<https://youtu.be/OlDYHoiqpew?si=dxpa83lxcQxIBEO5>
That Ben Denlaney has a new Gravel bike on test with a belt drive, and his “pub bike” which has belt drive, and the good and the bad with such systems. Ie punctures are faff and I guess weight to a degree, ie hub vs derailleur systems.
Though touching wood I’ve found Gravel tyres with tubeless fairly reliable particularly considering that one is riding fairly challenging terrain on paper thin tyres!
Certainly considering how much of puncture fess tubes on Gravel is or was! Tubeless generally solves that, so would largely remove that problem.
Though I’m not sure if belts like mud and muck I have vague memories of MTB belt drives not performing that well in such situations?
Roger Merriman
On 1/27/2025 7:27 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<https://youtu.be/OlDYHoiqpew?si=dxpa83lxcQxIBEO5>
That Ben Denlaney has a new Gravel bike on test with a
belt drive, and his
“pub bike” which has belt drive, and the good and the bad
with such
systems. Ie punctures are faff and I guess weight to a
degree, ie hub vs
derailleur systems.
Though touching wood I’ve found Gravel tyres with tubeless
fairly reliable
particularly considering that one is riding fairly
challenging terrain on
paper thin tyres!
Certainly considering how much of puncture fess tubes on
Gravel is or was!
Tubeless generally solves that, so would largely remove
that problem.
Though I’m not sure if belts like mud and muck I have
vague memories of MTB
belt drives not performing that well in such situations?
Roger Merriman
Gates drive has been around a while, generally good
reviews. The idea of having an 'accessible' rear triangle
seems troublesome to me though.
They advertise a model of the drive made for "people who
ride off road all year". I'm guessing with some design
diligence riding in the muck isn't much of an issue.
On 1/27/2025 7:27 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<https://youtu.be/OlDYHoiqpew?si=dxpa83lxcQxIBEO5>
That Ben Denlaney has a new Gravel bike on test with a belt
drive, and his “pub bike” which has belt drive, and the good
and the bad with such systems. Ie punctures are faff and I
guess weight to a degree, ie hub vs derailleur systems.
Though touching wood I’ve found Gravel tyres with tubeless
fairly reliable particularly considering that one is riding
fairly challenging terrain on paper thin tyres!
Certainly considering how much of puncture fess tubes on
Gravel is or was! Tubeless generally solves that, so would
largely remove that problem.
Though I’m not sure if belts like mud and muck I have vague
memories of MTB belt drives not performing that well in such
situations?
Gates drive has been around a while, generally good reviews.
The idea of having an 'accessible' rear triangle seems
troublesome to me though.
On 1/27/2025 7:27 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<https://youtu.be/OlDYHoiqpew?si=dxpa83lxcQxIBEO5>
That Ben Denlaney has a new Gravel bike on test with a belt drive, and his >> “pub bike” which has belt drive, and the good and the bad with such
systems. Ie punctures are faff and I guess weight to a degree, ie hub vs
derailleur systems.
Though touching wood I’ve found Gravel tyres with tubeless fairly reliable >> particularly considering that one is riding fairly challenging terrain on
paper thin tyres!
Certainly considering how much of puncture fess tubes on Gravel is or was! >> Tubeless generally solves that, so would largely remove that problem.
Though I’m not sure if belts like mud and muck I have vague memories of MTB
belt drives not performing that well in such situations?
Roger Merriman
Gates drive has been around a while, generally good reviews. The idea
of having an 'accessible' rear triangle seems troublesome to me though.
They advertise a model of the drive made for "people who ride off road
all year". I'm guessing with some design diligence riding in the muck
isn't much of an issue.
On 1/28/2025 12:12 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
... even just a pannier on the old school roadie, which is hardly heavy,
is noticeable. It’s often near empty, arguably I could have used a bar or >> large saddle bag but I had a spare pannier, plus I do occasionally use the >> space.
I think for equivalent loads, having the weight in a large saddlebag
(like a Carradice) affects handling less than having the weight in
panniers. Maybe that's because the added weight is closer to the center
of mass of the bike+rider.
But the saddlebag has to be fastened rigidly, not swinging about.
On 1/29/2025 1:37 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I think for equivalent loads, having the weight in a large saddlebag
(like a Carradice) affects handling less than having the weight in
panniers. Maybe that's because the added weight is closer to the center
of mass of the bike+rider.
I’m sure yes, my old MTB which is converted into my main commute bike,
having just two panniers it felt particularly if laden very rear heavy, and >> definitely effected the handling, adding a bar bag, plus being more
convenient made it feel a lot lighter even fully loaded as the handling or >> rather the weight was in the right places.
I think it matters less for normal road riding or touring, compared to off-road. I've always felt my Cannondale touring bike perfectly handled
four panniers plus a handlebar bag. Like the bike was designed for that
- which it was.
The Bike Friday is a bit of a strange animal. We've toured on them
pulling trailers, but that introduces complexities and faff. For our
next trips to Europe I arranged tall Rick Steves backpacks https://store.ricksteves.com/shop/p/classic-backpack
vertically on a rear rack above the 20" rear wheel, also fastened to the
back of the saddle.
While rolling, that was fine. But the lack of a top tube meant we had to
take care to not lose our grip on the bars while standing at a stop,
else the bike would tip.
I delivered newspapers for many, many hundreds of miles as a teenager
with a huge front basket weighted with many pounds of papers, so I'm
fine at handling front loads. For future Friday tours, I'm thinking
about the Rick Steves bag mounted on a low rack above the front wheel.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 489 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 46:05:40 |
| Calls: | 9,670 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,719 |
| Messages: | 6,170,073 |
