[79cbx]

I am finally replacing my stock chain and sprockets. Can I mix sprocket brands as long as they are both 530 front and rear? I want to run a steel AFAM front and a steel Sunstar rear with a DID x-ring 530 chain. Any negatives with mixing sprockets this way?

[curt248]

I'm not sure about that.

I seems like most people recommend getting a 520 size chain when replacing the stock one. Apparently, there has been some improvements in the strength of some of the 520 size chains that allow them to be used with no trouble in liter bikes.

They would reduce unsprung weight and rotating mass which is a big deal for any vehicle.

[Carolina_954]

yes you can mix sprocket manufacturers with no issues. the sizing is an industry standard. A 530 chain for a motorcycle is the same as a 530 chain for a conveyor belt as far as size goes. there should be no issues with using 3 different manufacturers. Most people just buy a kit so they end up with all the same manufacturer.

[Ol' Gravy Leg]

Originally Posted by 79cbx

I am finally replacing my stock chain and sprockets. Can I mix sprocket brands as long as they are both 530 front and rear? I want to run a steel AFAM front and a steel Sunstar rear with a DID x-ring 530 chain. Any negatives with mixing sprockets this way?

no

[79cbx]

Thanks for the responses. From what I've read it appears there is a big service life difference with the 530 size versus the 520 (5-7K miles for a 520 versus 15-20K miles for a 530).

[79cbx]

Originally Posted by Ol' Gravy Leg

no

BTW Why not Ol' Gravy Leg

[curt248]

79cbx. Did you find more than 2 posts saying that the service life had doubled by getting a 530 chain? If the strength is similar I would have thought them to last the same amount of time. I didn't research it throughly, but from what I remember, some said they were getting 20K on the 520.

If it's only 7K, that would be less than a season for me. I would think people would complain a lot about a 7K life span.

[sheepofblue]

I run 520 on the RC but I have one brand on the front and depending on which rear I run one of two different brands. Very common practice.

[cailenl]

i've got a 520 on my 929 and stock was 530. it met all the requirments for my bike and i don't think the wear life was any less.

[curt248]

I have a 929 as well. Did you notice any difference when you made the change. I know on my motocross bike when I changed to a better smoother chain, I noticed the engine seems to rev easier and with less effort.

Did you also change the gearing when switching to the 520?

Are you adjusting the chain more often?

[79cbx]

That was another drawback that I had read that chain adjustments become more frequent with a 520 setup. Not sure if it justifies any slight performance gain by using a 520. I adjusted my OEM 530 every 2k miles or so which is not much and still got 22k miles out of it.

[curt248]

The difference was so noticeable on my motocross bike that I would not consider going back to the original chain.

I wonder what it's like on a 130HP bike? Mine was a 125cc two stroke with 35HP.

[79cbx]

I would think there would be some noticeable difference on a dirt bike going to a 520 setup. Not sure how running a 520 versus a 530 setup would affect a high horsepower sportbike. I guess if you do alot of track days the 520 would be a good choice but for just street riding the 530 setup seems to work well for me, since I'm not real big on adjusting my chain. I do lube the hell out of it every 2 or 3 rides though.

[Ol' Gravy Leg]

Originally Posted by 79cbx

BTW Why not Ol' Gravy Leg

why are there no negatives? don't know, they're just no any i can think of by mixing and matching without getting really technical/nit-picky.

btw, i really doubt any one of could notice a difference between a 520 and 530. i can't.

[saf]

Originally Posted by 79cbx

I do lube the hell out of it every 2 or 3 rides though.

Less is more. Lubing the chain more, can infact promote wear sooner.

Lube the chain less for more life.

How tho ?. Its quite simple. At some point, when turning right the front wheel will make a straight line between your front wheel and your chain. At this point everything that your riding across, except for the tarmac itself is flung at the chain.

Lube it so its thick, oily and nicely sticky, and it grabs all of that sand, pebbles and rocks. You will find many of them in the countershaft sprocket cover, because this is the tightest radius on the chain, if it flings off anywhere, thats the place.

This sand and debris will wear down sprockets and chains, naturally.

From a metalurgical standpoint, a 530 is just chunky and cheap to manufacture. The larger rollers require cheaper tooling to do the job, as links arent hand pressed. Thats why they are OEM Honda on every new Blade.

The difference between a 520 and 530 is only the width of the roller, oh and end plate thickness but that isnt a issue as you dont see good 530's or 520's snapping in common situations. The 520 still has the same roller diameter, so its strength isnt a issue, and with teh slightly wider 530, its contact point loading is debateable if it will promote less wear.

Simply put, a 520 conversion, with clean chains and sprockets (ie proper maintinace) will result in no more chain servicing and wear than its big brother the 530. Buy a good chain like a ERV3, and some renthal or Afam sprockets, and your set. A good 520 will give you the strength, relaibility, and long term wear of a 530, with much less effort = free hp.

For the street using chain wax is a good choice, for the track it cannot handle the sheer on and off loading and heat, stay with a non fling lubricant.

[Ol' Gravy Leg]

Originally Posted by saf

For the street using chain wax is a good choice, for the track it cannot handle the sheer on and off loading and heat, stay with a non fling lubricant.

and for the track?

good post, btw

[saf]

For the track i use Silkolene chain lube. Most reputable brands are fine, its far from rocket science on chains, i only use Silkolene cause i get it for free.