|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Chain vs. Belt /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1287757318 Message started by CalisOsin on 10/22/10 at 07:21:57 |
|
Title: Chain vs. Belt Post by CalisOsin on 10/22/10 at 07:21:57 I was reading a post about squeaking from the belt and saw someone say it was because the bike wants to be chain driven. Later someone said to get used it, it still beats chain driven anyway. I didn't want to hi-jack that post but can anyone tell me the pros and cons of chain driven and belt driven bikes? Thanks! |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Bubba on 10/22/10 at 08:20:46 you can change gear ratios with chains... |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Routy on 10/22/10 at 08:58:14 And that is the only advantage,........ oops,.....and maybe it won't squeak either. I used to think a chain was more effecient,....but come to find out, that is not necessarily true either. But just thinking about the maintainence of a chain drive, after having the belt,.......perish the thought ! Actually what I meant is, get used to it squeaking once in a while. Mine doesn't squeak much, except for a 1/2 mile in cold weather. But now that I know what it is, I don't hear it till someone talks about it. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Bubba on 10/22/10 at 09:18:40 I should also add that my belt used to squeak but I aligned the rear wheel and it stopped...I once put some parafin wax on it...that also stopped it. I'll take the belt over a chain just because there is no need for me to change out my gear ratios and there is basically zero maintenance involved. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by babyhog on 10/22/10 at 09:28:27 What about shaft drive? The bigger Suzuki cruisers are shaft driven. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by EJID on 10/22/10 at 10:05:27 When I replaced my rear tire I had it slightly out of alignment and it squeaked like crazy on my first test run. Propped it back up and realigned it a little more and haven't heard from it since. Just yesterday I started hearing my front brake squeak though. Will have to jump on that one and swap out the pads with the new ones I have sitting on the shelf. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Serowbot on 10/22/10 at 10:57:46 Chain... - easy final ratio changes - less prone to damage from foreign objects - more weight - dirty - shorter life Belt... - longevity - light weight - clean - low maintenance - prone to rock damage - fixed final gear ratio Shaft - low maintenance - clean - heavey - fixed final drive ratio - expensive (a friend just got a $700.00 repair estimate on his V-Star 650 shaft drive)... |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by BuckHMCC on 10/22/10 at 11:09:51 I've got almost 30,000 miles on the original chain and sprockets on my Bandit. With care chains can last a long time. I installed a Loobman manual chain oiler (http://www.chainoiler.co.uk/) after the first 500 miles when it became obvious to me that lubing was a core. Cost about $30. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Phelonius on 10/22/10 at 11:17:12 Serrowbot, above you say that a chain drive is heavier than a belt drive. The chain may out weigh the belt but compare the weight of both sprockets to the weight of both belt pullys. The chain system is lighter over all. I found myself adjusting the chain less often than adjusting tha belt trying to eliminate squeek. I could eliminate it but it always came back in a day or so. I believe one of the problems with the belt drive is the single bearing that the rear pulley rides on. It allows the pully to change angle without the wheel changing angle. This is the primary source of belt squeek. With a chain this slight change of angle makes no problem. Phelonius |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by CalisOsin on 10/22/10 at 12:30:44 Forgive me because I'm fairly new to riding, but with the easy to change gears of the chain driven you can adjust your power band the way you want right? For more low end excel or top end speed? I don't have any squeek on my bike except when it rains but it goes away after a couple minutes. I like how low maintanence the belt is too. Maybe it's just me but it seems like the only good reason to switch to a belt would be if your going to put some major performance mods like a new cam and carb right? |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Serowbot on 10/22/10 at 12:38:58 I think most people do it, to get a lower rpm cruise at 70+ mph... I like to plonk along at under 60, so it's of no use to me... ... but, everything has a price... gearing for lower rpm at cruise, gives a taller 1st and 2nd too... this will eat into acceleration times, and can make 2-up take-offs require expert clutch work... |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Routy on 10/22/10 at 12:57:48 I believe a shaft drive is by far the least efficient of any drive. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by RC on 10/22/10 at 17:03:16 My 2 cents for what it's worth I can't think of a single reason to change this bike from belt to chain. In fact I don't want a chain on anything but a dirt bike. My current "big" bike is a Kawasaki Vulcan 900 Classic LT which I picked over the otherwise great C50T or C90T because the Kawasaki has a belt. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Charon on 10/22/10 at 18:09:15 The belts can squeak, but chains tend to be noisy, too. In theory, a broken chain can be repaired alongside the road, if you have the parts and tools to do the job. But I have seen a broken engine case caused by a broken chain, and stories exist about rear wheels locking up caused by a broken or derailed chain. Changing ratios is easier with chain drive because sprockets with different numbers of teeth are easier to get than different pulleys. But if you make much of a change the chain ends up too long or too short and has to be modified. Front sprocket changes are often limited by either swing arm clearance(chain drags on the swingarm) or engine case clearance, so you can't really go much bigger or smaller. Shaft drives require maintenance, too. Usually there is a spline joint at the rear wheel, and it requires moly grease whenever the rear wheel is removed and replaced. I seem to remember reading about some bikes that failed in the Iron Butt Rally because those splines wore to the point that the drive spun in the wheel. I can't be sure, but the ST1100 comes to mind. And of course, the lube in the final drive needs to be changed every so often. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Jive--FSO on 10/22/10 at 18:51:10 Interesting thread, especially since I just got my C50. I always thought shaft drive was more efficient, but I may be wrong. Jive |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Charon on 10/22/10 at 19:31:54 Shaft drives are usually thought to be less efficient, because of the two 90-degree direction changes required. One at the front, from the transverse engine and transmission to the drive shaft, and one at the back from the longitudinal drive shaft to the rear wheel. Bikes with longitudinal crankshafts and transmissions, such as BMW, Moto Guzzi, Gold Wings, and others have only one directional change so lose less efficiency. Shaft drive bikes have another quirk called "shaft jacking." When power is applied the rear of the bike tends to rise, or "jack." When power is cut, the rear tends to squat. With chain or belt drive, power application tends to make the rear squat. The problem is more noticeable with higher power. Either system can be so engineered as to eliminate the effects, but the suspension becomes more intricate and costly. It seems a minor point, but consider the case when one is leaned over in a corner and parts start to drag. Reducing the power by closing the throttle is one of the natural reactions. With a chain the rear tends to rise, and the dragging is reduced. With a shaft reducing the power makes the rear drop and actually makes the dragging worse. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Skid Mark on 10/22/10 at 21:24:09 I've found the shaft drive on the c50 works well. Quiet, smooth and low maint. I was aware of the torque issues with a shaft drive when I got the the bike. Fortunately i haven't noticed any issues on accel or decel or cornering. I'm sure the the issue is there but I guess I don't romp on it hard enough to make it an issue. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Lupo on 10/22/10 at 23:08:41 . |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Serowbot on 10/22/10 at 23:17:08 7E6379767362150 wrote:
You supposed to change that?... My cars 16 years old!... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by PerrydaSavage on 10/23/10 at 02:17:09 www.scootworks.com manufactures and markets belt drive conversion kits for many chain driven Cruisers and Standards such as the VZ800 Marauder, EN500 & VN800 Vulcans, VLX600 Shadow, VT750 Shadow Ace & Spirit and Triumph Bonneville. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by Phelonius on 10/23/10 at 06:49:59 4B4D54474B101F260 wrote:
You will not have the torque issues on your C-50. Torque issues are from engines with the crankshaft running lengthwise to the frame, such as BMW and Motoguzzi. Your machine with its' crankshaft oriented crosswise to the frame delivers power through a bevel drive to the shaft then through a second bevel drive to the wheel. This effectively cancels out the torque on acceleration or deceleration that can impart a side force to the rear wheel. I have owned 4 BMWs and Two Guzzis and three Jap bikes with bevel drives so I speak from experience with both systems. The downside of the double bevel drive is that it wastes more power than any other system. This is particularly noticeable on bikes of less than 1000cc. Since it takes about the same power wastage to go through a bevel drive, the larger engines are not as noticeable except when racing. Phelonius |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by MotoBuddha on 11/22/10 at 21:27:01 I just hate the looks of big ass rear pulleys. They look like they came from an industrial HVAC system or something. They look bulky -- I like my bikes to look lean. I customize by removing stuff. And, to me, a chain says I'm a real motorcyclist, not some poser dilettante who doesn't know how to fix his bike, who just got into because it's the current cool thing. Woo-hoo, look at me! I'm like "American Chopper!" Sure, many real motorcyclists like belt drive. Fine, but I don't. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by sluggo on 11/23/10 at 02:48:54 i had a chain drive on my gn400 it was a chain strecher in the twenty years i rode it did probably 7 chains. good ones, cheep ones, all the same to much torque. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by bill67 on 11/23/10 at 05:30:44 My wifes GN400 had 25000 miles when traded in with original chain but I had it geared 2 teeth on front gear higher.My Suzuki 1500 only shows the drive shaft reaction in low gear,lifts rear of bike on hard acceleration. |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by runwyrlph on 11/23/10 at 10:21:00 I think "real motorcyclists" don't sit around worrying about what their chain or belt "says about them". ;D |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by MotoBuddha on 11/23/10 at 12:12:05 Ah, but if you only knew what your belt or chain was saying about you when you're not around. They're real blabbermouths and liars. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Chain vs. Belt Post by sluggo on 11/23/10 at 15:15:11 6B495249645342424E47260 wrote:
i caught my old gn talking $hit to a honda one day, just kinda snuck up on them. he sure had a potty mouth. ;D |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |