Re: [St] Chain Links

[John Ulizzi <jaulizzi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I dont believe that. I havent tried to crunch the
numbers, but I am willing to bet that the strain a
Harley puts on its drive train is quite possibly
higher than bikes like ours. Maybe not a Hayabusa.
When you consider a Harley has damn near all of its
torque at very low rpm and you are starting to move an
800 pound bike from a resting position, I am guessing
that is a greater stress than the typical 100-120
horse sportbike motor that develops torque and
horsepower as it spins up and is only moving 500
pounds. The new Buells with the 103 horse Sporty motor
have belt drive and rate the duty life as 125,000
miles...Not sure but I think the one with the 146
horse Rotax motor is also belt driven.  I think it has
more to do with with the Big four having an investment
in the chain companies and that technology myself...I
would love to see some numbers...

John
--- Matt Knowles <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Because to handle the horsepower, they'd have to be
> way too wide.
> 
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 10:05 AM, John Ulizzi wrote:
> 
> > Black, as in Aramid fiber belt. I am really
> beginning
> > to hate chains. Can anyone give me a good reason
> as to
> > why belts are not commonly used on sportbikes?
> >
> 
> Matt Knowles - Ferndale, CA -
> http://www.knowlesville.com/matt/ 
> motorcycles
>   '99 Sprint ST - for going fast and far (2CZUSA)
>   '01 KLR650 (A15) - for exploring the North Coast
> backroads
>   '97 KLX300 & '01 Lakota - for playing in the dirt
>   '79 KZ400 - just because it was the first vehicle
> I ever owned
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
> Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com
> 

_______________________________________________
Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com