Trek Bicycle is part of a movement to bury the finger-pinching, pants-munching, rust-prone sprocket and chain, and usher in an era of belt-driven bikes that might have the inventors of the self-propelled transportation Schwinning in their graves.
Looks like a solution in search of a problem (and a pricey solution at that). Chain drives on bicycles are pretty simple and robust. Maintenance, besides an occasional spray of lube, is non-existent. I noted that they made a point that a bicycle chain drive has 3,000 parts. So what? It's not like you have to disassemble or reassemble it.
If the belt drive was substantially more efficient, it might justify the increased cost, but it's not.
Thumper wrote:I saw that in the paper here yesterday...and was intrigued until I saw the price. $900+ for a bicycle...wow. I think $899 is my limit...
Gee--I paid about $2500 for my road bike and $1800 for my mountain bike, and that was a decade ago.
Just like my Jeep mountain bike with disc brakes or my $500 Mongoose downhill mountain bike. I wonder if the gear changing will be hampered by a belt. I have experienced getting some pants caught in my chain, or the grease of the chain getting on my pants. And maybe this will be a quiet bike with the belt and all.
One thing you can count on: You push a man too far, and sooner or later he'll start pushing back.
What next? Radial tires or brakes, how about some sort of ABS to prevent skidding on a bicycle? I mean there are bike tires now with Activated silica for wet pavement performance just like for motorcycles.
One thing you can count on: You push a man too far, and sooner or later he'll start pushing back.
They say the belt last 3 years versus 1 year for a chain.
I don't ride enough I guess. I have never worn out a bicycle chain. I don't race or anything, but only a year on a chain? Maybe Lance Armstrong wears em out.
The problem with the belt is they don't work well with a derailleur system. That's why the belted bikes are single speed.
