The Bikesmith, Seattle, shutting down



>Jobst on the other hand seems to think he knows everything about everything.

He knows everything about bicycles and something about everything else, eh?

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
 
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Carl Fogel wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Greg,
> >
> > Well, both groups love to fuss over technical stuff. And sometimes they surprise each other.
>
> I can see that.
>
> >
> > I'm still puzzling over the fixed-gear bicycle folk and their flat warning that a fixed-gear
> > bicycle will rip any chain-tensioner right off the frame when the load reverses direction.
> >
> > When I pointed out that my ancient Honda trials bike's chain tensioner is intact after years of
> > much higher speeds, far greater forces, and more frequent reversals, I wondered whether bicycles
> > used sprockets instead of a pad block, and whether that might somehow make a difference--were we
> > even talking about the same chain chain tensioner design?
>
> Are you sure the reversals are more frequent? And with far great forces? I guess on a 4-stroke it
> could be but on the 2-strokes I used to ride and race the engine would turn over quite easily and
> didn't seem to put much braking pressure on.
>
> The chain tensioners that were used at the beginning of my racing career were quite beefy and were
> not mounted like a bicycle tensioner. Eventually the chain tensioners were replaced by a simple
> roller near the swingarm pivot, pushing the chain from below as the swingarm extended. This was
> late 70s, early 80s. Don't know about current bikes.
>
> >
> > Sheldon Brown, a rather knowledgeable bicyclist to say the least, replied that he doesn't claim
> > to know much about motorcycles, and as for the pad-block chain-tensioner used for over forty
> > years in trials machines: "I dunno, what's a 'pad block?'"
>
> Well, he is very knowledgeable about bicycles but I don't think he has ever claimed to know
> everything about all two-wheeled vehicles.
>
> >
> > Jobst Brandt has occasionally remarked--
>
> Jobst on the other hand seems to think he knows everything about everything.
>
> >
> > Let's see if anyone knowledgeable stumbles over this and enlightens us.
> >
>
> That would be interesting.
>
> Greg

Dear Greg,

I'm pretty sure about the reversals of load on the chain of a trials bike being far more frequent
and powerful than the reversals of load on any fixed gear bicycle.

Here's my reasoning.

Fixed-gear bicycles tool around town, accelerating little more than the weight of the rider slowly
and then decelerating from rarely more than 20 mph. A quarter-horsepower is the load on acceleration
and the deceleration is mostly through the front brake, not the chain. The grades are gentle, the
motion far from abrupt, the loads lighter, and the power frankly insignificant.

Trials bikes use 12 to 20 horsepower engines, fling rider plus 170 to 220 pound motorcycles over
logs, easily reach 50 mph between sections, and climb and descend far steeper grades. Working the
throttle constantly changes the direction of chain-load in ordinary sections.

Two-strokes do have far less compression braking, but easily skid four-inch tires downhill on
typical mountain trails. Compression braking on my four-stroke Honda will chirp its rear tire on
pavement if I carelessly chop the throttle in third gear. (There's some sort of pedal connected to
the rear hub, possibly a brake, but I've never used it.)

Andrew Muzi asked about pad blocks, so I'm scurrying over to reply to his question. See you there.

Carl Fogel
 
BB <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 28 Jan 2004 15:23:24 -0800, Jonesy wrote:
>
> >> They are for going to the grocer's, to a friend's home, to taking care of chores. We expect (in
> >> Europe) that a bike serve these purposes as basic transportation.
> >
> > The same here. And some of us use the bike as a recreational device.
>
> RARELY.

Absolutely. In the U.S., the automobile is far and away the choice for doing the things he listed.

> Americans either ride bikes avidly, or (more often) almost not at all. Bike shops are here for the
> first group, and discount stores are here for the majority. Of course, there'll be some people who
> want "quality" regardless of the cost, even if they almost never ride the thing; there's no law
> against spending unnecessarily.

I was merely adding one activity that he had not mentioned. I would say that the vast majority of
bicycle riding in the U.S. is recreational. Heck, people even buy *cars* here for recreation. Summer
weekend-only convertibles, for example.

> Its possible that you two are talking about different things. The apparently low-end bikes I rode
> in Europe were more like the "city bikes" that Breezer sells. I never saw anything in Europe like
> the **** they sell in U.S. discount stores - basically they LOOK like mountain bikes but the
> components are so poor that they never shift or brake very well no matter how they're adjusted;
> plus, they're assembled by untrained employees so you get bar-ends jutting straight up toward the
> riders head, and that sort of thing.

I have also seen some of the Asian bikes Mr. Fogel speaks about. While some of them did not look
that great cosmetically, they did seem to be in a decent state of repair. And from what I have
heard, most everyone who rides knows a little something about how to fix.

You are absolutely right about the MTB look-alikes at the *Mart stores. After I fixed up my pal's
bike, I took it on a little test-ride. That short ride around the neighnorhood had a pretty high pucker-
factor for someone used to a bike that shifts and brakes properly. Holy cow.

Regards,

R.F. Jones
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 28 Jan 2004 09:49:20 -0800, [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
> >Which post would that be?
>
> Well, you're right; you don't explicitly say that riders of *Mart bikes will die soon from a QR
> catching on brush; but the impression was made in some peoples' minds. You do at least imply that
> it's extremely dangerous to ride such a bike, though:

It certainly was made. I wish I had the talent to make it! :)

> :But I would never recommend that someone take their life into their :hands on a commute with a
> bicycle that may or may not be assembled :adequately. Saving $50 dollars seems really stupid.
>
> If "take their life into their hands" is used for it's most common meaning here, that sentence
> explicitly says that somebody riding such a bike will likely die as a result of it's inadequate
> assembly.

In most all of my other commentary, qualifiers were liberally used. When taken out of context, that
paragraph does sound extreme. When taken with all the other stuff I've written on this subject, it's
not at all.

If one accepts the premise that a poorly-assembled bicycle ridden in traffic could be a safety
hazard to the rider, then this one out-of-context paragraph *could* be taken as mere hyperbole,
rather than the scare-mongering that Carl is pretending.

> As mentioned (I think by Carl), if that was really the case, then we would hear every day about
> somebody dying while commuting on such a bike.

It's a strawman created by quoting out of context. By removing qualifiers and context, you can twist
quotes into anything you want.

> >Carl has done a very good job at creating this image, but nowhere will you actually find such
> >a claim.
>
> Carl probably did not "create" that image;

Sure he did. You certainly bought it. Nowhere did I write what you mistakenly ascribed to me, but
that exact image was what Carl has been writing for several posts.

> He then proceeded to argue what he thought you meant, which, while useless to you, did cause the
> whole thing to be cleared up by you saying exactly what you think -- which helps properly
> communicate to others who may have read the same image.

Except that by explicitly writing down that list, I was forming merely a composite of what *I had
already written.* Just a shorter format. While I cannot be sure that Carl twisted my words with
malice aforethought, it certainly was effective for his purposes of bashing bike snobs. *You* bought
it, after all...

With regards,

R.F. Jones
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[snip Carl]

>
> Carl: Bicycles are not (yet) disposable items that require neither assembly nor maintenance nor
> occasional repair.

[snip Mike]

Dear Mike,

Don't look behind you.

That $64.77 bike that I pointed out to Tom Sherman is getting awfully close to disposable:

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=1999611&cat=5304&type=21&dept=4171&path=0%3A4-
171%3A61903%3A61904%3A4180%3A4183%3A5304#long_descr

Fifty-three pounds shipping weight, 36-spokes, 26-inch tires (pin stripes!), 18-gears, front
suspension, one-piece crank, really bad typos in the extended description, probably fits the average
person well enough to get around the campus.

Remember when computers weren't disposable?

Carl Fogel
 
Methinks the invisibility of Yugos may have something to do with the fact of the factory have been
bombed flat, leading to a total lack of spare parts. A while back, some optimist had one sitting
around for about a year with a "For Sale" notice in the window. I think it either dissolved or the
council took it away...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Carl Fogel wrote: -snip-
> > I'm still puzzling over the fixed-gear bicycle folk and their flat warning that a fixed-gear
> > bicycle will rip any chain-tensioner right off the frame when the load reverses direction. -snip-
>
> Does your motorcycle coast? If it does, then there's just no comparison to the loads of a
> fixed chain.
>
> OK, what _is_ a pad block?

Dear Andrew,

Normally, off-road motorcycles don't coast any more than fixed-gear bicycles. That is, the clutch is
used to disengage the engine only to shift gears or to sit stopped in gear. Typically, using the
clutch would be a bad thing indeed on downhills--the loss of the rear-wheel engine braking is
dramatic, as we sometimes learn when we blow a downhill shift, hit neutral by mistake, and wheeeee!

The braking loads through the chain on a typical motorcycle are far higher than on any fixed-gear
bicycle. On pavement, both speed and weight are greater. Even in slow trials sections, the load is
still often far greater due to weight and the extreme steepness. (Fooling around recently, I
measured the grade on a hundred-foot trail up a bluff that would be considered a novice descent. It
was over 30%, probably so high that the slope measuring methods suggested on rec.bicycles.tech would
be inaccurate.)

With routine rapid reversals as trials bikes crawled up and down over knee-high rocks, the chains
went boing! at low speeds with a lurch, as the upper run slacked off and the lower run twanged taut.

Lurching being bad for delicate turns on slick rocks, chain tensioners appeared. Regrettably, they
tend to be oil-and-mud-covered, black-painted, and deeply shadowed. I couldn't find any web picture
that seemed clear enough unless you already knew what you were looking at.

Here's a crude ASCII diagram of a typical under-swingarm trailing tensioner:

swing-arm rear axle O___s___________________________O \
================\=========================== lower chain run

A powerful wound spring at "s" pulls the trailing arm up, pushing the chain up and

chain tensioner blocks that I knew were made of blocks of smooth, stiff, slippery plastic with
rounded ends.

I never saw any pads replaced by idler sprockets, but can't see any reason why they wouldn't work.
Modern trials bikes, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, have moved toward chain-tensioning
rollers closer to the swing arm pivot.

Trailing, of course, means that the running chain tends to center the tensioner instead of tearing
it off. Whether braking or accelerating, the chain keeps running in the same direction--it's only
the load that reverses on motorcycles and fixed-gear bikes.

Maybe the faint friction of the chain on the smooth plastic robs too much power to work well on
bicycles? If so, replacing it with an idler sprocket would cure the objection, since the two idler
sprockets on the more complicated derailleur (needed for the much greater chain-tension variation)
are no problem.

Maybe the lighter and narrower bicycle chains engage shorter-toothed gears? While likely true, I
haven't figured out what this has to do with the chain tensioner, which only improves things by
reducing chain flail and forcing the chain to wrap a little further and more securely around both
sprockets.

Maybe some strain is too great for the much lighter bicycle chain-stay?

Maybe the ugliness is unbearable? Never mentioned and not likely to tear an arm off.

Maybe the need for chain-tension on a fixed-gear bicycle isn't great enough to matter and trailing
arms would work fine, but some folks shot from the hip? Possible, but most of the people who
answered aren't noted for wild exaggerations.

I'll look again and see if I can find a decent picture of a trailing-arm chain-tensioner.

Carl Fogel
 
> Remember when computers weren't disposable?

Which is why laptops frustrate me, and I still build all of my desktop units from scratch, even
though it often costs more to do so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

"Carl Fogel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> [snip Carl]
>
> >
> > Carl: Bicycles are not (yet) disposable items that require neither
assembly
> > nor maintenance nor occasional repair.
>
> [snip Mike]
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> Don't look behind you.
>
> That $64.77 bike that I pointed out to Tom Sherman is getting awfully close to disposable:
>
>
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=1999611&cat=5304&type=21&dept=4171&path=0%3A4-
171%3A61903%3A61904%3A4180%3A4183%3A5304#long_descr
>
> Fifty-three pounds shipping weight, 36-spokes, 26-inch tires (pin stripes!), 18-gears, front
> suspension, one-piece crank, really bad typos in the extended description, probably fits the
> average person well enough to get around the campus.
>
> Remember when computers weren't disposable?
>
> Carl Fogel
 
On 29 Jan 2004 09:48:54 -0800, [email protected] (Jonesy)
wrote:
>It's a strawman created by quoting out of context. By removing qualifiers and context, you can
>twist quotes into anything you want.
>
>> >Carl has done a very good job at creating this image, but nowhere will you actually find such a
>> >claim.
>>
>> Carl probably did not "create" that image;
>
>Sure he did. You certainly bought it. Nowhere did I write what you mistakenly ascribed to me, but
>that exact image was what Carl has been writing for several posts.

For somebody who in the previous sentence lamented the loss of context, you sure were quick with the
contextectomey. You apparently can't accept that, regardless of intent or thought (or, for that
matter, logic), an image can be created in a reader's mind that was not expressed. Such an image is
worth arguing, precisely because it results in express and specific replies to destroy that image.

>> He then proceeded to argue what he thought you meant, which, while useless to you, did cause the
>> whole thing to be cleared up by you saying exactly what you think -- which helps properly
>> communicate to others who may have read the same image.
>
>Except that by explicitly writing down that list, I was forming merely a composite of what *I had
>already written.* Just a shorter format.

A shorter, more direct, more expressive format that dispels any false imagery. Having wrote that
list, you've solved the problem of the false image -- and again, let me say that it exists
regardless of intent or fault.

>While I cannot be sure that Carl twisted my words with malice aforethought,

Be careful; by mincing words like that, you're liable to create, once again, false imagery of an
opinion you may not hold.

>it certainly was effective for his purposes of bashing bike snobs.

We could use the occasional bashing to bring us down to earth.

>*You* bought it, after all...

What makes you think that?
--
Rick Onanian
 
Carl Fogel writes:

>>>> Am I right in thinking that these modern hydraulic clutch mechanisms offer smoother control for
>>>> the amazing acrobatics?

>>> Yea, but they also make it better for ordinary clubmen like myself who can't do a splatter up a
>>> 6' step. The clutch engagement point never changes no matter how hot the clutch gets and with
>>> less friction than a cable it's easier to pull and has more feel.

>>> Disc brakes are nice too as is water cooling. I enjoy competing on vintage bikes but when I want
>>> to practice it's usually on a modern bike.

>> I gotta say the amount of motorcycle trials interest that this thread has generated in non-
>> motorcycle newsgroups is astounding.

> Well, both groups love to fuss over technical stuff. And sometimes they surprise each other.

> I'm still puzzling over the fixed-gear bicycle folk and their flat warning that a fixed-gear
> bicycle will rip any chain-tensioner right off the frame when the load reverses direction.

Most chain tensioners on bicycles are essentially parallelogram derailleurs mechanisms, whether they
are used to shift or not. These cannot take reverse torque and are frequently snapped off when a MTB
experiences "chain suck". Backpedaling would also break the light aluminum links, so I think the
statement is correct. It's not that fixed gear riders are exceptionally strong, but rather that
derailleurs are exceptionally light weight and not designed to do more than keep the chain from
hanging loosely.

There were early chain tensioners that had a single in-line arm that pushed down on the chain in mid
span, but even these would not work because the upper run of the chain would fall slack and come off
the chainwheel. The whole idea is hokey. Fixed gear is fixed gear and only a clumsy Rube Goldberg
mechanism would take care of a non adjustable rear wheel.

> When I pointed out that my ancient Honda trials bike's chain tensioner is intact after years of
> much higher speeds, far greater forces, and more frequent reversals, I wondered whether bicycles
> used sprockets instead of a pad block, and whether that might somehow make a difference--were we
> even talking about the same chain chain tensioner design?

OK, how about describing how you would implement that sort of thing on a bicycle.

> Jobst Brandt has occasionally remarked--

> (Here comes the twisted version, Jobst. Sorry, but it's the best that I can do.)

> --that bicyclists sometimes insist on ignoring engineering principles taken for granted in other
> fields, such as clinging to tires with tread patterns long after everyone else figured out that
> grooves in the rubber give poorer traction on pavement.

That is a non-sequitur. There is no parallel between that contention and a chain tensioner on a
fixed gear bicycle.

> For all I know, fixed-gear bicycles may actually tear off or be incapable of using trailing-arm
> plastic-pad chain tensioners. But it would have been more reassuring if someone else in the thread
> had been able to explain (rather than announce) this strange behavior and contrast it with
> ordinary chain-tensioners applied to other two-wheeled beasts.

Again, how and where would the pad go and how would that prevent the chain from falling off the
chainwheel and assure that under propulsion the chain would stay on the fixed rear sprocket?

> Let's see if anyone knowledgeable stumbles over this and enlightens us.

Aye aye!

Jobst Brandt [email protected]
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Carl Fogel <[email protected]> wrote:

>With routine rapid reversals as trials bikes crawled up and down over knee-high rocks, the
>chains went boing! at low speeds with a lurch, as the upper run slacked off and the lower run
>twanged taut.
>
>Lurching being bad for delicate turns on slick rocks, chain tensioners appeared. Regrettably, they
>tend to be oil-and-mud-covered, black-painted, and deeply shadowed. I couldn't find any web picture
>that seemed clear enough unless you already knew what you were looking at.

Here's one that's visible: http://www.tryalsshop.com/scorpa-specs-2003/photos/SY0002.jpg

Its the black thing under the "250" on the swing arm.

The white plastic thing to the right of it is a guard to keep rocks from derailing the chain.

>Here's a crude ASCII diagram of a typical under-swingarm trailing tensioner:
>
> swing-arm rear axle O___s___________________________O \
>================\=========================== lower chain run

>
>A powerful wound spring at "s" pulls the trailing arm up, pushing the chain up and

>chain tensioner blocks that I knew were made of blocks of smooth, stiff, slippery plastic with
>rounded ends.
>
>I never saw any pads replaced by idler sprockets, but can't see any reason why they wouldn't work.

They get hit by rocks. With the rubber block type it just bends them in a bit, and you can band it
back out. A idler wheel might get broken.

Eric
 
In article <[email protected]>, dvt <[email protected]> wrote:
>Carl Fogel wrote:
>
>I don't know what a motorcycle chain tensioner looks like, but perhaps we're talking about
>different beasts. I don't think the bicycle chain tensioners (see
>http://www.surlybikes.com/hotmetal/parts_Singlelator.html for an example on an awful web page)
>allow the bottom run of the chain to go straight. Since the bottom run is not allowed to straighten
>completely, there will be a *lot* of force on the tensioner during backpedaling. Enough force to
>ruin the forementioned tensioner without question. Math can be supplied if necessary.
>
>If the bottom chain run *is* allowed to straighten, the top run is probably loose and derailing is
>a distinct possibility.
>
>How about the motorcycle chain tensioner?

They allow the bottom run to go straight when throttle is closed and the rear wheel is pulling the
engine around.

The chain has to run loose enough to allow the suspension to move. Since the countershaft sprocket
is not concentric with the swingarm pivot, the chain is tightest when the countershaft, swing arm
pivot and rear axle are in line. With the suspension extended or compressed from that position the
chain becomes slack.

I usually set my modern trials bikes for a couple inches of chain slack. I don't know how much slack
a singleator is intended to take up but if it's the same amount that a derailleur would than I could
see how it might get damaged by backpedalling..

Eric
 
dvt <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Carl Fogel wrote:
> > I'm still puzzling over the fixed-gear bicycle folk and their flat warning that a fixed-gear
> > bicycle will rip any chain-tensioner right off the frame when the load reverses direction.
>
> I don't know what a motorcycle chain tensioner looks like, but perhaps we're talking about
> different beasts. I don't think the bicycle chain tensioners (see
> http://www.surlybikes.com/hotmetal/parts_Singlelator.html for an example on an awful web page)
> allow the bottom run of the chain to go straight. Since the bottom run is not allowed to
> straighten completely, there will be a *lot* of force on the tensioner during backpedaling. Enough
> force to ruin the forementioned tensioner without question. Math can be supplied if necessary.
>
> If the bottom chain run *is* allowed to straighten, the top run is probably loose and derailing is
> a distinct possibility.
>
> How about the motorcycle chain tensioner?
>
> Dave dvt at psu dot edu

Dear Dave,

I think (but may be wrong) that the bicycle chain tensioner on that web page attaches like a
rear derailleur at the axle area, but has only a single idler wheel and instead of trailing
points forward.

The advantage, I suppose, is easy attachment.

The disadvantage is that the lower run of chain is coming into the end of the arm, so any sideways
misalignment would indeed let the chain bend the tensioner arm further sideways and tear it off.

That's why trailing arms were used--the lower run of the chain is always heading back toward rear
sprocket (unless you roll the bike or motorcycle backwards).

I don't see how the force of the lower chain going taut when the force reverses during braking will
ruin a spring-loaded arm. A trailing-arm lower-run chain tensioner pushes a slack lower-run of chain
upward. If the lower run snaps taut, the chain tensioner is merely pushed down a bit.

It works admirably on trials motorcycles to smooth things out in delicate low-speed situations,
where idle-speed engine impulses and changing loads make untensioned chains lurch.

If the upper run is a problem on a fixed-gear bike (and I'm not arguing that chain tension is a
problem on such bikes), then an upper-run leading-arm would take care of it. The symmetry might even
conceal the ugliness.

But no chain forces involved seem to have any way to damage arms trailing from the chain's point of
view and pressing the chain toward the chain-stay. No math is involved. Possibly we're reading
diagrams wildly differently?

As for derailing when the top run goes slack, how is the situation any worse than when no chain
tensioner is involved? (I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the chain should be slacker
than normal if a tensioner is added to a fixed-gear bicycle.)

I looked, but haven't found any good pictures yet. I'll try again.

Carl Fogel
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Remember when computers weren't disposable?
>
> Which is why laptops frustrate me, and I still build all of my desktop units from scratch, even
> though it often costs more to do so.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com
>
> "Carl Fogel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > [snip Carl]
> >
> > >
> > > Carl: Bicycles are not (yet) disposable items that require neither
> assembly
> > > nor maintenance nor occasional repair.
> >
> > [snip Mike]
> >
> > Dear Mike,
> >
> > Don't look behind you.
> >
> > That $64.77 bike that I pointed out to Tom Sherman is getting awfully close to disposable:
> >
> >
> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=1999611&cat=5304&type=21&dept=4171&path=0%-
> 3A4171%3A61903%3A61904%3A4180%3A4183%3A5304#long_descr
> >
> > Fifty-three pounds shipping weight, 36-spokes, 26-inch tires (pin stripes!), 18-gears, front
> > suspension, one-piece crank, really bad typos in the extended description, probably fits the
> > average person well enough to get around the campus.
> >
> > Remember when computers weren't disposable?
> >
> > Carl Fogel

Dear Mike,

Moore's Law may be going wild. I stopped by WalMart this evening. The $64.77 bike is now down to
$53.73, or the equivalent of five of their $11 gimme caps with football-team logos.

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] (Eagle Jackson) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm a Seattle area resident who has never been to the Bikesmith. I've lived here 14 years. I've
> been meaning to go but haven't made it. I guess I missed my chance. The shops closer to my house
> are "good enough". Good shops but not great shops. There isn't a shop in the country that carries
> the kind of inventory I can get from my fingertips and without having to drive all over town (or
> phoning and usually being put on interminable hold). I do more and more of my bike stuff shopping
> online not so much because of price but because of convenience, especially when I know what I
> want. I've found very knowledgable folks at Colorado Cyclist, Excel Sports, and others --
> certainly more knowledgable than the average sales person at a local shop.

Your experience is a conformation to Schumpeter's creative destruction theory. As an entrepreneur in
high tech industry, I actually, have been living through it for the last 25 years. It is great fun,
otherwise we would sitting on our "bents", like many large companies and pop and mom shops, and moan
about unfair competition: "It is not fair they are smarter, they work harder, they work for less,
etc". However, most people due to some quirk in human nature don't want to admit it and call on
equally impotent politicians to outlaw genius, inventiveness, and industriousness. This correction
for human nature, as I recall, made Schumpeter to believe that the final winner between socialism
and laissez faire will be come hybrid of both.
 
> Moore's Law may be going wild. I stopped by WalMart this evening. The $64.77 bike is now down to
> $53.73, or the equivalent of five of their $11 gimme caps with football-team logos.
>
> Carl Fogel

Carl: You've certainly demonstrated that the bike is cheap! But my other points remain-

#1: The bikes are anything but standardized. If something breaks or needs
repair, the costs of doing so may easily exceed the cost of the bike. I suppose this renders the
bike "disposable", but in a good sense???

#2: The bike is offered without any support, assembly is questionable at
best, and if a car was done similarly (or even remotely like it) people would not see it as a viable
transportation vehicle. Yet you propose the "disposable" bike is. I think not, at least not for most
people. It remains a BSO (bike shaped object) of limited utility, whose main function is to
discourage people from believing that bikes are efficient, practical & fun ways to get around.

Someday, we may see a simplified bike design that requires almost no assembly or adjustment, and
bikes will legitimately be divided between cheap methods of transportation and high-performance
recreational/sport machines. But that day is *not* now. The cheap bikes do everything they can to
emulate the look of their more-expensive (and far more functional) brethren, to their detriment.

Right now, cheapie bikes are all about marketing, and have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
function (with the exception of trying to avoid legal entanglements from being too dangerous). The
irony here is that that's the same rap with give the machines we love to ride- that we're paying a
lot for vanity and glitz over function.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
dvt <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[snip]

Dear Dave and others,

I finally found some so-so picture of a 1970's trials motorcycle's trailing-arm chain-tensioner.

http://home.connection.com/~dank/montesa.htm

It's the short trailing arm hanging down from the swing-arm, pointing backward. Unfortunately, the
arm is the same silver color as the rear wheel rim behind it.

You can actually see the chain-tensioner arm better in picture right-3, looking through the wheel's
spokes from the other side.

A powerful wound spring forces the trailing end of the arm (and the chain slithering over the pad)
up toward the swing arm.

Such arms survive in deep mud, heavy brush, vicious rocks, and all sorts of other abuse, far worse
than pavement-oriented fixed-gear bikes ever face.

Again, whether such arms would be of any practical use is quite another question. I'm just puzzled
to hear that such an arm would be torn off by a fixed-gear bicycle---no forces that I can see will
trouble it in the slightest.

The chain rubs against the block, sometimes faster, sometimes harder. This rubbing wears away the
block pad or spins a sprocket, but the chain always moves in the same direction.

The chain also tightens and slackens, according to acceleration and deceleration, but any increase
in tension merely pushes the spring-loaded arm down a bit in an utterly harmless fashion, which is
what it's designed for.

So much for chain tensioners--maybe someone will be explaining something that I've failed to see.

Now for skid plates and nostalgia.

Visible in several pictures is the truncated back end of the skid plate that exposed the clutch-arm
underneath the transmission. The badly dangling clutch-cable can be seen in picture right 1 and
needs to be tucked onto the downtube, but the arm is not really visible, although I kinda-sort think
that I glimpse its very end.

The odd little silver disk on the black right-hand swing-arm near the pivot is a metal cap.
(Pictures right 1, left 2, and left 3.) You were supposed to unscrew it, fill the hollow arm with
chain-oil, and adjust a drip-feed in front of the rear sprocket to dribble oil down a piece of
flexible tubing and onto the lower chain run. The spigot is visible if you know where to look, but
the plastic tube has been removed. (Yes, this whole idea was idiotic.)

The round shiny silver can held tools. Why Montesa put it on the kick-stand side is unclear--the
tool pouch fell out when you opened the tool can, leaving you no place to put the tools that weren't
in use. It was hard to get at anyway with the bike tilted over like that.

Note the shiny metal fenders that rarely survived much riding. (The mudflap is missing from the
front fender.)

The black accordion fork gaiters are either an add-on or else indicative of a slightly later model.
Spanish fork springs were notorious for sagging.

The amusing speedometer is tucked behind the right front fork leg and provided legality. Bultaco's
machines had a rear wheel drive speedometer tucked up under the right front engine case, next to the
down-tube. Neither speedometer was much more than ornamental. (More legality could be provided by a
lighting circuit.)

The short-lever forward-mounted kickstart and lack of primary kick-start gearing meant that you
ended up stuck on a precarious climb, trying to coax the dead beast into neutral and then trying to
kick it back into life from well below the lever, all while trying not fall back down the hill. With
primary kick-start gearing, you can just leave it in third gear, whip in the clutch, and kick the
starter. (Yes, serious hills were usually climbed in third gear.)

The Amal carburetor had a tickler button instead of a proper choke. Pressing the tickler opened a
tiny valve that let gasoline rise and spill into everything, which you then hoped would catch fire
internally. The gas dribbled out onto the transmission case. If the engine started, you ran it until
it warmed up--there was no choke-lever to adjust. Sensible people replaced Amals with Mikunis, which
had far more choices in needles and jets (important in Colorado, where events were held between
5,000 and 13,000 feet) and a true adjustable choke-style device instead of a tickler.

This Cota is newer than the first model, which had a huge, touchy front brake inherited from a road
machine, but it's old enough that it has straight engine cooling fins. Later fins were curiously
wavy, theory suggesting that the slightly increased surface area dissipated more heat at low trials
speeds with little airflow. (Nowadays, water-cooling rules.)

A second spark-plug hole allowed fitting a compression release worked by a little lever next to the
clutch, not installed on this machine. The compression release made a huge noise, eased kick
starting, and could be used quite effectively for rear braking on downhill stretches.

Unfortunately, a compression release also covered the engine with black two-stroke exhaust filth. In
real life, this dreadful black mung would be oozing from the engine/exhaust joint, due to bad
design. No sealant ever worked. Only a re-design stopped Montesas from drooling. (Bultacos ran dry.)

Despite all these quirks, I'm glad that the owner discreetly omitted the price for what looks like a
machine in excellent condition. I'm hoping that gazing with senile pleasure at the pictures will be
enough. A low price might tempt me to folly.

Carl Fogel
 
"Eric M" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Carl Fogel
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >With routine rapid reversals as trials bikes crawled up and down over knee-high rocks, the
> >chains went boing! at low speeds with a lurch, as the upper run slacked off and the lower run
> >twanged taut.
> >
> >Lurching being bad for delicate turns on slick rocks, chain tensioners appeared. Regrettably,
> >they tend to be oil-and-mud-covered, black-painted, and deeply shadowed. I couldn't find any web
> >picture that seemed clear enough unless you already knew what you were looking at.
>
> Here's one that's visible: http://www.tryalsshop.com/scorpa-specs-2003/photos/SY0002.jpg
>
> Its the black thing under the "250" on the swing arm.
>
> The white plastic thing to the right of it is a guard to keep rocks from derailing the chain.
>
>
> >Here's a crude ASCII diagram of a typical under-swingarm trailing tensioner:
> >
> > swing-arm rear axle O___s___________________________O \
> >================\=========================== lower chain run

> >
> >A powerful wound spring at "s" pulls the trailing arm up, pushing the chain up and

> >chain tensioner blocks that I knew were made of blocks of smooth, stiff, slippery plastic with
> >rounded ends.
> >
> >I never saw any pads replaced by idler sprockets, but can't see any reason why they
> >wouldn't work.
>
> They get hit by rocks. With the rubber block type it just bends them in a bit, and you can band it
> back out. A idler wheel might get broken.
>
>
> Eric

Dear Eric,

I'm afraid that the chain tensioner in your link is going to be visible only to you and me because
we know what the arm that can't really be seen looks like and how it works.

I keep getting the feeling that most of the other posters in this thread are baffled because they
come from a bicycle derailleur background.

Off-road, rock damage and simplicity favor the plain pad that you and I are familiar with, with lots
of chain slack for suspension.

But the original (and probably trivial) question was whether a chain tensioner could be added to a
rigid-frame fixed-gear road bicycle whose chain was already properly tightened.

No off-road hazards, no suspension, no loosened chain.

Again, I don't know whether a chain tensioner would offer any benefit, but I'm baffled by the
original claim that it would be torn off when the fixed-gear rider began to slow down. (Why?)

There's also a new claim that the upper chain run would go slacker than usual and fall off. (Maybe
some people are assuming that they must loosen a chain to use a chain tensioner?)

I've posted a page with faintly better multiple pictures of a Cota 247, with the trailing-arm of the
chain tensioner a little more visible from a few angles.

Our pictures may clear things up, but up until now I've had the increasing feeling that no one else
in this thread except you has any idea what a common, ordinary, garden-variety, brick-reliable trials-
bike chain-tensioner is--which hardly flatters my powers of description.

With that said, curse you for tempting me with that picture of that nice new Scorpa!

Carl Fogel
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:

> dvt <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Dave and others,
>
> I finally found some so-so picture of a 1970's trials motorcycle's trailing-arm chain-tensioner.
>
> http://home.connection.com/~dank/montesa.htm

How far they've come in twenty-five years or so:

http://www.usmontesa.com/html/the_bike.html

--
tanx, Howard

"I'm not lying, I'm writing fiction with my lips!" Homer Simpson

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Eric M wrote:
>>How about the motorcycle chain tensioner?
>
> They allow the bottom run to go straight when throttle is closed and the rear wheel is pulling the
> engine around.
>
> The chain has to run loose enough to allow the suspension to move. Since the countershaft sprocket
> is not concentric with the swingarm pivot, the chain is tightest when the countershaft, swing arm
> pivot and rear axle are in line. With the suspension extended or compressed from that position the
> chain becomes slack.
>
> I usually set my modern trials bikes for a couple inches of chain slack. I don't know how much
> slack a singleator is intended to take up but if it's the same amount that a derailleur would than
> I could see how it might get damaged by backpedalling..

How does a motorcycle keep the chain from derailing when the chain is slackest (i.e. suspension
fully compressed?). If one allowed "a couple inches of chain slack" on a bicycle, the chain would be
derail in a heartbeat.

Dave dvt at psu dot edu
 

Similar threads