| Author | Message | ||
     Fl_a1a |
Hi Recently logged 20K miles on my 2005 xbs12. My belt still looks good. How much more life can one get out of a belt? Will it show stress signs if it ready to go? My bike is completely stock. | ||
| Gowindward |
The '04/'05 belt had a service replacement schedule at 25K miles | ||
| Motorfish |
Here`s some picts of my 06 Uly belt, 5000 miles, totally stock bike. Liberty H-D just replaced it under warranty. This belt is supposedly unbreakable and is supposed to last the life of the bike. The chain gang is sounding better and better, the more I see and hear.My belt didn`t break, but started to walk off the rear pulley a bit.   | ||
| Joesbuell |
Motorfish just an idea I have thought of to adjust the alignment for the belt on my project is to shim the rear pulley out until it tracks true again, shouldn't take much! | ||
| Hergy916 |
That is interesting. I just purchased an 07' XB12R and the dealer I bought it from told me I could get like 50 to 60k miles out of a belt. I haven't read the owners manual to see what it says, but that seems like a long way to me. I would think more like 20 to 25k if I'm lucky. Also depends on how it's ridden. If you're a more casual rider, you might get higher miles out of a belt, but a more aggressive rider might only get 10k or so. Hope I can get at least that out of mine. I don't really want to do a chain conversion. | ||
| Jaimec |
The original tube framed Buells were said to get 60-70,000 miles out of a belt (Harleys typically get close to 90K, but aren't abused the way Buells are typically). When the first XBs came out there was a recommended replacement interval of 25K. As of '06, however, the belts are SUPPOSED to last the life of the bike and should never require replacement. | ||
| Disturbed |
Well it's a 100K mile belt from what I have read. If it lasts that long, great. | ||
| Lovematt |
It should be noted that the lifespan of the '06 belts and newer assumes you are running ALL of the guards. If you look close...the newer models have guards that protect the belt very well. I am not crazy about the look of the guards but I can tell they help keep junk from damaging the belt. I am running one of these belts but not running any of the guards. My original '03 belt got about 18,000 miles and still looked good...probably could have kept running it...however I compared the '03 with the '06 and there was no comparison...the '06 was much beefier. I have just over 15,000 miles on the '06 and it looks like it is doing very well. If I get at least 30,000 out of it then I consider that good money's worth given I am not running any of the rear guards. (Message edited by lovematt on May 06, 2007) | ||
| Motorfish |
I put over 100 miles on the new belt today, and it seems to be riding off the rear pulley a little bit again. I`ll be back to the dealer with the suggestion of checking the motor mounts. Joesbuell`s suggestion is a good one, but this bike is still under warranty, so I shouldn`t have to mess with it. I really don`t want to go to chain.  | ||
| Joesbuell |
things would have been easier if Buell made the belts adjustable! but I guess the XB's current design is very cheap to produce... | ||
| Motorfish |
Yup, no extra machine work to the swingarm. Just bore a hole through it. No adjuster hardware, either. When I first saw this system, I thought the idler pulley was spring loaded, like the serpentine belt on a car engine. If it was, I wonder if it would absorb some of the load off the belt. If the wheel was adjustable, then it would be easier to track the belt on the pulley, but everything still must be aligned. I dunno. | ||
| Jaimec |
I was rather surprised myself. I ASSUMED that the idler pulley was spring loaded to keep a constant tension on the belt. Now that I know it isn't, I wonder HOW it's supposed to work? As I see it, if a user pulls a lot of stoppies, he is going to be putting an AWFUL lot of stress on the belt and all of the bearings because of that design. Matt (Trojan) sells a TRUE spring-loaded idler pulley. That makes more sense to me. Can "Anonymous" chime in and explain the logic behind the current design? Can anyone? | ||
| Cataract2 |
Well, on my 05 XB9SX I have almost 33,000 miles on my original belt. Figure I'll keep going until about 40,000 miles before I replace it with a new 06 belt. | ||
| Spike |
The belt/pulley system was designed to keep a constant tension through the suspension travel without the use of a spring loaded idler pulley. It was one of the impressive feats of the XB platform, they created a computer model that could compensate for some 12 different variables including pulley diameter, belt length, etc. to calculate the exact size and position of the idler pulley to create a fixed belt tension as the swingarm moved through its range of travel. There was an article about it in one of the recent Fuell magazines. | ||
| Slider |
If the swingarm pivot was in line with the front pully...there would be no need for any idler pully...and maybe the design team could have saved all this analyzing time and our wasted threads!... Don't get me wrong...it's kinda cool to have that little pulley going round and round...but c'mon. | ||
| Fullpower |
That is the particular "problem" that I have with the belt, there is no way of knowing when it will fail. they can look just fine, and show zero wear, and fail without warning. In contrast, the exact stretch of a chain can be measured, wear is progressive, and failure can be predicted beforehand.  | ||
| Jaimec |
Spike, I'm afraid I don't see it. When you load the suspension, the swingarm pivots AWAY from the idler pulley easing tension on the belt. When the suspension tops out, the swingarm pivots TOWARDS the idler pulley loading up the tension on the belt (along with the bearings in the wheel and transmission). How is that "Constant pressure??" | ||
| Sparky |
What is not so obvious with this design is that the swingarm pivot centerline is above the centerline of the front sprocket. This has the effect of lengthening the top run of the belt slightly by about the same amount as the bottom run slackens because the bottom pulls away from the idler when the suspension is fully compressed. The end result is nearly constant tension. When the suspension tops out, the top run slightly slackens as the bottom run tightens slightly going over the idler. Again, the end result is nearly constant tension. | ||
| Jaimec |
Ah, okay... I think I see it now. Be nice if Buell were to put up an "animation" on their website explaining this. Pictures are worth 1,000 words (etc. etc. etc.). Thanks! |
