4 ms·
Also, there's no explanation of the symmetrical aspect of the design. I'm intrigued by it, but other than vague allusions to its superiority over asymmetrical d
by rsbrown 16y ago
Also, there's no explanation of the symmetrical aspect of the design. I'm intrigued by it, but other than vague allusions to its superiority over asymmetrical designs no analysis is given.
So, I ask HN: why aren't chain/belt bike designs symmetrical?
- oconnore 16y agoThe chain goes on one side of the bike.
- rsbrown 16y agoSorry, my question was unclear. Why do traditional chain designs only have the chain on one side? If symmetrical designs are more efficient (as the article claims) why couldn't the same thing be accomplished with a chain/belt design? EDIT: as to the article -- more analysis of why symmetrical designs are superior would have been nice.
- silentbicycle 16y agoThe added weight from a second complete drivetrains (chains, gears, derailleur) and/or extra mechanical complexity would probably negate the efficiency gained by better transmission of force.
- stavrianos 16y agoHaving only one chain drastically simplifies the derailer problem, I should think. Also, you spend half as much on gears and chain.