I don't really see it happening. Belt drive feels like trash and a rubber band when you lay the watts down. That shaft drive in the thumbnail had potential I thought but I guess not.
@@mlee6050 true, and it is cleaner for commuters but unless you have all frames with the access section for the belt, it will not quickly take off. my wife likes her belt drive but is limited to 8 gears and when she hits hills it is a struggle. unless someone develops a cheap bottom bracket gearing system, it will be limited.
You haven't mentioned ease of maintenance and changing. People can understand how normal gears work and there are no complex internal parts. Bikes with a chain and a cassette all work in broadly the same way and any moderately proficient cyclist can get their head around changing the chain or a cassette. There is an automatic assumption that the ceramic speed design would be harder to work with, and people don't want a solution to something they can work on themselves and is already pretty efficient.
My touring bike has a belt and a Rohloff gearbox, I will never go back to having a chain on that bike. It is so low maintenance, I can ride through mud for miles and not have to worry about anything sticking or going wrong, it just keeps working and is easy to clean afterwards. But I would also never change my race bike to a belt and Rohloff setup.
I'm a bike mechanic, I still swear by chains. A few belt drive enthusiasts constantly tout the benefits of their belt and internal geared hub, until something catastrophic happens and they learn that the cost of repairing it or replacing it is far more than the lifespan of the equivalent number of chains and cassettes (especially true for 7/8/9 speed derailleur setups). Belt should last on average 4 times more than a chain, but if they fail prematurely they're rendered completely useless.
100% agree. Belt drive commuter I got for $1000AUD (on par with most giant/Trek commuters) is now 7 years old. Brakes, tires, pedals all had issues but still same belt after about 25,000km. The alfine 11 speed hub gear started leading oil, everyone was like now you learn why belts are not good cos of the cost of fixing will kill you Will a whole new hub gear would cost $450, true, but after getting sick of hearing all the negative shit I dismantled it myself, cleaned it up, saw the seals in each side, found they cost about $8 to replace, so I've ordered some. Reassembled and it's not leaking already, imagine when I replace the seals! The only argument against belts and their gear boxes is if they break they're expensive, and their initial cost... If gear boxes were made in volume, they'd be a fraction of the price and it they were more common, replacing seals wouldn't be a big scary deal either. I've since bought a chain MTB too and going back to chain maintenance, dirt, oil, chain wear... Feels like a huge step backwards.
I'd be fine with a chain if we had airless tires that held their own against our current speedy options. No flats and no maintenance until they wear down. Sign me up.
Video released on the same day as the sportive that celebrates the first Safety Bicycle and its inventor - John Kemp Starley. In Coventry the Starley sportive runs today!
I think your math was a bit off: 200 watts affected by a range of 98.6 to 81% efficiency results in a range of 2.8 watts to 38 watts lost, not 18 watts.
I'm a really big fan of singlespeed bicycles, simply because I loathe maintaining shifters, but also because of the sheer elegance of a singlespeed design; however, it's quite true that riding a singlespeed is a lot tougher in many circumstances that involve elevation changes. Still, if I could have a belt-drive singlespeed, or with a manually-operated internal gear rear hub or CVT rear hub, that would really be the low-maintenance ideal. For out and out performance, it's highly unlikely that any of these options will ever be competitive with chain-driven multiple chainwheel and cog systems with derailleurs, but the vast majority of the cyclists in the world will never need to worry about being competitive. For most people, cost is the overriding factor, and on that score, chain wins by a country mile. The lack of mess and maintenance of a belt drive system is something that only the well-heeled and the cycling tech geek set will opt to pay for.
Once you ride fixed you are never going to be able to be happy with belt. With fixed the drivetrain is perfect, no jockey wheels, no nonsense. Belt is even worse feeling than jockey wheels and chain slap, a true fixed / single speed rider would never be able to accept the poor rubbery bike feel of the belt drive.
Totally agree, it's really hard to best the chain in performance/cost ratio. Only the belt system is more suitable in some scenario as there is a very noticeable reduction in wearing of the parts that make up for the initial higher cost of installation and is almost maintenance free and works in every conditions with minimal loss in efficiency compared to the chain.
belt is perfect for everyday bikes. Bikes that are just a mode of transportation for people who do not want to care about it. I like it that these people have that option
Almost maintenance free until it isn't. And then you find there isn't a bike shop in a fifty mile radius that carries parts. At least with a chain, every shop in the country can repair it easily.
Would be great to see belt drive becoming more common for transport/commuter applications - even just for preventing oil stains on legs and trousers. Combined with a hub gear and/or electric assist and it's fantastic for moving more people away from cars for short trips. (Maybe)
For consumers you might be right, but not for professionals. If the Ceramicspeed Driven concept would have been viable, then you would have seen professionals using it, or world record attempts on track. Its a failed concept. Belt drive is less efficient. Then for consumers is would make sense if it is cheaper, which it is not.
I think that what will change is the use case for the bicycle. Two of the factors that were involved in making the automobile a near ubiquitous solution to land transport were huge maintenance intervals and low (per km) maintenance costs. However, there are today pressures on the use of the automobile that make it look less optimal for many use cases. I can see HPVs (and electric/human hybrids) becoming much more widely used in the future. This will be accompanied by great decreases in required maintenance. One of the components of that will be sealed drivetrains. We will see more gearboxes, belts and shafts just so that non-hobbyists can just use their vehicles to get where they are going without having to think about maintaining them.
It blows my mind to think that for decades in the 1800s mighty locomotives were steaming across the land while the safety bicycle was yet to be invented. And I agree with you, Alex, chains are here to stay, otherwise they'd be carbon wires by now or something.
The humble chain cannot be defeated. Whilst belt drives are expensive, they are on the market for applications where the performance disadvantage is not of any concern - high mileage zero maintenance makes them a great option for commuting and adventuring where speed and efficiency are not a priority. Whilst expensive they are still within a range of affordability for mid priced bikes. Even with some limited compatibility, the system is easy to implement and customise. Driven, however is a locked in system with zero cross-compatibility and will only be appealing at the top end - which is already a fiercely competitive end of the market. The minimal gains come at such a significant cost.
I agree, replacing the chain will be really tough from an engineering standpoint. Even where cost is no object, like motoGP, they don't use shaft or belt drives like some consumer motorcycles do due to losses and inefficiencies. Then you make the system that much more expensive (or heavy) and you have a losing combination. The best reason to not use a chain is maintenance - a low maintenance commuter bike is a great thing if you can afford the power losses.
I was critical of this CeramicSpeed vaporware immediately after it was announced. It was a publicity stunt that probably had the engineers uncomfortable while the marketing department make unattainable promises. Too many small bearings without seals, a "cassette" made from aluminium that would skip under any load-induced flex, even more so in lower gears... and they never did show us that they had working shifting before everyone forgot about it and the development seemed to have gone quiet.
Question can be raised, if the 98% efficiency is believable. Remember a chain is a primitive drive system. Unlike a gear it is not involute, it transmits part of its torque in a series of spikes. Put your bike on a stand and in the eleven cog, turn the pedal by hand. You can feel the bumps. The rear cog is effectively an eleven sided polygon. On a rigid test jig it may be 98% efficient, but driven by human legs, the torque spikes will be smoothed/attenuated/absorbed by the leg muscle. On a ten tooth cog maybe 10% may be lost?? This won’t show up in power transfer from crank to cog; losses occur within the muscle. If you don’t think this is the case, then why not have a four tooth cog. Which would be square. Maybe a square cog is 98% efficient.
I used to live next door to some guys who raced motorbikes and built them to race in the TT. They always looked at my bike and tut tutted at the way a double chainset 6 block bike would run with the chain out of a straight line. Guess motorbike chains do not flex in the same way. :)
For a single speed system, its possible to come up with a shaft drive that is very close to the efficiency of a chain drive. But once you add gears, you will be well below that efficiency. Gears multiply inefficiency. There is some progress being made with magnetic gearing, that is near 100% efficiency, but I don't see that having a place in bikes due to the very high weight. So I agree that at least in the foreseeable future, the chain and sprocket is here to stay.
I got an XT reverse-sprung derailleur. Normally thumb push to go bigger cogs. It's now release trigger. Being able to rapidly drop into low gear is a bonus. Chains are awesome.
Whereas the only thing that I hate about my new Trek Roscoe 8 is the chain, having a belt drive commuter along side it. Everything from the maintenance, dirt, noise, have had to adjust shifting several times in just 10 rides...
Never say never. IMO the main bottleneck is cost rather than efficiency. A new solution will take off if it does away with the chain's limitations and drawbacks in an economical manner, even if the efficiency is lower than the best case scenario for the chain. Power transmission can be achieved in a variety of ways. The problem is with power modulation range, for which the chain is hard to beat economically. Once you sort it out though, the prices may be high initially, but will go down soon enough.
I find electric-electric transmissions interesting. Not because of there efficiency, because they're not, but for their ability to link multiple riders with different power and RPM outputs. Although an incredibly niche application, multi-person bikes or recumends could benefit from it.
I agree that the chain isn't going away anytime soon, but 1. "It can last well over 30 000 km" ? Really? I've yet to see that; and 2. A chain's efficiency drops when it gets dirty/muddy, whereas a belt's stays pretty much the same.
The bicycle chain is about as optimised a design solution as is possible. Any "improvement" on it provides such small margins, at such increased cost, that it will be next to impossible to replace it. If anything better was possible, then all of the professional bicycle racing teams would already be using it. Plus, the bicycle chain is a perfect example of the KISS principle. Anything else adds too much complexity for what the bicycle is.
Au contraire! The belt drive is pretty common on newer commuter and everydaybikes in my area. No matter if ebike or without electric motor. Its sold to people who just want a tool to get from a to b and when riding i hear many people and their noisy chains that should switch to belt drive too.
Couldn't we say the same for rim brakes and mechanical gearing, why add the offset of batteries and hydraulic systems that increase weight, maintenance and cost.
Indeed, my choice is always to keep the simplest option: mechanical gear shifting and braking, rather than hydraulic or electrical. Fewer things to go wrong, easier to maintain, and far less expensive. But I did move to disc brakes rather than rim brakes, and I'd never go back!
Belt drive bikes become more popular this year. You can find some basic bikes for 600 GBP in the discount. For commuters great deal! No maintanance, great durability. When you put 100W to your bike, 2 or 5 wats difference isn't a huge deal.
chains are great but you've sais it best theres loads of moving parts exposed to the elements so that peak efficiency is out the window. Thats why people go bonkers ways to keep that efficiency eith waxing cleaning afteer rides and reapplyin g drip wax and then periodically redoing the whole thing. the ceramivspeed type of a solution would be that costly.... at the scale proposed but so would our groupsets in such quantaties. Chain is "good enough" cheap due to scale and has loads of industry innertia behind it. Like you've mentiioned belts need "special" sprockets... but so do chain drives but because they are the norm you don't call them speciall. but they do have more complex geometries than belt drives yet you cal belt drive one special. chains are awesome... for clean running environments.
This thing is too close to a chain as far as exposure to elements and wearing out. The belt designs and gear box stuff seams to actually differentiate positives and negatives from a chain system.
Once modern science has recreated the doctor's mobile holographic emitter from Star Trek Voyager your bike will weigh 100g and you can have a rod, a belt, or a chain and it'll be brand new every time you switch the device on. Just don't ask me whether that is even possible or will happen 😘
Good video That's ceramic speed system was not even a proof of concept because it couldn't change gears, that's why it was revealed to the world because it was dead research.
Hold on $2000 for the Ceramic Speed drive system that's cheaper than many Groupsets. I'd say that killing off All the other manufacturers with frame manufacturer s building new frames stopped it. Profit over design and ease. That's what killed that.
Do you think bike chains will become obsolete at some point in our lives?🔗
I don't really see it happening. Belt drive feels like trash and a rubber band when you lay the watts down. That shaft drive in the thumbnail had potential I thought but I guess not.
Definitely not,it's pretty much a perfect design.💯✌🏻🚴♂️
You are absolutely right. The chain isn't going anywhere. Its too efficient and cheap to be replaced en masse.
Yeah belt drive is so efficient (if going fast it's more efficient than chain)
@@mlee6050 true, and it is cleaner for commuters but unless you have all frames with the access section for the belt, it will not quickly take off. my wife likes her belt drive but is limited to 8 gears and when she hits hills it is a struggle. unless someone develops a cheap bottom bracket gearing system, it will be limited.
@@blankseventydrei I need to research more, I looked at single speed with 14 speed internal hub but unsure how belt drive is other than gap in frame
You haven't mentioned ease of maintenance and changing. People can understand how normal gears work and there are no complex internal parts. Bikes with a chain and a cassette all work in broadly the same way and any moderately proficient cyclist can get their head around changing the chain or a cassette. There is an automatic assumption that the ceramic speed design would be harder to work with, and people don't want a solution to something they can work on themselves and is already pretty efficient.
Love this kind of history deep-dive content!
My touring bike has a belt and a Rohloff gearbox, I will never go back to having a chain on that bike. It is so low maintenance, I can ride through mud for miles and not have to worry about anything sticking or going wrong, it just keeps working and is easy to clean afterwards. But I would also never change my race bike to a belt and Rohloff setup.
I'm a bike mechanic, I still swear by chains. A few belt drive enthusiasts constantly tout the benefits of their belt and internal geared hub, until something catastrophic happens and they learn that the cost of repairing it or replacing it is far more than the lifespan of the equivalent number of chains and cassettes (especially true for 7/8/9 speed derailleur setups).
Belt should last on average 4 times more than a chain, but if they fail prematurely they're rendered completely useless.
100% agree. Belt drive commuter I got for $1000AUD (on par with most giant/Trek commuters) is now 7 years old. Brakes, tires, pedals all had issues but still same belt after about 25,000km.
The alfine 11 speed hub gear started leading oil, everyone was like now you learn why belts are not good cos of the cost of fixing will kill you
Will a whole new hub gear would cost $450, true, but after getting sick of hearing all the negative shit I dismantled it myself, cleaned it up, saw the seals in each side, found they cost about $8 to replace, so I've ordered some. Reassembled and it's not leaking already, imagine when I replace the seals!
The only argument against belts and their gear boxes is if they break they're expensive, and their initial cost...
If gear boxes were made in volume, they'd be a fraction of the price and it they were more common, replacing seals wouldn't be a big scary deal either.
I've since bought a chain MTB too and going back to chain maintenance, dirt, oil, chain wear... Feels like a huge step backwards.
I'd be fine with a chain if we had airless tires that held their own against our current speedy options. No flats and no maintenance until they wear down. Sign me up.
4:20 - I believe the 1x chain sets will (sooner or later) bring back the chain front covers.
Video released on the same day as the sportive that celebrates the first Safety Bicycle and its inventor - John Kemp Starley. In Coventry the Starley sportive runs today!
I think your math was a bit off: 200 watts affected by a range of 98.6 to 81% efficiency results in a range of 2.8 watts to 38 watts lost, not 18 watts.
Absolutely loved this. All hail the bicycle chain!
I'm a really big fan of singlespeed bicycles, simply because I loathe maintaining shifters, but also because of the sheer elegance of a singlespeed design; however, it's quite true that riding a singlespeed is a lot tougher in many circumstances that involve elevation changes. Still, if I could have a belt-drive singlespeed, or with a manually-operated internal gear rear hub or CVT rear hub, that would really be the low-maintenance ideal. For out and out performance, it's highly unlikely that any of these options will ever be competitive with chain-driven multiple chainwheel and cog systems with derailleurs, but the vast majority of the cyclists in the world will never need to worry about being competitive. For most people, cost is the overriding factor, and on that score, chain wins by a country mile. The lack of mess and maintenance of a belt drive system is something that only the well-heeled and the cycling tech geek set will opt to pay for.
Once you ride fixed you are never going to be able to be happy with belt. With fixed the drivetrain is perfect, no jockey wheels, no nonsense. Belt is even worse feeling than jockey wheels and chain slap, a true fixed / single speed rider would never be able to accept the poor rubbery bike feel of the belt drive.
Totally agree, it's really hard to best the chain in performance/cost ratio.
Only the belt system is more suitable in some scenario as there is a very noticeable reduction in wearing of the parts that make up for the initial higher cost of installation and is almost maintenance free and works in every conditions with minimal loss in efficiency compared to the chain.
belt is perfect for everyday bikes. Bikes that are just a mode of transportation for people who do not want to care about it. I like it that these people have that option
Almost maintenance free until it isn't. And then you find there isn't a bike shop in a fifty mile radius that carries parts.
At least with a chain, every shop in the country can repair it easily.
Would be great to see belt drive becoming more common for transport/commuter applications - even just for preventing oil stains on legs and trousers. Combined with a hub gear and/or electric assist and it's fantastic for moving more people away from cars for short trips. (Maybe)
Thanks Alex and crew. In 2030 , Dr Bridgewood invents the "O fusion " drive , and changes history .
Love this. Y'alls videos just keep getting better.
Lovely article …. And I totally agree … simple, cost effective, efficient …. Rarely gets beaten
For consumers you might be right, but not for professionals. If the Ceramicspeed Driven concept would have been viable, then you would have seen professionals using it, or world record attempts on track. Its a failed concept.
Belt drive is less efficient. Then for consumers is would make sense if it is cheaper, which it is not.
I think that what will change is the use case for the bicycle. Two of the factors that were involved in making the automobile a near ubiquitous solution to land transport were huge maintenance intervals and low (per km) maintenance costs. However, there are today pressures on the use of the automobile that make it look less optimal for many use cases. I can see HPVs (and electric/human hybrids) becoming much more widely used in the future. This will be accompanied by great decreases in required maintenance. One of the components of that will be sealed drivetrains. We will see more gearboxes, belts and shafts just so that non-hobbyists can just use their vehicles to get where they are going without having to think about maintaining them.
It blows my mind to think that for decades in the 1800s mighty locomotives were steaming across the land while the safety bicycle was yet to be invented. And I agree with you, Alex, chains are here to stay, otherwise they'd be carbon wires by now or something.
The humble chain cannot be defeated. Whilst belt drives are expensive, they are on the market for applications where the performance disadvantage is not of any concern - high mileage zero maintenance makes them a great option for commuting and adventuring where speed and efficiency are not a priority. Whilst expensive they are still within a range of affordability for mid priced bikes. Even with some limited compatibility, the system is easy to implement and customise. Driven, however is a locked in system with zero cross-compatibility and will only be appealing at the top end - which is already a fiercely competitive end of the market. The minimal gains come at such a significant cost.
I agree, replacing the chain will be really tough from an engineering standpoint.
Even where cost is no object, like motoGP, they don't use shaft or belt drives like some consumer motorcycles do due to losses and inefficiencies.
Then you make the system that much more expensive (or heavy) and you have a losing combination.
The best reason to not use a chain is maintenance - a low maintenance commuter bike is a great thing if you can afford the power losses.
I was critical of this CeramicSpeed vaporware immediately after it was announced. It was a publicity stunt that probably had the engineers uncomfortable while the marketing department make unattainable promises. Too many small bearings without seals, a "cassette" made from aluminium that would skip under any load-induced flex, even more so in lower gears... and they never did show us that they had working shifting before everyone forgot about it and the development seemed to have gone quiet.
you don't know your numbers ! a 116 links chain is made of 464 pieces of metal (4 by link not 6)
2 inner plates, 2 outer plates, 1 pin, 1 roller = 6 parts per link
@@craigblowfield8821isn't there also the bushings connecting the inner plates?
@@craigblowfield8821doesn't that double count plates? The next pin already has 2 plates, you're only adding 2 plates, pin+roller at each link.
Question can be raised, if the 98% efficiency is believable. Remember a chain is a primitive drive system. Unlike a gear it is not involute, it transmits part of its torque in a series of spikes. Put your bike on a stand and in the eleven cog, turn the pedal by hand. You can feel the bumps. The rear cog is effectively an eleven sided polygon. On a rigid test jig it may be 98% efficient, but driven by human legs, the torque spikes will be smoothed/attenuated/absorbed by the leg muscle. On a ten tooth cog maybe 10% may be lost?? This won’t show up in power transfer from crank to cog; losses occur within the muscle.
If you don’t think this is the case, then why not have a four tooth cog. Which would be square. Maybe a square cog is 98% efficient.
I used to live next door to some guys who raced motorbikes and built them to race in the TT. They always looked at my bike and tut tutted at the way a double chainset 6 block bike would run with the chain out of a straight line. Guess motorbike chains do not flex in the same way. :)
I must add that the first Sturmey-Archer multi speed hub arrived in 1902.
For a single speed system, its possible to come up with a shaft drive that is very close to the efficiency of a chain drive. But once you add gears, you will be well below that efficiency. Gears multiply inefficiency. There is some progress being made with magnetic gearing, that is near 100% efficiency, but I don't see that having a place in bikes due to the very high weight. So I agree that at least in the foreseeable future, the chain and sprocket is here to stay.
I got an XT reverse-sprung derailleur. Normally thumb push to go bigger cogs. It's now release trigger. Being able to rapidly drop into low gear is a bonus.
Chains are awesome.
Sounds like the old Shimano Rapid-Rise RD.
The bike chain is the same as a hammer in that it’s always worked and it will always work. There is no better tool for the job.
I'm ok with disc brakes,electric gears,narrower bars,wider tyres...but i'd miss the humble chain.
Whereas the only thing that I hate about my new Trek Roscoe 8 is the chain, having a belt drive commuter along side it. Everything from the maintenance, dirt, noise, have had to adjust shifting several times in just 10 rides...
Never say never. IMO the main bottleneck is cost rather than efficiency. A new solution will take off if it does away with the chain's limitations and drawbacks in an economical manner, even if the efficiency is lower than the best case scenario for the chain. Power transmission can be achieved in a variety of ways. The problem is with power modulation range, for which the chain is hard to beat economically. Once you sort it out though, the prices may be high initially, but will go down soon enough.
Superb video, really refreshing content!
I find electric-electric transmissions interesting. Not because of there efficiency, because they're not, but for their ability to link multiple riders with different power and RPM outputs. Although an incredibly niche application, multi-person bikes or recumends could benefit from it.
I agree that the chain isn't going away anytime soon, but 1. "It can last well over 30 000 km" ? Really? I've yet to see that; and 2. A chain's efficiency drops when it gets dirty/muddy, whereas a belt's stays pretty much the same.
6:28 "Take the belt drive for example, it need special chain ring, special sprocket"
Oh come on!...
The bicycle chain is about as optimised a design solution as is possible. Any "improvement" on it provides such small margins, at such increased cost, that it will be next to impossible to replace it. If anything better was possible, then all of the professional bicycle racing teams would already be using it. Plus, the bicycle chain is a perfect example of the KISS principle. Anything else adds too much complexity for what the bicycle is.
Au contraire! The belt drive is pretty common on newer commuter and everydaybikes in my area. No matter if ebike or without electric motor. Its sold to people who just want a tool to get from a to b and when riding i hear many people and their noisy chains that should switch to belt drive too.
Couldn't we say the same for rim brakes and mechanical gearing, why add the offset of batteries and hydraulic systems that increase weight, maintenance and cost.
You can have a mechanical disc brake - no hydraulic system and no maintenance needed. I had mine for 25 years now and I'm very happy with it.
Indeed, my choice is always to keep the simplest option: mechanical gear shifting and braking, rather than hydraulic or electrical. Fewer things to go wrong, easier to maintain, and far less expensive. But I did move to disc brakes rather than rim brakes, and I'd never go back!
I've had a belt drive bike for a year now, won't be going back.
Belt drive bikes become more popular this year. You can find some basic bikes for 600 GBP in the discount. For commuters great deal! No maintanance, great durability. When you put 100W to your bike, 2 or 5 wats difference isn't a huge deal.
It's not the efficiency, it's that it feels like a rubber band and the feel is unpleasant.
chains are great but you've sais it best theres loads of moving parts exposed to the elements so that peak efficiency is out the window. Thats why people go bonkers ways to keep that efficiency eith waxing cleaning afteer rides and reapplyin g drip wax and then periodically redoing the whole thing. the ceramivspeed type of a solution would be that costly.... at the scale proposed but so would our groupsets in such quantaties. Chain is "good enough" cheap due to scale and has loads of industry innertia behind it. Like you've mentiioned belts need "special" sprockets... but so do chain drives but because they are the norm you don't call them speciall. but they do have more complex geometries than belt drives yet you cal belt drive one special.
chains are awesome... for clean running environments.
This thing is too close to a chain as far as exposure to elements and wearing out. The belt designs and gear box stuff seams to actually differentiate positives and negatives from a chain system.
UCI world championship right in front my doorstep. It causes absolute chaos. It was a mistake to take the championship to Zürich.
Once modern science has recreated the doctor's mobile holographic emitter from Star Trek Voyager your bike will weigh 100g and you can have a rod, a belt, or a chain and it'll be brand new every time you switch the device on.
Just don't ask me whether that is even possible or will happen 😘
baller video
Why fix something that ain't broken basically
People pay for marginal gains. But this isn’t a marginal gain in real world conditions.
Good video
That's ceramic speed system was not even a proof of concept because it couldn't change gears, that's why it was revealed to the world because it was dead research.
They were just looking to get some marketing attention to their company. The drive concept was total crap and unworkable.
1500s is a 16th century ;)
Theres a reaon why motorbikes use chains too
Hold on $2000 for the Ceramic Speed drive system that's cheaper than many Groupsets. I'd say that killing off All the other manufacturers with frame manufacturer s building new frames stopped it. Profit over design and ease. That's what killed that.
If they replace the chain you won't be able to make chain waxing videos anymore. Seems like a conspiracy.
Another method is generator in the bottom bracket connected to a motor in the rear hub.
ua-cam.com/video/r-Zyp6jX0HM/v-deo.htmlsi=XDCWoqLXn8NRJVkT
Super heavy and super low efficiency
It’s happening
Fire Alex Paton.
Hi mate, hope you're keeping well. Great to hear from you. 😎
The chain has 'always' had the same tooth spacing. Is there room to improve this? Would longer or shorter links be better?