Shaft or belt

[bigdog]

Not that we can do anything about it, but is most everybody else on board with the change to belt drive? I've heard all the comparisons for power losses with chain vs. belt vs. shaft and so on. I don't really care if I lose a few horses with the shaft as I didn't buy the Nomad for speed and as long as it pulls well two-up, it's fine.
I, personally don't care for the belt. I think it has all of the problems that come with a chain except lubrication.....wear, stretch, breakage, alignment and so on. Shaft is one of the reasons I went with the Nomad. Hopefully, they get and keep a substantial parts stock to keep these shaft bikes going for a while as I don't plan to get a belt bike.

[rewindgy]

I'm not a fan of belt drive! Just me however! I like shaft drive! If the belt can be changed out easily on the new one - then I'll be okay with it! I mean if I can change it out at home on my lift then okay! But if it's gonna be a long drawn out process like on the Harley's I don't think I want anything to do with it. Again, that's just me!

[socwkbiker]

I was talking to a long-time biker this weekend at church and told him about the Nomad's change to a belt drive just for the 6-speed transmission. He asked why the hell they did that because of the maintenance that needs to be done with a belt. Plus, why can't someone come up with a six-speed shaft drive? Is it that difficult?

[doctorgski]

I have had both, as I know a lot of you have had. I really can't say that a shaft is all that much better. All the things that I initially thought would be an advantage turned out to be not so. Like lower maintenance, more durable, better feel (smoothness) etc... And if one goes out on you, look out, the big bucks are coming out of the ole pocket! I had a roadstar with 38K on it when I traded for my 2nd Nomad and never had a problem with or had to make an adjustment to the belt. I know these Nomads are not made to be speedsters, but you know, I believe the extra 10% horse power loss with a shaft would be good to have back on a long trip out west riding 2 up...

[caddman11]

I came from HD's when I bought my Nomad and I know belts usually can go 60,000 + miles without any maintenance or problems. I wouldn't mind a belt, but I'll live with the shaft. I never had any problems or issues with stretching, tracking or otherwise. I know it's a couple of hundred to change one out. ???

[trip]

Well, I've said this before...I'm not a fan of belts or chains. Here is a copy of my post I made on this very subject in the Nomad 1700 discussion thread in the Garage:

I know some of you will be shocked by me saying this and I don't mean to sound negative....but I'm not too keen on belt drives. That's the only thing about the 2009 Nomad and Voyager that bothers me. It kind of shocked me that Kawasaki went to the belt drive.

It bothers me so much in fact, that I'm probably going to change my long-range planning. I probably won't buy a 1700 Nomad in the future, unless I can be shown that the belt drives don't cost an arm and a leg when they snap from a wayward stone or rock and that aligning the back wheel and keeping the belt tawt is not as bad of a deal as it is on the 2000. I realize that the new belts are made of a material that has a longer life, but after owning a bike with a chain, I vowed I'd never own another chain or belt drive bike again. If you don't keep your back wheel aligned right after adjusting your belt, you'll eat your back tire up in half the time.

Don't get me wrong, I'll be keeping my 2005 Nomad.....but when I'm ready to add to my stable.....I'll probably be looking at buying a Honda Valk.

I say this not to influence how anyone feels about the new Nomad or Voyager. I'm just stating how I feel. I'm hoping that once a new 2009 Nomad owner comes in here that they can change my mind.

[glwilson]

There is a section on the home-page of KawaNOW forum dedicated to the New Voyager and Nomad if you care to see some of the comments there about the bikes as well.

[jonsamson]

Personally I was looking for a belt drive before I bought my Nomad. I would have bought the Yamaha but I wanted water cool. The belts are made out of carbon fiber, similar materials used in metal cable. We have been driving with belts on our cars for years, no direct gear link up there.
Belts are less maintance, no oil to change, worry about oil leaks (I had one on my old vulcan) and when they start leaking they are a bear to stop. Easier tire changes, a new belt runs about $300.00 every 60,000 miles that means one belt change before we would want to get a new bike anyway and most people don't ride a bike long enough for this change out. Alingment not a problem, like anything you just do it right, pinch a gasket or don't get the shaft gears alinged in the hub, wow looking at about $2000.00 in repairs. More horse power, smoother acceleration, smoother deceleration, and no rear end jacking when sudden throtten changes. All the manufactures are going belt on their larger bikes there has to be a reason for it besides cheaper. If money was the only reason than we would be driving a lot more manual transmission cars they are cheaper, and better gas mileage. Belts offer more benefits that we consumers are looking for.
-Jon-

[nighthawk700]

Originally Posted by SWB,voices tell me evil things

Plus, why can't someone come up with a six-speed shaft drive? Is it that difficult?

The Kawasaki Concours (at least the previous model, don't know about the new ones) was a 6 speed shaft drive bike.

All my bikes so far have been shaft.

[waterman]

Originally Posted by jonsamson

If money was the only reason than we would be driving a lot more manual transmission cars they are cheaper, and better gas mileage.
-Jon-

The main reason why manual transmissions are going out of favor in cars and trucks, most people don't want them and many people have no clue as to how to drive a manual tranny. Personnally, I have automatics.

Now on to the belts. I think one of the reasons that many people feel that belts are not that good is because of a few and very vocal people over the years. The one person that has trouble with the belt and goes on and on about it. Personnally, I know quite a few owners with belt drives and never heard one issue about them. They like them better than chain drives.

I know that when the 900's came out there was quite a few complaints about the belts whining and not correct adjustment from the dealer. I think those issues have been resolved. Personnally, I like my shaft drive but that is not the final issue for buying a bike. I think one advantage to a belt vs shaft. If the belt does go out it is not that big of fix. However, if the shaft goes down, you can be sitting for some time.

Just my 2cents.

[dhomoney]

I had a 900 Custom before my Nomad, and I like the way belt handles better. Shaft is fine, but the lash took some getting used to. Belt is cheaper, doesn't drop as many horses, and cheaper to replace and maintain. It is a no brainer.

[dank]

Originally Posted by nighthawk700

The Kawasaki Concours (at least the previous model, don't know about the new ones) was a 6 speed shaft drive bike.

The new Connie is a 6 speed, shaft drive too.

[nomad]

never had a belt drive...just chain and shaft. i have read that shaft drive robs horsepower but i think the benefits outweigh the power loss. IMHO, of course.

[jmorrow]

I've never owned a belt drive motorcycle, but I would buy a belt drive before I would go back to a chain drive

[rickmeister56]

i love my nomad more than i did my last road king but i much prefer belt drive over shaft. my last road king had 80,000miles on the belt and it still looked good. i never did anything to it. a friend of mine has a ultra classic that has 110,000 miles on the original belt. all other things considered i will take a nomad over a road king any day...