A lot of discussion on Smoak's post about belt/sprocket vs shaft as the final drive. I think that discussion deserves its own thread.
All drive trains that I can think of that use a shaft as the final drive have the engine mounted such that only one direction change is needed: the engine rotates parallel to the vehicle axis. Think Ryker, Honda Goldwing, BMW and Motoguzzi MCs, cars and pickups. That amounts to half of the power loss in the system if it were a simple conversion on the existing 1330 engine-transmission drive train.
Drive shafts require regular maintenance, far more than a typical belt drive but less than a chain/sprocket design. Lube on the splines and angle gear ("differential") box. To me, it's a much more complicated system overall, but wouldn't need belt tensioning and alignment. Plus the additional manufacturing cost. I'd rather deal with the belt: the sprocket spline issues will be solved or changed to a regular maintenance item.
"...just boost HP..." to make up the difference in power loss of the shaft drive: more power = more fuel to turn the wheels. Fuel mileage will suffer proportionally. And performance will suffer, too, due to higher inertial resistance in both acceleration and braking.
There has been a lot of "woe is me" complaining about the existing belt/drive sprocket design: some deserved, but most is whining or trying to be the loud voice in the crowd. Longevity and outright failure are issues: how much could have been avoided via preventive maintenance will never be known. Arguably, one of the best quality manufacturers of MC, BMW, has had its share of drive shaft failures.
All drive trains that I can think of that use a shaft as the final drive have the engine mounted such that only one direction change is needed: the engine rotates parallel to the vehicle axis. Think Ryker, Honda Goldwing, BMW and Motoguzzi MCs, cars and pickups. That amounts to half of the power loss in the system if it were a simple conversion on the existing 1330 engine-transmission drive train.
Drive shafts require regular maintenance, far more than a typical belt drive but less than a chain/sprocket design. Lube on the splines and angle gear ("differential") box. To me, it's a much more complicated system overall, but wouldn't need belt tensioning and alignment. Plus the additional manufacturing cost. I'd rather deal with the belt: the sprocket spline issues will be solved or changed to a regular maintenance item.
"...just boost HP..." to make up the difference in power loss of the shaft drive: more power = more fuel to turn the wheels. Fuel mileage will suffer proportionally. And performance will suffer, too, due to higher inertial resistance in both acceleration and braking.
There has been a lot of "woe is me" complaining about the existing belt/drive sprocket design: some deserved, but most is whining or trying to be the loud voice in the crowd. Longevity and outright failure are issues: how much could have been avoided via preventive maintenance will never be known. Arguably, one of the best quality manufacturers of MC, BMW, has had its share of drive shaft failures.