Down to shaft...or belt?

Message

old-n-slow · Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:58 am

Love the belt drive. No problems. Love the shaft drive as well. But if push came to shove, as the saying goes, I'd much rather have to replace a belt then to cough up for shaft/rearend repairs. Though in either case neither are problematic.

Not fussy about the chain drive. Have to adjust chain every so often as well as lubricate it. Plus I have found them to be messy, dirt collecting things regardless of what you use for lube.

JMHO

daveoner · #12 Unread post by **daveoner** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:17 am

I read somewhere that rear tires wear out faster on shaft drive bikes. It makes sense as the shaft drive bikes are more "herky-jerky" The shaft doesn't "give" like a belt or chain and thus accelarating and decelerating are more evident and scrub the rear tire more, but that's probably not a big deal, right?

old-n-slow · Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:38 am

daveoner wrote:I read somewhere that rear tires wear out faster on shaft drive bikes. It makes sense as the shaft drive bikes are more "herky-jerky" The shaft doesn't "give" like a belt or chain and thus accelarating and decelerating are more evident and scrub the rear tire more, but that's probably not a big deal, right?

I disagree. There is no give in a belt whatsoever and none in the chain except for what slack you leave or allow.

Chrome · #14 Unread post by **Chrome** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:02 am

My last two bikes have been shaft, and I'm SO much happier not having to mess with a chain. I can't comment on belts, I don't have any experiance with them. For me tho, shaft is the way to go.

Chrome

Mag7C · #15 Unread post by **Mag7C** » Sun May 01, 2005 3:01 pm

Shaft is the all time best! If you go with belt don't worry about stuff getting stuck in it. Unless you're driving through a lake of gravel in a gravel pit and it's raining gravel, nothing should end up in there. And if you really do lose HP from having a shaft (which I've never heard of until now) it's definitely not noticeable. Bottom line, both shaft and belt need little to no maintenance and perform very nicely. Put it at the end of the list when deciding on your new bike.

Images · #16 Unread post by **Images** » Mon May 02, 2005 4:24 am

I worked in the power transmission business for 16 years and it doesn't make sense that you would loose hp with a shaft drive. Its a positive drive (unless I'm missing something). If anything it seems like it would be more efficient than the other 2 methods.

BuzZz · #17 Unread post by **BuzZz** » Mon May 02, 2005 7:13 am

Images wrote:I worked in the power transmission business for 16 years and it doesn't make sense that you would loose hp with a shaft drive. Its a positive drive (unless I'm missing something). If anything it seems like it would be more efficient than the other 2 methods.

All drive systems cost some power. That's why the HP rating is different at the crank than at the rear wheel. The shaft itself costs no power(minus the very small amount it takes to overcome the inertia of increasing the rotatonal speed of the shaft) but the 2 bevel drives it takes to make a shaft work on a bike do eat up some power.

All motorcycle drive systems cost some power, but they are are very close to the same amount. You could see exactly how much difference with a very accurate dyno, but it isn't worth the hassle. With a well designed version of each system the efficiency rating is generally...belt, chain, shaft.... from most to least efficient. But the differences are minimal and you will never be able to tell with your Butt-Dyno.