New bike chain claims to be faster, more durable
cyclingtips.com
cyclingtips.com
Conceptually, to me, the new interior bits serve as a sort of individual tooth holder that is free to rotate with the tooth as the tooth orbits the axle. So there's not much friction at the tooth:holder junction as the sprocket turns.
That friction is now occurring at the narrower intersection of a hinged tooth holder and chain link. Being a narrower hinge joint, just the length of a chain link's thickness, it has less surface area for friction, and less room for debris ingress etc.
Conventional chains rotate a pin across the sprocket's thickness, and AIUI use a roller to try keep debris out of and lubricant within that interface to reduce friction. This contraption takes it a step further.
You can actually envision the tooth holder as analogous to the roller in a conventional chain, just with less surface area at the twisting intersection. They've obsoleted the conventional roller.
Likely the "pins rubbing" you mention doesn't really matter, because the wear from inserting and removing the chain as it cycles around has to be a miniscule fraction of the wear that occurs under load.
In a worn chain, the rollers engage high up, and then work their way down (under high load) until seated at the base. In the unworn condition, engagement begins at the base of the tooth where the forces are better spread over the roller.
In point of fact, the forces are spread out over more teeth when worn. The first tooth engagement might begin 3mm high, then 2.5mm, then 2mm, etc. over ~6 teeth. Whereas the fresh chain might manage 2 or 3. But the wear and friction of the worn chain is much higher as you have a great deal of motion under high load as the loaded rollers creep down. The unworn chain has perhaps higher loads, but the roller is essentially seated and immobile at the base of the gear for this.
Not at all! The article claims 98% efficiency.
Roller chains are used to transfer torque in bicycles and motor cycles, inside internal combustion engines to drive cam shafts... and many more applications covering a huge range of power levels and environments.
Not only is it efficient, it's cheap.
If that last 2% of efficiency was important (or easy to obtain) it would have been on a GP motorcycle already.
- BMX: This market would be all over anything that would be an improvement in durability, and frankly a percentage would just do it for the different tooth design.
- Auto: Admittedly, the site for the company that is making this new chain mentions automotive in a blog post, but I don't see anything specific to an automotive product. A more durable and efficient timing chain is something I'd expect most of the automakers to care about.
https://www.bmwblog.com/2020/08/27/m-endurance-motorbike-cha...
My bike (a k75) has it and well it's pretty cool!
The solution clearly loses on weight/benefit ratio to just making a thicker chain.
However, the rule of thumb is to minimize rotational weight (e.g., wheels) due to the increase in rotational inertia. I wonder whether chain weight is similarly problematic.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=0QDnUkUaQfk
It's interesting to look into what's actually scientifically supported in biking and other sports, and the implied effect sizes.
Often, races are won and lost in the final dash to the finish line, which is pretty much all about acceleration.
JK Rowling taught me that nonplussed is apparently a part of the daily vernacular in the UK.
> Note: The use of nonplussed to mean "unimpressed" is an Americanism that has become increasingly common in recent decades and now appears frequently in published writing. It apparently arose from confusion over the meaning of nonplussed in ambiguous contexts, and it continues to be widely regarded as an error.
I actively try to avoid USAmericanisms, except for "y'all". Go figure ;o)
[That last phrase is a USAmericanism, used for amusing intent.]
Rough synonyms: confounded, flummoxed, bewildered, perplexed, stunned, shocked, dumbfounded, flabbergasted, thunderstruck.
Using nonplussed to mean “unimpressed” or “apathetic” will leave listeners both unimpressed and confused.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonplussed
My observation: "continues to be regarded as an error" is a bit of a "that's not how linguistics work" thing
Also note that this is only for track bikes with a perfectly straight chainline (technically speaking it would also work for internal gear hubs wish are increasingly driven by belts in the upper price range). The shifting chain that is deployed diagonally more often than straight is an entirely different beast, in theory much worse in efficiency and durability. Pretty much all practical durability limits stem from compromises done for that diagonal capability for sitting. Which basically goes ruthlessly against all mechanical engineering rules, like the old adage about how bumblebees were supposedly unable to fly. Yet even they work quite well, given that challenging background they work just awesome and track chains already work better than that.
Derailer systems only absord energy in the chain and bearings, and a well maintained system can maybe lose 1.5% of energy. Internal hub gearing can lose around 15% energy.
The shop keeper won't tell you this, he just wants to sell you a bike. If he starts talking difficult things, buyers might just go to the next shop to buy what they had already chosen.
Funny, I thought it was my three young kids that did that.
I always had a mountain bike growing up. Having now transitioned to more of a road bike, the difference in rideability is pretty stark.
I guess it could be the derailleur, but I assumed it was the tires and gearset that made it a pain to get places. I also have noticed a night and day difference when my tires are properly inflated. I just replaced the tubes and tires so maybe I'll have better luck now, but previously I needed to refill the tires basically daily to keep them in the right range.
1) using latex inner tubes. They’re lighter, but don’t hold air so well. Fine for racing, impractical for normal use
2) a slow puncture
4) badly seated valve tip (dirt?)
If you actually take a look at your derailleur system, you'll notice that a) the chain is not straight in all but a few settings, b) it has a somewhat complicated arm with an extra sprocket to keep the chain tight. And it is harder to protect it with a guard, so you end up with more dirt in the system if you use it every day.
But yes, internal hubs are heavier, generally somewhat less efficient, and better protected against the elements.
Maybe the "gripper plates" align themselves perfectly with the tooth at a time when the connection is still not under load yet? A conventional roller won't need much aligning, but it won't do that, it won't settle into place before load is applied. Friction scales with force. If that's how they teased out a minor delta then it's truly very clever (but likely still highly impractical outside the laboratory/indoor track setting)
[1] idea came while taking a shower, were else. Shower after churning that old Campag 12s chain a little, unfortunately only on Zwift these days
> The future apparently isn’t far away, as New Motion Labs has developed a new Dual Engagement chain that is supposedly able to transfer high power on both sides of the tooth, over nearly all the teeth available to the chain.
Yeah, I'm also wondering about how much energy it takes to "lock it in place", and then, of course, unlock it.
I've been a cyclist for 30 years now, and there's always been a steady stream of 'amazing! revolutionary!' things like this, but mostly it's incremental improvements. If it pans out, great, if not, c'est la vie.
Does look very cool, though.
But a Rohloff + a carbon fibre belt is an absolutely dreamy combination for anybody who prioritizies reliability. I'd buy a new one in a heartbeat if my current bike got stolen.
Great system though, completely silent.
Also it looks like you can't shift under load with the internal hubs which is a problem if you are trying to climb hills quickly.
Maybe in the more popular implementations like from Shimano. But there's internal hubs with greater ratio spread than chained: The Rohloff:
In terms of friction, there are no jockey wheels and the chainline can be perfectly straight. Anyway, the internal friction of a geared hub is going to be unnoticeable for an average cyclist because the tires will be under-inflated, the chain covered in crud, and the brakes will be rubbing on untrue wheels.
But like everything it's a tradeoff.
Here's a discussion on the subject of shifting under load, with opinions from "both" sides:
Geared hubs are great for riding in traffic because you can shift while stopped. Pulling harder with traffic up to a light and braking aggressively, and switching to the right gear while waiting for the light to change.
Like everything it's a tradeoff. For me, geared hubs make a bicycle a more useful tool. Less fragile. Less maintenance. Idiot friendly static adjustment.
The Nexus eight speed is the seven speed with a “granny” gear. The seven high gears have small steps relative to a five or three speed. I suspect this might make shifting under load less stressful on the components...note that under load shifts are always just one gear at a time unlike a derailer.
The Nexus 8 is a great piece of kit. Robust, inexpensive and stupid easy to tune.
It is less efficient (apparently). But at least it's consistent. Ride a chain in the rain for just a couple days and trust me, it's nowhere near that theoretical 95%.
The efficiency (like all other marginal gains in cycling) is important for racers or long-distance tourers. For everyone else it needs to be considered against the maintenance burden required to maintain an exposed drivetrain which needs to be cleaned, lubricated and adjusted in order to maintain its relative efficiency.
And weight...
This is a very niche product but sounds like an interesting approach. The users of it likely won't care if it needs replacing every ride if it means saving watts and winning (olympic) races.
I'm not sure you're using the term "largely adopted" correctly. It implies that something is the majority or norm, not a rare occurrence.
I hope the Gates belt is stronger than the Continental one, but I don't know for sure.
I think Ghost ultimately was willing to goodwill replace the continental trash with a complete Gates drive system because a continental belt could not be sourced anymore. But, I still have to worry about the nightmare of axle nuts, belt tension, removing the tiny nut from the hub to disconnect the shifting, and removing the brake caliper (!!!) to fix a flat.
But the common IGH's do come with specs for minimum gear ratio front to back (2:1, I think), suggesting an implied torque limit. I've always wondered which part was the weak link.
The cogs wear out under normal use (I've replaced a couple so far) but that's true on derailleur bikes as well.
Well, now you know... especially in 3d gear (when the cross drives the planetary hub by engaging on the top of the cog axles) the clutch is under high load. I often rode that bike with a heavy trailer (made from a shipping crate and some moped wheels which I happened to have lying around) to haul my guitar, amp and saxophone through the Dutch countryside to practice with my band, this may have put too much of a load on the hub.
I am assuming that's what the poster meant by putting emphasis on his frame being a fixed gear one. Those normally have horizontal dropouts to put tension in the chain.
I wonder if the frame wasn't built to allow belt replacement?
I live in a very bike-friendly European town. I use my bike daily. I have seen maybe 10 if these things in the last 3 years, mostly owned by elderly people who were sold high-end e-bikes they don't need.
This expensive ceramic bearings are exposed and will experience significant wear. Properly insulating them would wipe out whatever miniscule gain in efficiency they claim as the insulation increases losses.
Finally reducing chain friction (which is already very low on a tuned drivetrain) to some fraction (that has yet to be proven for real conditions) is tantamount to snake oil in my opinion.
These are just few. I could go on but it is not worthy the typing and mental efforts.
I'm an avid leerer of other's bikes, and in my long and fruitful bike leering career in Europe, I have seen just one (1) gates drive.
I'm a European cyclist and only ever seen conventional chains.
I've built and repaired quite a few push bikes over the years I am still using fairly standard shimano kit. The problem with exotic equipment is that even decent shops might not be able to repair it and it normally requires specialised tools.
I mucked about with Campag and some other exotic kit and it is always a PITA as you always have to go hunting around for parts of ebay after a few years because threads and tapers on things like bottome brackets aren't compatible.
Chains are a wear item, and small gains in the efficiency are going to be lost pretty quickly after the first few times it’s been ground through mud, sand and grit, which will take all of one ride.
More generally, novel drivetrain products often seem to take off early in the tt/tri world which also don't really have to deal with those issues.
It's also worth noting that anything that all else being equal, improved efficiency goes hand in hand with better longevity. As an example, applying a hot chain wax is a winner in terms of watts, but it's also cheaper in the long run.
The trade-off are explicitly made to have reduced longevity to have better efficiency.
Take tires for example. A low rolling resistance lightweight XC tire will have significant advantages over a dual casing 2.6" DH tire. The XC tire will smoke a DH tire but not have better longevity on dirt. The XC tire will be slower on some DH tracks and the DH will be slower on XC. If you ride a DH tire on a road it will ironically wear down more quickly than a typical XC tire, and you can shred an XC tire in one day on technical DH.
Tyres generally trade traction off against longevity, plus, yes, specialization is a big consideration.
The loss in a chain is nearly all in the roller as it engages with the first tooth in the front chain ring. Most of the force is being transferred from this first tooth, and it presses directly on the roller, which is also rolling into its seat position on the tooth. So a better design would have the roller get seated on the teeth before the force gets transferred to it, and then have no rolling until force transfer is done, then roll off gently.
A new chain on a new chainring engages at the bottom of the tooth, right where it seats, and the torque of the chain ring rolls it up the forward tooth ramp until the tangential component of the force pressing into the contact point equals the pedal force. This happens on all points engaged on the sprocket. So you get a lot of rolling, but that’s over a lot of rollers. As the chain wears, it gets longer, so the teeth catch early from the tip, and it rolls all the way down the tooth while the entire chain tension is all on that first roller.
This particular design has no rollers at all. It will still stretch because it has the same pin-plate interface, and it seems that a modest stretch may render it inoperable, but I’m not sure.
The track market is miniscule and we'll catered for. Then the e-bike market does not need a 2 percent gain in chain performance.
The enemy of the chain is dirt. Real world cycling in the 1950s had hub gears and a big case to keep the dirt out. Then derailleur gears aimed at the sports market dropped the chain case. This made sense for cyclists with a team car behind them.
SRAM already went with their own non-compatible design with their latest road groups (AXS road). Bottom bracket "standards" have proliferated over the last 20 years (all 8 of the bikes in my garage use a different system). Hub spacing is non-standard too (100mm/130mm QR, 100/135 QR, 100/135 TA, 100/142 TA, 110/148 TA, Superboost, DH, and a few other niche standards). Even within a brand, there's no guarantee shifters and detailers are compatible.
Basically, the industry has "standards" but only keeps them long enough to develop the next. Gotta keep us buying $5000+ bicycles somehow.
Hub spacing in QR is standard at 100/130 for road, 100/135 for mountain. Thru-axle is somewhat new and I think we'll standardize on fewer than that eventually. I think some of those are a lot more popular than the others.
My current bike a late model Brompton, I am familiar with the extents to which other bespoke components is possible and a deliberate choice over something by Bike Friday.
(Disc brakes in particular are not a good match for QR)
It's a mess. And really annoying for anybody who breaks parts a lot - while almost everything is still available in some form, the newest best stuff is often only available in the latest standards.
Once people take their hobby too far, you will end up with things like this.
For $2K you can buy our (exotic and unnecessarily expensive metal) chain, which reduces friction to 0 and lasts forever.
I ride a fair amount (150-200KM a week in the summers) and am always surprized to see everything on a bike is measured in grams, except the biggest impact, the rider itself?
Sure i shaved 4g on my $400 waterbottle holder.... but when i weight 80KG.. and have another 2kg of water with me, does that 4g really matter?
The idea here, if it is sound and measures well, is basically only useful to track racers (because they race single-speed bicycles). Current chains are extremely efficient, and mostly compatible at the same nominal width (expressed as 10-speed, 11-speed, 12-speed). And they are very cheap. People do spend absurd money shaving grams on bikes, but this product is not really in that space. It requires an IGH or a single-speed and isn't compatible with any other high-end drivetrain components on the market. That's a non-starter even for the people spending $15k on a bicycle.
Here's a better "audiophile" example in vogue in cycling at the moment: ceramic bearings. These cost a lot more than high-quality steel bearings and quickly become less efficient than steel ones because the hard ceramic bearing destroys the softer steel races.
The article spent most of the words focused on high-performance racing.
Plus don't cycling competitions set a minimum bike weight anyways?
And you can show off gear, you can't show off weight loss.
I used to work in a bike shop for about ten years. One time had a guy come in who worked with Kyronics. We all made jokes about freezing dead people - but he said you can apply Kryonics to a wide array of stuff not just dead people.
One of the many things some of the team riders were seriously considering was having their cranks, chains and frames frozen since its supposed to alter the molecular structure to make them stiffer and more durable.
I'm not sure they did it, but it was a topic of constant conversation for weeks afterwards.
In a conventional chain the pins cross the sprocket teeth and must rotate across that entire width; more frictional loss.
In this design the saddle seats on the tooth, and just the relatively short pins linking the saddle to the outside chain must pivot.
And that is where this monstrosity will stay, until they find a way to fit it into a 6 speed derailleur system to make it viable for $60 bikes sold in Walmart, and eventually an 11 speed derailleur system.
There are systems that actually could produce less friction, however they can't handle ANY contamination, thus ruling them out.
Your best bet is to look elsewhere. I would try reducing the contact friction as the links engage. To do this, I would recommend using BAM coatings on the chain and sprockets. It has lower friction than Teflon, AND is almost as hard as diamond.
As long as it is not an absolute crap pros would use whatever equipment their sponsor tells them to use. Chain durability for pros does not matter and whatever the difference in friction are really negligible.
>"ability to transfer 25% more Torque"
Any decent chain will handle way more torque than cyclist can deliver so what's the point.
>“four times increase in system lifetime”
I believe it when I see it. Also how much more this puppy gonna cost and cyclists would need to change chainrings and sprockets. This much troubles for the sake of chain? Sorry but I have my doubts.
Also I found that watching machining of all kinds of stuff is strangely relaxing to me.
If you spread pressure out offer wider areas, you don’t get less overall friction at least in the first order approximation of friction you find in first year physics.
What it looks like is an attempt to make something better that improves metrics which aren’t necessarily coupled to better overall performance.
UK company New Motion Labs has introduced a completely different design that not only promises *better efficiency*, but also decreased wear throughout the entire drivetrain, and all without the need for laborious cleaning and lubrication procedures.
It will require new chainrings and cassettes (probably RD rollers as well).
One could say increasing efficiency by 1% equivalent to reducing existing losses by 50%, both of those are reasonable bases, making it a percentage of the existing efficiency feels off.
Anyways it seems to be significantly more expensive thus I don't think it will become widespread.
The rohloff system is quite heavy though, so I don't know if it's "more efficient" than a traditional high end sprocket-and-chain system. The rohloff also shifts the weight to the rear of the bike. Maybe the pinion gear box system might be better since its weight is low and towards the center of the bike.
Having bike toured, keeping a chain halfway clean (or at least not muddy) is not hard. Yes, I see the appeal of an internally geared hub, but marginal differences in efficiency either way would not be high on my list of concerns.
[0] https://cyclingtips.com/2020/05/how-many-watts-does-a-dirty-...
> All of that is working, too, with independent tests showing properly race-prepped drivetrains to be as much as 98% efficient.
> That elusive 2%
> As good as chain optimization has become, there comes a point where there’s no more optimizing left to do, and there are no other options but to rethink the system.
Though, not as in any modern drivetrain but high-end competition drivetrains. At least I imagine it would be with really expensive solutions like Ceramic Speed bearings everywhere.
It can be used with the Rohloff system. But, I think you need a compatible chain ring since they are talking about a new tooth design requirements. The Rohloff system has the chain ring attached to the hub gear. So you presumably have to change that chain ring yourself.
Or, if you're dumb and lazy (me!), ride the whole lot into the ground and replace the whole bike every few years because #shinynewtoy!
I assume this is a typo for 500?
If you ride a chain until it stops working you'll probably reach those numbers. But then you will have to replace the entire drive train which is far more expensive. The chain is the cheapest part and replacing the chain a bit earlier than absolutely necessary will greatly increase the durability of more expensive parts. As a little bonus you'll repeatedly get the joy of riding a new chain. Replacing at the right time is cheaper and more enjoyable at the same time.
For, me that works out to 2x season. The cassettes are $300 and the chains are $40. So, the chains are treated as 100% consumable/disposable.
Typical recommendations are every 500-750miles for a mountain bike. For the average mountain biker I think that would be more like every 125 hours at 6 mph. Mountain bike chains see much more abuse than road, and you can go further too.
You can be more scientific by using a chain ware tool to measure how much stretch there is.
Suspension service intervals are specified in hours, so I use the same for the rest of the bike.
https://www.newmotionlabs.com/articles/blog-post-title-three...
Still, single speed. Get on the podium with track racers.
BTW, my skepticism is very tempered. I still think Biopace was a good idea and could be made to work. I think this is a good idea and I still think it could work. But it has to, you know, work. It has to demonstrate and provide that efficiency rather than just claim it because modern chains are pretty darned good.
(yes, I realize the frame needs to be split to remove the wheel, but in the newest designs this doesn't seem like too big a deal)