BELT DRIVE DISCUSSION: PROS & CONS, COST/BENEFITS ... CHIME IN HERE.
- Thread starter mountainhorse
- Start date
Who feels stupid now?? Me.
Thanks for the pix...
Thanks for the pix...
SnowMow
So...Does that tensioner actually work?
Dang... thats a long chaincase...Whats the Center to center on the Drive/Jack shafts?
Why are there these mass Arctic Cat chain failures happening you are talking about?
So...Does that tensioner actually work?
Dang... thats a long chaincase...Whats the Center to center on the Drive/Jack shafts?
Why are there these mass Arctic Cat chain failures happening you are talking about?
Last edited:
I've heard the blame being of tensioner failures on the 4 strokes, but have also heard about a lot of "said" causes for the chain failures. I just know a year or 2 ago there were a lot of guys posting with chain and sprocket issues on their proclimbs on this web site.
I remember reading on here that guys were experiencing what they thought was the track ratcheting and not long after feeling/hearing that noise they broke a chain. Which leads me to believe it was a chain tension issue... I've seen many pics of the drive sprockets missing teeth when they open up the case to inspect it. Not all had broken a chain when they noticed the missing gear teeth though.
Old chain case failures were do to just not strong enough components.
Recent chain case failures in our group come from a combination of all three...
I would feel pretty good about having a belt drive system vs a chain system over long hard use, or buying used, because the inevitable failure will be confined to a $200 part. And frankly I'd rather spend $200 a trip rather than one trip that costs me a whole weekend and the hassle and costs of a chain case failure.
Now with the way I ride a chain may be more reasonable because I likely won't own it long enough to wear it out.. Heck everything else on my sleds is well used up after a season or maybe two anyway. I typically trade in every year. Sometimes two seasons at the most. I will say before belt drives I was breaking a lot more drive shafts and haven't broken one since.. I believe because the belt is the sacrificial breaking point in the drive train.
I'll find out this year and next spring I'll have to decide to what to snow check for 2017. If I do have one drive shaft failure I'll go back to belt next year... or if I feel like I'm losing noticeable performance...
The impact/collision damage argument is hard for me to swallow because frankly there isn't a part on a snowmobile that will hold up to a well place rock or stump IMHO.
Sounds like you are the wrecking crew!!
What kind of riding are you doing that you are breaking a lot of driveshafts?
From my view, 99% of of sled owners haven't broken one (outside of the first year of the aluminum driveshafts on the QuickDrive™ sleds).
For that... I'm not sure that anything will hold up!
If you had a belt-drive, would you carry a new $200 belt? (or a $100 belt for a $700 add on?)
Last I checked, a chain was in the neighborhood of $70... oil about $3.00 per change for the good stuff.
If you are that hard on your equipment... and fail driveline parts regularly, why not invest in preventative maintenence... chain adjustment/replacement takes about 1/2 hour...maybe once or twice in your abusive season
.
What kind of riding are you doing that you are breaking a lot of driveshafts?
From my view, 99% of of sled owners haven't broken one (outside of the first year of the aluminum driveshafts on the QuickDrive™ sleds).
For that... I'm not sure that anything will hold up!
If you had a belt-drive, would you carry a new $200 belt? (or a $100 belt for a $700 add on?)
Last I checked, a chain was in the neighborhood of $70... oil about $3.00 per change for the good stuff.
If you are that hard on your equipment... and fail driveline parts regularly, why not invest in preventative maintenence... chain adjustment/replacement takes about 1/2 hour...maybe once or twice in your abusive season
.
Last edited:
Some numbers have been looked up and some high efficiency numbers have been uncovered for both styles. I think you need to look at the tests way closer to see how they are run and at what speeds and power inputs. You probably won't find 2.5" diameter pulleys running at 8000rpm at 150HP. You will probably find larger diameter pulleys or sprockets turning at a rather mundane rpm with small power numbers.
So, efficiency in transferring torque from the jackshaft to the driveshaft might be moot. I'm not discounting Mark's video he does in his shop as he does an A-B test and shows results. Everyone that uses an 18 tooth top sprocket has seen it get whittled away by Mr. HYVO and knows how hot the oil gets. Both systems make a few KW of heat but I don't see a significant difference from a power in-power out standpoint.
But, you can't argue that the chain doesn't have significant mass. And it's moving at a high speed. So it's got energy stored up in it and it takes power to accelerate it and decelerate it. Is it a wheel or a linear motion device? We won't solve that here but just assume it has a diameter and a mass. Now we can calculate an effective mass from vehicle performance math stuff and find out the chain has an effective mass greater than its static mass. A belt is much lighter and its effective mass is less than a chain. Do the same for sprockets and see if there is any difference there.
So now there is an effective mass difference and a static mass difference in favor of the belt drive. That's a big deal with mountain guys, right?
With it comes less durability, whether perceived or real, and mountain sledders have a penchant for lighter weight and sometimes higher risk for breakdown, whether they acknowledge it or not. Are belt drives for the 95th percentile rider? You decide. Do they work for the majority of riders? I bet they do, no matter how many times the same two or three posters complain in every available internet forum.
My old 2014 Pro has a belt drive and I carry a spare belt. I'm not worried about it for the riding I do. I bend more rail beams and a-arms than hurt drivetrains or engines so I know where I need to spend my money.
Oh, if you can find a track that improves power throughput by 15%, let me know as that would be a really big deal...
YMMV.
So, efficiency in transferring torque from the jackshaft to the driveshaft might be moot. I'm not discounting Mark's video he does in his shop as he does an A-B test and shows results. Everyone that uses an 18 tooth top sprocket has seen it get whittled away by Mr. HYVO and knows how hot the oil gets. Both systems make a few KW of heat but I don't see a significant difference from a power in-power out standpoint.
But, you can't argue that the chain doesn't have significant mass. And it's moving at a high speed. So it's got energy stored up in it and it takes power to accelerate it and decelerate it. Is it a wheel or a linear motion device? We won't solve that here but just assume it has a diameter and a mass. Now we can calculate an effective mass from vehicle performance math stuff and find out the chain has an effective mass greater than its static mass. A belt is much lighter and its effective mass is less than a chain. Do the same for sprockets and see if there is any difference there.
So now there is an effective mass difference and a static mass difference in favor of the belt drive. That's a big deal with mountain guys, right?
With it comes less durability, whether perceived or real, and mountain sledders have a penchant for lighter weight and sometimes higher risk for breakdown, whether they acknowledge it or not. Are belt drives for the 95th percentile rider? You decide. Do they work for the majority of riders? I bet they do, no matter how many times the same two or three posters complain in every available internet forum.
My old 2014 Pro has a belt drive and I carry a spare belt. I'm not worried about it for the riding I do. I bend more rail beams and a-arms than hurt drivetrains or engines so I know where I need to spend my money.
Oh, if you can find a track that improves power throughput by 15%, let me know as that would be a really big deal...
YMMV.
Last edited:
I see where you are coming from...but, IMO, a chaincase will take a much bigger hit and still get you out of the back country compared to the same hit, same location, on the sled, than a belt-drive equipped one.
If you add some serious protection to the sled in terms of support or skid plates... then I think that the belt drives will stand more of a chance.... but then again, that adds weight... which I would imagine, you are not as concerned with as some on here.
SNOWBIKES: CHAIN-DRIVE COMPARED TO BELT-DRIVE
So far, this conversation has focused mostly on sleds.
I'd like to add to this discussion on belt-drives on Snowbikes.
Just this year... we have added two players in the snowbike world that use a belt-drive on their bikes.
Since they are new... we don't have any data one way or the other, in the consumers hands, with these bikes in terms of durability or on snow performance.
Good Topics to discuss regardless.
How does a chaindrive bike compare with a belt drive bike?
What, if any, efficiency differences are there between the two systems?
ALL the current offerings have a chain drive in them.... the primary drive on all snowbike kits offered is a chain.
The secondary drive is where the difference is... one has a chain secondary...the other has a belt secondary.
Is the chain drive more efficient than the belt or the belt more than the Chain?
What is the evidence to support this, and is that evidence correlated to the requirements of a snowbike?
Is an efficiency difference, if it exists, notable or minor?
Will the extra width of a SnowBike belt drive affect the performance? If so, to what degree.
On a snowbike, is the chaindrive lighter than the belt drive components or is the belt drive lighter than the chaindrive?
With that known, will that weight diff make a difference in the performance of the bike?
How often do chains break on a snowbike? (actually broken and not able to move the bike)
Is a belt easier to change on a snowbike compared to a chain?
In the many photos I've seen of year old snowbike kits... there are a lot of hits to the chaincases and front tunnel side areas.
Will a belt-drive equipped bike hold up to this "normal abuse" these bike go through on a day to day?
In the case of impacts, or failures, as pointed out above for sleds ... what would the comparative cost and effort of repairs be?
To what degree can impacts "telegraph through" to surrounding components with the different designs?
Is one design less vulnerable to failure from impact than the other?
.
So far, this conversation has focused mostly on sleds.
I'd like to add to this discussion on belt-drives on Snowbikes.
Just this year... we have added two players in the snowbike world that use a belt-drive on their bikes.
Since they are new... we don't have any data one way or the other, in the consumers hands, with these bikes in terms of durability or on snow performance.
Good Topics to discuss regardless.
How does a chaindrive bike compare with a belt drive bike?
What, if any, efficiency differences are there between the two systems?
ALL the current offerings have a chain drive in them.... the primary drive on all snowbike kits offered is a chain.
The secondary drive is where the difference is... one has a chain secondary...the other has a belt secondary.
Is the chain drive more efficient than the belt or the belt more than the Chain?
What is the evidence to support this, and is that evidence correlated to the requirements of a snowbike?
Is an efficiency difference, if it exists, notable or minor?
Will the extra width of a SnowBike belt drive affect the performance? If so, to what degree.
On a snowbike, is the chaindrive lighter than the belt drive components or is the belt drive lighter than the chaindrive?
With that known, will that weight diff make a difference in the performance of the bike?
How often do chains break on a snowbike? (actually broken and not able to move the bike)
Is a belt easier to change on a snowbike compared to a chain?
In the many photos I've seen of year old snowbike kits... there are a lot of hits to the chaincases and front tunnel side areas.
Will a belt-drive equipped bike hold up to this "normal abuse" these bike go through on a day to day?
In the case of impacts, or failures, as pointed out above for sleds ... what would the comparative cost and effort of repairs be?
To what degree can impacts "telegraph through" to surrounding components with the different designs?
Is one design less vulnerable to failure from impact than the other?
.
So 8 months of year I manage, ride, and wrench at iRide, a bicycle shop in Stowe, VT. We specialize in mid to high end mountain bikes--retail $2,000 - $10,000+. The other 4 months I chase storms out west.
99% of the bikes have chain drives, which are one of the most efficient means of transferring power between two points that exists.
My experience with rotating weight is on a scale where grams make a noticeable difference in how a bike feels and rides. People spend hundreds to thousands of dollars to shed fractions of a pound. Taking a water bottle's worth of weight off a bike (a pint of water is about a pound) is nice, but nothing to talk about. Taking a pound off your wheels....it feels like you put a turbo on your bike. Anything that spins is exponentially more
With my car, anytime I drop rotating weight, it's a noticeable improvement without adding power. One of the first aftermarket parts on my WRX was an aluminum flywheel. The difference in throttle response was HUGE.
Sleds are in between power wise. I don't see any negatives in reducing rotating weight if you're not sacrificing durability and the TKI setup seems to handle any amount of power that a sled can generate. And on a sled, anything that you can record on a scale is awesome right?
Chains wear more and need to be adjusted more frequently than a timing belt style style belt that is used on sleds. Unless you have a nifty auto tensioner thingy. The need (infrequent) oil changes as well. The less time I spend wrenching, the more time I'm riding. I like that.
So TKI for reduced rotating mass, maintenance, and the ability to fix it if stuff goes wrong a long ways from the truck.
I only once broke a chain a long time ago on a mod drop and roll welded case.
That could have been a alignment issue or the 6000 miles the sled had on.
After that I rode Yamaha's there chains and gears were super high quality and simply never gave an ounce of trouble even with years of use on 250 to 300+ hp turbo and supercharged sleds. Cat had chain issues and changed suppliers,the race sleds always did use the stronger chains now used in the whole lineup.
Doo Chains and gears scare me as they look worn out after a 1000 miles.
The gears have visible wear-marks and the case is full of filings on all of them.
Simply a lower grade quality wise.yet failures are still rare.
The yamaha gears and chains look like new after 8000 miles in comparison.
With having a summit in my barn this made me look at the belt drives , but there is not enough reasonable explanation why I should spend a grand -- don't forget the spare belt for something that may just be as good as what I take of.
That could have been a alignment issue or the 6000 miles the sled had on.
After that I rode Yamaha's there chains and gears were super high quality and simply never gave an ounce of trouble even with years of use on 250 to 300+ hp turbo and supercharged sleds. Cat had chain issues and changed suppliers,the race sleds always did use the stronger chains now used in the whole lineup.
Doo Chains and gears scare me as they look worn out after a 1000 miles.
The gears have visible wear-marks and the case is full of filings on all of them.
Simply a lower grade quality wise.yet failures are still rare.
The yamaha gears and chains look like new after 8000 miles in comparison.
With having a summit in my barn this made me look at the belt drives , but there is not enough reasonable explanation why I should spend a grand -- don't forget the spare belt for something that may just be as good as what I take of.
M
minet
Well-known member
do you have objective data ?
feel , and noticeable ,, are there any quantifiable values you can associate with those terms ?
If your going by hunch , I would suspect yes rotating mass in the motor and primary would allow the motor to spin up faster .. BUT only until the belt is engaged.
once the entire drivetrain is loaded from the motor to the snow . then it wouldn't matter..
the amount of resistance from the track spinning would be 100 times your reduced mass weight . so what was a small value of a idle speed motor load to a VERY VERY small value of a engaged load.
you sell and buy these lightweight drivetrain components ,so you drank the koolaid
lol
when I was developing products , we would test them for consumer liking.
if the test variable would pass parody plus 10 points meaning 50 50 plus 10 points , then the juice might be worth the squeeze
to the loaded resistance argument:
nxt post
feel , and noticeable ,, are there any quantifiable values you can associate with those terms ?
If your going by hunch , I would suspect yes rotating mass in the motor and primary would allow the motor to spin up faster .. BUT only until the belt is engaged.
once the entire drivetrain is loaded from the motor to the snow . then it wouldn't matter..
the amount of resistance from the track spinning would be 100 times your reduced mass weight . so what was a small value of a idle speed motor load to a VERY VERY small value of a engaged load.
you sell and buy these lightweight drivetrain components ,so you drank the koolaid
lol when I was developing products , we would test them for consumer liking.
if the test variable would pass parody plus 10 points meaning 50 50 plus 10 points , then the juice might be worth the squeeze
to the loaded resistance argument:
nxt post
G
geo
Well-known member
Any drive train will fail if the components are sub par, misaligned or just wobbly because of QC or OEM spec.
We should throw in the gear drives (also referenced as "more efficient"), ie Diamond Drive, to keep this "subjective" discussion of personal experiences going all winter.
MH, you have shown you are not a belt drive fan from your personal sled picks. It's good to have options today at reasonable aftermarket prices (compared to the past) or even OEM. You have the option to pick which ever you feel most comfortable with.
The "subjective" personal experiences of failures really prove nothing. I've broken zero belts, zero gear boxes and 3 chains (not from lack of maintenance) in my time. Does that say the belt drive or gear box is stronger? No, IMO that means I have way more time with chain cases in a more aggressive period in my life and,,,, s##t happens.
You can break or not break a chain, belt or gearbox from a rock hit because s**t happens. Really luck of the draw in reality.
IMO only CMX and their " by the book" design may show a measurable gain in efficiency at the driveshaft by using a belt. As pointed out 50 lbs on track spinning is a hard thing to ignore or eliminate or overcome.
For me, the biggest most important thing (because any well maintained drive system will get you in and out except for "s**t happens") from my belt drive is,,,.
I always wanted to try a belt drive since I saw the first CMX. I got one now. It runs good and true. It looks cool.
We should throw in the gear drives (also referenced as "more efficient"), ie Diamond Drive, to keep this "subjective" discussion of personal experiences going all winter.
MH, you have shown you are not a belt drive fan from your personal sled picks. It's good to have options today at reasonable aftermarket prices (compared to the past) or even OEM. You have the option to pick which ever you feel most comfortable with.
The "subjective" personal experiences of failures really prove nothing. I've broken zero belts, zero gear boxes and 3 chains (not from lack of maintenance) in my time. Does that say the belt drive or gear box is stronger? No, IMO that means I have way more time with chain cases in a more aggressive period in my life and,,,, s##t happens.
You can break or not break a chain, belt or gearbox from a rock hit because s**t happens. Really luck of the draw in reality.
IMO only CMX and their " by the book" design may show a measurable gain in efficiency at the driveshaft by using a belt. As pointed out 50 lbs on track spinning is a hard thing to ignore or eliminate or overcome.
For me, the biggest most important thing (because any well maintained drive system will get you in and out except for "s**t happens") from my belt drive is,,,.
I always wanted to try a belt drive since I saw the first CMX. I got one now. It runs good and true. It looks cool.
I always wanted to try a belt drive since I saw the first CMX. I got one now. It runs good and true. It looks cool.[/QUOTE]
Now I realy like this Quote -- this is the only way to approach having a Toy or Toys for your Toy--never try to justify anything--it is a toy simpley made for your Enjoyment , therefore it does not matter a bit if any of this makes sense or not, as long as you have fun and get something out of either building or riding it you have succeeded.
Sometimes we forget this is all about having fun.
Now I realy like this Quote -- this is the only way to approach having a Toy or Toys for your Toy--never try to justify anything--it is a toy simpley made for your Enjoyment , therefore it does not matter a bit if any of this makes sense or not, as long as you have fun and get something out of either building or riding it you have succeeded.
Sometimes we forget this is all about having fun.
Now I realy like this Quote -- this is the only way to approach having a Toy or Toys for your Toy--never try to justify anything--it is a toy simpley made for your Enjoyment , therefore it does not matter a bit if any of this makes sense or not, as long as you have fun and get something out of either building or riding it you have succeeded.
Sometimes we forget this is all about having fun.[/QUOTE]
I have fun arguing about sled parts on forums!!
I'd run a belt drive if that's what my new machine came with but wouldn't walk around the corner to get one, personally.
Like many I've only seen a couple chain failures and both were due for a problem due to lack of maint or just plain old clapped out machine.
But then again I've got a combined about 5k miles on an 05 and 08 diamond drives with no issues except 1 seal on the 05. Put almost 2k miles on my mod 08m1000 and never opened the case. Just regular oil changes. It did get stuck in neutral once but fixed itself.
Maybe I just ride like a puss. But I've managed to break all kinds of other Shiite. The 05 M7 has a bunch of miles towing a snow coach in the mtns too.
That said a belt looks cleaner and pretty trick.
Like many I've only seen a couple chain failures and both were due for a problem due to lack of maint or just plain old clapped out machine.
But then again I've got a combined about 5k miles on an 05 and 08 diamond drives with no issues except 1 seal on the 05. Put almost 2k miles on my mod 08m1000 and never opened the case. Just regular oil changes. It did get stuck in neutral once but fixed itself.
Maybe I just ride like a puss. But I've managed to break all kinds of other Shiite. The 05 M7 has a bunch of miles towing a snow coach in the mtns too.
That said a belt looks cleaner and pretty trick.
belt drive efficiency tested
Here's a video from CMX showing the efficiency of a belt drive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=136&v=SNyq2spHkS0
Here's a video from CMX showing the efficiency of a belt drive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=136&v=SNyq2spHkS0
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked