Drive chain size

Guido · Feb 3, 2012

As I am rebuilding the suspension, swing arm Kegler mod, iso's adjusted, clutch center replaced, brake drum, I am also needing to do the drive chain.
I am confused as to what the difference is between the 520 and the 530 and what is required for my stock sprockets.
My drum was chewed up on the sides of the teeth.
Getting this bike back on the road after all those years has me going thru the whole learning thing again.
Did a search but can't seem to find what I need to know.

bill · Feb 3, 2012

standard is a 530. the common mod is to do a 520 O ring as some 530 O ring chain's wont clear either the inner primary case, gear box or possibley the chain guard. the 520 is 1/8 inch narrower on the inside.

Hobot · Feb 3, 2012

~3/8" robust teeth vs <1/4" weaker teeth is by far the main difference in strength weight and wear. HIck way is put on Atlas front sprocket and mill off 1/8" from DS of rear teeth and away ya go for repeated need of new drums if you use Cdo torque much and don't flood with oil like factory knew to do or run dry, as in between makes grinding paste to speed up your teeth removals cycles. 520 teeth should be .240" wide. As chains wear they ride up teeth out of valleys on running. To know how worn and where chain is load bearing on teeth - lift chain at back of sprocket - tension has No Effect on this test. I get guilty and ease up on power runs when chain gets about 1/3 way up out of valleys or greatly accelerates me to spend more too soon.

Guido · Feb 3, 2012

I must be daft, so what you all are saying is I should get a 520 chain?
I have been using Chain Wax® lube. Is that good or is there a better lube?
Do have to soak a new chain or can it be put on right out of the box?
I wanna do this right.

1up3down · Feb 3, 2012

Hi Guido,

What people are saying is that the regular, stock, standard chain to get is a 530.

It works just fine! Great!

That chain has handled its chores for decades!

Now, IF you want a unnecessary project, in my opinion, then you can go with a slightly thicker chain, a 520.

But if you do, then because it is thicker, it probably will rub against the inside of your inner primary cover, and
as such things need to be torn apart and shimmed. It could also rub against your chain guard, again more fiddling.

WHy do people go through all this when the stock 530 chain is fine you might ask?

Well, because the 520 has little O rings, in theory it may not need as much lube and because it is thicker it may
not stretch as much, and also if you are say drag racing and subjecting your chain to great stress then that may
be another reason.

Bottom line? Don't bother, it won't make any difference in your life, or in the pleasure of riding your bike.

A new chain comes already full of thick lube so just put it on.

I would just call Old Britts or whomever and ask for a stock chain with the standard number of links, I think 98 or so

lube it good every couple hundred miles and all will be fine.

I put in many happy garage hours cleaning the chain lube off my rear rim and spokes, great use for used toothbrushes!

Cheaper therapy than cocaine or a psychiatrist also.

DogT · Feb 3, 2012

I agree, unless you want a project, call Old Britts and you can buy a chain for about $35 delivered. Change it every 5K or less and you should be good to go. I consider it like putting a half tank of gas in the truck. Now you can get $200 chains if you like, too.

Dave
69S

bill · Feb 3, 2012

not quit right on most of this. A 520 O ring is approx same outside width as a NON O ring 530 so you don't have clearance issue's, it is with a 530 O ring where SOME have clearance issue's. next is the 520 is 1/8 inch NARROWER ON THE DRIVE TEETH than a 530. I run the 520 conversion with VERY GOOD RESULTS as it is a lower maintenance chain than a non O ring chain. My last 520 O ring chain and sprockets went over 24,000 miles so I cant complaine on that kind of service.

1up3down said:
Hi Guido,

What people are saying is that the regular, stock, standard chain to get is a 530.

It works just fine! Great!

That chain has handled its chores for decades!

Now, IF you want a unnecessary project, in my opinion, then you can go with a slightly thicker chain, a 520.

But if you do, then because it is thicker, it probably will rub against the inside of your inner primary cover, and
as such things need to be torn apart and shimmed. It could also rub against your chain guard, again more fiddling.

WHy do people go through all this when the stock 530 chain is fine you might ask?

Well, because the 520 has little O rings, in theory it may not need as much lube and because it is thicker it may
not stretch as much, and also if you are say drag racing and subjecting your chain to great stress then that may
be another reason.

Bottom line? Don't bother, it won't make any difference in your life, or in the pleasure of riding your bike.

A new chain comes already full of thick lube so just put it on.

I would just call Old Britts or whomever and ask for a stock chain with the standard number of links, I think 98 or so

lube it good every couple hundred miles and all will be fine.

I put in many happy garage hours cleaning the chain lube off my rear rim and spokes, great use for used toothbrushes!

Cheaper therapy than cocaine or a psychiatrist also.

ggryder · Feb 3, 2012

Absolutely the best solution is an o-ring chain plus Scottoiler or similar. I'd be jobless, homeless, if it wasn't for my Scottoiler: couldn't stand the chain maintenance needed for my motorcycle commute. One of my bikes has 60 odd thousand miles on it's original chain: sprockets needed replacing but the chain just doesn't wear. The oiler beats spray on lubes; it's oil not adhesive, most of it flings off, but it takes grit with it and the chain stays clean. The back end of the bike gets dirty over time, but oil is easier to clean off than spray-lube.

Gary

GRM 450 · Feb 3, 2012

I believe "X" ring chains have less friction than O rings and don't cost much more than O rings. Putoline ceramic chain spray is very good and doesn't make a mess of the rear of your bike. I do admit I use a standard 530 non O ring chain and change it regularly. Other bikes I use X ring. Graeme

pete.v · Feb 3, 2012

I have found, particularly with the new oring 520, mine is actually an Xring, is that they do not spin so freely as a good quality standard grade 530. The nature of the orings within the mix produces an amount of friction.

A new oring chain is so stiff you can outstretch a good 12 inches or so before it droops. This has GOT to rob 4 to 8 of the oh so precious horsepower that we love so dearly. I had to drench it in a bucket of mineral spirits to loosen it some. Before that I couldn't figure out why the bike was running like it had a stuck brake.

I have my eyes out for a good rear hub, due to the fact that I of course machined mine to accomidate the 520, to revert to a standard 530. I am in no hurry so maybe next winter I will spring for a new one if not attained.

ggryder · Feb 3, 2012

pvisseriii said:
A new oring chain is so stiff you can outstretch a good 12 inches or so before it droops. This has GOT to rob 4 to 8 of the oh so precious horsepower that we love so dearly.

It can't be that much, I know some racers will use non o-ring chain because it does absorb a little less power, but if it were 4 to 8 hp they'd all be doing it. Each link as it goes onto or comes off each sprocket only has to pivot through a few degrees. For a road bike, on average, an o-ring chain is likely more efficient since the non o-ring chain probably spends a fair amount of time running with inadequate lubrication and hence, more friction.

bill · Feb 3, 2012

Most use the term O ring interchangably with X ring but I do run an X ring. as to hp loss I doubt you would see much if any. a good friend ( Pat Mooney) that races a manx switched to an x ring to stop some issues with chain flutter with success and did not see any loss of HP or lap times. to me this is also a non issue.

pvisseriii said:
I have found, particularly with the new oring 520, mine is actually an Xring, is that they do not spin so freely as a good quality standard grade 530. The nature of the orings within the mix produces an amount of friction.

A new oring chain is so stiff you can outstretch a good 12 inches or so before it droops. This has GOT to rob 4 to 8 of the oh so precious horsepower that we love so dearly. I had to drench it in a bucket of mineral spirits to loosen it some. Before that I couldn't figure out why the bike was running like it had a stuck brake.

I have my eyes out for a good rear hub, due to the fact that I of course machined mine to accomidate the 520, to revert to a standard 530. I am in no hurry so maybe next winter I will spring for a new one if not attained.

DogT · Feb 3, 2012

I wonder if this will get as long as some of the oil threads?

Dave
69S

1up3down · Feb 3, 2012

The guy just wanted to know what size chain to buy for his STOCK sprockets, that's all.

Hobot · Feb 3, 2012

Both the 520 0-ring and 530 O-ring chains I've tried were stiff enough to stand out a foot w/o bending over. 0-ring stands for Obsolete to me now. X-ring or just run dry plain chain for me d/t THE Grit. Glad some can get away on thin teeth but I can't get 10k miles out of a chain before 1/3 lift out valleys and about 2 520 chains till rear teeth are nubbins. Its worth a test fit of 530 X-ring as very often it clears and rest the time minor groove wears in gear box shell but not though nor a structural issue.

bluto · Feb 3, 2012

I've been using inexpensive RK 530 chains (about $30) on my Commando with good results and change them once a year at that price. For X ring chains DID VM series are highly rated, have one on another bike and it works well

Guido · Feb 3, 2012

1up3down said:
The guy just wanted to know what size chain to buy for his STOCK sprockets, that's all.

DogT said:
I wonder if this will get as long as some of the oil threads?

Dave
69S

Freaking hilarious. You guy's crack me up.
That all I wanted to know. The 520 is the stock chain and what I should buy.

Just kidding. I'm just yankin' your chain.

frankdamp · Feb 3, 2012

When we started the prototype testing, the bikes had 1/4" chains. Back then we didn't have the "clever" stuff with O rings, etc. I had the 1/4" chain break when doing about 105 mph on the test track. We'd found that we needed to do a chain tension adjustment about every second tank of gas. and were really pushing hard for a wider chain.

It was my understanding that the 3/8" chain became standard equipment before the bike ever went on public sale.

In the 1950s and 60s, there was a product on the UK market whicn had a graphite-loaded grease in a flat round can. You took the chain off the bike and rolled it up into a spiral'. Then you put the can of grease on the kitchen stove and heated it until it liquified. Once it was liquid, you put the rolled-up chain into the can and let it cool. When you took it out of the can, the chain was loaded with the graphite lubricant. Put it back on the bike - good for another 5000 miles. There may have been a competing product that used molybdenum disulphide instead of graphite.

Guido · Feb 3, 2012

bluto said:
I've been using inexpensive RK 530 chains (about $30) on my Commando with good results and change them once a year at that price. For X ring chains DID VM series are highly rated, have one on another bike and it works well

This is the exact same brand chain I took off. Been looking online and they are all rated for like 400cc max.
So going to the cheap chain is maybe not such a good idea.
I'll pay for the right chain to handle this bike.

lcrken · Feb 3, 2012

I ran both 530 standard chain and 520 O-ring chain on my race Nortons for years. Nothing wrong with the stock 530 chain as long as you don't mind a little maintenance now and then. I liked the lower maintenance of the 520 O-ring chain, but with the limited mileage race bikes see, it wasn't a big deal. I originally went to the 520 to give me enough clearance for a larger rear tire. On a race bike you also save a little weight, part of it unsprung, by going to the 520 chain and sprockets, but I doubt it's very significant.

There's no difference in strength between the same make and model of 530 vs. 520 chain. The extra width of the rollers doesn't add any strength. The big difference is in chain and sprocket wear. The narrower 520 will wear out the chain and sprockets faster. Not sure if that matters much with steel, but with the aluminum rear sprockets I was using, the 1/4" 520 sprockets wore noticeably faster than the 3/8" 530 bits.

I'm still running a normal 530 chain on my street Commando, but I don't put on a lot of miles any more. If it was daily commuter, I'd probably go with the 520 just for the low maintenance of the O-ring.

Drive chain size

Similar threads