The Honda PCX / Forza / ADV150 / SH Forums

Which is better and why ?? Many prefer the cog design but in actuality is there any significant benefits ? That is the question. In a CVT set up the wear and grip is actually on the v sides of the belt. The cogs do not come in contact under loading.I can see where the cogs have a better ability to cool as there would be more surface area to transfer heat and have better flexibility on the radii, however is there any actual performance gains ?? I would think the cog would last longer due to its heat transfer properties, but it is also thinner with less rubber due to the cutouts . Would these thinner cutouts be more prone to cracking and breaking. Would there be any measurable performance gains ?? I could see a cog being more effective in snowy cold weather where the pinching down on a shaft would help grip but on a typical warm weather CVT transmission scooter ?? If so much better why does HONDA not standardize this as their design belt. Food for thought ...have at it ??

It was my understanding that on some bikes, such as the PCX, the dual sided cogged belt was the newer replacement for the older design, or at least has made an appearance in recent times. If they are going with it, then we would hope it had proven itself to be better and more reliable.
Perhaps the thinner width of the central part beats the thicker solid type that has a hard life flexing and taking a huge strain moving a dead weight from cold to x miles per hour.

Food for thought ...have at it ??

This video is based on a Zuma 125 (older model) but does give a very good tutorial so-to-speak about the CVT system that can be considered common to a variety of makes and models from numerous manufacturers. It's similar to the PCX videos Homie has posted. . ..

About 5 minutes into the video the "cog" belt is described. and tips about preventive maintenance (things to look out for) are provided.

Excellent job done by the guy who posted this video IMHO. Worth a look for sure.

Seems unlikely they would make something that would last longer, cost the same and eventually lose money for the manufacturers but apparently they did.