# Are There Any Belt-Drive Bicycles? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 18, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231 "2009-06-18T23:28:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/21 "2009-06-19T14:20:32Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Note that the UCI bike federations and such put a lot of restrictions on innovation in bicycles (like no fairings allowed) which in turn prevents a lot of “trickle down” effect you see in other sports. Top racers not using belts doesn’t imply that they aren’t as efficient as chains. The lack of innovation is a lot less true since the mountain bike explosion in the 1980s. All kinds of new things have been introduced since then that weren’t race-legal at the time. But on the other hand, few of those innovations radically changed road bikes for the simple reason that the racing federations only standardized racing standards after many decades of lots of experimenting and developing bicycles, so the standard design was pretty darn efficient. For instance, fairings aren’t really very useful for most cyclists (racing or commuting), who in the real world have to deal with tail- and cross- winds as well as headwind (doesn’t gain you much to be 10% more efficient on one leg when you spend the whole next leg fighting to not be blown sideways off the road). So the fact that racers standardized on chains is to me good evidence that – at least with 1950s materials – chains are more efficient than belts overall. Though I don’t know whether its the inherent transfer efficiency or the huge advantages of more gears from derailleurs or both that made chains win out. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/22 "2009-06-19T15:11:01Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > The lack of innovation is a lot less true since the mountain bike explosion in the 1980s. All kinds of new things have been introduced since then that weren’t race-legal at the time. That may be true for MTBs, but for road bikes, the changes have been incremental. Some road bike innovations have died away after they’ve been banned by the UCI - composite monocoque frames, suspension, etc. I’m not sure you can even buy something like the [Trek Y-foil](http://johno.myiglou.com/yfoil.html) today, much less the [Burrows/Lotus monocoque bike](http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f177/wtb-lotus-sport-110-time-trial-bike-66932/). > [@](#): > > But on the other hand, few of those innovations radically changed road bikes for the simple reason that the racing federations only standardized racing standards after many decades of lots of experimenting and developing bicycles, so the standard design was pretty darn efficient. Some innovations are banned _because_ they are efficient (i.e. “unfair advantage”). Look at the [hour record](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record#Hour_records_and_holders_.28Male.29) history - the “UCI best human record” (basically the fastest upright time-trial bike) is 12% faster than the official UCI record, and the fastest IHPVA record (which allows streamlined recumbent bikes) is a whopping 75% faster. > [@](#): > > For instance, fairings aren’t really very useful for most cyclists (racing or commuting), who in the real world have to deal with tail- and cross- winds as well as headwind (doesn’t gain you much to be 10% more efficient on one leg when you spend the whole next leg fighting to not be blown sideways off the road). Well, fairings are obviously useful for speed records. I ride my [fully faired bike](http://www.bluevelo.com/quest_velomobile.html) to work most days, and it handles bad weather (wind, rain, etc) much better than a regular bike. As for chain vs. belt, IIRc the efficiency of a belt drive is pretty close to that of a clean and freshly lubricated chain. If you compare multi-speed bikes, a chain drive with derailleurs is more efficient than a belt drive with internal-gear hub. On the other hand, chains collect dust/dirt which increases friction, whereas an oil-free belt drive tends to be cleaner. So for a typical casual rider who doesn’t clean the chain once a week, a belt-drive may end up being more efficient. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/23 "2009-06-19T15:20:09Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > Sorry, meant road bikes. The ones with the hooked handlebars for hunching, tiny seat for asshole stimulation, and precariously thin wheels for slipping into oncoming traffic. And spartydog may be a dumbass, but he’s a _pro_ dumbass. That’s why I try to be like him. Well, those “hooked” handlebars (drop bars) are more comfortable for any rides more than a mile or two long. They allow more hand positions, and let the rider get down to reduce air resistance, and thus reduce fatigue. And those narrow seats are more comfortable too, up to a point, anyway. If the seat is too wide, it will rub against the thighs and prevent proper pedaling. I’m no racer, but I like weekend rides of about 60 or 70 miles. I coudn’t do those rides on my around-town bike, which has a wide seat with springs and upright handlebars. My weekend bike has drop bars and a relatively narrow (compared to my commuting bike) seat. It’s supremely comfortable for longer rides. I can ride it all day. Ridiing the commuter those distances would put me in the hospital. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/24 "2009-06-19T16:53:41Z")
In case it’s not clear, internal-gear bicycle hubs only give three speeds (or five if you get fancy), which is few enough that anyone riding at more than walking speed is going to be in an inefficient gear quite a lot of the time. Regardless of the direct efficiencies of chain vs belt, the lack of gear range is enough to doom belt drive for anything but casual riders on flat terrain. \*\* scr4\*\* – I stand by my statement that racing restrictions didn’t have a huge effect on road riding technology, to the point that recumbent faired bicycles would otherwise be the norm. There’s been widespread adoption of mountain bikes, despite them not coming from the racing tradition. If fairings and recumbents were as useful as suspension forks and index shifting, there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t be widespread, too. That quest looks interesting. Am I right that it’s a tricyle and has full suspension? It’s hard to believe that with an extra wheel, the inefficiency of the suspension, and the weight of the fairing, it’s really more efficient over a non-flat route than a traditional road bike. Is that your experience? ---
**Author:** ![N9IWP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/n9iwp/32/3154_2.png) [@N9IWP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/N9IWP)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/25 "2009-06-19T17:18:28Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > In case it’s not clear, internal-gear bicycle hubs only give three speeds (or five if you get fancy)… The Rohloff is a 14 gear internal hub > **[Willkommen - Rohloff AG](https://www.rohloff.de/de/)** Brian ---
**Author:** ![ticker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@ticker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ticker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/26 "2009-06-19T17:21:47Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > In case it’s not clear, internal-gear bicycle hubs only give three speeds (or five if you get fancy), which is few enough that anyone riding at more than walking speed is going to be in an inefficient gear quite a lot of the time. Regardless of the direct efficiencies of chain vs belt, the lack of gear range is enough to doom belt drive for anything but casual riders on flat terrain. The [Rohloff Speedhub](http://www.rohloff.de/en/products/speedhub/gear_range_comparison/index.html) with it’s 14 speeds would seem to put pay to that particular limitation at least - for a a [price](http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/product.asp?pf_id=11253) :eek: ETA: Drat you **N9IWP** ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/27 "2009-06-19T18:55:54Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > In case it’s not clear, internal-gear bicycle hubs only give three speeds (or five if you get fancy)… Sturmey-Archer has been making 7-speed hubs for years, and their current 8-speed hubs are pretty nice. Shimano’s [Nexus/Alfine 8-speed hubs](http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/shimano-nexus.html) are fantastic, smoother than any internal-gear hub I’ve used. They are reasonably priced and easy to find. SRAM has a 9-speed hub, though these are a bit heavier. Of course there’s also the above-mentioned Rohloff, though they are quite expensive and not the smoothest (or so I hear, I’ve never had a chance to test-ride a bike with one). > [@](#): > > scr4\*\* – I stand by my statement that racing restrictions didn’t have a huge effect on road riding technology, to the point that recumbent faired bicycles would otherwise be the norm. There’s been widespread adoption of mountain bikes, despite them not coming from the racing tradition. If fairings and recumbents were as useful as suspension forks and index shifting, there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t be widespread, too. Funny you should mention suspension, since it’s still impossible to find a decent suspension for a road bike. And recumbent bikes may not otherwise be the norm today, but I think their development was definitely stifled when UCI banned it in 1934. It took decades before commercially made recumbent bikes became widely available. > [@](#): > > That quest looks interesting. Am I right that it’s a tricyle and has full suspension? It’s hard to believe that with an extra wheel, the inefficiency of the suspension, and the weight of the fairing, it’s really more efficient over a non-flat route than a traditional road bike. Is that your experience? Yes it’s a tricycle with full suspension, and weighs about 75 lb. My commuting route has gentle hills, and it’s definitely faster than any other bikes I’ve owned. Riding to and up a nearby mountain (12 miles, with 1000 ft climb over the last few miles) takes about the same time as on a lightweight (\<23 lb) 2-wheel unfaired recumbent. I haven’t owned a traditional road bike in a few years and I don’t have the legs for one anymore, so I’m afraid I can’t compare directly. Also I don’t agree on the “inefficiency of suspension.” I used to own a similar vehicle without suspension, and bumps on the road slowed me down quite a bit. The Quest glides smoothly over any road surface. I go through railroad crossings at 20 mph. I honestly think suspension - at least front suspension - would be beneficial for road bikes, if someone took the initiative to develop a lightweight short-travel suspension system. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/28 "2009-06-19T19:10:59Z")
p.s. A pair of Quest riders finished 35th and 36 in the 2007 Paris-Brest-Paris, in 53 hours 5 minutes. The PBP route isn’t exactly flat. Admittedly they were over 8 hours behind the first place finishers, but they were still in the top 1 percentile of riders (5160 riders started, and 3603 finished within the time limit of 90 hours). ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/29 "2009-06-19T19:53:48Z")
> [@ticker](#): > > Chains are really rather easy to keep in good condition. Keep 'em clean, lubricate correctly and replace when they begin to get worn. None of this is rocket science nor very expensive. It doesn’t require highly trained mechanics or sophisticated tools either. Try it living in Albuquerque. New Mexico is known as “The Land of Enchantment”. I have concluded that “Enchantment” is a euphemism for the fine gritty orange dust that permeates the place and the frequent winds blow into every nook and cranny. An oil lubed bike chain needs cleaning weekly if daily ridden or stored outside a garage. Dry lubes only “sort of” do the job. Less cleaning, but more frequent chain and sprocket replacement. Folks who must frequently ride on wet roads have similar, if not worse issues. Really, a demountable seat stay as used with euro style full chain cases, and an idler wheel (to accommodate a standardized length belt) would make a timing belt drive pretty attractive to me. But then an honest to god English chain case would serve as well, but heavier. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/30 "2009-06-19T21:44:41Z")
> [@Discipline](#): > > I can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not. Spartydog is a dumbass, don’t try to be like him. Personal attacks are not allowed in the General Questions forum. This is a warning. Please do not do this again. \*\* Gfactor\*\* General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![JFLuvly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@JFLuvly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JFLuvly)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/31 "2009-06-20T02:05:12Z")
there are Belt-Drive Bicycles.look at reply #2. A reply from my 9 year old when I walked away from the computer ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2009, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/32 "2009-06-20T10:46:10Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > That may be true for MTBs, but for road bikes, the changes have been incremental. Some road bike innovations have died away after they’ve been banned by the UCI - composite monocoque frames, suspension, etc. I’m not sure you can even buy something like the [Trek Y-foil](http://johno.myiglou.com/yfoil.html) today, much less the [Burrows/Lotus monocoque bike](http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f177/wtb-lotus-sport-110-time-trial-bike-66932/). Out of curiosity, how much of an advance were those non-diamond composite frames? I always wondered, given that while they obviously look pretty wow, in the end triangles are usually the best way to achieve the strongest lightest frame in any traditional material. Composites may be different, I appreciate. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231/33 "2009-06-22T14:27:28Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Out of curiosity, how much of an advance were those non-diamond composite frames? Hard to say. Looking at the [hour record](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record), Chris Boardman did 56.375 km on the aforementioned Lotus monocoque bike. The UCI record uses a conventional diamond frame bike, and the current record is 49.7 km. But the riding position is different too, and that may have a more significant effect. (UCI only allows conventional “drop bars”; Boardman used the “Superman” position - arms extended far forward.) > [@](#): > > given that while they obviously look pretty wow, in the end triangles are usually the best way to achieve the strongest lightest frame in any traditional material. Composites may be different, I appreciate. I’d point out that a conventional bicycle frame is not fully triangulated. The head tube is supported by only two tubes, for example - that defines the position of the head tube, but not the angle. It’s really the stiffness of each tube that keeps the head tube straight, and not triangulation. There _are_ some fully triangulated bikes. The [Pedersen](http://www.pedersenbicycle.dk/) and the [Moulton](http://www.jimlangley.net/ride/amvisit.html), for example. But each frame tube needs to be strong enough not to buckle or get crushed, so the whole bike ends up getting rather heavy. On the other hand, a steel monocoque frame would be very heavy too. Again, that’s because the surface needs to be strong enough so that it can’t be crushed or dented easily. So the diamond frame is a compromise between the two, and perhaps the best compromise for steel bikes. But like you said, materials make a difference. With lighter materials, the wall of the frame can be much thicker. With aluminum can use really thick frame tubes, which is great for MTBs. CFRP (carbon fiber) is even lighter, so a monocoque frame becomes more feasible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-belt-drive-bicycles/500231.md?page=1)