Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner

belt driven SV650

107K views 685 replies 171 participants last post by  steveSLO 
#1 ·
See less See more
1
#9 ·
AvidSV650Rider said:
Torque is the more imporant factor to consider here.
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.
 
#10 ·
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
 
#12 ·
Ruefus said:
Buells run belts - but the drive on this SV is WIDE open for stuff to get jammed in there.

A Buell has covers galore - a key ingredient in longevity.

Not hard to execute - but some covers need to be added to make that truly reliable.
ohh I see... is an interesting idea if you could keep it covered I guess ;)
 
#19 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
Matoo said:
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.
doubt it, this is a custom made job by a guy on the SoCal SV board.
 
#21 ·
gahdzila said:
lighter...but a less efficient means of power transfer, I would think?

looks killer.  $600 sounds like a pretty decent price.  meh, not worth it to me.
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
 
#23 ·
RandyO said:
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.
 
#25 ·
gahdzila said:
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
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top