Check you primary lube

illf8ed said:

Then why does the new 961 Commando use an oil bath clutch if dry clutch is better? Mike's comments are real world, not racetrack. IMO...maybe not humble.

Click to expand...

That is curious since Dreer so admires the Ducatis.

Rich_j said:

For the sort of road use most of us do, a belt conversion is entirely unnecessary, if you've got money to burn go for it but it shouldn't be on anyones essential list.

Click to expand...

Maybe not essential but nice to have. The reduced strain on a gearbox designed when dinosaurs roamed can't be discounted. If you're going to be replacing or purchasing the stock parts (as opposed to a swap) then the cost is negligible, especially with the RGM kit under US$400.

swooshdave said:

Rich_j said:

For the sort of road use most of us do, a belt conversion is entirely unnecessary, if you've got money to burn go for it but it shouldn't be on anyones essential list.

Click to expand...

Maybe not essential but nice to have. The reduced strain on a gearbox designed when dinosaurs roamed can't be discounted. If you're going to be replacing or purchasing the stock parts (as opposed to a swap) then the cost is negligible, especially with the RGM kit under US$400.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but has anyone ever worn out a clutch basket , engine sprocket, bronze plates? These things last forever, sure the clutch centres can wear but I'm still on my first replacement in 20 years, I've never even replaced a chain so when exactly are you replacing these things and what have you done to ruin them.

How about quantify this less strain on the gearbox in terms of time between major overhauls?

Rich_j said:

Sorry, but has anyone ever worn out a clutch basket , engine sprocket, bronze plates? These things last forever, sure the clutch centres can wear but I'm still on my first replacement in 20 years, I've never even replaced a chain so when exactly are you replacing these things and what have you done to ruin them.

Click to expand...

Well, in my case when starting with a basket case, many parts were missing. As an example.

And, as you've seen around here, sometimes cost is not the only consideration for some people. Obviously not me, but for some. So paying more for a system with clear benefits is not unreasonable.

A belt drive primary certainly is not necessary but they sure are nice. They make the clutch release better so the bike is easier to shift into neutral at a stop and dry clutch plates don't tend to slip like the stock ones do when they get a build up of oil on them. Of course if you clean them
occasionally they work fine.
Contrary to Hobot's post belts are slightly more efficient in transferring power but you would never know the difference unless you were racing. That is comparing a belt to a triplex chain.
The weight savings can be a good thing.
A properly installed belt will outlast a chain and sprockets. Over-tensioned belts cause most of the reported belt failures.
No oil leaks from the primary case is a good thing.
I have had a spare belt tucked in my fairing since mid eighties and have not needed it over 70 some thousand miles.
Belt drives are a little quieter than a chain but only noticeable if you are really listening.
I love the belt because of lack of needed maintenance for it or the clutch. I don't even have provisions to change the belt tension on my bike. When I installed it on my MK3 I figured if the belt got too loose I would just replace it. I didn't expect it to last this long. Jim

And yes the chains do wear out. I have several chains here that are missing rollers or have enough slop they don't fit the sprocket anymore. Usually 30 to 40 thousand miles and a chain is pretty well knackered. Of course that depends some on how you use it and lubricate it.

Well, the new 961 Norton Commando was designed from the get go to have a wet clutch.

Our older Commandos were designed to have a dry clutch. Unfortunately, they get oil slopped on the plates from the
oil to lube the chain. Perhaps not a "design" defect per se, just something to be dealt with, cleaned, as part of normal periodic maintenance.

So, the question is asked, if a dry clutch is so good then why don't the new Nortons have a dry clutch?

I don't know, Ducatis have dry clutches and they are "modern", yet almost all other bikes have wet clutches.

I don't think one is necessary better than the other, just the way that bike's designers laid it out.

1up3down said:

Well, the new 961 Norton Commando was designed from the get go to have a wet clutch.

Our older Commandos were designed to have a dry clutch. Unfortunately, they get oil slopped on the plates from the
oil to lube the chain. Perhaps not a "design" defect per se, just something to be dealt with, cleaned, as part of normal periodic maintenance.

So, the question is asked, if a dry clutch is so good then why don't the new Nortons have a dry clutch?

I don't know, Ducatis have dry clutches and they are "modern", yet almost all other bikes have wet clutches.

I don't think one is necessary better than the other, just the way that bike's designers laid it out.

Click to expand...

Motorcycle Classic Mar/Apr 2011Alan Cathcart wrote about the 961 Commando...However one big improvement over the Italian (Ducati) bike's dynamics is the Norton's oil-bath clutch, which is a delight; much lighter and more progressive then any Ducati dry clutch...

Hopefully I don't have any lube in the primary.

A belt drive primary on my '70 commando solved several issues : 1) cushioned the drive line, 2) replaced a worn out clutch basket, 3) eliminated broken rollers on the primary drive chain, 4) clutch plates never stick together, 5) took 500 rpm off crusing at 65 (er, 55) mph in 4th gear, 6) is a lot quieter. Oil still leaks off the primary case, but since I put a new drive side carnkshaft seal in, I'm thinking the bearing is not as good as it used to be.

The belt is claimed to be good for 25,000 miles, but from what I just read, I should hide the spare in the side cover and just keep going.

Do you suppose that Norton thought that these bikes would still be running after 30+ years and 50,000+ (70,000+ ? ) miles ? Either system works fine. Keep on riding your bike. If I wanted to be a conformist, I'd buy a Hardly Ableson or an R1.

Greg

The weak link in belt is the edges which rub pulley sides or get scubbed by grime and grit, don't take too much before they un-ravel and need picking out and un winding and scrapping and brushing around the crank and alternator pile up.
Comstock carries his spare in his fairing. Belts don't mine holes in the middle much.

Just a pic of one of them good Renolds triplex chains I kept as a souvenier










admittedly I was working it hard.

If one knows how to set the run of their belt drive, then there is no wearing from contact along the edges.

12 years, 20,000 miles on same belt, no "weak" points, no wear or unraveling

Take the time to learn how to true your belt run and you will not have those problems.

dUH yep, if a belt that runs true w/o any stinking side plates gets enough of THE Gravel inhaled through primary vents, it grinds the edge bonding off and un-raveling soon follows just cruising about. Does not apply to most uses smart enough to live on paved paths. Next dummie belt I run will have forced filtered air flow throuh 2 belt drives at once. They don't really need venting but i got carried away with a drill I got left alone with. There is much longer grace period of worn chains compared to un-noticed belt edge abrassion.