From: drinckes@tssc.wlg.nec.co.jp (Doug Rinckes)
Subject: Re: Shaft-drives and Wheelies
Nntp-Posting-Host: 133.206.251.21
Reply-To: drinckes@tssc.wlg.nec.co.jp
Organization: Telecommunications Systems Support Centre, New Zealand
Lines: 26

In article 13892@megatek.com, randy@megatek.com (Randy Davis) writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.204012.29920@asl.dl.nec.com> drinckes@tssc.wlg.nec.co.jp writes:
>|Course, the only people who seem to be acting smug now probably have chain
>|final drive (which, as we all know, is less efficient and has higher
>|maintenance) and probably didn't know the answer at the start of the thread.
>
>  When did *you* go out and change the laws of physics? :-)  According to some
>numbers I used to see bandied around, shaft drive is on the order of 95-97%
>efficient, while chain drive is closer to 99%...   Seems to me that this makes
>*chain* drive more efficient, hmmmmm???
>
>  And granted, shaft has a lot less maintenance, which is fine, if you don't
>mind less performance... :-) :-)
>
>Randy Davis                            Email: randy@megatek.com
>ZX-11 #00072 Pilot                            {uunet!ucsd}!megatek!randy

OK.  And you regularly ride your bike to within 2% of it's maximum capability?
(Note any idiot can go flat out on a bike - most of them do.)

Anyway, efficient at what?  A shaft drive is a much more efficient solid (erect) lump
of metal than a floppy (flaccid, unsatisfying) chain.

Doug Rinckes   drinckes@tssc.wlg.nec.co.jp   New Zealand TSSC Ltd
1976 BMW R100S           1960 BMW R60            1940 Indian 741A