Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Central Illinois
    My Bikes
    Trek Speed Concept 9.9, 2011 Calfee Tetra Tandem
    Posts
    913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    CDX belt drive weight reduction

    Here are the notes that I made about the CDX belt drive on our Calfee: Oct 5, 2012. The new Gates Center track belt drive came today. It took less than an hour to install it and tension the belt using the iPhone app.

    The Wipperman 8 speed chain weighed 426 grams and the Shimano chainrings each weighed 43 grams for a total of 512 grams. The new belt weighs 108 grams and the new chainrings each weigh 86 grams for a total of 280 grams.
    The total weight reduction is 232 grams / .51 pounds / 8.16 ounces. The new belt is 1/2 inch wide.

    Your results might vary, I was using a fairly heavy sync chain.

    Wayne

  2. #2
    hors category TandemGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    7,162
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DubT View Post
    I was using a fairly heavy sync chain.
    FWIW, 77" KMC 9SL Sync Chain @ 352 grams.

  3. #3
    Pic
    Pic is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Earth
    My Bikes
    Cannondale RT2, Trek Madone 4.7, Trek FX 7.6
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just ordered my CDX today. I will find out which chain I have and weigh it also.

  4. #4
    hors category TandemGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    7,162
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I didn't include the timing rings since we have daVinci cranks with the one-piece, spiderless rings.

    Therefore, you have to compare the weights of the entire cross-over crankset & sync chain to get an apples to apples comparison between MegaExo type cranksets and the daVinci cranks + traditional ST bottom brackets.

    My guess is, the total weight difference ends up being somewhere around 100 grams (equivalent of 3.5 oz of water).

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    787
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    KMC 10-SL 302g

  6. #6
    Clipless in Coeur d'Alene twocicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
    My Bikes
    Calfee Tetra Tandem, Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, other misc Road & MTB singles
    Posts
    1,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TandemGeek View Post
    I didn't include the timing rings since we have daVinci cranks with the one-piece, spiderless rings.

    Therefore, you have to compare the weights of the entire cross-over crankset & sync chain to get an apples to apples comparison between MegaExo type cranksets and the daVinci cranks + traditional ST bottom brackets.

    My guess is, the total weight difference ends up being somewhere around 100 grams (equivalent of 3.5 oz of water).
    Good point Mark. We switched from larger & heavier Polar 26oz capacity bottle to the mid-size 22oz Camelback (verfied by measuring cup test). Yes we lose 4oz fluid per bottle, but the bottle itself weighs quite a bit less too.

    The Polars were much taller and a constant source of dripping water and sport drink on the frame. The more compact Camelback bottles have a top that locks & a squirt mechanism takes a bit to get used to while riding, but otherwise seems superior. The smaller bottle size solved access issues for the stoker that she had on both the tandem and her compact single. see: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post14467249

    Overall, for the 4 bottles we switched out, that saved equal "empty" weight to the entire CDX setup, and quite a bit more when factoring in the water load.

    Polar:
    26oz capacity
    146gm empty
    total full weight each: 852gm
    4x 852gm = 3408gm (3.4kg!) = 7.51lbs for full Polar bottles. Yikes!!

    Camelback:
    22oz capacity
    100gm empty
    total full weight each: 722gm
    4x 722gm = 2888gm (2.9kg) = 6.37lbs <<< still, that weight is near equal to the 2007 Calfee frame!

    Camelback weight savings (4 bottles):
    empty: 184gm (.4lbs)
    full: 520gm (1.15lbs)


    Fun factoids:
    The 4oz less per bottle in the Camelbacks has not been noticable to us from a hydration point. My take on it: the time it takes my stoker to use up 2 full 22oz bottles is about the max time she can handle between potty breaks

    As always, the biggest weight diff is usually body composition. Reviewing photos in the link above will reveal a lot more than 1lb savings in the 2nd photo taken some 3 months later.
    Last edited by twocicle; 01-23-13 at 01:19 PM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Central Illinois
    My Bikes
    Trek Speed Concept 9.9, 2011 Calfee Tetra Tandem
    Posts
    913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TandemGeek View Post
    I didn't include the timing rings since we have daVinci cranks with the one-piece, spiderless rings.

    Therefore, you have to compare the weights of the entire cross-over crankset & sync chain to get an apples to apples comparison between MegaExo type cranksets and the daVinci cranks + traditional ST bottom brackets.

    My guess is, the total weight difference ends up being somewhere around 100 grams (equivalent of 3.5 oz of water).

    Please forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea how this comment addresses the weights that I recorded. Did I miss a post or something?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    46
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think what TandemGeek was getting at is a particular feature of the daVinci cranks: the most popular option for timing rings are one piece spiderless 34t rings that attach directly to the spider attachment point on the cranks. These weigh about 20g more than a spider alone, but come in significantly less than a spider+34t ring+chainring bolts. The issue is that when you go to the Gates system, you have to put on a spider to attach the gates rings to (unless daVinci decided at some point with Gates to develop a spiderless belt drive ring). So you are not just replacing a 34t timing ring with a gates 86g ring, but replacing a 34t spiderless ring with an 86g ring + daVinci spider + chainring bolts.

    In other words, with a daVinci, the weight savings are far less because attaching the gates to the cranks weighs a good bit more which counts against the savings from belt vs. chain.

  9. #9
    hors category TandemGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    7,162
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DubT View Post
    Please forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea how this comment addresses the weights that I recorded. Did I miss a post or something?
    OK. I'll run the numbers....

    I believe the Ultegra tandem cross-over cranksets weigh about 1,890 grams (arms, BBs, rings, bolts), so add 426 grams for your chain and your original cross-over crank system weighed about 2,316 grams. You dropped 232 grams with your CDX drive so your cross-over crankset's total system weight is now something like 2,084 grams.

    The starting point for a daVinci crossover crankset with lightweight BBs is 1,637 grams (cranks, Ti BB's w/alloy cups, rings, bolts), so when you add-in the weight of a KMC 9SL chain at 352 grams the total system weight is around 1,989 grams, or about 95 grams less than the Ultegra CDX drive on your Calfee.

    Again, as budhaslug surmised from my comments, there may not be a whole lot of weight savings to be found by going to a CDS or CDX drive if someone is running a daVinci cross-over crank system. This is because perhaps 1/2 to 3/4 of the potential net gram reduction in chain to belt weight would likely be consumed by switching-out the pair of 75 gram, one-piece, spiderless 34t timing rings for the 69t (86 gram) CDX sprockets + the added weight of two crank arm spiders.

    Now, there are other good reasons that teams might want to adopt the belt drive. However, I just don't think there's a lot of grams to be shaved if someone is running daVinci's already very lightweight cross-over cranksets. About the only lighter options would be some of the very light carbon cross-over cranksets or moving to a right-side drive.
    Last edited by TandemGeek; 01-23-13 at 09:20 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Central Illinois
    My Bikes
    Trek Speed Concept 9.9, 2011 Calfee Tetra Tandem
    Posts
    913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the clarification, being unfamiliar with the Davinci cranks I was totally in the dark as to what you were saying.

  11. #11
    Clipless in Coeur d'Alene twocicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
    My Bikes
    Calfee Tetra Tandem, Specialized Tarmac SL4 S-Works, other misc Road & MTB singles
    Posts
    1,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I chose the Ultegra 67(nn) series tandem cranks (comes with regular Ultegra BBs) for it's stiffness and better durability over carbon cranks, and definitely not the weight, which is pretty much middle of the road. The only other cranks I loosely considered was the SLK-Light, but they run at over $1000 for the set. Basically, only looked at the MegaExo/HollowTechII configuration (outboard BB, etc) and no others.

    How do the DaVinci cranks stack up as far as stiffness of the cranks and titanium square tapered axle with internal BB/bearings? Is there any real test data for these specific cranks and Ti BB ?

  12. #12
    Senior Member colotandem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by twocicle View Post
    How do the DaVinci cranks stack up as far as stiffness of the cranks and titanium square tapered axle with internal BB/bearings? Is there any real test data for these specific cranks and Ti BB ?
    I don't know of any "real test data" regarding DaVinci cranks. I can say that we have thousands of miles on Davinci Cranks. First set was on a DaVinci road bike, very happy with these cranks. We spec'd them on our Ventana mtb tandem (not with TI BB). Then on our 29er full suspension tandem, we put DaVinci cranks with Phil Wood Ti BBs. Zero issues with the cranks or BBs. I am not sure how to compare them to Ultegra or Carbon cranks though.

    One other thing that I'll add is that we had our most recent set of DaVinci cranks annodized black and they look pretty sharp! I only mention this b/c some like a dark look as opposed to the polished aluminum that is standard. The other thing that is a selling point with DaVinci cranks is that you can mix and match just about any crank length, whereas most tandem cranks are limited to 175, 172.5 and 170.

  13. #13
    Senior Member waynesulak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth, TX
    My Bikes
    650B tandem converted from Santana Arriva, Santana Noventa, Boulder Bicycle 700C, Gunnar Sport, Trek TX700,
    Posts
    1,734
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by colotandem View Post
    I don't know of any "real test data" regarding DaVinci cranks. I can say that we have thousands of miles on Davinci Cranks. First set was on a DaVinci road bike, very happy with these cranks. We spec'd them on our Ventana mtb tandem (not with TI BB). Then on our 29er full suspension tandem, we put DaVinci cranks with Phil Wood Ti BBs. Zero issues with the cranks or BBs. I am not sure how to compare them to Ultegra or Carbon cranks though.

    One other thing that I'll add is that we had our most recent set of DaVinci cranks annodized black and they look pretty sharp! I only mention this b/c some like a dark look as opposed to the polished aluminum that is standard. The other thing that is a selling point with DaVinci cranks is that you can mix and match just about any crank length, whereas most tandem cranks are limited to 175, 172.5 and 170.
    I have used Phil steel BBs but have a couple questions about the Ti BBs:

    Do you use Ti or Mag Ti version?
    BB widths used for captain and stoker?
    Do you use Aluminum cups or Magnesium?
    Do you use on stoker BB as well?
    Mileage before replacing, and do you ride in the wet very often?
    Do you use BB covers (they add a few grams)?
    When replacing do you buy new BB or replace bearings?
    Ti is the about the same stiffness per weight as steel, 60% as heavy is 60% as stiff. Do you feel any flex?
    Steel crank bolt used?


    Thanks, Wayne
    Last edited by waynesulak; 01-25-13 at 11:02 AM.

  14. #14
    Senior Member colotandem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Golden, CO
    Posts
    235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by waynesulak View Post
    I have used Phil steel BBs but have a couple questions about the Ti BBs:

    Do you use Ti or Mag Ti version? Ti
    BB widths used for captain and stoker? 113 & 118
    Do you use Aluminum cups or Magnesium? They were listed as Alloy
    Do you use on stoker BB as well? Yes
    Mileage before replacing, and do you ride in the wet very often? Have not replaced yet, probably only 1500 miles (95% dirt). Not very wet like lots of rain, but some water crossings from time to time. I try not to ride on really muddy trails due to the trail damage.
    Do you use BB covers (they add a few grams)? No
    When replacing do you buy new BB or replace bearings? Don't know yet, I would assume just bearings.
    Ti is the about the same stiffness per weight as steel, 60% as heavy is 60% as stiff. Do you feel any flex? I might not be as sensitive to flex as many others on this board. So I am probably the wrong guy to ask...
    Steel crank bolt used? I believe that I have steel crank bolts, but would need to check


    Thanks, Wayne
    See repsonses above in red

  15. #15
    hors category TandemGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    7,162
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Do you use Ti or Mag Ti version? MagTi, Titanim axle w/magnesium shell
    BB widths used for captain and stoker? 108mm Captain & 111mm Stoker w/145mm rear spacing
    Do you use Aluminum cups or Magnesium? Options are Stainless Steel or Alloy: we use alloy
    Do you use on stoker BB as well? Yes, see above: 111mm MagTi w/alloy cups for stoker
    Mileage before replacing, and do you ride in the wet very often? 15k & still going. Grease still looks good. Very little wet weather riding. PW BB's are not reknown for sealing out water & need more service if used for all-weather / wet riding. Adding a weep hole to the shell & aligning it to drain might not be a bad idea for those who do a lot of wet riding w/PW square taper BBs.
    Do you use BB covers (they add a few grams)? We're talking Square Taper, not outboard BBs so N/A
    When replacing do you buy new BB or replace bearings? PW's bearings are replaceable.
    Ti is the about the same stiffness per weight as steel, 60% as heavy is 60% as stiff. Do you feel any flex? Short of instrumenting the BB axle, BB shell & frame in a fixture I'm not sure how anyone would be able to isolate BB axle deflection from normal front BB shell frame deflection on even the most laterally rigid tandem they could find. As for the stoker position, I can tell you that our Erickson Ti BB axles had sufficient deflection under load to cause end cap & cup damage. I have seen nothing that would indicate that the MagTi stoker's BB is being subjected to excessive torsional deflection from the opposing sync & drive side loads. Then again, we're only a 280lb team and neigher of us are elite level cyclists putting out mega-watts.
    Steel crank bolt used? Middelbrurn self-extracting stainless steel bolts with aluminum theaded retaining cap.
    Last edited by TandemGeek; 01-25-13 at 12:05 PM.

  16. #16
    Senior Member waynesulak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth, TX
    My Bikes
    650B tandem converted from Santana Arriva, Santana Noventa, Boulder Bicycle 700C, Gunnar Sport, Trek TX700,
    Posts
    1,734
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the answers. These are the mud caps I was referring to which are for square taper BBs:


    BB Cup Mud Guards

    Our mud guards are designed to help protect your Phil Wood bottom bracket cups from getting dust, dirt and mud that can accumulate in and around the bottom bracket cup splines. They are designed with a drain opening to allow any moisture between the bearings and mudguard to vent out. They are designed to install onto any Phil Wood square taper bottom bracket cup sets. Each set of mud guards comes with 4 rubber o-rings, (preinstalled and two replacement).

    mudguard.jpg

    http://www.philwood.com/products/bbp...dcupguards.php

    Comments from anyone else that wants to address Phil Wood steel or Ti BB durability are welcome.
    Last edited by waynesulak; 01-25-13 at 02:30 PM.

  17. #17
    hors category TandemGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    7,162
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by waynesulak View Post
    These are the mud caps I was referring to which are for square taper BBs
    That's a new one on me. Never heard of nor seen those before. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Posting Permissions

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