Comments on: Belt Drive Bicycles – Trek Soho

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 02:52:48 +0000

Bicycle chains are up to 98.6% efficient, according to a 1999 Johns Hopkins University study, compared to Gates’ claim of up to 98% efficiency for their belt. Also, derailer gears tend to be more efficient than internal geared hubs with several gears. So for riders looking for maximum efficiency, a belt driven bike isn’t the best choice.

Belts offer no significant advantages over chains if a full chaincase is used, such as those common on European city bikes. Even without a chaincase, dry chain lubricants work very well to keep chains from transferring dirt and grease to clothing. Chain noise isn’t an issue on the overwhelming majority of reasonably well maintained bikes out there.

Chains are inexpensive and can be replaced very quickly and easily when they wear out, which isn’t all that often. Other regular maintenance typically requires the rear wheel be removed from the bike from time to time during the life of a chain, which is most of the work required to replace a chain (and even wheel removal isn’t always required).

While there is probably a niche market for belt driven bikes, in general they appear to solve only minor problems for which better, more practical solutions already exist. Belts require special frames to do even that much.

By: Burgeonyt

Burgeonyt — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:49:52 +0000

Where are all these people getting the idea that chains are more efficient than synchronous belts? The average efficiency of a Gates poly-belt is 98%, and that’s over the LIFETIME of the belt, not just when brand new and in perfect operating conditions. You might get 98% efficiency out of a roller chain when it’s brand new, properly lubricated, correctly tensioned, and the sprockets are in perfect shape. An industrial white paper I read a decade ago said the average roller chain runs about 93% efficient in U.S; that’s probably the reality of all bicycle chains out there as well. Chains have their benefits and drawbacks just as any drive system will; but saying that a chain is more efficient than a synchronous belt drive goes beyond ignorance and borders on propaganda parroting.

By: Muscular_Beaver

Muscular_Beaver — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 23:26:54 +0000

I have to say , as a daily , year round rider in Maine , whatever sort of corrosive , toxic crap they spew on the roads here to try and keep the idiot car drivers safe from themselves will destroy a chain and derallieur in just a few days . The belt drive , with an internal gear rear hub is a major step in the right direction . Otherwise , I really need to bring my bike inside , and let it thaw next to the wood stove , and then hose it off in the shower …not what I want to do at eight in the evening after a long day at work , and six hours with no meal !

By: Chris Morris

Chris Morris — Thu, 06 May 2010 03:15:46 +0000

Don’t mean to rain on Trek’s parade, but belt drive commuter bikes are standard stuff in Japan for the last 20 years. All 3 of the big bicycle manufacturers make them (Bridgestone, Miyata and Maruishi), usually with 3 speed hubs and their own patented belt tensioning systems. I bought my Bridgestone Lacrosse in 2000, and it has over 8,000 miles on the original belt with no visble wear.
Try that with an exposed chain in a wet climate!
But it’s great to see US bicycle manufacturers discovering the belt.

By: Belt Driven Bicycle

Belt Driven Bicycle — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:23:45 +0000

I agree its much smoother than chains. I bought two bikes last year and still these belt driven bicylces are going strong.