look like: Imagine there had never been a front derailleur before. Let's say one was introduced tomorrow. I guarantee we would all be ditching 1X in a heart beat. Why? Because with a front derailleur, we could keep our chain lines more straight, and thus- more efficient use of our energy would result. But that isn't what happened.

Instead, we have forgotten that 2X and 3X drive trains require skill and understanding to operate efficiently. To be sure, we have the very best front derailleurs we've ever been able to get now days. We have the very best chain rings to allow for front shifting to happen. We have the best chains we've ever been able to get for front shifting. That doesn't matter. We still see 1X road and gravel set ups being touted as "better". 1X MTB for everyone is thought to be "better". I'm saying it isn't always better, and it is mostly due to marketing and that people don't understand multiple front ring drive trains.  

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 1

Shimano variable chain line patent for 1X drive trains.

The double and triple chain ring drive train set ups that many are eschewing these days are, in my opinion, misunderstood, unfairly maligned, and have benefits for certain applications that outweigh their negatives. To be sure, I have tried and use 1X set ups. So, please do not read this as a "1x's are a bad thing and should go away" post. It isn't that at all. But on the other hand, 2X and 3X have a place, and they shouldn't go away either. 

A little over a year ago now I wrote this post about some new ideas Shimano and SRAM patented which would address some inefficiencies inherent in 1X drive train set ups. That points up the fact that whenever you move to innovate in one area of bicycle design, you will in turn compromise something else. There is never any free lunch, it seems, no "win-win" situations. Something gets presented as a benefit but some other area suffers.

In my opinion, this is due mostly to the fact that in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the bicycle's mechanical properties were honed to a point where the efficiencies and mechanical properties, at least on paper, were optimized to their furthest extent. Consider the lowly chain. Nothing- not even belt driven drive trains- in real world use have been proven to be more efficient. There are many more examples of this which I could share. So, when we tweak out one area of the system, some other part suffers. We are tinkering with a device that was honed to its zenith over a 100 years ago.

SRAM's solution involves an articulating chain ring system.

So, 1X has inefficiencies having to do with chain line. The most efficient chain line is "dead straight" from one cog to another, front to back. In other words, think "single speed" chain line. Derailleurs, by their very nature, introduce an inefficiency merely by the fact that the chain line has to deflect from straight to accommodate using multiple cogs out back. The more the chain goes sideways, the less efficient the mechanism becomes. This was a compromise introduced in the early 20th Century and has reached its zenith now with 1X 12 systems and their sibling 11 and 10 speed variations.

The public perception is that "front derailleurs are bad", so marketing has asked R&D to solve the inefficiency issues with these patented ideas being shown again today on the blog. Now, I want you to consider, if you will, what this would look like: Imagine there had never been a front derailleur before. Let's say one was introduced tomorrow. I guarantee we would all be ditching 1X in a heart beat. Why? Because with a front derailleur, we could keep our chain lines more straight, and thus- more efficient use of our energy would result. But that isn't what happened.

Instead, we have forgotten that 2X and 3X drive trains require skill and understanding to operate efficiently. To be sure, we have the very best front derailleurs we've ever been able to get now days. We have the very best chain rings to allow for front shifting to happen. We have the best chains we've ever been able to get for front shifting. That doesn't matter. We still see 1X road and gravel set ups being touted as "better". 1X MTB for everyone is thought to be "better". I'm saying it isn't always better, and it is mostly due to marketing and that people don't understand multiple front ring drive trains.  

The Belt Drive Odyssey : Part II

The Odyssey Continues.... So, I've had a few shakedown rides on the Raleigh XXIX equipped with "The Belt" so far and the confidence in the system was beginning to grow to the point where I was beginning to ride it as I would a bike equipped with "The Chain" until it happened.

Skronk!

I don't know what it was for sure.  I just know it was loud, and I am back to ground zero as to my confidence level. The noise occurred in such a manner that it only served to add to my uncertainty about riding with "The Belt".  Here's the deal so far.....

I had been pretty gingerly using the bike to start out with. I don't know, but something about a single speed drive train letting go all of a sudden while I am standing and pedaling isn't appealing to me. Smak Pakage might be a cool name for a hardcore band, but it isn't a cool thing to have happen to the male anatomy, if ya catch my drift. However; I was gaining confidence in the whole set up as I climbed a dike, an embankment, and a long grinder of a hill, all with zero issues.

Along the way, I was tweaking the set up, just as I would on any new-to-me bike, and getting set for that big first dip into the woods. On that fateful day, I left work, and on the way to the trail head, I had to stop for traffic. With my "non-chocolate foot" in the primed and ready position, (see Hans "No Way" Rey for an explanation of what yer "chocolate foot" is), I pedal kicked down when the traffic parted ways to scoot across the street.

That's when it happened: Skronk!

Great! Just as I was about to put full confidence in "The Belt" in a true trail situation, I get knocked back to ground zero, and I couldn't figure out why it decided to make a noise then. Well, I kind of bailed on the idea of a full run, and did another shake down cruise with no further incident. Bah! Not very fun.

The Score: "The Belt": 0 "The Chain": 2

The Belt Drive Odyssey : Part II

The Odyssey Continues.... So, I've had a few shakedown rides on the Raleigh XXIX equipped with "The Belt" so far and the confidence in the system was beginning to grow to the point where I was beginning to ride it as I would a bike equipped with "The Chain" until it happened.

Skronk!

I don't know what it was for sure.  I just know it was loud, and I am back to ground zero as to my confidence level. The noise occurred in such a manner that it only served to add to my uncertainty about riding with "The Belt".  Here's the deal so far.....

I had been pretty gingerly using the bike to start out with. I don't know, but something about a single speed drive train letting go all of a sudden while I am standing and pedaling isn't appealing to me. Smak Pakage might be a cool name for a hardcore band, but it isn't a cool thing to have happen to the male anatomy, if ya catch my drift. However; I was gaining confidence in the whole set up as I climbed a dike, an embankment, and a long grinder of a hill, all with zero issues.

Along the way, I was tweaking the set up, just as I would on any new-to-me bike, and getting set for that big first dip into the woods. On that fateful day, I left work, and on the way to the trail head, I had to stop for traffic. With my "non-chocolate foot" in the primed and ready position, (see Hans "No Way" Rey for an explanation of what yer "chocolate foot" is), I pedal kicked down when the traffic parted ways to scoot across the street.

That's when it happened: Skronk!

Great! Just as I was about to put full confidence in "The Belt" in a true trail situation, I get knocked back to ground zero, and I couldn't figure out why it decided to make a noise then. Well, I kind of bailed on the idea of a full run, and did another shake down cruise with no further incident. Bah! Not very fun.

The Score: "The Belt": 0 "The Chain": 2

Thoughts On Belt Drive Systems For Bicycles: Part II

<==Gates Carbon Belt Drive on an mtb. (Image credit: "c_g")
I've been thinking a lot about belt drive mountain bikes again, and after checking into it here, I see I have not posted on the subject in almost two years. (You can read the full rant here)

Interestingly, the case of belt drive systems for mountain biking seems to be a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same". At least, the reminders from my posting in 2008 would indicate as much. Let's take a closer look........

Back then, I wrote the following: 

The belt drive system for bicycles is being developed by the Gates Company which does all sorts of belt technologies for motorized vehicles. They were out at Interbike last year, (2007),  en force to answer any questions and to observe first hand a real world demonstration of the "Carbon Belt Drive System" performance. After a quick briefing by the Gates folks, I got on board a Spot Brand bike and took off on the Demo loop at Bootleg Canyon.

On a steep up, I heard a very loud "pop" and I thought I was going to crash because of a belt failure, but I didn't. I rolled on. At the Spot Brand tent, the Gates folks were telling me I "ratcheted" the belt. This is when you essentially get the belt to slip one tooth over on the cog or more. I did that and that was the loud "pop" I heard. With the belt tensions on the verge of being too tight for the bearings on the hubs already, Gates had to go back to the drawing board for a revision for this year.(2008)

So, as you can see, issues plagued the system from the get go. Noise was common. I heard it. Everyone within earshot of a Spot in 2007 heard them. Then there were the ratcheting problems, and worst of all, breakage. Yes- There have been revisions. In fact, I mention one back in my 2008 post:

What they did was to specify a larger "chain ring" and rear "cog" size with a slightly reduced amount of tension on the belt. The larger "cogs" would increase the number of engagement points and hopefully eliminate the "ratcheting" problems. I'm not sure if this also addressed the many complaints of noise in the system from 2007 Interbike riders, but it may have.

Okay, so they fixed the ratcheting problem and reduced pre-mature bearing failures at the same time. Great. Or wait a minute..............did they? Let's fast forward to 2010 and see where this belt drive business has progressed to.

A cursory reading of this thread on mtbr.com's Single Speed forum shows that in 2010 folks are still ratcheting belts, still getting noise from belts, and still having issues with hubs from high belt tensions, (which Gates seems to have re-instated since I last looked into this two years ago). Now the solutions being suggested range from "belt specific" frame designs that feature heavier, stiffer chain stays, to installing "snubbers" to keep the belt from wandering and ratcheting on the Gates specific cogs, which by the way, have increased in size yet again since 2008.

Okay. Those are the facts about belt drive on mountain bikes in 2010. It seems as though not much has changed about the actual performance aspects of belt drive mountain bikes since 2007, but a lot of solutions have been thrown at the system to remedy the problems folks are experiencing in the field. I still see and hear about failures: from belts out and out breaking, to noises, ratcheting, and being damaged. It seems as though much has changed, but the outcome remains the same.

Belt drive systems are expensive, finicky, and not proven. There are too many failures for the small number of units being actually mountain biked in comparison to chain failures per mountain bike. I don't think Gates could refute that with a straight face.

They would rather you focus on that "greasy, noisey chain". That thing that is imminently reliable, easy to maintain, cheap, adaptable, and works even to single speed your geared bike. No, they would rather have you focus on the fact that belts are lighter, and, ("if" they run a full life), will easily outlast a chain's lifespan. You know, instead of a chain that is easy to repair on the trail, strong, and can be found almost anywhere. Not to mention the fact that belt drive systems are "cool", never mind the fact that you must run certain sized cogs which are hard to obtain and may not clear your chain stays. (Ventana display at Sea Otter 2009, anyone?)  You know, not like a nasty chain drive, which has so many variations on cogs and chain ring sizes that it makes your head spin to have to choose one set. I mean, who needs that?

Who does need that? 

I'm raising my hand high. How about you?

 

Thoughts On Belt Drive Systems For Bicycles: Part II

<==Gates Carbon Belt Drive on an mtb. (Image credit: "c_g")
I've been thinking a lot about belt drive mountain bikes again, and after checking into it here, I see I have not posted on the subject in almost two years. (You can read the full rant here)

Interestingly, the case of belt drive systems for mountain biking seems to be a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same". At least, the reminders from my posting in 2008 would indicate as much. Let's take a closer look........

Back then, I wrote the following: 

The belt drive system for bicycles is being developed by the Gates Company which does all sorts of belt technologies for motorized vehicles. They were out at Interbike last year, (2007),  en force to answer any questions and to observe first hand a real world demonstration of the "Carbon Belt Drive System" performance. After a quick briefing by the Gates folks, I got on board a Spot Brand bike and took off on the Demo loop at Bootleg Canyon.

On a steep up, I heard a very loud "pop" and I thought I was going to crash because of a belt failure, but I didn't. I rolled on. At the Spot Brand tent, the Gates folks were telling me I "ratcheted" the belt. This is when you essentially get the belt to slip one tooth over on the cog or more. I did that and that was the loud "pop" I heard. With the belt tensions on the verge of being too tight for the bearings on the hubs already, Gates had to go back to the drawing board for a revision for this year.(2008)

So, as you can see, issues plagued the system from the get go. Noise was common. I heard it. Everyone within earshot of a Spot in 2007 heard them. Then there were the ratcheting problems, and worst of all, breakage. Yes- There have been revisions. In fact, I mention one back in my 2008 post:

What they did was to specify a larger "chain ring" and rear "cog" size with a slightly reduced amount of tension on the belt. The larger "cogs" would increase the number of engagement points and hopefully eliminate the "ratcheting" problems. I'm not sure if this also addressed the many complaints of noise in the system from 2007 Interbike riders, but it may have.

Okay, so they fixed the ratcheting problem and reduced pre-mature bearing failures at the same time. Great. Or wait a minute..............did they? Let's fast forward to 2010 and see where this belt drive business has progressed to.

A cursory reading of this thread on mtbr.com's Single Speed forum shows that in 2010 folks are still ratcheting belts, still getting noise from belts, and still having issues with hubs from high belt tensions, (which Gates seems to have re-instated since I last looked into this two years ago). Now the solutions being suggested range from "belt specific" frame designs that feature heavier, stiffer chain stays, to installing "snubbers" to keep the belt from wandering and ratcheting on the Gates specific cogs, which by the way, have increased in size yet again since 2008.

Okay. Those are the facts about belt drive on mountain bikes in 2010. It seems as though not much has changed about the actual performance aspects of belt drive mountain bikes since 2007, but a lot of solutions have been thrown at the system to remedy the problems folks are experiencing in the field. I still see and hear about failures: from belts out and out breaking, to noises, ratcheting, and being damaged. It seems as though much has changed, but the outcome remains the same.

Belt drive systems are expensive, finicky, and not proven. There are too many failures for the small number of units being actually mountain biked in comparison to chain failures per mountain bike. I don't think Gates could refute that with a straight face.

They would rather you focus on that "greasy, noisey chain". That thing that is imminently reliable, easy to maintain, cheap, adaptable, and works even to single speed your geared bike. No, they would rather have you focus on the fact that belts are lighter, and, ("if" they run a full life), will easily outlast a chain's lifespan. You know, instead of a chain that is easy to repair on the trail, strong, and can be found almost anywhere. Not to mention the fact that belt drive systems are "cool", never mind the fact that you must run certain sized cogs which are hard to obtain and may not clear your chain stays. (Ventana display at Sea Otter 2009, anyone?)  You know, not like a nasty chain drive, which has so many variations on cogs and chain ring sizes that it makes your head spin to have to choose one set. I mean, who needs that?

Who does need that? 

I'm raising my hand high. How about you?

 

Unchained

If you've hung around here awhile, you probably have figured out that I like my single speeds. Road, gravel, and in the dirt, it's all good with one gear. Really! Ya ought ta try it some time. Anyway, this isn't about trying to convince you of that....

Nope! This is about something else having to do with single speeding, and that a very integral part of the single speed bike: The Chain.

The Single Speed Nation has a triumvirate of power. These are The Chain, The Crankset, and The Cog. The Three C's. You can not have single speeding without The Three C's. Well, you couldn't, that is, until some devious beings came up with a spawn of evil called The Belt.

The Belt has been lauded in certain circles as being The Savior of Single Speeding. It is not.  Believe me, it is a terrible lie.

They said the belt would rid us of the greasy chain. Hmm...........really? I never have had a problem with that part. Okay, they said The Belt would be quieter. Hmm............how can it be quieter than "quiet"? (And I've heard some pretty squeaky belts, by the way) Well, then they said The Belt was lighter, and "almost as efficient as The Chain. S'cuse me, but I'll take "heavier and more efficient" any day. They said The Belt was better than The Chain in bad conditions. Really? I've ridden a chain in horrible conditions, never had an issue. I've seen The Belt fail in dry dust, and I've seen The Belt fail in mud. Oh yeah, and when The Belt fails, you need an entire "The Belt" to fix it.  The Chain can be fixed easily, without breaking the frame, with a simple tool and a couple spare chain links, or "quick links". Simple.

And I won't even get into the "ratcheting" deal involving The Belt.

As far as I'm concerned, going "Unchained" is only good if you're a Van Halen fan. Otherwise, I'll take The Chain every time on my single speed, thank you very much.  (Best use of a flanger EVER! by the way)

Have a great 4th of July weekend and ride those bikes folks!

Unchained

If you've hung around here awhile, you probably have figured out that I like my single speeds. Road, gravel, and in the dirt, it's all good with one gear. Really! Ya ought ta try it some time. Anyway, this isn't about trying to convince you of that....

Nope! This is about something else having to do with single speeding, and that a very integral part of the single speed bike: The Chain.

The Single Speed Nation has a triumvirate of power. These are The Chain, The Crankset, and The Cog. The Three C's. You can not have single speeding without The Three C's. Well, you couldn't, that is, until some devious beings came up with a spawn of evil called The Belt.

The Belt has been lauded in certain circles as being The Savior of Single Speeding. It is not.  Believe me, it is a terrible lie.

They said the belt would rid us of the greasy chain. Hmm...........really? I never have had a problem with that part. Okay, they said The Belt would be quieter. Hmm............how can it be quieter than "quiet"? (And I've heard some pretty squeaky belts, by the way) Well, then they said The Belt was lighter, and "almost as efficient as The Chain. S'cuse me, but I'll take "heavier and more efficient" any day. They said The Belt was better than The Chain in bad conditions. Really? I've ridden a chain in horrible conditions, never had an issue. I've seen The Belt fail in dry dust, and I've seen The Belt fail in mud. Oh yeah, and when The Belt fails, you need an entire "The Belt" to fix it.  The Chain can be fixed easily, without breaking the frame, with a simple tool and a couple spare chain links, or "quick links". Simple.

And I won't even get into the "ratcheting" deal involving The Belt.

As far as I'm concerned, going "Unchained" is only good if you're a Van Halen fan. Otherwise, I'll take The Chain every time on my single speed, thank you very much.  (Best use of a flanger EVER! by the way)

Have a great 4th of July weekend and ride those bikes folks!

Thoughts On Belt Drive Systems For Bicycles

<===Spot Brand made it clear to me that they were not "just a belt drive company".

Today I saw a story about Travis Brown from Trek using a belt driven cyclo-cross bike at CrossVegas last week in Las Vegas, Nevada. This prompted me to make a few observations on belt drive systems for bicycles.

I have ridden the belt drive at Interbike last year and I was not really all that impressed. Belt drive is supposed to be this ultra quiet drive train that is smooth and .........well, I don't really know what else. Cool? Different? Yes, I suppose it is those things. I'll tell you what though, it isn't better than a chain drive for mountain biking.

The belt drive system for bicycles is being developed by the Gates Company which does all sorts of belt technologies for motorized vehicles. They were out at Interbike last year en force to answer any questions and to observe first hand a real world demonstration of the "Carbon Belt Drive System" performance. After a quick briefing by the Gates folks, I got on board a Spot Brand bike and took off on the Demo loop at Bootleg Canyon.

On a steep up, I heard a very loud "pop" and I thought I was going to crash because of a belt failure, but I didn't. I rolled on. At the Spot Brand tent, the Gates folks were telling me I "ratcheted" the belt. This is when you essentially get the belt to slip one tooth over on the cog or more. I did that and that was the loud "pop" I heard. With the belt tensions on the verge of being too tight for the bearings on the hubs already, Gates had to go back to the drawing board for a revision for this year.

What they did was to specify a larger "chain ring" and rear "cog" size with a slightly reduced amount of tension on the belt. The larger "cogs" would increase the number of engagement points and hopefully eliminate the "ratcheting" problems. I'm not sure if this also addressed the many complaints of noise in the system from 2007 Interbike riders, but it may have.

The belt drive was again seen at Interbike, albeit a bit more quietly than in 2007. How did it fare? Well, on Day two of the Demo, a rider was seen coming back out of the test loop with a broken belt. Okay, I'm convinced. Belt drive isn't a great idea for a single speed mountain bike. At least not a "conventional" frame mountain bike.

Travis Brown's cross rig addresses some of these pit falls with a beefier chain stay from a tandem bike and whopping, massive eccentric drop outs that are designed to help eliminate flex in the critical drive train area, which should help out the belt in terms of ratcheting and breakage issues. Hmmm...............hey! I've got an idea! How about using a chain drive!






<===The future home of belt drive systems is "here" today.

So, where will all this effort eventually lead us? I believe there is really only one benefit to a belt drive system that will be marketable in the future. It isn't low noise, ( a well lubed chain is nearly silent), it isn't "smoothness" ( a properly set up single speed can be super smooth). So what is it? It is low maintenance and a "clean" drive train. Where does this make the most sense? On commuter bikes. Commuters don't want to fiddle with chain maintenance or have to deal with that greasy thing getting their pants and legs all dirty. Enter belt drive which needs no lube and can be cleaned by a simple spritzing of water. Low torque loads seen by most commuting cyclists would ease issues of "ratcheting" and breakage. Belt drive dovetails nicely in with internally geared drive trains, already a favorite with commuters. What's not to like here?

Belt drive for commuter bikes is a no brainer. Just keep it the heck away from my mountain bike, okay?

It's Friday, so you know what that means! Get out and enjoy some crisp fall riding while the gettin is good!

Thoughts On Belt Drive Systems For Bicycles

<===Spot Brand made it clear to me that they were not "just a belt drive company".

Today I saw a story about Travis Brown from Trek using a belt driven cyclo-cross bike at CrossVegas last week in Las Vegas, Nevada. This prompted me to make a few observations on belt drive systems for bicycles.

I have ridden the belt drive at Interbike last year and I was not really all that impressed. Belt drive is supposed to be this ultra quiet drive train that is smooth and .........well, I don't really know what else. Cool? Different? Yes, I suppose it is those things. I'll tell you what though, it isn't better than a chain drive for mountain biking.

The belt drive system for bicycles is being developed by the Gates Company which does all sorts of belt technologies for motorized vehicles. They were out at Interbike last year en force to answer any questions and to observe first hand a real world demonstration of the "Carbon Belt Drive System" performance. After a quick briefing by the Gates folks, I got on board a Spot Brand bike and took off on the Demo loop at Bootleg Canyon.

On a steep up, I heard a very loud "pop" and I thought I was going to crash because of a belt failure, but I didn't. I rolled on. At the Spot Brand tent, the Gates folks were telling me I "ratcheted" the belt. This is when you essentially get the belt to slip one tooth over on the cog or more. I did that and that was the loud "pop" I heard. With the belt tensions on the verge of being too tight for the bearings on the hubs already, Gates had to go back to the drawing board for a revision for this year.

What they did was to specify a larger "chain ring" and rear "cog" size with a slightly reduced amount of tension on the belt. The larger "cogs" would increase the number of engagement points and hopefully eliminate the "ratcheting" problems. I'm not sure if this also addressed the many complaints of noise in the system from 2007 Interbike riders, but it may have.

The belt drive was again seen at Interbike, albeit a bit more quietly than in 2007. How did it fare? Well, on Day two of the Demo, a rider was seen coming back out of the test loop with a broken belt. Okay, I'm convinced. Belt drive isn't a great idea for a single speed mountain bike. At least not a "conventional" frame mountain bike.

Travis Brown's cross rig addresses some of these pit falls with a beefier chain stay from a tandem bike and whopping, massive eccentric drop outs that are designed to help eliminate flex in the critical drive train area, which should help out the belt in terms of ratcheting and breakage issues. Hmmm...............hey! I've got an idea! How about using a chain drive!






<===The future home of belt drive systems is "here" today.

So, where will all this effort eventually lead us? I believe there is really only one benefit to a belt drive system that will be marketable in the future. It isn't low noise, ( a well lubed chain is nearly silent), it isn't "smoothness" ( a properly set up single speed can be super smooth). So what is it? It is low maintenance and a "clean" drive train. Where does this make the most sense? On commuter bikes. Commuters don't want to fiddle with chain maintenance or have to deal with that greasy thing getting their pants and legs all dirty. Enter belt drive which needs no lube and can be cleaned by a simple spritzing of water. Low torque loads seen by most commuting cyclists would ease issues of "ratcheting" and breakage. Belt drive dovetails nicely in with internally geared drive trains, already a favorite with commuters. What's not to like here?

Belt drive for commuter bikes is a no brainer. Just keep it the heck away from my mountain bike, okay?

It's Friday, so you know what that means! Get out and enjoy some crisp fall riding while the gettin is good!