OK to be or not to be.

What is or will be the benift of using a belt instead of
a chain to drive your wheels.

the buckle would get caught up in the mech

belts don't stretch or need greasing

But do snap so rather than carry a a spare link or chain breaker your gotta carry a complete belt. Plus you would be limited to singlespeed or a hub gear and on that alone, no thanks.

BTW I thought belts did stretch?

Belts do stretch that bit I know, more so when using them
on machinery.
So you think that the cost of a hub gear will be to expensive and not
worth continuing research and developement any further?

No, I just don't like the idea of hub gears. Look at those that have had Rohloff hubs on here some have gone back to gears. Not convinced on the reliability issues for off-roading and don't want all the weight in a back wheel.

Also a continuous belt requires the rear frame triangle to be broken for fitting…

The Rohloff is plenty reliable provided it doesn't get wet, so none of this:

Looking into that
How many changed back and what was the problems with the hub?
Is there an alternative hub to use!

I want one of these

Gates carbon belt is supposed not to stretch and only weigh 100g so cost apart no reason not to carry a spare. I'm very happy with the Rohloff and find it's only disadvantage for me is the weight. A belt drive would go a long way to making a Rohloff set up comparable in weight to a conventional set up. I've no idea how well it would work in the real world but given the money I'd give it a go.

How many changed back and what was the problems with the hub?

water penetration trashed mine twice in 2 years 🙁 It's now languishing unloved in the cellar after being returned supposedly good as new by Rohloff.

avdave2 But what about the cost between the two?
Is the Rohloff viable.

I've never found cost an issue in wanting things only buying them! All I can say on the cost of the Rohloff is that in over 3 years I've changed the oil 3 times and changed the chain once at the 3 year mark. It was still running perfectly well but as I was doing an oil change anyway I thought I might as well change the chain and reverse the chainring and I also chose to replace rather than reverse the rear sprocket. I replaced it because after reading up on the Thorn forums I decided that the risk of damaging an oil seal with a pitted surface running against it meant that it was probably more economical to spend £25 on a new sprocket rather than risk having to buy a new oil seal and the fitting tool required to replace it. I also factored in the additional cost of what would be an additional oil change. I use the bike as a commuter and the last 18 months of that has been commuting off road all year round. if the bike gets wet or muddy I just wipe the chain with a rag and relube it. If it gets very muddy I might hose it down. I don't bother to remove and clean the chain at all anymore. So living with it with a chain is very easy and the only real appeal of the belt is to drop the weight a bit. I live and ride on the South Downs so would be hard pressed to find anywhere to actually submerge the hub. I think Simon should send you his unloved hub, keeping it languishing in a cellar is right up there with keeping your children down there.

keeping it languishing in a cellar is right up there with keeping your children down there.

strangely I am unmoved by cruelty to unliving objects

Before we get all the urban myths trotted out, anyone here actually broken or stretched a Gates carbon belt on a bicycle?

Not know a friend of a friend or read it on the internet etc.

(I've done a few belt drive conversions. So far the belt has performed well.)

So how is strong is the Rohloff Is it just a XC gearing hub or
can it be used for Downhill bikes too.
Can also use the rear maxle axle.

Cant say how but known to stretch over a period and also some suffer from bad tracking, think most belts do that.

But Simon you are being cruel to the living object who could be using it.

belts in use on motorbikes have been known to stretch measurably, but I'd be surprised to hear that a human can produce the 100hp needed to do this.

James bowthorpe the "Round the world" record holder, used belts for his trip.

His Flickr page

So what if a belt stretches very slightly over several years of life. That's what the chain tugs are for. The real benefits are on singlespeeds and commute bikes, where not having black mucky lube to bother about leaving marks on clothes and getting things caught in the chainrings, like shoelaces. Fixie Inc have a neat little jobbie to retrofit into seatstays to allow a belt to be fitted to a regular hardtail. I'm certainly interested in converting my 853 Inbred at some point.

Orange P7 Belt drive

splitting a frame isnt a problem for some frames to run a belt drive,
look here…http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=560950

belts dont use gears…and have a lower efficentcy…chain chain chain chain……..

note that the belt drive bike above has a gap in the seat stay…

a well made belt shoudlnt really stretch…if it does the fibres inside are failing already and it needs to be replaced

But has anyone here actually stretched or broken one?

it just seems to me that hundreds of little metal plates and bolts is an overly complicated way of powering your drive

it just seems to me that hundreds of little metal plates and bolts is an overly complicated way of powering your drive

indeed complicated, look at this article; http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html
id rather have a belt drive for my surly pugsley which is ridden mainly on the beach,the benefits there are obvious(alfine hubgear fitted soon)
i havent read anything actully bad about belt drives failing etc..,only predictions,now there out on commuters so time will tell…

Let's face it, if the belts were that prone to stretching or breaking under the load produced by a human, Audi and Harley and Buel would hardly be using them for internal cam drive or final drive on bikes and cars producing much, much more power. I've snapped chains on my SS, I'm damn sure I'll never ever snap a belt.

Yup, but then the belts on a Buell are pretty damn wide. And their race team uses a chain conversion 😉 Not to mention that they run massive belt guards to keep muck and rocks out of the drive, and until about 2005, 2006 or so they had a lot of quality/breakage problems with the belts. BMW only use theirs on lower power bikes, the F800's the biggest they've put one on and it's what, 85 horse?

(the current belts seem to be impressively reliable, but still, if my chain snaps I can go to any motorbike dealer in the country and get a 520 chain fitted in 5 minutes, what do you do if your belt fails? The same would apply for pushbikes.

I think belts might be the way of the future. Give it time. It needs some real support from big manufacturers, a way into mass production… But it's competing with one of the most established and evolved consumer techs there is, and that's hard to do even if the new product's massively better.

even if the new product's massively better.

I think this is still in question in typical GB filthy conditions
1) stone ingress, if a 2..5mm stone gets into a chain, the relatively low tension may cause it to skip, but it'll soon be thrown clear – I imagine with a belt it'll result in a serious increase in already high tension and possible damage to belt & bearings
2) mandatory hub gear (if gears are used). I've already demonstrated the otherwise excellent Rohloff is highly susceptible to water ingress ie it fails in 12..14 months.

No problem regarding making frames to suite.

Only problem at the moment is wanting to use gearing
where this system falls at the first hurdal.
Use the Rohloff system and you have just added £ 1,000.00p
well maybe £, 800.00p if bought a new bike and for what
info you guys have given and on other web sites seem to be the
problem regarding the technical issues of this gear/hub.
From making this system go forward.
Unless someone makes a new gear/hub.

but still, if my chain snaps I can go to any motorbike dealer in the country and get a 520 chain fitted in 5 minutes

And new crankcases where the chain has smashed through them as well?

Simonofbarnes, I didn't mean belts ARE better, just saying that even if they are, that's not neccesarily enough to let them take over.

Peterpoddy: "And new crankcases where the chain has smashed through them as well?"

Doesn't always happen as you know. But in any case, just an example- chains are universal as they can be shortened, belts won't be due to differences in stay lengths, gearing, etc.

. It needs some real support from big manufacturers, a way into mass production.

errrr, Trek not big enough then?

😕

Trek are plenty big, so now all you need to worry about is the "real support" part of the sentence.

I think the reason Buell use a chain conversion for their race bikes has more to do with the need to rapidly change overall gearing between races than any deficiency with the belt.

The theoretical rock on the belt is as likely as a stone getting jammed in a chain and breaking it apart. Incredibly small odds on that happening. If you're racing you would have a spare belt anyway, just like you have spare chains etc.

The only disadvantage of belts in my eyes is the lack of gearing options we have at the moment because of limited ranges of cogs and belt lengths.

For those who use gears, then they have to use an Alfine or Rohloff hub. Maybe someone will re-invent the Cambiogear for belt drive to keep the derailleur crowd happy 🙂

Shaft drive.
There I said it.

Benefits:
No stretching, probably impossible to break a shaft, gearing to a hub gear, possible to 'boot' the gear at the back to stop ingress, can be put on a full-sus with variable telescopic shaft, no big rings up front to crash on rocks, 2wd possible!

Downside:
bent shaft = broken bike, probably weighs a ton (though carbon shafts anyone?).

Now this I think is a nice bike:

Every shaft drive bike I've seen weighs a ton. Like the idea though.

Epicyclo wrote:

"I think the reason Buell use a chain conversion for their race bikes has more to do with the need to rapidly change overall gearing between races than any deficiency with the belt."

That IS a deficiency with the belt. And it's the one which'll possibly be the biggest problem for cycling use. Chain length can be adjusted, so they're universal, belts can't so even if the manufacturers all manage to agree on a width and tooth standard (and this is mountain biking, how likely is that?) the range of lengths is still a problem. Slot dropouts or EBBs or tensioners would all help though.

Mud/dirt/stone ingress on an MTB belt drive is definately more likely than a stone in a chain, not sure what you meant by that one? Or were you meaning motorbikes?