rear chains

I have been running standard rear chain, 5/8 x 3/8 thick, I am fitting a Manley rear cush drive, the sprocket for this Is only 6mm thick and takes a 520 chain, has anyone else run it and is it easy to get hold of the engine sprockets? looks mighty thin by comparison, but might be lighter and take a modern x chain?

Several of us use a 520, me included and while mine is O ring and takes a 'bit' more power than X it works well. have just replaced front sprocket with pre Commando Dommie 1/4" part. Prior to that had been using narrowed Commando item. Only limit with the gearbox sprocket is tooth count as the earlier Nortons didn't go over 21T (I dont think). If you want more teeth just machine 1/8 from outside of a Commando part and reprofile/chamfer etc. Also helpful to surface harden after work. Here is a pic of machined parts......

Altas tranny sprockets are direct fit for 520 chain. Not bad ID to replace pinon gear with stronger Atlas version too.

kickstart said:

I have been running standard rear chain, 5/8 x 3/8 thick, I am fitting a Manley rear cush drive, the sprocket for this Is only 6mm thick and takes a 520 chain, has anyone else run it and is it easy to get hold of the engine sprockets? looks mighty thin by comparison, but might be lighter and take a modern x chain?

Click to expand...

If you got your bits from Steve Maney, it would be good to ask Steve what he uses, and share that info with us...

Personally, I like the idea of a 1/4 (520) chain, but do not need the '10,000 miles between adjustments' of a O ring / X ring chain. I just don't do the mileage to make that a benefit. So, a good quality, non O ring / X ring 1/4 chain would be something I would definitely buy.

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

I like plain chain [un-lubed in my case] and suggest if that what's ya like, buy a spool of it as most cost effective way to keep ahead of link slack on teeth life. My laziest maintenance lack of d-griming cleaning practice is X-ring through. After a while can get some cost back at scrap metal places or use for other things to hang stuff or metal art.

There's a new kind of clear, non-sticky, waxy sort of chain lube that I tried on the O-ring chain on my Honda and so far I like it.
Seems to me that with O-ring chain the remaining issue is lubrication of the exterior of the rollers, interior side plates, and the sprocket teeth; this product seems to do all that while also sealing the exterior of the chain plates against rust.

This is what I'm trying, and its cheap too -
http://www.cyclegear.com/CycleGear/Acce ... 1324_29360

Those sticky lubes that I've always used before, seem to do the job but when I cleaned the Honda's chain before applying the new lube, I was reminded how much grit chain lube can carry. Maybe it does as much harm as good?

Anyway, it would be nice for the Norton to be rid of the chain lube mess too; and a 520 O-ring with this new kind of lube seems like a good idea, except for the fact that the rear drum sprocket is going to wear quicker.

andychain said:

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Click to expand...

Andy, what is it? Tell us what you're thinkin? Is it the narrow gage 520 that is a step backward? Share with us... :?: :idea:

I've used all sorts of chains, form the allegedly good to the allegedly bad and never had a problem with any of them. I installed the CNW 520 chain conversion a couple of years ago and I think it's the best chain that has been on the bike because it requires virtually no maintenance. I would personally never go back to a regular chain. Some (most?) Commando "upgrades" really are just "changes" IMO, but I see the 520 conversion as a genuine upgrade.

This has been done to death and I have taken flack over chains.

Commandos had Renold 110056 which was a 10B-1 chain and fantastic. Unfortunately
it is no longer good and Renold do not advise it for bikes, as a Norton owner recently
found out when he contacted them.

O ring and in fact any sort of ring has also been done to death and folks say there is no
power loss, if that is true why do the manufacturers say there is LESS POWER LOSS with
X ring over O ring.

The iwis M106SL, 10B-1, is a fantastic chain with better material spec than even the
original Renold. Better still if you need a link and ask any bearing stockist for a 10B-1
connecting link and you will get one, it may be crap but it will get you home. Try asking
a bearing guy for a 530 link.

If you are riding all weathers then an O ring makes sense but as most classic bikes are
fair weather riden it makes no sense especially as 530 O ring will not fit and mods are
required. As for 520 non O ring it will last less time than a 530 purely down to a lower
bearing area.

Below are the dimensions.

iwis M106SL

Max width at the con..........12.9mm on the chain 19.5mm
weight...........................0.95 per mt.

Note if you are in OZ or USA you might have asa50 which looks right but
is 1mm wider so can catch.

Goin to bed now

PS Most 10B-1 chains are crap and not cheap, the iwis is the only chain I will
fir classic Brit bikes unless thet dont make a size, as with 520 then its Regina,
which for clssic ES and others does not foul as it is narrow.

"O ring and in fact any sort of ring has also been done to death and folks say there is no
power loss, if that is true why do the manufacturers say there is LESS POWER LOSS with
X ring over O ring?"

Because you have asked the question, I'll respond.
I dont think anyone indicated "there is no power loss" with sealed chain, since there is power loss with all chain. My own observation is that there is no discernible power loss when switching from a nonsealed chain to a sealed x ring chain. Jim's dyno results bear this out.
I have never used an oring chain, so cant comment other than to say the manufacturers tell us they did have a greater drag than an x ring. Since the x ring seems to be about on par with a non sealed chain, then it follows that if an o ring drags more than x ring it also drags more than nonsealed. But there is no need to use an oring chain, there are a plethora of x rings available.
I agree that for many riders who only occasionally "parade" their classic bike a few miles to a coffee shop etc, a regular chain is fine. If you routinely take off on 1,000 to 5,000 mile trips as some of us do, then the xring chain with its long wear life and low maintenance is a wonderful thing. Just think, I used to have to purchase a new chain and sprockets after one big trip! And adjust about every third day, now no adjustment for twenty thousand miles. As an added bonus my sprocket life has increased greatly as well. I guess the sprockets dont take kindly to the out of whack pitch that occurs as a nonsealed chain wears, which we know is happening becauses of the constant need for adjustment.

Glen

Scott oilers , or any continuous oiling system work well on non sealed chains. Much better than grit attracting chain spray.

O ring and in fact any sort of ring has also been done to death and folks say there is no
power loss, if that is true why do the manufacturers say there is LESS POWER LOSS with
X ring over O ring.

Click to expand...

Ok I was one of those that doubted the size of loss you stated. No-one doubts there is a loss, its just the size of it that we had issue with. You clearly have an awful lot of experience and knowledge and that is respected but you don't seem to have the same respect for a longstanding Commando tuner on here who has at least Dyno'd a plain and O ring and found no significant (measurable?)difference.

If you are riding all weathers then an O ring makes sense but as most classic bikes are
fair weather riden it makes no sense

Click to expand...

We're not all fairweather types and that 520 O ring has relieved me of constant adjustments on the previous DID heavy duty 530. When I converted I didn't know about the Iwis you sell and I probably would have tried it as I'm happy to lube, just not adjust every month/250 miles or so.
I admit my slimmed down Commando front sprocket has worn out after just under 14,000 miles but the rear looks ok. I'd have used 3 DID 530 chains in that time and mileage so I'm happy and isn't that what counts? :roll: When the rear goes I'll be calling you to try an Iwis as long as you can guarantee at least 3 years life with minimal wear and only one adjustment every 6 months or 2000 miles

Al-otment said:

Scott oilers , or any continuous oiling system work well on non sealed chains. Much better than grit attracting chain spray.

Click to expand...

I agree, the sticky chain lubes are not great and make a mess of the rims and spokes. I wont go back to using them on sealed or nonsealed chains
Dupont chain wax is not sticky and stays put, wheels stay clean, the chain is protected from rust. I' ve been reapplying it about every thousand miles or so on the xring chain, works well to keep the outside of the chain looking new.
Even sealed chains will rust if the bike is ridden in the rain with no chain lube. Once the rust starts, the chain doesnt last long, sealed or nonsealed.

There are a lot of other brands that offer a similar product to the Dupont, all of the wax variety. The Dupont is available at a reasonable price from places like Lowes, Truevalue Hardware, Ace, etc

Glen

I use HK 428 Heavy Duty chain on the primary with Jawa speedway sprocket on a special splined carrier fitted to the taper on the 850 engine. Also 520 0n the secondary - cannot remember the type. The bike doesn't get much exercise, but stretch doesn't seem excessive even though the motor is set up to pull hard. When I bought the TTI gearbox, I found it was intended for use with the commando clutch so the mainshaft was 6mm too long. I use the old style clutch and primary chain. The engine sprocket now floats to keep alignment. Even though the primary has little lube, it lasts a fair while. I tend to use a large diameter engine sprocket and smaller gearbox sprocket so the primary chain doesn't get such a hard time.