Since we won't be driving high RPM's anymore....

[Bob Denman]

I think BRP went with a belt drive for the same reason Harley-Davidson has had one for decades. It is virtually maintenance free. It doesn't have to be cleaned or lubed and it'll go for a much longer period without wearing out than a chain will.

:agree: Does anybody remember lubing up a chain with fondness? :shocked:

 

[BajaRon]

Does this mean the dreaded belt drone/vibration is gone? (Since we won't be hitting 5000rpm+)

As mentioned by others, belt vibration has nothing to do with engine RPM. Belt RPM is based upon wheel speed, not engine RPM. Otherwise, you'd get the same vibration at the same engine RPM in every gear.

The Spyder has a very long distance between drive and driven pulleys. This invites vibration. The aftermarket offerings which deal with belt vibration effectively shorten the belt length (between pulley's) and also smooth vibration harmonics before they get started on the slack (lower) side of the belt.

The vibration isn't that bad on the Spyder. It's only noticeable because the Spyder is so smooth except for that narrow vibration band. Coming off motorcycles that vibrated everything all the time I certainly do not have a problem with it.

I know this is a dumb question but why can't the drive belt be changed to a chain drive? :hun: Now don't all jump straddle of me at once.:duh: nojoke

There is no reason a chain could not be used. For those who have mounted a wider wheel/tire a Jack Shaft and chain drive have been used. There are advantages and disadvantages to all forms of power transfer.

Chain Drive
Pros - The cheapest and most efficient way to transfer power - Not subjet to foreign object damage - Lighter than shaft, heavier than belt - Easiest of the 3 to modify
Cons - Nosiest of the 3 - High maintenance - Shortest lifespan - Does not do well with longer spans

Belt Drive
Pros - Lightest of the 3 - More expensive than chain, less expensive (by far) than shaft drive - Very quiet - Virtually zero maintenance - good for long spans - Much longer life than chain, less than shaft
Cons - Subject to vibration - Prone to damaged by stones / foreign objects - More expensive than chain - Slightly less efficient power transfer than Chain - Difficult to modify

Shaft Drive
Pros - Zero maintenance - Very quiet - No vibration - Longest life span of the 3 - Not effected by long spans - Bullet Proof
Cons - Least efficient of the 3 - Most expensive of the 3 - Heaviest of the 3 - Impossible to modify

Conventional wisdom on power transfer efficiency
Chain - 98% (properly lubricated, good condition, properly adjusted - efficiency diminishes with wear or if any of the ideal parameters are not maintained)
Belt - 95% (Maintains this efficiency as it wears)
Shaft - 92%~95% (Standard cut gears are less expensive but give lower efficiency - Hectically cut gears are more expensive but give higher efficiency)

 

[Bob Denman]

Thanks Ron! :thumbup:
Are you going to be coming out with a line of "RonBelts" soon??

 

[Kratos]

Thanks BajaRon.....I get it. So what I should have done was look at the speed I was at on the interstate when it started that crazy vibration, rather than what rpm's I was at.

 

[NancysToy]

Thanks for the treatise on drive systems, Ron. Very good information and very well stated. There was one thing missing, that was maintenance needs. Hopefully you can clean this up for me, but here is a start.

Chain: Needs to be regularly cleaned and lubed. O-ringed units need not be lubricted if kept clean. If they are not kept clean and lubed (if necessary) the already short lifespan can be reduced considerably. Frequent adjustment required.

Belt: No regular maintenance other than keeping it clean and inspecting it once in a while. Needs periodic adjustment, but not terribly frequent.

Drive shaft: Lubricant must be changed periodically. May have separate driveshaft and differential lube reservoirs (and lubricants), requiring two oil changes instead of one. Seals should be inspected periodically and replaced if leaking. No need to clean a drive shaft, however.

 

[Bob Denman]

Scotty,
Since you've probably got many differing versions of each system; which one do YOU prefer? :dontknow:

 

[NancysToy]

Scotty,
Since you've probably got many differing versions of each system; which one do YOU prefer? :dontknow:

No strong preferences for me. Each has it's place in the world...and I can live with any of them. (...or all of them in my case.)

 

[Bob Denman]

You've never met a drive system that you hated enough, to get rid of the bike... :2thumbs:

 

[NancysToy]

You've never met a drive system that you hated enough, to get rid of the bike... :2thumbs:

No, but I have met some things I really wouldn't want to own or work on again...at least for a long while. The old sprung-hub Triumphs, for example. And the old primary chains were no treat. Haven't been to fond of some sled torque converters, either, they make a mess when they explode and they stink when you burn a belt.

Part of the illusion of man's mastery over machine is being able to coax, nurse, cuss, and coax some cranky old piece of machinery into submission...if only for a short while. Not having to do anything but turn the key is boring.

 

[Bob Denman]

The best that you can hope for in a fight to the death with some of them... is a draw! :shocked: