[Closed] Latest addition to my quiver (warning - belt drive content)

quiver

Nice bike but using the word quiver.......just plain wrong

Edit

For big dummy below

No I mean new bike....as in "I've got a new bike". It is not an arrow, a horse or a ship

Yeah, you mean "fleet" or "stable". Quiver? Pah.

Lovely looking thing. Is that a GPS on the top-tube by the way?

I prefer the term 'arsenal' myself...

nice bike btw 😉

Nice very different, could you not spacer out the cranks rather than the front ring to get your alignments and clearance? (guess that would offset your cranks though)

Yes Big Dummy, it's a Garmin 305 on the top tube. I prefer it there to the bars or stem.

that's very nice, was it difficult to setup?

Can't wait to here how you get on with it. I love my Rohloff but would appreciate a lighter bike and that looks like it would be perfect. Keep us posted on how you get on with it especially how it handles really muddy conditions.

My only objection to belt drive is the fact that the join needs to be in the frame (a non-replaceable element of the bike), rather than the belt, which presumably is subject to wear in the same way a chain is.

Otherwise, looks good, and I like the idea of silent.

Could probably do with sorting your garden out a bit, though.

Van Nicolas would only supply the drive and frame already set-up to ensure the alignment was correct.

I then built the wheels and fitted brakes, bars, etc, etc..

Correct alignment is, apparently, the key to success with belt drives, closely followed by tension. Once set though it's fine and the belts "don't stretch" so no ongoing adjustment required.

avdave2 - clearly, [url= http://www.carbondrivesystems.com/userfiles/Gates%20Carbon%20Drive%20Powers%20Bikers%20FINAL.pdf ]this is not an unbiased article[/url], but is reassuring all the same.

ourmaninthenorth - Member
My only objection to belt drive is the fact that the join needs to be in the frame...

That is not such a problem as you think, so long as it is done as is shown here.

Some of the methods I have seen of creating the frame joint are excessively complex.

The hardest part is finding enough clearance at the front ring. In this case they have had to bodge the ring out a few mm.

new pedals too, not a mark on em?

Thanks for the link Rip. I'd be interested to know what it weighs as I'm currently pedalling around 32 pounds of Rohloff hardtail.

Quiver = windsurfing schpeak...

how is the tension set ? Is the belt frame-specific or the frame belt-specific ?

How does it not stretch? What's it made out of that's so resistant to wear?

[i]How does it not stretch? What's it made out of that's so resistant to wear?[/i]

a polyurethane body, aramid fiber tensile cords and nylon tooth facing

according to the gates website

Did Van Nicholas supply it with the seatstay join in place or did you have to get someone to modify the frame?

I've got a Zion myself but it's conventionally geared.

surely, in the winter when all the valleys on the belt are full of mud/grinding paste, the belt will be ****ed in a matter of weeks??

there are mud ports in the chainring to let mud fall out apparently!?

kimbers, i can see them now mate, cheers.
dont reckon it will last long in our winter coditions still.

I can see the mudports in the chainring, but not in the freewheel?

Can't really understand the no-maintenance claim either compared to chains. These belts seem to be very similar to those used as cam belts on cars....my old car needed a new one of those every 60,000 miles where as the current one has a chain cam drive which doesn't need replacing apparently.

The tension the belt needs to be under may also destroy bearings faster than conventional set ups not to mention the cost of the belt and rings.£250 😯 Nice and quiet though eh 😉

where as the current one has a chain cam drive which doesn't need replacing apparently.

except a timing chain is running in almost ideal conditions with no side loads...

pedlad - Member
Can't really understand the no-maintenance claim either compared to chains. These belts seem to be very similar to those used as cam belts on cars....my old car needed a new one of those every 60,000 miles where as the current one has a chain cam drive which doesn't need replacing apparently.

Not sure I've ever clocked up that many miles on a bike! 😉

I'm watching belt drives with interest, definitely like to give it a go if the guinea pigs give it the thumbs up!!

Like it- would love some new posts/updates as you go along?

agree with hora.......keep us all posted rip

Ah another serial shopper eyeing a future upgrade 8)

Very nice, I like that.

epicyclo - Member

ourmaninthenorth - Member
My only objection to belt drive is the fact that the join needs to be in the frame...

That is not such a problem as you think, so long as it is done as is shown here.

Some of the methods I have seen of creating the frame joint are excessively complex.

I have a bike where I can remove the chain without spliting. Sinlge pivot full suss, whole chain is below the swingarm (need to remove one jockey wheel and the little screw from the front mech cage.)
Is it possible to have blet-drive full suss? I assume some sort of tensioner would be required in the same way as for SS?

TheSwede - Member
The tension the belt needs to be under may also destroy bearings faster

I do not have a lot of tension on my belt drives. Get the belt alignment spot on and if the bike has a stiff chainstay then there's not likely to be a problem IMO. My belts are no tighter than my chains.

andrewh - Member
...I have a bike where I can remove the chain without spliting. Sinlge pivot full suss, whole chain is below the swingarm (need to remove one jockey wheel and the little screw from the front mech cage.)
Is it possible to have blet-drive full suss?

Obviously you would not be able to use a derailleur gear train but the variation in chainstay length is an issue with suspension. If you wanted gears it would need to be a hub gear. I have no experience with using a tensioner on a Gates belt, but so long as it wasn't bending the belt in the wrong direction, I can't see any problem.

My opinion is that stiffness in the chainstay is the most important thing because any sideways flex means the belt is getting fed into the cogs at an angle and it then tries to ride up and off the cog.

Clean. Simple. Quiet.

The future is now.

The tension the belt needs to be under may also destroy bearings faster

If Rohloff are happy with it I think you can be pretty sure that it's not a problem at least with their hub. Their not exactly the type of company that likes to rush in with new developments and are very keen to protect their reputation for reliability.

Can't really understand the no-maintenance claim either compared to chains. These belts seem to be very similar to those used as cam belts on cars....my old car needed a new one of those every 60,000 miles

good point that I'm not sure I can be arsed with changing a belt every 10 to 20 years on my bike. 🙂

pedlad - Member

Can't really understand the no-maintenance claim either compared to chains. These belts seem to be very similar to those used as cam belts on cars....my old car needed a new one of those every 60,000 miles where as the current one has a chain cam drive which doesn't need replacing apparently.

How true, cars that run chains have no replacement or maintenance schedule, cars that run belts vary between 40 & 100 thousand miles, I would of thought that bike with hubgears running BMX chains that the chances of you needing to change the chain over the serviceable lifetime of the bike would be minimal, how ever 'normal' peeps run gears that need a thinner chain, hence more wear.

Cheers.

60,000 miles at several thousand rpm, i reckon they are robust enough.

Cant really understand why people are negative towards belts, anything new I suppose.
I'll have one please on/in? a nice steel frame with a alfine 11 speed hub.

Goodbye chains goodbye ders.

I'm having a mtb touring frame made by Lynskey at the moment for a Rohloff hub. It has unusual dropouts so that I can fit disk brakes as well as both mudguards and a rack. Lynskey 'refused' to fit a split dropout for belt drive saying they would not be able to warranty the weld on the chainside dropout/chainstay.

That's very interesting, Nicknoxx, particularly given that on this [url= http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?p=6673462&page=2 ]MTBR thread[/url] you can see a Pro29 specced with a belt drive!

How's your delivery coming along? I am having a Ridgeline 29 tweaked to take Rohloff neatly, adjusting cable guides and suchlike. Quoted 7-8 weeks, 15 weeks later and still no sign of a frame... uber-relaxed customer service, i.e. lacking in detail.

Sick of chains if Im honest. The early adopters will take the hit on the development costs etc whilst we get a mass-market version later 😀

Would it be possible to run the rear sprocket parrallel/outside of the rear triangle? Or would that put too much stress on the the rear dropouts/QR on the non-driveside?

"I'm not sure I can be arsed with changing a belt every 10 to 20 years on my bike. "

:DYou mean you haven't clocked up that mileage this [s]year[/s] month 😉

My point was less about the longevity of the belt and more about why we have to change our chains periodically compared to cars - guess it's the twisting of gear changes and the grime...

To answer a couple of questions, being the OP.

Tension is much lower than I expected. About the same, or less, than I'd run a single speed chain. I could easily slide the belt from the rear sprocket (not that it's a recommended way of removal) so I'd not expect any extra bearing wear over a chain.

The [url= http://www.carbondrivesystems.com ]gates website[/url] has a video on how to handle the belts and not stress the carbon fibres that run it's length and all but eliminate stretch (apparently).

Tension is achieved using the eccentric bottom bracket.

As far as weight goes, it's about the same as my Scott Scale RC, which is also a Rohloff equipped bike. Sorry to be vague but I don't have an easy way to weigh them.

On a side note (and this may be just my imagination), Rohloffs are often criticised for being noisy. I don't know if it's the Ti frame or the carbon drive, or both, but this Rohloff seems so much quieter than my other two. Maybe it's a resonance thing.

If anyone wants to know more about the bike or buying from Van Nicholas then drop me an email.

IanW - Member
Cant really understand why people are negative towards belts

There's a lot more internet acquired expertise out there than practical experience with a belt 🙂

Nicknoxx - Member
...Lynskey 'refused' to fit a split dropout for belt drive saying they would not be able to warranty the weld on the chainside dropout/chainstay.

That's odd. I've seen a photo of their conversion and it was neat - similar to the Zion. If they can't warrant the weld at a pin joint, I would be a bit anxious about the rest of their welding.

Rip - Member
...Tension is much lower than I expected...

Gates say to allow up to 2mm for tensioning. I'm using 0.5mm and finding it adequate and a similar to a SS chain. I suspect you would need the whole 2mm if you had a bike with laterally flexy chainstays. Of the bikes I have converted, 2 were done with no provision for adjustment, and just with dropouts placed to provide the 0.5mm tension.

On the noise thing I'm not surprised that the belt is quieter. I've always found my Rohloff at it's loudest after re tensioning the chain which making me think that it is the tighter chain that transmits more noise from the hub into the chainset then into the frame. A bit like two tin cans and a bit of string.

The maintenance advantage for me is actually less of an incentive than the weight advantage. My last cheap Sram chain lasted 3 years and was still working fine when I changed it. The current KMC 3 speed chain has been on for a year and is coping with my high maintenance schedule of wiping it occasionally and squirting some GT85 on it. This is a bike I use as an all year round off road commuter.

Anyway if I could have any bike I've seen on these forums it would be this one.