Yes I agree with the misalignment causing the failure. But been following this post and do not recall anyone describing the belt's structure. The belt drives I have seen came with an entry level belt, rayon- fiberglass cords. There are Kevlar as a middle load and carbon fiber for the max. I believe the Torque load is more important then HP. What was the cord material?
I have a couple of BNR belt drives and an RGM belt drive
Those all have multiple endless steel cables to carry the load. The Rubber/kevlar is just there to form the drive teeth and hold the cables in their place.
Chain drive primaries are excellent overall. The negatives are
-They are a much heavier drive system.
- They can be leaky- really leaky with the Dominator tin cover.
- When the chain does let go, the destruction is tremendous.
I believe that the main reason many vintage racers prefer belt drives. They tend to stand up very well to race engines and racing.
Bob Newby hasn't made a business out of failed belt drives.
With belts it seems the main problem is getting the alignment correct. Once it's there , they work for a very long time.
One of the Newby's is on the 1360 Vincent, fixed centres.
That one carries a lot of power without any problems so far.
So either drive will work, one is way lighter and does not require oil in the primary.
It's a bit like the stainless steel/ steel discussion.
When someone posts a photo of a broken part made from stainless, ten people post up explanations of how the part broke because it is made of stainless, which is , as is well known, too brittle, too soft, too hard, too flexible, difficult to weld and prone to cracks from vibration.
The same part made in steel breaks and the response is "when that broke on my bike I ordered a new one here, they had the best price"
Glen
all this will not be good for a belt that has been designed for everything being strong enough to maintain alignment without shaft bending and frame deflections.
www.gates.com
.
