|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> belt vs chain /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1164738592 Message started by hutch on 11/28/06 at 10:29:52 |
|
Title: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 11/28/06 at 10:29:52 I am new to this site but not to riding, 40+ years,and a lot of different bikes. Ossa, Montessa, Bultaco, Laverda , Bsa. Triumph, Harleys you get the idea. I have recently bought a 2006 Savage. love the bike. Gobs of torque, light, nimble and plenty of acceleration to 75, ask the Harley owners who I smoke. Now here is where I will open a can of worms. I do not like belts!! Belts do need maintainance. Proper tension, they will jump. The pulleys must be in perfect alignment or they start to look like an Angora cat, and wosrt of all when they do brake 200 miles from home on a Sunday(don't ask) you will not fix it on the side of the road, unless you have been wearing a spare like a hula hoop. I prefer a half link, hole link, master link hanging on my key chain. Go retrieve your chain and put it back on with very little work and a small chain breaking tool. No removing guards and covers or bottom shock bolts. PJ1 makes a chain lube called Blue Label that when used sparingly once a month will not fly off all over the bike. After the Christmas Holiday finishes killing me I will be ordering the chain conversion from Germany. Very reasonable price for piece of mind. Plus any good machinest can make you a sprocket with more or less teeth once he has the pattern. As far as noise, who can here it over their free flow exhaust any way? Just my opinion. Let the replies fly. |
|
Title: ;DRe: belt vs chain Post by Stimpy on 11/28/06 at 10:58:08 Yes, but you must be talking about "other" evil belt systems. The one the savage has is pretty much maintenance-free* and, from what I keep hearing, bullet proof. I like it because of the feel (bike feels like shaft-driven) and no oil/lube mess anywhere, including pants and jacket ;D ...But then again, the flexibility of playing around with the rear sprocket size just for kicks would be great, cause there is just so-much-torque in this thing. (*Just check tension, must twist 90°, and apply beeswax once in a while). Anyway, just my 2 cents on the subject. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by sluggo on 11/28/06 at 11:33:22 i will never buy another chained machine. after riding 98,000 miles on my last thumper i'm through with the hassle of the chain. i've tried all types of chains from cheap to expensive. a thumper has way to much torque for a chain. nothing worse tham taking off and throwing chain. at least with the belt it shows the wear. chains broke with no warning. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 11/28/06 at 13:07:11 I will never disspute anyone's opinion, but like I said use PJ1 and no mess. Defective belts happen just like plugs. As far as torque goes, all the high horse bikes are going back to chains because of belt failure, unless they show and don't go them. The reason I don't like belts is thaton a harley softail you have remove the whole tire swing arm shock(underneath) assembley just to change one. Thanks to a Harley mechanic(and myself for not checking his work) the rear axle was not aligned straight, and in 300 miles the belt was toast. Inall the thousands of miles I have ridden in 40 plus years I have only spit a chain twice. Both times it was the master link clip that came off, back on the road in 30 min.When a chain spits it usally shoots straight down off the tranny sprocket to the ground not hurting a thing. When the belt went south on me it wedged around the tranny sprocket cracking the inner primary cover(not cheap). I forgot to mention when you change the belt on the Harley you must also remove outer primary cover, clutch assemley,and inner primary to put it on plus the afore mentioned swing arm assemly if you own a softail. Just one more thing before I go. I have been viewing this site for a long time and I think it is great. everyone is willing to help anyone, and share tips. Cudos for that. As far as the nonavailability of custom parts for the Savage goes, that's what keeps you a true biker and fabricator. Back when I started that is the only way you could personalize your bike. There was no JP Cycles. As long as you make it yourself it will always be different and yours. Thanks again for a great web site. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by justin_o_guy on 11/28/06 at 13:41:15 I can see why you feel the way you do. I see the benefit of having a chain. I wouldn't want one again myself, but you have your reasons. I feel plenty safe with the belt. It is wide & seems stout as heck. The alignment diesn't change as long as the axle is adjusted & tightened correctly. If you are about to change over to a chain on the ls 650 there are some here who would follow your mod every step of the way. Myself ijncluded. Let us know how it goes! We be rootin for ya,,, |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by sluggo on 11/28/06 at 13:49:45 compare a savage belt to a hd belt you would be suprised how much beefer the savage belt is. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Savage Librarian on 11/28/06 at 13:50:46 I personally love the belt on the Savage. I also have a shaft driven bike, and that seems to be working well. The main reason I don't like the chain though, is that they're so messy in comparision. I can see some definite advantages to the chain. I suppose that's why there's options: we all like different things! |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Bugscraper on 11/28/06 at 14:52:25 hutch wrote:
My brother says it's listed as an 8 hr. job. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Reelthing on 11/28/06 at 15:04:25 8 hours huh- well since they're such a bargin to start with the hd dealers must make some $$$'s someplace ::) |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by thumperclone on 11/28/06 at 15:30:52 Bugscraper wrote:
$500 for a belt change ??? when i bought my o6 was compairing entry level cruizers( read lack of funds ietis) last 2 were the kaw vulcan ltd 500 and my ls650 the belt was the deciding factor.. my first street bike was a gt 550 ,3cyl ,2 stroke,4 pipes, stop lite to stop lite screemer,i never thru a chain but i kept streaching them(this was late 70s),my thumperclone(chinesse ct 70[90]trail) has a chain which helps when i change from trail to street tires/wheels/sprockets..this brings me to not being able to tinker(easily)with the final ratio on the ls... am still having trouble "dialing out"the noise from the belt..tho it quiets down after 15 min or so... |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 11/28/06 at 15:31:37 You are correct on the money Harley makes. I have been dealing with them off and on since the seventies. Back then they weren,t the greatest to deal with and it seems they are getting worse. They have too many shirts, hats, and dog collars to leave any room to stock parts. Most parts have to be ordered. That is why I usually have always done my own work and fabbed up my own parts and tools. As far as being able to show you a step by step conversion I have no camera and this is the first I have typed since 1967. I hope to learn how to use this computer a little better over the winter. If not I will try to do the step by step without pictures. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by geo on 12/12/06 at 20:56:22 I stopped at the local Harley dealer the other day and found out all the Harleys use belts. They have also changed to fuel injection. Gone is the chain drive. Chains loose less horsepower, but belts are less messy, easier to maintain, and less noisy. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by klx650sm2002 on 12/13/06 at 00:37:55 If a belt gave the same choice of gearing that a chain does and cleared the tire I would have one. On KLX I've lowered the gearing so she only does 100mph at the red line (7500) in top. Clive W :D |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by grail21 on 12/13/06 at 06:36:24 a little off topic, but out of curiousity, can you get a longer belt that will fit the stock savage setup? I'm putting 6" of rear stretch on my frame rebuild, and while I like the idea of going to chain drive, I'm curious if I could do it with the belt too. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by john1652 on 12/13/06 at 07:07:34 This is my first experience with a belt driven bike. Let me tell you after riding chain drives for 40 years I will hopefully never go back to chains. Chains are greasy no matter what lube you use, they constantly stretch, and are noisy. The saving grace of chain is they are cheap to replace and you can always take a link out. My MX bike is a Kawasaki KX250F and it has more horsepower and torque than the savage and it is always in need of chain adjustment or replacement. just my opinion. john |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 12/13/06 at 07:14:58 Grail21 Anything is possible. As far as goes you would have to find one with the correct widthand teeth pattern, this is a must. Length would take a few attemps to get one to fall into your adjustment range. This is another reason that I like chain, just add or subtract links till it fits. With a 6" stetch another problem you will have to address is belt or chain slap. Its a easy fix on a hard tail . All you have to do is fab up an idler pully for the chain/pulley off the bottom frame rail to take out the slop on bottom of belt/chain. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by grail21 on 12/13/06 at 07:22:37 Hey Hutch Thanks for the response, everything you stated is kind of why I'm going with a chain, plus I think it will fit the bike I'm building better. From what I'm told, the chain conversion isn't too hard and can be done some what easily. Again, from what I've been told the front gear is the same as almost all the 530chain 'zukis, and the rear gear is the same as a GS 450 (and some other models). I've yet to try it obviously, but everything "should" line right up. Should be much cheaper than the kit from germany. With the 6" stretch I might also have to consider a tensioner, but those are readily available for about $80 or if santa brings me a welder, possibly make my own. -Grail |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Rogue_Cheddar on 12/13/06 at 07:33:39 thumperclone wrote:
When I got my 95 Savage in August, the belt had a chunk bitten out of it by a rock, so I called around for quotes on a belt change. They ranged anywhere from $275 - $500 + . I got me a Clymers and a belt and did it myself. (screw em!) Belt cost me $160, Clymers $26. So far I'm ahead of the game. Oh yeah, I had to pick up a 32mm socket for the front sproket. $6. Still ahead. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 12/13/06 at 07:44:30 Grail21 If the chain conversion works, let me know. I planned to get the kit from Germany this summer, but if I can save some money, why not? |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by grail21 on 12/13/06 at 07:58:22 will do hutch. I'm just starting to put all the pieces together right now and hopefully everything will line up right. Grail |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by smokin_blue on 12/13/06 at 10:45:25 Ok, I was holding off even poking my nose out but I will...I am at the front end of a great project (just have to get a couple of wood projects out of the way first that are 2 years over due). I will be doing a full frame swap and chain conversion while building my next project....a LS650 engined 60's style cafe. Actually the only thing savage on it will most likely be the engine...but anyway I have a few resources I may be able to help out the chain conversion issue. A little background...I am a bike builder and machinist by hobby (read sanity medicine), work as a product development engineer with a mechanical engineering degree as a day job, and spent 3 years early on in life as a suzuki mechanic. I have owned GS's GXR's,GT's, and TS's and now a LS crash for the motor. I can tell you the front sprocket off most GS engines will fit the front counter shaft....I can email a picture to anyone that wants to see it on there...I slipped my old 15 tooth GS750 sprocket on there. The back pully I have not pulled yet to measure but from looking at it a standard suzuki rear should fit it...I can confirm if you are interested. Understand there are basically two suzuki front shaft designs over the years and two rear hub specs that they used on all the bikes from the late 70's through to today short of some of the highend GSXR's. The front is a 25mm od spline with a 21.6mm root diameter with 13 splines. The rear sprockets were either a 100mm bolt circle with a 76mm thru hole or a 110mm bolt circle and an 87mm thru hole. I just need to confirm what the back end is on the savage. I have a few sites for specs on any chain driven suzuki for front and rear sprockets so once we measure up the rear hub we can find a standard sprocket that will work. I am going to be using a GS550 spoked rear wheel on my project so I am planning on going with the 530 chain and planning a 15 tooth front combined with a 44 tooth rear which will give standard gearing...then I plan to try a 16 tooth front to gear it up about 6-7%. Lastly,,,two words of warning if you want to build your own conversion. We will need to check the clearance for the chain an may need to step up the front to a 16 or 17 tooth front which wont be an issue...you just increase the rear appropirately. For a 16 front with stock rear grearing you will need a 47 tooth rear. For a 17 front it would be a 50 tooth rear...which is standard on a GS550 for example (if the bolt pattern is right). The second warning is to confirm the alingnment of the sprockets and the counter shaft will require a spacer either inboard of the sprocket to allign it with the rear or out board to take up the extra shaft length under the nut (or one on each side to make it all perfect). However spacers are relatively easy so don't let that scare you away. Paul |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Jim_R on 12/13/06 at 11:53:40 I never had any issues with the belt of the suzuki savage or the chain on my yamaha fz6. I admit the belt was virtually no maintence but with a chain u can change ratios. I found this new lubricant from Dupont (sold at Lowes hardware for 4.99 a can) that uses teflon. After I cleaned my chain off with kerosene and let it dry I put some of this on my chain every 500 miles or so. It works great and its cheap too. It leaves a transparent waxy teflon coating on ur chain and it will not flick off after it dries (in 10 mins). Its a great product and I wont use anything else. Alot of other riders on sportbikes.net use it too. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Savage_Rob on 12/13/06 at 12:07:47 smokin_blue I'm generally a belt fan but that's good info for anyone contemplating a conversion, thanks. Jim_R When you get a chance, would you post the name of the product for anyone interested? Thanks. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by grail21 on 12/13/06 at 12:45:26 hey smokin' blue great info, thanks for posting it, you answered some of the questions I was thinking without me ever having to ask them. Can't wait to see your cafe. -grail |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Jim_R on 12/13/06 at 15:15:40 DuPont Multi-Use Lubricant with Teflon Fluoropolymer, 11 oz Aerosol Spray http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B00030BFEW.01-ADG953YR6NRBF._AA280_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg Link to WebBikeWorld.com Product Review (http://www.webbikeworld.com/t2/motorcycle-chain-lube/dupont-teflon-chain-lube.htm) |
|
Title: and I'd have the bike of my presRe: belt vs chain Post by Trippah on 12/13/06 at 20:00:02 Hi Hutch- interesting how we all evolve. When younger i wanted a shaft drive (BMW), now I like the belt drives/ Now that the "new" triumph bonnevilles 100 can be modified to belt drive, all I need is about $8K and I would have the bike of my present dreams ;D But you are so right, you can change the relative "gearing" and length so much easier witha chain. Be interested in the Mod when done, Best of Luck. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 12/13/06 at 20:59:09 High back at you Tpippah, I guess I just am stuck in the 60-70s. Things were simpler then. With the bare minumum of tools you could fix almost anything on the side of the road. It was nothing to see a hood up and later see the guy driving around. Now they call a wrecker. Everybody raved about cars with electronic ignition, last forever. The only problem is when it goes it's with no warning. At least points start missing as a warning. Sprocket(chain) teeth start showing wear. Belts just break and you are stranded. The main thing I don't like is being stuck with what the manufacturer has given you. I like to be able to choose how fast I take off or what my top speed can be. It's not that I want to go 120mph, but if that is what it takes to run 75 at a lower rpm that is what I will do. With the wide torque band of the Savage I feel that not much would really be lost in acceleration. I will gladly sacrifice durability for fixability any time. What do you expect.from a compulsive tinkerer? Most car and motorcycle manufacturers run on the same principle. They try to make their product so complicated that the average person can't fix it. Bottom line, most of them make more off repairs than they do sales. Let me know if you find RE. RIDE SAFE |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Roadie on 12/14/06 at 03:24:42 hutch wrote:
My .02 I'd rather have the belt honestly for this bike. The reason I say this is because its an in town low"er" speed bike due to just being a thumper. I'd agree with you on the chain drive on middle weight (8-900 cc) v-twins or larger (if you are lower RPMS for highway driving). The counter balancer in the Savage does a good job, for the most part. As far as the "good" ol' days. Well lets face it, the vast majority of people drive their car. They don't maintenance it themselves. What I call old technology (carberation, points ignition, ect) has a linear decline to it. It slowly gives out. Honestly its nice you can fix it (had 74 Nova with a 235, then upgraded to 350) but I don't think I want to go back. Of coarse I'm a bit younger than you hutch (not ment to offend) so I've grown up with the computerized car.... While todays technology adjusts itself (sensors, ect) until I just breaks down and causes a failure. Most modern cars CAN run in what techs call "limp" mode. One sensor's out, but the car runs like a$$ so you can get it back to the shop. The problem with most folks is that it's all on computer bus technology (read wires and harnesses everywhere). You need a computer to diagnose and fix your problem. I don't know what to say outside of that's why I pay a technician (not a mechanic) to fix my car. :-/ I see both sides on the chain vs belt issue. I just think this particular bike is suited to belt that's all. - Roadie |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by geo on 12/16/06 at 23:27:18 Switching from belt to chain on this bike is a waist of time and money, because the stock gear ratios out of the transmission are so bad that whatever gear you improve on by final drive ratio change will make 2 others worse. The drive ratios out of this box are pretty poor; I wish the 1st gear was lower, 2nd & 3rd are OK, 4th should be slightly taller, and 5th be elliminated. A 5th gear is not needed for an old time slow revving engine. What were they thinking? |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 12/17/06 at 09:59:06 I'm torn! I like the belt and have no desire to go back to a chain, but I would like to run about 1000 RPMs less at 70 MPH... :( Guess this is a "have your cake and eat it too" issue for me. I've decided "do nothing" is my best option for now. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by allan on 12/17/06 at 10:16:07 I have an ls 400 which as standard is chain drive, tops about 75, :o when the sprocket got worn (hooked teeth) :( I took them off and went round the breakers got what i needed of a gs550, these have since been replaced with new sprockets from the above model, make sure u get the spacer from behind front sprocket to keep everything lined up :D. if you want to play about have a look at the gt750/gs850 as they have diffrent sizes ??? Doing a full engine build over next few weeks if any body intrested on 650 motor , |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 12/17/06 at 16:25:17 barry68v10 Even at 500rpm less, the piston would be going through its cycle 30,000 less times in one hour, at the same speed. Extended engine life? Definately. I don't know if everybody drives like the people in MI., but the posted speed on the interstate is 70mph. Actual speed averages70in the slow lane, 75 in the center, and 80+ in the fast lane. If you pull out to pass a semi that is covering you with sand from his load, you better have a big hole in the center lane, or you will have a car up your butt in no time. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Kropatchek on 12/18/06 at 03:16:58 allan wrote:
Sure, interested in engine rebuild. Pls make a new post and lots of pictures, thanks Greetz Kropatchek ;D |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by allan on 12/18/06 at 12:11:18 no problem with the pictures just not sure how to load them , sure some nice person will help ::) this also explains why no bike pics :-/ |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 12/18/06 at 13:24:57 Quote:
Hutch, you might be right about overall extended engine life, but some parts will actually wear faster. More RPMs will decrease stress on some parts. Follow the theory: If you're riding 60 MPH, the engine has to generate, let's say, 10 HP to maintain that speed regardless of RPM. Therefore, since the power output is "set", more RPMs means less engine stress on each stroke since HP = Torque x RPM x f (f= a constant I don't want to deal with now for purposes of discussion). Therefore, if HP is constant and RPM goes down, Torque must increase accordingly. Increased torque = higher engine stress/wear on some parts. This is the reason why many of our escort fighter planes in WWII crashed in the ocean. Designers wanted higher engine RPMs in order to decrease stress on certain engine components, but the increased RPMs caused fighters to run out of gas before they could get home due to decrease fuel economy. The end result was to increase prop pitch and decrease RPMs to increase fuel economy. The engine designer recommended more frequent engine mnx as a result. This example doesn't hold 100% now because of improved manufacturing processes, material strength and consistency and FAR better lubrication, but the basic concept still holds true. Bottom line: in the long run I agree, I want less RPMs on my thumper. ;D |
|
Title: Re: ;DRe: belt vs chain Post by phasender on 12/18/06 at 21:38:03 Beeswax? I'm a noob. I've got a 97. Is this something I should be doing on a regular basis? Do I put it on the outside, or on *shudder* the teeth? Where do you find bees wax, aside from frilly specialty candle shops? Stimpy wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by cigaro on 12/19/06 at 12:14:46 Belts have some distinct advantages, but one advantage with a chain is the ability to experiment with sprocket sizes. Some people swear by the advantage of, say, going to a 16 or 17 tooth sprocket, claiming it really gives new power to the bike. Good luck with your conversion and let us know how it goes and what tooth sprockets you end up using. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Rockin_John on 12/19/06 at 23:23:20 cigaro wrote:
No doubt about it, you can make a drastic change in a bike with sprocket changes. Of course I haven't done it with a Savage, but I decided to ride my '70s Yamaha DT-250 Enduro mostly on the street in the late 70's. I took the rear sproket down a few teeth and the front up a tooth. At the same time I changed the tires to the most street-like trail tires I could find and replaced the chain. Only problem: I had to rebuild the clutch pack the next week when it started slipping. Good news: Top speed on the little 250cc went from screaming red-line at 75mph to tolerable at 85mph. Crusing at 65mph on the expressway was suddenly a comfortable drone (by previous comparison). I'd expect good results on the top speed of a Savage, Either 4-speed or 5-speed, but the bottom (first gear) being so high concerns me. My old Yamaha had a very wide ratio transmission which made the change acceptable. I'm afraid that Suzuki has kind of screwed us with such a close ratio tranny, that a great top gear will result in a crappy first gear. We really need a lab rat too try this out, or other guys from other forums, who have made the modification, to come and tell us what might be expected. I know there are a lot of Savages out there already converted, I've got pictures of them! |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 12/23/06 at 10:04:58 For anybody out there that is thinking of going to chain to decrease rpm and increase top speed, here are some figures.The German conversion kit has a 17 front and 50 rear giving a final ratio of 2.94. Basically this is just a switch to chain with barley any gear change(stock is 2.96). I believe the Germans went with the 17 for clearance issues with the engine case(more room). One must keep in mind that for every % change in gear three areas will be affected. Any reduction of the ratio will, decrease acceleration, decrease RPM, and increase top speed by the same %. For example, if you went with a 48 tooth rear you would have a 4.5% decrease in acceleration(from stock belt), a 293RPM decrease at cruising speed, and a 3.78 mph increase at 6500rpm. The final ratio is 2.82. Going to a 47 tooth rear would give you a 6.5% decrease in acceleration, a 493RPM decrease at cruising speed and a 5.9mph increase at 6500rpm. The final ratio would be 2.76. Figuring that the manual says the top speed is 85mph, you now have atop speed of 90.5mph. Of course we have all done some mods to increase performance so that can be added to the picture. I myself would not lower the ratio any more than to the 2.76 because of the added strain to the clutch. Shimming the clutch springs or going to heavier ones(if they are available) would help in this area, but will increase lever pull. This does not bother me because I only use the clutch to engage first and to stop at intersections, and shift by rpm the rest of the time. I run solo,only weigh 175, and do not run bags and extra gear(weight). I also do not drag race like I use to so the slower acceleration would not bother me as long as I can cruise the interstate at a lower RPM. The acceleration would be very close to the early 4 speed, with the 5th gear being a cruise gear. If stock Suzuki gears from another machine could be used as is suggested, that would probably be more cost effective than the German kit. Thank you to Rockin_John, Smokin_Blue, and anyone elses posts that I picked through to get these final figures. RIDE SAFE Hutch |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by smokin_blue on 01/07/07 at 05:09:41 Hutch, can you tell us what do you get in the German Kit, how much is it, and what brand or where to see more info on it? I am really not interested in buying one but I am curious how much it is because I really don't think it would take much to put such a kit together here in the States. Thanks! PS: did you ever order it? If so any feed back on it would be great. hutch wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 01/07/07 at 08:14:11 smokin-blue, I have noy ordered the German kit , cause like you I would like to see if it could be done with other model parts. The last price I saw at the sight was $265+ shipping which would be pretty high from Germany I imagine. The kit consists of front and rear sprockets and a o-ring chain. The gear ratio is almost identical to the belt drive, so there would be no change in performance, which is why I would like to try other model sprockets if it is possible. Someone said GS550 sprockets will work but I haven't checked it out yet because I have just finished relocating my regulator, fabbed up a new side plate mount, and finished making my jockey shift along side the tank. The nearest Suzi dealer is 50 miles away so I don't go until I need a few things(fixed income sucks) Now that most of my tinkering is done I will probably get off my duff and see what I can come up with. I'll let you know. If you come up with something, would you let me know? Thanks!!! |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by smokin_blue on 01/07/07 at 11:26:31 Hutch, I have a '97 sitting in my garrage along with a GS550 both of which where bought for parts to build my cafe bike. I hope to start full into this project in about 2 months. From the measurements I have taken I do believe I have and can confirm which suzuki sprockets fit and what would be needed for spacers. The kit and parts really should not be too bad to create. Regards, Smokin Blue |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 01/07/07 at 13:39:22 smokin_blue, I know anything is possible if you try long enough. Heck I took a Oliver bulldozer, put a International motor in it, hooked it to the Oliver trans with a homemade trans shaft and used a Chevy Vega hydraulic clutch to make it work. I still use it to groom my sons motocross track. The whole time everybody at the dealers said "NO WAY IT WILL WORK" Where there is a will there is a way I always say. Sounds like your time table is about like mine. No heat in the garage, so I try to do the small things in my living room in the winter. Once it's warm I can get my teeth into this sprocket thing. Keep in touch and I'll do the same. Thanks!!! Hutch |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Savage_Rob on 05/02/07 at 08:18:32 My only other belt was on a Honda 350/4 in the mid-80's and I liked it a lot. The Savage's belt is much stouter that that one was. All of my experience otherwise has been older-style chains. I've never used any of the newer types at all. I really enjoy reading everyone's opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of each. At this point, I am keeping a spare belt and going with that on my Savage (it's just so simple on this bike) but I will definitely be interested to hear more from folks regarding their experiences with chain conversions on the LS650. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Greg_650 on 05/02/07 at 14:17:50 Don't think that we need that other topic anymore, Rob...too many on this subject... I've still got a few hundred to invest in my engine, but the chain conversion is installed anyway...I like the look. Just as retro as the Savage really is :P http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b277/gmdinusa/ChainConversion_3037.jpg |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 05/02/07 at 16:26:48 Greg, so is your bike running or what? I'm interested to hear what you think of the chain mod/gearing change. I'll be doing mine soon, just need to get the spare sprocket cut down...and fix my new automotive electrical problem...and... ::) |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by LesGolden on 05/02/07 at 17:06:40 With the info from this site the conversion was quick and painless. The chain is noisey, messy, and i love it. Looks great on the bike, feels to me just as smooth so far, and changeable gearing! I'm running 14/45 right now and it is a change. first gear isn't entirely useless, but it's used up real quick. acceleration is much stronger in all gears. top speed is reading 87. don't know how off that is, feels more like 80 or so, but it gets there in a heartbeat. Engine definately sounds like it's straining more, i wouldn't run this ratio all the time, but it's great in tight and twisty. I've got a 16t to try, i'll report on that when i do. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by riptide_fl on 05/02/07 at 19:34:14 Just put the chain on today.. Rode to work and back this evening, man what a difference !! Went with the 17/43 combo and it feels like a whole different bike !! Very smooth at 60 mph now !!.. Will never go back to the belt now !! ;D |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Greg_650 on 05/02/07 at 21:19:16 barry68v10 wrote:
I've got a cam shaft to redo...then a cylinder to bore and new piston to fit....not in the budget yet. I didn't buy a spare sprocket for the spacer. I took measurements, and plan to do that differently. There has to be another way, besides wasting a sprocket for $$$. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Greg_650 on 05/02/07 at 21:22:26 LesGolden wrote:
You went the opposite direction. Gonna be hell from red light to red light with that ratio :P Good to know that you have chain clearance on the swing arm with the 14 tooth sprocket though. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Greg_650 on 05/02/07 at 21:23:56 riptide_fl wrote:
That's even lower than my 45/17 ratio. How does it pull? |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by riptide_fl on 05/03/07 at 04:18:03 Pulls just fine Greg.. Feels like another gear is available ! You may need shorter gearing if your in hilly country but I'm a lightweight and its flat here in Florida !! LOL..I actually forgot to shift a couple times, thought I was already in 5th !! ;D |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Greg_650 on 05/03/07 at 11:23:04 riptide_fl wrote:
That's certainly better than shifting when you're already in 5th :P |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 05/24/07 at 15:16:54 I just completed my belt to chain conversion! Using a 17/43 setup and a "homemade" chain oiler. Haven't had a chance to test it yet. I'll let you all know what I think once I've thoroughly thrashed her! I'm using a standard/NON_ORING chain, so we'll see how long she holds up as well... |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 05/24/07 at 15:19:34 BTW, on my 1997 Savage with 17/43 I had to cut the chain down to 106 links. Also, I didn't have to machine the 13-tooth sprocket I'm using as a spacer. That should save folks some time and $.... |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Oldfeller2 on 05/24/07 at 16:24:55 Barry, are you saying the 17 tooth sprocket clears the chain completely over the tops of the teeth of the 13 tooth sprocket you are using for a spacer? Or am I just not understanding what you are trying to say? Oldfeller |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 05/24/07 at 18:08:56 Yes Oldfeller! That's what I'm saying. The 13-tooth sandwiched up against the 17-tooth works just fine. There's only about 0.5 mm of clearance between the chain and the 13-tooth, but that's enough. Ok, I took it out for a test ride and all I can say is...WOW! It really is a totally different bike. Exactly what I expect of a thumper now. Not as snappy in 5th gear at highway speeds, just smooth. If snappy is what I want, 4th and 3rd gear are waiting in the wings. I'm really pleased with the gearing now, but wondering if I should have gone just a bit higher....like the 18/43 or the 17/41...oh well. The only thing stopping me from going higher is 1st gear is just about as tall as I want it to be. Thanks hutch for pioneering this! Hope this helps someone else. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by riptide_fl on 05/24/07 at 19:00:28 I went to Lowe's and got two 7/8 " hardened washers.. Took a bit out of the center until they just fit over the splined shaft and they are exactly the right thickness ! Worked out just fine !! |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 05/24/07 at 20:26:31 barry68v10 wrote:
I saw how close the 13 was to the chain and just figured with my luck I would play it safe and cut it down for more room. I'm glad you are happy with it. so far it has been the same outcome for everybody. Everyone likes it and can't believe how much nicer a bike it is. Like I said it was a group effort not just mine, I only started it and wouldn't quit. I wanted to a lot of times and then someone would get me going again. HAVE FUN!!! Hutch |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 05/25/07 at 05:16:19 Hutch, BTW I run around 215 lbs. so I don't think the gear ratio is as dependant on rider weight as it is on altitude, hilly conditions, and the type of riding... Also, I got tired of seeing $200+ automatic chain oilers, so I made my own for around $15 with an icemaker valve, 1/4" clear plastic tubing and a two-stroke gas mixing canister (about 0.5 L). It works well, now I'll find out how long the standard chain lasts with it... |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 05/25/07 at 07:19:45 Barry, I have noticed that the weight seems to be less relavant through all the feed back I have received. That just shows the geat torque and versatility of the Savage engine. The chain conversion definately brings out the best in this bike, no matter how you gear it. Hutch |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 05/28/07 at 03:01:54 Another quick update... I took a 100 mile trip yesterday with a 200+ lb. pillion. With the 17/43 gearing, the hills in the Annapolis, MD region were not a problem. No down-shifting, just twist the throttle... It's been a while since I've owned a m/c with a chain, should you keep about 1.5 inches of "slack" in the center? I've always been told you only want tension on the chain in the drive-side, but I was in a stealership the other day and noticing all the chains on the bikes in there had no slack at all in the chain. Thoughts? |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by hutch on 05/28/07 at 06:32:11 Barry, I always have kept about 1" of slack in chain. Just like the belt, it needs room for the swingarm motion.If you are going to be riding double, the more slack is a better idea, because of the longer travel. STEALERSHIPS, they love it when your chain stretchs and your sprocket teeth get pointy,$$$$$.Either that or their set-up guys went to the same school as the ones trying to fix my tire. 3 weeks and still no tire. I know it is apain to figure out with the speedo being off, but what was your mpg on that trip? Hutch |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Greg_650 on 05/28/07 at 06:44:58 riptide_fl wrote:
I like the price of that spacer...hardware store, here I come. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by riptide_fl on 05/28/07 at 07:57:01 Hutch, I'm getting 55 to 57 mpg around town with the 17/43 combo... I have a Bike speedometer/odometer installed and it is very accurate !! I could probably get better mileage but I don't really baby it much !! ;D... Ride Safe , John |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Odar on 05/28/07 at 08:03:40 I think the slack of the chain depends on what bike its on, if you take a motocross bike it will need more slack because of the different position the swingarm take if compessed or not, the shocks are very long. On our bikes you probebly need as little as 1 inch, because its not mutch the chain stretch if unloded or under full load (2 people). But as Hatch mension its better to have more slack then to tight. Odar |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 05/28/07 at 14:43:50 I haven't filled up yet, I looked in the tank after the trip and it looks like I've got a good deal more in the tank. I'll let you know after I fill up this week... |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Greg_650 on 05/28/07 at 19:36:43 riptide_fl wrote:
Hey, Man...good job! And I'm here to tell you how good. Can you say "KISS"? Now mind ya, I'd been holding out for some sophisticated, creative replacement like a countershaft spacer from a 1955 Black Vincent....but alas, I couldn't find that bike. After your post, I picked up 2 - 7/8" flat washers at True Value Hardware. Not the hardened ones, but just plain old flat washers...but who cares. Now, the countershaft measures about .965" and the plain old washer measures about .935" (clearance for .875"). Just a tiny bit too small....more to do...get Dremel Tool, vise grips, and beer. With a beer and the carbide bit is going around, and around, and around, and around, and around, and around, and around...the job was soon complete. 2 flat washers installed, nut torqued, and tab lock washer bent. Done. I had been holding out with the idea of being creative, but I didn't want to spend a bunch of money either. Essentially, I had a mental block and you jarred me out of it. My "spacer" cost me $1.20, plus a beer (but that was inevitable anyway) :P Thanks again. PS - the OD on the washers is ~1.775". Just a little bigger than the tab lock washer. Forget about cutting down a $13-15 sprocket and just open up a couple washers, instead. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 05/29/07 at 03:46:04 Greg, I charge $85/hr so with 15 minutes of grinding on the washers, they would have cost me $1.20 plus a $1 (beer) plus $21.25 for my time for a grand total of $23.45, so my $14 dollar "spacer" which took me no time at all was actually $9.55 "cheaper" (which I spent on a new bottle of Makers Mark) :P On a more serious note, when I took the pulley off, I found a bunch of red dust which looked like rust but may have been thread lock. After the pictures I've seen of the chewed up pulley teeth on the counter shaft floating around this site, I was actually glad to have that extra splined "washer" clamped next to the sprocket to keep it in place. Again, not sure if it matters but the two sprocket setup (17-tooth and 13-tooth) will definitely be stronger and hold more torque. I'm just not sure how much overkill it is... |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Greg_650 on 05/29/07 at 06:57:03 barry68v10 wrote:
Maybe you should be replaced with an immigrant. Why do you think that it is "definitely stronger"? If you're "not sure if it matters", then I'm certain that it doesn't :P As for the splines...just remember that the countershaft spacer on the transmission side of the sprocket is not splined and it is much smaller in diameter. Does that make it stronger? Heck no. All the strength that concerns us is JUST in the splines on the drive sprocket itself. Your expensive spacer is nothing more than an expensive spacer. http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b277/gmdinusa/PulleySpacer_1963.jpg Red stuff is rust. You don't put thread lock on splines. The only reason anyone used a "waste" sprocket to begin with concerned finding a convenient shaft diameter. You just hate to admit that $1.20 and a beer will work as well as your handy $14 sprocket and overpriced Makers Mark. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 05/29/07 at 07:46:30 Quote:
It may be rust, but while you don't put thread lock on splines, you might put it on the countershaft nut. If it is rust, then I'd be concerned about the strength of the splines on the countershaft. I don't mind admitting the washers are cheaper than the sprocket, but if I had to do it again, I still wouldn't spend time grinding on a couple washers, just like everybody there are some conveniences I'm willing to pay for. I don't mind a bit how anyone else spends their time, just realize that's the only non-renewable commodity you have. Maybe we should all be replaced by immigrants. ;D It's likely we will anyway :o Quote:
While that may be enough, you can't really think that the friction between the two sprockets adds nothing? How do you think a clutch works? It relies on friction alone. Theoretically, you could grind the splines OFF the section beneath the primary sprocket, and with splines and the friction of the second sprocket you may still have enough strength to hold it. In fact, there may be enough friction between the countershaft nut and a sprocket to be ok under light load with no splines at all. Quote:
Unless you don't like beer :P :o |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Greg_650 on 05/29/07 at 08:09:57 barry68v10 wrote:
Ever heard the phrase to the effect that "a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous"? Why put thread lock on a lock nut and a tab lock washer? Not a mechanical practice at all. Hutch's was a fluke, and I dare say that someone just plain screwed him. Yes, I think that the friction between the 2 sprockets does absolutely nothing. It is not a clutch. If the sprocket needed more strength they'd have made the splines thicker. You actually think that if the sprocket were stripped that the spacer would hold it? Good for you. Go for it. The torque loads are transferred radially not laterally. With that logic, why aren't you worried that the chain will rip off the teeth? I guess that Suzuki must have had a bad design with GS550 (or whatever) that it was originally used on...Those bikes had more torque and HP too. If you want to have theories. That's just fine, but theories need to be proven. Myself, I'll just rely on 40 years of motorcycle and mechanical experience. Your preference for the sprocket is just as subjective as your preference for Makers Mark. And if you ever get replaced by an immigrant, you might be inclined to find cheaper ways too. I suggest that you start saving your money. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 05/29/07 at 09:32:31 Quote:
Yep. And I'm starting to see the application. Quote:
This statement seems to indicate you have no idea how a clutch functions. Even though I find that hard to believe. So are you just arguing for the sake of argument? So what is the difference between a clutch and a brake? What physical properties other than friction dictate how they work, or don't work? Functionally, can a brake be used as a clutch and vice-versa? Quote:
And by what mechanisms can torque loads be transfered? If it is through static friction, the radial distance from the center of the load, the amount of pressure applied, and the coefficient of friciton between the two materials is directly proportional to the torque that can be transfered. So how again do brakes differ in function from a clutch? Two plates forced together under pressure CAN act as a clutch regardless of how you prefer to label them. Quote:
Unless you assume the countershaft on the Savage was designed for use with sprockets vs. pulleys. Do you know that for sure? Is the Savage countershaft exactly the same as the GS550 countershaft? I happened to notice the pulley spline area was twice as wide as the sprocket spline area. Is that because of the pulley material (one could reasonably assume) or the countershaft material, or pulley design? In any case we either assume (more theory that you don't like), or we know the design specs for certain and the intent of the design engineers. Again, a little knowledge IS INDEED dangerous... Quote:
No, radial distance. Which is much greater on the outside of a sprocket than the splined area. Same principle by which larger disk brakes are better than smaller ones, and larger clutches are better than smaller ones. Remember that "little knowledge" quote? Quote:
Not to take anything away from your experience, but that's like saying "we've assumed the earth was flat for the last 300 years, and it hasn't failed us..." While that may be ok in some instances, it certainly doesn't lend itself well to new ways of doing things and new discoveries. The premise of this entire site flies in the face of convention which says you should keep eveything stock and have the dealers do all the mnx. To illustrate my point here, my son has a chinese made dirt bike that we decided to re-gear but couldn't find anything that fit the bolt pattern of the rear sprocket. So I used a plain rear sprocket and sandwiched it between the original sprocket and the rear hub. It was not bolted to anything, only held in place by the compression of the original sprocket forcing it against the hub... What's my point? He's ridden that thing hard for the last year with no noticeable slipping between the two rear sprockets. It transfers torque to the rear wheel just fine. If your "experience" were relied on with my son's bike, I'd either have to live with the original gearing, or have a non-working m/c. Did the friciton between those two sprockets do nothing? If that's the case, then my son's m/c works by "magic". If that's what you want to conjecture, fine. But I'll rely on my own "experience" thank you. However, my "experience" was generated by the theory that it would work in the first place. That's not to say that every theory works in practice, I've had my fair share of failures but I've also learned a lot from each one. In the end, I agree that two washers is cheaper and will work just fine for a Savage chain conversion, it's just more time consuming. And, I didn't "waste" my 13-tooth sprocket. I could get a different spacer and test my setup with a 43/13 gear, even though I'm not likely to ever take the gearing the other way. BTW, why didn't you get 1" washers so you wouldn't have to grind on them? |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by Greg_650 on 05/29/07 at 10:20:57 I posted an alternative that I believe is very doable and reliable. I know it will work. I never recommend anything less. I believe my reputation in this forum is well supported in this regard anyway. Those who know me, may try it. Those that don't won't. Needless to say, that doesn't bother me. I merely made a post and thanked someone for the idea. You on the other hand, chose to dispute my suggestion for reasons that I do not really understand. Did I object or question your setup? No. Furthermore, as this discussion has progressed you still cannot counter my technique or materials with anything more than theories and feelings. With every response you merely add more variables. Nothing concrete. That technique is summed up with, "If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance, then Baffle them with Bull$hit". I'm bored. Enjoy your setup. |
|
Title: Re: belt vs chain Post by barry68v10 on 05/29/07 at 10:38:48 For the record, anyone who reads the thread should see that I never "disputed" Greg's suggestion. The tangible/concrete difference in technique is time vs. $ which should always be a considersation. No theory, no feeling, straight fact. I'm out. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |