I am wondering why all the mountain versions of the Riese & Muller delight (even the Rohloff) have a chain and not the Gates belt drive. Why not put a belt drive on all of the bikes? I would think that a belt is to be preferred in all cases. What am I missing?
I am wondering why all the mountain versions of the Riese & Muller delight (even the Rohloff) have a chain and not the Gates belt drive. Why not put a belt drive on all of the bikes? I would think that a belt is to be preferred in all cases. What am I missing?
Another aspect is that going with a belt means using an internally geared hub (IGH), which has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. On the down side are cost and weight and, for the Rohloff at least, ability to shift with a load on the pedals. The Delite with e-Rohloff and belt I test rode did this pause thing whenever I shifted. That was fine on downhills, OK on flats, but a killer on steep uphills if you didn't chose the right gear to begin with, or the hill gets steeper around the bend, etc. I can see where people touring would live with that trade-off, but mountain bikers might not. BTW, this "slight hesitation" is for all Rohloffs, especially the new electronic shifting Rohloff, which is typically setup to enforce that pause. I don't know the NuVinci's behavior, but that hub is less efficient and less high torque compatible, aspects which may make it non-optimal for mountain biking. In other words, belt may be better than chain, but external gearing still has some advantages over IGHs.
I can't say I would notice the power difference, but it's there.My wife and I have two Riese & Muller Homage Rohloff bikes, one a 2018 with a chain and tensioner/idler, the other a 2019 with a Gate carbon belt and tensioner/idler. The swing arm with tentioner on the belt drive version avoids any break in the chainstay/swing arm assembly.
I notice no difference between the two bikes in terms of power or efficiency. It is true that the Rohloff speed hub requires a slight hesitation while shifting. It is not even a pause but rather a momentary easing up on the pedals when they are at 12 & 6 o'clock. It takes a day or two to learn this. Once done it presents no issues, even when climbing a very steep hill and having to downshift. The combination makes for an incredibly durable, low maintenance drive train with a very wide gear range.
Given that I ride over 500 miles a month, having a chain that needs cleaning, lubrication and replacement every couple of months is not to be preferred for any reason other than lower initial cost. I could still be missing an important point.
As to a cover on the belt, having gotten a pants cuff mangled and almost tossing me off the bike in the process, I would prefer to have a belt guard in place for safety sake. Now I am diligent in putting on a velcro strap around my ankle when wearing long pants.
What am I missing?
By his measurements, a conventional chain drive consumes 2.92 watts on average, while the belt eats up 3.93 watts. Although the difference is just 1 watt – not enough for most people to care – this works out as a substantial 34.6 percent."
I think it comes down to two things:
And all of those things are things frame designers generally hate to do.
- Maintaining belt tension usually requires that you have an oddly-shaped dropout.
- You either need a bike with a raised chain stay or a break in the frame to get the belt in and out.
I think it comes down to two things:
And all of those things are things frame designers generally hate to do.
- Maintaining belt tension usually requires that you have an oddly-shaped dropout.
- You either need a bike with a raised chain stay or a break in the frame to get the belt in and out.
Price. Period. Rohloff and belt adds $2000 to $3000. If performance were better I think we’d see more on acoustic bikes and in competition. $4500 bikes aren’t the median.
Why would designers hate an elevated chain stay? Just curious.
The claim is that it isn't as strong for a given weight. That sound plausible. I've also heard the argument that it forces a lower bottom bracket and thus less clearance. That doesn't sound so plausible to me.
I have a suspicion it is all about fashion and what the other guys are doing. In the early 1990s elevated chain stays were all the thing on hardtail mountain bikes, and they seem to be making a comeback today for mountain bikes because you can get quite a bit of tire clearance for a given short chain stay length.
Hard at my age to bother waiting, I’m for my rewards today. I’m thinking about the lithium graphite battery thread as I write this. Lots of promise but no beef. Jeez we’re old, that where’s the beef ad is likely unknown to many here....Belts are the future,
But a what a combination! Like switching from $10L of blended whiskey to a 20 year old Speyside, maybe? <insert a childish grin>You don't need a Rohloff to use a Gates belt