[HN Gopher] Stringbike: Benefits (2020) ___________________________________________________________________ Stringbike: Benefits (2020) Author : Tomte Score : 116 points Date : 2022-08-10 11:36 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.stringbike.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.stringbike.com) | dang wrote: | Related: | | _Stringbike - A Chain-less Bicycle_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11515123 - April 2016 (6 | comments) | | _Stringbike: Chain-free bike_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1716002 - Sept 2010 (47 | comments) | jstanley wrote: | A 2012 review in Wired says it rides pretty much like a normal | bike: https://www.wired.com/2012/02/stringbike/ | | Other than that I can't readily find any more reviews from anyone | who claims to have ridden one. I wonder why, given that they | apparently have been making them for 10 years? | jackmott42 wrote: | Almost always the downside to a non chain drive is a loss of | efficiency. A chain and cog setup is really really good, like | 99% efficient with a clean lubed chain. Internal hub gears, | drive shafts, strings, almost all of them have losses a bit | worse than that, which sucks when you are a 0.5hp motor. | russellbeattie wrote: | It's weird they don't have an embedded video or at least a | prominent link to their YouTube channel. Here it is below. | | Wish there was audio, I'm personally a little doubtful of the | silence of the bike given the sorta clunky front gear system, but | I'm sure it's quieter than a chain. It's odd that they muted it. | | https://youtu.be/-Qjf8Rnn1N4 | rich_sasha wrote: | I might have missed it but there's no info on efficiency. I can | both imagine it's great and terrible. Dyneema doesn't really | stretch so that's on the plus side. But surely there's a ton of | friction in this system? And that's before you consider the | gearbox; these tend to be somewhat less efficient than derailleur | systems. | digdugdirk wrote: | This isn't really a gearbox in the traditional sense, they're | just using the word because it makes sense to people. What | their "gearbox" does is increase/decrease the lever arm acting | on the string. This serves the same function, but the | frictional losses would be mostly constant across all the | "gears". | | There will absolutely be some losses due to rope deformation | (squish, not stretch) and heat, but I imagine they would be | relatively consistent across the lifetime of the rope - there's | not any grease to degrade over time, for example. | rich_sasha wrote: | Right, but the actual % efficiency does matter. Derailleur | and IGH achieve easily 90+% efficiency with low maintenance. | Is this in the same ballpark? 80% ? 60% ? | | Also the string will definitely pick up grime off the roads, | especially when wet, so efficiency will almost certainly drop | as a result. | enragedcacti wrote: | the FAQ says the string is technically more efficient but | in practice they are both extremely efficient when properly | maintained so the difference is academic. They don't | mention losses when the string is wet or dirty so I'm not | sure about that. | | https://www.stringbike.com/stringbike_support_questionsanda | n... | [deleted] | kretaceous wrote: | Their FAQ Page[0] and How it works page[1] provide a lot of | information and answers to the question raised in few of the | comments. | | 0; | https://www.stringbike.com/stringbike_support_questionsandan... | 1: https://www.stringbike.com/stringbike_asthemagicworks.html | digdugdirk wrote: | Here's the patent, for those interested: | https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2010084363A1/en | floodfx wrote: | Curious how a string drive would perform on a mountain bike | especially considering climbing advantages and easier shifting? | egypturnash wrote: | Huh. Interesting, very interesting. Usually links to bikes here | are just nonsensical overcomplicated bullshit IMHO, but this is | close to the simplicity of the $300 bike I'm constantly riding | around town. | | I'm trying to figure out what's going on with the pull-back | motion of the strings. Is there a spring in the hub? Are they | stretchy cords that are going to snap someday? How easy are they | for a passing asshole having a bad day to cut? | digdugdirk wrote: | It looks like they're juuuuuuuuuust the right length so they | perfectly match up to pedal stroke. | | i.e. - Your push stroke unwinds the string to its max extension | length, and then the rotational inertia of the wheel does the | job of winding the string up again. | | EDIT: Scratch that, disregard the above. Looks like they're | using a spring to wind up one side while it freewheels. | | As for assholes? Yeah, they're going to be able to slice those | with a pocket knife in a few seconds. Even Dyneema and the like | would likely be quickly frayed with a few good knife swipes to | the point of being in danger of snapping from a hard pedal push | when taking off from a stoplight. | kretaceous wrote: | From their FAQ page[0], What happens if the | string snaps? It takes 10 minutes to replace, by | the rider. No specialist knowledge required, worth watching the | tutorial on the website. No tool required, no need to remove | the rear wheel, or other parts. Spare string is provided, and | neatly stored in the seat pole. The spare comes with | instructions to install. | | 0: | https://www.stringbike.com/stringbike_support_questionsandan... | echiuran wrote: | I'm no mechanical engineer, but this looks way more complicated | than a traditional chain/derailleur drivetrain. Especially the | two contraptions, one on each side of the bottom bracket. Instead | of a continuous circular motion, the rear hub is constantly | having to freewheel, on one side or the other. What's the | efficiency loss there? How does the overall weight compare to a | traditional drivetrain with the same range of gear ratios? Have | they measured the difference in efficiency? | digdugdirk wrote: | I am a mechanical engineer, and I'm 50/50 on it. The rear hub | contraptions aren't too different from the freewheel that's | already in a regular bike hub, it just has an extra spring to | wind it back up. | | The super funky gearbox contraption though? That's a different | story altogether. You have a continuously varying normal force | on the lever arm throughout the rotation, and I have no idea | how long it would last compared to a traditional derailleur | setup. | | Here's the patent, for those interested: | https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2010084363A1/en | soared wrote: | Would a chain or carbon belt still work in this configuration? | gaze wrote: | How does this compare to a timing belt? | eckza wrote: | Do you know what else is nearly whisper-quiet and grease-free? | | Degrease your bicycle chain with kerosene or some other solvent, | and submerge it in molten paraffin for 20 minutes. | | I have been doing this to my bike chains for almost a decade now, | and it makes a big difference. | oldgradstudent wrote: | > Degrease your bicycle chain with kerosene or some other | solvent, and submerge it in molten paraffin for 20 minutes. | | Clean it with isopropyl alcohol after degreasing it and before | submerging in the paraffin. | | After a few hundred kilometers you'll need to submerge it | again. Boil a kettle of water and use it to clean the chain | before submerging it in the paraffin. | | Some people suggest adding PTFE to the paraffin, but I have no | idea whether it has any benefit. | | https://youtu.be/HHr9znwpwmQ | switchbak wrote: | Almost any dry lube will achieve the supposed benefits of this | product. Even dumonde tech lube dries so much that you can | barely tell the chain is lubed. | | We've also had belt driven (with pinion) systems for years, | both of which would seem to solve this in a much more | straightforward approach. This seems like a technological dead | end to me. | loeg wrote: | Aka, "wax." I use these products[1][2], but plain paraffin (the | main ingredient) works fine. There are also drip-on wax | products[3] that can be applied to a clean or previously waxed | chain, without removing the chain again. | | Totally agree that waxed bicycle drivetrains work very well, | are quiet, and avoid the mess of oil-based lubricants. | | [1]: https://moltenspeedwax.com/ | | [2]: https://silca.cc/products/secret-chain-wax-blend | | [3]: https://www.ceramicspeed.com/en/cycling/shop/ufo- | products/uf... | convolvatron wrote: | I use carnauba wax for finishing metal and have heard about | using it on chains. | | right now about every two weeks I clean the chain with a | light mineral oil, then a day later I clean again and put | down heavier oil. keeps the mud away. | | would be I happier if I just cleaned the chain and dropped it | in a pot of hot wax? is there anything to look out for? | loeg wrote: | > would be I happier if I just cleaned the chain and | dropped it in a pot of hot wax? | | Quite possibly. Chains stay clean and efficient for longer | without intervention. And can be handled without dirtying | your hands. It's nice. Other drivetrain components wear | slower because there's less grit and the chain stretches | more slowly. | | > is there anything to look out for? | | Main downsides: | | * For bicycles, a lot of chains (Shimano, KMC) come in some | kind of factory oil/grease. Stripping that off takes time | and working with solvents. Fine if you have time and a | garage, less great for busy people in apartments. I think | some manufacturers sell dry chains (I've heard YBN does). | | * Heating wax up is slow. I use a $12 crockpot and it takes | a couple hours. Obviously, it's not like it takes any | effort on your part, but there's some built in latency. | ("Low" heat is about right in the steady state, but it | melts faster if you use "high.") | | * Again for bicycles, some kinds of quick link / master | link wear quite quickly and can only be reused a handful of | times (e.g., Shimano 11 speed). So one surprising expense | in repeatedly removing chains to hot wax is the consumption | of quick links. Can be mitigated with different brands of | quick link, and/or using drip-on wax a few times between | hot waxes. | | * A freshly waxed chain will be stiff from the hardened | wax. So a pre-install step is going through every link in | the chain (on bicycles, typically ~110-120 links) and | making sure each one rotates freely around the pin. This | takes a few minutes. | eckza wrote: | Probably; you wouldn't have to do so much maintenance. | | Wax fills in all of the voids between the bushings, roller | pins, etc - so it physically prevents dirt from getting | into your chain. And since there's no oil to cause the dirt | to stick to your drivetrain, your gears don't wear down as | quickly (as oil / grease + dust is abrasive; each rotation | wears the chain and rings down ever so slightly). | forinti wrote: | I wonder how long the rope will last. | kazinator wrote: | I like how the front pulley acts as a 2X gear ratio. For every | distance x the pulley moves, it draws 2x string. That means you | don't need a ridiculously small rear sprocket diameter, or make | the front lever ridiculously large, to get a conventional high | gear (like 52x12). | 14 wrote: | I think it's a neat design but the cost is way to much for the | average user to adopt this. It's certainly not geared towards | casual riders like me and my kids. They are way to hard on bikes | to justify something like this. So it looks cool and I would like | to try it out but never would buy one at anything even close to | the price they are offering right now. | ok_dad wrote: | Same here, I am intrigued by it, and would plunk down $1k right | now for something like this even, but $3k+ is wayyyyyyyyy too | much for just a standard bike with a neat drivetrain. Plus, I | am sure shipping it to where I live would be another few | hundred. I do like the idea of this for low-maintenance though. | BugsJustFindMe wrote: | This looks weird and interesting and the price of the single | speed version is actually not bad. The string is just simple | dyneema cord with crimped ends, so you could probably even make | them yourself from bulk and carry a dozen spares for basically no | extra weight. | | The prices on their different lines seem way out of whack though. | Carbon and Aluminum cost basically the same? Aren't carbon bikes | usually much more expensive than others? | | Single speed is _way_ cheaper than the rest. Like unexpectedly | so. Are they saying their adjustable gear mechanism accounts for | $2000 of the price? | | And Designer is in the middle? | | I really don't understand the pricing scale here. | rich_sasha wrote: | You can definitely find two fairly priced frames, where the | better/pricier one is made of aluminium and the cheaper one is | carbon. It helps carbon fiber prices have gone down | substantially in the last decade. | | Still, it is a bit odd... | stlynch wrote: | Esoteric gearing/hubs are really expensive. I have an | internally-geared bike, and the rear wheel/hub is already 1/2 | the cost of the entire bike... and that's more or less using | tech that was originally developed in 1957. | mikestew wrote: | _Are they saying their adjustable gear mechanism accounts for | $2000 of the price?_ | | Look again: the "single speed" includes the gearing: | | "The gear shifter was removed however gears can be changed | manually pulling or pushing the pulley up or down when the bike | is stationary." | | You're paying $2000 to not have to stop and change gears | manually, or saving $2K by doing without the gear shifter, | which ever way you wish to look at it. I almost think the price | is a typo. | flicken wrote: | What prices are you seeing? For me in Europe, the single speed | is only EUR240 cheaper than the cheapest Aluminum bike. | | EUR3990-EUR5200 Carbon EUR1590-EUR1990 Designer EUR1490-EUR1990 | Aluminum EUR1250 single speed | InitialLastName wrote: | In the US: | | Carbon: $3478-$4553 | | Aluminum: $3100-$3800 | | Designers: $1386-$1909 (many priceless, presumably expensive) | | Single Speed: $1090 | matsemann wrote: | Good aluminum bikes can be nicer than cheap carbon. | calvinmorrison wrote: | Seems cool. On the motorcycle side, I enjoy having a bike without | a chain. Instead my BMW has a shaft that runs from the | transmission to the rear wheel. Maintenance over 75K has been | occasionally lubing the rear splines. There's been some attempts | at a shaft driven bicycle but the downsides seem to come from the | tighter tolerance, harder disassembly and overall heavier frame | construction required. still cool from a longevity POV. | feb wrote: | Transmission via shafts is also less efficient. It doesn't | matter much on a motor bike where there's plenty of power. But | on a human powered bike, every watt counts. See for example | https://www.cyclingabout.com/chainless-shaft-drive-bicycles/ | for more information. | Rnonymous wrote: | I went down the same path owning a BMW shaft drive | motorcycle, doing my own maintenance. I decided i had enough | of re-tensioning the chain on my bicycle (Living in | Amsterdam) and got a second hand Brik shaft bicycle. Indeed | maintenance is harder, but i have far less maintenance. So | instead of ~twice a year giving my chain bike some love, i | now bring the Brik to the shop once every 2-3 years. | | I still ride a normal chain bike regularly, and I can't say i | find the Brik heavier to ride. It all seems negligible | compared to the watts wasted by the sitting position of a | city bike. | thomasfl wrote: | A bicycle is in my opinion one of mans greatest inventions. It | empowers almost everybody to transport themselves five times more | energy efficiently than walking. For two hundred years the | bicycle has been improved by countless ingenious inventions. | Cities where the majority commute by bicycle, are much better to | live in. | helixc wrote: | Fully agreed! A dedicated bike lane that separates riders from | car traffic could make riding experience very enjoyable. | | I was born in China during the 80s, when biking was the most | common way of transportation. The term "Kingdom of Bicycles" | [1] was used as a tag line for China in that era. Most roads | had bike lanes which could be just as wide as car lanes. | Between the lanes are physical separators: 3-4 ft high, made of | metal, reliable and heavy-duty [2]. | | Now I live in the US, and still enjoy biking cause there're | nice bike trails near my place. However, most city roads seem | not safe for biking. Biking becomes a recreational activity, | and no longer a transportation method for me. I appreciate the | nicely maintained bike trails, but I hope the city build more | physical bike lane separators, not only painted lines on the | ground, that can actually stop some reckless drivers entering | bike lanes. | | --- [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle#China_a... | | [2] Another good reading about the bike history in China: The | Rise, Fall, and Restoration of the Kingdom of Bicycles. | https://macropolo.org/analysis/the-rise-fall-and-restoration... | mrtesthah wrote: | Bicycles are indeed the most efficient mode of transportation, | but shouldn't we be taking into account the energy cost of the | entire paved system of roads needed to facilitate that rolling | efficiency in the first place? Paving a road with asphalt is | pretty resource intensive. | ryukafalz wrote: | Sure we should, but that's the case for all transport modes. | Remember that you _can_ just pave the smaller amount of space | needed for cycling down a street and not a full-width road. A | cycle track uses less pavement than a roadway thanks to being | narrower, and probably lasts longer too due to less damage | from heavy vehicles. | joshlemer wrote: | And doesn't need to be built to the same standard of | strength as a roadway that must carry trucks etc. In fact a | dirt path is enough for a bike. | bch wrote: | Bicycles don't need that, and it wasn't made for them, so I | don't know why you'd charge "road cost" to the bicycle ledger | when they're such a distant second (at best) citizen on most | roadways anyway. | fanf2 wrote: | Roads were originally paved for bicycles, before cars. | https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycle/roads-built-cars | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike- | blog/2013/apr/1... https://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ | tromp wrote: | These Dutch rowingbikes have also had various forms of string | drive for over a decade: | | https://rowingbike.com/en/modellen/ | | with cables either in steel or in dyneema (polymer-based). | Someone wrote: | https://www.stringbike.com/stringbike_asthemagicworks.html shows | the mechanism. Looks nice. | | There will be a lot of pressure on a relatively small wheel | there, so I wonder what dust or a grain of sand would do there. I | would guess making sure the mechanism near the pedals stays | operating smoothly takes more maintenance than with normal | bicycles. I wonder whether they considered exchanging rotary | motion of the pedals for up/down movement so that they could get | rid of that complex shape. | | Also, given that they sell a "seatpole spare string holder", | those strings don't seem to last as long as a traditional bicycle | chain. | kazinator wrote: | Any serious cyclist carries a chain link tool for fixing a | broken chain, along with a couple of spare inner tubes. | Breaking a link doesn't happen often, and you'd typically not | let a chain get so old that it happens from age; that will | trash the sprockets. I've had breakage happen, though, and was | glad to be able to get going again, in minutes. | | Since you can't fix a broken string just by removing a link and | closing it, the only protection against string breakage is to | carry a full spare. | switchbak wrote: | "Serious" cyclists are often using newer chains like those | from SRAM. Many of these newer ones don't use spare links, | you'd carry a quick link and remove a portion of the chain to | get yourself riding again. | | Small distinction I agree, but you come off a little arrogant | with such a strongly worded statement. | loeg wrote: | > Any serious cyclist carries a chain link tool for fixing a | broken chain | | Your definition of "serious cyclist" excludes a lot of | serious cyclists. Precisely because it happens so rarely, | carrying a bulky tool for a rare problem isn't worth it to | everyone. | rtlfe wrote: | Yeah "serious cyclist" feels so impossible to define that | it's meaningless. If I ride to work every day but go to a | shop for maintenance instead of buying my own tools am I | not serious? | kazinator wrote: | I'd say you're not serious about being able to back on a | working bike in almost any conceivable breakdown | situation. | loeg wrote: | > serious about being able to back on a working bike in | almost any conceivable breakdown situation | | We've seriously shifted the goalposts from "serious | cyclist." | kazinator wrote: | Not really; a serious cyclist is someone who depends on | and is invested in cycling as a mode of transport, who is | not able to meet commitments if their bike breaks down | without an real-time remedy. | kixiQu wrote: | So... no one within range of being able to catch a bus is | a serious cyclist because they have an out? No one who | can call a friend for a ride can be serious about | cycling? I don't think this is typically what people | would mean by that phrase. | kazinator wrote: | Yes; if you go out thinking, "I don't have to care about | the condition of my bike or what to do if it breaks down | because there are bus routes along the way, or I can call | a friend," then you're not a serious cyclist. | oldgradstudent wrote: | Go to a shop to fix the problem, but have the basic tools | and knowledge to make the temporary repairs needed to be | able to ride the bike home or the shop. | aliqot wrote: | My chain tool weighs 28 grams, and can fit 3 chain tools in | a box for a deck of cards. It is the most common form | factor for this tool. I wouldn't consider it bulky- are you | very small? | kazinator wrote: | It's actually a very tiny tool. | [deleted] | oldgradstudent wrote: | A chain tool is pretty small and is often included in cheap | pocket multitool collections like | | https://www.decathlon.co.uk/p/900-bike- | multitool/_/R-p-10042... | elliottkember wrote: | A spare string weighs a lot less than a chain. They provide a | spare string in the seat pole apparently. | | Edit: there's also two strings, one on each side. So if one | snaps, I think you can ride home with the other | wiredfool wrote: | I bring a breaker tool and a spare magic link. Never needed | the link, but it's small. The breaker tool has saved a | couple of riding partners. | aliqot wrote: | It's always the clip on the magic link. You ever notice | that? I've never broken the link itself, always the clip. | kazinator wrote: | Right; I've never met anyone who carries an entire spare | chain. It would not even slightly make sense. | | If you put a new chain on old sprockets, it will likely | skip, particularly on the rear cassette. This will go | double if you're someone who allowed the chain to wear for | so long that it just broke. That chain will only work with | the sprockets that it is on and vice versa. | | If you damaged a newer chain due to some freak accident | (like cross chaining while shifting under load or | something: shouldn't happen on a quality, well adjusted | drive train) you probably don't want to replace it; aside | from the bent/broken link, it is good. Splice the damaged | link out and get moving. | | Swapping in a new chain could be extra work. It likely has | excess links which you have to remove and set aside, and | may have stuck links that have to be identified and | massaged into releasing. | tetraodonpuffer wrote: | I just have a couple powerlinks in my bag when riding, | which take very little space. It is also unlikely to have a | chain break while riding, however having a chain breaker | tool and spare links comes in handy if your rear derailleur | gives up the ghost (due to a fall etc), as in that case you | can bypass it entirely with a shortened chain. | [deleted] | gnopgnip wrote: | With this string design the end of the string is fixed to the | freewheel. So they don't have wear related issues that regular | chains have like skipping gears, dropping a chain | feb wrote: | About longevity, on | https://www.stringbike.com/stringbike_support_questionsandan... | they say strings last between 500 to 1500km. | | Bike chains supposedly last from 500 to 5000 miles | (https://www.bikeshepherd.org/how-long-do-bike-chains-last/) | depending on usage and maintenance. | rcoveson wrote: | It might cost more to manufacture in the USA, but that 61% | increase to minimum longevity sure would be nice. | loeg wrote: | What is this comment in response to? | rcoveson wrote: | Minimum time to failure seems to be 500 in either unit, | so it makes sense to move manufacturing (or at least | testing) the the region that uses the larger unit. | switchbak wrote: | That's a simplistic analysis. Quality chains almost | certainly have a life longer than 500 miles, even taking | into account premature failures. | | Regardless, aren't you suggesting here that we should use | chains and not strings because their upper bound of | lifetime is higher? | loeg wrote: | Ok. Silly quips aside, bike chains do actually last 5000 | miles, not 500, if you keep them relatively clean. That's | a lot better than 1500 miles or kilometers. | ElijahLynn wrote: | If this rope works well and is easy to replace, and is | inexpensive I think I would be fine with changing it | every 300 to 1,000 miles or so. They have it listed that | you can change colors to match your outfit, so I am | expecting it to be that easy. | | > Change the strings quickly and easily in 2 minutes, no | tool required and no need to remove the wheel. Choose the | color to match your outfit or mood. | yetanotherloser wrote: | It appears to be mild snark about the mixed units (km vs | miles) caused by quoting two different sources. | ElijahLynn wrote: | The maths: | | 500km == 310.68m | | 1,500km == 932.05m | | 500m == 804.67km | | 5,000m == 8046.72km ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-10 23:00 UTC)