Chain Conversion 520

While the subject seems to be at the fore front of the forum. Can someone tell me which side of the sprockets should be machined to get the best fit and alignment? I note that the CNW conversion comes with a spacer for the gearbox sprocket. Why? Mine is a Mk3 any differences for different models? I am also aware RGM sell nearly all the gearbox sprockets are available in 1/4 x 5/8 as well as the std 3/8 x 5/8.
I guess Jim Comstock will know the definitive answer but it is unfair to ask him as he makes them for CNW!

Cheers
JohnT

If you want to go 520 the best way is to machine off both sides of both current sprockets.

If you buy a ready made front make sure of the centre line of the drive.

Call me old fashioned but I still cant get with 520 over 530. You may save a few grams of weight
but your chain choice is limited. %20 is 520 with 530 you can use 10B-1 and asa50 form just about
any chain manufacturer.

For road use the bearing area drops from .67 to .51 increasing wear rate.

Andy

PS Log on to Laverda forum where this has been discussed at length with weight of 520 against
the iwis M106SL (530).

andychain said:

If you want to go 520 the best way is to machine off both sides of both current sprockets.

If you buy a ready made front make sure of the centre line of the drive.

Call me old fashioned but I still cant get with 520 over 530. You may save a few grams of weight
but your chain choice is limited. %20 is 520 with 530 you can use 10B-1 and asa50 form just about
any chain manufacturer.

For road use the bearing area drops from .67 to .51 increasing wear rate.

Andy

PS Log on to Laverda forum where this has been discussed at length with weight of 520 against
the iwis M106SL (530).

Click to expand...

The whole point of asking the forum Andy, is to get the actual experience of doing it, not what one might assume! The commando's have clearance issues around the gearbox and primary chaincase and if care is not taken the chain will rub on one or the other! even with 520. So keep your powder dry mate you may learn something!
cheers
JohnT

I think Ludwig, whose word has worth, has gone to 520 and the reason why
is less mess and less bother. The wear may be somewhat greater but the payoff
is convenience and few things drive modern society more.

I guess Jim Comstock will know the definitive answer but it is unfair to ask him as he makes them for CNW!

Cheers
JohnT[/quote]

The only 520 chain conversion I make is the replacement drive hub for the MK3 wheel. It uses a bolt on steel sprocket that uses a 520 chain. Jim

hobot has done this *both* ways and *now* knows to *only* take off meat form the DS of the drum teeth as the Atlas front 520 sprocket has its teeth aligned that way, ie: closer to TS. Mill teeth .240" wide. Would ya rather listen to a preacher that got over a drinking drug problem of one whose only going by the good book?

John I learn stuff every day.

Commandos have been running on narrow 530 from year dot with no issues.

Wide heavy duty Jap type chains have clouded the issues. The original design used BS chain 10B-1 and
even the asa 50 is wider.

We seem to get led down certain paths with "latest" products such as "heavy duty", "X and O ring" I sometimes
wonder how we all managed back in 60s and 70s.

I only suggest the best products in line with what was designed for machines day one. I am all for progress
but only if it is beneficial.

I dont get hot under the collar and I do learn, it was Panther owners that intruced me to O ring primary.

I have had good feedback from here and after all it is the owner who has the final say.

Andy

For those of us who do long distance riding, (5,100 miles last 4 weeks) sealed chains are a great invention.
I used to change chains every 6,000 to 8000 miles, now it is easy to do 20- 25 thousand on a sealed chain, very little adjustment along the way. In fact, when you finally start having to adjust, its time to replace the chain.
I have converted my Vincent from 530 standard to 520 sealed. As Andy says, the greater surface area of the 530 sprockets are a plus, so if I could get a 530 sealed or even a 525 sealed type on there, I would go that route. Unfortunately there is no way on that bike.
With good quality sprockets the 520 sealed setup seems to outlast the 530 standard. I believe this is because of the rapid wear of the standard chain, it takes the sprockets with it.
I suspect the Commando is the same as far as insufficient clearances for 530 sealed chain, but have not looked at it closely. If the bike starts to get used for big miles as planned next year it will be time to fit a sealed chain and my past experience tells me a 520 sealed setup will work much better than a 530 nonsealed.
The weight savings is probably a nonissue on a roadbike. I doubt there is much difference in weight between a 530 standard and 520 sealed, in fact some sealed 520 chains might be heavier than a standard 530. Then it is just down to abit of meat removed from the outer ring of the sprockets, not much effect there as far a roadriding goes.

Glen

The handful reporting that put sealed 530 chain on Cdo's most said it takes a few miles to eat out primary case or tranny shell till silent running they never looked back on messy well oiled regular chain or more often replacement of run bone dry as inbetween on plain chain in my grit ruins chain in a few gas tanks and teeth visablly worn sharper d/t loose chain riding taller out of valleys. Peel in her prime power was able to fan over the front sprocket teeth so after 3rd one I quit the 520. After Trixie sprung enough leaks on DS to oil chain some it ruined in in one ride which pissed me off as had just put it on few 100 miles earlier, instead of staying in valleys as on leaving chain could be lifted 1/3 out of valley at rear of drum. One big reason I've retired Trixie till the leaks fills d/t cost.

I don't oil rear chain anymore, just use the dry film chain wax with teflon, either the Dupont product or whatever similar product is available. I do use lots of it tho, coat the chain once a day when touring.

This is done as directed, sprayed onto the roller from the internal side of the chain, not onto the outside at the rear sprocket as I once did (easier but incorrect)
With the dry type lubes there is no gunk getting the rims as before plus it seems to be very effective at keeping things sliding without a lot of friction.

Glen

hobot said:

The handful reporting that put sealed 530 chain on Cdo's most said it takes a few miles to eat out primary case or tranny shell till silent running they never looked back on messy well oiled regular chain or more often replacement of run bone dry as inbetween on plain chain in my grit ruins chain in a few gas tanks and teeth visablly worn sharper d/t loose chain riding taller out of valleys. Peel in her prime power was able to fan over the front sprocket teeth so after 3rd one I quit the 520. After Trixie sprung enough leaks on DS to oil chain some it ruined in in one ride which pissed me off as had just put it on few 100 miles earlier, instead of staying in valleys as on leaving chain could be lifted 1/3 out of valley at rear of drum. One big reason I've retired Trixie till the leaks fills d/t cost.

Click to expand...

Hmm
Maybe a 525 will go straight on without rubbing? After thinning sprockets appropriately of course.

Glen

A 530 o-ring chain will fit on a MK3 850. You may have to widen the chain guard a bit to keep it quiet and you will want to put a .080 spacer behind the trans sprocket to keep it from grooving the housing. I ran my bike for many years that way after wearing out too many cast rear sprockets with the 520 conversion. Jim

Thanks Jim, then a 530 sealed type it will be. Last sealed chain I bought was for an ATV of some sort, ebay, 47 bucks,DID brand, has gone 12,000 miles with only one small adjustment so far and can barely move it off the sprocket teeth at back. I dont think we need the strongest chains available for our 50-60 hps bikes, but having them sealed is a wonder. I would still avoid the Chinese stuff until proven, there is a ton of it for sale on ebay.

Caterpillar did the same with chains years ago, sealed the pins and bushing. Chain life was affected in an even greater way than with a MC chain, which given the working environment makes sense. Of course a new set of running gear there might be $30,000 or more, so it was noticed! Actually it was the Italian company Berco who came up with it, Cat had to copy or lose sales.

One question, So the 80 thou change in alignment is not enough to bother things?

I would check the alignment when you do it. Most are not very close as they come from the factory. Spacing the sprocket out may make it worse and it may make it better.
Close seems to work pretty well.
It can be a major project to get them right on the nose. You would need to start at the motor ,then the trans, then the wheel, then the rear wheel should point at the front wheel so you end up at the frame.... [see the worlds straightest Commando] Jim

I turned my rear hub from the outside to the inboard side. It doesn't take much and the cast iron/steel cut like butter. You can easily do the chamfer with a file and trust me, it only take a few seconds so be careful.

As far as alignment goes, the front sprocket being thinner from the outside in also, from what i can tell, will make things inline. That being said, a 1/16" over that length would be rather insignificant.

Here is some more info. The new oring chains are stuff due to the white lube that is everywhere on the new chain. I was really surprised how much power was lost due to the stiffness/stickiness. I scrubbed it up in spirits, then lubed it up with the proper wax. This loosened it up considerable. Some say this is not so with them but maybe theirs were shipped with different lube.

After a time, I realized that other than the pretty gold color, I gained little to no benefit and I knew that the weakest point in this final drive link, so to speak, is the rear hub wear and the thinner it is, the quicker it wears. I reverted to the oem setup and feel more comfortable with the system as a whole. I might put 2000 miles on it in a season.

Finally, I truly feel that I lost up to 5+ horses at the rear wheel from the oring chain and the change was significantly noticeable. So, being there and back again, I really like the standard duty free wheeling chain.

The o-ring setup just isn't worth it, but looks good on the trailer.

Sealed chain also looks good on a bike that never sees a trailer but covers 5100 miles in four weeks. I don't bother with the colored stuff, plain black will do, but for sure give me the seals, they work. The power loss is also a nonissue as far as I can tell. I have wondered about this as new x or oring chain is so stiff ,as you say. It does limber up quickly and limbers even more when heat is applied thru usage.
A friend just spent a weekend at Laguna Beach rubbing shoulders with some of the current crop of the world's top GP racers. The race mechanics gave him some of the used chains from their 240 hp GP bikes, lots of life left in them for a 50 hp roadbike. New chains are put on after 3 races. In a world where every hp counts and chain speeds are unimaginable to us road riders, they are all running sealed chains. If standard chains gave them even one more hp they would all be running them. So I don't worry about the power loss from sealed chain, there is probably more power lost through a worn standard chain that is very soon after installation, worn/stretched off pitch and is fighting(wearing) the fixed pitch of the sprockets. Perhaps this is why the racers have all switched to sealed, it is not due to their concern for getting high mileage from the chain. The Sponsors provide the Teams with a neverending supply of whatever type they desire.

Glen

[quote="pete.v"
Here is some more info. The new oring chains are stuff due to the white lube that is everywhere on the new chain. I was really surprised how much power was lost due to the stiffness/stickiness. I scrubbed it up in spirits, then lubed it up with the proper wax. This loosened it up considerable. Some say this is not so with them but maybe theirs were shipped with different lube.
The o-ring setup just isn't worth it, but looks good on the trailer.[/quot

So how much life did you get from this chain after you scrubbed it up in "spirits"? I know its possible to destroy the O rings just by using the wrong lube so I can only imagine what harsh solvents might do to them. The white lube on new O ring chains I've bought is nothing more than white lithium grease, actually much lighter than the chain lube I use on my Suzuki. No power loss I can detect after chain service either, but the Bandit is 96 HP so it may be harder to tell.

MikeG said:

[quote="pete.v"
Here is some more info. The new oring chains are stuff due to the white lube that is everywhere on the new chain. I was really surprised how much power was lost due to the stiffness/stickiness. I scrubbed it up in spirits, then lubed it up with the proper wax. This loosened it up considerable. Some say this is not so with them but maybe theirs were shipped with different lube.
The o-ring setup just isn't worth it, but looks good on the trailer.[/quot

So how much life did you get from this chain after you scrubbed it up in "spirits"? I know its possible to destroy the O rings just by using the wrong lube so I can only imagine what harsh solvents might do to them. The white lube on new O ring chains I've bought is nothing more than white lithium grease, actually much lighter than the chain lube I use on my Suzuki. No power loss I can detect after chain service either, but the Bandit is 96 HP so it may be harder to tell.

Click to expand...

I do not think mineral spirits are any more coustic than WD40 as suggested by CNW. It was just a matter of cleaning off the crap. The Oring showed no ill effect. Mineral Spirits is about as mild as you can get.

As less mass is the reason for 520 conversion, not economic practicality, check this out
EK 520 MVX Gold Supersport Series Drive Chain ATV Motorcycle ...
https://www.denniskirk.com/ek/520-mvx.. ... 932120.sku‎
Find the EK 520 MVX Gold Supersport Series Drive Chain at Dennis Kirk. ... use High Performance, lightweight street chain with lightening holes...

We dont need a superhigh tensile chain on our old bikes, that is where the extra expense comes in. I bought one last year for 47 bucks, looks like it will do 25,000 miles, 12,000 on it now and no sign of wear.

Just recalled that a friend with a Suzuki Dealership (Modern Motorcycling, Vancouver) recently told me that when tuning and dyno testing newish sport bikes he sometimes sees a wobbly power output at a steady rpm. The most common culprit is a worn out chain. With a new chain fitted the line moves up slightly and goes smooth.

Glen