To Chain or not?

[thumper 823]

Because -
HD people are slower to change than the business itself!
The latest rage is going back to a rear chain!
OMG !
   For a century we suffered from the maintenance and the curse of the oil slinging thing!
How will they accept a better what ever?  LOL
 
 

[kd]

So you think "going back" to chain is a rage or a step back in time?  It's upgrading to chain when you need to.  Run an engine with 150 square or more in a 950 pound touting bike hard launch out of the hole and through the gears several times every day and see what you get out of a belt.  I don't mean putting around town or a few light pulls to pass that semi. I mean all out everyday hard ass abuse.  If you don't have that kind of power or you do and don't use it for anything other than profiling around town with loud pipes and a turbo hangin off it or the like, keep the belt.  I really don't see any need to degrade those that are obviously doing it successfully and not just talking about it.  It's your choice obviously as it is theirs.  Modern O-ring chain is not the farm grade that used to be all that was available in the 70's.  But I'm sure you know that. Have you used one?  Do the math on the strength of a top grade 530 chain and compare it to a belt.  You do what you have to to get it done and at some point a chain becomes necessary not a rage.

Back to the subject matter of valve springs, Don nailed it. There are plenty of combinations that work fine.  All the fancy dancy space age stuff in the world won't help an engine that won't ever reach the parameters like high rpm that they are needed in.  There are other options as in most things.

[thumper 823]

No doubt one needs a chain when serious power is added, but for most of us no,  not needed and a serious handicap.
  I rode an iron head sporter coast to coast after Vietnam and that dam chain needed oiling and adjustments all the time.
Yes, I could have used the oiler, but they were so messy!
I dreamed of the day a belt system would come along.
No going back for me unless there was a real reason.

[Hossamania]

The Pan America will have a chain.

[Deye76]

The Pan America will have a chain.

Makes sense when going off road.

[turboprop]

Oh heck. Thread drift like a MoFo. Seeing as it has gone this way, I will add my $0.02.

The FXR community that I am immersed in is ate up with the idea that chains are absolutely required. Must have. The world will end if someone doesn't run a chain, etc, etc. The reality is a very large majority of the Fxr crowd has some type of little 80" evo with a Thunderheader and an EV27 cam. Chain not required. Most of them are either posers or monkey see/monkey do types.

The bagger crowd is a little different, but really the same. Even the guys with the mid level numbers (130-150hp) are rarely 'hitting it hard' much less all day, every day.

As for myself, I have a couple FXRs with TC124s in them. One was built for horsepower (158) and the other was built for torque (154). The HP bike runs a chain but only because it was the lowest cost option at the time. The torque bike runs a belt, but again, it was the lowest cost option at the time. I beat the HP bike a bit more than the torque bike, but after seeing how the belt (mileage unknown at time of install) has held up, how clean the rear wheel is on that bike, lack of maintenance, smoother operation, etc, I am now planning to replace the chain with a belt on the HP bike. I am done replacing sprockets and chain every year.

Those beehive springs are interesting. If they can control the valves better with reduced harmonics and lower seat pressure, than why not? This subject could very well be the replacement for the ongoing, but crucial, taste great/less filling debate on TC lifters.

[thumper 823]

Well said Turbo .
We little Evil Evos with 100/100    (HP &TQ more or less )  need no stinking chains.
Look at the M8 and the Twinks, none of them without SERIOUS  mods will ever breach a belt.
Touring people need less maintenance and want less of it. 
A chain just SUCKS!     I can't fathom the popularity.
I am not sure what you have done to the FXR  but that is serious numbers! It would stand a belt unless you are into continuous launching.
A Chain makes sense when and where needed
High power
and or  in the middle of nowhere.
A chain is EZ to repair.
I used to work an HD shop when the belts came out.
To this day I have not ever run onto anyone that has blown a belt, and i am a pretty serious rider plus know a lot of people.
NONE never.

Lastly  -
If i had to break a belt or a chain at speed, I would opt for the belt and hopefully, the rear wheel would not lock up.
The chain might do it, or destroy the primary/transmission area.
Anyway-
Carry on,  if Ape hangers and chains make someone's day go ahead.
IDC

I dont want to return to the stone age.

[wfolarry]

I like belts. Went through so many chains before belt drive I thought they were thinking of me when they came out. Went out & bought a new bike with belt drive. Liked it so much I still have it. 

As far as conical springs go pay closer attention to what's being posted about them by guys that are using them. They are for racing. High RPM's. Not for your average street bike. When Comp first came out with them they warned against using them in a street car (or bike). Most guys are hitting their rev limiter long before they need that spring.

Conical springs are not a new invention. What's new is the technology. Springs today are so much better than they were. Breaking a spring at the track was common. Not so much these days.
Good luck.

[hbkeith]

 I used to work an HD shop when the belts came out.
To this day I have not ever run onto anyone that has blown a belt, and i am a pretty serious rider plus know a lot of people.
NONE never.


[/quote]   Ive broke 3 belts since they came out ,  2 on maybe 80HP EVO baggers, 1 on a 90HP XL , But i wheelie a Bagger so i abuse the Belt . Still run Belt on my Bagger but dont Wheelie anymore . But NEVER ran into anyone thats blown a Belt ?   Sorry not about Springs

[thumper 823]

We ride ours to sturgis. Plus do a lot of other touring.
No doubt there are those that can break anything, belts included.
I have know of belts having rips tears even holes. But they made it back to the home or shop.
As I said, no I have never cone across anyone that blew a belt. Now. If they are doing burnouts ETC it is on them to be more diligent on their inspirations.

[cheech]

  When Comp first came out with them they warned against using them in a street car (or bike).

Do you remember what they claimed the detriments of them were in a street application?

[turboprop]

We ride ours to sturgis. Plus do a lot of other touring.
No doubt there are those that can break anything, belts included.
I have know of belts having rips tears even holes. But they made it back to the home or shop.
As I said, no I have never cone across anyone that blew a belt. Now. If they are doing burnouts ETC it is on them to be more diligent on their inspirations.

I know a few people that have blown belts, but the broken belts were ALWAYS more than 20 years old (think original FXR belts installed at the factory) and done by kids into doing burnouts.

Funny. The dscussion here seems to be very pro-belt. One does not have to search very hard oaths page to find many conversations proclaiming the absolute need for a chain.

[Appowner]

Been riding since 1970.  Never blown a chain or a belt nor know anyone who has.  But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. 

To me the downside of a belt is having to take half the bike apart to put a new one on.  Not so with a chain and master link.  Bikes are supposed to be simple and easily maintained.  At least that was one draw to them when I started riding.  Imagine a dark road in the middle of the night and your belt now has two ends to it.  Murphy has an odd sense of humor.

As for oil mess?  Today's riders are spoiled.  Harley's use to mark their territory.  Sometimes quite profusely.  Looking at my 08 Softail you wouldn't know there was any oil in the thing.  Absolutely no evidence externally.  I find myself periodically checking to make sure it's really a Harley.

I intend to go to a chain eventually.  As soon as this original belt needs changing.  Why?  Tradition, nostalgia call it what you will.  To me a belt just doesn't look right.  It should be a chain back there and if you must, put the belt in the primary.  But then, I have traditional spoke wheels on it too.  No windshield, fairing or bags either.  I try to keep it simple.

[Scotty]

I can't stand chains or spokes anymore. Had enough of chains from having them in the 70s & 80s and got fed up with spokes in the early 00's.

[guido4198]

To those who have never known anyone who "blew a belt" well, as Mick Jagger said:
"Please allow me to introduce myself..."
I blew the belt on my 1985 FXRS.
The belt had approx. 56,000 mi on it. We were a couple hundred miles from home in BFE-South Carolina at 10:00 on a Sunday night when a $10.00 part broke and I tried doing something foolish to get myself and the old lady to some kind of civilization. 
The foolish choice I made resulted in the repair being a LOT more expensive than it would have been otherwise, but it happens. 
All that said...I have ridden my mostly stock 1985 FXRS for 36 yrs and 305,000 mi and wouldn't trade the belt for the best chain ever made.

[crock]

I have never ran a belt. Been riding for 45 years and have had a lot of motorcycled. Made a 1200 mile round once on an old pan head with a new chain and it was shot when I got home. I am currently running an economically priced( Under a hundred dollars)X-Ring on a 98" shovel riding 2 up most of the time. I don't really hot rod but an occasional stop light challenge has been settled. With about 8000 minis on it, and minimal maintenance,(I do have the case vent blowing on it) I have adjusted it once. I am a believer in the new chain technology!

[Norton Commando]

I am a believer in the new chain technology!

I agree; the new chain technology is dramatically better than it was in the pre-belt days. 

Notably, I have a belt on my FLHTK and have no plans to convert it to a chain.  However, I have a chain on my 1973 Aermacchi SS 350 and 2012 KLR 650.  Chains are the only real option for these bikes, so I install quality O-ring or X-ring chains and never lube them, except for occasionally wiping them down with WD 40. The O-rings and X-rings do a great job of keeping the lube inside the chain rollers where it belongs and also prevents ingress of grit. I can easily go 20,000 miles before replacing the chain and sprocket and as a bonus the chain guard and surrounding areas stay clean without the use of sticky chain lube.

Jason

[Deye76]

Probably a half million miles on rear belts, never a problem so far. Probably a quarter of a million miles on primary belts, only broke one, my fault, in a hurry didn't align it properly. The rear belt on my FXR is 29 years old, it holds 125 ft, lbs. and I spin it up to 6 grand just about every time out. No wheelies, and no hole shots on cold belt/pulley's. At 69 years old a wheelie is purely accidental.

[Hossamania]

I had a belt break. It was not the belt's fault!
That same bike just got another new belt, was working on it fixing a tranny leak (see previous posts with my "slight" oil drip), and found a couple rocks embedded in it and worn pulleys, now all new. First belt 50,000 abusive miles, second belt 65,000 abusive miles. Should be good to go for another ten years and 50,000 miles or more.
My brother's belt broke last year, 30,000 miles on a 25 year old Heritage, never beat on, just let go. Thank you AAA, middle of nowhere on a Sunday, they got there in an hour and dragged it almost an hour to the shop.
I've seen belts break from regular use, and from hard use. Sometimes it just happens. Beating on them cold causes the most stress, I think.

[hbkeith]

I think most loose sight here , Most have "NO' "0" need for a chain , that's why my current bagger still has a Belt , but riding forever and ever but know nobody ?

[FXDBI]

They both have there pro's and con's depends on your specific needs.  HP junkie that likes to play with the gear ratios and maybe has a extended swingarm.  There is no right/wrong answer. Also no need to defend a position on either.  YOUR the only one needs be happy with what you got never did understand the your right I am wrong approach to these kinds of questions.  A Harley is a money pit either way...lol.    Bob

[Ohio HD]

They both have there pro's and con's depends on your specific needs.  HP junkie that likes to play with the gear ratios and maybe has a extended swingarm.  There is no right/wrong answer. Also no need to defend a position on either.  YOUR the only one needs be happy with what you got never did understand the your right I am wrong approach to these kinds of questions.  A Harley is a money pit either way...lol.    Bob

[Hossamania]

They both have there pro's and con's depends on your specific needs.  HP junkie that likes to play with the gear ratios and maybe has a extended swingarm.  There is no right/wrong answer. Also no need to defend a position on either.  YOUR the only one needs be happy with what you got never did understand the your right I am wrong approach to these kinds of questions.  A Harley is a money pit either way...lol.    Bob

Yup, I have to agree too.

[kd]

They both have there pro's and con's depends on your specific needs.  HP junkie that likes to play with the gear ratios and maybe has a extended swingarm.  There is no right/wrong answer. Also no need to defend a position on either.  YOUR the only one needs be happy with what you got never did understand the your right I am wrong approach to these kinds of questions.  A Harley is a money pit either way...lol.    Bob

Yup, I have to agree too.

  Let me into that line-up please

[Nastytls]

Not sure why someone would care so much about what other people do to their bikes. I happen to have a 117" hotrod Dyna with a chain and I'm switching to a chain on the 150" M8 I'm building. Is there more maintenance involved? Yup. But I'm doing the maintenance, not you, so why do you care so much? Many manufacturers have produced tens of millions of bikes, for decades, with chains that have no problems; I guess they don't realize they're doing it wrong.

[jmorton10]

I rode for years with a chain just like everyone else did.  Then, I bought a 2000 Heritage that came with a belt.  I built the motor to a high compression 95 incher & no problems with the belt.  Next I bought a RK & built another hot 95 inch motor & again no belt problems.

Then I built/installed a 124" motor in my current RK. I also run nitrous & an air shifter & I beat the cr@p out of my bikes (if I didn't, I would have left them all stock).  Now, the troubles began. The first year with the 124 I ripped 6 teeth off the belt. I figured maybe I had the belt too loose etc. so I replaced both pulleys & the belt using stock Harley parts. Then, I snapped the 2nd belt in 1/2 40 miles from home & had to call AAA to get the darn thing home.

At that point, I converted to a 530 chain & have not had a problem since.

~John

[RedFXR2]

I like belts and my bike isn't modified nearly enough to insert me into this debate, but I'm surprised nobody's mentioned that apparently higher strength belts are available for high load conditions that eliminate the need for a full conversion to chain.  I knew a guy for a while who had an Ultra and a 120" motor that was highly modified.  He pulled wheelies and burnouts with regularity.  According to him he starting breaking belts along the way of his modifications but installed a HD "Sidecar" belt and had no further failures.  Apparently HD and some others make these higher strength belts to fit stock sprockets.  Anyone in the "from belt to chain" camp ever try one before making the switch?

Edit to add:  A quick search reveals that Harley belts have progressed from Aramid to Kevlar to (now) carbon fiber, and are apparently much stronger than they once were.  Don't know when they went to carbon fiber but I would think that would be plenty strong.  Also, it's worth mentioning that Boss Hoss bikes with V-8 engines, 400+ HP and TQ, use Gates carbon fiber final drive belts.  If it's strong enough for a V-8, I'd have to believe it could take whatever a modified V-Twin could put out.

And I also see that correct adjustment becomes even more critical as power goes up.

[PoorUB]

Not sure why someone would care so much about what other people do to their bikes.

Where did that comment come from?

I don't see anyone picking on anybody for running a chain or a belt, just reasonable conversation, pros and cons.

[Nastytls]

Not sure why someone would care so much about what other people do to their bikes.

Where did that comment come from?

I don't see anyone picking on anybody for running a chain or a belt, just reasonable conversation, pros and cons.

Never said the OP was picking on anyone and never said that the response's to the original post were unreasonable, uncivil, or anything of the like.

In my posted response, "you" could mean anyone, not just the OP. Why would "you" care what I do to my bike? I suppose I could have made that more clear.

To me, the discussion is no different than asking: Why would anyone do any high performance mods to their bike? Leave it 100% stock and it's likely to be lower long term maintenance than with a hi-performance build, just like with the belt.  That is all.

[Hossamania]

I used the sidecar belt (on my '01 RK) when I changed mine in about '07 or '08, this the older wide belts. The don't think the new thinner belts offer that option.
That was replaced with a non sidecar standard belt this time, genuine HD. I'm sure it will be fine on my hot rod 95".

[crock]

I like the idea of maintenance on a belt (or lack there of) but I've never owned a bike with one so it's always been a chain for me.

[scotman623]

When you ride like me you need chain drive and a better transmission.. 3 belts later and 3rd gear will make you want to switch... Chains are no longer dirty... What are you guys putting on them?? 30 w car oil... The new chain lube sticks to the chain and does not fly off..

[capn]

I got an o-ring chain on my shovel stays clean with spray lube.Also have a 97 ultra 120 with the old 1.5 inch belt.It holds up well.No hole shots but I dont baby it.

[jmorton10]

LOL, I have a pic like that also.  Took this before I slid in a new Baker Grudgebox....

I had just ripped about 6 teeth off 3rd gear in my 3rd tranny.....

~John

[Hossamania]

When you ride like me you need chain drive and a better transmission.. 3 belts later and 3rd gear will make you want to switch... Chains are no longer dirty... What are you guys putting on them?? 30 w car oil... The new chain lube sticks to the chain and does not fly off..

Damn, you tore that belt up!

[kd]

When you ride like me you need chain drive and a better transmission.. 3 belts later and 3rd gear will make you want to switch... Chains are no longer dirty... What are you guys putting on them?? 30 w car oil... The new chain lube sticks to the chain and does not fly off..

I just took this pic. There's about 2,500 - 3,000 miles since cleaning and lube. Lots of high speed on the slab and still plenty of in town.  Took about an hour but I was doddling along and in no rush.  Notice there isn't a single spec of fling-off on the rim or tire. The same with the inside of the bag or fender.  No comparison to the old industrial chain we used to use.

[scotman623]

Nice KD...

[MikeL]

I went with a chain on my 2000RKC cause I went to 124 and I wanted a 150 tire. I don't believe I could have used the narrow belt to achieve the desired results.

                                                                                                                                                                  MIKE

[Deye76]

I went with a chain on my 2000RKC cause I went to 124 and I wanted a 150 tire. I don't believe I could have used the narrow belt to achieve the desired results.

                                                                                                                                                                  MIKE

150 fits with your OE belt.

[MikeL]

I went with a chain on my 2000RKC cause I went to 124 and I wanted a 150 tire. I don't believe I could have used the narrow belt to achieve the desired results.

                                                                                                                                                                  MIKE

150 fits with your OE belt.

For some reason this bikes rear tire was not in the center of the fender. To get the tire on center I had to machine my own wheel spacers. By doing this I had to forfeit the belt for the chain. The tire alignment on this bike is correct and the chain has performed flawlessly along with the 150 tire. My 2002 Fat boy I installed a 150 tire on it also. I kept the belt.

                         

                                                                                                                                                                   MIKE