Comparison of Shaft Vs Chain
Shaft drives operate at a very consistent rate of efficiency and performance, without adjustments or maintenance, though lower than that of a properly adjusted and lubricated chain. Shaft drives are typically more complex to disassemble when repairing flat rear tires, and the manufacturing cost is typically higher.
A fundamental issue with bicycle shaft-drive systems is the requirement to transmit the torque of the rider through bevel gears with much smaller radii than typical bicycle sprockets. This requires both high quality gears and heavier frame construction.
Since shaft-drives require gear hubs for shifting, they gain the benefit that gears can be shifted while the bicycle is at a complete stop or moving in reverse, but internal hub geared bikes typically have a more restricted gear range than comparable derailleur-equipped bikes.
Most of the advantages claimed for a shaft drive can be realized by using a fully enclosed chain case. Some of the other issues addressed by the shaft drive, such as protection for clothing and from ingress of dirt, can be met through the use of chain guards. The reduced need for adjustment in shaft-drive bikes also applies to a similar extent to chain or belt-driven hub-geared bikes. Not all hub gear systems are shaft compatible.
Read more about this topic: Shaft-driven Bicycle
Famous quotes containing the words comparison, shaft and/or chain:
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)
“The subterranean miner that works in us all, how can one tell whither leads his shaft by the ever shifting, muffled sound of his pick?”
—Herman Melville (1819–1891)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)