From: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Re: lane-splitting etiquette (& **** Harley questions ****)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:49:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.184102.9663@megatek.com> tomw@megatek.com writes:
|In article <102961@netnews.upenn.edu> ggrevera@gradient.cis.upenn.edu (George Grevera) writes:
|
|	(other stuff deleted)
|>
|>1) Why did Harley deem it important to develop belt drive?  (I know chains
|>are dirty.)  It seems that many clamor for performance (carbs, cams, exhausts)
|>but few clamor for belt drive.  Let me put it this way.  From what I gather,
|>to add belt drive to a Sporty costs about $400-$500.  And an S&S E costs about
|>$300 and say you get a cam for $200.  Would you rather belt drive or a carb
|>and a cam for your money?
|>
|IMHO belt drives are a major advance. You're right that chains are messy, but
|that's only the start of it. Two Japanese bikes I owned in the 1970s put their
|drive chains through their engine cases. 

Chains are better now.  Even back then, I assume you neglected your chain to
have such a catastrophic failure.

|Freequent oiling and adjusting are required. 

A light lubing is required every few hundred miles on an O-ring chain (takes 
about 30 seconds, if you have a centerstand, which is stock on nearly every 
chain-driven bike), and pre-stretched chains almost never require adjustment.

It is a good idea to clean off the grime every 1000 miles or so, if you ride
in a particularly dirty environment.

|Chains and sprockets wear out fairly freequently and the sprockets
|are expensive and should really re replaced in pairs. 

A chain and sprocket set, cared for properly, and not abused, lasts about 
50K miles.  Replacing the chain and both sprockets runs under $150.  I can
do the entire job in under an hour, with only a few wrenches and pliers.  
Big deal.

|Chains can be reliable
|and efficient in the right environment, but flapping around in the breeze
|with no continuous oil bath picking up road grime is not such an environment.

Chains are required for situations of high stress and low clearance.  A belt
just cannot take that sort of stress.  And any environment that you subject
a chain to, I expect you subject the belt to.  Belts die, too, and are MUCH
more expensive (time and money) to replace.

Is it even possible to change the drive ratio, with a belt?

|I've also owned a BMW, which of course has shaft drive. I found the play
|("lash") annoying, and the maintenance was a pain -- 2 more places to change
|the oil and measure the oil to be added.

At least on my shaft drive bike, the oil can be changed very easily, and no
measuring is necessary.  The drain plug is right in plain sight, and you just
fill it until you can't any more.

|My Harley mechanic tells me their belts generally last 75,000 miles, and
|often need only one adjustment (at 500 miles).

Okay, 1-1/2 times as long as chains, under MUCH less typical stress.  Check
out the cost/lifetime ratio.

|They're clean, tight, 

Agree.  Those are the saving graces of belts.  I think a belt is just about
perfect for the Harley intent.

|>2) Why do 4 cylinder foreign bikes have 4 carbs but 2 cylinder Harley's have
|>one carb (although the XR1000 might have had 2)?
|
|I believe part of this is due to the V configuration. 

Except that pretty much every other manufacturer of twin-cylinder motorcycles
in the world uses twin carbs.

|See many previous posts 
|on cooling the rear cylinder. 

It is a truly nifty fact that the rear cylinder runs richer on a single-carb
Harley.  It would be just as easy to use a different jet, on a separate carb,
to achieve that.

|>6) Why doesn't Harley sell a street version of the XR750?
|
|In the mid 80s Harley made a tricked up version of the Sportster with 2
|carbs, high exhaust, special suspension -- very much like a street XR750.
|It was not a commercial success. 

Because it handled like a pig.  It was all looks.  (WONDERFUL looks, though.)
I would assume that if you put an XR engine in a street frame, you would 
make an effort toward some performance.

|This gets into the big continuing flap 
|about why people buy Harleys versus Japanese crotch rockets. IMHO having
|a big twin, which even in stock trim is faster than virtually every car
|sold 

Yup.

|and 90% of the motorcycles sold, 

Not a bloody chance.  What is your definition of "faster"?  Acceleration
and top end are pretty much the standard measure of "faster", and no stock
harley can exceed figures for almost any Japanese motorcycle.  (Which
pretty much comprise 90% of the non-Harley bikes out there.)

|is enough performance for me. 

Fine enough.  That needs no justification.

|There
|are no public roads where one can safely use the 165 MPH top speed of 
|today's fastest sport bikes. 

Okay, but with top speed comes acceleration.  Most people with sport 
literbikes rarely if ever explore the upper reaches of speed.  But most
owners of sport bikes love the acceleration and cornering ability of
them.  Me included.

I will contend that there are many roads out west (New Mexico, US60, 
east of Albuquerque spring to mind) where >100 mph speeds are 
relatively safe (compared to riding to work in city traffic, for 
instance).

|Harley is selling bikes as fast as they can
|build them, so they don't need to spend time at the moment thinking up
|new ones to sell. Plus there are other configurations they could build
|that will be sure winners -- like a Heritage Springer.

Yes.  That's valid business practice.  But we can fantasize. :-)


			Dave Svoboda, Chicago