Why chain drive on the left in 'cycles?
- Thread starter berniedd
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by bulwnkl
Chains are light, strong, and lowest power loss. That's why race bikes use chains.
I understand that, actually more for "off road" where rocks may be an issue for belts.
But for street bikes to me, using chain seems more like a outdated cost cutting measure as it is a maintenance item that doesn't need to be. I only say this, as I dream of owning a second bike someday, most likely a Kawi or Yami sport tourer to compliment my Road King but no way would I be willing to give up the convenience of a belt.
Anyway, my original question was not meant to tick people off but was sincere if there was some other reason for using a chain on a street bike other then the lower cost..
Chains are light, strong, and lowest power loss. That's why race bikes use chains.
I understand that, actually more for "off road" where rocks may be an issue for belts.
But for street bikes to me, using chain seems more like a outdated cost cutting measure as it is a maintenance item that doesn't need to be. I only say this, as I dream of owning a second bike someday, most likely a Kawi or Yami sport tourer to compliment my Road King but no way would I be willing to give up the convenience of a belt.
Anyway, my original question was not meant to tick people off but was sincere if there was some other reason for using a chain on a street bike other then the lower cost..
Last edited:
It's a fair question, and the various drive configurations all have their place. Zee0Six and bulwnkl both make good points, shaft drives are heavy, relatively complex, and the torque reaction can be a real problem on some bikes in some circumstances. Anyone who has ever tried to back out of a tough spot on a Yamaha V-Max will readily attest to this.
I considered my KTM a street bike most of the time, and I also consider my Shovelhead a street bike most of the time. Sometimes they aren't.
From an engineering perspective or a rider perspective it just completely depends upon what you want the bike to do. If you need a lot of suspension travel, light weight, if the bike is being used in truly high-performance applications, if inertial mass is a concern, if environmental conditions can get rough like riding down a gravel fire road, or if ease of low-cost rapid maintenance is a priority, the chain still wins every time.
If smooth and quiet is the priority and light weight is a factor and debris (rocks dirt and and sticks) are not a factor and you have the money or skill for the maintenance, belt drive can be quite attractive. Changing a damaged belt can be inconvenient and expensive.
If mechanical complexity, inertial mass, and torque reaction are not a concern, and low-maintenance over the shorter intervals is a priority, and you have the budget for the longer-term maintenance when the time comes -- which it will eventually -- then shaft drives make sense too. They are clean, quiet, and low-maintenance until they aren't, and then they can be surprisingly expensive to maintain or repair.
All a matter of personal preference and purpose, which is why there are different designs.
I considered my KTM a street bike most of the time, and I also consider my Shovelhead a street bike most of the time. Sometimes they aren't.
From an engineering perspective or a rider perspective it just completely depends upon what you want the bike to do. If you need a lot of suspension travel, light weight, if the bike is being used in truly high-performance applications, if inertial mass is a concern, if environmental conditions can get rough like riding down a gravel fire road, or if ease of low-cost rapid maintenance is a priority, the chain still wins every time.
If smooth and quiet is the priority and light weight is a factor and debris (rocks dirt and and sticks) are not a factor and you have the money or skill for the maintenance, belt drive can be quite attractive. Changing a damaged belt can be inconvenient and expensive.
If mechanical complexity, inertial mass, and torque reaction are not a concern, and low-maintenance over the shorter intervals is a priority, and you have the budget for the longer-term maintenance when the time comes -- which it will eventually -- then shaft drives make sense too. They are clean, quiet, and low-maintenance until they aren't, and then they can be surprisingly expensive to maintain or repair.
All a matter of personal preference and purpose, which is why there are different designs.
Yes, agreed, and I should have acknowledged that. I was thinking of my '91 FLHT, the one where you have to pull the inner primary and the swingarm bolt, indeed all-day swearfest making up new words if the S/A bolt is galled and the cleveblocks are seized.
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Some belts are quite easy to change...offhand, it's a half hour job on a Sportster. Others are brutal...a Twin Cam Harley is an all-day swearfest.
Yes, yet with a belt, only something that MAY need to be replace once in a lifetime, if ever for most riders as they are designed to last 100,000 miles, the average rider doesnt come close to that mileage before losing interest in a bike or it rotting away in a garage, not to say a belt can not fail before that, but that goes for any drive component including the transmission and engine ...
A chain, from what I understand, needs to be checked constantly and will need to be replaced much more frequently then a belt, again, only talking street use.
No big deal, just talking here and my personal reason for only wanting a belt. Zero maintenance and will always last as long as I own any particular bike.. or 10/15 years whatever comes first ...
) Most times its 3 to 5 *L*
Some belts are quite easy to change...offhand, it's a half hour job on a Sportster. Others are brutal...a Twin Cam Harley is an all-day swearfest.
Yes, yet with a belt, only something that MAY need to be replace once in a lifetime, if ever for most riders as they are designed to last 100,000 miles, the average rider doesnt come close to that mileage before losing interest in a bike or it rotting away in a garage, not to say a belt can not fail before that, but that goes for any drive component including the transmission and engine ...
A chain, from what I understand, needs to be checked constantly and will need to be replaced much more frequently then a belt, again, only talking street use.
No big deal, just talking here and my personal reason for only wanting a belt. Zero maintenance and will always last as long as I own any particular bike.. or 10/15 years whatever comes first ...
) Most times its 3 to 5 *L*Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
I recall it's 35,000 miles on most Harleys.
I do like shaft drive...change the oil in it occasionally and it will never wear out. (115,000+ on my wife's PC800.)
No its not 35,000 miles maybe sometime in past decades ago it was, that I would not know, you can count on 100,000 unless of course it gets damaged, the vast majority of owners never ever do any kind of maintenance with a belt drive for the entire time they own the bike.
But yes for me personally, if I knew I was going to keep a bike past the or up to the 100,000 mile mark, just for the heck of it, at that time during a tire replacement or some work, I would have it replaced at 75k plus miles knowing, again, that I would be keeping the bike I would want to use a new belt while I still had the bike.
Anyway, signing out of this discussion, did not mean to hijack the OP thread, seems like to me, my thinking was right, for street bike use, you cant beat the light weight, zero maintenance convenience of a well made drive belt. I understand for some, there is a passion for chains and they do not mind the maintenance and even find it rewarding or that is the only option for the bike they want.
I recall it's 35,000 miles on most Harleys.
I do like shaft drive...change the oil in it occasionally and it will never wear out. (115,000+ on my wife's PC800.)
No its not 35,000 miles maybe sometime in past decades ago it was, that I would not know, you can count on 100,000 unless of course it gets damaged, the vast majority of owners never ever do any kind of maintenance with a belt drive for the entire time they own the bike.
But yes for me personally, if I knew I was going to keep a bike past the or up to the 100,000 mile mark, just for the heck of it, at that time during a tire replacement or some work, I would have it replaced at 75k plus miles knowing, again, that I would be keeping the bike I would want to use a new belt while I still had the bike.
Anyway, signing out of this discussion, did not mean to hijack the OP thread, seems like to me, my thinking was right, for street bike use, you cant beat the light weight, zero maintenance convenience of a well made drive belt. I understand for some, there is a passion for chains and they do not mind the maintenance and even find it rewarding or that is the only option for the bike they want.
Belts are quiet and clean, but should be checked regularly for damage. Tension on the belt needs to be kept within a narrow range, so lots of suspension travel isn't possible. Changing gearing involves replacing heavy pulleys, which there may not be room for. For high-powered applications, the belt has to be much wider than a comparable strength chain, so packaging becomes a problem, which with a relatively wide tire on a sportbike for example, would affect lean angle.
A chain on the other hand is strong for it's width, allows for easy and inexpensive gearing changes, is more tolerant of varying slack, transfers power most efficiently, and is relatively cheap and easy to replace if/when necessary. But it should be maintained. A quality chain won't require much maintenance. I'm running a DID 530ZVM-X on my heaviest and most powerful bike: about 500 lbs, and 285 rwhp, 160 lb-ft as measured on a dyno. I keep the slack on the loose end of the tolerance, and haven't needed to adjust it in a long time. Some lube every couple hundred miles, and an occasional cleaning keep the chain and sprockets happy.
Shafts are heavy, least efficient, can affect the chassis on and off the throttle, are generally low maintenance, unless they are one of those lubed-for-short-life BMW's which failed too often, changing gearing is so involved that almost no one does it, repairs can be pricey.
So, they all have their advantages and disadvantages.
A chain on the other hand is strong for it's width, allows for easy and inexpensive gearing changes, is more tolerant of varying slack, transfers power most efficiently, and is relatively cheap and easy to replace if/when necessary. But it should be maintained. A quality chain won't require much maintenance. I'm running a DID 530ZVM-X on my heaviest and most powerful bike: about 500 lbs, and 285 rwhp, 160 lb-ft as measured on a dyno. I keep the slack on the loose end of the tolerance, and haven't needed to adjust it in a long time. Some lube every couple hundred miles, and an occasional cleaning keep the chain and sprockets happy.
Shafts are heavy, least efficient, can affect the chassis on and off the throttle, are generally low maintenance, unless they are one of those lubed-for-short-life BMW's which failed too often, changing gearing is so involved that almost no one does it, repairs can be pricey.
So, they all have their advantages and disadvantages.
A chain will last a long time when properly cleaned, lubed, and adjusted periodically. As with most things, it is a matter of proper maintenance. To the OP question, my Bonneville has left side shift and right side chain.
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
How many chains will go 50,000 miles?
I know of a guy that put over 60k on his factory installed chain and sprockets, on his '99 Hayabusa. But they were past due for replacement by the time he finally acknowledged that fact. The factory chains are ok, but not as durable as an EK 530ZZZ, or even more so the DID 530ZVM-X in that application.
How many chains will go 50,000 miles?
I know of a guy that put over 60k on his factory installed chain and sprockets, on his '99 Hayabusa. But they were past due for replacement by the time he finally acknowledged that fact. The factory chains are ok, but not as durable as an EK 530ZZZ, or even more so the DID 530ZVM-X in that application.
Chains wear out faster than belts, but they're _much_ faster, easier, and cheaper to change along with a set of sprockets than a belt with its pulleys. Belts are nice and quiet, which is definitely a plus, but they put a good bit of un-sprung mass on the rear wheel by virtue of the large pulley. Plus, as previously mentioned, gearing adjustments are expensive and extremely limited. I know of no belt drive that routinely and normally lasts 100,000 miles. A few may, as a few chains last 25 to even 35k, but those are all radical outliers IME. 50k is about the top end for everything I know of. Many (most?) people say 20 - 40k.
I'd prefer a shaft-drive bike on the road. BMW and Moto Guzzi (at least) seem to have addressed torque effects well.
On the track, a chain; no question.
Although a belt _seems_ simple, quiet, and durable, I'm not seeing a lot of compelling reason to prefer that system, personally, once I look at total cost, weight, etc. I do seem to keep bikes long enough to wear belts out. For those who don't, I can see how they'd be more attractive.
I'd prefer a shaft-drive bike on the road. BMW and Moto Guzzi (at least) seem to have addressed torque effects well.
On the track, a chain; no question.
Although a belt _seems_ simple, quiet, and durable, I'm not seeing a lot of compelling reason to prefer that system, personally, once I look at total cost, weight, etc. I do seem to keep bikes long enough to wear belts out. For those who don't, I can see how they'd be more attractive.
Last edited:
My 2009 Superglide just rolled over 39,000 miles on the original belt. Years ago at Daytona, Harley had an Electraglide on display hanging from a crane by a drive belt. I've owned shaft, chain and belt drive bikes. I'll take a belt drive any day.
The word I have always been told is that it is a width issue for sport bikes. There is a desire to keep them as narrow as possible.
For off-road, chain is king for the same reason, and durability.
For off-road, chain is king for the same reason, and durability.
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
The word I have always been told is that it is a width issue for sport bikes. There is a desire to keep them as narrow as possible.
For off-road, chain is king for the same reason, and durability.
And that very well could be. Triumph probably keeps using chain because of their motivation to have their modern bikes in a classic 60's/70's style. The primary reason I like my 2017 Bonny. And that classic style makes them so much easier to maintain and modify than many of the other modern bikes.
The word I have always been told is that it is a width issue for sport bikes. There is a desire to keep them as narrow as possible.
For off-road, chain is king for the same reason, and durability.
And that very well could be. Triumph probably keeps using chain because of their motivation to have their modern bikes in a classic 60's/70's style. The primary reason I like my 2017 Bonny. And that classic style makes them so much easier to maintain and modify than many of the other modern bikes.
Originally Posted by Jimkobb
Why chain drive on the left in `cycles?
Because that`s just not "right".
LOL!
Why chain drive on the left in `cycles?
Because that`s just not "right".
LOL!
- Status
Similar threads
