ESE's works engine tuner

[TZ350]

V belts are more efficent power transmitters than chain and toothed belts are even better.

http://www.reliableplant.com/(X(1)S(emldn0yrcnjqtm450qij4m45))/Articles/Print/2418

Thanks for that.



Toothed belts are the best power transmitters, then V belts and chain is the least efficent, who would have thought!!!!!!

[F5 Dave]

Well my lathe has a flat belt drive, perhaps you could try that & while you are at it reduce components by using it as a clutch. You heard it here first. no one else in the history of motorcycling has ever come up with this idea.

[Frits Overmars]

Well my lathe has a flat belt drive, perhaps you could try that & while you are at it reduce components by using it as a clutch. You heard it here first. no one else in the history of motorcycling has ever come up with this idea.

I hate do disappoint you, but the history of motorcycling is a bit older then you are, Dave. Back in the day, before we celebrated a couple of world wars, your novel idea was quite common.

[F5 Dave]

My lathe is a bit older than me too.

Doesn't make me feel any younger in the mornings.

Sorry I was taking the Mick a little.

[Frits Overmars]

Sorry I was taking the Mick a little.

Nothing to be sorry about; I welcome every opportunity to do it myself; it makes the world wide web a bit more fun .

[Ocean1]

I hate do disappoint you, but the history of motorcycling is a bit older then you are, Dave. Back in the day, before we celebrated a couple of world wars, your novel idea was quite common.

My godfather had a Zenith, not sure what year but pre-1st war. It had a variable speed belt, the rear wheel moved backwards to force the pully flanges wider.

Which makes TZ around a century late And I like the idea of moving the back wheel backwards under acceleration!

[seymour14]

My godfather had a Zenith, not sure what year but pre-1st war. It had a variable speed belt, the rear wheel moved backwards to force the pully flanges wider.

Which makes TZ around a century late And I like the idea of moving the back wheel backwards under acceleration!

Funny enough we have one of those in our back shed, 1911 production racer Zenith Gradua. As the front pulley was adjusted (like a variable speed drive) the rear wheel had to be extended or retracted to keep the pulley tension and thus keep drive on the rear wheel. Fascinating bikes, and they were banned in there day for being too good!

[Ocean1]

Funny enough we have one of those in our back shed, 1911 production racer Zenith Gradua.

Cool. What sort of nick's it in?

[TZ350]

Sorry I was taking the Mick a little.

Nothing to be sorry about; I welcome every opportunity to do it myself; it makes the world wide web a bit more fun .

Yep, slowly getting used to how this net humor works .......

[crazy man]

Cool. What sort of nick's it in?

not bad for 1911-12 but needs a full restore

[Strokerhaus]

Not certain where it says tooth belt is more efficient than chain, read your data but it only talks about reliability not tranmission efficiency. V belts are not high on efficiency, no problem with that, but not certain about tooth belt v chain. I have just fitted a belt drive to my Enfield but that was more to save weight, I would love to think I gain tractive effort but I have not done the test yet. If you have better data I would love to see it. The article suggested belt and chain can be the same width, but that's not correct I ran a single row primary chain but had to replace it with a 30 mm wide belt, as per Mr Gate's recommendation.

[TerraRoot]

also belts don't like being shoved around tight corners, so both drive cogs have to have a fairly large radius, chains are just easier to get into tight places.

[bucketracer]

Not certain where it says tooth belt is more efficient than chain, read your data but it only talks about reliability not transmission efficiency.

V-BELT DRIVES
V-belt drives transmit power through friction between the belt and pulley. With efficiencies ranging from 95 to 98 percent at installation, these drives use energy more efficiently than roller chain drives, and somewhat less efficiently than synchronous belt drives.
Selecting the right drive system http://www.reliableplant.com/(X(1)S(...les/Print/2418
Taken from a magazine called Reliable Plant and it acknowledges the Gates Corp. ... http://www.reliableplant.com/Magazin...e Plant/9/2006

Yes you might be right, I checked and it talks about using energy more efficiently, not transmits more efficiently, so is it just syntax or have I miss understood something. I better Google some more.

[bucketracer]

From what I can make out, it does look like use and transmit are the same thing but V belts may be more efficient than chain when everything is perfect but a V belt can slip further down its efficiency range than a chain and become significantly less efficient at power transmission than chain but a synchronous belt pretty much retains its efficiency for life.

Many efficiency questions deal specifically with the relationship between V belts and synchronous belts. Synchronous belts can offer a slight improvement in efficiency over the standard V belts. http://www.gates.com/facts/documents/Gf000188.pdf

Power transmission efficiency and parasitic idling losses in belt machine elements have been considered for over 50 years. Most references cite efficiencies between 90 and 98 percent for various belts with 95 percent being a typical value http://file.seekpart.com/keywordpdf/...0212457984.pdf

From the Gates Corporation http://www.gates.com/australia/broch...cation_id=3810

Due to their high efficiency ratings (as high as 99% on a continuous basis in a Poly Chain GT2 drive system), synchronous belt drives can also lower energy costs compared with roller chain drives, which typically operate at 91-94% efficiency, or V-belt drives, which when properly tensioned, operate at 93-95% efficiency.

The complete guide to chain http://chain-guide.com/basics/1-2-1-...sion-uses.html

http://www.newenglandbelting.com/Goo...imingBelts.asp Because v-belt and chain drives quickly lose initial tension, they typically run in the lower portion of their efficiency range. Eagle PD™ will continually run at about 98% efficiency.

http://www.grainger.com/tps/power_trans_chainguide.pdf
Chain is the preferred choice for power transmission applications that rely on high power and torque. Chain offers the advantage of working within the widest of temperature ranges, and is highly tolerant of shock loads.

V-belts
are so named for their tapered cross-section. This belt type offers an efficient transfer of power of up to 98%*. Some feature notched inner surfaces that allow them to operate at a reduced radius.

Synchronous belts,
or timing belts, have notches on one or both faces, seating firmly on a meshing pulley surface for as much as 99% efficiency. This option is preferred when input and output shafts must remain synchronized a Belt systems may require more space to operate, and cannot match chain’s reduction power or smaller operating radius.

[bucketracer]

also belts don't like being shoved around tight corners, so both drive cogs have to have a fairly large radius

Bending around a tight corner is a big part of the V belts transmission losses and the reason for these notchy style V belts, it makes them easier to bend.

chains are just easier to get into tight places.

True, and they don't loose as much of their efficiency over time as V belts can and a chain can handle more torqe for its size too.

Good .... but unsure if its best to run the variator off the crank at 13,000rpm or have a reduction from the crank to a jack shaft with the variator on it.

Any input about that would be welcome.

TeeZee, one thing that did come out of all this Googiling was that a V belt can handle a much faster pulley speed than chain but less torque. So a Variator on the crank might be better than a speed reduction (torque amplification) from the crank to a jack shaft with the variator on it and must be why CVT's typically have the gear reduction behind the rear pulley.