Belt vs shaft! NEED HELP QUICK

Message

COPS · #1 Unread post by **COPS** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:46 am

I'm going to purchase a bike today and the guy says its belt driven instead of shaft. Whats the difference between belt and shaft? Like performace or whatever. Thanks.

Mag7C · #2 Unread post by **Mag7C** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:51 am

I've owned both, currently have a shaft drive. Supposedly a shaft is less maintenance. But I didn't have the belt drive long enough to really find out what needs maintaining on it either.

Then there are performance differences. I've heard shafts don't transfer the power as efficiently. But unless you're racing this won't matter.

What bike is it?

COPS · #3 Unread post by **COPS** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:33 pm

2000 yamaha road star silverado. 1600cc 98 CI engine

Mag7C · #4 Unread post by **Mag7C** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:38 pm

Ok you DEFINITELY don't need to worry about performance!

#5 Unread post by **Sev** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:04 pm

This might sound stupid, but you're about to plunk down several thousand dollars on a bike you don't know much about. Are you sure that's a good idea?

TKW · #6 Unread post by **TKW** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:33 pm

amen. if you've got the money, why not wait and research it out and make sure you're getting the best bike for you. When you lay down the cash for your bike, you should be able to educate the sales person on that bike. my 2c

COPS · #7 Unread post by **COPS** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:34 pm

Its my second bike, the first one I had was shaft and I just wanted to know the difference between shaft and belt, it would be more irresponsible to buy it then realize belt is a bad idea and I should have looked into it earlier. Sounds like to me you love the shaft

#8 Unread post by **Sev** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:48 pm

A responsible or educated biker would know the difference by the time they were ready for their second bike.

You're about to spend a whole bunch of money and it sounds like you know little about the bike that you're going to be investing in. Are you sure you should be spending that money?

paul246 · #9 Unread post by **paul246** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:01 pm

I'll try to address your question rather than preach.

Both are low maintenace. However, with a shaft driven bike, it is a good idea to clean, inspect and re-lube the splines whenever you replace the rear tire. Not a big deal. This, BTW, has nothing to do with the final drive fluid.

Belts are virtually maintenance free. However, they are prone to breakage if a foreign object, such as a small stone, gets between the belt and pulley.

There will be a slight power advantage to the belt due to a more direct route from primary to final drive.

#10 Unread post by **ZooTech** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:02 pm

How you spend your money is your business, so let me apologize for my over-zealous safety-party fellow forum members up front.

As far as "which is better", it really isn't an issue. Belt drives transfer power more efficiently but do require alignment of the rear wheel after it has been removed or the belt is adjusted. The replacement interval is actually quite good. My dad put over 40,000 miles on his Harley and never changed the belt.

Shafts are touted as "zero" or "low" maintenance, but that's not really the case. My Mean Streak shop manual specifies the need for a tear-down and re-greasing of the final drive and rear swingarm assembly at 7500, 15000, and 45000 miles. If you can't perform the work yourself, you'll pay through the nose at a dealer. I missed the 7500 mark due to putting so many miles on my bike in so little time, but I am planning to do a complete tear-down over the winter. The strategic placement of a zerk fitting or two should render the need for subsequent tear-downs unnecessary, however, so your results may vary.

In the end, neither drive system is a bad way to go. They're both equally better than a chain but come with their own set of pro's and con's.