[Stupified]

I know some of you have tons of experience with chains. I've heard that a 520 chain on a liter bike isn't a good idea. I'm sure some of you have, and have had good/bad experiences. I'm thinking about going with a 520 conversion on my 929 and up a tooth or two in the rear. Any suggestion? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

TIA
Jay

[nedro]

link

[Holeshot]

There is a local guy that runs a 520 on his gassed ZX12R (with the 13xx kit). Last time on the dyno at MVR it clocked 270HP.

We talked chains for a while. He's running a 520 and said he has not problems. He drag races the thing so I don't think he's being a panzy on the gear. :0

YMMV.

[Trackho]

The 520 chain is no problem--it lasts probably longer than the 530, if its the DID ERV2---the rear sprockets are all Al, so they are weigh lighter---this is where the inscreased wear comes form, I will get about 6K(all hard track miles) out of my rear AFAM Al sprocket--I thing the chain is good for another 5K---the ERV2 is amazing

Here is the kit from Dan520 Conv from Dan

[Joel]

I don't understand why you would think a 520 will outlast a 530 if you're comparing apples to apples. The 530 is a bigger chain, and it's stronger, period.

My take on the whole chain issue is this: if you're racing, or trying to get every last available hp to the rear wheel, go with the 520 and aluminum rear sprocket, but be prepared to replace the parts sooner. If you're a street rider and are happy with the performance of your bike, stick with the stock 530.

For me, I ride a lot of street miles, and I rarely use all the power available on my bike. I went with the biggest, strongest 530 chain I could buy, and I take care of it. I'm hoping to get 20-30k miles out of it.

[RacerCutie]

Actually Joel, I replaced my 530 with a DIDERV2 and AFAM sprockets about 10k miles ago.
I'm surprised at the fact that I've had no need to even adjust my chain yet.
It hasn't even stretched out.
I've replaced other bikes with stock 530 and have always needed to adjust the chain and replace because they wear fast.
I'm finding this particular setup the best available - and this is on my 929 which I ride on a daily basis as well as the hardcore weekend rides.
Anyone else experience this?

[Latebraking]

With a 520 chain, you're asking less material do to the same job as the larger 530 chain. It may have equal, perhaps higher tensile strength, but that won't matter around the 8-10k mile mark, because the 520 will probably be ready for the trash bin by then.

Maintenance of the 520 will have to be meticulous for it to have a hope of a decent service life, and tolerance of misaligned adjusters will be much smaller as well. *It's a lot more worry and work to take care of the 520 for what will be pretty much a wasted advantage over a 530 setup on the street. On the track (racing, not track days), definitely the 520 will be a useable advantage over the 530.

Gearing is a matter of taste. I went up two on the back. As they come rom the OEs, bikes are over geared and can stand to have a tooth, or several, added to the rear, or one dropped from the front, or even a combo of the two. When dropping a tooth off the front, be careful of clearance issues with the chain rubbing the swingarm, and if you add more than two teeth to the rear, you'll need a 110 (or more, depending) link chain instead of the stock 108.

[SuperDave]

LateBraking, did you have to purchase a longer chain? I thought 2 up in rear required longer chain, period. ? But you wrote 'more than 2', so can I get away with the 45t rear on stock chain regardless whether stretched enough?
Thanks

[Holeshot]

On every bike wher I went up 2 teeth on the back the current chain worked fine since there was enough adjustment in the system to handle it. Beyond that though a new chain is probably manditory.

I've also heard that dropping teeth on the front increases the wear on the chain due to a tighter curve around the front sproket and little bit less surface area to distribute the force of the engine's output.

Of course.. YMMV

- DH (with a freaking 15/36 combo on the current ride - can you say 150 in 2nd gear?)

[nedro]

If you really think about it, the 520 chain may actually have less stress upon it. The sides of the links are the same on both chains but the rollers are shorter and still just as thick on a 520 chain. a shorter piece of steel is more rigid than a longer peice given the same thickness. All of the stress in the chain is still at the rivots. That doesn't change. But since the 520 chain's rollers are shorter and more rigid, it tends to last longer without stretching or bowing the rollers. And since it's lighter, there's less drag overall which also reduces wear.

[Stupified]

Good thinkgs to know. So, 520 it will be and new sprockets while I'm at it. Thanks for the info.

[ER]

It will be a 530 and new sprockets for me.

[RacerCutie]

ER : It will be a 530 and new sprockets for me.

Wuss.





(J/K ER.)

[ccwilli3]

Think about it...

520 is cheaper, and arguably, stronger, at least as strong... Forget about longevity, the DID and other chains are getting very very good these days!

520 sprockets are also cheaper. So if you have to replace them anyway, go 520...

I'm pretty cheap when it comes to this stuff though. I don't feel so bad about rain riding and neglect when I know the chain I am running is relatively cheap to replace later... I've got a 520 EVR2 chain my RC that has about 9500 miles on it. Of those miles, it has roughly 10-11 trackdays on it and there are no tight spots, no kinks, etc... The chain really impresses me. Keep in mind, this is on a RC51, a heavier bike...

Having said all that, I noticed NO difference when going to a 520 from a 530 with identical gearing... Just seems the same to me...

[ER]

RacerCutie : Quote (ER @ June 18 2003, 3:06pm)It will be a 530 and new sprockets for me.

Wuss.





(J/K ER.) *
It will be a 530 and rainbow colored sprockets for me.

[Oz]

ER : Quote (RacerCutie @ June 18 2003, 3:24pm)Quote (ER @ June 18 2003, 3:06pm)It will be a 530 and new sprockets for me.

Wuss.





(J/K ER.) *
It will be a 530 and rainbow colored sprockets for me.
Now that IS

[UKBlademan]

If you do any track work the 520 conversion is the way to go. I use a 15/44 sprocket combination which give great drive without the lose of too much top speed.

[SuperGaijin]

I went 520 16/44 3 days ago and I am loving it so far. my euro-spec had a 42 stock rear so it's the 2 up rear change that I am feeling mostly for sure...

[Joel]

RacerCutie : Actually Joel, I replaced my 530 with a DIDERV2 and AFAM sprockets about 10k miles ago.
I'm surprised at the fact that I've had no need to even adjust my chain yet.
It hasn't even stretched out.
I've replaced other bikes with stock 530 and have always needed to adjust the chain and replace because they wear fast.
I'm finding this particular setup the best available - and this is on my 929 which I ride on a daily basis as well as the hardcore weekend rides.
Anyone else experience this?

I did a little poking around and learned a little bit of interesting information on chains.

The first digit (5) designates the pitch in 1/8' incriments, while the second two digits are the width in 1/80' incriments... thus the 520 has a 1/4' width while the 530 has 3/8'. My understanding is the chain / sprocket system wears together as a system. My current thinking is that the 50% difference in loaded area is significant... and the 530 will last longer given identical care. This is also why you never see Aluminum primary sprockets. The load per unit area is incredible, and if you put an Aluminum primary sprocket on, you would ruin your chain and sprocket very quickly indeed.

Again, I'm not saying one's better than the other, only that you need to consider your own needs / wants. If you want cheaper or lighter components, the 520 is the answer. If you want longevity, I would recomend the 530 and very diligent care.

BTW, my 530 currently has 20,000 miles on it, with no tight spots.

[nedro]

Joel : Quote (RacerCutie @ June 18 2003, 10:54am)Actually Joel, I replaced my 530 with a DIDERV2 and AFAM sprockets about 10k miles ago.
I'm surprised at the fact that I've had no need to even adjust my chain yet.
It hasn't even stretched out.
I've replaced other bikes with stock 530 and have always needed to adjust the chain and replace because they wear fast.
I'm finding this particular setup the best available - and this is on my 929 which I ride on a daily basis as well as the hardcore weekend rides.
Anyone else experience this?

I did a little poking around and learned a little bit of interesting information on chains.

The first digit (5) designates the pitch in 1/8' incriments, while the second two digits are the width in 1/80' incriments... thus the 520 has a 1/4' width while the 530 has 3/8'. *My understanding is the chain / sprocket system wears together as a system. *My current thinking is that the 50% difference in loaded area is significant... and the 530 will last longer given identical care. *This is also why you never see Aluminum primary sprockets. *The load per unit area is incredible, and if you put an Aluminum primary sprocket on, you would ruin your chain and sprocket very quickly indeed.

Again, I'm not saying one's better than the other, only that you need to consider your own needs / wants. *If you want cheaper or lighter components, the 520 is the answer. *If you want longevity, I would recomend the 530 and very diligent care.

BTW, my 530 currently has 20,000 miles on it, with no tight spots.
I dissagree about the 'Loaded' area. Read my last post in this thread.

[Joel]

nedro : If you really think about it, the 520 chain may actually have less stress upon it. The sides of the links are the same on both chains but the rollers are shorter and still just as thick on a 520 chain. a shorter piece of steel is more rigid than a longer peice given the same thickness. All of the stress in the chain is still at the rivots. That doesn't change. But since the 520 chain's rollers are shorter and more rigid, it tends to last longer without stretching or bowing the rollers. And since it's lighter, there's less drag overall which also reduces wear.

If the normal wear mechanism of a chain were the rollers bowing, I would agree with you. However my understanding is the wear mechanism is when one of the pins runs out of lubricant, and it starts grinding against the plate. This increases the pitch of that particular link, which loads one tooth of the sprocket excessively as this longer link goes around. This begins the process of the chain's 'stretching' (it doesn't really stretch, the pitch just gets longer in certain areas due to the slop between the pin and plate). The sprockets also begin to wear much more rapidly as this begins. Again, this is because the load per unit area increases.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, this is just my current understanding - and I'm willing to change my mind. You and RC got me thinking, and I'm interested in learning more about this before my current chain wears out.

[nedro]

So then you have to ask yourself from an engineering point of view. Is there enough material to effectively absorb the energy that is being delivered to the roller? What's enough? Is 3/8' enough? Is 1/4' enough?
You say that the rollers are what wears out after the lube is gone. Well, if that were so, A lubed chain won't wear out. I say it's metal fatigue at the pins and no amount of lube will stop it. I still say the 520 is more rigid.
Of coarse I can be wrong. I thought I was once, but I was mistaken.

[Joel]

nedro : So then you have to ask yourself from an engineering point of view. Is there enough material to effectively absorb the energy that is being delivered to the roller? What's enough? Is 3/8' enough? Is 1/4' enough?
You say that the rollers are what wears out after the lube is gone. Well, if that were so, A lubed chain won't wear out. I say it's metal fatigue at the pins and no amount of lube will stop it. I still say the 520 is more rigid.
Of coarse I can be wrong. I thought I was once, but I was mistaken.

I'm not saying the rollers wear out. My understanding of the wear mechanism is the pin to plate interface is where you end up with metal to metal wear.

The way these chains are constructed is the pins have a bushing around them, and the roller goes around this bushing. The pins are connected to the plates, and O-rings or X-rings seal the manufacturer's lubricant inside the rollers to keep the pins, bushings and interface between the pins and plates lubricated.

The lube we put on the chain is to lubricate the interface between the rollers and sprockets, as well as to lubricate the exposed side of the O-ring, and to keep dirt and grime away.

I think there are two ways chains die. The first way is by neglect, where the rider doesn't clean and lube the chain. When this happens, grit gets between some of the rollers their respective sprocket teeth, which puts an uneven load on the chain - that is, the entire load of the motor ends up on one link as opposed to the normal 8 links (as the chain goes around the front sprocket). This loads the pin to plate interface more than it can handle, and the pin/plate interface wears. Once the parts wear sufficiently, you get a gap between the parts which allows the lubricant inside the roller to escape. Once this happens, the chain's pitch expands unevenly and the one pin load continues on to the next link and the cycle continues until the chain is useless. The prefered way the chain dies is the lubricant inside the rollers gets 'used up' and eventually dries on its own. The eventual failure is the same.

I agree with you that the 1/4' wide chain should be capable of handling the power, and that given identical dimensions (except the width) that the 520 will be more rigid than the 530. However, the chain 'flexing' as a result of a lack of rigidity during operation is not the mode of failure. The normal mode of failure is uneven loading of the chain at the chain / sprocket interface.

The load per unit area on the roller of a 530 is 50% less than that of a 520. This will put less stress on the whole system, which will, under identical conditions, make for a longer lasting chain / sprocket system.

A neglected 530 won't last much longer than a neglected 520... but, a well cared for 530 should give significantly more life than a well cared for 520. One other thing, I believe rider input has a lot to do with chain wear as well. If you're smooth with the throttle, the chain will tend to be loaded more evenly than if you use the throttle like a light switch, or do a lot of wheelies / burnouts.

[nedro]

Joel : Quote (nedro @ July 08 2003, 11:03am)So then you have to ask yourself from an engineering point of view. Is there enough material to effectively absorb the energy that is being delivered to the roller? What's enough? Is 3/8' enough? Is 1/4' enough?
You say that the rollers are what wears out after the lube is gone. Well, if that were so, A lubed chain won't wear out. I say it's metal fatigue at the pins and no amount of lube will stop it. I still say the 520 is more rigid.
Of coarse I can be wrong. I thought I was once, but I was mistaken.

I'm not saying the rollers wear out. *My understanding of the wear mechanism is the pin to plate interface is where you end up with metal to metal wear.

The way these chains are constructed is the pins have a bushing around them, and the roller goes around this bushing. *The pins are connected to the plates, and O-rings or X-rings seal the manufacturer's lubricant inside the rollers to keep the pins, bushings and interface between the pins and plates lubricated.

The lube we put on the chain is to lubricate the interface between the rollers and sprockets, as well as to lubricate the exposed side of the O-ring, and to keep dirt and grime away.

I think there are two ways chains die. *The first way is by neglect, where the rider doesn't clean and lube the chain. *When this happens, grit gets between some of the rollers their respective sprocket teeth, which puts an uneven load on the chain - that is, the entire load of the motor ends up on one link as opposed to the normal 8 links (as the chain goes around the front sprocket). *This loads the pin to plate interface more than it can handle, and the pin/plate interface wears. *Once the parts wear sufficiently, you get a gap between the parts which allows the lubricant inside the roller to escape. *Once this happens, the chain's pitch expands unevenly and the one pin load continues on to the next link and the cycle continues until the chain is useless. *The prefered way the chain dies is the lubricant inside the rollers gets 'used up' and eventually dries on its own. *The eventual failure is the same.

I agree with you that the 1/4' wide chain should be capable of handling the power, and that given identical dimensions (except the width) that the 520 will be more rigid than the 530. *However, the chain 'flexing' as a result of a lack of rigidity during operation is not the mode of failure. *The normal mode of failure is uneven loading of the chain at the chain / sprocket interface.

The load per unit area on the roller of a 530 is 50% less than that of a 520. *This will put less stress on the whole system, which will, under identical conditions, make for a longer lasting chain / sprocket system.

A neglected 530 won't last much longer than a neglected 520... but, a well cared for 530 should give significantly more life than a well cared for 520. *One other thing, I believe rider input has a lot to do with chain wear as well. *If you're smooth with the throttle, the chain will tend to be loaded more evenly than if you use the throttle like a light switch, or do a lot of wheelies / burnouts.
All good theory. But it hasn't been the case yet. Maybe a DID ERV2 gold x-ring 530 would last longer, but I don't know anyone who's bought one with new gears. Plus, remember that all that extra centrifugal wieght of a 530 is trying to pull the chain apart at the wear areas.

[Joel]

I have a DID gold ZVM 530 that I bought with new steel sprockets roughly 20,000 miles ago. I got 20,000 out of the original chain, so in reality, the life test of this chain is just now beginning for me.

Do you know anyone who's gotten 20,000 out of a 520 chain?

Anybody?

[nedro]

I'll let you know. One thing I have noticed is that I haven't had to adjust the chain yet. On the original I adjusted it almost every weekend.

[BushrodW]

Rainbow sproc