835 20 30 vs 842 20 30 Belts

Mäwby · 05-01-2016, 10:21 AM

What's the difference, and which is better for my Lancer 150? It came with the 835 20 30 installed.

cheapeto · 05-02-2016, 08:18 AM

Here is the info I found,http://www.partsforscooters.com/CVT-Belt-Scooter-Part

kz1000st · 05-11-2016, 10:00 PM

Back in the day (around 2008) the guys with long case 150s found that the 842 belts gave them more top speed. It went further up on the variator than the 835.

Mäwby · 05-12-2016, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kz1000st

Back in the day (around 2008) the guys with long case 150s found that the 842 belts gave them more top speed. It went further up on the variator than the 835.

Ok. I currently have the 835. I'll install the 842 I have after a while to see if there is a difference.

coreyman · 05-26-2016, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kz1000st

Back in the day (around 2008) the guys with long case 150s found that the 842 belts gave them more top speed. It went further up on the variator than the 835.

Does it also cause the clutch to engage at different RPMs if you use the bigger belt?

Gene563 · 07-13-2016, 01:43 PM

Mawby,
How did you make out with the 842?
I just ordered one.

Shadowfire · 07-17-2016, 01:50 AM

When you put in a longer belt:

At idle, the belt is (compared to the correct belt) still in the same spot in the front, but it is higher up in back. The front:back drive ratio is shorter. The engine will need to rev up faster to get the clutch engaged (since it still engages at the same rotational speed in the rear). You may have a little bit better acceleration, too, since the gear ratio favors it.

As the variator completely opens up when at full throttle, the belt is still in the same position as a normal belt in the front, but now it will be higher up in back. The front:back ratio drive ratio is still shorter than it would be on a normal belt. This means, that at 8,000 rpm (or where ever your rev limiter is set at), the bike will actually be travelling slower than with the correct belt.

To make a long story short, you've basically traded some of your top end speed for acceleration.

Mäwby · 07-18-2016, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gene563

Mawby,
How did you make out with the 842?
I just ordered one.

I didn't change it as of yet. The current belt is still in great shape, so I'll change it down the line. But I will definitely update you once I make the switch.

Mäwby · 07-18-2016, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowfire

When you put in a longer belt:

At idle, the belt is (compared to the correct belt) still in the same spot in the front, but it is higher up in back. The front:back drive ratio is shorter. The engine will need to rev up faster to get the clutch engaged (since it still engages at the same rotational speed in the rear). You may have a little bit better acceleration, too, since the gear ratio favors it.

As the variator completely opens up when at full throttle, the belt is still in the same position as a normal belt in the front, but now it will be higher up in back. The front:back ratio drive ratio is still shorter than it would be on a normal belt. This means, that at 8,000 rpm (or where ever your rev limiter is set at), the bike will actually be travelling slower than with the correct belt.

To make a long story short, you've basically traded some of your top end speed for acceleration.

Thanks for this info!

Gene563 · 07-27-2016, 11:17 PM

For what it's worth ... I had replaced my belt with the longer, 842, but as of today, switched back.
It seemed to affect the RPMs and acceleration in a negative way. It was slow up to speed; once there, it ran well ... even hitting one of my fastest runs (in a tuck with a tailwind - 63MPH).
I was going to try the 11g weights I have, but think they are too light for my set-up. I ended up staying with the 13.5s and the original belt (835).
Out of curiosity, I video'd the CVT with the cover off. there didn't seem to be too much difference in the ride height on the variator, but there was a significant amount of slop with the longer belt that also showed up on the cover as rubbage.

05-02-2016, 08:18 AM	#2
cheapeto Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: York PA Posts: 339	Here is the info I found,http://www.partsforscooters.com/CVT-Belt-Scooter-Part __________________ Ride For Kids.org
	0

07-13-2016, 01:43 PM	#6
Gene563 Join Date: May 2015 Location: Lanoka Harbor, NJ Posts: 63	Mawby, How did you make out with the 842? I just ordered one.
	0

07-17-2016, 01:50 AM	#7
Shadowfire Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 121	When you put in a longer belt: At idle, the belt is (compared to the correct belt) still in the same spot in the front, but it is higher up in back. The front:back drive ratio is shorter. The engine will need to rev up faster to get the clutch engaged (since it still engages at the same rotational speed in the rear). You may have a little bit better acceleration, too, since the gear ratio favors it. As the variator completely opens up when at full throttle, the belt is still in the same position as a normal belt in the front, but now it will be higher up in back. The front:back ratio drive ratio is still shorter than it would be on a normal belt. This means, that at 8,000 rpm (or where ever your rev limiter is set at), the bike will actually be travelling slower than with the correct belt. To make a long story short, you've basically traded some of your top end speed for acceleration.
	0

07-27-2016, 11:17 PM	#10
Gene563 Join Date: May 2015 Location: Lanoka Harbor, NJ Posts: 63	For what it's worth ... I had replaced my belt with the longer, 842, but as of today, switched back. It seemed to affect the RPMs and acceleration in a negative way. It was slow up to speed; once there, it ran well ... even hitting one of my fastest runs (in a tuck with a tailwind - 63MPH). I was going to try the 11g weights I have, but think they are too light for my set-up. I ended up staying with the 13.5s and the original belt (835). Out of curiosity, I video'd the CVT with the cover off. there didn't seem to be too much difference in the ride height on the variator, but there was a significant amount of slop with the longer belt that also showed up on the cover as rubbage.
	0