Fifty Plus (50+) - Shaft drive, anyone have one?

Hi all, I ran across this web page, http://www.commuterbicycle.com and it has some interesting information about commuter bikes. I am now 51 and weigh 250. Currently I ride a trek 7500 and like it but this idea of a shaft drive bike sounds interesting. I just took a job that is 6 miles to work each way and am seriously wanting to bike commute as much as possible. The trek obviously will work and I think probably one of the better bikes for it with a few mods such as better lights "fredy fenders" and probably some new tires since it hasn't had any in several years. I guess I just saw this shaft drive and want to try it, the price is very good, around $600, and was just wondering if any one had any experiance with any of the brand listed. The author mentioned one that is only sold in England and a sent them and e-mail but no response at this time.

any comments are appreciated, thanks for your help

It may be sold in the UK, but I have never seen one. Stick with technology that works and is tried and tested.

Shaft drives are very old technology. I have a history of bicycles picture book, and it is shown in there way back!

Bicycle riders generally can output about 1/4 horsepower. (I know, everyone here can do more that that, but we're far better than average... stick with me and you'll see the point) Chain drives can be well over 98% efficient. Shaft drives are doing well to be 85% efficient.

So with only 1/4 horsepower, can you really afford to lose 12-15% of your output to an ineffecient drivetrain? People spend an enormous amount of time and money trying to overcome even 1% of other losses like rolling resistance and wind resistance, 12-15% is quite a bit if you put it in perspective.

And then there's weight. Shaft drives are heavy.

Az

I had read about it being old technology, I thought weight must be an issue as the site does not list the weight of the bikes in their spec sheet. Now their claim on being efficient is almost the opposite of what you just listed. I tend to belive your objective opinion more than a site that is selling a product. Thanks for the input, still hoping to find someone that has ridden one of these.

I don't understand the ongoing fascination that newbies seem to have with two bits of nicheware, those being shaft drive and automatic shifting.

The problem with shaft drive efficiency is that you have to redirect the power by 90 degrees, twice. With unavoidable losses each time. You also have to support the drive shaft, which means more bearings and housings. All the shaft drives I've seen use hub gears, which are less efficient too. There's just no way a shaft can match the efficiency of a chain. Shaft drive might be great for motorcycles, which can always make up for efficiency losses by using bigger engines; but unlike them we don't have the luxury of swapping out for a more powerful motor.

Bicycle riders generally can output about 1/4 horsepower. (I know, everyone here can do more that that, but we're far better than average... stick with me and you'll see the point) Chain drives can be well over 98% efficient. Shaft drives are doing well to be 85% efficient.

So with only 1/4 horsepower, can you really afford to lose 12-15% of your output to an ineffecient drivetrain? People spend an enormous amount of time and money trying to overcome even 1% of other losses like rolling resistance and wind resistance, 12-15% is quite a bit if you put it in perspective.

And then there's weight. Shaft drives are heavy.

Az

In addition to all that, one is limited to an internally geared hub to have more than one gear. That adds all the friction loss, and weight,of the hub on top of all that!

I have seen shaft drive bikes, they are available in the US. Just do some more searching.

Hi all, I ran across this web page, http://www.commuterbicycle.com and it has some interesting information about commuter bikes. I am now 51 and weigh 250. Currently I ride a trek 7500 and like it but this idea of a shaft drive bike sounds interesting. I just took a job that is 6 miles to work each way and am seriously wanting to bike commute as much as possible. The trek obviously will work and I think probably one of the better bikes for it with a few mods such as better lights "fredy fenders" and probably some new tires since it hasn't had any in several years. I guess I just saw this shaft drive and want to try it, the price is very good, around $600, and was just wondering if any one had any experiance with any of the brand listed. The author mentioned one that is only sold in England and a sent them and e-mail but no response at this time.

any comments are appreciated, thanks for your help
I traded a folding Peugeot for a shaft drive Fendt bicycle last year, mostly out of curiosity. Here's my take:

Good:

1. Everything's internal, even the shaft being enclosed, so weather exposure is not a big problem.
2. You'll get plenty of exercise.
3. Everyone will notice your bike.
4. Relatively trouble-free, compared with a derailleur type bike.

Bad:

1. The bike is heavy.
2. Only 3 speeds (not an issue with me, but might be with others).
3. To change the back tire you have to practically disassemble the bike (I've not done it).
4. The "Cardano" shaft drive, I think it's called, is not as efficient as a chain.
5. You'll be asked to work hard for your kilometers.
6. Everyone will notice your bike.

My Fendt is mostly a conversation piece. In fact, it's at a local bike shop.

Jim

I traded a folding Peugeot for a shaft drive Fendt bicycle last year, mostly out of curiosity. Here's my take:

Good:

1. Everything's internal, even the chain being enclosed, so weather exposure is not a big problem.


I'm confused. Your shaft drive bike has an enclosed chain?

Az

I'm confused. Your shaft drive bike has an enclosed chain?

Az
Oops, no chain, of course. I meant to say that the complete drive train, shaft, bearings, etc., is enclosed.

Thanks for the information. The bike I am looking at is by Dynamic and has an 8 speed internal drive. As for the weight I have learned it is around 32 lb. As to why us newbies always seem to be interested in things like this, why not? My experiance with derailurs have been, the things are greasy fussy require constant maintenance, and costly to replace chains and gears as needed.

So all is a trade off. I'm willing to work a bit more for a commuter bike that is easier to maintaing and depend on for day to day short , 10 mile round trip, commute.

Granted I'll keep my Trek 7500 for longer rides, and buy a true road bike when I am ready to go on truly long rides. I was just wanting to know what those that had em thought of em. The shaft drive bike that is.

I say drive your shaft as long as you can

LOL, words to live by my friend, words to live by.

http://www.dynamicbicycles.com/bikes/

Thats the site I have been looking at. Wished there was a dealer closer so I could try one out.

Here are two others.

http://www.webbicycle.com/about.php

http://oxfordchainless.com/

Some claim that power is more direct with a chain since there are no angles as in a shaft drive. But, if you don't keep your chain clean you lose power, and since the shaft drive is sealed dirt and grit are not big factors. The shaft and casing weigh 3-4 pounds, an extra load.
If you need to repair your shaft bike beyond the normal and you are not mechanically oriented, you might have a problem. Also changing rear flats could prove to be a little difficult.
However, a shaft driven bike with an internal hub would be a very low maintenance bicycle.

Some discussions here:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=139824&highlight=shaft+driven

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/27053

I traded a folding Peugeot for a shaft drive Fendt bicycle last year, mostly out of curiosity. Here's my take:Jim

You don't know how many threads of speculation and opinion one has to read before finding someone who's actually owned or ridden a shft drive.
R

I think shaft drive will catch on and claim a big chunk of the market. Three pounds extra weight is a trivial amount unless you're racing, and even then mainly for hills. The real questions are: is shaft drive efficient, and does the gear ratio suit the rider and conditions? Shaft didn't catch on 100 years ago because hub gears weren't very good, and only had 3 speeds max. Now there are 7 and 8 speed hubs, and maybe some with even more gears, made with much better material (obviously) than in 1900. If the shaft drive sellers are correct, and power transfer efficiency is comparable to chain drive, and if the gears are optimized for non-racing conditions, then I think a lot of commuters and recreational riders will accept an extra three pound of weight in exchange for durability, reliability, ground clearance, the ability to change gears when stopped, and (especially) cleanliness.

Robert

Thanks for the input. I'm thinking along your lines, and looking at the shaft drive for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I've always been a bit of an early adopter of things, but not the bleeding edge. I just don't have the money for a mistake at this time.

Thanks for the lead to the other threads, i'll check them out.

Odd that I don't have a shaft drive, given that I have been GIVEN the shaft many times. Now there's a mystery to contemplate while I ride this morning!

Here's a bit on my Fendt shaft drive bicycle....

http://ron521.homestead.com/FendtShaftDrive.html

Incidentally, the great American pro track champion of the turn of the 20th century, Major Taylor, rode a shaft-drive track bike for a while. He must have won sprints with it, which probably tells you more about just how strong he was than about how efficient the system was. (Evidently it was good for long, steady high-gear motor-paced events, but not so good for short sprints, probably because the system's mass made fast accelerations more difficult.) Here's a link to a fascinating discussion of "chainless" bikes, well worth reading as there are quotes from books both historical and examining the history of bikes of this period:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/archive/index.php/t-376353-p-2.html

Luis

1910 Pierce Arrow chainless (http://www.nostalgic.net/bicycle649.htm) w/ f&r suspension.

tcs

I think shaft drive will catch on and claim a big chunk of the market. Three pounds extra weight is a trivial amount unless you're racing, and even then mainly for hills. The real questions are: is shaft drive efficient, and does the gear ratio suit the rider and conditions? Shaft didn't catch on 100 years ago because hub gears weren't very good, and only had 3 speeds max. Now there are 7 and 8 speed hubs, and maybe some with even more gears, made with much better material (obviously) than in 1900. If the shaft drive sellers are correct, and power transfer efficiency is comparable to chain drive, and if the gears are optimized for non-racing conditions, then I think a lot of commuters and recreational riders will accept an extra three pound of weight in exchange for durability, reliability, ground clearance, the ability to change gears when stopped, and (especially) cleanliness.
Robert

I don't think they'll 'catch on' if they're anything like the test shaftie I took a spin on? My local bike shop had one with a shaft and an automatic-shifting enclosed rear hub, so I tried it out.

And I was completely unnerved by the disconnected free-wheeling that occurred prior to every 'automatic' downshift! I would NEVER own a bike where there was so often such a loss of pedal control!
Although I often suspect that 7 speeds might possibly be quite adequate for my usage, I'll still stick with my lovely inexpensive Trek 7000 with it's standard 21 speeds, excellent handling, and no free-wheeling surprises, thank you!

Unlike most others posting here, I really have a Dynamic shaft drive (8 speed) and have put about 4000 miles on it. The primary advantage is that the bike is clean. You can ride in business attire and not get greasy. It requires very little maintenance. All the jabber about efficiency is a waste of breath - unless you are really a top rider/racer, differences in drive train efficiency can't be felt. I have chain bicycles with deraillers, as well as internally geared bikes. I like them all and cannot really tell much difference. (You Tour de France riders who post here can now start flaming.)
M Riley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWB_COSUXMw

Since this thread was started (in '05!!!) manufacturers have come out with belt drive. It uses an IGH, but no oily chain. Belts aren't *quite* as efficient as chains, but close. Plus, they're much cleaner. Not to mention belt pulleys have fewer pointy things sticking out. I'd definitely look at one of them for commuting.

http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/urban/district/district/

From Interbike - Sept 10

From Biometric a Danish company

http://images.channeladvisor.com/Sell/SSProfiles/82000016/Images/8/biomegacarbonbike.jpg



http://images.channeladvisor.com/Sell/SSProfiles/82000016/Images/8/biometshaftdrive1.jpg

http://images.channeladvisor.com/Sell/SSProfiles/82000016/Images/8/biomegashaftdrivebike.jpg

Unlike most others posting here, I really have a Dynamic shaft drive (8 speed) and have put about 4000 miles on it.

What's the procedure when you get a flat tire?

There are lots of shaft drive bike owners in the forums. Some thread has a lot of photos of all different kinds. Of course they are all slow and heavy. The owners confirm this. Yes I have ridden a couple. Nothing beats a chain. In addition to the energy loss in the shaft drive, one is stuck with an internal geared hub, making things even worse. Good for an easy 1 mph loss. They have been around since the 1800's. They also are not very well sealed for winter riding according to one forum member.

Fixing a rear tire is no harder than on any IGH bike. After unbolting the wheel (need a wrench - no skewers with IGH hubs), you can pull it right off. The geared hubs all have some connector which has to be disconnected, but in this respect a shaft drive bike is no harder that any old 3-speed.

Bicycle riders generally can output about 1/4 horsepower. (I know, everyone here can do more that that, but we're far better than average... stick with me and you'll see the point) Chain drives can be well over 98% efficient. Shaft drives are doing well to be 85% efficient.

So with only 1/4 horsepower, can you really afford to lose 12-15% of your output to an ineffecient drivetrain? People spend an enormous amount of time and money trying to overcome even 1% of other losses like rolling resistance and wind resistance, 12-15% is quite a bit if you put it in perspective.

And then there's weight. Shaft drives are heavy.

Az

This post tells the whole story IMO. It's all about getting 100% of the energy you put in to the ground and this is where a chain has it all over a shaft.

Shaft drive bicycles are one of those oddities that come back every so many years, make a big splash in the bicycle industry press, then vanish with barely a trace. I've seen a few in museums. The Charles River museum of industry has one, circa 1900.

I agree with the opinions of some others: You lose a lot of energy through this drive train. I'd stick with what works. Jshultz, since you're only going to commute about 6 miles, (and if there are no really steep hills involved), I'd suggest going fixed or single speed.
A simple, very efficient drive train that never lets you down, and you don't need an advanced degree in mechanical engineering to adjust it. Okay, a little hyperbole there, but you get the idea.

For my purposes, a bike that one cannot riide in business attire is utterly useless, so I'm not opposed to shaft drive. On the other hand, all it takes is an IGH with a chainguard or chaincase and you have a perfectly good solution to the problem, one that works for me. It's worth noting that neither the Dutch, Germans, or Danes, all of whom take cycling seriously as transportation, seem to have a significant number of shaft drive bikes in use.

However, one British magazine reviewed a shaft drive bike a few years ago and concluded the same, but opined that shaft drive bikes, while inferior in efficiency, are inexpensive and more readily available. Consequently, they thought thought there was a niche for them as convenient, but inexpensive commuter vehicles. I gather that your experience supports this conclusion.

Lots of alternatives out there. One person on the Icebike winter cycling list has a belt drive and claims that it works OK in snow and ice. I'd expected that ice would get betweek the teeth and the cogged belt and derail everything, but apparently not.

Anyhow, I've stopped dismissing oddball technologies out of hand. Some may be perfectly valid for some applications.

Since the object for me is to get to work without getting sweaty, I can't dismiss the virtue of efficiency, as long as it does not come at the cost of convenience. A bike, afer all, is supposed to be an energy saving device, right?


Paul

Since you seem to lose a lot of energy through the drive train, why do they use - essentially - shaft drives on automobiles?

Since you seem to lose a lot of energy through the drive train, why do they use - essentially - shaft drives on automobiles?
The British Berkley sports car used chain drive and the Dutch DAF used belt drive, both in the 1960s. Some very small race cars still use it. Shaft drive is better at transmitting high power and is more reliable.

Pauls

Since you seem to lose a lot of energy through the drive train, why do they use - essentially - shaft drives on automobiles?

A shaft drive will withstand more torque than any chain or belt can and still be small enough to be useful. Plus with a shaft one can design more gear configurations than with a chain or belt.

Since you seem to lose a lot of energy through the drive train, why do they use - essentially - shaft drives on automobiles?
And on motorcycles too. The power of the engines can put up with the power loss and the weight. The small amount of power coming from bike riders need the advantages of less weight and more efficiency. It's just a bad application for a bicycle.

And on motorcycles too. The power of the engines can put up with the power loss and the weight. The small amount of power coming from bike riders need the advantages of less weight and more efficiency. It's just a bad application for a bicycle.

I believe it was the Model T that used a band drive.

I believe it was the Model T that used a band drive.

I don't know, I was not there. :D:D

1910 Pierce Arrow chainless (http://www.nostalgic.net/bicycle649.htm) w/ f&r suspension.

tcs

I'd kill everyone on this forum for that Pierce Arrow Chainless. so beautiful.

Since you seem to lose a lot of energy through the drive train, why do they use - essentially - shaft drives on automobiles?

On top of that, vehicles lose another 5% to 10% of their power if they employ a traditional torque converter (slush box) automatic transmission. Just one more inefficiency that is overcome by the sheer availability of power from the engine.

In a V-8, many people barely notice the difference in power between an auto and a manual transmission. In a small engined vehicle, the difference can be substantial. I remember once taking back to back test drives in late 90s model Acura Integras. They had the same 1.8L engine, but one of the Integras had an automatic. Wow, what a difference. The one w/auto was significantly less responsive. I remember the 0-60 times were 7.9 with manual and 9.2 with auto. I've seen cars with even smaller engines, like 1.6L, where the 0-60 times were a full 2 seconds slower with auto, due to the power loss combined with slower shifting.

I believe it was the Model T that used a band drive.

The Model T had a 2.9L engine, that produced only 20hp.

I believe it was the Model T that used a band drive.

Not quite. The Model T, and many other cars of the era used a "planetary transmission", in which gears were selected by moving a lever of stepping on a pedal which tightened a band around a rotating drum. This was seen as an easy way to shift, no grinding as on the "sliding gear" transmission. Disadvantages was that it was not common to have more than two forward speeds, plus reverse. The gears themselves were hard to strip, but the bands did wear out and slip, giving the same effect of a slipping clutch, i.e. engine runs but car won't move forward.

Modern automatic transmissions use the same planetary principle, but tighten the bands by hydraulic pressure, and have better materials, so bands don't wear out often.

The Model T, and almost every other car of the era with the engine in front, DID use a drive shaft to carry power to the rear wheels. A few cars had chain drive, and a tiny fraction had front wheel drive. Stanley cars had the engine in the rear, and first used chains, then switched to direct drive (no chain or shaft, just a gear on the engine and one on the axle, enclosed in an oil bath).

Not quite. The Model T, and many other cars of the era used a "planetary transmission", in which gears were selected by moving a lever of stepping on a pedal which tightened a band around a rotating drum. This was seen as an easy way to shift, no grinding as on the "sliding gear" transmission. Disadvantages was that it was not common to have more than two forward speeds, plus reverse. The gears themselves were hard to strip, but the bands did wear out and slip, giving the same effect of a slipping clutch, i.e. engine runs but car won't move forward.

Modern automatic transmissions use the same planetary principle, but tighten the bands by hydraulic pressure, and have better materials, so bands don't wear out often.

The Model T, and almost every other car of the era with the engine in front, DID use a drive shaft to carry power to the rear wheels. A few cars had chain drive, and a tiny fraction had front wheel drive. Stanley cars had the engine in the rear, and first used chains, then switched to direct drive (no chain or shaft, just a gear on the engine and one on the axle, enclosed in an oil bath).


Thanks for the most interesting response. I greatly appreciate your efforts.

I don't know, I was not there. :D:D

My gramps had a Model T. About once a week he would crank that baby up, and we were off to the store!

My uncle had a Model A as his "beach buggy" and we had a 1946 Willys civilian "Jeep."

Off we would go on the beaches of Southern CA - Torrey Pines in San Diego County. Something only emergency vehicles are allowed to do today. You always had to check the tides so you would not be caught between rock outcroppings passable only at low tides.

Great childhood memories!!

My gramps had a Model T. About once a week he would crank that baby up, and we were off to the store!

My uncle had a Model A as his "beach buggy" and we had a 1946 Willys civilian "Jeep."

Off we would go on the beaches of Southern CA - Torrey Pines in San Diego County. Something only emergency vehicles are allowed to do today. You always had to check the tides so you would not be caught between rock outcroppings passable only at low tides.

Great childhood memories!!

Sounds very nice. My grandfather had a Stanley Steamer dealership.