Belt Drive on Da Vinci Cranks: Question for TandemGeek
Hey Tandem Geek,
What ever became of your product testing here? http://tandemgeek.wordpress.com/2010...belt-vs-chain/ Does Bob manufacture the sprockets? Did the setup do well beyond your reported rides? Thanks! |
OK.. i got to this point.
http://tandemgeek.wordpress.com/2010...belt-update-5/ Looks like a bit of a failure then. Though I'm sure the results would be better with bigger sprockets. I really like the benefits of the belt drive (feel, quiet, etc), but I like our Da Vinci crank setup. |
If belts and sprockets were made the correct size it seems to me that the davinci would be an ideal candidate for conversion with two belts from cranks to common bottom bracket and then a single drive chain. I wonder if Todd at davinci has looked at that option.
Possibly with the center track system requiring less belt tension this might be an option. |
While we ponder another 27F "Spring" morning and the inevitable decision to ride trainer or hope for the ice puddles to melt and then do an outdoor ride...
As TandemGeek pointed out in "Timing Belt: Update #5", when loading up the front crank that resulted in the bottom run being under less tension than the top. However, it seems the test is flawed as far as tandems go because unless the ubiquitous "she's not pedaling" comes into play, the stoker will also be applying load and thus the bottom run will not be [as] slack. ie: does not the stoker load apply tension to the bottom run? The other point about sprocket size brings up a question I've had for a while. While it's (more or less) well known that smaller timing sprockets incur higher loads and just require higher chain or belt tension, when the Santana configuration is using larger 74T sprockets, why do they not indicate less tension is required than with the more standard 69T sprockets? |
Originally Posted by USPSPRO
Hey Tandem Geek,
Did the setup do well beyond your reported rides? Again, you found one of the follow-ups. The 33t sprocket was way too small to be practical. More conventionally size sprockets using the non-bike belts work just fine. Looks like a bit of a failure then. Though I'm sure the results would be better with bigger sprockets. I wouldn't call it a failure; it merely demonstrated that there are limitations when it comes to pulley size, in much the same was as using chain-drives with very small timing rings can also sub-optimize drive train efficiency and component life.
Originally Posted by twocicle
(Post 15421935)
As TandemGeek pointed out in "Timing Belt: Update #5", when loading up the front crank that resulted in the bottom run being under less tension than the top. However, it seems the test is flawed as far as tandems go because unless the ubiquitous "she's not pedaling" comes into play, the stoker will also be applying load and thus the bottom run will not be [as] slack. ie: does not the stoker load apply tension to the bottom run?
Originally Posted by twocicle
(Post 15421935)
The other point about sprocket size brings up a question I've had for a while. While it's (more or less) well known that smaller timing sprockets incur higher loads and just require higher chain or belt tension, when the Santana configuration is using larger 74T sprockets, why do they not indicate less tension is required than with the more standard 69T sprockets?
|
^^^ Interesting. Thanks for the reply to my questions.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:49 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.