Shaft drive vs. belt drive vs. chain drive

ultracyclist · Apr 22, 2016

What factors determine how the engineers decide on a "drive" system?

When you stop and think about it there are examples of these drive systems from about 600cc all the way on up.

Inquiring minds want to know.
TIA,
H

dieselyoda · Apr 22, 2016

This is the way I see it and I am thinking of the differences used in industrial equipment as well:

Belt drive=quiet, absorbs vibrations, forgives misalignment a bit, easy to service.

chain drive=positive drive, no slippage, cheap to repair, rather noisy

driveshaft=expensive, very exacting fitment, quiet, long life, expensive to repair

pglaves · Apr 22, 2016

The choice is somewhat related to crankshaft orientation. Output shaft parallel to cranshaft makes sense. But to put a chain on a Boxer, for example, would require an additional right angle drive. So a shaft makes sense. But on an F bike or S1000 crankshaft orientation begs for a chain or belt.

36654 · Apr 23, 2016

PGlaves said:
The choice is somewhat related to crankshaft orientation. Output shaft parallel to cranshaft makes sense. But to put a chain on a Boxer, for example, would require an additional right angle drive. So a shaft makes sense. But on an F bike or S1000 crankshaft orientation begs for a chain or belt.

Your logic works on the stated examples, but suggests that a FWD car with a transverse engine would have a belt or chain drive.

greenwald · Apr 23, 2016

dieselyoda said:
This is the way I see it and I am thinking of the differences used in industrial equipment as well:

Belt drive=quiet, absorbs vibrations, forgives misalignment a bit, easy to service.

chain drive=positive drive, no slippage, cheap to repair, rather noisy

driveshaft=expensive, very exacting fitment, quiet, long life, expensive to repair

All good points.

To that I would only add that chain drives transfer max power from engine to rear wheel - it's why you see them on high-performance race bikes almost without exception.

Shafts degrade some of that energy due to weight; belts stretch more than chains and again, result in a loss of power critical to a racer.

pglaves · Apr 23, 2016

36654 said:
Your logic works on the stated examples, but suggests that a FWD car with a transverse engine would have a belt or chain drive.

True, except I was talking motorcycles. On a car, an extra gearset or two makes less difference than adding a non-shaft drive would.

royce · Apr 23, 2016

This all makes some sense, logically. But ... at the end of a long day, when it is raining, when the motel parking lot is wet and/or muddy, I never again plan to be down on my knees cleaning and lubing a chain. Did that about a dozen times too many on my last long tour on a chain-drive motorcycle.

I still much prefer a smaller bike to tour on, but until someone produces something small with a belt or shaft drive, I will continue to ride my current mount.

milo · Apr 23, 2016

greenwald said:
........belts stretch more than chains and again, result in a loss of power critical to a racer.

I'm not sure I agree that belts stretch more than chains? In fact I can't recall ever needing to take up slack on a drive belt on any of the Harleys I've owned. The only adjustment I ever made was to add just a bit of slack when brand new as they seem to come banjo string tight from the dealership.
For racing or dirt bike application chain is the way to go but for everything else belt drive seems hard to beat. A 900 pound Harley Davidson putting out over 100# of torque would not be the easiest on a final drive yet virtually every Harley uses belt, and the belt seldom if ever needs adjustment, is clean, never needs lubed, and routinely lasts over 100,000 miles. Heck you might go through 5 sets of sprockets and chains with lots of adjustments and countless cans of lube and cleaner over that period.

Omega Man · Apr 23, 2016

Chains and belts helped make the industrial revolution possible although the main power distribution was most likely from a shaft. I don't have a problem or a preference to any of the three as long as the application was designed properly.
OM

KenDittrick · Apr 23, 2016

I personally would like to try out a belt drive once mainly because of less wear parts such as BMW final drives and potentially less expensive long term maintenance as well as less low speed drive lash. I do know that I witnessed one special case that messed up four belt drive Harleys traveling together north on Hwy ID 13 between Grangeville and Kooskia on the way to Hwy 12 and Lolo.

The temperature was 35 C and there was a construction team slathering an extremely generous amount of tar to the road followed by crushed rock. The tar and rock was picked up on tires in great quantities and found its way onto everything. The flagman at the start of the construction zone warned us that bikes were having issues and it might be better to turn around and re-route. All four Harleys ingested tar and rocks into the drive belts and tore them off or just jammed/slipped and were hauled out on a flatbed. I know this is a very special case where a belt drive failed (had nothing to do with bike brand).

We continued on and my RT and my friends FJR had tar all over the final drives and the rear wheels had an inner ring or tar and rocks - so much so that we had to stop in Kooskia to blast what we could off the wheels at a car wash since the wheel balance was funky with the uneven spread. Every design has strengths and weaknesses depending upon application.

nakwakto00 · Apr 23, 2016

I have tried all three - chain, belt, and shaft. I recently had the opportunity to ride an F800GT as a service loaner. It had a belt. I took it on a long ride up and down hills and through some twisties. It did seem smooth running and quiet. My only complaint was that the ergonomics had me sitting too forward and my legs back. As a tall person (6'3") riding it was uncomfortable. But as far as drive train I had no complaints. I can say that I prefer a drive shaft for long distance touring because it's smooth and quiet.

Back in the day when I owned a Kawasaki 750 triple; that thing went through chains fast. It seemed like I was always adjusting and replacing. But then I rode it a bit wilder and harder than I ride now almost 40 years later. I suppose chain technology, like everything else, has evolved to where they last longer and stretch less.

pglaves · Apr 23, 2016

Right out front Voni has all three: R1100RS and K75 shaft, F800S belt, and Yamaha TW200 chain. I only have two types: K75s and R1150R shafts, and VStrom and Super Sherpa with chains.

EUGENE · Apr 23, 2016

royce said:
This all makes some sense, logically. But ... at the end of a long day, when it is raining, when the motel parking lot is wet and/or muddy, I never again plan to be down on my knees cleaning and lubing a chain. Did that about a dozen times too many on my last long tour on a chain-drive motorcycle.

I still much prefer a smaller bike to tour on, but until someone produces something small with a belt or shaft drive, I will continue to ride my current mount.

That is why we ride F800ST.

EUGENE · Apr 23, 2016

bogthebasher said:
I personally would like to try out a belt drive once mainly because of less wear parts such as BMW final drives and potentially less expensive long term maintenance as well as less low speed drive lash. I do know that I witnessed one special case that messed up four belt drive Harleys traveling together north on Hwy ID 13 between Grangeville and Kooskia on the way to Hwy 12 and Lolo.

The temperature was 35 C and there was a construction team slathering an extremely generous amount of tar to the road followed by crushed rock. The tar and rock was picked up on tires in great quantities and found its way onto everything. The flagman at the start of the construction zone warned us that bikes were having issues and it might be better to turn around and re-route. All four Harleys ingested tar and rocks into the drive belts and tore them off or just jammed/slipped and were hauled out on a flatbed. I know this is a very special case where a belt drive failed (had nothing to do with bike brand).

We continued on and my RT and my friends FJR had tar all over the final drives and the rear wheels had an inner ring or tar and rocks - so much so that we had to stop in Kooskia to blast what we could off the wheels at a car wash since the wheel balance was funky with the uneven spread. Every design has strengths and weaknesses depending upon application.

Rocks is the only downside of any belt drive bikes.

36654 · Apr 23, 2016

royce said:
I never again plan to be down on my knees cleaning and lubing a chain. Did that about a dozen times too many

before 1985.........and I ain't going back

greenwald · Apr 23, 2016

milo said:
I'm not sure I agree that belts stretch more than chains? In fact I can't recall ever needing to take up slack on a drive belt on any of the Harleys I've owned. The only adjustment I ever made was to add just a bit of slack when brand new as they seem to come banjo string tight from the dealership.
For racing or dirt bike application chain is the way to go but for everything else belt drive seems hard to beat. A 900 pound Harley Davidson putting out over 100# of torque would not be the easiest on a final drive yet virtually every Harley uses belt, and the belt seldom if ever needs adjustment, is clean, never needs lubed, and routinely lasts over 100,000 miles. Heck you might go through 5 sets of sprockets and chains with lots of adjustments and countless cans of lube and cleaner over that period.

I think belts are the way to go! Talked my son into a 2014 new Kawasaki Vulcan Voyager 1700 (belt drive). Quiet and dependable. I rode it for hundreds of miles when he and I shuttled it back to Fort Carson (CO) - nice big tourer.

Stretched belts I encountered were on the H-D Road Kings we 'abused' for 16 hours a day as Motor Officers.

markaz · Apr 23, 2016

36654 said:
Your logic works on the stated examples, but suggests that a FWD car with a transverse engine would have a belt or chain drive.

Actually, some do (or did). At least the primary drive...engine to transaxle. I believe the Olds Toronado did but there are also some much later ones too. I don't remember which...maybe the early Ford Taurus?

akbeemer · Apr 23, 2016

IKEA has joined the discussion. HERE

52184 · Apr 23, 2016

akbeemer said:
IKEA has joined the discussion. HERE

Interesting bike, but gears in hub means it's only two or three speeds. I wonder how tough it would be to do a derailleur system for belt? The biggest complication would be the toothed aspect of the belt, I'd think.

DG

MCMXCIVRS · Apr 24, 2016

36654 said:
Your logic works on the stated examples, but suggests that a FWD car with a transverse engine would have a belt or chain drive.

PGlaves said:
True, except I was talking motorcycles. On a car, an extra gearset or two makes less difference than adding a non-shaft drive would.

No need for chains or extra gears. Unless your thinking way back to the 70s vintage Oldsmobile and Cadillac FWD models. A transverse mounted engine has the crankshaft oriented in the same axis as the front driving axles. There are a few other examples that use longitudinal orientation, but by far the majority use transverse mounted engines.

Of course a motorcycle uses a chain or belt with a transverse engine due to the location of the engine in front of the rear driving wheel. In a FWD car, there is no need since the engine is located directly between the front wheels.

Shaft drive vs. belt drive vs. chain drive

New member

Active member

#13338

New member

New member

#13338

New member

Member

Fortis Fortuna Adiuvat

Rocky Bow BMW Riders #197

Adventurist

#13338

Active member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

SURVIVOR

GTRider

More toys than space

Similar threads