Most durable: Belt or Shaft-Drive?

[limas_mtb 0]

Ok, maybe we've had similar topics before, but what I really want to know is about breakage:

Anyone broken a shaft?

What kind of shaft was it?

Anyone broken a belt?

Does this happen often?

Under what circumstances?id="purple">

This is NOT a belt/shaft shoutout, I just want to know how easily & under what conditions your 4WD car became a Rear-Wheel drive!

Cheers,

Alex

[SJoerD 2]

In general, a shaft is more durable, stronger, and maintainance free opposed to a belt. That's why shafts in stead of belts are used in rally cars and buggies, as in these circumstances they get more abuse.

A belt is lighter, less friction and offers a little more 'give' when under tension opposed to a shaft. That's why many touring cars have belts rather than shafts, as the advantages of less friction are (somtimes) more needed than the added reliability of a shaft.

I hope this helps a little. Also, In case of a TA-03F it might turn in a FWD when the belt snaps... []

[RichieRich 685]

I've owned several shaft, belt and chain driven cars. In my experience, shaft seems to be more durable. I've never broken a shaft. I have an RS4-2 with three belts and I've busted the rear belt several times. In these cases, the car became front wheel drive. [] Everytime, it was caused by a small pebble getting caught between the pulley and belt. This forced the belt against the rear diff carrier and severed the belt.

[mr_lister999. 3]

I have had shaft and belt buggies and cars but never broken or bent any of them in around 6 years. I know thats useless infomation to this topic but i didnt want to be left out []

[Stu.B 0]

I have to say I prefer belt drive for racing. I had a Tenth Technology Predator once and it was enough to put you off shaft drives for life! For Big trucks and off roaders obviously shaft drive is more realistic.

[miramar 4]

quote:

Originally posted by Sjoerd

In general, a shaft is more durable, stronger, and maintainance free opposed to a belt. That's why shafts in stead of belts are used in rally cars and buggies, as in these circumstances they get more abuse.

A belt is lighter, less friction and offers a little more 'give' when under tension opposed to a shaft. That's why many touring cars have belts rather than shafts, as the advantages of less friction are (somtimes) more needed than the added reliability of a shaft.

I hope this helps a little. Also, In case of a TA-03F it might turn in a FWD when the belt snaps... [

]

---

id="quote">id="quote">

Sjoerd, this explenation is way too simple. I think it was Darryn who commented on an earlier discussion about belt and shaft by comparing it to "how long is a piece of string?".[]

As you all probably know, some of the best rallycars and buggies use beltdrive. Also, stating that beltdrive has less friction than shaftdrive is based on the simple assumption that the "straight" belt drivetrain means less friction than a shaftdrive with angled gears. I have observed this discussion since the first successful beltdrive cars occured in the eighties, and I still haven't seen any evidence that the statement is true. Several very competitive shaftdrive cars have proven that beltdrive isn't as superior as many racers claim. To compare belt and shaft in a correct way, you would have to investigate friction and distortion under different dynamic conditions, and not just turn the wheels around by hand and make a simple (and wrong) conclusion.

I haven't taken part in organized racing for a few years now, so I've made myself a simple rule: the (4WD) models I use under "dirty" conditions are shaftdrive, whereas the models used under "clean" conditions are beltdrive. This is convenient as minimizes maintenance.

And yes, I've broken a propshaft: the multipiece shaft on my Hotshot in 1985, and I've broken the jointcups on the ends of the propshaft several times.

Like most, I've broken belts several times too. However, compaired to chaindrive, beltdrive is very reliable! []

[SJoerD 2]

Yes, I know my explanation is very simple. But these are just some of the basics... []

Also, there are obviously belt driven buggies and shaft driven touring cars, in case I forgot to mention... LOL

[trabbi daz 0]

I prefer shaft drive as i dont think them belts look as though they are up to the job..Also i wouldnt want to be in the postition where i'm in the 'A'final races and i'm in the lead when the belt snaps!!!! [] []

[Thesis 0]

I've broken/wrecked a shaft, It's the carbon prop shaft for the TB-01, don't buy it [V]. It's working fine in the beginning but after a few times racing it falls apart [V][V].

but besides that shaft are very reliable.

[limas_mtb 0]

Anyone ever broken a TL01 carbon prop-shaft?

[trabbi daz 0]

quote:

Originally posted by limas_mtb

Anyone ever broken a TL01 carbon prop-shaft?

---

id="quote">id="quote">

I haven't managed to do it yet.Would it be because the car is fully ballraced have anything to do with it[?][?](less friction=less wear =lower stresses on the shafts [?])

[limas_mtb 0]

Most probably, yes![]

[Mooplea 0]

my shaftdrive tc3 tourer definately has less friction than my belt drive mr4tc tourer..

[DJTheo 2]

quote:I haven't managed to do it yet.Would it be because the car is fully ballraced have anything to do with it(less friction=less wear =lower stresses on the shafts )

id="quote">id="quote">

Would think most propably it would have to do with imbalance and/or play in its bearings, the vibration would reach a resonance in high rpm and the shaft would bend till it breaks

[limas_mtb 0]

Good one Theo!

I should've thought of this myself, since it is one of the main reasons Mountain Bike hub-axles & suspension-pivots break (even the beefy ones) -I'll just replace "high RPM" with "hammering", MTBs dont rev as high as RCcars[][][]!!!

Cheers,

Alex