Why don't modern bikes need less maintenance?

[ufkacbln]

Has anyone heard about belt driven bikes? Basically a rubber belt to replace a chain.

I think that if every bike had one, they would be a lot cleaner, need less maintenance, and possibly cost less (its just grooved rubber afterall).
Whoever designs the system will surely be in the money.

I have two belt driven bikes from the eighties (Strida 1)

The seating of the belt in the teeth of the cog is not as secure as a chain and cog, so they tend to slip

May have been resolved by now?

 

[black'n'yellow]

I'm surprised that no-one has yet come up with a good constantly variable transmission suitable for a bike, using a belt.

I'm not - have you seen the size of them?

 

[Matthew_T]

IMHO I doubt it would work with a cassette. However, a chain is fixed length so the technique wouldnt be much different.

Yes, the belt would probably come off quite a lot when changing gear, but I am sure someone could come up with a decent idea nowadays. As well as making the grooves or teeth in the belt more substantial to not slip.

 

[MacB]

There's the Nuvinci 360 CVT which has been lightened significantly but is still a heavy lump even compared to the heaviest of other hub gears. I've never tried one but there are some good reviews around though there is a glaring lack of anything approaching efficiency data.

Belt drives are already here for hub gears and single speed, not seen a fixed gear option and can't imagine how you could have a derailleur style one - as mentioned above the belts are one piece so the rear triangle needs a break in it. The belts are also very sensitive to alignment, tension and frame flex. If you wanted a Rohloff belt drive then I'm led to believe that Rohloff try to limit supply to approved frames only.

A lot of that has put me off belt drives for now and I suppose a full chain case on a hub gear would give you pretty much the same low maintenance levels.

You can run a bike with remarkably low maintenance levels and excellent longevity of parts. But there are drawbacks generally around weight, cost and efficiency. Though Rohloff claims as good or better efficiency than a derailleur setup this presupposes a less than clean well maintained drivetrain. It's a similar tale for claims around minimal weight penalties as they tend to compare against weightier derailleur components.

That doesn't mean I'm not a fan of hub gears and rohloffs but you have to be realistic.

 

[MacB]

Oh and there's a BB mounted gear box getting some chatter, it's from Pinion in Germany and is 18 sequential gears. This is an interesting idea as it's pretty direct gearing and puts the weight central on the bike and removes rotational weight. I'm not an engineer but I think it doesn't have planetary gears like a normal hub gear but rather every gear becomes a kind of direct drive. The gear range is also wider than any other conventional or hub gear option out there.

Downsides are really cost related again as it requires a specifically designed frame and cranks, the initial outlay and high number of tweaks/revisions I've read about would put me in a cold sweat just thinking about being an early adopter.

But if it pans out longer term and lives up to the inventors claims then I can see my temptation growing.

 

[snailracer]

There are plenty of reliable bikes - they typically have chaincases, run thick chain, wide axles, hub gears/single speed, metal mudguards and hub brakes. They are found in great abundance in foreign places where bikes are left outside exposed to the elements and aren't considered "sporting equipment" - we just don't buy them in the UK because we prefer our lightweight toys.

 

[TheDoctor]

I think that's it. We're using kit that was top-flight race material only a few years back. Only we don't have a team of mechanics following us around.
Having said that, I don't recall doing much maintenance these days - mostly indexing the gears. That wasn't needed before 1985, obviously.

 

[MrJamie]

From http://www.treehugger.com/cars/no-wonder-fuel-economy-is-stagnant-cars-ballooned-up-since-1980.html which I don't claim is an unbiased site, but the graphs do seem to fit my perception that cars are getting bigger and heavier not lighter - look at old Mini vs new Mini, or the growth of the Golf. A modern Polo looks bigger than the Golfs of previous decades

While you're probably still right, comparing a new and old model isn't necessarily like for like just because the name is the same. New Minis are nothing like old minis and smaller cars like the Polo have grown into a slightly bigger car I believe and have in some cases been replaced with a new smaller model that is more similar to the original - think Fiesta & Ka or Polo & Lupo/Up!. I'd also guess that while bike components continue the trend of getting lighter, car components in motorsport and sports cars at least will be getting lighter.

Perhaps one day bikes will go the way of having optional electronics that monitor and adjust various tensions, tyre pressure sensors etc. I'd really hate to not be able to maintain a bike so easily as you can now though.

 

[youngoldbloke]

Perhaps one day bikes will go the way of having optional electronics that monitor and adjust various tensions, tyre pressure sensors etc. I'd really hate to not be able to maintain a bike so easily as you can now though.

Why? It's not that difficult is it?

 

[Jimmy Doug]

I've been asking myself this question a lot of late - and I never did get round to starting a thread on it. When I came back from Norway, I found I had to:

• Change the front bicycle rack - cost: €100 (I went for a Tubus)
• Change the entire drive train - cost €100
• Went through two chains before I realised I had to do the above: cost €20
• Change the front wheel - cost €50
• Change the mudguards - cost €60 (SKS P45 + two Brooks mudflaps)
• Other equipment, but not bicycle-mechanic related problems (change the computer, change my shoes)

The total cost of all that was €400 - and I'm sure I'm going to have to replace something else before too long. It sounds like a lot of money, but .... the bike had done over 13 000 kms before I had to change anything (apart from a couple of chains). OK, so everything went at the same time, but nevertheless, if you compare that to a car ... Well, my car is supposed to be the most reliable in the world (Toyota Corolla), but last year I spent €600 on changing a belt, and that was apparently only half the job, and half the cost. I've also had to change tyres, do a complete oil change .... All in all, I think I'll stick to my bike, thanks. OK, so I may need to spend ten minutes a week cleaning it, and maybe grease bearings from time to time, but these small jobs are as nothing compared to the cost and time needed to maintain a car by a qualified mechanic. What's more, I don't even need to wait around at petrol stations, look desperately for parking spaces, worry about insurance ... In a word: bikes are much less hassle than cars, and a hell of a lot cheaper!

 

[nickyboy]

Seems I was wrong about the car weight thing, sorry about that. Although it is true that individual components are getting lighter (steel is now typically 0.3mm thick, it used to be 2mm for example).

But back on topic. It just seems that a car owner, or washing machine owner or whatever probably uses less than 0.1% of its running time on maintenance. But a bike owner has to use a much higher %
I hate maintenance, it is time spent doing something when I could be riding my bike or sitting around in my pyjamas having a cuppa or whatever.
If someone designed a bike that had "normal" performance characteristics but, say, only needed a drive train clean every thousand miles then I would be willing to pay a premium for that. Maybe I am dreaming and it can't be done, but other industries seem to have found ways to do it

 

[Jimmy Doug]

But back on topic. It just seems that a car owner, or washing machine owner or whatever probably uses less than 0.1% of its running time on maintenance. But a bike owner has to use a much higher %
I hate maintenance, it is time spent doing something when I could be riding my bike or sitting around in my pyjamas having a cuppa or whatever.
If someone designed a bike that had "normal" performance characteristics but, say, only needed a drive train clean every thousand miles then I would be willing to pay a premium for that. Maybe I am dreaming and it can't be done, but other industries seem to have found ways to do it

But if you were to create a washing machine that was expected to work outside in the mud and the rain, with all its working parts fully exposed to the elements, I can guarantee you it wouldn't be so reliable.

 

[simon.r]

If someone designed a bike that had "normal" performance characteristics but, say, only needed a drive train clean every thousand miles then I would be willing to pay a premium for that. Maybe I am dreaming and it can't be done, but other industries seem to have found ways to do it

For those of us who don't race and don't chase performance targets I think the difference in performance characteristics between a hub geared, belt driven bike and a mid-range derailleur geared, chain driven bike is small enough to be insignificant. There's no denying that there is a difference, but in real world conditions I'd guess it'd equate to a drop in average speed of 1mph or less?

To the best of my knowledge there isn't an off the shelf 'racing bike' with a hub gear and belt drive, but I suspect that's down to market forces - most cyclists wouldn't accept the small drop in performance. Hence low maintenance bikes tend to be commuters or tourers.

The actual time spent maintaining a derailleur system isn't very long - a few minutes maintenance for every 10 or 20 hours riding time is normally enough.

 

[Ningishzidda]

When someone comes on a cycling forum and starts moaning about fettling and cleaning, this is an indicator of a/ he doesn’t really care about his bikes, b/ he doesn’t know how to fettle and clean, or c/ he’s lazy.

 

[Boris Bajic]

It is hard to compare decade with decade, but I think bicycles have got pretty good in terms of durability.

The measure is skewed slightly by the extraordinary lightness now available to the fairly ordinary buyer. With lightness comes a tendency towards fragility, but I'd say that the average steel or aluminium road bike stands up pretty well.

I bugger about with my wheel bearings far less frequently than I did 20 years ago. BBs are sealed units, fit and forget. No grease nipple between the pedals and no need for one either.

It is hard to compare chains, as they get more and more like delicate items of decorative neckwear every year... but I think I get as much or more out of them as ever I did.

When I think of the parts that need attention, they tend to fall into two categories:

1. Parts I have neglected (ungreased cables, dirty mechs)
2. Standard service items (chain, brakes and so on).

Tyres, certainly, seem better and more durable and puncture-resistant. Rims are lighter and tougher. I think there has been progress.

I think there have been retrograde steps too. Despite frequently changing stems as my children grow up, I still do not like threadless headsets. Quills are the past and the future in my Luddite mind.

The main issue for me with cars is the power unit. These seem significantly better than they were 30 years ago in terms of flexibility, power output, service interval and pretty much everything, if slightly light on character.

Juxtaposed with that and quite contrariwise, the power unit for my bicycle seems less reliable than it was 30 years ago. It is also heavier, slower and less able to hit the higher revs. Bags more character than it had, but as a motor it is dreadful.

For me, the power units in cars have got much better and on bicycles (with me as the reference point) they have deteriorated.