belt drive bikes

Looks gay

No experience but I do know that they work and require less maintenance than chains. They're not quite as efficient, and they require an exact alignment (so no external gearing) so derailluers are pointless with them.
Good for fixies or hub-gear bikes.

File: canyon.jpg (93KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 640x640px

>>1105555
absolutely dont buy the new IKEA bike. it weights a billion tonnes.
however, CANYON has made a commuter bike with beltdrive, that is absolutely stunning, albeit a bit more expensive.

>>1105555
>do they work?
yes, they work
>reliable?
yes, generally
>maintenance?
not required as often as with a chain + derailer
more difficult though due to difficulty in working on igh and cost of belt replacements
also, tensioning belt would be a pain, but not too bad
>cost?
not cheap, as igh is expensive and requires special built wheels
>worth?
not really imo
main advantage is less frequent maintenance, and completely silent power transfer
downsides are cost, more proprietary parts
biggest downside (imo) is if belt goes or igh fucks up on a long haul you can't fix it roadside
on bike, a chain breaker + extra missing link and you can turn it into a ss if something goes wrong
>commute to work and ride in park
any halfway decent bike with fenders and a rack will be fine for this
get something inexpensive, but invest in very good, thick, wide tires and a good saddle
keeping a chain in good shape is easy, just clean it every couple weeks, or when it gets wet, and oil it
also keep in mind that cheaper drivetrains are less work to maintain in some cases
my old 3x7 90s rigid mtb has never, ever failed me, and i've ridden the shit out of it
also
>ikea sladda
fuck no, don't give money to ikea, they're evil

>>1105586
i don't really find bikes with that much top tube slope attractive
i know it makes sense with modern geometry
it just isn't pretty in the same way as an old road bike

>>1105585
>>1105587

From my research into my spring/summer build for next year, they seem like they would make great urban commuters, but I wouldn't use belts for anything else. The spare belts seem like a huge hassle to keep around.

I've been looking into an IGH for my next build.

I'm seeing this NuVinci continually variable transmission hub for like $300, which is suspiciously cheaper than everyone else, but it seems based on some different engineering than the other IGH's out there...

Do you have an IGH recommendation?

>>1105609
>$300

nvm, the prices changed everywhere...

Idk what I'm going to do. I might make it a skid-stop coaster brake IGH bike...

>>1105609
Nuvincis are shit, heavy and inefficient with tiny ranges and a CVT isn't a huge advantage on a pedal powered bike. Alfine 11 is about $80 more expensive but worth it, if you don't need that much range there's also the Alfine 8 and then you have even cheaper Nexus hubs with less range.

Harder to find, more expensive, less efficient.
Its dumb.

>>1105585
>>1105663
>less efficient
Not true. The efficiency of belt drive is higher than chain drive. It's the other bit like the requirement for precise alignment and the inability to use derailleuirs is what makes it shitty.

>>1105657
This,Nuvincis are SO fucking inefficient that they have no place on a non-eBike

>>1105671
>The efficiency of belt drive is higher than chain drive

Do you have anything to back that up?

File: 1498324339606.png (115KB, 511x522px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 511x522px

>>1105686

File: 1489476096484m.jpg (167KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1024x819px

>>1105688
Post English pls, hussanon

File: 1498324339606.png (230KB, 1022x1044px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1022x1044px

>>1105692

>>1105697
>>1105692
closed implies lubrication bath.
values do not include the efficiency of bearings.

>>1105697
Strange use of the division symbol, I'm guessing it means "to" in this case? Mind labelling the rest? Interested to see what those top two are. Is this to do with bikes or just the transfer method in general? Don't see many v-belts on bikes and I don't think I've ever seen a chain in an oil bath.

File: 1498324339606.png (279KB, 1414x1044px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1414x1044px

>>1105772
>Strange use of the division symbol
Obelus is not used here as a division sign.
Written division sign is represented by colon : and typed its either a colon : or slash /.
÷ was used here (as it is occasionally used to represent ranges in Polish) to differentiate from the substraction sign.

>Mind labelling the rest? Interested to see what those top two are.
Sure thing.

> Is this to do with bikes or just the transfer method in general?
Definitely not, from some old engineering book

>Don't see many v-belts on bikes and I don't think I've ever seen a chain in an oil bath.
And you probably won't see it. I'm fairly sure the toothed timing belt is treated as a flat belt since it just prevents from slipping.

>>1105671
>The efficiency of belt drive is higher than chain drive.
this is only half true
the belt itself is more efficient than a chain
however, belt drives require igh which is usually not efficient

>>1105798
>require igh which is usually not efficient
IGHs are planetary gearboxes, mentioned in the chart. Besides that was never part of the question. We're trying to compare apples to apples so single speed chain drive vs single speed belt drive is the key.
For a derailleur based system you have to add the loss of efficiency introduced by friction of the pulley system well as the increased weight of it due to much longer chain, so depending on how big the losses are such comparison wouldn't be fair for one or the other.

It was already established multiple times ITT that belt drives are shitty to use on a bike because of their requirement of perfect aligment and the limits of gearing.
I was just trying to disprove the notion that belts are less efficient than chains since clearly they're not.