dumb question

[305elite]

this is prob a stupid question but can you run a motor with out the belt(just so your not using the gears) just to run the engine....if so could it hurt anthing

[gixxer1000chad]

i would think so i just wouldnt rev it..

[SuprasNsprees]

i would think so i just wouldnt rev it..

+1


i'd imagine it would be easy to launch the rod/piston with no resistance, revving it

[Trafficjamz]

this is prob a stupid question but can you run a motor with out the belt(just so your not using the gears) just to run the engine....if so could it hurt anthing

Yes you can run the engine with no belt.

however, Free reving your engine with no load on it is never a good thing.

[Bear45-70]

this is prob a stupid question but can you run a motor with out the belt(just so your not using the gears) just to run the engine....if so could it hurt anthing

Yes you can run the engine with no belt.

however, Free reving your engine with no load on it is never a good thing.

Even with the belt on and the rear tire off the ground is not a good procedure to rev the engine much. The 2 stroke racers do it to keep from fouling their plug(s) because of their over rich setup, but for a properly setup street machine, NOT necessary and hard on the rotating assembly.

[maddog]

always run a 2 stroke engine on torque.

[Bear45-70]

always run a 2 stroke engine on torque.

Yeah, that's a smart thing to do. Since 2 strokes have so much of it. 2 strokes almost always have less torque than horsepower where 4 strokes most often have more torque than horsepower. Well puppy, your record is intact, still wrong.