yeah, you're right, don't know why I didn't think of that. But, then again you don't see any il4 600's that only have peak torque that is compareable to our sv's using belts.
don't Buell's run belts? think I remember reading an article on the new Buell and think the rider doing the evalutation claimed he liked the belt drive claiming it was snappy in response
I don't know... I have never ridden a bike with a belt but the idea is appealing if it means less messing with compated to chains and longer life. I don't like having to remove swingarm though when its time to replace
bringing this post back up.... the conversion is rinning $600 just got an email from the guy. his email is tulemaker@digitalputty.com if anyone is interested
Not sure if this one one of them, but they make belt that can handle rocks and debris now. The Buell Ulysses has one. In testing the just sat there and fed metal rods into the belt to try to make it fail. It did so well the owners manual no longer calls for a belt replacement at 20k. It's now lifetime.
Not sure if this one one of them, but they make belt that can handle rocks and debris now. The Buell Ulysses has one. In testing the just sat there and fed metal rods into the belt to try to make it fail. It did so well the owners manual no longer calls for a belt replacement at 20k. It's now lifetime.
how is it less efficient?, its a cog belt, not any more likely to skip a beat than a chain, it's more efficient cause it takes less energy to turn it, shafts on the otherhand are heavy and lose the most power
Ulysses(all of them actually) has a super cool cover for off roading and general protection. I dont take my bike off road unless parking on gravel next to a road counts. I think a belt would be slick. Super smooth and quiet. I would probably still want a cover myself as well.
how is it less efficient?, its a cog belt, not any more likely to skip a beat than a chain, it's more efficient cause it takes less energy to turn it, shafts on the otherhand are heavy and lose the most power
I don't know for sure...just kinda theorizing, and asking.
shaft is definately less efficient than chain or belt.
I would think that the fact that the belt stretches more than a chain would cause it to be less efficient. Also, I would think that the fact that the sprockets or cogs or whatever are so much larger, would mean more energy lost as friction and waste heat...larger surface areas equals more friction.
I don't know for sure...just kinda theorizing, and asking.
shaft is definately less efficient than chain or belt.
I would think that the fact that the belt stretches more than a chain would cause it to be less efficient. Also, I would think that the fact that the sprockets or cogs or whatever are so much larger, would mean more energy lost as friction and waste heat...larger surface areas equals more friction.
I don't believe it's a fact that a belt would stretch any more than a chain. I think any slack in the belt would be taken up quicker than any slack in a chain .... I dunno about friction, tha't kinda apples to oranges comparison, belt & pully may be wider, but different materials, rubber against aluminum, not steel against steel/aluminum. my guess is that the weight/rotating mass is more important in power loss physics than friction losses
the newer buell belts have a tensioner that takes away ALL slack. immediate response from throttle to rear tire. no slap at all
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum
2.4M posts
76.1K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to Suzuki SV650 owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, racing, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!