Drive type, does it matter?

As noted above, shaft drive can introduce some handling quirks. But it should also be noted that chains and belts also impart some load on the suspension. During acceleration, a chain or belt is tight on the top, and will tend to compress the suspension a bit. Long travel motocross bikes do attempt to address this by simple geometry. In fact, ATK motorcycle company promoted a design that had little influence on the suspension.

ATK was founded by Horst Leitner, an Austrian-born engineer. Leitner named the new motorcycle company ATK after his patented device to eliminate chain torque for improved handling. Known later as the A-Trak.

In the end, even ATK dropped the idea and went to conventional style chain drive.

1988-ATK-604-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
As noted above, shaft drive can introduce some handling quirks. But it should also be noted that chains and belts also impart some load on the suspension. During acceleration, a chain or belt is tight on the top, and will tend to compress the suspension a bit. Long travel motocross bikes do attempt to address this by simple geometry. In fact, ATK motorcycle company promoted a design that had little influence on the suspension.

ATK was founded by Horst Leitner, an Austrian-born engineer. Leitner named the new motorcycle company ATK after his patented device to eliminate chain torque for improved handling. Known later as the A-Trak.

In the end, even ATK dropped the idea and went to conventional style chain drive.

1988-ATK-604-2.jpg
Super interesting design with the brake disc on what I presume is the countershaft?
 
Chains are a pain... shafts are heavy and expensive... Gates cog tooth belts are the premium drive when it matters...

Lightest weight...
1 belt
2 chain
3 shaft

Best efficiency...
1 belt
2 chain
3 shaft

Lowest maintenance...
1 belt
2 shaft
3 chain

Most expensive...
1 shaft
2 belt
2 chain

Least amount of drive line snatch...
1 belt
2 shaft
3 chain

Biggest vocal following...
1 shaft
2 chain
3 belt

Back in 1986 when Mary and I attended the Daytona 200... I asked
all of Honda's HRC Engineers was it possible to belt drive THEIR
VF500F Interceptor... they stated to me that it was *impossible* to
add a belt drive to a exiting model... I would need to design the
whole bike around the belt... OK I thought... they are the experts...
maybe I should call it quits... but I just could not stop thinking
about the problem... I had to solved it... when I showed the same
engineers my success they nodded affirmative ask what was I going to
do next??? build my own frame I answered... they replied that I
probably would be successful with that conversion as well...

gallery_3131_51_1923.jpg

ce5BVi3.jpg


gallery_3131_51_14630.jpg


BLS, if Belt was both the lightest and most efficient, why would they not use it on high performance bikes?

My thoughts...

-maybe chain is most efficient? If not...they would also use it in bicycle racing
-belts can't handle the HP of sport bikes?

Most likely, I think chains are more efficient...interested in any papers, or evidence you might have.
 
@Eric Smith
I would never own a chain bike, Im just not into the whole maintenance concerns of having to deal with that or even wonder about it. I maintain my own vehicles but having a chain is not something I would ever want to do. I have owned a shaft bike and currently belt plus another belt before the current one.

Both are fine but if given a choice I will take belt any day of the week, unless you are off roading on dirt trails.
I have nothing against shaft bikes either but it's just something else mechanical that needs to be maintained.

First choice = Belt
Second choice = Shaft
If I liked a bike, the two above are fine but love the simplicity of the belt.

No 3rd choice, chain not an option.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts...

-maybe chain is most efficient? If not...they would also use it in bicycle racing
-belts can't handle the HP of sport bikes?

Most likely, I think chains are more efficient...interested in any papers, or evidence you might have.

If chains are most efficient it will only be when the chain and sprockets are new which will be why racers use them. New chain and sprockets every race is no object to them. For the likes of us, over the long term I suspect a belt would win out.

After 15 years with shaft dive there is no way I'm going back to a chain unless it was totally enclosed. I would be happy to try a belt.
 
Thanks everyone.. doing some thinking and I'm considering just going with a 250cc to start out. That way I could also teach my boys to ride. Also thinking about the KLR650. Both are chains but I guess not the end of the world. Messed with chains on my regular bikes so do have some experience with them. I have till fall I think, prices are stupid right now. I didn't think they were bad until I seen new prices. I can buy a new one for not much more and get FI.
 
BLS, if Belt was both the lightest and most efficient, why would they not use it on high performance bikes?

A new chain transfers 98% of available piston power to the rear wheel...

A new belt transfers 98% of available piston power to the rear wheel...

So a new a belt and new chain both subtract 2% of your engines power in order to drive the rear wheel...

Because a belt and chain are both equal when new total HP gain for a performance bike is 0.0...

For us non racers with mileage expectations its a different story... a belt is
98% efficient from mile 1 and still 98% efficient at 30,000+ miles whereas a
chain is 98% efficient from mile 1 but only 91 to 88% efficient at 10,000+
miles... a worn belt is still 98% efficient whereas a chain efficiency steadily
subtracts more HP as miles ridden...

100HP -2% = 98RWHP Worn Belt
100HP -10% = 90RWHP Worn Chain

This is what we don't see behind the X rings... metal to metal wear
every time we adjust the chain that eats into our engine's available
HP... a new pin measures 206.5 and wears down to 205.5 at the 8K mile
mark... looks good to the naked eye but multiply that 1 thousand of an
inch times 108 links and you have 108 thousands of an inch wear or
about the range of the green marks provided by Honda's wear gauge...
202.8 show the very visible wear at the 12K mile mark... the pins are
turning red from extreme heat of grinding dry metal... a chain in this
condition may consume up to 6 to 8% of our RWHP... not to mention it
may snap into and cause case damage...

Now you know why I say chains are a pain...
gallery_3131_51_50064.jpg
 
-maybe chain is most efficient? If not...they would also use it in bicycle racing
Chain and Belts show equal efficiently when new... but belts hold their efficiency whereas Chain drop efficiency...

Gates bicycle Carbon Drives are available now...
BicycleBelt1.JPG


-belts can't handle the HP of sport bikes?

Belts are stronger than most people believe... take 37mm wide 14mm
pitch Gates Poly Chain... it is strong enough to handle a 502 HP 425
Ft lb Boss Hoss V8... in fact most of the Boss Hoss product line employs
belts because they are clean and out last chains...


gallery_3131_51_24711.jpg

gallery_3131_51_101719.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone.. doing some thinking and I'm considering just going with a 250cc to start out. That way I could also teach my boys to ride. Also thinking about the KLR650. Both are chains but I guess not the end of the world. Messed with chains on my regular bikes so do have some experience with them. I have till fall I think, prices are stupid right now. I didn't think they were bad until I seen new prices. I can buy a new one for not much more and get FI.
The KLR is a awesome bike and will serve you well. Perhaps I’m biased but I feel the “pain” of owning a chain driven bike is a bit overdone and I wouldn’t let it sway your choice.

Just my opinion.
 
The KLR is a awesome bike and will serve you well. Perhaps I’m biased but I feel the “pain” of owning a chain driven bike is a bit overdone and I wouldn’t let it sway your choice.

Just my opinion.
For most this is true, but a big part of it is what and how much you ride.

If you do 2,000 miles a year on a bike, you have 2-3 chain maintenance events in the year.
Not a big deal, especially if it is a new chain and sprocket. You will get several years out of the chain/sprockets.
For this type of rider, any of the drive types will work and while the chain requires the most maintenance, it is not something that should turn a rider off of getting a bike with it.

If you are doing 2,000 miles in a week, well, it is a lot more of a pain.

I rode over 3,500 miles in 7 days last month on my Goldwing. Do it 2-3 times a year.
Aside from adding gas when low and checking tire pressure/oil level in the morning, I did nothing but ride the bike.
Belt drive would have been the same.
Chain, I would be checking/adjusting/oiling it at least every other morning. Also would need to carry the supplies to do it with.
Plus having chain/sprocket last more than 1 10,000 mile season is not likely, so the cost and time of a chain/sprocket change again makes it a pain.

But you have the flip side of many ADV bikes that go on remote long distance trips, and are chain drive.
But that is a different type of riding than what most here are talking about.
For those, you can carry a spare chain (and even sprockets) for an on the road failure, and if it is a common enough bike, chains and sprockets are somewhat readily available, even in more remote areas.
If you have a shaft or belt failure on there, you are done.
 
No idea how many miles I'll ride. Having as many vehicles as we do our norm is 2-3k a year per vehicle, since I can't take the boys it'll probably be less on a motorcycle. I'm accustomed to oiling a chain at least every couple weeks and typically get little over 3k on a smaller bicycle chain. I should be able to handle the bigger chains without issue. A Goldwing would nice but I'm far from enough experience for one of those 😅
 
Thanks everyone.. doing some thinking and I'm considering just going with a 250cc to start out. That way I could also teach my boys to ride. Also thinking about the KLR650. Both are chains but I guess not the end of the world. Messed with chains on my regular bikes so do have some experience with them. I have till fall I think, prices are stupid right now. I didn't think they were bad until I seen new prices. I can buy a new one for not much more and get FI.
There sure is a lot of dislike here for chains.

I've owned two shaft bikes and many chain bikes. I don't have an issue with chains at all. It only takes a few minutes to service a chain with some spray lube. My opinion is that it's no big deal.

Enjoy the ride!
 
A new chain transfers 98% of available piston power to the rear wheel...

A new belt transfers 98% of available piston power to the rear wheel...

So a new a belt and new chain both subtract 2% of your engines power in order to drive the rear wheel...

Because a belt and chain are both equal when new total HP gain for a performance bike is 0.0...

For us non racers with mileage expectations its a different story... a belt is
98% efficient from mile 1 and still 98% efficient at 30,000+ miles whereas a
chain is 98% efficient from mile 1 but only 91 to 88% efficient at 10,000+
miles... a worn belt is still 98% efficient whereas a chain efficiency steadily
subtracts more HP as miles ridden...

100HP -2% = 98RWHP Worn Belt
100HP -10% = 90RWHP Worn Chain

This is what we don't see behind the X rings... metal to metal wear
every time we adjust the chain that eats into our engine's available
HP... a new pin measures 206.5 and wears down to 205.5 at the 8K mile
mark... looks good to the naked eye but multiply that 1 thousand of an
inch times 108 links and you have 108 thousands of an inch wear or
about the range of the green marks provided by Honda's wear gauge...
202.8 show the very visible wear at the 12K mile mark... the pins are
turning red from extreme heat of grinding dry metal... a chain in this
condition may consume up to 6 to 8% of our RWHP... not to mention it
may snap into and cause case damage...

Now you know why I say chains are a pain...
gallery_3131_51_50064.jpg

BLS, I've "known" you for a long time - back from STN (I'm FirstVTwin), and respect your engineering perspective. I understand chains, and how they wear. I also understand power transfer. What I don't make out is why almost all forms of racing use chains if belts are truly as efficient as you are claiming. Power transfer (NOT COST) is #1 in racing, with weight being a close second. If the chain system is heavier...why are they staying with chains? I know belts can transfer power...I work in industrial and off highway engineering, so I have seen belts that can transfer MUCH more power than a motorcycle engine...heck, I'm pretty sure the blower belt on a Top Fuel Drag car transfers more power. So...if the belt is capable, and lighter weight, why do race teams continue to reply on chain power transfer? It must be efficiency???
 
No idea how many miles I'll ride. Having as many vehicles as we do our norm is 2-3k a year per vehicle, since I can't take the boys it'll probably be less on a motorcycle. I'm accustomed to oiling a chain at least every couple weeks and typically get little over 3k on a smaller bicycle chain. I should be able to handle the bigger chains without issue. A Goldwing would nice but I'm far from enough experience for one of those 😅
Since you're a new rider, I'm not really sure why you are focusing on drive. There are a lot of more important things like safety, comfort and reliability to consider so drive type would be way down the list for me.

Chains are not for everyone but there is a reason that they are still around. They are efficient, inexpensive and they work.
 
There sure is a lot of dislike here for chains.
Yet there seems to be a BITOG bias against timing belts, and in favor of timing chains. Not much evidence in favor of either, just a thing to talk about on the interwebs.
 
If the chain system is heavier...why are they staying with chains?

I think they are staying with heaver chains because of EC... Engineers Choice... but some Engineers did choose to race and win employing the light weight belt advantage...

EddieLawsonGpBeltDrive250a.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top