# If 1 belt is good, are 2 belts better? More transmitted power? Or double trouble?



## Mad (Dec 9, 2017)

You've no doubt seen, used, or at least heard of Delta's ubiquitous Unisaw. Other than the Powermatic 66, the Unisaw for decades served as the bellwether standard in the USA for what a cabinet table saw should be.

I have a Unisaw. It's buried now under 30 years of accumulation, but retirement will enable an archeological dig that will unearth that beast and see to it's restoration and reuse. This post isn't about that Unisaw. It's about the belts.

On page 16 of Delta's 1954 catalog, Delta displays a close up photo of the Unisaw's belt drive, with the following captions:

"FAMOUS 3 BELT DRIVE"

"Uses ALL motor power"

"Eliminates vibration"

"Produces smooth operation"

"Three belts pull side by side"

What is not to like? Smoother operation while eliminating vibration and utilizing every bit of the motor's horsepoweer.

As mere guesses, I'll add in a couple of more potential benefits... Cooler running belts, leading to longer lasting belts, as the frictional load is distributed over 2 or 3 times the pulley drive surface area, depending on the number of belts added.

Plus... more efficient, less lossy mechanical power transmission... wait, Delta already said that above in different words.

So I'm thinking about my bandsaw here, with a lowly 1/2 hp. motor. Since I have to get a new drive pulley anyway, what if I bought a two groove arbor pulley instead of a single groove, and also changed the single groove motor pulley to a corresponding 2 groove pulley, and then doubled up on the belts?

Would the bandsaw then enjoy at least a partial dosage of the benefits Delta promoted for their 3 belt drive system?

Unlike yesterday, when I was considering taking advantage of the extra long keyway shaft overhangs on both the main arbor and the motor by mounting step pulleys to permit multiple speeds... today's proposal is different. This time I am asking about mounting 2 groove pulleys to run twin belts at one single speed with the hopes of reducing vibration and leveraging more transmittable power mechanically from the original modest motor.

Is what is good for the goose (Unisaw, and other similarly equipped multi belted table saws) also good for the gander (bandsaw)?


----------



## Catpower (Jan 11, 2016)

Unisaw, 1 1/2-5 HP Bandsaw 1/2 HP

It takes more snort to hold down higher horsepower, adding 2 belts to a 1/2 motor is just a waste of time and money


----------



## difalkner (Nov 27, 2011)

Yep, kind of like putting $5,000 worth of tires and wheels on a $2,500 car. Or even a $10.000 car, for that matter. But you would have bragging rights in the 1/2 HP bandsaw world, fwiw. :wink:

David


----------



## TomCT2 (May 16, 2014)

it's all marketing hype and mumbo jumbo.

uses ALL motor power: the only way a belt does not use all motor power is if it slips.
if a belt is slipping, you'll smell that....

eliminates vibration: if you have two or three belts fluttering in the wind, would you suspect the total vibration is 2 or 3 times as much or 2 or 3 times less?

properly adjusted and aligned - whether it is one belt or one dozen belts - they last years and years and years.
double belts are more expensive - triple belts even more expensive - they have to be a 'matched' set for the length. if they are not matched one will slip - there goes the cooler belt theory - and wear out very quickly.

a belt can only transmit so much power before it starts to slip. that does not happen in fractional horsepower motors - but "need more power" is the only reason to go for multiple belts. if you plan on putting a 20hp motor on the bandsaw, might be worth considering.


----------



## difalkner (Nov 27, 2011)

Oh, I don't think it's _*'all' *_hype. Three belts can definitely transmit more power than one belt, assuming the three belts are matched as you pointed out, Tom. More than one belt on a 1/2 HP motor is just overkill, though. On my 3 HP PM66 I'm glad it has three belts and when I restored the saw I used matched belts. Can't say I have ever detected the slightest bit of slipping and, having had one or two boards try to pinch the blade I can assure it has had ample opportunity to slip.

David


----------



## Steve Neul (Sep 2, 2011)

If you can determine there is some belt slippage then more belts is called for. Otherwise there is no point. More belts are not going to deliver more power.


----------



## woodnthings (Jan 24, 2009)

*WOW, great question!*

The simple answer to your question is "don't bother for that saw and that motor", the loss of performance between one belt and two won't matter for that arrangement. :|

For some perspective, I have a 5 hp powermatic with a triple belt drive, and it runs very smooth and I would bet a cold draft beer that it has no loss of performance/torque. Now here's the kicker, I also have a 3 HP Min Max planer/jointer with a single 3/8" wide belt. :surprise2: How can that work? Well, it works just fine. Don't ask me how.
Here's some more interesting belt arrangements. My 14" Craftsman Pro bandsaws have a multi-groove flat belt 1/2" with 4 grooves. My 15" Jet planer has 3 belts 3/8" wide. My Foley Belsaw 13" planer has 3 sheave pulleys, but I only run 2 belts with a 3 HP Baldor motor. My small block Chevy has around 300 HP and runs 2 separate multi-groove belts, one for the power steering pump and one for the 150 amp alternator. Water pump and fans are electric. So, as you can see belts and pulley types vary all over the place. :smile2:


----------



## TomCT2 (May 16, 2014)

difalkner said:


> Oh, I don't think it's _*'all' *_hype. Three belts can definitely transmit more power than one belt, assuming the three belts are matched as you pointed out, Tom. More than one belt on a 1/2 HP motor is just overkill, though. On my 3 HP PM66 I'm glad it has three belts and when I restored the saw I used matched belts. Can't say I have ever detected the slightest bit of slipping and, having had one or two boards try to pinch the blade I can assure it has had ample opportunity to slip.
> 
> David


yes, three belts can definitely transmit more power - but that is not the issue here.
where are you going to get the 'more power' from? it's a motor, it produces "X" power, it does not produce more power if it has three belts.

actually, you lose power because power is required and lost in wrapping the belts constantly.

if this were a question of cobbling odd pieces and bits together, then one could go into design & engineering issues.
using 1" pulleys on a 3/4 hp, you might could exceed the belt power - but not under the usual and common tinkering approaches.

working with an already engineered machine, changing it up to two belts is just of no value - even upping the motor size within reason is a non-starter. 

dropping a 50 hp motor on a 10" table saw just to see if it can be done, multiple belts are still of no use because altho you've got 50 hp available, it's a tough sled for the blade to pull that much horsepower. the motor just idles.


----------



## Sawdustmaker99 (Feb 1, 2018)

More belts are only useful if one is slipping. I think my grizzly saw uses 3 belts, but they’re small belts. It seems like flat splined automotive belt would be the Cadillac. They wouldn’t conform to the pulleys and vibrate like v belts are known for and friction would be a lot less.


----------



## Mad (Dec 9, 2017)

Tom, the premise and question isn't that the motor itself is expected to become more powerful. It is that more of the motor's power might be TRANSMITTED with more belt.

Kind of like the contact patch of car tires. The quarter mile running dragsters have huge tall flat wide racing slicks on the drive axle to TRANSMIT their motor's horsepower to the pavement. It isn't that the increased contact patch makes the motor more powerful. It's that more of the motor's power is effectively transferred to the dragstrip, even though the bigger tires can consume more of the motor's power to begin turning... which is similar to your suggestion that more belts might require more power to begin to turn.

But yet the drag racers consistently find merit to the trade off. Whether the cars are top fuel, funny cars, stock modified, or factory equipped Hellcats... Bigger tires go on the drive axle come track time, and the cost in torque required to rotate those tires appears to be more than made up for by the benefit in the larger contact patch transferring motor power to the track during the run.

So if that analogy is appropriate or makes any sense, then that is how I interpreted Delta's description of the benefits of having three parallel drive belts. Not that it increases motor power, but that it helps transmit the motors power.

So I was wondering if the same logic could be applied in situations like mine, a hobbyist, not a manufacturer who has to keep tool manufacturing costs as low as possible to maintain profitability while still selling tools at competitive prices. I don't really care if I spend $30 for a pulley, or $40 for a much better pulley, or even a slightly better pulley for that matter.


----------



## woodnthings (Jan 24, 2009)

*When are 3 belts better than one?*

The example of wider tires on dragsters applies because the engine makes more power than the tires can transmit to the road so they spin too easily. Wider tires means more patch or surface area, so more grip. 
When should a power tool use 3 belts over one? I'm sure there is an engineering formula for determining this, but a WAG would say when the power exceeds the limit of transmission/grip. Can a 3 HP motor exceed the limits of power transmission .... apparently so according to Delta engineers, but apparently NOT according to Min Max engineers. Using my examples, the Jet 15" planer and the Min Max jointer/planer combo, there is apparently some disagreement. :surprise2:

Maybe the inverse is true? What happens when the resistance to rotation exceeds the limit of power transmission or grip? Probably less likely on a jointer/planer and more likely on a table saw, I donno, but I think so. If the feed rate is accelerated to the point where there is power loss because of increased resistance, then slippage occurs. Does the manufacturer want to eliminate this possibility and proclaim "No power loss" from belt slippage ..... probably, and it may be just that simple. :smile2:
Our little 1/2 HP motor will not exceed the limits of power transmission, in this case using a one belt system. However, when resawing thicker stock, there may be a point at which the motor itself will stall without any belt slippage. But using a more powerful motor on a one belt system may result in belt slippage and that's when additional belts would be appropriate. As suggested, I'm sure some HP is lost spinning the additional belt(s) but it probably is outweighed by the increased power transmission factor.

An interesting engineering study for sure. :nerd2: Great question!


----------



## Mad (Dec 9, 2017)

"Maybe the inverse is also true..."

Good point, and excellent reversal of my analogy. Funny how we can see one thing, without fully considering it's reciprocal.


----------



## Mad (Dec 9, 2017)

Sawdustmaker99 said:


> It seems like flat splined automotive belt would be the Cadillac. They wouldn’t conform to the pulleys and vibrate like v belts are known for and friction would be a lot less.


And this leads to my third major belt drive question. (Actually my 5th but who is counting?).

In another thread, it was suggested that the manufacturer knew what they were doing when they designed the machine. I wholeheartedly agree. But a lot of new things have been invented since many of my belt drive machines were designed. New materials, finite element analysis, computers, computer aided design... yada yada. New materials is key, because a new material, with enhanced properties and capabilities over the material it replaced, enables possibilities that were previously unimagined. And those possibilities, once realized and then actualized, spawn new applications and further possibilities. 

Add to this the power of computing to the design process which exponentially accelerated and amplified the possibilities of new materials, and we have entirely new belt drive systems. Cogged belts, poly V belts, automatic tensioners, over running clutch drives, link belts, ribbed belts, etc.

So bring in that Cadillac for a moment here. Who has done this? We replaced the incandescent lights in our workshops with flouresecents, and now with LEDs, as the lighting technology evolved, became available, and became affordable. We replaced our chromoly edged saw blades with carbide tipped blades. We replaced our tiny toggle switches with big red knee/foot/elbow/forehead accessible paddle switches. What is to stop us from upgrading our belt drive systems with newer technology that wasn't even imaginable when our vintage machines were built?

Has anyone converted from a 3L belt drive to a 4L belt drive, in order to gain more belt pitch grip surface area on the pulleys? (with just a single belt even)? Since v belt technology peaked in the 1930's, according to TB Woods, a belt and pulley drive manufacturer, with newer belt drive technologies emerging from that point forward... it seems reasonable that someone would have tried, say, a multi ribbed poly v belt, or a cogged belt, or some other belt drive design that was inherently more efficient at power transmission with lower frictional losses over 1930's era v belt technology.

Has anyone reading done this on their machine?


----------



## tewitt1949 (Nov 26, 2013)

Back to the drag race slicks and racing. If you have a stock 4 cylinder car that can't spin the tires and run the quarter mile, then you put large drag slicks on the same 4 cylinder car, it wont run any faster, (if the tires are the same diameter).


----------



## Tool Agnostic (Aug 13, 2017)

Wow. I have been thinking about this question since this thread started, and I have come to the conclusion that it is a very complex problem from a physics standpoint. I believe that we cannot fully answer it from our armchairs - we don't have enough information. I bet that experience and experimentation would yield better answers than speculation, attempts at computation, and "thought experiments."

Here are some of the factors to consider when comparing one-belt and multi-belt systems:

* There are multiple forces at play: the belt tension between pulleys; the rotation forces that transfer power from the motor pulley to the bandsaw pulley; the expansion and contraction of the belt(s) at startup, when running, and when running under varying loads; plus other minor forces due to alignment, belt twisting, etc. 

* Belt tension becomes an issue: The belts must be tight enough that they don't slip. More belts at the minimum non-slip tension means more force on the corresponding pulley bearings, potentially leading to premature wear. The non-slip tension per belt may be slightly reduced as you add belts. Because each additional belt carries only its fraction of the rotational force from the motor, so you don't need as much tension per belt. Still, my guess is that tension on the pulleys will increase significantly with each additional belt. That sucks power away from the bandsaw blade itself. (How much? Maybe a lot, but probably only a little.)

* Belts and pulleys will never be perfectly matched. This means that one or more belts will experience microscopic slippage with corresponding friction. If the belts are "link" type, the difference may be absorbed in the joints. If they are continuous (say, a leather strap) then at least one belt will slip a little, perhaps at a microscopic scale. 

* This is a system with resonant frequencies. There is stretching/contraction, twisting, etc. etc. etc. Most likely, multiple belts will differ enough that additional belts will dampen vibrations, which is the goal. If you are unlucky, then the multiple belts could introduce additional resonances between themselves, where the forces on the belts could jump back and forth at some harmonic frequency that would increase vibration.

That's as far as my thinking goes, at least from a physics standpoint. 

BOTTOM LINE:

My gut hunch is that multiple belts will most likely yield a reduction in vibration at the bandsaw itself. The reduced vibration would probably come at the expense of additional stress and wear on the pulley bearings. 

In case it isn't obvious, bandsaw manufacturers would use multiple belts if it made an obvious and significant difference. At the least the high-end ones would. Because they all come with single belts, I believe that it makes no difference.

MY RECOMMENDATION:

For a bandsaw, I would stay with the original single belt and focus on reducing vibrations elsewhere. At some point, the question becomes academic.


----------



## TimPa (Jan 27, 2010)

Mad said:


> So I'm thinking about my bandsaw here, with a lowly 1/2 hp. motor. Since I have to get a new drive pulley anyway, what if I bought a two groove arbor pulley instead of a single groove, and also changed the single groove motor pulley to a corresponding 2 groove pulley, and then doubled up on the belts?
> 
> Would the bandsaw then enjoy at least a partial dosage of the benefits Delta promoted for their 3 belt drive system?


I wouldn't add a second belt. BUT I would invest in a machined sheave (pulley) rather than a cast one, and maybe even replace the driven sheave with a machined one also. and invest in a link belt. any vibration due to your mechanical drive system would be greatly reduced.


http://www.hogslat.com/accu-link-adjustable-link-v-belt


----------



## Brian T. (Dec 19, 2012)

Go to a Farm Store and buy a small can of "belt dressing" to add a little stickiness to the mating surfaces.
Go easy = it won't take much.


----------



## Catpower (Jan 11, 2016)

And matched sets of belts went out in the 60's or 70's, the technology they build them with today, is so refined they are all matched sets

If you have slippage with a stock drive system if you can, install bigger pulleys proportionality so the tool speed stays the same, you will have more belt contact area that equals to more gription as my young son used to say LOL


----------



## Shop_Rat (Dec 22, 2015)

Theoretically:
If you can feed material hard enough or fast enough to stall the blade and the motor, Your belt is transmitting all the power available.

If you can stall the blade and the belt breaks, you could benefit from an additional belt, or up sized belt/ pulley profile.

If you can stall the blade but the motor continues to turn, you MAY benefit from an additional belt. Or you may only need to tension the belt. Or you may benefit from an up sized belt/ pulley profile.

All this assumes correct v belt and pulley profile matching. An A size belt in 5V pulley just won't perform well or last for very long.

We have three large vacuums at the plant that take eight belts per unit. They are 50 horsepower and drive a roots style blower. Turns out this V belt size also fits several other pieces of plant equipment. As our storeroom has been known to be out of some things on occasion, we have temporarily swiped belts from our vacs to use on a down piece of production equipment. We've successfully cut the vac belt count in half without measurable slippage for several days to a week at a time. 

We also have several 350 horsepower motors driving impeller type dust collector fans with eight 8VX sized belts that, when starting, squeal like crazy for 15-20 seconds until the huge fan finally gets up to speed. They then run for weeks and months with no issues.

Quality machines are normally designed using a known and specific starting torque load, a specific running/ operating torque load, and an optimal component lifespan. It's a good bet that unless your machines have been modified by installing larger motors, or using over/ under driven pulleys (or blades), or you have re-purposed the machine to do something it was not originally designed for, the manufacturer has already done the math. Simply maintain quality and correct size profile belts on the pulleys, tension them correctly, and run them occasionally to eliminate memory bending and your machine should last and perform for a long long time.


----------



## Catpower (Jan 11, 2016)

Are the big motors an XL start or star-delta transfer? If you are slipping on start up, a star-delta start will eliminate a lot of that and relieve a lot of stress on the machinery


----------



## P89DC (Sep 25, 2017)

I'm sure modern belt driven systems are much more effective than the triple belt drive that came from the 1930's state-of-the-art. Here's a 8.75HP/6000rpm rated input power device driven with a single belt under very extreme conditions (250A @ 14.4V = ~4.8HP, @55% efficiency = ~8.75HP input power):


----------



## Pirate (Jul 23, 2009)

I wonder if they put 3 belts on the saws, so you didn't have to tighten the belts as much?

I had a belt start to come apart on my 1946 Unisaur, and I cut it off 5 years ago, and all, but forgot, that it wasn't there.

Still the smoothest saw I have ever used.


----------



## FrankC (Aug 24, 2012)

Pirate said:


> I wonder if they put 3 belts on the saws, so you didn't have to tighten the belts as much?
> 
> I had a belt start to come apart on my 1946 Unisaur, and I cut it off 5 years ago, and all, but forgot, that it wasn't there.
> 
> Still the smoothest saw I have ever used.


In 1946 most people that bought that saw did so to put it to work in a production shop day after day so it was built like tank compared to the hobby saws of the day.


----------



## TimPa (Jan 27, 2010)

P89DC said:


> I'm sure modern belt driven systems are much more effective than the triple belt drive that came from the 1930's state-of-the-art. Here's a 8.75HP/6000rpm rated input power device driven with a single belt under very extreme conditions (250A @ 14.4V = ~4.8HP, @55% efficiency = ~8.75HP input power):


looks like an auto alternator


----------



## FrankC (Aug 24, 2012)

TimPa said:


> looks like an auto alternator


And technically it is driven by multiple thin vee belts, single belts tend to roll over at high speeds, hence the design.


----------



## woodnthings (Jan 24, 2009)

*It is an alternator just like ......*



TimPa said:


> looks like an auto alternator


YEP!



FrankC said:


> And technically it is driven by multiple thin vee belts, single belts tend to roll over at high speeds, hence the design.


NOPE! 
There is only one flat belt with multiple grooves used to drive the alternator. It may be a serpentine belt that weaves around other devices on the engine like the power steering pump or water pump. My engine has 2 separate multi groove belts, one for the alternator, the other for the power steering pump, both driven off a dual stage pulley on the drive shaft.


----------



## Catpower (Jan 11, 2016)

My first diesel pickup was a 1983 F250 with a 6.9 L Binder engine in it, it has 6 fan belts, two for the water pump & fan 2 for the alternator, one for the power steering and one for the vacuum pump.

After the warranty was out I put a Banks side winder turbo on it, man I loved that truck, but I ended up giving it to our son who gave it to his ex wife, damn now I am pi$$ed off at him again LOL

The trucks that replaced it all had one long wide serpentine belt, which I like much better, but all the other belts did give you a little redundancy, it you lose the one you are stuck


----------



## FrankC (Aug 24, 2012)

woodnthings said:


> YEP!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


NOPE!
I stand by what I said, it is technically several thin vee belts all joined at the top to form one flat topped belt.


----------



## P89DC (Sep 25, 2017)

FrankC said:


> NOPE!
> I stand by what I said, it is technically several thin vee belts all joined at the top to form one flat topped belt.


And that's fine. My point was there's much better systems these days. It may technically be "several thin vee-belts" but the advantage are that no matching needed, over 100's of million are sold on new products every year and it's cheap. Compare that to the Unisaw's triple belt left over from the 1930's and it's clear there's better ways now days.


----------



## Catpower (Jan 11, 2016)

FrankC said:


> NOPE!
> I stand by what I said, it is technically several thin vee belts all joined at the top to form one flat topped belt.


 They have made Powerbands (poly belts) for years, they take a special pulley but they make them in all the standard v belt dimensions with a wide belt holding them all together as one belt. They work great but they also have to be in perfect alignment and parallel

One day when I was younger I decided to help out Dad and changed the powerband on an Artsway hammer mill for grinding feed, I thought I had it perfect went to grind a load of ear corn and while I was in the crib kicking it down, I heard the grinder slowing and the 4620 (tractor) not pulling at all so I went to look, there was so much smoke coming from under the belt guard, I could hardly see the tractor, by the time I climbed out of the crib, the belt was shreds.

I reinstalled the old one taking much more time aligning it, and told Dad we needed a new power band LOL

And I wonder why he got gray so fast


----------



## Mad (Dec 9, 2017)

So, has anyone converted a woodworking machine to a flat poly V belt? (poly = multiple) By using multi groove serpentine belt pulleys in lieu of single groove pulleys?


----------



## FrankC (Aug 24, 2012)

Mad said:


> So, has anyone converted a woodworking machine to a flat poly V belt? (poly = multiple) By using multi groove serpentine belt pulleys in lieu of single groove pulleys?


Get the kit on Ebay:

https://www.ebay.com/i/202211563583?rt=nc


----------



## Mad (Dec 9, 2017)

Whoa! Mind = Blown. So it IS true then! Tool manufacturers HAVE incorporated more advanced belt drive designs into woodworking tools. I had the suspicion, but no proof, because I don't shop for new tools, relying instead on hand me downs that are always decades old and usually broken (but still worth fixing and using).

Thanks FrankC! Up until seeing your link I had no idea. Everyone might wanna brace for more questions to start pouring out of me, now that I have seen proof of concept.


----------



## Catpower (Jan 11, 2016)

I have a Grizzly G0490 jointer that has a serpentine belt


----------



## FrankC (Aug 24, 2012)

And we haven't even got into timing belts yet. 😊


----------



## Mad (Dec 9, 2017)

On the contrary, I did ask about cogged belts earlier. Just not geared chain. But that could be coming, provided I see an example in use for a woodworking machine.

A neighbor has a cogged belt garage door opener that skips cogs all the time when encountering a sudden load higher than what the machine expects (such as an errant bike handle bar that reaches over the optical beam switch at the bottom of the door). I imagine that a knot in a piece of wood can cause a peak transient load that could cause the same thing were a cogged belt used in a table or band saw?

I'm just trying to learn here, not reinvent the wheel. In the process of rebuilding a Craftsman table saw, I learned that I didn't have to live with the shortcomings of the original fence that the manufacture designed, and with the help of this forum, and the many examples that other members here and elsewhere have shown where they have deviated from the original factory design by retrofitting an improvement, even if from a different brand, of an entirely different design, attached with newly drilled holes in a different manner, all with the result of a marked and satisfying improvement in function and performance... I learned that it can pay dividends to pay attention to what other people retrofit in order to improve their tools, even if the solutions didn't come originally from nor replicate what the OEM provided.

So how do I know that the same improvement opportunity does not also exist in mechanical power transmission improvements, such as with belt drive systems? I don't know, so I am asking. Be flippant as much as you like, but I will remain undeterred in my quest to discover what I don't know, which will include the embarrassment of barking up the wrong tree sometimes.


----------



## woodnthings (Jan 24, 2009)

*cogged belts or timing belts ....*

Cogged belts or timing belts are used to maintain the relative position of two rotating parts, such as a camshaft driven by the crankshaft on engines. I can not think of a woodworking application where the cutters are position sensitive relative to the driving force.... so it slips, so what? Feed rollers may want a non-slip capability, such as on my ancient Foley Belsaw thickness planer which uses a chain drive off the cutterhead. :nerd2:


----------



## FrankC (Aug 24, 2012)

woodnthings said:


> Cogged belts or timing belts are used to maintain the relative position of two rotating parts, such as a camshaft driven by the crankshaft on engines. I can not think of a woodworking application where the cutters are position sensitive relative to the driving force.... so it slips, so what? Feed rollers may want a non-slip capability, such as on my ancient Foley Belsaw thickness planer which uses a chain drive off the cutterhead. :nerd2:


Take a look at a Delta 34-695 table saw belt for instance.


----------



## woodnthings (Jan 24, 2009)

*I'll let you post a link.....*



FrankC said:


> Take a look at a Delta 34-695 table saw belt for instance.


It may indeed have a toothed belt, but I'll betcha the pulleys don't have corresponding teeth. What purpose would that serve .....keeping the blade in a certain relationship to the drive pulley... horsefeathers. That would means there should be an index mark on the blade and the arbor.... unlikely.

If they did use a timing belt with the appropriate pulleys, it would only be to eliminate belt slippage, which may or may NOT be a good thing depending on the circumstances.


----------



## FrankC (Aug 24, 2012)

How much are you betting? 😊


----------



## FrankC (Aug 24, 2012)

Probably doesn't matter on a Harley if the wheels are in time to the road but they seem to use timing belts instead of a chain as well.


----------



## d_slat (Apr 10, 2012)

cogged belts have many uses. They are often called "Timing belts" because they are commonly used in applications where the pulleys must stay in time, but they are also used in many applications where they arent.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk


----------



## FrankC (Aug 24, 2012)

I am fairly familiar with timing belts, we had them on the web printing presses I ran, we used 1 1/2" wide belts with a line drawn across the back and then split into two, we then installed them with the lines 180 degrees apart to average out any variation in the manufacturing of the belts, up to ten units on a press that had to print in perfect registration.


----------



## woodnthings (Jan 24, 2009)

*All my Harleys have a timing belt*



FrankC said:


> Probably doesn't matter on a Harley if the wheels are in time to the road but they seem to use timing belts instead of a chain as well.





d_slat said:


> cogged belts have many uses. They are often called "Timing belts" because they are commonly used in applications where the pulleys must stay in time, but they are also used in many applications where they arent.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk


With over 100 HP, the belts would slip if they didn't have teeth. Timing has nothing to do with it in this application, it's about slippage... Now If I could only stop the tries from slipping. :wink:


----------



## Sawdustmaker99 (Feb 1, 2018)

Snow mobiles use belts and the bad ones are around 200 hp. I’ve never taken apart a snowmobile or looked at a parts digram but I think they use a CVT transmission with smooth pulleys. And unlike the Harley they do pretty good at putting the power to the ground.


----------



## allpurpose (Mar 24, 2016)

difalkner said:


> Yep, kind of like putting $5,000 worth of tires and wheels on a $2,500 car. Or even a $10.000 car, for that matter. But you would have bragging rights in the 1/2 HP bandsaw world, fwiw. :wink:
> 
> David


You never saw a Chevy Chevette with flames painted on the side, gold tone trim and $3000 worth of rims and tires? You missed out on a real treat.. lol
I had a friend in the auto body business who chopped 2 Chevettes apart to build a Chevette limo.. a bit of a strange cat.. It turned out kind of cool. &#55357;&#56846;








The ultimate in luxury..


----------



## d_slat (Apr 10, 2012)

Sawdustmaker99 said:


> Snow mobiles use belts and the bad ones are around 200 hp. I’ve never taken apart a snowmobile or looked at a parts digram but I think they use a CVT transmission with smooth pulleys. And unlike the Harley they do pretty good at putting the power to the ground.


It's basically a variable speed belt drive, which relieves all belt tension when they stop.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Catpower (Jan 11, 2016)

Actually if you went to a bearing/belt specialty shop and asked for a cog belt you would more than likely get something like this











The timing belts you speak of are actually called synchronous belts

The cog belt pictured will transmit more power than a regular V belt because when a regular V belt bends to go around the pulley or sheave, the center portion bulges out so there is less belt to pulley contact, the cog belt's cogs allow the belt to go around the pulley without bulging out


----------



## P89DC (Sep 25, 2017)

Gates makes this toothed belt drive for bicycles and e-bikes, no indexing is required:


----------

