An XB has a belt tensioner that should do fine in keeping the belt tensioned, my wifes sportster (Year 2000) has the belt drive rear, and i think its a little tight. been reading up on that on some XL forums. So a little harder also to misalign on a XB. I was just commenting in general for belt drives.
I have some british bikes, and I often do conversions for the primarys with a belt drive, (Norton-Triumph) and its amazing how much weight savings there are when doing the swap, a LOT less weight for the motor to try and spin.
but worth noting in a general design principle is thinking about weight on a bike.
I like the Tuber styling better, but the XB is pretty amazing in its design,
theres a concept called Sprung weight and unsprung weight. and thats where the XB really shines with many design features such as the brakes, wheels, and suspension.
the Concept works like this using a car for an example,. For every 50 pounds you reduce the weight of Unsprung components, is comparable to 500 pounds off the sprung weight.
So, unsprung weight is wheels, brakes, and any part not supported by the springs in the suspension. By going with lightweight wheels or high performance but lighter brakes, or calipers, its worth it by far to concentrate there with those parts. Say my wifes 1969 Chevelle,, I buy lighter hi-po wheels and Wilwood rotors and calipers and shave 100 pounds off the unsprung weight, To compare,, i would be hard pressed to take 1000 pounds off the rest of the car.
So, when you think about this on our bikes, the XB is a pretty amazing design when you start doing the engineering analysis,