|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1355555789 Message started by Dave-Aus on 12/14/12 at 23:16:29 |
|
Title: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by Dave-Aus on 12/14/12 at 23:16:29 So I received my savage as a chain drive (which requires a new chain and sprockets) I have been toying with the idea of changing it back to belt, instead of buying new chain and sprockets. What would I require to change it back? - front pulley - rear pulley - lower belt guard (my bike only has upper chain guard ATM) - obviously a belt - anything else ? Does anyone have any experience with both a chain and a belt driven savage who can give their opinion? I prefer the look and obvious less maintenance on the belt... |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by Oldfeller on 12/15/12 at 02:51:31 At this stage you would be money ahead to buy another chain and the new sprockets. $150 would fix you up with a primo X ring chain. Even buying used you are going to drop a lot of money on pulleys and the belt itself isn't cheap by anybody's estimation. $180 for the belt by itself. |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by Dave-Aus on 12/15/12 at 02:57:11 I've tracked down a rear pulley, front pulley, and a belt (all used but from low KM 2006ish models) for around $150.00 - $200.00. i *think* that is all i would need??. i'll need a new chain, front and rear sprockets, and will need to buy a chain breaker / riveter anyway. So cost isn't really here nor there. I'd expect around $300.00 at the end of the day. Looking more so for opinions on the pros / cons of each option, money aside, as seems to be similar :) cheers, Dave |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by Oldfeller on 12/15/12 at 03:06:39 I'm not familiar with pricing in your area, so my pricing ideas are likely off for you. But I bought a complete chain / sprockets setup (and still have it awaiting any spline issues that develop that require it) for $150 and that was both sprockets and an X ring chain. Mine used a master link, so I required no chain breaker. So, discussing pricing between USA and Australia/New Zealand are about like discussing available oil, some differences there that just don't go away. Sounds like your prices are about 1.5 to 2x US prices. Good news is the belt will last "forever" compared to chains, even good X ring chains only go 20,000 miles on average. Chains require lubrication and maintenance that the belt drive does not. Chains also throw the speedo off, generally require an electronic unit be added for accurate speeds. Stock belt only has squeak issues and the fact you can't change a drive ratio at a whim like you can with a chain. |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by clearush on 12/15/12 at 06:05:17 I toyed with the ideal of going chain but I decided that I didn't want to bother with chain maintenance. And I like the way the belt looks. |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by clueless-FSO on 12/15/12 at 06:34:19 I ran the chain conversion. Loved it. Brought the revs down at higher speeds. Didn't notice much difference on the low end....still plenty of grunt left. Best mod I ever did! |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by Dave-Aus on 12/15/12 at 06:37:44 Which sprockets / chain did you use? The chain conversion thread seems to have disappeared. I believe it's just a 530 / 106 link chain , not sure which sprockets though: |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by Gyrobob on 12/15/12 at 06:50:04 Belts look dorky because, with the huge rear pulley, they are just so bulky. On the other hand (and more importantly) belts are efficient, quiet, almost no maintenance, clean, reliable, light weight, cheap to manufacture, and last for-frickin-ever. |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by clueless-FSO on 12/15/12 at 10:43:35 Dave, I honestly cannot remember. I do not have the bike. I just check in here every so often. See what everyone is up to. Best site ever for Savages.....have fun, Jim |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by Dave on 12/15/12 at 11:58:25 486D7A696D797F0C0 wrote:
When the search function does not locate what you are looking for, then try the Tech Section. There is an index, and it lists the posts by area part being worked on . The Chain Thread is the section on the rear suspension I believe. http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?board=tech;action=display;num=1174239333 I agree that the belt is kind of dorky looking - especially the way it makes the left shock mount stick so far out from the seat. The belt does limit the gearing possibilities- but it is neat and tidy and very low maintenance. |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by Cavi Mike on 12/15/12 at 12:14:09 Efficiency is greater with chains - not worse - especially at higher speeds. Rubber flexing then straightening out as it goes around the pulleys generates a lot of heat - and that means power loss. Chains are jointed and don't create heat therefore they can transfer more power. That is their main (only?) advantage over belts and that's why they are still used in any aspect of racing over belts. If you are pretty bad with keeping up on your maintenance, stick with the belt. |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by Charon on 12/15/12 at 12:19:19 0C2E39260226242A4F0 wrote:
From all I have read, efficiency of belts and chains is about equal, and both are a bit more efficient than shafts. The real reason chains are used in racing is the ease of changing final drive ratios to match the track. Belts have losses from hysteresis - the loss in the flexing of the rubber (really synthetic). Chains have losses because every time they flex entering a sprocket and straighten leaving, there is motion and friction in the bushings and there is viscous loss in the lubricant. Both have frictional losses from entering and leaving the teeth of the pulley/sprocket. Wilbur and Orville devised ways to measure chain losses for their Flyer, and as I remember they found chains to be about 95% efficient. Much less, and their airplane would not have flown. |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by verslagen1 on 12/15/12 at 12:26:20 +1 charon and efficiency numbers with chains are when they are new. I read many statements were racers will change their chains every race because they see the hp losses at the track. whereas there's no degradation with belts. |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by Cavi Mike on 12/15/12 at 13:56:41 And neither of you have made any actual counter-arguments to my statement. FYI professional racers don't change their ratios during a race so speed of changes is a non-issue. Also, professional chains are crimped (no master link) so how exactly is breaking and crimping a new chain faster than swapping a belt? You'd already have a set of belts and pulleys or a set of chains and cogs if you were a racer so once again, non-issue. If belts were better, pros would use them instead. Marginal gains are still gains no matter what way you look at it and no matter how big of a word you use to describe it - ahem hysteresis - I already described that in my post so clearly you were trying to make yourself look smarter by using a physics term that nobody uses in the real world. |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by Serowbot on 12/15/12 at 14:28:05 3A293E3F202D2B29227D4C0 wrote:
O-ring chains are much more resistive than regular chains... Anyway,.. I like the look of the belt... Adds beef to backend... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by verslagen1 on 12/15/12 at 14:39:08 Charon, please don't use big words that somebody has to look up. Really makes them feel |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by WD on 12/15/12 at 15:28:14 Belt is cleaner, lighter, less labor intensive and ugly. Chain is labor intensive if you want it to really last. And ugly. Shaft drive is heavy, has high parasitic losses courtesy of the differential, and is ugly. It's a toss up. If the cost is pretty much the same, go with the belt. I don't like the basically static gear ratio but, it is livable. As infrequently as Savage belts break, I can deal with the look. And if it does break, it isn't hard to swap out, drop a shock, pull a wheel and a couple of cheesy covers. It isn't like you have to tear the primary drive out and the inner primary off (Harley Davidson and modern Indian). |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by Dave-Aus on 12/15/12 at 15:53:54 Thank you for posting the link to the chain conversion thread When I was clicking it from the table of contents it was saying "you are not allowed to access this" - does that with a couple of the links. (?) The one you posted worked for me - strange :-) |
|
Title: Re: Opinions on Belt vs. Chain Post by strang on 12/15/12 at 16:42:29 I'd say belt - I bought a Savage partly for this exact part of the bike. No headaches and I personally think it looks cool in chunky mad max retro future kind of way ;) Each to their own but chain is definitely more hassle. |
|
Title: Re: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by oldNslow on 12/15/12 at 19:19:01 Quote:
Too bad we don't have a cam belt instead of a chain ;) |
|
Title: Re: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by paulmarshall on 12/15/12 at 19:31:39 Mine is chain,running 15/41. Works good for me. bear in mind too I run a 170/70/16. I dont like having a dinner plate on the rear wheel. |
|
Title: Re: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by Digger on 12/15/12 at 20:20:53 Of all the things I like about my Savage, the belt is in the top three.... |
|
Title: Re: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by ZAR on 12/15/12 at 20:39:22 567B75757760120 wrote:
Same here! Clean,low maintenance,long life. I guess if you are one of those that is constantly tweaking for the most speed/fuel mileage/rpm range,etc. the chain is better. Me.....I just want to ride a scoot without constant wrenching. |
|
Title: Re: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by wambr on 12/15/12 at 23:05:31 to my regret I did not fully read all your posts , guys, but the theme I was very interested... I also have the experience of the operation of a savage with a chain in the drive and belt in the drive . so here is my very personal feelings... at first, when I only bought his savage 400 he had the drive chain, however, she was already very badly sprained, terribly roared and crackled . during the long Russian winter I purchased a set of the chain and the sprokets . and with the coming of spring, installed them and drove season . mileage amounted to about 2-2,5 thousand miles away. a new set of course not noisy as the old... but considering what we have quite dusty road I often have to clean and lubricate the chain-about every week... it's a little annoyed . :( then I chanced set of belt and drive pulley with a small meleage . I purchased and installed(although the traction sheave I got from Kawasaki EN 450 and now I can play with the transfer ratio) :) . the cost of money is about the same...chain kit cost me about $ 170 and 150$ for belt/pulley kit. with the belt I like to ride no need to frequently wash and lubricated(my hands were clean :)) other benefits you guys described above the size of the chain(if all the same you Dave want to install only the chain) in the effluent was established chain of 520 size. and I think there is no need to put the larger .Savage is not powerful sportbike ...and excess weight(520 kit easier 525, that I have set, approximately on 2-3 kg.) savage not needed. well, something like that... cheers |
|
Title: Re: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by LANCER on 12/16/12 at 04:27:06 77616D6272000 wrote:
I have 2 bikes with the stock belt and on with the chain conversion. The one with the chain currently has a 17/45 sprocket set with a 530 chain. I am considering going to a 16/45 ratio which is still a bit above the stock ratio but my give me the compromise I want with easier cruise and still have quick response for acceleration. By the way, I was just looking at Samara on google. It looks like a good sized city there was something said about it having the largest square in Europe. Looks like there is a lot of farm land outside the city as well. That would make for some good riding. I saw an ad for Hotel Ozerki, said to be about 30 minutes of the city. It seems to be in a quiet relaxed area. I wish I could fly over for a visit and ride the country roads. |
|
Title: Re: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by wambr on 12/16/12 at 04:52:04 Lancer, if I've understood you correctly, then you have the desire to visit Samara and ride? well, welcome!will glad you found. |
|
Title: Re: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by Charon on 12/16/12 at 06:56:52 I must say this is the first time I have been scolded for using the correct word - hysteresis - on a forum. Mark Twain is reported to have said "The difference between the right word and the wrong word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." I suppose some prefer the lightning bug. |
|
Title: Re: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by srinath on 12/16/12 at 08:22:34 Belt all the way for me ... I am trying to swap the GS500 chain into belt ... if suzuki had put 30 sec of thought into it, it woiuld have had belt to start with. They put a belt on the buells ... I love that about em ... gates polychain freaking cool, our savage one isn't that great, but its good enough for a low hp bike. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by strang on 12/16/12 at 09:44:41 4F71707C6E72731D0 wrote:
Yeh c'mon Ryca people - the cafes are great but where's the teflon cam belt? |
|
Title: Re: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by Gyrobob on 12/16/12 at 11:16:44 The belt has less unsprung weight as well. |
|
Title: Re: WAR -- Belt vs. Chain (facts & sources) Post by Gyrobob on 12/16/12 at 11:22:55 One of the reasons the belt has such a large dorky looking pulley on the back is because there has to be a gear reduction from the drive pulley to the driven pulley, and the minimum pulley size for belts like these is about 3.5 to 4 inches. It would seem that if manufacturers would change the gear ratios in the transmission such that the drive pulley were geared lower (meaning the output shaft were turning slower for a given gear at a given rpm) the driven pulley on the rear wheel could be smaller, therefore not so dorky looking, and even lighter for the unsprung weight issue. Not needing such a large gear reduction for the final drive would result in smaller lighter rear wheel pulleys. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |