And needs lube every couple hundred and makes a tremendous mess of the rear wheel and you should get a shaft drive or belt drive bike, seriously.

Ain't it always on the flat part on the bottom of the tire?:roflmao2:

Since the topic is now about comparing apples and oranges (Motorcycle and Bicycle drive trains) I am very happy that the cam in my car engine is driven by a timing chain rather than a belt; no costly replacement or even more costly wrecked engine from a failed timing belt.

Just to be sure we understand each other - my post was comparison of open vs closed chain in oil bath.



I'm using Scottoiler and am very happy. No mess, no fuss. :)



Chain drive is more efficient than a belt, or shaft drive. On a 100 bhp motorcycle those losses are acceptable (though cam has some other flaws - and maintenance advantages), but on a 300 watt driven bicycle, that can be significant. On a bicycle chain works well, it is efficient and doesn't need that much maintenance - even in salty snowy winter conditions.

The only wrecked engine I've experienced was due to a failed timing chain. Fortunately my current car is designed with a belt and pistons that won't reach the valves even if the belt fails.

It seems I read positive comments (mostly) from people that own a belt drive. And negative thoughts from people that don't. Money aside, I think they have their place, and do a better job in that place than chain drive. I also think it adds value to some users, that's why they still sell.

I would love to ride one for a while and make my own mind.

Any one here own or ridden a steel or titanium Budnitz bike. I was looking at them! The lines look real sexy! would love to hear some testimonies! Thanks Double O

i've noticed that as well. i want to hear the negative comments about belt drive from people who have actually owned and extensively ridden a belt drive bike. at least the updated gates center track design, i'm aware that earlier generations of belt drive had some bugs that the center track design has gone a long way towards rectifying.

negative comments from retro grouches who dismiss anything that's new or different out of hand aren't all that useful to me. i mean, it's great and all that people have strong predetermined opinions about stuff, but i find that informed opinions tend to have more meat.

BikeSnob NYC wrote on more than one blog about his negative impression/experience of a Budnitz bike.
Bike Snob NYC: Simplicity: Money Fixes Everything

Well, at this point it only has a couple of days commuting on it; but I am reasonably happy. Today the metro police did a cleanliness check on the bikes in the cars and mine passed with flying colors (I didn't get thrown off the train). The cop even commented on its cleanliness.

As far as riding, I think my first impression was a bad one because, as I said, it was outside of the parameters of the bike (as I see them). For my ride to the train station I only have about 3.9 mi, then 1.5 mi after I get off. For that it works well. I would still like it to be geared lower. I am in the lowest 'gear' a lot; yet I am seldom in the highest 'gear' (there are both an overpass and an underpass on the way to the station). I will probably order a 46t front pulley to replace the 50t one there now. I am still going to wait on that and give it at least a month to decide.

It seems very smooth and, except for a disc that is dragging (and yes, I wanted disc brakes) it is very quiet.

Actually, it was 1.57x the price of the Motobecane I was considering. High quality ~~~ good quality.

I have a Belt Drive. Just bought it from REI a few weeks back. Scott SUB 10. Was like $750, I got the 2013 model. It's bright ass green. You might have to go into REI stores to find them. I could not find them on their site.

Wait, what? What do they care? Is there a law about this? Is it a Mormon thing?

Thanks for the link, but besides saying its expensive, I couldn't find a true evaluation on the handling and responsiveness of the bike!?

Because people don't like getting "greased" by other peoples bicycles. People are squeezing past bikes in close quarters and a filthily bike is going to get on other peoples clothing.

Anyone that's riding in the winter and has a chain drive should treat themselves to a KMC stainless chain, it's only 1/8" which is a bummer but I haven't seen mine get rusty at all. I have a stainless chainring up front too... plan on getting a stainess fixed cog once I decide on my ratio. I'll either get a chainglider or fab up my own chaincase to reduce the need to lubricate the chain. An IGH rider could file down 6 splines on a stainless cassette style cog so it'll fit an IGH... I was thinking of going that route myself but ended up just riding an old fixed wheel the last while. I rode a buddy's trek soho a while back it slipped a lot when I was mashing on it and he later reported that the belt would gunk up with snow and slush so it wasn't really helpful in the winter for him... think Trek just ended up converting the bike to a chain drive under warranty... I assume this was before they changed the belt tech but I can't say for sure, it was a few years ago.

Yea, they changed it after then.

- Andy

Would you say that wooden wheels, without tyres would be a bad idea? Even without testing it yourself?

Belt drive is less efficient than a chain one. And belt drive is far from being something new.

Having said this, I'd love to test drive a belt driven bike, see how it feels, compare it to a chain driven one. I'd just not buy it and pay to test, since I'm not convinced I'd like it. Just like those fixed gear bicycles and a few other things. Hell, maybe I'm just a stubborn old geezer, but I'd not pay up front for something that seems to me like a bad idea. If you like it - go for it. Come to my town, let me know and test drive, convince me. Love trying new things. :)

conceptually it seems like a bad idea, though if there was a way to make it work and manufacturers were adopting such technology into new bikes and riders were liking it, i wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. i tend to give some degree of credence to the experienced opinions of other riders.

that's still a bad comparison to belt drives though. i CAN actually see some potential benefits of a belt drive - no filthy chain and no need for frequent chain cleaning/lubing during the sloppy winter/spring seasons. the main draw backs i hear about belt drive seem to be "it's incompatible with derailleur set-ups" (true), "it's too expensive" (subjective), and "chains have worked just fine for well over 100 years, why should anyone ever try anything new?" (very silly).



that's also a true criticism of belt drives, though as i stated earlier, from a bikeradar study i read, the energy loss from a gates carbon drive over a conventional chain on a single speed set-up is about 1 extra watt lost*. that's a big deal to a track racer, but for some casual bike commuters, that small loss of energy might be more than offset by the benefits of a belt drive.

i'm not here as an advocate saying that everyone needs to abandon chain driven bikes and switch over belt drives, i just think there are certain riding situations where the no mess/no fuss aspect of a belt drive could have appeal. if i could find an off-the-shelf drop bar SS belt-drive disc brake bike w/ sliding drops and room for studded tires/fenders, i would very seriously consider buying one as my new winter steed. The Spot Rallye looks very close to what i'm looking for, but it looks like it might not have the proper attachment point for fenders (i can't fully tell from the online pics).


(*) link to the study referenced: Chain or belt drive: which is faster? - BikeRadar

I saw that article when I was making my decision. What I would really be interested in is how much is lost through:

Poor derailleur alignment.
Less than Ideal chain condition.

While they make the point, in the article, that the chain was a bit loose, th erest of the set up was ideal circumstances. It would be interesting to take a set of drive trains and compare them after a couple of months of typical use. I would not be possible with the apparatus used in the article; but there certainly is a way (one comes to mind as I think about it).

Note that they are only comparing to a single speed in the test (which is reasonable if you are only testing belt-chain). If anyone has their full report (needs to be paid for), how does it compare when in a complete drivetrain?

Any idea how much the Rallye costs? Cleanliness of a chain/belt (or anything else) shouldn't be much of a concern on a bike without fenders ridden in sloppy winter/spring seasons in Chicago.

i believe it retails for ~$3,000


completely agreed. which is why if i can't attach fenders to it, the Spot Rallye is not the answer i'm looking for.

Do what you want -- I ride Winters as well, in salty New England, and use a stainless steel chain (KMC S10) on my lockup bike.

I've ridden and maintained belt drive bikes, and for the money, I've made up my mind.

With employee discount, I could pick up a belt drive system for a bit less than $200 or a stainless chain for about $10. Except none of my bikes are rigged with a pass-through mechanism, so I'd be looking at a new bike, too.

I have futzed around with different brakes, run IGH on a few different commuters. One of the things I like about chains vs. belt is being able to relatively cheaply experiment with different drive ratios, something that is difficult, impossible with many desired ratios, and quite a bit more expensive to do with belt drive.

Yes,they're there:
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=392495
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=392496

^ but what about the lack of a seat stay bridge? Is there a simple and elegant work around for that for installing a rear fender?

Zip tie to the seattube.

Nice price, do a review.

If I wanted a belt drive, I might go with this one from Felt... but it's about twice that price.

http://2013.feltracing.com/Resources...CITY_V2_sm.png