Mark Hickey <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
>
[email protected] (Steven) wrote:
>
> >And hearing all the noise in the Giro etc. about bike manafactures being able to make a bike
> >signifigantly less than the 16.5 pounds that the UCI set's as the lower limit of weight. My
> >thought is essentially this, why not make that bike but throw extra weight back in by making the
> >drive train more efficient.
> >
> >Lets say that for arguments sake the average pro cylist puts out 400 watts during a climb up alp
> >d'huez and his drive train is 90% effecient.
>
> Thing is, the data I've seen suggest a clean, well-adjusted drivetrain is closer to 98% efficient.
> That doesn't leave a lot of room for improvement (at least not without spending a fortune on a
> chain with itty bitty little bearings in every link).
>
> That number hasn't changed in recent history, either - probably won't in the near future.
>
> Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
www.ihpva.org/pubs/HP52.pdf
This study puts the effecieny of Shimano 7 speed derailer hubs at
94.5%-90.3% effecient. I am not sure what has changed since 2001....I would imagine effeciency has
improved but probably not to 98%, although I have been wrong a few times in my life so....Where
did you get this number? I would love to read read the research you got this number from.
SPA
This is not backed up by the research I could find. The best effecieny rating I could find was 98.6%
but it was for a large rear cogged single speed drive train, taking the