Staton vs GEBE

shawnshank

Member
Local time
8:44 AM
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
306
Location
Boston
Lets say you had a Staton setup on one bike and a GEBE on another bike (assume they are the same bikes) and each bike has a Tanaka 40cc engine. Which would be faster? Which would be more reliable and...which would cost more? Also list any other differences or similarities.
 
Because of several sprockets available for the gearbox, I'd put money down on Staton's.

With a 13t sprocket, low end would be awesome. With 18t sprocket, high end would be great.

With both 13t/18t sprockets on a custom dual-track gears, you'd have excellent low and high end.

Or throw in the NuVinci with the Staton box and there'd be no contest.
 
GEBE wins

Staton gearbox weighs nearly as much (75%) as the entire Gebe kit.
Staton gearbox eats horsepower
Nuvinci is even heavier (weighs as much as Robin 35 engine) and is very inefficient on HP as well.

GEBE is the most efficient at transferring horsepower to asphalt with the possibe exception of a friction drive.

On the other hand Staton has great gearing options and freewheels. GEBE has gearing options too.

I would say Staton would be the most reliable and bulletproof but slower.

I know you didn't ask but a good friction drive would outdo them both in performance, weight and reliability....but ahh I dont want to go into the downsides of friction.
 
I agree with twalker 100%

I could be wrong on friction as far as HP to asphalt, GEBE might even win that department but for simplicity, lack of maintenance, reliability and durability friction does win.

Staton Vs. Gebe though? Unless you want gear changing (Nuvinci etc.) Gebe is a winner.
 
I've had front friction drive and rear Staton gearbox on a bike at the same time.

Ive also had front and rear friction drive on a bike at the same time.

My money's still on the gearbox. Helical gears for less hp loss.

What the heck. With TWO engines I can afford a little bit of power loss.

I also have resistance drag (power loss) from front friction roller when front engine is idling and rear engine(either rear friction or rear drive) is pushing the bike.

I have resistance drag when front engine is pushing the bike and rear friction drive is idling.

I have NO resistance drag when front friction is driving the bike and the rear engine with chain drive is idling.

Comparing spindle/speed/rpm calculator with this forum's gear ratio calculator, the 1.5" friction roller has a gear ratio equivalent to 19.6:1.

The popular Staton 18.75:1 chain drive can be compared to a 1.567" friction roller as a gear ratio equivalence.

Even though the chain drive has a taller gear ratio, it has a crispier gear "throw" when shifting the throttle at 5000rpm from front friction drive engine with 1.25" roller to rear engine w/chain drive and 18.75:1 gearing. Since both engines are identical, anyone listening could be fooled into thinking that this motorized bike has a 2-speed transmission.

The rear engine chain drive can overcome the resistance drag of front friction drive more efficiently than the rear friction drive can overcome the front friction drive.

With dual friction drive and shifting at 5000rpm from front engine to rear, it has a sluggish gear "throw" from the quick transition from front to rear engine.

Therefore it leads me to believe that hp loss through the Staton gearbox is ....peanuts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It all depends,the statement that the Gebe is "more efficient" in getting horsepower to the ground,is strictly speaking incorrect,you can get torque to the ground as 'pull' and 'horsepower as pull and speed'.That aside, the Gebe might be 5-10% more efficient due to lower transmission losses and lower weight.Changing transmission ratios is difficult in either case.The NV Staton is rugged and suited to hilly terrain,but adds even more weight,which affects the handling of the bike,it is also rather expensive.In areas whre rain and hills are not much of a problem friction drive has a lot to offer,in terms of simplicity,cost and efficiency,a dual friction drive also has considerable appeal.It might be quite interesting to experiment with different size rollers front and back, cutting in the high torque unit on hills.Less torque would be required per unit and therefore less problem with rain also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the chain length can facilitate the new sprocket, a gear change on Staton chaindrive can be done in minutes.

For me, the time needed to change friction rollers, bearings, clutch drum and drum spacer is measured in WEEKS. Machinist wanted to charge me $75 to LOOSEN the clutch drum. The last time he charged me $50 just to press the spindle and bearings onto the aluminum housing.

Now I DIY and save that $50.

Sometimes it's simpler and cheaper just to order another clutch drum, spacer and bearings from Staton than to pay the machinist. (At least you end up with a spare clutch drum & spacer for your $$).

As we speak, I'm experimenting with friction rollers of different sizes. JMO, the 1.5" roller will probably be the "go to" roller in front, with chain drive or friction rollers of varying gear ratios backing up the rear.

Now changing from 1.25" front to 1.375" front spindle. At 37mph, front engine was screaming intermittently at 11000rpm. Rear engine at 9000rpm. (rare occasions).

Front engine rpm should drop to 10,000rpm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i've lots of miles with a golden-eagle/tanaka pf40, and i ain't tender on it, either. i like to pedal, but the engine is always doing it's share. i haven't ridden a staton-chain, but i completely understand & appreciate it's solid construction and unique features, & i see some help, and some hinder, efficiency. i'm a "single-speed-assist" advocate, so the NV hub (while a neato-item!) hasn't ever factored in. i've ridden a DE with a mitsubishi of comparable size. it's not for me, but it IS definitely friction as perfected as possible.

40cc's...'specially these purefires... will drive a motoredbike just fine, so any of the 3 setups can make great use of the tanaka. at the power/weight ratio this topic's about, know this...the golden eagle will hang in there, mile for mile, mile after mile...and in the l-o-ong run, i do believe it would earn the overall-efficiency prize.

and, FYI...on the peninsula we swap drivegears in under a minute...all depends on which way the wind's blowin' :cool:
 
Last edited:
On the flats and with the right rear wheel,the Gebee will undoubtedly shine,changing sprockets is supposed to be quick&easy also,beats roller drive in wet conditions,is efficient too.
Learning to get along with the belt drive reqs. some expertise.
In dry places without bad hills roller drive makes sense,cheap too
Forget about changing rollers on the Staton,has cent.clutch,DE is much better, easy access to roller.Also has engine lift-off feature that,people either don't seem to mind, or profess to like.
Staton is durable but on the clunky side,heavy with boat-anchor gearbox.NV version is unbeatable in places with steep hills,but it's pretty heavy,expensive too.
These dual-drives are intriguing,what engines are you using 5-7?,couldn't you use larger rollers? if you ran both engines all the time.You could conceive of a mainstay drive for the flats and if you have to climb, kick in the auxiliary fairly 'low-geared' drive to help out,getting it running might be the problem (seems to rule out Staton).
 
Back
Top