105243
来自「神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006」· 代码 · 共 35 行
TXT
35 行
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!bogus.sura.net!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!msus1.msus.edu!stafford.winona.msus.edu!userNewsgroups: rec.motorcyclesSubject: Re: Shaft-drives and WheeliesMessage-ID: <Stafford-260493084451@stafford.winona.msus.edu>From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.Edu (John Stafford)Date: 26 Apr 93 08:56:03 -0600Followup-To: rec.motorcyclesReferences: <1993Apr23.164901.13892@megatek.com> <735660736snz@morgan.demon.co.uk>Distribution: worldOrganization: Winona State UniversityNntp-Posting-Host: stafford.winona.msus.eduLines: 21In article <735660736snz@morgan.demon.co.uk>, tony@morgan.demon.co.uk (TonyKidson) wrote:> > Well maintained chains, running in oil, without those little rubber 'O' rings > to cause frictional losses, might reach 99% efficiency. The average open to > the dust 'O' ring motorcycle chain probably has a difficult job making 90% > efficient.> How about some citations or is this just impressionistic speculation on your part? For 30 years I've been laboring under the delusion that chain drives were more efficient that shaft drives. Chain drives are also stronger. (Ever seen a successful shaftie dragster? No.) No flames, please! I've got both kinds of drives.====================================================John Stafford Minnesota State University @ Winona All standard disclaimers apply.
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码Ctrl + C
搜索代码Ctrl + F
全屏模式F11
增大字号Ctrl + =
减小字号Ctrl + -
显示快捷键?