General Cycling Discussion - Belt drives

I'm trying to guage the opinion of the more serious bikers on belt driver v tradtion chains.

There's a lot of development right now in trying to create a commercially successful bike belt and pulley system.

Any comments would be greaty appriecated.

Here's a couple of links incase you don't know much about it...

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/28798/Carbon-belt-drive-is-future-for-bike-transmission

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/28981/Spot-joins-Orange-with-belt-drive

nope.

belts rob energy vs a steel chain on metal cogs.

nuff said.

belts are quiet and strong,
but 1% or 2% energy loss is still energy loss

belts rob energy vs a steel chain on metal cogs.
read the links

read the links

I did read the links and it is just 'Claims' that the belt is as efficient as a chain,
but no data no proof and the belt is not even in production


so I stand by what I said.

chains are better
---
and I don't care if they have a belt that is 99% efficient...whatever transmission
it will have to connect to will rob far more energy than a chain and cogs

only a singlespeed belt would be any good IMHO

so...go ahead dream of a belt drive. if it is multi-geared or have ratios,
it will never, ever be as efficient as a chain and cogs

If the technology works it could be versy useful for muddy off roading and mucky winter commuting with a hub gear. Could also be good for cleaner folding bikes. I doubt it will make a dent in the racing or performance market but there are other types of riding.

What happens when the timing pulleys get clogged with dirt?

The belt drive idea has potential, but it will have to endure real world testing by being on the market for 5-8 years before I'd consider buying into it.

The proof is in the pudding. People would use barbed wire for a chain if they could go 0.1 mph faster. Assuming you don't have significant drawbacks such as breakage, slippage, clogging, etc.

One problem is that chains are already fairly efficient, so it's hard to improve on them. Having something "as efficient" means it's not any better, so you've got to have some other selling point to move it. Coming up with something more effiicient is hard because there's not that much room left before you hit 100%.

only a singlespeed belt would be any good IMHO
Naturally. Or internally geared.

I'm not exactly signing up to preorder, but there's nothing in those articles that makes me dismiss this out of hand. I don't see how the rest of the powertrain would necessarily be worse than the rest of a chain-driven system.

Looks like http://www.gatesprograms.com/carbon/ has a white paper if you register.

Shill!!!

Shill!!!
Yeah, I wish.

I would be interested. They have been using belt drives on motorcycles forever, so why not a bicycle?

They have been using belt drives on motorcycles forever, so why not a bicycle?

The belt doesn't have to move on a motorbike does it (sideways). So its effectively a singlespeed.

Belts make a LOT of sense on bikes I'd ride, which would exclude any archaic derailleur system. Belt material has advanced as much as tires, and they don't suffer from stretching or wear the sprockets. They're used in extreme conditions in machines and auto engines, and are priced competitively when in high production. It's conceivable they could weigh less than a chain system, so I imagine weight weenies would be all over it!

The belt doesn't have to move on a motorbike does it (sideways). So its effectively a singlespeed.

http://sheldonbrown.com/internal-gears.html

I'd have to try it first, but wouldn't just write it off out of hand. I don't race, so the energy loss would most likely be immaterial for commuting and utility purposes, over ease of maintenance.

I'm not particularly opposed, but this seems like one of those answers to questions nobody has asked, like electric shifting. Drivelines are already quiet, efficient and easy to maintain; there just doesn't seem to be any NEED for a belt drive. I'd certainly try one if they were available, but it would have to be spectacularly good to convince me, and I don't know that there's much room for improvement.

I would be interested. They have been using belt drives on motorcycles forever, so why not a bicycle?

Because inefficiencies in a motorcycle drivetrain can be compensated for by a few extra pennies at the pump while the cost of inefficiencies on a bicycle can only be compensated by increased output, reduced performance, or greater fatigue over the same distance.

Somebody, quick, start an airless tires thread!

Because inefficiencies in a motorcycle drivetrain can be compensated for by a few extra pennies at the pump while the cost of inefficiencies on a bicycle can only be compensated by increased output, reduced performance, or greater fatigue over the same distance.

Somebody, quick, start an airless tires thread!

According to the article, their belt can match or exceed the efficiency of a chain. Not that it would necessarily replace chain drives, but we can have more than one option can't we. A belt drive could offer some advantages that might make it worthwhile for some.

I'm not particularly opposed, but this seems like one of those answers to questions nobody has asked, like electric shifting. Drivelines are already quiet, efficient and easy to maintain; there just doesn't seem to be any NEED for a belt drive. I'd certainly try one if they were available, but it would have to be spectacularly good to convince me, and I don't know that there's much room for improvement.

Nope, don't need belt drive. Don't need pneumatic tires either. Just think of the efficiency loss having to overcome all the deflection in the carcass as the wheel turns!

I see an upside to belt drive. No clean & lube, longer service interval on both the belt and the drive/driven units. The possibility of an infinite ratio CV transmission.

Remember... "No one will ever need more than 256k of RAM." ;)

Belt drive bike:
http://www.deltacycle.com/product.php?g=69

I'd get one if it was more than a 3sp.

I've used belts for years on my Harleys. Much nicer than chains. No lubing/mess,less noise,fewer adjustments,longer life. They make alot of sense for IG hub applications.

I'd get one if it was more than a 3sp.How about a belt drive CVT (continuously variable transmission)? Wouldn't that be the next step?

It seems to have great potential. I know they have been used on motorcycles for years. I don't know much about motor bikes, but it seems that there is little "lateral" movement on the part of a motorcycle belt. The bike chain is part of the transmission system on a bike and the chain has to move side to side in order to change gears. I wonder how reliable the belt will do in shifting. I can imagine shift failure due to lateral belt flex, which you don't find with a metal chain.

It would work well if the deraileur system is replaced by some sort of internal transmission system system. Unfortunately, internal systems tend to be heavier and bulkier, hence not suitable for performance bikes. But, we never know what the bike industry will be able to produce.

Belt drive is not mature yet.

I ride a single speed mountain bike. For that application it would be awesome - long life and no chain-lube. However, there are some serious limitations - 1. Can't retrofit it to my bike (the belt is a continuous loop so you need a way to get it inside the rear triangle. 2. There would need to be quite a few stock sizes of belt and cog sizes. This would be a hassle for dealers who stock the system, and a pain in the neck if you wanted to change your gear ratio. (This is one reason they aren't more common on motorcycles - if you wanted to change your final drive ratio by changing sprocket sizes it's no big deal, but I seriously doubt that any of the belt driven motorcycles even have that option).

Corretec makes belt driven bikes. They are popular at seaside resorts, and the folks I've spoken to who have them really like them.

Belt drive is not mature yet.

That's what I think. We've had 100 years of development time with chain drives so, whatever replaces chain drives, is going to have to be pretty well developed. It needs to be close to the mechanical efficiency of a chain drive system and it needs to be marketable at close to the price of a chain drive system. I don't think they're quite there yet.

Belt drive is not mature yet.Yeah, I doubt they can stand up to the rigors of bicycle use. (http://www.gates.com/brochure.cfm?brochure=2256&location_id=3487) http://www.ornery.net/images/rollEyes.gif

I'm trying to gauge the opinion of the more serious bikers on belt driver v tradtion chains. ....
Belts have two advantages over chains (lower noise/vibration and less maintenance) and one disadvantage (lower drive efficiency, especially under higher torque loads).

On bicycles, the noise/vibration of chain drives is not an issue--as it is for motorcycles.
,,,,,
That leaves you balancing the advantage of lower maintenance over the disadvantage of lower drive efficiency. The only segment of the market that might be interested in that combination would be very casual comfort-bike cruisers, but those bikes are typically near the lower-end of the price range for all bicycles. Using a belt would rule out an external-gear hub, and internal-gear hubs cost considerably more than externals.

So I would suspect that the only sort of people (very casual short-distance riders) who would be interested in a belt-drive bicycle wouldn't be willing to pay what an internal-gear-hub bike would cost.
~

According to the article, their belt can match or exceed the efficiency of a chain. Not that it would necessarily replace chain drives, but we can have more than one option can't we. A belt drive could offer some advantages that might make it worthwhile for some.

Every few weeks somebody starts yet another thread about some great "new" technology like airless tires, shaft drive, belt drive, CV drive, automatic transmission etc, etc, ad nauseum that is going to revolutionize the bike industry. The truth is all this stuff is not new and has been repeatedly tried and failed to gain any significant traction.

Belts have been used in machinery forever. It's not some great leap forward in technology. If it truly offered a significant improvement for bicycles, we would already be using it.

The modern bicycle is a design that has been continually optimized over the last century and it is very good at what it does. There may be niche markets where some of this stuff makes sense, but don't expect it to make a significant impact.

... and if man were meant to fly, god would have given us wings. ;)

The potential is there. There is a thread up in in mechanics about efficiencies of internal hub drives which includes a link to some good testing done on various hubs versus geared systems: http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=363900

If the efficiency of the belt is at or close to that of a good chain and the hub efficiency is close as well, that would make one heck of a commuter/foul weather bike. If I am not racing, I would be willing to spot 2-3 % to get that. Heck, you can get more than that back by positioning & your choice of shirts.

So I would suspect that the only sort of people (very casual short-distance riders) who would be interested in a belt-drive bicycle wouldn't be willing to pay what an internal-gear-hub bike would cost.
~

That's what I think too. I suspect that the issues are more commercial than technological.

... and if man were meant to fly, god would have given us wings. ;)

Well, he sure as heck wouldn't have given us propellor beanies and an endless supply of threads about how they are going to take us to the moon.

I'd love a belt drive for my 3-speed internal hub commuter. Less greasy, interesting look, etc.

As Thor29 pointed out, getting inside the rear triangle is the biggest problem at this point in time. Belt technology surpasses the requirements, but frames have to be built to accommodate them. With so many people willing to accept the archaic derailleur (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/derail) system, it will be a while before belts are common. Actually, it will take as long as it takes for internal gears to take over. I feel pretty certain electric bikes will be common before that happens.

Belt drive is not mature yet.

Harley switched their big twins to belts in the mid-80's and their Sportsters in the early 90's. I'd say belts are ready for prime time.

I've owned chain,belt,and shaft driven motorcycles. The belts blow the others away. The only time I've ever adjusted the tension on a belt was when I changed the rear tire. No lubing/changing oil,no cleaning,nada. And they put zero wear on the pulleys(sprockets).

A belt/IG hub combo wuold be perfect for a commuter or touring bike. If the hub could handle it,it prolly also would work for most MTB's.

Just have to have frames that would accomodate the belt. It would need either elevated chainstays or dropouts that could be unbolted from the stays to get the belt mounted.

Most folks lock onto the 2-3% energy loss over chain drive. However, this amounts to something on the order of 0.5% total loss overall, since frictional losses are only a small part of energy expenditures on a road bike.