Following on from a couple of topics on chains, I wonder why more bikes don’t have belt drive. On the face of it they would seem much lower maintenance, but there must be a downside otherwise everyone would do it?
I had a belt drive on my x-diavel and yes, quiet but if you get a small stone in the pulley system, it’s destroyed.
And, to replace, it’s swing arm out time. Thats expensive (in ducati world, it all fu:king is…!)
I had belt drive on my thunderbird lt. Was really good very little maintenance and nice and smooth.
Belt drive on two different harleys, no issues apart from an occasional squeak which is cured with talcum powder.
I used to work with a Harley owner who was put off the road for some weeks because of a stone getting caught between belt and pulley.
Some classic bikes can be fitted with a belt primary drive to replace the primary chain, which obviously wouldn’t have a problem with stones.
Are you on the correct forum?