View Single Post
Old 12-27-2011, 10:32 PM   #25 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller
nope
Oh yes it does.

Chains are not better than 99% efficient.

Belts can be 97-99% efficient, depending on if they're Vee, synchronous, or what have you.

CV joints lose a bit of power too. I think it's less than 1%, but it's still a loss, just like bearings are. Just like the mere fact that spinning a shaft takes power. If spinning a shaft DIDN'T take power, it would just sit there and spin with no power input right?

I don't think you are getting what I'm talking about. AS NOTED on a car the power goes from end of crankshaft to trans input shaft. On a bike it does not. It goes through a chain or belt first. STRIKE ONE! That's a 1% loss the car does NOT have. Same thing on the other end of the transmission- STRIKE TWO! So by the time the power gets to the output shaft on a bike, it will have lost 2-3% or maybe more vs if it had an automotive layout.
__________________



Last edited by Frank Lee; 12-28-2011 at 02:46 AM..
  Reply With Quote