I'm looking to get a new bike which will require the smallest amount of maintenance.

The bike will have an internally-geared hub and I have the choice of single speed chain or belt drive.

I have been looking at the Gates Carbon Drive and investigating maintenance costs: A CDX belt is around 8 times more expensive than a chain where I live. Also the chainring and rear sprocket are round 4 times more expensive.

What is the lifespan of a Gates belt against a Single Speed chain? I've looked up online but peoples opinions are conflicting. Some say in similar conditions a belt will have a similar lifespan, while others claim up to 10 times longer use. What is the actual lifespan of a belt compared to a well maintained single speed chain in similar conditions?

I understand a belt drive is not maintenance free but much less than a chain. If a belt can last 4 times longer than chain then I would consider this worth the investment.


Also is there an expected life difference between 11 speed and single speed chains? As comparison to my current bike.

  • 1
    Welcome to the site, James! You might like to check out our short site tour for some information about how things work here but everything looks good so far. – David Richerby Mar 22 at 10:50
  • Note that different chains are reputed to have different life span in similar conditions. Certain people claim that a chain of brand "C" lived about three-four times longer than a chain made by vendor "K". – Grigory Rechistov Mar 22 at 18:13
  • Even if the belt system lasts 4x longer, but costs 8x as much then its still more expensive than chains. – Criggie Mar 22 at 19:09
  • 1
    If you go for the belt drive, please document your mileage and so on, and come back to this question with additional results. There's future searchers out there (like yourself) who would benefit from some accurate real-world numbers. – Criggie Mar 22 at 19:15

On single sped vs. 11 speed chains. A SS chain should last a lot longer than a derailleur chain. SS chains will have wider side-plates and therefore larger bearing surfaces. The big difference is that SS chains are run with the chain ring and sprocket aligned. Derailleur chains spend most of their time being run with the chain ring and sprocket offset so the chain has to cope with lateral forces.

  • Can I get a comment on the downvote? Do you disagree? – Argenti Apparatus Mar 22 at 14:02
  • Perhaps the downvoter didn't notice that the question does explicitly ask for comparisons between derailleur and single-speed chains. – David Richerby Mar 22 at 14:03
  • I have never heard of a chain using bearings, most use bushings, which wear and change the effective pitch of the chain (i.e., stretch). Also the side-plate width is different from the chain width. A wider chain will have wider bushings, which should wear slower. That said, this is not a guarantee as it also depends on the materials. Anecdotally, higher speed chains tend to use materials that wear better so there isn't much effective differences between chain widths, rather its the quality of the chain that seems to predict longevity. – Rider_X Mar 22 at 16:48
  • 3
    I said bearing surface not ball bearing. Bushings are a type of bearing. – Argenti Apparatus Mar 22 at 17:21

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.