Pages: 1
Posted by: KodiakRunner
Yamaha has the most reliable belt drive on the market.
Posted by: 2TV
My '02 Grizzly (which I've owned and ridden since July of '01) is still on the original belt, in fact the belt cover has never been removed. I have about 3800 miles on this machine now, it works hard (dragging logs out of the woods every year, some of which are so heavy that I need a running start with slack in the chain to get them moving) and it has played hard (those that have ridden with me know how and where I ride). I've had to replace my hitch with a home-made design that was stronger to keep it from breaking with the abuse that I put it through and I've had some front-end components replaced due to normal wear. Nearly all of my trail riding has been in high range as well, the exception being when going through boulder fields or descending really steep, technical hills. For those situations I use low range and 4WD.
My Brute Force 750 on the other hand is on its 3rd belt now and it only has about 2500 miles on it, and I've owned it since around August of 2004. It is strictly used as a play machine and is the one I normally use these days for trail riding when I want to use a utility quad. It has been spared log dragging work as I use the Grizzly exclusively for that.
Anyway the point I'm trying to make here is that my Grizzly sees more abuse (although there is less torque involved as well) but the belt drive system is holding up substantially better than on my Brute.
I don't have first hand experience with the others, so I'll refrain from commenting on those...
Posted by: WISTECH
They are mostly likely very similar seeing that they all have the same weak link in the design. The belt. The most reliable would be the quad that came stock with a spare belt and was easiest to change in a mudhole.
Posted by: alwaysride
The yamaha belt system is the most reliable because you dont have to adjust and stuff. But kawasaki has great performence and easy to modify. It just is a little picky.
Posted by: BryceGTX
Hello shawnmd. I prefer the simplicity of the Polaris system. It uses the belt as both the clutch and the variable transmission. It has its roots in snowmobiles which have been using the same type of CVT system for 40 years. It is well designed, durable and will easily last thousands of miles if used properly. Some of the other systems use a separate clutch that eventually will wear out and have to be replaced in addition to the belt. With the Polaris system, you will only replace the belt. It is a simple procedure. I have yet to replace either of my belts after 3 years of use. On my sleds, I expect 3000 to 5000 miles on a belt. These engines are much higher HP than any ATV ever built.
Bryce
Posted by: BryceGTX
Dang DesertViper. You have owned so many quads in the last 8 years that I bet you have never even completely broken in an engine yet. Seems to me that you have no long term experience with any single quad, much less any single belt driven quad. The fact that you broke a quad in only 30 miles just seems to remind us that anyone can break anything.
Bryce
Posted by: BryceGTX
Propnut, as usual, your goal is to turn a potentially useful thread into a useless squabble between brands. Lets see if we can get it out of the gutter eh??
There are two classes of CVT type transmissions in ATVs. The first class is CVTs that use the belt as the clutch. This type of CVT system is used by Kawasaki, Suzuki, Polaris and Bombardier.
The second class of CVT systems are those that use a separate centrifugal clutch in combination with a pretensioned CVT belt. This type of CVT system is used by Arctic Cat and Yamaha.
I think the clutches advantages and disadvantages can be summarized as follows:
The advantages of the belt clutch systems are:
1) Simplicity, this system uses the belt as both the clutch and the transmission
2) High performance: these clutches provide a wide range of custom tuning. Specifically, engagement speed can be closely tied to engine HP to provide very high launch rates. Similar to “clutch feathering” on manual transmission quads.
The disadvantages of the belt clutch system are:
1) If the rider makes a habit of riding the ATV in such a way that the belt slips, he can burn the belt up.
2) Since these systems are so easy to change the tuning, often times custom tuning results in reducing the reliability of these CVT systems.
The advantages of the belt system with separate centrifugal clutch are:
1) Idiot proof: It is not easy to burn this system up because the CVT is not used as a clutch. Furthermore, the centrifugal clutch engages over a relatively small rpm range to limit wear to the centrifugal clutch.
The disadvantages of the belt system with separate centrifugal clutch are:
1) More complicated: The CVT system is more complicated because it includes a separate automatic clutch with its own wear surfaces. It also requires additional bearings/seals built into the CVT drive clutch that allow the output of the clutch to free wheel on the crankshaft.
2) Little performance tuning: Very little can be changed in this CVT system to increase its performance. The centrifugal clutch is pretty much on or off, there is no capability to provide a “Clutch feathering” type launch. This system depends on engine torque to launch the quad.
Posted by: BryceGTX
Quote
Again you turn a thread into a Polaris advertisement for dummies. I don't see where I am endorsing a brand or approach to belt drives, just pointing out your bias based off of misplaced American (well, sort of) company protectionism.
I take it being an American is bad in your eyes????
Quote
I will say that you are wrong about the Polaris (for example), the primary is the "clutch", not the belt. The way the primary is allowed to "let go" of the belt handles engagement and disengagement. Boy are you off on that flawed interpretation.
I don't see where I mixed up the primary and the belt. However, what I was refering to is that the belt and primary form the clutch on a Polaris (for example). The primary is simply a couple of sheaves, springs and weights. It performs the function of a clutch when you add a belt. On the other hand, the centrifugal clutch performs the function of the clutch on the Yamaha and Arctic Cat: not the belt.
Quote
Engagement in a non-drag racing machine is less than 1% of where an ATV spends it's time and seeing there is such low gearing and virtually no wheel slip
Clutch feathering is used to launch a manual transmission quad as quick as possible. Its intent is to prevent tire slip. Ask anyone familiar with manual transmissions. Not sure about your point about low gearing since the intent of the CVT is to pick an optimal gear ratio. As far as 1%.. so what??
Quote
(like a sled track on different conditions that require different engagement characteristics) there is little need to alter it's engagement. There are times that would benefit, such as going to a larger heavier mud tire in competition, but that can be taken care of in ways other than a stiffer primary, notched weights, or whatever other trick used on a sled type CVT.
It is well known in both the ATV and sled forums that tuning of the clutch and specifically changing the engagement speeds and shift up rate from stock settings invariably gets you out of the hole quicker. Stock clutching on many ATVs is often too tame for some riders. I personally prefer the stock settings on my quads.
Quote
Because ATVs are not lined up for organized drag racing as commonly or competively as sleds, not many owners need to tune the engagement speed.
You need to go to Silver Lake on any weekend during the summer. You will find hundreds of quads watching and running against each other. Here you wil see everything imaginable from hopped up banshees to dune buggies. It may not be organized by a drag racing body.. but it is huge and there is a lot of money dumped into these machines.
Quote
However, stiffer springs for centrifugal clutches are available for some models that increase the engagement RPM, so you are wrong about that too.
The centrifugal clutch has a very limited RPM range of slippage. For good reason, it has virtually no ability to get rid of the heat. Look at the design. The CVTs have cooling fins hung all over them. The centrifugal clutch has no such cooling fins. You will burn up the centrifugal clutch in no time if it slips. The slippage is what allows you to come out of the hole so quickly. The CVT will always do better than a centrifugal clutch.
Quote
You can still tune upshift, backshift, and RPM by using the same techniques as a sled (helix, springs, weights),
If you read my post I specifically refered to engagement speeds, because that is the key characteristic that that is often very low on CVT driven quads. Sleds typically don't have this problem. But I doubt that you will find hardly any performance parts for either the Yamaha or Arctic Cat clutches.
Quote
But then again you personally don't really mess with that stuff on your machines so your response is not based off of experience. I would hope this thread would continue to be populated by owners that have had a few different types of ATV belt drives and post from a lot of experience.
I am the only one that every lays a wrench on my toys. But then again how could you possibly know that. You don't know me.
Always nice to chat propnut
Posted by: BryceGTX
I stand corrected about performance parts for the Yamaha clutch system. EPI makes a clutch performance kits that "raise the clutch engagement speed" which is clearly the performance bottleneck in any CVT powered quad. My 2 cycle quad has an engagement speed of 1500 rpms. My two cycle sleds have clutch engagement speeds of 3500 rpms. A reclutched quad gives a performance boost that suprises most people. The only place I have felt the need for higher engagement speeds is in the dunes where performance is critically important.
As far as cooling the clutch, it seems to me that the rotating fins on a CVT primary will dissipate much more heat than the air going through the oil cooler for the engine oil. Centrifugal clutches are design to slip as little as possible. It won't last long if it does. It has more in common with a manual clutch than a CVT clutch.
It is not my intent to bash any CVT design, only to point out what I see as the fundamental differences. It is hard to argue which design is simpler. We can argue all day about which design is more reliable. From a performance standpoint, it seems to me that the the limitation of slippage of the centrifugal clutch puts it at a disadvantage.
propnut, you can argue all you want about the sematics of what is a clutch. If thats all you got.. you might as well leave.
Bryce
Posted by: BryceGTX
Quote
BryceGTX,
have you ever ridden a utility ATV with a high rpm clutch engagement? I'm just wondering, because they are no fun at all. I did a lot of experimenting with clutch tuning on v-force and prairie ATVs.
I don't see in this thread where it requires us to only talk about UTEs. I don't drive UTEs. So whats your point?
Quote
I spent a whole day once doing timed runs up Sand Mountain, which is a 700' high, really steep mountain of sand. I wanted to see which clutch combination would produce the fastest times. I tried four different springs and three combinations of clutch weights in one day. I found that on a V-force a spring with a higher stall rating helped prevent wheelies. I could just pin the throttle off the line, and RPMs would build high enough that when the clutch engaged it would spin the paddle tires, instead of relying on torque, which caused wheelies. A spring with a higher shift out rating allowed higher RPM once running up the mountain, and the engine would pull the hill faster when revved higher. I was able to shave 6 seconds off my time, which is HUGE. Watch a quad climbing the mountain near the top, when it is at top speed, and see how much ground it covers while you count out 6 seconds. Lose that 6 seconds and it puts you way way behind.
The V force has so much torque that it almost does not matter how you clutch it. (Compared to a two stroke) But I can believe that you can find an optimal clutching for sand. This supports my arguments. But I think you mean a slower shift out rate, thats why it was running higher revs. However, try running a 250 Trailblazer or a 330 Trailboss up sand hills. Then again, try racing a CVT quad or building up a two stroke CVT. Then you will understand why people change their clutching on these quads.
Quote
I do not think utility quads respond as well to clutch tuning. The best engagement RPM for a utility quad is stock. Raising the engagement RPM makes it hit a lot harder when it engages, which ain't cool while climbing the side of a mountain and trying to keep the front end down. And it is worse in reverse; you have to rev the engine to about half throttle to even get it to engage, then it bangs hard when it hooks up. Try that why backing out of your truck on a snow covered ramp someday.
It all depends on how you are going to use your quad. If you need a high performance CVT system, for whatever reason, you will reclutch it. Just because you have never found the need doesn't mean all people haven't found the need. I personally spend a lot of time on goat trails, so the stock clutching is fine. However; in the dunes, it is clearly lacking. The other application where UTEs change their clutching is for mud.
Quote
You also loose engine braking while going downhill with high stall springs, because as soon as you drop the RPM below engagement speed, it disengages. High stall springs just don't work for general utility ATVing. Although I did find a spring with stock engagement RPM and a little higher shift out RPM that was pretty nice on the Prairie, but that was still a compromise.
You do not lose engine braking on either a Polaris or a Yamaha because these systems use one way overrunning clutches to transfer torque back from the wheels to the engine. The clutching has little effect on engine braking.
Quote
And another thing, this thread asked what is the most reliable belt drive transmission, not which one is the best. The word best is subject to interpretation, but most reliable is simply a statistic. If we could find statistics on percentage of total belt drive transmissions that require repair for each manufacturer we could answer the question definitively. Not only could we say which is the most reliable, we could even list them in order from most reliable to least reliable.
My first post, I specifically said "I prefer the Polaris system". This is my personal preference. I don't remember saying that any system is best. As far as statistics.. I can make anything look good or bad with statistics! Statistics asre only as good as the underlying assumptions.
Bryce
Posted by: BryceGTX
I'm crushed
Posted by: OGGYDOGGY
Quote
Originally posted by: WISTECH
They are mostly likely very similar seeing that they all have the same weak link in the design. The belt. The most reliable would be the quad that came stock with a spare belt and was easiest to change in a mudhole.
Myself- I would stay away from one that actually gave you an extra belt- Like Polaris lifetime on belts that tells you something right there . I know someone who had one, after the second belt they try to charge you.Yamaha drive system hands down is the best , then Kawi
Cat
Bomber
Zuki
Last and least Polaris IMOA
Posted by: propnut
Same old "if your Polaris broke it's your fault". Don't even waste your time with this guy.
Posted by: propnut
Again you turn a thread into a Polaris advertisement for dummies. I don't see where I am endorsing a brand or approach to belt drives, just pointing out your bias based off of misplaced American (well, sort of) company protectionism. Just listen to the people with experience here and quiet about your inexperienced theories. Drop the condescending criticism because of their bad experience with your favorite brand. If I was buying a belt drive off of experienced owners opinions, I would totally disregard your rhetoric. The point of my post was to identify your post as such, no offense.
I will say that you are wrong about the Polaris (for example), the primary is the "clutch", not the belt. The way the primary is allowed to "let go" of the belt handles engagement and disengagement. Boy are you off on that flawed interpretation. Engagement in a non-drag racing machine is less than 1% of where an ATV spends it's time and seeing there is such low gearing and virtually no wheel slip (like a sled track on different conditions that require different engagement characteristics) there is little need to alter it's engagement. There are times that would benefit, such as going to a larger heavier mud tire in competition, but that can be taken care of in ways other than a stiffer primary, notched weights, or whatever other trick used on a sled type CVT.
Because ATVs are not lined up for organized drag racing as commonly or competively as sleds, not many owners need to tune the engagement speed. However, stiffer springs for centrifugal clutches are available for some models that increase the engagement RPM, so you are wrong about that too. You can still tune upshift, backshift, and RPM by using the same techniques as a sled (helix, springs, weights), but then again you personally don't really mess with that stuff on your machines so your response is not based off of experience. I would hope this thread would continue to be populated by owners that have had a few different types of ATV belt drives and post from a lot of experience.
Posted by: propnut
Quote
The first class is CVTs that use the belt as the clutch.
you said it, not me. backtracker.
Quote
The CVTs have cooling fins hung all over them. The centrifugal clutch has no such cooling fins.
wet clutches like the Grizz wouldn't work well with fins smarty, would they? They'd probably foam the oil and get too hot, nevermind power loss.
I love American, just don't like your Rovian tactics. You know a competitive brand that's all American I can buy? Truth is that this is more BS from BGTX the defender. You are just like Dick C. Too old and/or too stubborn to change or admit you're wrong.
Both styles of CVT can be tuned for better performance (see Dalton for one), from idle to shift out, regardless of your disinformation. Engagement speed on a centrifugal clutch is low enough that you probably won't notice, but there is enough slip to make it smooth. Because of the gearing, engagement with the belt is practically insignificant on an ATV, it's the upshift/backshift that matters. You spin it to make it sound like a centrifugal clutch on a belt drive is a disadvantage. (maybe it's an excuse for the old fashioned sled type) Try driving one first. Better than burning out a "Lifetime Warranty" belt that you have to pay for anyway.
So, where's the big utility ATV drag race like Haydays? I'll be sure to bring a pillow zzzzzz. 25 second 1/4 mile runs!!! wooo hooo
The belt is not a clutch, no matter how you "spin" it. I've said what I have to say, so type what you must and say it over and over to convince yourself you are right. I'm taking the high road, bye.
Posted by: DesertViper
I'm just going to recount my own experiences with belt drive transmissions, instead of getting into the theory about how something coulda, woulda, shoulda worked like.
I've owned eight Yamaha's with belt drive transmissions, and have not had to even touch any of them, ever.
I've owned four Kawasaki's with belt drive transmissions. Both the Prairie 650 and Prairie 700 needed to be serviced twice during the time we owned them. Both V-force transmissions received significant clutch mods for increased acceleration, but had no problems.
I've owned three Polaris ATVs, and both full size ATVs needed clutch work (the Scrambler 50 worked fine for the thirty miles or so that we put on it). The Scrambler 500 burned a belt and the dealer refused to submit the warranty claim to Polaris, and made me pay $137 for a new belt and the labor to install it (so much for a life time warranty). The Sportsman 500 HO needed the entire primary drive clutch assembly replaced, because the clutch itself warped, even though the belt was still fine.
And if you say I didn't use the clutch properly, that's fine, but I mis-used all of the ATVs clutches in the same way. So no doubt about it as far as I'm concerned, Yamaha wins hands down, at least for the three brands I've owned.
Posted by: DesertViper
Bryce,
Wonder why it was the Polaris quads that had transmission problems with such low low miles? Seems they don't hold up all that well. Could that be? Maybe I made an assumption.
Actually, if you consider there are four of us in our family, and that we ride during the week and on every weekend, with four machines going at once, I'm going to estimate about 1600 miles per month that we put on them. Not 1600 miles each, but split over 4 of them. So even if we only keep one particular ATV for two years its not exactly like these are low mileage units. One of the Grizzlys we owned had 3500 miles on it, a DS650 had 5000 miles on it, the Grizzly 700 has 400 miles on it since we bought it on labor day weekend started. Its best not to make assumptions.
Posted by: DesertViper
BryceGTX,
have you ever ridden a utility ATV with a high rpm clutch engagement? I'm just wondering, because they are no fun at all. I did a lot of experimenting with clutch tuning on v-force and prairie ATVs.
I spent a whole day once doing timed runs up Sand Mountain, which is a 700' high, really steep mountain of sand. I wanted to see which clutch combination would produce the fastest times. I tried four different springs and three combinations of clutch weights in one day. I found that on a V-force a spring with a higher stall rating helped prevent wheelies. I could just pin the throttle off the line, and RPMs would build high enough that when the clutch engaged it would spin the paddle tires, instead of relying on torque, which caused wheelies. A spring with a higher shift out rating allowed higher RPM once running up the mountain, and the engine would pull the hill faster when revved higher. I was able to shave 6 seconds off my time, which is HUGE. Watch a quad climbing the mountain near the top, when it is at top speed, and see how much ground it covers while you count out 6 seconds. Lose that 6 seconds and it puts you way way behind.
I do not think utility quads respond as well to clutch tuning. The best engagement RPM for a utility quad is stock. Raising the engagement RPM makes it hit a lot harder when it engages, which ain't cool while climbing the side of a mountain and trying to keep the front end down. And it is worse in reverse; you have to rev the engine to about half throttle to even get it to engage, then it bangs hard when it hooks up. Try that why backing out of your truck on a snow covered ramp someday . You also loose engine braking while going downhill with high stall springs, because as soon as you drop the RPM below engagement speed, it disengages. High stall springs just don't work for general utility ATVing. Although I did find a spring with stock engagement RPM and a little higher shift out RPM that was pretty nice on the Prairie, but that was still a compromise.
I don't know if Polaris transmission have the same characteristics as a Kawasaki, because all I ever did to the clutch of a Polaris is change to high altitude clutch weights on a Scrambler 500 4x4, and it didn't seem to do much of anything for it. In fact, it may have slowed it down a bit; it certainly didn't help. I did change to a stiffer secondary spring in a Yamaha Grizzly once, and it helped speed up backshifting, and made it feel more responsive in general.
And another thing, this thread asked what is the most reliable belt drive transmission, not which one is the best. The word best is subject to interpretation, but most reliable is simply a statistic. If we could find statistics on percentage of total belt drive transmissions that require repair for each manufacturer we could answer the question definitively. Not only could we say which is the most reliable, we could even list them in order from most reliable to least reliable.
DV
Posted by: DesertViper
"The V force has so much torque that it almost does not matter how you clutch it."
I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on this thread, but you have never done any clutch tuning on a V-Force. Why do you come on here with these bold sweeping statements about something that you have no experience with? I'm sorry if this is offensive. If this were subjective we would have a disagreement. Its objective, and you're just wrong.
You say you "prefer" the Polaris belt drive system. Prefer to what? What other belt drive ATVs have you owned that you prefer the Polaris system to? Or is everything you say just a regurgitation from a Polaris sales brochure. If I wanted to know what the brochure said I would go to a Polaris dealer.
propnut was right when he said not to waste our time.
Posted by: shawnmd
OK fellas, this will eliminate alot of posts about the reliability of Belt driven transmissions. In your opinion, organize the below list in the order of most reliable at ther top to least reliable at the bottom. Oh, and this is about belt driven transmissions, which excludes manuals and any automatic from Honda. Remember, Belt Driven. Also give a little explanation. Yoiu may also include earlier or later versions of some transmissions.
Kawasaki Automatic
Polaris PVT Automatic
Yamaha Ultramatic
Arctic Cat Duramatic
Suzuki Quadmatic
Bombardier CVT Automatic
Let the listing begin!
Posted by: katman
thanks,i agree, and have had no probs., with mine.
660
Posted by: Instigater
Bryce, I read his last post diffrently. It sounds to me that he only had the 50cc for thirty miles. He didn't break anything on it! Don't worry, I am sure we have all misread somthing at that hour of the night
Posted by: v2rider
I have a 650V2, with Kawis tranny, and took the belt cover off to check the belt at 1000 miles. The belt is still new. No joke. It doesnt matter what you have, it all about how you listen to fellow riders, and how you treat it. I drive mine in low ALL the time, as i was reccomended. And it paid off. I can jump, pull wheelies, beat the crap out of it, and havnt had one sign of wear on my belt. Just take care of your machine, and it will last a long time
Posted by: v2rider
Quote
Originally posted by: BryceGTX
I'm crushed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL!!!!!
Posted by: SafetySean
I ride Polaris and have never had any trouble with a belt. I have smoked my belt on a few occasions trying to haul people out of mudholes but this has been more a result of light throttle application and/or being too close or tight on the winch cable. Even then there has been no probs with the belt afterward. I ride with all different makes of quads and actually have not seen a belt problem with any of them. We are by no means gentle on our bikes but there have been no problems with my group of riding buddies. Snowmobiles on the other hand are a different issue and I have experienced chunked belts, glazed belts, blown belts over the years and witnessed the same with a lot of other people across all sled brands using all types of belts. So to me the quad systems are easier on belts or the belts are built better than sled belts.
Posted by: Rosco120
Does anyone have a any technical drawings or specs. of a decent CVT. I'm currently designing my own quad bike but I don't know enough about transmissions and I'm looking for any help/adive you can offer
Posted by: mrtwostroke
just because you haven't owned doesn't mean you haven't tried one out or worked on a freinds. And most people have to get it through their thick heads. If you ride a polaris there is a good chance he is a tuner. not just some guy who putts down the trail checking out the butterflies
