I think chain is more suited to higher rpm applications such as sport bikes that go over 10,000 rpm. They are probably set at a higher tension than a belt could be set at to perform at high revs. Shaft i suppose is like bi-sexual, could go either way. LOL

 

chain has the highest power transfer but requires weekly maintenence like cleaning and lubing also frequent adjustments needed.

shaft drive offers almost no maintenence but there is some power transfer loss, maintence is changinge out the fluid at suggested intervals.

belt drive offers the same power transfer as a chain but with zero maintenence, it hardly ever has to be replaced and rarely needs adjustment.

 

Man, I hate to depend on rubber bands. Never had a belt driven bike and wouldn't buy one. I guess having owned a few cars with a belt timing chain has ruined my outlook on it. Either a chain or shaft drive for me or forget about it.

 

As a new rider, chain maintenance turns me off. So I wanted shaft or belt and ended up with shaft. I was a little skeptical of belts at first, but it seems many, many bikes come with them now and I don't see anyone complaining about problems with them.

 

I think I'm the only one I ever heard complaining about belts on cars too.

 

I think I'm the only one I ever heard complaining about belts on cars too.

Nope---timing belts suck!!!!!! Especially if its an interference engine, so you breaka belt you get to rebuild the head as well. Gotta love that.

 

I would much rather be riding than doing maintenance or having maintenance done on my bike... when i got my 1600, I really didn't have a preference, but the more I hear about belt noises and such on belt drives, I am glad I have shaft drive. Granted, I am sure that shaft drive has as many issues, but for me so far, it has been flawless. This also doesn't mean I wouldn't own a belt drive bike in the future...

Hey one2, out of the many cars that I have owned, the only timing mechanism that ever full out BROKE was a timing CHAIN on an LT1 V-8 engine... double roller. Actually seen that happen a handful of times at the track, about as many times as I saw timing belts break. Just an observation.

Nope---timing belts suck!!!!!! Especially if its an interference engine, so you breaka belt you get to rebuild the head as well. Gotta love that.

Well, interference engine or not, when it happens (chain or belt), you are going to break valves, rocker arms, at least bend pushrods, and probably destroy a piston or 2... especially if you are running a solid lifter camshaft...

 

I think belts are perfect. My buddy's chain broke TWICE! I will never get a chain bike... too much maintenance and they always break. The shaft drive takes away from power and has almost no torque for itself compared to chain. Belt is the healthy medium and has no maintenance at all, doesn't sacrifice torque. That is the BIGGEST problem they could have done with the mean streak... HEY I HAVE AN IDEA, LETS PUT A TORQUE SACRIFICING POWER WASTING SHAFT DRIVE ON A POWER CRUISER! Hahahaha! What stupid people. This is why I will never get a Meanie. I would go with a Vrod before I go with the Meanie. The Meanie is on of the weakest power cruisers on the market! Why? Well, partially because of that stupid shaft drive and other things :wink:

 

FL Vulcan Rider, you seem to know this for a fact, please let me know how much power is taken away from the shaft drive?

 

FL Vulcan Rider, you seem to know this for a fact, please let me know how much power is taken away from the shaft drive?

Its not that much power loss, but still, almost NO power bikes, dirt bikes, "TORQUE FEEDING BIKES" will never have shaft drive... think about it. It is a FACT that shaft sacrifices the most torque.

 

Nope---timing belts suck!!!!!! Especially if its an interference engine, so you breaka belt you get to rebuild the head as well. Gotta love that.

Have you ever heard of a car's timing belt breaking for someone who followed the manual's replacement schedule?

 

Its not that much power loss, but still, almost NO power bikes, dirt bikes, "TORQUE FEEDING BIKES" will never have shaft drive... think about it. It is a FACT that shaft sacrifices the most torque.

It is a "fact" I guess, but it really isn't all that much. The answer is that approx. 5% of the input torque is lost in belt drive... 7-10% is lost in shaft drive depending on how it was implemented. So, the difference is 2-5% difference. Okay, that is more torque lost, but hardly enough to describe a shaft driven bike as being "torque-less".

 

I think chain is more suited to higher rpm applications such as sport bikes that go over 10,000 rpm. They are probably set at a higher tension than a belt could be set at to perform at high revs. Shaft i suppose is like bi-sexual, could go either way. LOL

Chain rpm is dependent on speed, not rpm!!!! At the same speed, a sportbike's chain turns at same rpm as a cruiser's belt.

 

Have you ever heard of a car's timing belt breaking for someone who followed the manual's replacement schedule?

I was a mechanic for several years, and yes, I have. Manufacturer defects sometimes cause this to happen. It is very very very rare... but technically, I have seen it happen. I get your point though, and agree.

 

It is a "fact" I guess, but it really isn't all that much. The answer is that approx. 5% of the input torque is lost in belt drive... 7-10% is lost in shaft drive depending on how it was implemented. So, the difference is 2-5% difference. Okay, that is more torque lost, but hardly enough to describe a shaft driven bike as being "torque-less".

I never said how much torque it lost... I just know that shaft = torque sacrificer.... and anyone could agree with me, its kinda weird how they put a shaft drive on the Meanie... just doesn't make a whole lotta sense.. ya know?

It goes along with, why did they fuglify the back end of the 900 and go cheap to use the Meanie back fender... there's just some weird things companies do that have no meaning or benefit.

 

I love a belt. I don't like the looks of a shaft, it does sap power and on some bikes you can still feel the bike rise up when accelerating. A chain requires too much attention to properly maintain and it can be messy. I don't see a downside to the belt.

 

I was a mechanic for several years, and yes, I have. Manufacturer defects sometimes cause this to happen. It is very very very rare... but technically, I have seen it happen. I get your point though, and agree.

Yes... I've seen it happen too.. sh*t happens.

 

I never said how much torque it lost... I just know that shaft = torque sacrificer.... and anyone could agree with me, its kinda weird how they put a shaft drive on the Meanie... just doesn't make a whole lotta sense.. ya know?

The Triumph Rocket III is shaft drive... and probably the fastest most powerful cruiser available today. Reason why it is shaft drive? Well, I don't know for sure, but the "rumor" is that the shaft drive could handle more torque, was stronger. I am not sure if I buy that, but that is the rumor on the Rocket III forums...

 

As an old, shadetree mechanic, I was skeptical about timing belts. But, since then, all cager mfgers seem to have gone to one, long, "serpentine" belt that replaces the two, three, or even four belts that we used to have. My truck had 104,000 miles on that serpentine belt before a spark plug cracked and I had to take it in for maintenance, so I told them to replace the belt. The long, single belt seems to work just fine.

I know there is a huge difference between the external belt and the internal timing belt, but I don't see a lot of difference in the rate of repair of belt versus chain.

I expect to get 60,000 miles off my maintenance-free belt, which should be several years. And, for under $400, I'll replace it and be maintenance-free for several more years.

Harleys had changed to nearly all belt-drive a few years ago. Others seem to be following as well. The steel-reinforced belts are pretty reliable.

 

The Triumph Rocket III is shaft drive... and probably the fastest most powerful cruiser available today. Reason why it is shaft drive? Well, I don't know for sure, but the "rumor" is that the shaft drive could handle more torque, was stronger. I am not sure if I buy that, but that is the rumor on the Rocket III forums...

Nice to know.... very interesting.. never researched Triumphs before. I'm pretty much a very open-minded person. Just never heard of such thing. Thanks for the info. :smile: I know that the M109R and the Vrod are fast freakin machines... I think they would give the Rocket III a run for its money. I've seen the M109R do the 1/4 mile in 11.62 and the Triumph can do the 1/4 mile in 11.635. I just found out that the M109R is a shaft drive too.... but I also did read that the Meanie can't even beat a stock Fat Boy, kinda slow. But, yeah ur right Wicked... Thanks for the info.

 

Regardless of the relative power loss of a shaft, something that hasn't been mentioned is the noticeable "jacking" effect it can cause on some bikes. Personally, I think a belt is ideal. Efficient, lightweight and pretty much zero maintenance. I'd take a shaft any day over a chain though.

 

Nice to know.... very interesting.. never researched Triumphs before. I'm pretty much a very open-minded person. Just never heard of such thing. Thanks for the info. :smile: I know that the M109R and the Vrod are fast freakin machines... I think they would give the Rocket III a run for its money. I've seen the M109R do the 1/4 mile in 11.62 and the Triumph can do the 1/4 mile in 11.635.

M109R is also shaft drive!

Guy on the Rocket III must be sandbagging... there was a youtube video of one running 11.0's stock.. granted, lots play into it, launch especially, weather, altitude, etc. etc... Also, might not have been stock, just cause the guy said it was. Can't find the video anyhow, so maybe I just dreamed it.

I'm just feelin' a bit froggy today... a good friendly discussion / debate is fun... There has to be something though that 2 of the biggest, fastest factory cruisers seem to be shaft drive... Hmmm... that actually surprises me quite a bit... I wouldn't have thought that.

Anyhow, in my mind, shaft drive is for us lazy people that really don't want to do much maintenance and don't want to worry about dealing with belt noises and having them worked out. Granted, we gotta change fluid... but, feh... not so bad.

 

Maybe the shaft driven bike loses a little in transfer of power but I honestly can't tell any difference in performance with my belt drive 900. I owned a Volusia for 6 years before I got my Custom. The Volusia was ever bit as strong as the 900. I suppose, unless you're some kind of performance freak, it really doesn't matter one way or another. Just depends on preferance. I like both equally. The shaft makes for a more uncluttered look.

 

It appears to me that everyone likes what their bikes have and can come up with several reasons why they don't like what they don't have.
This topic has become nothing more than a rock-paper-scissors deal.

 

I think belts are perfect. My buddy's chain broke TWICE! I will never get a chain bike... too much maintenance and they always break. The shaft drive takes away from power and has almost no torque for itself compared to chain. Belt is the healthy medium and has no maintenance at all, doesn't sacrifice torque. That is the BIGGEST problem they could have done with the mean streak... HEY I HAVE AN IDEA, LETS PUT A TORQUE SACRIFICING POWER WASTING SHAFT DRIVE ON A POWER CRUISER! Hahahaha! What stupid people. This is why I will never get a Meanie. I would go with a Vrod before I go with the Meanie. The Meanie is on of the weakest power cruisers on the market! Why? Well, partially because of that stupid shaft drive and other things :wink:

I have a Torque Sacrificing Power Wasting Shaft Drive on my Power Cruiser bike.....wanna race???? Although Harley seems to have had great results from using a belt for all these MANY years. And look at the new belt drive bikes, read metric, that are copying them. First they had to emulate Harley's V-twin, now their belt drive...... go figure.