Primary Chain Tensioner

Hello, I'm assembling a Commando out of a poory made Featherbed Commando. The engine, box and primary is 850 Mk2a but I have a MK3 Cradle so no chain adjustment. My options that I see are :- Belt Drive(££££), cut the slots in the cradle or perhaps fit a MK3 chain adjuster into the MK2 cases. Has anyone done this? - can anyone see the problems I may encounter?. Cheers

Harley Davison primary chain tensioners are available, worth having a look at.

A new cradle would be cheaper than a belt drive.

A belt drive would still be the best solution for ridability.

swooshdave said:

A new cradle would be cheaper than a belt drive.

A belt drive would still be the best solution for ridability.

Click to expand...

Hi Dave

Wondering why a belt is better than a triple row chain for drive ability. I know it's lighter. My thought on the idea of a belt is related to cars with timing belts versus chains. Chains rarely need to be replaced, while timing belts require replacement every 100K miles.

illf8ed said:

I know it's lighter. My thought on the idea of a belt is related to cars with timing belts versus chains. Chains rarely need to be replaced, while timing belts require replacement every 100K miles.

Click to expand...

Long before you get to 100K miles more than the belt will need to be replaced. The belt itself is cheap, though! Before that time you can basically fit it and forget it.

illf8ed said:

swooshdave said:

A new cradle would be cheaper than a belt drive.

A belt drive would still be the best solution for ridability.

Click to expand...

Hi Dave

Wondering why a belt is better than a triple row chain for drive ability. I know it's lighter. My thought on the idea of a belt is related to cars with timing belts versus chains. Chains rarely need to be replaced, while timing belts require replacement every 100K miles.

Click to expand...

I said ridablity, and by that I mean no maintenance. No lube, no worries. Except in prison, but I digress...

Chains need replaced, drive chains, timing chains., etc. Perhaps my brother would be so kind as to share a picture of the primary chain from the Interstate? :mrgreen:

My bike has the cradle and swing arm from a MKIII but has the earlier primary cover and right hand shift. My bike came as a basket case with these miss matched parts. The MK III swing arm and cradle are sturdier than the older ones anyway. I slotted the MKIII cradle. It was easy. I just drilled two holes and then connected them by sawing and filing. Also there is a difference to do with where the bolt is in the center of the primary, on the MKIII an MKII. I had to make a special spacer with a bit of an offset in it to bolt the covers on.

swooshdave said:

illf8ed said:

swooshdave said:

A new cradle would be cheaper than a belt drive.

A belt drive would still be the best solution for ridability.

Click to expand...

Hi Dave

Wondering why a belt is better than a triple row chain for drive ability. I know it's lighter. My thought on the idea of a belt is related to cars with timing belts versus chains. Chains rarely need to be replaced, while timing belts require replacement every 100K miles.

Click to expand...

I said ridablity, and by that I mean no maintenance. No lube, no worries. Except in prison, but I digress...

Chains need replaced, drive chains, timing chains., etc. Perhaps my brother would be so kind as to share a picture of the primary chain from the Interstate? :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

My concern about belt drive are the several comments from users about shredding them if any misalignment or wobble in the clutch basket bearing. My triple row chain has over 50,000 miles and shows no sign of needing to be replaced. I do like the idea of the belt, but not convinced yet it's a good move.