Which is better?

Over the years I've seen chain drives go the way of the dodo bird. Is the reason mechanical ? Are belt drive that much better than chain drives?

Or is it all about the $$?

I remember my grandfather's scoot had a chain.. several of my Dad's and Uncle's had chain drive.

What year did the MoCo come out with belt drives?

Thanks for any input!!

 

chains need lube (that ends up all over the bike and u)and they are noisy, and they stretch faster than belts.and when a chain breaks it can easily wrapp up on the front sprocket and break shizzt.belts are less likley to break stuff when they go.

 

Belt = less maintenance, quieter and cleaner (total cost is higher, labor to replace is higher).
Chain = narrower for wide tires, can take more power, easy to repair/replace.

Belts have been common for 25 years or so.

 

First Harley belt drive 1980 (I think.) And my original belt is still there at 12 years old.

 

I am intrested as well. On the road you can generaly fix a chain
with a master link, and or a half link, and a chain spliter, try that
with a belt. On the other hand how much gose wrong with a belt?
You can repair a lot of chains for the price of replacing one belt.
How many chains will you replace dureing the life span of one belt?
I am not saying anything I am only wondering.

 

You'll go through a lot of chains in the time it takes to wear out one belt, the only way I'd consider it is if I was running over 125hp.

 

This is my 1st belt drive. Less maint., less messy and quieter but was a pita when I had to change it. One advantage it gave me a chance to inspect my primary and clutch. Is the glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full. I have more important things in life to stress about.

 

I'm running a chain on my 2000 FXDL and a belt on my 2010 RG. It's all about choosing the right tool for the job.

 

My 92 sporty had a chain. It was dirty and messy, and had to have it replaced once. At some point I converted that bike to belt drive and never looked back.

 

Belt = Smoother