| Author | Message | ||
     Luv2spd |
http://www.cycleworld.com/first_motorcycle_ride/sp ecial_features_articles/10q4/buell_fights_back_-_s pecial_feature | ||
| Jaimec |
Where are those rabbits when you need 'em?? | ||
| Blur |
A few things I noticed which will be interesting to keep an eye on. The article says that since Harley owns many of the patents Erik will have to redesign a few things. Hopefully in the future they'll be able to work this out because his out of the box thinking for some of his designs are what makes his bikes unique. But I noticed that the rear brake caliper is no longer inside the swing arm, it's below it. And it looks like the rear axle is a traditional slider style to account for adjuster a chain. If that's the case they either ditched the belt for a chain or eliminated the cool no maintenance belt. | ||
| Court |
>>>The article says that since Harley owns many of the patents Erik will have to redesign a few things. Handled.  | ||
| Jdugger |
I really like the belt drive and I've left it on my race bike, but the truth is belts have no place on high end race machines. They sap power, the pulley weighs a friggin' ton compared to sprocket, and you can't change the gearing. | ||
| Dman |
Amen, Jdugger. Maybe I'm an old-dog, but the only thing I hate is the belt. I know some like not having to grease a chain, but I've been riding liter bikes for 222 yrs, and the belt IMHO feels sloppy, and gearing is a personalization I really miss, & x2 on the weight of the CS pulley. Franky I've always seen that as a HD compromise, his race bikes are on chains & hopefully all "his" bikes will be too. This is going to be a fun few yrs watching this all come into being! | ||
| Dman |
Hahahaha, look at my typo ... I made myself like 240 yrs old. LoL. Um, that's supposed to be 22 yrs. As if I'm not old enough, lol. | ||
| Crabby |
Personally, if your riding the street, a belt is fine. If your on a track, spend the what? $400? and convert to chains and sprockets. | ||
| Ridenusa4l |
crabby...try 1200-1800 for the conversion.. Jake | ||
| Fresnobuell |
They sap power Why? Belt stretches? What would you estimate the HP loss on one of our bikes? Just curious. | ||
| Dman |
Belts suck if you're on anything but a cruiser,I can feel the give in the belt on accel everytime, drives me crazy. And the rotating mass, yada yada. They give & lose energy, no matter for a cruiser. Plus take the CS 'sprocket' off, thing weighs a ton, it's amazing, compared to a standard sprocket, the rotating mass of that thing saps hp. Then the rear 'sprocket' same thing, although less dramatic. I did the swingarm swap to get the CR gearing & selling all my stuff & doing all the work myself it cost me over $300. Why didn't I do chain conversion, cause it's more like $1800+ by the time you're done with everything, again doing it yourself of course. Crazy cheddar. But regardless, my bet is the new non-HD infected Buell will be a chain drive as God intended. I don't think we'll see many compromises in Erik's future bikes. | ||
| Court |
>>>I can feel the give in the belt on accel everytime No kidding? | ||
| Drawkward |
I'd like to see real world numbers on belts "sapping" power. | ||
| Bueller4ever |
Anyone video tape the belt under hard acceleration? I like the belt. | ||
| Xb9er |
I have both and the belt is so much nicer than a chain. I hope Erik keeps the belt for his street bikes. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
so because the cush is int he drive sprocket rather than the driven one like on the chains that somehow makes it sap power? btw there is someone here that is currently engineering replacement parts that will allow ratio changes while keeping the belt. and im sure that with the right pockets an alloy could be found that would lighten that rear sprocket up quite a bit. | ||
| Jdugger |
I forget the transmission efficiency numbers I saw, but the belt was behind a couple of percentage points vs a chain in drive line loss. It's not huge -- and certainly doesn't matter at all in street applications -- but it's there. It would be easy to get a datapoint -- just compare a stock bike with and without a chain drive kit. Remember, my comments come specifically about RACE ONLY, ultra-high-end, every little bit counts machines. As a club racer, I elected to KEEP the belt drive, even with it's race disadvantages. Why? It's just do dang nice! I love the lack of drive line lash, and I don't mind the inability to change gearing. The low care factor is a huge plus to me. But, really, those are all street advantages. When I talk to my racer buddies that are actually fast riders, they all set the gearing at each track as a compromise of the corners to be hot in the power at just the correct moments so they optimize their drive. That might be a half-second a lap, or the ability to make a pass and get a position. Just remember context is important. I love the belt drive, but at a professional level, it's just not suitable as a final drive solution for several reasons. (Message edited by jdugger on October 25, 2010) | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
i do wonder if purely weight wise not rotating mass how much difference there is between the two drive lines. both sprocks the belt or the chain | ||
| Jdugger |
I know this: the pulley is shockingly heavy, and its weight is way closer to the edge of the wheel. | ||
| Luv2spd |
When I was in engineering school we learned about power transfer using different methods, chain versus belt versus shaft. I wish I could find my notes, but I can vaguely remember that chain was about 92-95% efficient, belt about 85-92% and shaft between 75-85%. To put this into perspective, if you have a 100hp at the crankshaft, you will get 95hp at the rear wheel if you use chain, 92hp if you use belt and about 85hp if you use shaft. The upside is that using a shaft it is maintenance free, belt is smooth but need to be replaced, and chain needs to be lubricated and adjusted and eventually replaced. I like the belt a lot better than the chain, but if I would have a liter bike I would probably use chain since I would spend a lot of money trying to get as much horsepower out of the thing as possible. | ||
| Cowboytutt |
Had chain, shaft and belt drive bikes over the 2+ decades. While chains are more efficient I find them tedious to keep lubing, adjusting and replacing with sprockets. It was very expensive on my '99 'Busa. It might not be so bad for some individuals and some less powerful bikes, but I was putting 12-15k on a year, so it became a yearly replacement cost for chain and sprockets. I much prefer the belt over all other systems. Its quieter by far than either, particularly shaft, so you get to enjoy more of that "motor sound". Its more durable than a chain, absorbs drive-line shock, and is not messy. Perhaps someday someone will make lighter sprockets for the belts. That would be cool. -Tutt | ||
| Gofastalot99 |
Baker makes a very lightweight front pulley for the Sportsters/Sportster-Based motors, they say less than 1lb vs almost 3 lbs. I don't know if they have anything for the 1125s. The potential drawbacks are price and longevity. On my 1200S I weighed my FP, RP, and belt but I'll have to find the data. I think the FP was just under 3lbs for a 29-tooth and several ounces lighter for a 27-tooth, I think the belt was just under 1 lb, and the rear pulley I can't remember. I believe a chain weighs a lot more than a belt but the difference is made up by the pulleys. I changed out to a 55-tooth (International) rear from a 61, 27 tooth front from a 29, and a belt with fewer teeth and an ounce or two lighter. Now I just need the 26-tooth racing pulley and I'll have lost 3 pounds. | ||
| Puzzled |
Heavy! ..and this is rotating mass.  | ||
| Puzzled |
The new assembly with the 27 tooth sprocket weighed in at 2 pounds 6 ounces. That is 2 pounds 8 ounces lighter than stock.   | ||
| Jdugger |
I sure wish you had those for sale... Ever thought about making a milled Mg rear pulley that would be balanced and light weight? | ||
| Zac4mac |
Jim, for that I think you want Ti. If you can find a smelter, I'll donate some 1/2"x4' rod-stock. I have a few stix. Z | ||
| Jgarner99 |
Jdugger - "Ever thought about making a milled Mg rear pulley..." Magnesium is the wrong material for a sprocket (at least for the toothed part). It doesn't have the surface hardness to hold up to frictional wear, nor the tensile strength to prevent tooth shear. But how about this: A 1/4"-thick toothed ring, made of hardened aluminum, shrunk over a carbon fiber hub? I'd guess a rear pulley could be made weighing under 2 pounds. That would be an improvement, wouldn't it? | ||
| Jdugger |
Oh, it would be a huge improvement. I'd almost bet on the pulley weighing as much as the March 16.5 wheel I have. The OEM rear pulley is crazy heavy. And, they are somewhat unbalanced, too. | ||
| Carbonbigfoot |
Great news! My wife talked me into doing the Jenny Craig thing, and I just lost 6.5 lbs! It's not rotating mass, tho... R |
