Talk:Shaft-driven bicycle

message: Just curious but what is wrong with posting manufacturer links?  It seems stupid not erase them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.3.84.36 (talk • contribs) .
:Please see WP:EL for external links guidelines and WP:NOT a web directory. --GraemeL (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those guidelines, as well as other articles, imply that having manufacturer links is okay. Wikipedia is not a web directory, but when there are maybe 2 major chainless bicycle manufacturers, and a tiny number of smaller ones, omitting them seems like a major omission. --151.203.253.181 00:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I just ordered a Dynamic bicycle and had to search through the old edits to find the URL.  So I re-inserted it. I think it is a service to provide this link. Jeff dean 00:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturers 

message: Torque is not lb/ft but ft*lbf, aka "pound-feet."  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque for details.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.250.253 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torque units 

message: On 07:25, 24 June 2006 Sheldon Brown added this to the article:
*Most of the advantages touted by proponents of shaft drive are only advantages compared with open-chain, derailer gear systems. Many proponents of shaft drive use specious (if not dishonest) arguments "comparing" shaft drive systems with derailer gear systems. Any such comparisons are meaningless, it's like comparing apples and locomotives.
*A valid comparison of shaft vs. chain drives can only be made if both bikes use the same type of gearing, whether singles-speed or with an internal gear system.
*These same advantages can be obtained with chain drive using a fully-enclosing chain case, as with old English roadsters and many current Dutch bikes.
*Shaft drive proponents also often compare sealed, enclosed shaft drive systems with open, exposed chain drive systems. This is also a misleading comparison. Most of the advantages claimed for shaft drive can be realized by the use of a chain case.
While this was unsourced and really belonged here on the talk page, I think he had a point, and so I've posted it here now. I hope in the near future, unless someone beats me to it, to find a decent source and tackle the issue. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly nice to be clear regarding feasible and available construction of each, but I see no problem comparing the majority type of chain-driven system (which is clearly open-chain with dérailleur, unless Nederland has greatly increased in size recently, no?) with the majority type of shaft-driven system.  There must of course be sources regardless. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Has anyone even brought such a thing to market so that this point can be verified? There are dozens of chain-driven recumbents in production that have no trouble maintaining chain tension. Even if they do not use derailleur gears, a simple singulator will do the job. Can anyone verify that adding a universal joint is cheaper, lighter, or more robust than a jockey wheel? A google search reveals only a single home-built shaft-drive recumbent. If shafts are so great, why are there not more? -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have seen a car or two. In fact, I'm familiar enough with them and bikes to know full-well that success of a technology on one platform does not guarantee success or even suitability on another. So, unless we can find an example that clearly proves suitability, by success in the market place for example, or an established expert that has written about such suitability, this article is better off without the conjecture. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages and disadvantages 

message: The CeramicSpeed Driven drivetrain has a different mechanism for shifting than an internal gear hub.  Though I have no idea how viable it really is, because I haven't even been able to find videos of someone actually shifting the thing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.165.8 (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. As far as I can make out, the bevel at the back of the shaft moves between the concentric rings with which it engages. If it's real, it's fiendishly cunning. However, it is a bevel drive (albeit it may be more efficient), and WP:CRYSTAL; if these start turning up in actual bikes, and independent sources report on them, then we can write about them. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Gear Hub not required?