Chain or Belt drive?

[jhugh]

If your bike was offered with either chain or belt final drive, what would you prefer?

Buell is using belts on their 103+ HP bikes so the belt will be more than enough to handle a Katana.

Think of it - no cleaning, no lubing, no adjustment.
I can't think of any bad things with a belt except for what might be involved if you have to replace it (but as long as they last at least 20K miles, I'd be OK with that).

[Wingspan]

Re: Chain or Belt drive?

Think of it - no cleaning, no lubing, no adjustment.
I can't think of any bad things with a belt except for what might be involved if you have to replace it (but as long as they last at least 20K miles, I'd be OK with that).

...and little to no ability to alter the gearing of the bike due to a lack of aftermarket pulley suppliers. Note that the Buells that run in AMA FX have been converted to chains.

[Slim]

oops, I voted before reading the question....
my bad.

[jhugh]

Re: Chain or Belt drive?

...Note that the Buells that run in AMA FX have been converted to chains.

I always thought that was to make it fair for the other bikes. j/k

[Meikol2]

oops, I voted before reading the question....
my bad.

Slim,
I like you more and more each post.

[WildKat]

Ive ridden belt drives b/4..specifically a buell blast and various HD's as well. Just dont care for way the belt drives responds. Much perfer chain drive. Although my old Yamaha has a shaft drive, and I prefer that over a belt as well.

[Range]

I like chains...much better in a streetfight!

[SweetLou]

I like the chain drive, but I also like the fact that the cruiser I want "Honda VTX 1800" is shaft driven, makes me feel more confident that when I am cruising at 140mph down a country road, that the chain is not gona pop off and send me flyin, I dunno, just paranoid I guess...

[BeekMan]

I know why chains are used but I hate them. Way too much maintenance, replacement (sprockets too) and mess. I loved the shaft on my Seca Turbo and couldn't believe they'd disappeared when I came back to motorcycling.

[WildKat]

man, you can just feel the torque on a shaft drive so much cleaner.. one of the thing I love about my old yamaha!!

[ThAzKat]

Re: Chain or Belt drive?

If your bike was offered with either chain or belt final drive, what would you prefer?

Buell is using belts on their 103+ HP bikes so the belt will be more than enough to handle a Katana.

Think of it - no cleaning, no lubing, no adjustment.
I can't think of any bad things with a belt except for what might be involved if you have to replace it (but as long as they last at least 20K miles, I'd be OK with that).

The big key here is not the horsepower but the 84 foot pounds of torque, that can shred a belt if you do to many 2nd gear wheelies or holeshots. It is a nice bike, I have ridden it and love the torque. I would have to do the chain change on it though. The torque of this bike makes for a wheelie machine!

[zleviticus]

I like chains...much better in a streetfight!

I prefer a shaft in a streetfight.. more hitting power.. but the reach is a little less that desirable.

I have only ridden a chain never a belt.. and i have never ever ever ridden a shaft before...

[BobKat]

The FJR has a shaft drive and the power delivery is really smooth. This is one of the reasons I chose the FJR over other sport tourers that are chain driven.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I have read that a chain has more power loss to the rear wheel than a belt.

[Anonymous]

Whips and Chains!

[The CyberPoet]

I've had all three - shaft, chain and belt. Here's my take:

Belt: stretches, snaps. Less dangerous than a chain when it goes, but also far less warning. A single rock between the belt and wheel that it passes over can snap it clean, leaving you stuck in the middle of nowhere. For high-output bikes, belts have to be quite thick and wide to properly transfer the power, making for wider rear ends.
Pros: Cheap, only maint is adjustment and replacement; adjustment not necessary on some designs. Low unsprung weight penalty. Typical user servicable. Good at sucking up transmission jolts. Depending on the system, gearing can be changed as easily as sprockets.
Cons: Less reliable than any other method, more prone to spontaneous failure, limit to power transfer ability, direct correlation between size (usually width) and power transfer ability.

Chain: stretches, never snaps unless neglected. Can be dangerous if it gives out in certain ways. This is still be the best way to transfer loads of power efficiently with little weight and narrow width to a flexing rear suspension.
Pros: Fairly cheap, low unsprung weight penalty, high power transfer ability, warning before failure. Very easy to change gearing. Typical user servicable. Reasonable at sucking up minor transmissions jolts.
Cons: Less reliable than shafts, more expensive than belts, high required maintenance levels. O-/X-/W-ring chains far easier to live with than the old style chains I started out with. Oil fling.

Shafts: The best possible technology if done right, but most shafties are just solid or hollow metal tubes with some u-joints/CV-joints. There is no reason a hollow carbon-fiber shaft can't be used to carry the full load of most bike's outputs, and I seriously suspect that BMW's new K1200S & K1200R use this to reduce the total shaft weight (note: the K1200S/R bikes also have lifetime sealed oil for the shaft and require zero service). For really slick effect, the containment vessel for the shaft can double as the rear swing-arm (awesome engineering).
Pros: Very low to zero maintenance requirement (depending on type), no possible oil fling to corrupt traction of the rear tire or coat the rear rim under normal conditions.
Cons: usually a high unsprung weight leads to less than optimal handling of the bike, users tend to overlook the services that the shaft mechanisms do require (replacement of breather valves, oil, greasing pivots if present), expensive to impliment at time construction compared to others, no easy way to change gearing without altering inside the tranny for most models.

Given all that, I prefer shafts for long-range rides and chains for high-performance bikes (which is pretty much where the industry is now). I think lower-end bikes (500cc and under) should have belts simply for beginning rider convenience and as a way of minimizing total weight.

Cheers
=-= The CyberPoet