Chain

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would it be correct to say that 530 chain and 10B-1 are identical in fit to the sprockets but the overall width is different?

Russ
 
I have Seen Renold chains with the link fitted wrongly and it is technically wrong.
It is worse when the chain starts to wear and failure is usually put down to this wear
and a case of "needing a new chain". As the clipusually fails when fitted to the crank
link fitted wrongly folks also blame a "bad clip" rather than blame the real culprit.

It is nice to see that you confirm the need for a crank link on certain models as a guide
19 tooth have 98 links, 20 and 21 tooth have 99 links and 22 tooth 100 links.

Engineering has 2 sides, one is technically correctness and the other a make do approach.
Technically the best wear is from changing sprockets and chain but if you have 2 or 3
chains and lube and rotate you will get extended life of all components.

As for clutch baskets, I have seen some really badly worn baskets being offered at
bike jumbles not to mention rusty lumps of chain, all at high prices. In UK there are several
companies offering a re-toothing service which basically entails machining all the teeth
off and getting a platewheel machinen to a press fit ith a few MIG or TIG... much cheaper
and effectively a new sprocket.

Thanks for the comments and just in Renold are on, as in the case of the spring clips.....
yes I am correct.

Andy
 
RVICH

530, asa50 and 10B-1 all have the same gearing dimensions, ie pitch and roller dimensions but
530 and asa50 are both wider than 10B-1 so could cause fouling on old brit bikes.

It is interesting that in the asa and BS standards this is the only product that does share gearing
dimensions. Anybody that run an asa40 on an 08B-1 primary will see massive wear rates.

08B-1 roller is .335 dia and asa40 .305 dia. The asa40 will wrap round the sprockets nicely but
operation all sorts of crap happens.

It is the same Renold 110044 used on Bantams, Cubs and other brit bikes. People say 420 but
that again has a .305 roller and 110044 (narrow 1/2") has a .335 roller. It is causing all sorts
of problems.

Andy
 
Andy

Have you an address for these people that can retooth a sprocket cheaply? Friend of mine needs a 1930 BSA engine sprocket retoothed & best price he could find was over £150! For a small simplex sprocket that's far from cheap.

Ian
 
andychain said:
I now have pic of right and wrong fitting for a crank link, but still cannot figure
out how to post ..... DOH

I can e-mail them to somebody who can post them so e-mail me on
****************
Ta

Andy

Here's Andy's pic (L.A.B.)
Chain
Alright, I'll come clean... I can't tell the difference!
If you turn the 'wrong' one over (ie face the link the other way) it looks like the 'correct' one to me.
I have a feeling I'm missing something blindingly obvious...
So, please forgive my obvious lack of IQ, and humour me with some eductation...!
 
L.A.B. said:
pete.v said:
andychain said:
It doesnt matter as long as the connecting link is fitted with the clip "close" end facing forward.

Andy
Just to be clear, when you say "facing forward", do you mean the direction of ratation?

http://www.bikernet.com/pages/Chains_For_Dummies.aspx
Chain

Easy there, you MKIII lovin son of a gun. :p Don't play me a dummy. 8) If i put the link on at the bottom it'll be face to the backward, now won't it. There are some who might misconstrue. :? Not me of course. :oops:
 
If you look at the "wrong" one you will see 2 bent plates. If you a connecting link
to them, when the chain wears the loose fit plate can ride up that bent section
and flick the clip off.

If you look at the "right way" you will see that bent section is rivetted into the
chain and the press fit plate cannot move and ride up the bend. The connecting
is also fitted to a "standard" end.

Andy
 
The correct one is actually three rollers instead of two. I will let the engineers debate this. Look at the "bent" plates rather than the width.

So is 10B-1 chain lighter than typical 530? How much? How does this translate to the real world of Commandos?

Thanks
Russ
 
Fast Eddie said:
andychain said:
I now have pic of right and wrong fitting for a crank link, but still cannot figure
out how to post ..... DOH

I can e-mail them to somebody who can post them so e-mail me on
****************
Ta

Andy

Here's Andy's pic (L.A.B.)
Chain
Alright, I'll come clean... I can't tell the difference!
If you turn the 'wrong' one over (ie face the link the other way) it looks like the 'correct' one to me.
I have a feeling I'm missing something blindingly obvious...
So, please forgive my obvious lack of IQ, and humour me with some eductation...!

I was confused when I first looked at it. The correct way has the crank link as an integral part of the chain and is riveted in place. In the wrong pic, the link will have to be fitted to a master link.
 
drones76 said:
Fast Eddie said:
andychain said:
I now have pic of right and wrong fitting for a crank link, but still cannot figure
out how to post ..... DOH

I can e-mail them to somebody who can post them so e-mail me on
****************
Ta

Andy

Here's Andy's pic (L.A.B.)
Chain
Alright, I'll come clean... I can't tell the difference!
If you turn the 'wrong' one over (ie face the link the other way) it looks like the 'correct' one to me.
I have a feeling I'm missing something blindingly obvious...
So, please forgive my obvious lack of IQ, and humour me with some eductation...!
Bloody hell guys, is that it?!?
Then why didn't we just say Right way = do not fit the split link directly to the half link. Period.
:roll:

I was confused when I first looked at it. The correct way has the crank link as an integral part of the chain and is riveted in place. In the wrong pic, the link will have to be fitted to a master link.
 
Right there are 2 forms of crank link or double offset.

One has 3 rollers and one has 1 roller. The one with 1 roller is usually fitted by means
of a cotter pin or bolt but the problem is the connecting link has to go on the bent plates.

A fantastic way of joining an odd link chain would be to rivet the single crank, the one with 1 roller,
into the chain and use the cotter pin or bolt instead of a connecting link.

Yes 10B-1 is lighter than 530 and asa50 if you have have an even number of links, say 100, then it
makes little difference in real life except the extra weight will cause extra wear. On most british bikes
530 will rub the bike somewhere.

An important thing to remember is that bikes dont break chain they wear them. Break a chain and you
need to find out why. They will wear to the point of failure but this is down to lack of maintanance and
knowledge not the chain. A good quality light chain is far better than a "heavy duty" item. Just look
at Les Harris racing, his drag bikes uses a standard iwis chain.

Once again I point out that all the Brit old timer bikes used BS chain and we never used to have problems.

I have just started supplying a dealer in OZ and would gladly supply into the states. I already ship chains to
TT Race Engines and if you want to know about my quality ask Bill there.
 
Fast Eddie if you were closer I would come over and show you.

Both crank links are riveted into the chain and it is perfectly acceptable
to use a connecting link to join if the crank is fitted the right way.

I am getting a headache now :D :D :D :D

Andy
 
It seems the 1/2 link needs to be pulled in the correct direction and be riveted into the chain, not held in with a splice.
 
So all the discussion about right and wrong direction, it looks to me like the problem is the spring clip!

If I were to rivet the links and not bother with the spring clip would this remove the angst and heartache regarding fit and direction? :? :? If Reynold aren't bothered about it, should we be?

Oh by the way Andy I totally agree with your opinion on the spring clip direction, I have always fitted them that way, and use the proper Reynold type you prefer.

CB
 
andychain said:
Fast Eddie if you were closer I would come over and show you.

Both crank links are riveted into the chain and it is perfectly acceptable
to use a connecting link to join if the crank is fitted the right way.

I am getting a headache now :D :D :D :D

Andy
I'm in Oxford Andy, and would love to meet! Firstly, to buy a couple of chains off of you and secondly to understand this bloody issue!! I honestly haven't got a clue what you're saying and my only conclusion is to avoid half links altogether in order to avoid the inevitable, if non-understandable, doom and destruction that would ensue!!
 
Years ago, I went to see an old boy about some bits and pieces, and the talk got to chains. "You don't want any of that Renolds nonsense", he said...."You want Coventry" and he opened a tin to show me some links..."but I haven't got any left..."

So I've never tried it but it did look ever so well engineered. Unfortunately, it disappeared after the merger with Renolds in the 1930s.
 
If you rivet the crank link both ends fine but why bother if use correctly with a
connecting link its fine and can removed easily.

Kempton this weekend, Saturday is not far from Oxford and guess where I will
be headed for at 5 on Saturday morning.

As for Renold why do think I wont sell it. I like to sleep at night and believe me I do.

With my father who worked for Renold in sales tech we have 100 years in chain. I will only
ever try to teach not preach. If there is a right way and a wrong way I will try to guide folk.

I am but a 64 year old guy that loves bikes rides his Bandit like a hooligan and will never
be rich, but as I said above I sleep well. Renold do not care a toss about bikes and Tsubaki
are not much better, dont start me off.

I enjoy my work, well I retired 14 years ago. Ring me or come to ashow I will always answer
every question. The big boys may not like what I have to say but I aint been sued yet.

Rant over I'm off to bed cos of an early start.

Andy
 
Andy,I'm still unclear on the crank link orientation, should the narrow end go FIRST, in the direction of chain rotation? Or last? Or no matter, so long as not adjacent the master link? Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top