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.

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.

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!

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.

Dave-Aus wrote on 12/15/12 at 06:37:44:


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.

Cavi Mike wrote on 12/15/12 at 12:14:09:


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.

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.