| djb_rh |
08-16-2012 06:36 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelius
(Post 19376096)
I think you're right. Road biking involves traveling long distances at relatively high speeds, and the bikes themselves are made so super-efficient nowadays that the tiniest factor like a dirty chain can make a measurable difference in performance. Not so with mountain bikes, where variables like terrain, tire pressure, tread pattern, suspension, etc., make a far greater difference than a bit of sand on the chain will.
|
"A bit of sand"? How about repeated immersion in water and mud?
Part of why drivetrain loss was so small was attributed to running 52 front sprockets, too. My 1x10 bike has a 30T front. That's a pretty big difference.
And while by percentage of overall bike efficiency the drivetrain might not be as significant as in road biking, the simple fact is that power loss is power loss, and if the drivetrain is TWICE as inefficient as a road bike, that could be VERY significant in 100 mile XC races, for example.
The reason I ask is to understand if just maybe it's worth it to stop and clean and lube the chain in that kind of environment, or if perhaps the gain isn't offset by the time loss of doing the maintenance. It only takes 60 seconds and most, and if you're talking about doing it after 40 miles of a race at an aid station right before a 10 mile long nearly 3,000 foot climb (which is something that happens at Leadville, for example), it might just be worth it.
Again, I don't understand why OTHER inefficiencies of MTB have ANYTHING to do with this. I mean if THAT mattered, then I'd argue that the fact that you go "so fast" on a road bike means your drivetrain efficiencies aren't a big deal because aero drag is so much larger in comparison to your road bike. But that makes just as little sense.
--Donnie |
