Staton vs GEBE

Discussion in 'Rack Mounted Engines' started by shawnshank, Mar 6, 2009.

  1. shawnshank

    shawnshank Member

    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.

  2. 5-7HEAVEN

    5-7HEAVEN Guest

    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.
  3. TWalker

    TWalker Guest

    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.
  4. kawasaki999

    kawasaki999 Member

    I agree with twalker 100%
  5. TWalker

    TWalker Guest

    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.
  6. 5-7HEAVEN

    5-7HEAVEN Guest

    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: Mar 7, 2009
  7. duivendyk

    duivendyk Guest

    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: Mar 7, 2009
  8. 5-7HEAVEN

    5-7HEAVEN Guest

    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: Mar 7, 2009
  9. augidog

    augidog New Member

    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' :cool2:
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2009
  10. duivendyk

    duivendyk Guest

    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).
  11. kawasaki999

    kawasaki999 Member

    Gebe rules! 56.3 mph. 46cc motor.

    Attached Files:

  12. shawnshank

    shawnshank Member

    Thanks for all of the responses. There are some very knowledgeable people around here which makes for a nice debate.
  13. 5-7HEAVEN

    5-7HEAVEN Guest

    duivendyk, I'm using TLE43 2.2hp Mitsubishi engines. They're very mild-mannered. Rear engine has ADA expansion pipe w/1.5" roller or 18.75:1 gearbox. front has arrestor removed, but changing to ADA stalker exhaust(x-can style). Front roller was 1.25"; just changed to 1.375" roller last night.

    Front engine pulled like gangbusters w/1.25" spindle but redlined way too soon at 26mph(8000rpm). The 1.375" roller should work even better, providing auxiliary power up to 28.5mph. Then rear engine w/1.5" roller should redline out at 31mph, but can be urged towards 37mph.

    The roads here are so bad that it would be too dangerous to travel above 40mph on a bicycle for any length of time.

    Now that I've experimented w/1.125" and 1.25" rollers, I need to exchange these for a 1.375" and/or 1.5" rollers for better high-end. The 1.5" roller's performance is pretty lame when compared to smaller-diameter spindles. However, TWO engines w/1.5" rollers should pull well enough TOGETHER throughout all power ranges.

    I also need to reinstall my front engine's gravity clutch. That way the rear engine has less resistance drag to overcome when the front engine is no longer needed.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 8, 2009
  14. beast775

    beast775 Guest

    holy kawa 999

    i thought 42 miles an hr was fast... but 56 is crazy,i was hopin my axles didnt snap at that speed.jeez kudos to you!
  15. duivendyk

    duivendyk Guest

    Do you have GPS corroboration ?,would require something like 6HP or a low drag fairing.On a 10% + grade who would rule then:Staton NV!
  16. 5-7HEAVEN

    5-7HEAVEN Guest

    Staton rules!

    Just rode downhill to McD's for breakfast. Great ride with 1.375" roller.

    Rode back uphill to retrieve my kneepads and take a dump and post.

    Even better ride going uphill, because the front engine did not overrev. This is the first time that I got to full throttle BOTH engines all the way up the hill.

    Front engine w/1.25" would ALWAYS redline on uphill climbs and flat ground. I'd have to idle it and rely on rear engine w/1.5" roller. Of course speed and acceleration decreased when I did that.

    Well, I'm off to Home Depot to buy oil. Twelve-mile roundtrip. I'll know how the 1.25" roller does on the flats.

    It's gonna be a QUICK ride to work tomorrow.:devilish:

    Staton rules; I have NEVER broken or loosened a spoke in 2 years.

    I've read here that even the lowly mildmannered Robin 35cc engine breaks spokes on GEBE-assisted bicycles.

    Tell me it aint so, Joe.:grin5:
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 8, 2009
  17. TWalker

    TWalker Guest

    Did you notice an increase in take off speed after the dump or was it pretty much the same?

    :scooter: :toilet:

    Have you had the chance to ride a Robin against your Mitsu's? I don't think I could stand going back to 2 strokes and mixing fuel so I'm planning on getting a Robin.
  18. kawasaki999

    kawasaki999 Member

    5-7 I have to agree on the stock spokes and the gebe, broke many till I switched to 12 ga. no problems since, pushing 5.5+ hp.
  19. DetonatorTuning

    DetonatorTuning Active Member

    HEHE check out the pic links in post #11

    you go Kawi !!
  20. 5-7HEAVEN

    5-7HEAVEN Guest

    My first bike had a Robin 35cc engine w/1.125" roller. It was quiet and had great low end power. Top speed on the 20" folding bike was 27mph, which was really pushing it.

    If I had to swap engines, I'd change out to dual GP460 engines and keep the Staton drive assemblies.

    Mitsubishi engines protest mightily at 37mph.:devilish:
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 8, 2009