What's the scoop? Does it make any difference at all, or are we going to go faster?
Someone needs to tell Pat Franz that it is "RANS" and not "Rans".
While the manufacturers in question are trying to meet a price point for their bicycles, they are not going to be putting junk chain idlers on their bicycles [1]. Therefore, while there is room for improvement, the gains will likely be small as drive-train friction is a small component of total non-conservative losses, even on a recumbent with a complicated chain-line.
If you want to make a RANS Screamer a lot faster than stock, put a front fairing (Zzipper or Mueller) and a bodysock on the bike.
[1] Unlike some defunct manufacturers of the past.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
What's the scoop? Does it make any difference at all, or are we going to go faster?
Someone needs to tell Pat Franz that it is "RANS" and not "Rans".
While the manufacturers in question are trying to meet a price point for their bicycles, they are not going to be putting junk chain idlers on their bicycles [1]. Therefore, while there is room for improvement, the gains will likely be small as drive-train friction is a small component of total non-conservative losses, even on a recumbent with a complicated chain-line.
Why not avoid idlers and recumbents with complicated chain-lines?
It might not (yet) be possible with a tandem, but for a single rider bike, cruzbike offers a short normal chain-line.
What's the scoop? Does it make any difference at all, or are we going to go faster?
Someone needs to tell Pat Franz that it is "RANS" and not "Rans".
While the manufacturers in question are trying to meet a price point for their bicycles, they are not going to be putting junk chain idlers on their bicycles [1]. Therefore, while there is room for improvement, the gains will likely be small as drive-train friction is a small component of total non-conservative losses, even on a recumbent with a complicated chain-line.
Why not avoid idlers and recumbents with complicated chain-lines?
It might not (yet) be possible with a tandem, but for a single rider bike, cruzbike offers a short normal chain-line.
And introduces a whole other set of compromises in seating position, weight distribution, traction on steep hills, etc. Long chain lines are not necessarily a bad thing, as several issues with short chain lines go away that make wide range gearing difficult.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
While the manufacturers in question are trying to meet a price point for their bicycles, they are not going to be putting junk chain idlers on their bicycles [1]. Therefore, while there is room for improvement, the gains will likely be small as drive-train friction is a small component of total non-conservative losses, even on a recumbent with a complicated chain-line.
Why not avoid idlers and recumbents with complicated chain-lines?
It might not (yet) be possible with a tandem, but for a single rider bike, cruzbike offers a short normal chain-line.
And introduces a whole other set of compromises in seating position,
yeah, thats true.
Quoted message said:
weight distribution, traction on steep hills, etc. Long chain lines are
actually i dont find the traction too bad up hill. But we dont really have hills in Denmark, it's just flat flat flat compared to other places.
Quoted message said:
not necessarily a bad thing, as several issues with short chain lines go away that make wide range gearing difficult.
Why would short chainlines make wide range gearing difficult?
>> What's the scoop? Does it make any difference at all, or are we going >> to go faster?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> Someone needs to tell Pat Franz that it is "RANS" and not "Rans".
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> While the manufacturers in question are trying to meet a price point > for their bicycles, they are not going to be putting junk chain > idlers on their bicycles [1]. Therefore, while there is room for > improvement, the gains will likely be small as drive-train friction > is a small component of total non-conservative losses, even on a > recumbent with a complicated chain-line.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Why not avoid idlers and recumbents with complicated chain-lines?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
It might not (yet) be possible with a tandem, but for a single rider bike, cruzbike offers a short normal chain-line.
Quoted message said:
And introduces a whole other set of compromises in seating position,
yeah, thats true.
Quoted message said:
weight distribution, traction on steep hills, etc. Long chain lines are
actually i dont find the traction too bad up hill. But we dont really have hills in Denmark, it's just flat flat flat compared to other places.
Quoted message said:
not necessarily a bad thing, as several issues with short chain lines go away that make wide range gearing difficult.
Why would short chainlines make wide range gearing difficult?
Jon Bendtsen wrote: > Tom Sherman wrote: >> TandemFan wrote: >> [cross-posted to ARBR for Perry Butler's amusement] >>> We have a R[ANS] Screamer tandem and there are a few idler rollers for >>> the chain. An outfit sells toothed idlers for about $250: >>> http://www.terracycle.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Co... >>> They have a long blurb on why they are better: >>> http://www.terracycle.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Co... >>> What's the scoop? Does it make any difference at all, or are we going >>> to go faster? >> Someone needs to tell Pat Franz that it is "RANS" and not "Rans". >> While the manufacturers in question are trying to meet a price point >> for their bicycles, they are not going to be putting junk chain >> idlers on their bicycles [1]. Therefore, while there is room for >> improvement, the gains will likely be small as drive-train friction >> is a small component of total non-conservative losses, even on a >> recumbent with a complicated chain-line. > Why not avoid idlers and recumbents with complicated chain-lines? > It might not (yet) be possible with a tandem, but for a single > rider bike, cruzbike offers a short normal chain-line. And introduces a whole other set of compromises in seating position,
yeah, thats true.
Quoted message said:
weight distribution, traction on steep hills, etc. Long chain lines are
actually i dont find the traction too bad up hill. But we dont really have hills in Denmark, it's just flat flat flat compared to other places.
Quoted message said:
not necessarily a bad thing, as several issues with short chain lines go away that make wide range gearing difficult.
Why would short chainlines make wide range gearing difficult?
Cross chain without guilt for instance.
Then combine a rohloff/nuvinci + a schlumpf drive == 0 cross chain. If normal bikes can live with some cross chain, so can a recumbent.
[...] not necessarily a bad thing, as several issues with short chain lines go away that make wide range gearing difficult.
Why would short chainlines make wide range gearing difficult?
Proper alignment between front chain wheels and rear sprockets becomes more critical with a shorter chain line, which makes things more difficult when using non-standard components.
A long chain line in combination with a idler tensioner (e.g. Easy Racers) or a mid-drive can allow for chain wheel and sprocket combinations that would not work on a short chain line unless custom derailers (sic) were used.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
Tom Sherman wrote: > Jon Bendtsen wrote: >> Tom Sherman wrote: >>> TandemFan wrote: >>> [cross-posted to ARBR for Perry Butler's amusement] >>>> We have a R[ANS] Screamer tandem and there are a few idler >>>> rollers for >>>> the chain. An outfit sells toothed idlers for about $250: >>>> http://www.terracycle.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Co... >>>> >>>> They have a long blurb on why they are better: >>>> http://www.terracycle.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Co... >>>> >>>> What's the scoop? Does it make any difference at all, or are we >>>> going >>>> to go faster? >>> Someone needs to tell Pat Franz that it is "RANS" and not "Rans". >>> While the manufacturers in question are trying to meet a price point >>> for their bicycles, they are not going to be putting junk chain >>> idlers on their bicycles [1]. Therefore, while there is room for >>> improvement, the gains will likely be small as drive-train friction >>> is a small component of total non-conservative losses, even on a >>> recumbent with a complicated chain-line. >> Why not avoid idlers and recumbents with complicated chain-lines? >> It might not (yet) be possible with a tandem, but for a single >> rider bike, cruzbike offers a short normal chain-line. > And introduces a whole other set of compromises in seating position, yeah, thats true.
> weight distribution, traction on steep hills, etc. Long chain lines are actually i dont find the traction too bad up hill. But we dont really have hills in Denmark, it's just flat flat flat compared to other places.
> not necessarily a bad thing, as several issues with short chain > lines go > away that make wide range gearing difficult. Why would short chainlines make wide range gearing difficult?
Cross chain without guilt for instance.
Then combine a rohloff/nuvinci + a schlumpf drive == 0 cross chain.
No cross chain, but large expense. 🙁
Quoted message said:
If normal bikes can live with some cross chain, so can a recumbent.
Cross-chaining becomes much less of an detriment with a long chain line.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
The angle at which the chain enters and leaves front sprockets and derailleur idlers is the sine of the angle which is the lateral offset between the two ends of the chain span divided by the free span length. Therefore, the longer the chainstays and the fewer the gears on the sprocket cluster, the smaller the angle between chain and sprocket plane. The angle causes lateral sprocket tooth wear and idler wheel wear.
The angle at which the chain enters and leaves front sprockets and derailleur idlers is the sine of the angle which is the lateral offset between the two ends of the chain span divided by the free span length. Therefore, the longer the chainstays and the fewer the gears on the sprocket cluster, the smaller the angle between chain and sprocket plane. The angle causes lateral sprocket tooth wear and idler wheel wear.
Indeed, which is why I would not deliberately ride in cross chain gears on my ATB with its 43 cm chain line (BB to hub) but will do so on my RANS Rocket with its 131 cm chain line.
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
On 28 Kwi, 00:37, Jon Bendtsen <[email hidden]> wrote: > Tom Sherman wrote: >> Jon Bendtsen wrote: >>> Tom Sherman wrote: >>>> TandemFan wrote: >>>> [cross-posted to ARBR for Perry Butler's amusement]
[cuuuut]
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>> not necessarily a bad thing, as several issues with short chain >> lines go >> away that make wide range gearing difficult. > Why would short chainlines make wide range gearing difficult?
Cross chain without guilt for instance.
Then combine a rohloff/nuvinci + a schlumpf drive == 0 cross chain.
No cross chain, but large expense. 🙁
Yeah, rohloff is expensive. Nuvinci is not so bad, neither are the schlumpf drive. Together they are, but you do get a VERY wide gear range with no steps, it is all continuously variable. I dont think i need more range than what the Nuvinci can give me, which is a little wider than the 8 gear derailure i have now.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
If normal bikes can live with some cross chain, so can a recumbent.
Cross-chaining becomes much less of an detriment with a long chain line.
You get other problems with a long chainline. If something hits it trash or some plants.
But as you said above, it's a question about tradeoffs. I just dont like long chainlines. And neither those tubes they run in.
Adam Kadlubek wrote: > On 28 Kwi, 00:37, Jon Bendtsen <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Tom Sherman wrote: >>> Jon Bendtsen wrote: >>>> Tom Sherman wrote: >>>>> TandemFan wrote: >>>>> [cross-posted to ARBR for Perry Butler's amusement]
[cuuuut]
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>> not necessarily a bad thing, as several issues with short chain >>> lines go >>> away that make wide range gearing difficult. >> Why would short chainlines make wide range gearing difficult? > > Cross chain without guilt for instance.
Then combine a rohloff/nuvinci + a schlumpf drive == 0 cross chain.
No cross chain, but large expense. 🙁
Yeah, rohloff is expensive. Nuvinci is not so bad, neither are the schlumpf drive. Together they are, but you do get a VERY wide gear range with no steps, it is all continuously variable. I dont think i need more range than what the Nuvinci can give me, which is a little wider than the 8 gear derailure i have now.
i forgot to mention that i eventually want a Nuvinci, so i might as well go for a bike that has a short chain line + you can actually mount a child seat, i havent found others that allowed that.
You get other problems with a long chainline. If something hits it trash or some plants.
Most likely places of plant interaction with chain line seem independent of chain length, e.i., at chain rings, derailuers, idlers... And some recumbent designs with higher bottom brackets raise chain overall.
Quoted message said:
But as you said above, it's a question about tradeoffs. I just dont like long chainlines. And neither those tubes they run in.
Fine, but don't presume that all long chain lines have tubes. For instance, the Easy Racers LWB bikes have chains about 2.3 times longer than "normal" but have no tubes.
