energy loss from idler on tight side
 

Quite a few recumbent cycles have a long drive chain that goes under the
seat; and in many cases the line from the top of the front spricket to
the top of the rear sprocket doesn't.

In those cases the most common solution is an idler, on the tight side
(and often one on the loose side as well).

How much loss does this arrangement make? It would not be too hard to
run a pair of chains and a pair of sprockets where the idler is placed -
wouldn't that be better?

energy loss from idler on tight side
 

"xpzzzz" wrote in message ...
Quite a few recumbent cycles have a long drive chain that goes under the
seat; and in many cases the line from the top of the front spricket to
the top of the rear sprocket doesn't.

In those cases the most common solution is an idler, on the tight side
(and often one on the loose side as well).

How much loss does this arrangement make? It would not be too hard to
run a pair of chains and a pair of sprockets where the idler is placed -
wouldn't that be better?

I don't know your answer, but I have seen data on friction losses through a
derailleur. It ranges, according to the manufacturers, from 1% to around 5%.
I once had an early Campagnolo Record, which was steel jockey and tension
pulleys, with ball bearings and adjustable cones on both pulleys, and they
claimed 2%.

You probably would have less because there are no sharp angles.

--
Ed Huntress