Shaft drive bikes...

[talldude]

Been reading around and found out that the shaft drive bikes are better than the chain or belt drive ones. Does anyone know why this is?

Thanks!

[thespirit]

I wouldn't say they are better, just different. I like shaft drive for cruising because it feels a lot smoother. I prefer a chain drive for performance, though.

[roscowgo]

Better is a matter of opinion. They have longer maintenance intervals.
can last a long dang time. and you don't have to adjust em. Or take em down and hose em off with kerosene every 500 miles or so.

But.....they do add weight, more oil, and arent easily repairable if you do manage to break one away from the world.

Link pop off your chain 100 miles from anybody? if you have a spare and a couple of tools.....you're golden. Strip the splines from your shaft in the middle of nowhere.... hope you brought a tent or some good walking shoes.


Everything has tradeoffs.

[Sev]

Chain is the lightest and transfers power the most efficiently, but it also wears the fastest.

Around work nowadays between belt and shaft the consensus across the shop. This means every mechanic. Is that belt drive is preferable.

[slimcolo]

Repair costs are a big consideration. New chains start at under $30 (chepo) and the more expensive ones can go over $250. A drive belt, for HD, runs $130 to $200, and on BTs require a great deal of work to install. (up to 10 hours more flat rate than a chain, due to the fact that entire primary/clutch has to be removed, but chain has master link) HDs seem to wear sprockets about 1/3 as often as chains. Drive sprockets (FR) cost about $25, a belt drive pulley (FR) around $140. A replacement drive shaft (BMW) runs well over $400. Also w/ belts rocks can cause real damage. I am assuming you mean the modern belts and not the flat leather ones used in the teens and twenties.

[talldude]

Thanks everyone.

So for a first bike, should I care a whole lot about which it uses if reliability is important? Or is it better to just focus on getting a particular make/model of a bike with a reliable history?

[storysunfolding]

I wouldn't worry about the drive. If you're between two very similar bikes then maybe let that play a role but for the most part it's a nonissue.

[flynrider]

Thanks everyone.

So for a first bike, should I care a whole lot about which it uses if reliability is important? Or is it better to just focus on getting a particular make/model of a bike with a reliable history?

No, you really shouldn't care. As far as reliablility goes, belts, chains and shaft drives are all pretty reliable. There are many other more important factors involved in buying the right bike, the type of drive should be way down on the list.

[blues2cruise]

I like my shaft drive bike so I don't have to deal with cleaning and lubing a chain.

I have to do that enough on my mountain bike.

[warnerwh]

If you want excellent reliability as well as a smooth vibration free transfer to the rear wheel shaft drive is the way to go. You rarely ever hear of a shaft drive going bad if it has been taken care of at all. Chains and belts can go anytime. A rock will ruin a belt and you can't fix it. A chain can be fixed on the road if you break a link and keep spares. It's easy to do too.

Chains lose less torque and horsepower than a shaft but it's very little and unless you're racing it shouldn't matter. Also chains are nice on fast bikes due to "jacking" caused by the shaft drive.

If you're very mechanically inclined and don't mind servicing a chain regularly they're not bad. Belts are better though. In my opinion for me shaft drive is the way to go. Do consider I don't care to get greasy as I used to and also appreciate the smoothness of a shaft.