Mountain Biking - Chainless Bikes

Was looking for a bike that required very little to no maintainance, ran across this website. Anyone ever riden one or know anything about then?
http://www.dynamicbicycles.com/chainless/

Was looking for a bike that required very little to no maintainance, ran across this website. Anyone ever riden one or know anything about then?
http://www.dynamicbicycles.com/chainless/

Chains and derailleurs cause some problems. Therefore somebody invents shaft drive for bicycles.

Shaft drives eliminate any possibility for cog based gearing. Therefore, shaft systems use expensive hubs.

But here is the catch-22. Those expensive hubs work more efficiently with bike chains. And the hubs get rid of all the messiness of front and rear derailleurs.

So, if you are going to use an expensive hub for variable gearing, you SHOULD be using a chain since it is more efficient.

Shafts will NEVER be accepted on wide basis on bikes.

We've carried them before at our shop. I guess they are ok, but the pedal feel on the shaft is terrible... the "dead" spot in your pedal stroke is extremely pronounced so the pedal stroke feels choppy and uneven. As for maintenace, I would think that the shaft has bearings that wear out eventually, and probably needs greasing every now and again. You also limit your gearing options drastically.

Thev'e been around since the 1800's. A friends kids had some recent ones, they seemed to like them, but tellingly enough none of them ride today 5 years down the track.

Besides, the drive shat has been tried and there was a reason why it was ditched.

Was looking for a bike that required very little to no maintainance, ran across this website. Anyone ever riden one or know anything about then?
http://www.dynamicbicycles.com/chainless/

6milebiker just stick with what works. Chain driven bikes have been around for ages, they work perfectly fine. Why do companies bother making this crap? And then try to defend their product by listing "Top 10 Reasons Chainless Bicycles Are Better".:fight:

This product is right up there with "airless tyres"

CHEERS.

Mark

Just thinking here but the good thing about a chain with tensioner (derailluer or SS) has the abbility to "grow", the rod wouldn't. Therefore it would have no place on most dualsuspension bikes where the chainline changes length.

Just thinking here but the good thing about a chain with tensioner (derailluer or SS) has the abbility to "grow", the rod wouldn't. Therefore it would have no place on most dualsuspension bikes where the chainline changes length.

Uhh... Hopper, your olds car uses a shaft, so do a lot of motorbikes :)

Seems like a cool idea but I'm not sure how about the durability as well as the extra weight.

Uhh... Hopper, your olds car uses a shaft, so do a lot of motorbikes :)

Yeah. But his car doesn't have pivot point between the transmission and the rear axel (assuming rear wheel drive like a bike). Be awful funny to see one that did.

Uhh... Hopper, your olds car uses a shaft, so do a lot of motorbikes :)

Cars and motorcycles do not need to squeak out every bit of efficiency possible from the drivetrain. Excess horsepower allows the use of stronger, more reliable power transmission techniques.

Doesn't look like you can convert that to SS... just kinding.

Just how would it handle a heel strike? Out on a trail, running platforms, hit something just right...... I'll stick to a chain.

Just how would it handle a heel strike? Out on a trail, running platforms, hit something just right...... I'll stick to a chain.

Not too well I would guess. As a commuter bike in a place like Boston it wouldn't be such a bad idea though.

6milebiker just stick with what works. Chain driven bikes have been around for ages, they work perfectly fine. Why do companies bother making this crap? And then try to defend their product by listing "Top 10 Reasons Chainless Bicycles Are Better".:fight:

This product is right up there with "airless tyres"

CHEERS.

Mark

I think it's more appropriate to point out that shaft drive bikes have been around for ages, and they never catch on. There is a reason for that.

When someone invents a fuel cell moped, I suspect that a shaft combined with a CVT will ideal. Until then, the chain is the most efficient way of transmitting force from the cranks to the rear axel. The reason is simple. A drive shaft has to change the orientation of motion from vertical to horizontal, than back to vertical. Thats a bit like using a digital monitor with an analog connection.

Yeah. But his car doesn't have pivot point between the transmission and the rear axel (assuming rear wheel drive like a bike). Be awful funny to see one that did.

uh, yeah, it does. as the rear suspension moves up and down, the distance from the tailshaft to the rear diff gets longer and shorter - but the difference is so minor as to be negligible, especially when compared to a FS bike. a simple slip joint is usually used to compensate.

doesn't mean shaft drive is a good idea for bicycles, though.

Just thinking here but the good thing about a chain with tensioner (derailluer or SS) has the abbility to "grow", the rod wouldn't. Therefore it would have no place on most dualsuspension bikes where the chainline changes length.

Actually, a telescoping drive rod would probably work better in that respect. It would eliminate pedal pob and allow the rear axle to float freely with respect to the crank.

But THEN, you would need an expensive planetary hub with a higher sprung weight.

A possible application could be a full-suspension single speed. That is, provided someone can figure out how to inexpensively change the gearing. Single speeders like to play with their cogs.

You do get single speed DH bikes, use a tensioner;) That is a good point, use a telescoping rod.

uh, yeah, it does. as the rear suspension moves up and down, the distance from the tailshaft to the rear diff gets longer and shorter - but the difference is so minor as to be negligible, especially when compared to a FS bike. a simple slip joint is usually used to compensate.

doesn't mean shaft drive is a good idea for bicycles, though.

Yes, but does the entire back end move(flex). I don't think so. That is what I am getting at. On a FS bike it does move(flex).

But all this is mute. Bottom line a chain is better on a bike.

no, the entire rear of the car doesn't flex. but the parts that equate to the rear wheel and cogs of a FS bike do flex in relation to the transmission (there are cars that are not built this way, but that's neither here nor there).

the rear suspension (suspension, rear axle and wheels of a car) on a FS bike serves to isolate the rider and main "triangle" of the bike (body, engine and tranny of a car) from the ground's irregularities. on a RWD car, the needed flex is usually built into a slip joint on the driveshaft. on a FWD car, it's in the inner plunge joints on the CV shafts. 4WD cars and trucks can have either or both.

the thing is, the total movement of a CV shaft plunge joint or driveshaft slip joint is maybe a couple inches - which is nothing relative to the amount of suspension movement, compared to the amount a derailleur and chain must move relative to the rear of a FS bike.

so yes, a chain is better on a bike.