| Author | Message | ||
     Buellistic |
BLASTers: You people are brakeing those narrow belts??? Heres the "FIX"... Some of you are good at thinking "OUT OF THE BOX"... "BUT" when are you'll going to realize that you can run a SPORSTSTER PN40022-91(128T) belt on your BLAST... In BLASTing LaFayette(BLAST wantabe) | ||
| Ezblast |
Front pulley's too narrow? - pretty sure - lol GT - JBOTDS! EZ  | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
We've already realized it! Problem is the only way it will work is with a front pulley with a negative offset or the belt wont line up.A negative offset XL pulley would require case machining, possible, but might affect case strength to much. Shimming out the rear pulley is not possible as they had problems with the 2000 pulleys exploding. Moving the wheel over (ala big twins) is not possible due to the limited tire clearance. That leaves us with a custom billet rear pulley option possibility (still waiting!). There are other options still awaiting R & D but that takes time and a need for it. I am always willing to listen to new ideas as a 60HP Blast begs for a bigger belt but no real easy solution has been found using mostly Blast parts. (Message edited by gearheaderiko on August 05, 2004) | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
On second thoughts, a fully machined rear pulley shim might work, just have to find someone to machine it and it would be cheaper than a full billet pulley. | ||
| Buellistic |
Erik: There you go again "THINKING OUT OF THE BOX"... THE MOTOR COMPANY gives us a basic product... To "MAKE IT BETTER" we have to do the "PRODUCT IMPROVEMENTS"... In BLASTing LaFayette(BLAST wantabe) | ||
| Buellistic |
BLASTers: "FYI" the GEAR ASM.,fifth-mainshaft w/oil seaL & needle bearing PN35034-94(where the front belt sprocket goes) is the same for SPORTSTERS, Tube Frame models, XB models, and the BLAST... In BLASTing LaFayette(BLAST wantabe) | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
Buellistic,with all due respects, your posts on this thread have been condescending.You seem to assume that because we ride a Blast that we are all new riders and cannot "think outside the box".Some of us ride a Blast BECAUSE we think outside the box. Your recent posts show that you've done no research or have any knowledge of the Blast.Those who have been around us only a short time quickly realize that the Blast is based on the same Sportster engine/transmission configuration and learn that the parts are all interchangeable to some degree. While we appreciate your input and desire to be a Blast owner, we would also expect a little respect and further research before you tell us something like "when are you going to realize". FYI: the only belt that could possibly 'bolt right on' with front pulley mods is a 139 tooth FL belt.The Blast has no rear wheel adjustment and no idler pulley to accommodate smaller or larger belt lengths. My apologies if I have somehow misinterpreted the attitude of your posts. Unfortunately we Blasters, wherever we are, seem to encounter 'know-it-alls' who ride bigger bikes and feel the need to tell us how to modify ours so its more like theirs, having no knowledge whatsoever of the differences in theirs & ours and they assume we would rather ride theirs. PS Thanks for the parts number interchange. (Message edited by gearheaderiko on August 08, 2004) | ||
| Ezblast |
How much wider is the FL belt? - some of us do run totally open systems - Would the FL belt nescessarily be stronger, or are we just betting on wider is better? Would their front pully be too large - too many teeth - what would that do for our top end? - whats the size dif - would it bolt up? could it be adapted - is the tooth pitch too diferent? what are the recommended change intervals on that belt? - What is its load capacity? GT - JBOTDS! EZ | ||
| Buellistic |
www.karata.com | ||
| Ezblast |
Still does'nt answer my questions - nice link though - consider it added. GT - JBOTDS! EZ | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
The big twin belts are 1 1/2 inches but are available cut down to 1 1/8" or 1". Wider would be better but the problem is a wider front pulley wont line up with the rear pulley. (the rear pulley must be spaced out or the front pulley recessed). The big twin belts are available in a variety of lengths including 139 teeth (we are assuming that it uses the same pitch as a Blast). I also believe that the Blast belt is probably a cut down wider belt so a wider Blast belt is probably available from the manufacturer. The easiest solution so far is to space out the rear pulley (needing a specially machined spacer) in order for the front pulley to be replaced with a wider pulley and line up.It should be somewhat easy to 'weld' two Blast front pulleys together if a suitable stock or aftermarket pulley (in the right size) is not available. My big concern with spacing the rear pulley out is the extra leverage on it and the fact that the 2000 model year pulleys were failing.(having a belt break is a far better option than having a pulley explode!). If a machined negative offset front pulley were used, would the engine/tranny case stand up to the machining necessary to use it? Again, whats the lesser of evils,rear pulley failure,engine case cracking or belt breakage? | ||
| Ezblast |
I guess we are thinking out of the box - eh Erik? - Think maybe that company would make a stronger stock size belt? hmmm GT - JBOTDS! EZ | ||
| Bobbyhead |
I don't know if this is the right heading to put this question under? But here goes anyway. I was wondering, how easy would it be to bolt on an Xb swingarm with it's sprocket/wheel/belt/tensioner onto the back of the Blasts engine case. I figure the shock mounting would really be the biggest problem, and maybe need some hacking of sheet metal or a another shock, but that shouldn't be that hard. I'm asking because I have the chance to pick up all these parts kind of cheaply from a totaled Xb, that rear ended the back of a parked car. I've not really looked at the back of the Xb engine case to see if it's the same mounting as the Blast has. But if so, would it be possible to also swap on the front pulley of an Xb and build a fat tired Blast ? Bobby | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
Possible yes. I do believe the swingarm will bolt right up to the engine. The shock however mounts through the tank area. The XB chassis would make an excellent frame for a Blast motor. The fat 17" would kill handling in the Blast frame (part fact/part opinion). That belt tensioner & sprocket would be great for future projects though. (Message edited by gearheadErikO on October 15, 2005) | ||
| Bobbyhead |
Thanks Gearhead, I was hoping it would bolt on. And your opinion on the price, do you think $200 is a fair price for the swingarm, sprocket, wheel w/tire, belt and tensioner---and i think I can get him to throw in the engine pulley too. There ain't much left worth salvaging from that bike, he hit the car doing about 70 mph the cops said. The whole front end is toast, the front wheel isn't anymore, the forks are spaghetti, the frame is buckled, twisted and cracked, the front cyl is smashed, the engine block is cracked, it's really pretty bad except for the very tail end, and the parts I listed don't hardly have a scratch. Bobby | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
I think its a fair price (with engine pulley) if you can use it.I think separately on ebay, he'd get that much. Too bad about the front cylinder, the head is adaptable for Blasts. Some of the engine/transmission parts are also Blast usable or adaptable.(XB9 or 12?). Whats he doing with the engine? (Message edited by gearheadErikO on October 16, 2005) | ||
| Bobbyhead |
It was an XB9R white in color, dunno the year. When I said front cyl, I meant the head too, big crack right up it. I dunno what he's doing with the rest of it. Bobby | ||
| Matty |
Bobby, The swingarm will bolt on, but it won't work. The size of the XB swingarm severely limits the range of movement and it hits the engine case. Not worth the amount of time to fix it in my book. | ||
| Bobbyhead |
Thanks Matty, I trust your knowledge. So that'll save me from wasting my time and money on something that won't work. I appreciate the headsup. Bobby | ||
| Matty |
No problem, Glad I could help. | ||
| Martech |
HELP!! Harley took off the plastic sprocket cover today in order to put on my new rear Dunlop. After the switch I had 6 washers tumbling around inside like a dryer. Way to go HD! I assume they belong between the plastic & the sprocket but I'd like confirmation from one of you more experienced Blasters... I've had my 01 for a week now and LOVIN IT! The D&D exhaust makes it sound like a big dogg! Please post help! | ||
| Ezblast |
They screwed up - probably didn't put new screws in either per procedure - if you remove the sprocket - have them do it right! GT - JBOTDS! EZ | ||
| Gearheaderiko |
Yes, washers go between the sprocket and cover. | ||
| Berkshire |
Am I the only one whose belt rides all the way over to the right side?  The belt normally rides all the way over against the edge of the pulley cover (or very close), which means that part of it isn't even riding on the pulley - it's hanging over in the gap between the pulley and the cover. If I push the bike backwards, the belt moves over a little. Is this normal? If not, any ideas what's wrong w/ mine? should I flip the belt around? | ||
| Naustin |
Mine rides all they way over like that too, but I didn't realize there was a gap? I'll have to look and see if that gap is there on mine. | ||
| Pourwhitetrash |
thats normal | ||
| Jprovo |
Yep - It's normal | ||
| Berkshire |
Has anybody heard of any reason NOT to flip the belt around? Aside from switching the inboard & outboard sides, it would also swap the drive & coast sides of the teeth. It seems like it would be a good way to even out belt & pulley wear, but some things (like axles on a drag car!) don't like to be reversed... any info? theories? wild speculation? | ||
| Berkshire |
Here's something completely unrelated to the above: Why did the smaller (2000 year model) rear pulleys fail? Was it junk parts? If it was a manufacturing or design defect, then why not fix the problem and keep the same pulley size? Was it extreme centrifugal force? The original smaller pulley would have allowed a higher top speed (assuming the rev limiter wasn't changed). The larger replacement pulley wouldn't ever spin as fast, BUT the larger diameter places the massive portion of the pulley out farther from the center, which causes more centrifugal force. So... while the decreased RPM reduces stress, the larger diameter causes increased stress. I don't remember the how to do the math necessary to determine the net effect (maybe someone will chime in here) but Was the wrenching effect too excessive? If the rear pulley could somehow be centered within the tire, then drive torque would simply try to shear the fasteners and spin the pulley - but since the pulley is offset so far over to the right side, there is also a considerable wrenching effect - the belt tries to yank the pulley right off the side of the wheel! Did cracks form around the bolt holes during hard takeoffs, leading to pulley failure at freeway speeds? The amount of stress depends on the offset, so a larger pulley diameter wouldn't have helped - I think it would actually increase the stress on the rear pulley, wheel, tire, axle, and swingarm. I did a search and found something from several years ago, but the info was kind of vague - maybe someone has some more detailed info now... Why & how did the original pulleys fail, and why doesn't the new pulley suffer from the same problem? | ||
| Jprovo |
Berkshire, Here's the story as I heard it: It was a design oversight. The expert Buell test riders never tested the Pulley like a novice rider would. The herk and jerk riding of a novice rider shock loaded the pulley, and caused cracking failures. The new pulley is designed different, and has a lower gear ratio to prevent some of the herk and jerk at low speeds, making the Blast more robust, and better learner bike. James |
