I've got quite a bit of friction here, but the drive is CVT belt, chain, chain and a pedal chain. I like a belt with 2 chains and virtually infinite gearing....
Friction Drive VS Chain... which one is better?
- Thread starter miamiRiding
- Start date
Scotto Your missing the Mad Max edition A/C clutch belt driven Blower.
Side note look close in that movie its an Automotive Air conditioner compressor clutch.
Side note look close in that movie its an Automotive Air conditioner compressor clutch.
That's Mel Gibson for ya.....I think he prefers chain drive over friction thoughScotto Your missing the Mad Max edition A/C clutch belt driven Blower.
Side note look close in that movie its an Automotive Air conditioner compressor clutch.
Hi scotto- . Your motorized bicycle looks very good. The powerful and big four stroke in the bicycle frame with bicycle wheels and tires looks like a lot of fun. I'd take it to harbor freight when I make my next purchase, maybe they'd put it in their advertising literature to show what can be built with harbor freight tools, materials and engines, not for showing off, just advertising the hobby of motorized bicycles.
I have a friction drive and an EZM chain secondary drive. I prefer the convenience of the chain drive carrying a pack and going over small hills like over a freeway. If I'm at a red light in the middle of the hill I have a good clutch, it engages, doesn't slip with a larger rear sprocket and minimizes pedaling.
I have a friction drive and an EZM chain secondary drive. I prefer the convenience of the chain drive carrying a pack and going over small hills like over a freeway. If I'm at a red light in the middle of the hill I have a good clutch, it engages, doesn't slip with a larger rear sprocket and minimizes pedaling.
Dune there are just too many variables to give your question a
simple answer. If it's speed you're after, more power & higher rpm
are more relevant than chain or friction. Friction is easier to install
& lower maintenance, but practical only to a point power-wise.
Chain will take more power, but needs to be carefully aligned &
maintained. Personally, I prefer friction; it's a lot less hassle.
Of course, I have little desire to go faster than 25 mph, as most
bikes are not really designed for powered speeds over that. If
I wanted to go faster, I'd get a moped or purpose-built motorcycle.
simple answer. If it's speed you're after, more power & higher rpm
are more relevant than chain or friction. Friction is easier to install
& lower maintenance, but practical only to a point power-wise.
Chain will take more power, but needs to be carefully aligned &
maintained. Personally, I prefer friction; it's a lot less hassle.
Of course, I have little desire to go faster than 25 mph, as most
bikes are not really designed for powered speeds over that. If
I wanted to go faster, I'd get a moped or purpose-built motorcycle.
Thats the thing that turns me off of a FD setup, is the wear and tear on the tire. I am interested also in a rear setup on a regular mountain bike (disc brakes).
What would be the drawback on placement of the engine at 2 or 3 oclock?
Besides the fabrication work needed to place it there.
What would be the drawback on placement of the engine at 2 or 3 oclock?
Besides the fabrication work needed to place it there.
In answer to the question, the possible draw back to 2/3 o'clock,(and this has happened to me), is the roller kicking the wheel
forward & out of line in the dropouts.
As for wear on tires, that only happens if your roller slips, no
slippage, no wear. I'm running 2 custom tooled rollers on my bikes
that only slip under oily wet conditions. In the wet season I just
convert one bike to belt drive using the same kit.
One thing I've found the helps eliminate slip is tire pressure. When
I first started on friction. riders on site told me I needed 55 psi. I
have found they were wrong. If you're running a manufactured
roller, you can press it more deeply into the tire at 40 psi thus
gaining more surface contact & better traction.