Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/)
-   Motorcycle Rumor Mill & New Model News (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/motorcycle-rumor-mill-new-model-news/)
-   -   A rash is coming (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/motorcycle-rumor-mill-new-model-news/15665-rash-coming.html)

seruzawa 06-29-2010 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarnali2 (Post 244604)
Ditto, the stock Regina chain on my Trophy went over 35k before it wore out. Granted I'm anal about chain maintenance but still in this wet climate 20k is about the best you get. Wet roads and spray sand blast your chain and work the grit inside everywhere, on the other hand tires usually last along time because the road temps are usually low...

Everyone wanted shaft drive because the chains had, what, less than 10K lifetimes back in the 60s/70s. Then came the o-ring chains. Now chains last 30K or more. This reduces much of the desire for shaft. I thought on this before I bought the Tiger and decided that modern chains are so good that shaft drive wasn't so attractive any more. I've got 5K on it now with only one adjustment since the 600 mile check. I don't miss the back end jacking up and down one bit. Dry lube eliminates the grunge.

Belt drive on the STs would be just the trick though.

sarnali2 06-29-2010 12:03 PM

The ideal solution would be a plastic chain enclosure like Bultaco used to have. Put a small plug in the top where you could squirt some chain lube once a year and you're chains would last as long as the bike.

pushrod 06-29-2010 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth_Moore (Post 244609)
Which begs the qeustion, given how easy it is to implement a belt instead of a chain, why don't more bikes have them? Certainly if a belt can stand up to the massive horsepower and torque of a Harley....

Shaft drives fit the Sport Touring catagory because if you're doing 500 miles a day, you probably don't want to be spraying chain lube in the motel parking lot.

Parking lot!?

I bring the bike into the room, so I can perform the maintenance while I'm watching movies...

pushrod 06-29-2010 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth_Moore (Post 244609)
Which begs the qeustion, given how easy it is to implement a belt instead of a chain, why don't more bikes have them? Certainly if a belt can stand up to the massive horsepower and torque of a Harley....

Belt drives need quite a bit of tension to operate properly. The final drive and maybe even the rear end would need to be redesigned/beefed up to handle the increased load. I know the early HD belt drives had a lot of primary drive pulley and final drive shaft bearing failures. Heck, helping a buddy fix his '86 SofTail Custom is what got me into bikes in the first place.

Then you get into the geometry of the rear suspension, which must be designed so the rear axle center remains the same distance from the drive center, and then the width of the belt may require some clearancing efforts.

Lastly (or not), the design must consider how to get the belt on and off the bike. There is no master link.

ejis 06-29-2010 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pushrod (Post 244635)
Belt drives need quite a bit of tension to operate properly. The final drive and maybe even the rear end would need to be redesigned/beefed up to handle the increased load. I know the early HD belt drives had a lot of primary drive pulley and final drive shaft bearing failures. Heck, helping a buddy fix his '86 SofTail Custom is what got me into bikes in the first place.

Then you get into the geometry of the rear suspension, which must be designed so the rear axle center remains the same distance from the drive center, and then the width of the belt may require some clearancing efforts.

Lastly (or not), the design must consider how to get the belt on and off the bike. There is no master link.

Also, you can't easily change final drive ratios with a belt (or a shaft).

Buzglyd 06-29-2010 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejis (Post 244636)
Also, you can't easily change final drive ratios with a belt (or a shaft).

Not really necessary on a touring bike.

ejis 06-29-2010 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzglyd (Post 244637)
Not really necessary on a touring bike.

True, but Ken had asked why more bikes in general don't use belts. I happen to like belts for their quite, low maintenance nature.

MOKE1K 06-29-2010 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seruzawa (Post 244601)
The mags still religiously ignore the issue of 4-stroke MX bike durability. It's almost like collusion to keep the truth from the public so that people will pony up $9K for bikes than need expensive rebuilds regularly.


Dont you think it has alot to do with the bureaucratic bs from the agriculturalist and environmentalists.

I believe this is truley why the Manufacture's have moved away from two strokes. Even closed coarse racing, which is completely retarded.
I think the factories just took advantage of that. Now they get to sell more parts and also try to warrant the price of the expensive four strokes. So in essence it was better for the Factories to just not fight
over producing two strokes.

Hummmm GSXR600 or YFZ450? mmmmmmm?

seruzawa 06-29-2010 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOKE1K (Post 244642)
Dont you think it has alot to do with the bureaucratic bs from the agriculturalist and environmentalists.

I believe this is truley why the Manufacture's have moved away from two strokes. Even closed coarse racing, which is completely retarded.
I think the factories just took advantage of that. Now they get to sell more parts and also try to warrant the price of the expensive four strokes. So in essence it was better for the Factories to just not fight
over producing two strokes.

Hummmm GSXR600 or YFZ450? mmmmmmm?

The change to 4-stroke was driven by environmentalists but that doesn't excuse the deception about these MX bikes. People need to know that these bikes are going to cost a lot to run.

mugwump58 06-29-2010 05:03 PM

Guess I'd better put away the key board and read more than the little box in the rider article. Less than 600 lbs, 48 mpg:rolleyes:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:22 PM.