A couple of recent threads have made me think 'Why isn't this technology used on bikes'? First off, one I've thought about for years - Belt Final drive. Belt material technology has moved on so much in the last twenty years, why are nearly all new bikes still pushed out the door by manufacturers with old fashioned messy, complicated chains that require loads of Maintenance? I've never found a satisfactory answer to this, and to me as an engineer it makes so much sense to convert to a belt, even if it has to be twice as wide. If large capacity low revving Harleys can shove big pulses of Torque through one, why can't smoother running lower capacity machines use them. The industrial applications they are used in are many and varied these days. Secondly - Compressor maintained air suspension. My 65 plate land Rover Discovery, like many other large 4x4s, has air bags all round with pressure maintained and adjusted by an onboard compressor, no metal springs at all, is fully adjustable for height at the touch of a button, and can compensate between a light load of just me in the drivers seat, and a fully loaded car with 3.5tns of trailer on the back with a nose weight of @100Kgs. I can drop it right down @4" from normal height to make getting in and out easier, or lift it up @4" above normal running height to use off road. The weight of a small compressor on a bike would be mostly offset by the lack of weight associated with conventional springs. I'm thinking that such a system would suit big off road type Adventure bikes that carry a variable load and deal with variable road/off road conditions, or is it already a thing on them?
Agreed Nasher. Both are within the realm of possibility. Maybe the industry knows something we don’t ?
Belts: ugly to start with, do they sap more or less power? Air suspension, open to the elements like bikes imagine the thing locking out entirely or collapsing with a fault….
Air suspension? Another complicated system that will add weight, use power, require maintenance and probably not provide much -if any- real world advantage. I don't know much about belt drive bikes. But personally I think chains are fine. Sure they require an occasional clean and a spray with chain oil. Most bike guys I know knock themselves out cleaning their bikes even when they are spotless so I doubt they want less cleaning jobs! As for a spray of oil, its not a hardship really to me.
I always thought my 750SS and my M900 would be better bikes if they had chains where the belts were (no Ducati tax every two years) and a belt where the chain was (no crud all over the rear of the bike and a smoother transition off and on the throttle). Air suspension could work a la Citroen DS19 with a reservoir that might need topping up every so often and for a touring bike having the front and rear suspension linked via the reservoir might make for a smooth ride (not really thought that through though). Gas filled suspension rather than springs and oil damping should be more progressive and should reduce un-sprung weight but might require some form of cooling to retain consistent damping.
Interesting points you make about chain and belt drives.I am no expert on these matters but I did find that my 2013 BMW GT worked rather well with a belt drive to the rear wheel with never a bit of trouble.
I'd prefer lightweight composite material shaft drive to belts, but do like the idea of belts better than chains (which are far too much hassle).
Thanks to everyone for their input, all very interesting. I was hoping others would come up with some more things that they wonder why they are not used on bikes.
The possibilities are endless Nasher.I suppose many of these possibilities are a matter of taste too.For example I like automatic transmission which I prefer in cars and maybe on an ST would be good for an older rider.When I was a lad I rode Indian Scouts with a foot clutch and hand change gears and the twist grip on the left which was OK.British bikes had the foot change pedal on the right and even now that seems more natural for me.The foot clutch worked very well, particularly at traffic lights because the pedal kept the clutch free until until you raised the pedal with your left foot.I am not suggesting that we should return to these old technologies but maybe they present useful food for thought.
I actually like cambelts, but agree with your thoughts on the rear belt. Yep, my LR system has a small reservoir tank of compressed air that's topped up by an onboard compressor. I thought the old Citroen system was Hydraulic not air, but am probably wrong.
Auto's are a great example of what I'm on about. 20yrs ago I'd have scoffed at anyone ordering an Auto car, but these days I say horses for courses. I love driving Lady Nashers Manual Mini Cooper Works Edition, and if I had a 'toy' car it would have to be manual. But my Daily Discovery is so much better as an auto, especially in traffic and when towing. These days all the top level off-road competitors use semi or fully auto boxes as they are just better for a lot of situations. I fully agree that an auto multistrada for the die-hard long distance rider would probably go down well. Perhaps for couriers, police, or the Blood guys particularly. Didn't Honda try it years ago? But technology has caught up.
Don’t a lot if the leather chaps brigade mod their Harleys from belts to chain drive? Why? Because they are pig ugly (belts that is. Oh. And blokes in chaps. Of any kind).
That would have been a VFR1200 - came out in 2010 with an auto transmission. The latest Goldwing is available with an Automatic Dual Clutch Transmission as well as quite a few other models https://www.honda.co.uk/motorcycles/experience-honda/dual-clutch-transmission.html https://www.autoweek.com/drives/a33...se-for-the-automatic-transmission-motorcycle/
