drivetrain losses: running some numbers

I ran my model for two conditions. The first was for 290 watts @ 80 rpm, the other for 50 watts @ 90 rpm.

So what do we expect? At 290 watts @ 80 rpm, chain tension is relatively high. It gets harder to bend chains at higher tension, so reducing the amount of chain tension pays off. Lower chain tension comes from a bigger chainring. The crankset is a simple lever: force on the pedals is multiplied by the ratio of the crank length to the effective chainring radius, and that radius is proportional to the number of chainring teeth. Additionally the bending where it matters most, at the cog, is less in bigger front-rear combos.

On the other hand, at 50 watts, chain tension is small. The built-in tension, both from the chain hanging and from the force of the chain components against each other, still dominates. Here more compact gears gain benefit from moving the chain more slowly. Links bend less often at slower chain speed, so this pays off. And the bending where it matters most, at the pulleys, doesn't change with gear. So increased chain bending in smaller front-rear combos is less of an issue.

Here's some numbers. Don't worry too much about that 19.5 tooth cog.... it's just a model, so doesn't let the pragmatic requirement for integral tooth counts get in its way....
290 watts @ 80 rpm
28/14 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 11.530 (3.976%)
30/15 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 11.125 (3.836%)
32/16 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 10.788 (3.720%)
34/17 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 10.508 (3.623%)
36/18 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 10.275 (3.543%)
39/19.5 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 9.997 (3.447%)
42/21 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 9.790 (3.376%)
44/22 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 9.684 (3.339%)
46/23 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 9.600 (3.310%)
48/24 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 9.535 (3.288%)
50/25 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 9.486 (3.271%)
52/26 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 9.452 (3.259%)
54/27 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 9.432 (3.252%)
56/28 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 9.423 (3.249%)

50 watts @ 90 rpm
28/14 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 5.128 (10.256%)
30/15 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 5.195 (10.390%)
32/16 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 5.274 (10.547%)
34/17 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 5.362 (10.724%)
36/18 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 5.458 (10.917%)
39/19.5 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 5.616 (11.232%)
42/21 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 5.785 (11.570%)
44/22 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 5.904 (11.807%)
46/23 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 6.026 (12.052%)
48/24 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 6.151 (12.303%)
50/25 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 6.280 (12.559%)
52/26 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 6.411 (12.821%)
54/27 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 6.544 (13.087%)
56/28 w/ 12T pulleys: Ploss = 6.679 (13.358%)

Comments

Nicholas said…
Can you show the calculations you did on WW comparing jockey wheel cog sizes? I was surprised by the size of the gains you found.
February 2, 2010 at 1:32 AM
djconnel said…
I have a bit of that in my previous post in this series. It's tucked in near the end, hard to find, like so much in this rambling blog :).

Actually, the size of the pulley had very little importance.

I've been using 12 teeth as a reference. Most pulleys are actually 11, although you can find 12 tooth pulleys, as well. The key point is the pulley size isn't terribly important: bearing losses in good pulleys are small (ceramic isn't a big issue: my Rival pulleys spin as well as the worse of my two Red pulleys, for example, although my better Red pulley spins longer; all spin "long enough") and the chain is under low tension when it threads through the pulleys so chain loss shouldn't be a big deal.

Of course it's possibly my parameters are off. I did the best I could with these. The pulleys become more important, for example, if my coefficient of friction for chain bending under load is too large.
February 2, 2010 at 5:22 AM
Nicholas said…
Not sure how I missed that. If you are right then it might just be a marginal gain worth aggregating for the right price though especially for something like a 100mile TT or 12hr event.
February 3, 2010 at 4:47 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Marin Avenue (Berkeley)

Image
On Saturday, I got an email from Tim telling letting me know that Murphy's Spring Classics was going to start up Marin Ave. I'd missed that. Murphy announces his courses the day before, and indeed it was already well into the night before when the course announcement went out. I'd skipped over the details, jumping straight to middle and end games. Marin? I laughed at the irony, because not long before when he'd told me he was choosing to repeat the Nifty Twn Fifty which we'd done together last year versus selecting Murphy Mack's Stage Mullett two-day, I responded I didn't think I had it in me to ride Marin Ave two years in succession. Well, so much for that. I was committed, so I went downstairs to swap my 11-26 cassette for my Recon 12-27. The name is easily overlooked: "Marin Ave" fails to strike the same impression as, for example, "Redwood Gulch" or "China Grade". But among those in the know, Marin Ave is infamous i
Read more

hummingbird feeder physics

Image
I couldn't figure out how the hummingbird feeder worked. Why didn't it overflow? Forces need to balance, of course. Neglecting surface tension, there liquid level is higher in the inner reservoir than in the feeding chamber, so there must be a corresponding pressure difference. Suppose the pressure in the inner chamber were zero. Then the column height difference would need to be atmospheric pressure / (density of liquid × gravity). But this is over 9 meters! Obviously the height difference is only approximately 1% of this. So the pressure difference inside versus outside is only approximately 1%. The inside is only slightly below atmosphere. So air is getting in. How? Does it diffuse through the liquid? If this were the dominant mechanism, it wouldn't take long for the pressure inside to go from 99% to 99.3%, for example, which should be plenty to push the column of liquid down in the inside chamber and thus push liquid out through the holes. It would over
Read more

Gallium Pro geometry

Image
On Caltrain yesterday, I was surprised to see among the usual set of commuting bikes a SRAM Red-equipped Argon Gallium Pro. The bike immediately stole your attention. The design was one which has been trending: clear-coated carbon with plenty of text detail so the viewer is sure to realize he's gazing upon the result of advanced, proprietary engineering and not at yet another paint job on the same old OEM frames being pumped out of the same old Taiwanese factories. But it worked: the bottom bracket area was huge, the downtube a large-diameter "inverted Kamm tail" design seemingly designed to maximize wind resistance, the top tube a broad, eccentric shape which screamed "vertically compliant yet torsionally stiff". All it lacked were the pencil-think seat stays Cervelo popularized, but this was a machine designed for stiffness over anything else. It seemed dramatic overkill, since the bike was small (the Argon "XS" I suspect). There wasn't muc
Read more