belt drives

[Roger Merriman]

That Ben Denlaney has a new Gravel bike on test with a belt drive, and his
“pub bike” which has belt drive, and the good and the bad with such
systems. Ie punctures are faff and I guess weight to a degree, ie hub vs
derailleur systems.

Though touching wood I’ve found Gravel tyres with tubeless fairly reliable
particularly considering that one is riding fairly challenging terrain on
paper thin tyres!

Certainly considering how much of puncture fess tubes on Gravel is or was!
Tubeless generally solves that, so would largely remove that problem.

Though I’m not sure if belts like mud and muck I have vague memories of MTB
belt drives not performing that well in such situations?

Roger Merriman

[zen cycle]

Post by Roger Merriman
http://youtu.be/OlDYHoiqpew
That Ben Denlaney has a new Gravel bike on test with a belt drive, and his
“pub bike” which has belt drive, and the good and the bad with such
systems. Ie punctures are faff and I guess weight to a degree, ie hub vs
derailleur systems.
Though touching wood I’ve found Gravel tyres with tubeless fairly reliable
particularly considering that one is riding fairly challenging terrain on
paper thin tyres!
Certainly considering how much of puncture fess tubes on Gravel is or was!
Tubeless generally solves that, so would largely remove that problem.
Though I’m not sure if belts like mud and muck I have vague memories of MTB
belt drives not performing that well in such situations?
Roger Merriman

Gates drive has been around a while, generally good reviews. The idea
of having an 'accessible' rear triangle seems troublesome to me though.

They advertise a model of the drive made for "people who ride off road
all year". I'm guessing with some design diligence riding in the muck
isn't much of an issue.

[AMuzi]

Post by Roger Merriman
http://youtu.be/OlDYHoiqpew
That Ben Denlaney has a new Gravel bike on test with a
belt drive, and his
“pub bike” which has belt drive, and the good and the bad
with such
systems. Ie punctures are faff and I guess weight to a
degree, ie hub vs
derailleur systems.
Though touching wood I’ve found Gravel tyres with tubeless
fairly reliable
particularly considering that one is riding fairly
challenging terrain on
paper thin tyres!
Certainly considering how much of puncture fess tubes on
Gravel is or was!
Tubeless generally solves that, so would largely remove
that problem.
Though I’m not sure if belts like mud and muck I have
vague memories of MTB
belt drives not performing that well in such situations?
Roger Merriman

 Gates drive has been around a while, generally good
reviews. The idea of having an 'accessible' rear triangle
seems troublesome to me though.
They advertise a model of the drive made for "people who
ride off road all year". I'm guessing with some design
diligence riding in the muck isn't much of an issue.

For people interested in belt drive, there are a lot of new
frames in various formats. Or for any steel frame it's a
quick and inexpensive option:

Loading Image...

Limited choices but more than there were.

[Ted Heise]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 06:13:55 -0500,

Post by zen cycle

Post by Roger Merriman
http://youtu.be/OlDYHoiqpew
That Ben Denlaney has a new Gravel bike on test with a belt
drive, and his “pub bike” which has belt drive, and the good
and the bad with such systems. Ie punctures are faff and I
guess weight to a degree, ie hub vs derailleur systems.
Though touching wood I’ve found Gravel tyres with tubeless
fairly reliable particularly considering that one is riding
fairly challenging terrain on paper thin tyres!
Certainly considering how much of puncture fess tubes on
Gravel is or was! Tubeless generally solves that, so would
largely remove that problem.
Though I’m not sure if belts like mud and muck I have vague
memories of MTB belt drives not performing that well in such
situations?

Gates drive has been around a while, generally good reviews.
The idea of having an 'accessible' rear triangle seems
troublesome to me though.

The Gates belts have been used for at least a decade for timing on
tandems. They're pretty common with folks who have high end
bikes. Most seem pretty satisfied with them. I haven't been
convinced to go that route myself, though.

[Roger Merriman]

Post by zen cycle

Post by Roger Merriman
http://youtu.be/OlDYHoiqpew
That Ben Denlaney has a new Gravel bike on test with a belt drive, and his
“pub bike” which has belt drive, and the good and the bad with such
systems. Ie punctures are faff and I guess weight to a degree, ie hub vs
derailleur systems.
Though touching wood I’ve found Gravel tyres with tubeless fairly reliable
particularly considering that one is riding fairly challenging terrain on
paper thin tyres!
Certainly considering how much of puncture fess tubes on Gravel is or was!
Tubeless generally solves that, so would largely remove that problem.
Though I’m not sure if belts like mud and muck I have vague memories of MTB
belt drives not performing that well in such situations?
Roger Merriman

Gates drive has been around a while, generally good reviews. The idea
of having an 'accessible' rear triangle seems troublesome to me though.
They advertise a model of the drive made for "people who ride off road
all year". I'm guessing with some design diligence riding in the muck
isn't much of an issue.

Reading again seems that for MTB and certainly full suspension the belt
drive forces limitations on the frame design, less so for Hardtails or
Gravel bikes though having a heavy lump on the rear wheel, some folks don’t
like, even just a pannier on the old school roadie, which is hardly heavy,
is noticeable. It’s often near empty, arguably I could have used a bar or
large saddle bag but I had a spare pannier, plus I do occasionally use the
space.

And for some the less efficient drive chain is noticeable.

Hence such systems have remained less mainstream, even if interesting.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

... even just a pannier on the old school roadie, which is hardly heavy,
is noticeable. It’s often near empty, arguably I could have used a bar or
large saddle bag but I had a spare pannier, plus I do occasionally use the
space.

I think for equivalent loads, having the weight in a large saddlebag
(like a Carradice) affects handling less than having the weight in
panniers. Maybe that's because the added weight is closer to the center
of mass of the bike+rider.

But the saddlebag has to be fastened rigidly, not swinging about.

[Roger Merriman]

Post by Frank Krygowski

... even just a pannier on the old school roadie, which is hardly heavy,
is noticeable. It’s often near empty, arguably I could have used a bar or
large saddle bag but I had a spare pannier, plus I do occasionally use the
space.

I think for equivalent loads, having the weight in a large saddlebag
(like a Carradice) affects handling less than having the weight in
panniers. Maybe that's because the added weight is closer to the center
of mass of the bike+rider.

I’m sure yes, my old MTB which is converted into my main commute bike,
having just two panniers it felt particularly if laden very rear heavy, and
definitely effected the handling, adding a bar bag, plus being more
convenient made it feel a lot lighter even fully loaded as the handling or
rather the weight was in the right places.

Post by Frank Krygowski
But the saddlebag has to be fastened rigidly, not swinging about.

Indeed moving weight isn’t wildly comfortable.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by Frank Krygowski
I think for equivalent loads, having the weight in a large saddlebag
(like a Carradice) affects handling less than having the weight in
panniers. Maybe that's because the added weight is closer to the center
of mass of the bike+rider.

I’m sure yes, my old MTB which is converted into my main commute bike,
having just two panniers it felt particularly if laden very rear heavy, and
definitely effected the handling, adding a bar bag, plus being more
convenient made it feel a lot lighter even fully loaded as the handling or
rather the weight was in the right places.

I think it matters less for normal road riding or touring, compared to
off-road. I've always felt my Cannondale touring bike perfectly handled
four panniers plus a handlebar bag. Like the bike was designed for that
- which it was.

The Bike Friday is a bit of a strange animal. We've toured on them
pulling trailers, but that introduces complexities and faff. For our
next trips to Europe I arranged tall Rick Steves backpacks
https://store.ricksteves.com/shop/p/classic-backpack
vertically on a rear rack above the 20" rear wheel, also fastened to the
back of the saddle.

While rolling, that was fine. But the lack of a top tube meant we had to
take care to not lose our grip on the bars while standing at a stop,
else the bike would tip.

I delivered newspapers for many, many hundreds of miles as a teenager
with a huge front basket weighted with many pounds of papers, so I'm
fine at handling front loads. For future Friday tours, I'm thinking
about the Rick Steves bag mounted on a low rack above the front wheel.

[Roger Merriman]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by Frank Krygowski
I think for equivalent loads, having the weight in a large saddlebag
(like a Carradice) affects handling less than having the weight in
panniers. Maybe that's because the added weight is closer to the center
of mass of the bike+rider.

I’m sure yes, my old MTB which is converted into my main commute bike,
having just two panniers it felt particularly if laden very rear heavy, and
definitely effected the handling, adding a bar bag, plus being more
convenient made it feel a lot lighter even fully loaded as the handling or
rather the weight was in the right places.

I think it matters less for normal road riding or touring, compared to
off-road. I've always felt my Cannondale touring bike perfectly handled
four panniers plus a handlebar bag. Like the bike was designed for that
- which it was.

I’d say it’s still noticeable, in that both the old MTB which has fairly
upright position ie somewhat more rear biased and the “old school roadie”
which has a fairly aggressive position both you can feel the weight and
that it’s on the rear wheel.

Absolutely it’s more pronounced if you head off road, though can’t say I do
much bar Gravel paths, occasionally muddy and some roots but not remotely
technical and ridden as such ie no need to shift weight around or so on.

Post by Frank Krygowski
The Bike Friday is a bit of a strange animal. We've toured on them
pulling trailers, but that introduces complexities and faff. For our
next trips to Europe I arranged tall Rick Steves backpacks
https://store.ricksteves.com/shop/p/classic-backpack
vertically on a rear rack above the 20" rear wheel, also fastened to the
back of the saddle.
While rolling, that was fine. But the lack of a top tube meant we had to
take care to not lose our grip on the bars while standing at a stop,
else the bike would tip.
I delivered newspapers for many, many hundreds of miles as a teenager
with a huge front basket weighted with many pounds of papers, so I'm
fine at handling front loads. For future Friday tours, I'm thinking
about the Rick Steves bag mounted on a low rack above the front wheel.

Certainly with the old MTB it improves the handling, at least if laden,
makes the steering a bit heavier/slower on the whole the weight in bar bag
under the handlebars seems to improve it, my called it the “comfort bike”
as it’s just unfazed on the commute by potholes and so on, unlike the old
school that needs a lot more input.

Roger Merriman