Are Dry Clutches Becoming Extinct?

[ducatiz]

Why? To me motorcycles and chains go hand in hand. Harley's are Belt driven and I think they look ridiculous.

Not to mention if belts were so great, someone would use them in SBK or MotoGP

the only recent Harley contribution to racing used a chain.

[NorDog]

Not to mention if belts were so great, someone would use them in SBK or MotoGP

the only recent Harley contribution to racing used a chain.

I reject the notion that all things relating to motorcycles must be judged by whether or not they are used in SBK or MotoGP.

[jaxduc]

all things relating to cars must be judged by whether or not they are used in NAAAASCAR.

[ducatiz]

I reject the notion that all things relating to motorcycles must be judged by whether or not they are used in SBK or MotoGP.

harley switched to belt drive to comply with noise regs.  no other reason.

[NorDog]

harley switched to belt drive to comply with noise regs.  no other reason.

So?  This is pertinent to our comments about personal use/maintanence and professional racing how?

No other reason?  Really?

[PhilB]

I reject the notion that all things relating to motorcycles must be judged by whether or not they are used in SBK or MotoGP.

+1.

Not to mention if belts were so great, someone would use them in SBK or MotoGP

the only recent Harley contribution to racing used a chain.

The one real downside of belts is the difficulty of making gearing changes; this matters a lot in racing, and little in real life.  The biggest upside of a belt instead of a chain is low maintenance; this matters a lot in real life, and little in racing.

Belts really are the best solution for street bikes (but not for dirt, where the belt is more susceptible to damage from stuff caught in it than a chain is).  They combine the efficiency of a chain with the low maintenance of a shaft, and weigh less than either, at a cost of slightly more space taken up than a chain does, and fewer options for changing gear ratios.

PhilB

[zooom]

+1.
The one real downside of belts is the difficulty of making gearing changes; this matters a lot in racing, and little in real life.   

if it matters little in real life, then why do so many people change sprocket ratio's for better or different drivability like a 14t front for city and low speed and various things like that?!?!?

[rsoffar]

if it matters little in real life, then why do so many people change sprocket ratio's for better or different drivability like a 14t front for city and low speed and various things like that?!?!?

Im pretty sure he means frequent changes... us on the street switch to the 14t front and we're done with it (unless you are changing your gearing every weekend for some reason), racing they are changing them up all the time depending on all their different factors.

Im not a fan of belt drives as I just think its weird but what PhilB said makes sense in my mind.

[ducatiz]

if it matters little in real life, then why do so many people change sprocket ratio's for better or different drivability like a 14t front for city and low speed and various things like that?!?!?

didn't even think of that.  none of my bikes have the original sprockets.

[PhilB]

if it matters little in real life, then why do so many people change sprocket ratio's for better or different drivability like a 14t front for city and low speed and various things like that?!?!?

It matters little in real life because you don't make those changes often.  It's pretty much a one-time mod, so it doesn't really matter if it's a little more complicated to do that once.

Im pretty sure he means frequent changes... us on the street switch to the 14t front and we're done with it (unless you are changing your gearing every weekend for some reason), racing they are changing them up all the time depending on all their different factors.

Im not a fan of belt drives as I just think its weird but what PhilB said makes sense in my mind.

This.

didn't even think of that.  none of my bikes have the original sprockets.

Mine isn't the original ratio either.  I changed it once, about 2 years after I got the bike, and it's been the same for the last 17 years.  I'm considering changing it again, as New England riding is different than wide-open-spaces Western riding.  The pain and cost of making those two changes in a belt system would more than have been compensated for by not having to buy the intervening 8 or so sets of sprockets and chains.

PhilB

[NorDog]

if it matters little in real life, then why do so many people change sprocket ratio's for better or different drivability like a 14t front for city and low speed and various things like that?!?!?

The average Harley rider who wants a cruiser doesn't do that.  The HD (in my limited experience with Ducatis) makes far more usable low end torque in relation to the factory gearing than does the Ducati.  In other words the Harley is far more ridable at parking lot speeds that my S4RS, and it's been my impression that the sprocket change motivation for Ducati riders is most often motivated by a desire to smooth out the lower speed power delivery to the pavement.  At least it has been in my case.

This issue simply doesn't exist for Harleys.  Some HD riders do like to hot rod and they will often get a belt to chain conversion set up.

[Speedbag]

As an owner of a H-D VRSCR, I have to say I LOVE the belt final drive. I've got almost 9K on it and the belt still looks like new.....and I'm rather ham-fisted. And no chain lube fling.

They're more of a pain to re-gear, but there's really no reason to do so for road use given the power delivery. My only gripe about the bike is that it has no 6th gear, and it gets a little buzzy on an interstate jaunt (my V&H pipe contributes).

Now if you're going to drag race, it's chain all the way. The belts don't like high-RPM clutch dumps with sticky tires. 

[Bill in OKC]

I like the looks of a traditional chain best but the belt drive has a LOT going for it and I like belt drives more than shafts.  No oiling/maintenance and they last 50K - 100K miles on a big twin Harley.  Some Harley guys swap the ratio and longer/shorter belts are available.  It is more expensive to swap ratios but it up to the owner and not really needed. The biggest downside is that the belt cannot be split so that means removing the swingarm on a softail to replace it.  If it should snap in the middle of BFE it is tow time.  When you start tossing tradition for *less maintenance/quieter/no racing considerations* a drive belt would be a good candidate.  I hope Ducati keeps the chain.

[PhilB]

The chain would be appropriate to retain on the superbikes, but a belt would make sense on the models that are not raced.  Likewise (to make a brief return to the OT), if they wanted to keep the dry clutch and/or SSSA on racebikes, those will stay on superbike models, but may or may not on other models.  Even in racing, both the dry clutch and the SSSA are useful mainly in endurance racing.  I like the SSSA, but admittedly it's mainly about the looks of it.  I also like the dry clutch on my bike, partly for the difference and for the festive sound, but it has also made it easier to inspect and maintain the clutch over the life of my bike.

The main thing is that I do not feel tied to (and think that Ducati should not feel tied to) any particular technology or design.  They should make the most up-to-date and effective bikes they can, and not feel constrained by "tradition".

PhilB

[thought]

Not sure how I feel about belts on a duc but I can really never see them doing it simply because ducati expects to gear it high to pass EPA regs.  And then basically expect owners to gear it down to compensate afterwards.  If duc's ran belts... that would be pretty punishing on the new owner.

Also... I feel that they would keep chains simply because of the "racing is in our dna" mentality duc has.  Sure, dry clutch, trellis frames have been outgrown but chains can be kept as they do provide a definite benefit over belts when it comes to the track.