1700 Nomad Discussion........

[audiogooroo]

Originally Posted by cactusjack

...every party has a pooper that's why we invited you....

I'm kidding, but you do bring up a very important consideration. I'd like to hear Kawasaki's engineers defend the move away from the shaft drive. Was that what people asked for? Is it cheaper? Lighter? More efficient? Just explain why.

Me too Scott. When I was shopping for a bike before I bought my Nomad, shaft drive was one of the things I was looking for. I, too have had both and I'm wondering what made MaKaw change to belt.
But I'll listen to anyone's argument as to why the new belts are better. Convince me! :)

More Harleyesque?

[audiogooroo]

Originally Posted by wolfman

More Harleyesque?

Uh...think you're gonna have to do better than that man. :)

Although that may be the reason Kaw chose to change it.

[blowndodge]

I thought the 1700 Nomad had a shaft drive and the voyager had the belt?

[trip]

They both have a belt, BD. Quoted from the 2009 Nomad Details and Features kawa site:

- 28mm carbon fiber final drive belt has a 40 percent higher tensile strength than current Kevlar units nearly twice its width and allows the Vulcan 1700 to use a slim belt only 2mm wider than that on the Vulcan 900
- The drive belt is quiet and efficient and helps reduce maintenance chores

So, if a new 1700 Nomad owner comes in here and quotes from the manual that the belt doesn't have to be replaced but say....once in the life of the bike......then that would be a positive. But you still have the adjustment issue and the rock issue. Also, I'm not persuaded that the belt helps reduce maintenance chores.

I love everything else about the Nomad and Voyager tho.....6th gear (how many times have I prayed for that!). And the Voyager is exactly what we've been salivating and wishing for since the inception of KawaNOW. A Nomad with fairing, electronics and trunk.

In retrospect, I wonder why Kawa decided on a 1700? Why not go to an 1800 with shaft drive?

[Idaho]

I too am dissappointed at the belt drive. Guess that I will just have to keep the 07 'till I can't fix it anymore. Ugh.

[chainsaw]

Had a Harley with belt drive. Never had any problems with it, but they did recommend you change it every 8,000 miles.

[trip]

Chainsaw, how much did it cost to change the belt out?

[blowndodge]

Scott: a belt drive eats up less parasitic driveline losses than a shaft drive due to the fact that of no 90 degrees change in rotation occurrs with a belt. It's a straight shot to the back wheel. Guesstimations are about 10% loss in power with a shaft drive over a belt. If a belt was just as reliable as a shaft I'd take it.

Shaft drives chance direction of rotation 3 to 4 times depending on design.

shaft drives also, by design, ride a little rougher due to the face the the jack shaft tries to push the wheel downward thereby pulling the shocks apart. This makes the back end more "rigid" under acceleration.

the opposite occurrs when you back out out of the throttle. It tends to push the wheel up thereby compressing the shock and this again makes the back of the bike ride more rigid.

You can feel the phenominom by going down the street and rolling the throttle on and off in low gear full throttle. Roll on and the back of the bike rises. Roll off and the back of the bike squats.

Chain and belt designs have minimal effect of this because the chain or belt rides parallel to the swingarm. Remember the shaft drive is the swing arm on our bikes.

[cactusjack]

I am just curious why Kawasaki switched from shaft to belt. I don't care one way or the other, that's low on my list of priorities when considering a bike.

[blowndodge]

If their "new belt" is just as reliable then COST is the factor........ why else?

[cactusjack]

Originally Posted by Blowndodge "Darksider"

If their "new belt" is just as reliable then COST is the factor........ why else?

Well, "just as reliable" is a loaded term. The shaft drive requires little maintenance. I'd guess the typical shaft drive never wears out. You could buy a drum of gear oil for the price of a belt, I'm guessing. I'm sure production cost is lower, but owner maintenance costs will be higher. How much higher remains to be seen.

[redjay]

It has to be cheaper when you consider all the parts in the shaft drive. Also probably why they went with a V twin and not a multi cyclinder for the renewed Voyager. Personally, an 08 Nomad with a 4 cylinder engine would be ideal for me. I am not completely sold on the V twin concept but love the long distance comfort aspect of the Nomad.

[trip]

I really don't know how the Harley owners do it.........Chainsaw said that the belt on the HD had to be replaced every 8,000 miles. If it costs...say....$400 to replace the belt yourself (and I'm figuring low), and you stretched that to every 10,000 miles, that's $4,000 dollars spent during a 100,000 mile usage. In addition, you have to go to the trouble to adjust the belt as it stretches.

So, with those numbers in mind.....if the Kawa belt has 40% more life, we might expect to get maybe 15,000 out of a belt (loose figuring, but figuring high). Since the belt is made out of a more durable material and a little wider in size, I would think it would be more expensive.....Let's say $500.

Crunch the new numbers.........you might be looking at $3,333.33 cost for belts over a 100,000 mile usage for the new Kawa. Plus the trouble of adjustments.

Also, keep in mind, if your back wheel is not aligned correctly while you adjust the belt, you'll eat your tire up prematurely.

[skimo]

Originally Posted by Blowndodge "Darksider"

The shaft drives also, by design, ride a little rougher due to the face the the jack shaft tries to push the wheel downward thereby pulling the shocks apart. This makes the back end more
the opposite occurrs when you back out out of the throttle. It tends to push the wheel up thereby compressing the shock and this again makes the back of the bike ride more rigid.

You can feel the phenomenon by going down the street and rolling the throttle on and off in low gear full throttle. Roll on and the back of the bike rises. Roll off and the back of the bike squats.

Chain and belt designs have minimal effect of this because the chain or belt rides parallel to the swingarm. Remember the shaft drive is the swing arm on our bikes.

Well this is a better explanation than what I thought was just driveline lash. This is the first shaft driven bike I've owned and it has a different feel than a chain or belt driven bike. Not bad just different.

Let's face it, it's cheaper to produce a belt drive over shaft, therefore more profitable for MaKaw.

Up side is more hp at rear wheel and less weight for better performance, but we want know that until someone here gets to twist the throttle.

Downside is it's going to cost for that performance via belt and tire wear.