If i were to hazard a guess, I’d wager it is the belt drive. They are extraordinarily difficult to develop.
2 Likes
Are they? (Honest question.)
There are plenty of bikes with belt drives and none of the bits seem complicated. What am I missing?
Why? Those just seem different standards. I just ordered a 68 mm Shimano BB today …
1 Like
Yeah, for indoor I’d go with a budget Shimano sealed cartridge and call it a day.
1 Like
Durability of the belts and efficiency of the drivetrain are two of the biggest challenges….and they are inversely related. Making a durable belt has a negative impact on the efficiency.
Finding the right balance is the challenge.
2 Likes
I’d like a T47 so I could run a Quarq powermeter with a more robust bottom bracket. For a dedicated trainer bike shared with my wife, I want it to be practically bullet proof besides needing to replace the handlebar tape.
The 27.2 seat post would give just a little bit compared to the 30.9. And at least for me, every bit of give on an indoor trainer bike is welcome
2 Likes
Ooooh. I didn’t know that, that’ll throw a monkey wrench into my plans.
I am not sure a T47 bottom bracket has shown to be any more robust that a bog standard dub bsa 68 bottom bracket.
1 Like
I thought that was done by adjusting the belt tension, which do with a sliding dropout, no?
(Again, not arguing or claiming you are wrong, just trying to understand what might have happened.)
No, that just adjust the tension (which can also affect efficiency, but not what I was referring to).
Think of it similar to a tire casing….you can have a very supple tire that is fast, but not very durable. A Rene Herse extra light tire would be a good example. Or you can have a very durable tire that is not very efficient….say, a Conti Gatorskin.
Belt drives need to be both….and they have the added challenge of everyone “knowing” how efficient a bike chain is (which is one THE biggest reasons we still use a chain and derailleurs). We all have a history of chain use so we inherently understand that level of efficiency.
Others industries where they use belt drives don’t have to worry about the efficiency issue as much as their use areas tend to be driven by motors, not humans.
Again, I’m simply taking a guess at what the issue may be here for Elite….but given my previous experience with belt drives and the arguably less-challenging development areas of the Square, it seems to make sense. It could also well be a software issue for the electronic shifting. But it would seem that once you have that sorted (and they seem to be shipping at least some units), then it is sorted for everything.
3 Likes
Belt drives for bikes is a solved problem - assuming of course that Elite isn’t trying to reinvent the wheel and purchased a proven solution
1 Like
I just assumed this was a solved problem. Gates’ Carbon Drive seemed mature and seems to be well-regarded amongst ultra-long distance bike packers and the like. But I reckon if you are new to it, perhaps you just have to re-learn those lessons.
They seem a perfect fit for something like the Square: efficiency doesn’t matter as much, longevity and being maintenance-free are huge pluses.
1 Like
Yeah, ultra-bike packing is an ideal use-case for belt drive….lack of maintenance clearly far outweighs the drivetrain losses. And Gates has done a fantastic job in their development of belt-drivetrains.
DH bikes are another area where belt drive makes sense….durability trumps efficiency (and also one of the reasons Gates is offered b up $100K for the first rider to use their belt drive system to win a WC DH race).
I’m not certain what Elite is doing for their belt drive, though….if they are just using a Gates system, then yeah, in theory, it should be relatively simple to apply it to a trainer-bike. What we don’t know is how efficient it is in that setting. I would assume that the virtual shifting system of a trainer is highly efficient vs. an internal hub or gearbox system. But I’d like to see some more details on the claim in the video that the cross-over point in efficiency is 212w.
I’ll also concede that it has been a number of years since I was involved with developing a belt-drive bike and clearly some of the developmental challenges we faced back then have been solved 9adn we solved some of them on our own).
Again, I’m just spitballing as to what the reason for the delays may have been for Elite. But it seems unlikely that it would be related to the virtual-shifting or frame production….but who knows?
1 Like
Or anything with an electric motor: the belt drive-gearbox combo seems hard to beat in that case.
1 Like
Definitely writing this off my list based on a comment on @dcrainmaker’s Elite's New Square Smart Frame, Avanti & Justo 2 Smart Trainers First Look! post where the commentator who has a Square confirms that the handlebar is NOT replaceable.
3 Likes
That is such a silly and odd choice, I totally agree with you. No idea why something like that needs to be anything other than a universal part.
2 Likes
Yes, especially as the handlebar is a 42 - much too wide.
Plus from the one person’s initial impressions, it sounds like using this with no-Elite trainers is currently hit or miss (mostly miss). But that should theoretically be fixable with a firmware update.
2 Likes
What if, ghasp, you want to put a flat bar on it? This is such an odd choice and will obviously cause trouble down the road.
1 Like
yeah, I really can’t get these dumb choices by manufacturers, fixed 42cm with flare indoors 
I mean, I could live with it but it’s going to be quite an uncomfortable experience after getting used to narrower options.
It kind of reminds of deda which has recently launched their alanera bar in sizes between 40-44cm… 
1 Like
After having flared bars on my SB20, I now think they make a lot of sense. Think of sprinting out of the saddle: outside the bike gets tilted so the handlebars are out of the way. Flared handlebars effectively do the same thing. Especially on narrow bars - my preferred width is 38
2 Likes