Heres my thoughts on the belt drive.

[CrankShop910]

The tracks where on the sleds, and the tension was set to factory specs.
Still with the different compounds in the track it's not a true test.
Mark Hoffman has been selling belt drives as long as I can remember.
Just because it's new, does not mean it's better.
L8ter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[teeroy]

The tracks where on the sleds, and the tension was set to factory specs.
Still with the different compounds in the track it's not a true test.
Mark Hoffman has been selling belt drives as long as I can remember.
Just because it's new, does not mean it's better.
L8ter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thanks, I figured the track drag would have some effect on the torque required to turn the shaft. If I remember correctly, the assault should have a higher number because the track is much stiffer than the Pro. so your test might say a lot more than we think

 

[LBZ]

I really noticed the difference in rolling resistance when I changed out the cheese grater stock track on my '08 to a camo extreme. before the change you could push or pull the sled easily with one hand on the rear bumper, once the camo extreme was on it was way more difficult to roll the sled back and forth.

Crankshop910....did you perform your experiment with tracks off the sleds? would be interesting to see the results with both track on and track off, as well as with belt/chain drive off and on to see where the most resistance comes from.

Of course it was-Camo Extreme is a MUCH stiffer track right?

The only accurate way to do this test is to either use the same machine swapping only the belt drive in for the chaincase with the same gear ratio's, tension on the drive components to spec, same ambient air temp, keep all conditions the same-including the input rpm on whatever is being used to spin the jackshaft.
If you change ANY of these factors, you results will be in-accurate.

Timing Chains in engines are a thing of the past for most manufacturer's and replaced with belt's because they are lighter, have less wear components, have less rolling resistance, create less heat, and as a whole improve fuel economy. They didn't do it just because it looks cool. Now if they needed the strength of a chain to drive components that exceed the limits of the size of belt they have space for then obviously they would.

As far as a drive system on a sled, If you were to reduce all the mass, wear components, and overall weight of the assembly by replacing it with a possibly wider but lighter belt drive system that is more efficient energy transfer wise, and could hold up to the abuse then why not?? Makes sense to me. Only issue I see is the durability of a belt. We all know what kind of abuse a chain can take-so long as it's adjusted properly and lubed!! Not sure the current belt drive systems can compare.

 

[teeroy]

Of course it was-Camo Extreme is a MUCH stiffer track right?

exactly, without the ports the track is much harder to bend around the rear axle and driveshaft adding to the rolling resistance. would be tough to accurately measure drag with the track on the sleds if you are looking to determine drive line efficiency. I believe there is more drag from a belt drive simply because of the contact area compared to a chain and gears. the real question is....does that weight loss in rotating mass overcome the extra drag because of the added contact area?

 

[maxwell]

exactly, without the ports the track is much harder to bend around the rear axle and driveshaft adding to the rolling resistance. would be tough to accurately measure drag with the track on the sleds if you are looking to determine drive line efficiency. I believe there is more drag from a belt drive simply because of the contact area compared to a chain and gears. the real question is....does that weight loss in rotating mass overcome the extra drag because of the added contact area?

What about the fact a belt drive Needs extremely high tension while a chain is basically finger tight. I'm not a doctor but maybe it's a factor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -

 

[Pistonbroke]

Anyone wanna spring for one of these and adapt it to a sled's jack shaft and drive shafts?

 

[teeroy]

What about the fact a belt drive Needs extremely high tension while a chain is basically finger tight. I'm not a doctor but maybe it's a factor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -

I'm certain it is a big factor. the belt is just like a track, takes energy to bend it around the gears especially when it has to be that tight

 

[POWDERSLUT]

u want your belt loose,real loose,just tight enough so it doesnt skip,as the aluminum gears will expand when they get hot. I've noticed a definate improvement over a chain. I did have a few issues at first but that was expected as I have one of the 1st ,10 ever made for the xp

 

[POWDERSLUT]

same theory as track tension,i run mine as loose as possible with out skippin,looser the track the more power u get to the snow.

 

[Deano670]

u want your belt loose,real loose,just tight enough so it doesnt skip,as the aluminum gears will expand when they get hot. I've noticed a definate improvement over a chain. I did have a few issues at first but that was expected as I have one of the 1st ,10 ever made for the xp

But what was the improvement?? Did it gain a bunch of rpm to the point you had to add weight to your primary, which would suggest it free'd up a bunch of hp robbing rolling resistance?? Did it gain any track speed??

 

[POWDERSLUT]

went down 2 clickers

 

[POWDERSLUT]

i've had to go back to my chain a few times(1st yr with belt) as there was no shoulder on the upper gear and the belt would walk off the gear and start rubbing on the idler brace and destroying the belt in a matter of seconds. If you are running the belt as tight as a chain when cold, it gets alot tighter when it gets hot,and you are gonna be loosing power for sure. set it up loose n tighten if needed. Also really hard on the bearings if its to tight

 

[tukernater]

same theory as track tension,i run mine as loose as possible with out skippin,looser the track the more power u get to the snow.

That lose track thing really bit are a$$es on the asphalt a tighter track made more MPH than a track that I never considered to be too Lose.

 

[POWDERSLUT]

really,, wouldnt u want your track loose and your limiter tight to keep ski's planted?

 

[POWDERSLUT]

Is next thread by lhf gonna be, diamond drive better than chain or belt??

 

[maxwell]

really,, wouldnt u want your track loose and your limiter tight to keep ski's planted?

I've noticed a slight performance increase from a tighter track. The track starts a wave effect on the top side in the tunnel which I feel is robbing power. Just my thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -

 

[niner]

As far as how tight to run your track think of it this way, have your track loose as you would run it and spin it by hand, now tighten it up a bit and spin it by hand. It's a little bit harder but not really that difficult. How much hp is in your arm? I've tried running a loose track and feel it makes absolutely no difference. That little bit of rolling resistance is unmeasurable.

 

[Longhairfreak]

Is next thread by lhf gonna be, diamond drive better than chain or belt??

I'm actually considering taking the diamond drive out and putting in a chaincase.

 

[teeroy]

I'm actually considering taking the diamond drive out and putting in a chaincase.

arctic cat decided it was a good idea to do that too lol

 

[0neoldfart]

I bet if we put a torque wrench on my jackshaft it will take less ft/lbs than a Polaris belt drive to turn over.

I'm with LHF on this one... to a point. A belt drive which is properly tensioned is harder to get moving then chain drive. However, there is less rotating mass, and the belt freewheels easier when warm. This applies to the QD system, as well as the C3 drive (I have three sleds with the C3 unit)