You're assuming that the chain travel will be centred on the sprocket. It won't.
Greg
► Chains, oilers, sprockets
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
You're assuming that the chain travel will be centred on the sprocket. It won't.
Greg
freeloader
Registered user
Greg:
First ... let me "state for the record" before I confuse anybody, I'm not saying this is a "good idea" ... I'm still thinking about it.
I was suggested in some cycle mag. a while back as a good idea because of (all other things being equal ... that is same brand, same series, etc) that:
Pros:
1) the tensile strength would be the same or or better then comparable 525
2) the life "should" be better as there is 1/16" extra length on the pins so the same amout of wear is distributed over a larger area thus longer life before you get too much slop.
3) since the chain now (nominally) has 1/32" extra clearance on each side of the sprockets there is less frictional losses.
4) I have heard that the 530 is a more commonly stocked chain at MC stores, so could be an easier to find "emergency substitute" if nothing else?
Cons:
1) if the tolerances on the bike are very tight the side of the chain could rub on something.
2) it is obviously weighs more than the comparable 525 chain.
What downside(s) am I missing?
I will be first to admit there could be some other downsides...
Jim
Why would the tensile strength be better? Are the sideplates thicker? Even if they are, all that extra weight requires more energy to throw around. And as Greg said, it won't centralise, and, I'd imagine, slop around from side to side (I'm guessing here, though).
The only reason I'd consider what you're suggesting is as an emergency fix, and I'd change it for the correct size as soon as I could, if I had to do that.
And another con: I'd assume a 530 would be more expensive. Although if they're that much more readily available then the 525s, maybe not...
it's 1/16" wider -- that's why I said 1/32" nominal clearance on each side. of course it won't ride centered so the outside of the chain could be 1/16" closer to the engine which is why I said clearances could be a problem if the bike was toleranced tightly... but I'll agree I could have been more "plain" in my language ... a Foster's was involved. 
Most mfg. use the same sideplates on the 525 and 530 chain since the pitch is the same -at least they do this on their lower end chains, and may beef up the 530 side plates on the higher end chains for a higher tensile strength.
Here's chart for RK chain as an example which bears this out:
http://www.gammasales.com/09MOTORCYCLE/Webmoto09PDF/09_BRAKES/CHAIN.pdf
As to weight ... obviously it depends on the details, but if you squint at the chart above it typically is less than 0.25 lbs heavier for 100 links.
Cost-wise, every time I have looked, the cost of the 530 chain was the same as the 525 or just a few bucks more so not significant.
To me the only REAL reason to consider this would be longer life ... the "wear surfaces" as a percentage of total are significantly larger since the pins are 1/16" longer ... so perhaps 20% extra life... ???
Of course the mechanical clearance just has to be there or this would be dumb. The increased weight at something like 0.3 lbs seems insignificant (but I could be wrong), cost difference is zilch, strength is same or better....
I'm not convinced its a bad idea unless there is mechanical interferance (well I'm not convinced YET anyway)... on the other hand I"m not convinced it's a GOOD idea either...
I'm gonna shut up now...
Most mfg. use the same sideplates on the 525 and 530 chain since the pitch is the same -at least they do this on their lower end chains, and may beef up the 530 side plates on the higher end chains for a higher tensile strength.
Here's chart for RK chain as an example which bears this out:
http://www.gammasales.com/09MOTORCYCLE/Webmoto09PDF/09_BRAKES/CHAIN.pdf
As to weight ... obviously it depends on the details, but if you squint at the chart above it typically is less than 0.25 lbs heavier for 100 links.
Cost-wise, every time I have looked, the cost of the 530 chain was the same as the 525 or just a few bucks more so not significant.
To me the only REAL reason to consider this would be longer life ... the "wear surfaces" as a percentage of total are significantly larger since the pins are 1/16" longer ... so perhaps 20% extra life... ???
Of course the mechanical clearance just has to be there or this would be dumb. The increased weight at something like 0.3 lbs seems insignificant (but I could be wrong), cost difference is zilch, strength is same or better....
I'm not convinced its a bad idea unless there is mechanical interferance (well I'm not convinced YET anyway)... on the other hand I"m not convinced it's a GOOD idea either...
I'm gonna shut up now...
lunchbox
Registered user
Can't resist 5 pen'eth on this one! There is already sideplay between plates and sprockets on a 525 chain to allow the teeth to engage easily without fouling the plates. Increasing the play by fitting a wider chain may give you too much sideplay and lead to uneven stress on the pins and more wear on the teeth (as the chain moves from side to side on the sprocket). It could lead to a noisier as well as heavier drive train. I would stick to the 525 and don't go extra heavy duty or it will outlast the sprockets and you will be wasting the extra money - remember the F8 only puts out 85bhp and these chains cope with well over 100 on sportsbikes. I don't know about your side of the pond Jimbob but the 525s are pretty easy to source over here - but let's face it, anything of quality is going to outlast the original CZ equipment.
Graham
Graham
LB:
525 sourcing is not a problem here either!
Thanks for your comments!
Indeed the extra "unsupported" widthl could be enough to have bad effect....
I'm sitting on the fence here... I'll probably replace mine when it goes with another 525 unless I get pushed off the fence going the other way
I have 6K miles on my CZ now and it is holding up well so far!
Jim
525 sourcing is not a problem here either!
Thanks for your comments!
Indeed the extra "unsupported" widthl could be enough to have bad effect....
I'm sitting on the fence here... I'll probably replace mine when it goes with another 525 unless I get pushed off the fence going the other way
I have 6K miles on my CZ now and it is holding up well so far!
Jim
freeloader
Registered user
And another possibility that's just occurred to me if you use a chain that's too wide for the sprockets; normally the forces applied to the chain by the drive sprocket, and the forces applied by the chain to the driven sprocket during the application of engine power (and vice versa during braking) will be acting close enough to the side plates so that there's little chance of the rollers bending. If there's a significant gap between the sprocket and the chain, my guess is that there's an opportunity for the rollers to bend where they touch the edge of the sprocket.
Anyone reading this with a significant engineering background who'd care to comment on that?
Anyone reading this with a significant engineering background who'd care to comment on that?
It's simple - why is a 525 sprocket the width it is?
A: it's designed to fit a 525 chain.
If you want to use a 530 chain, find some 530 sprockets (or get some made).
Greg
freeloader
Registered user
Chain Adjustment F800GS
Bit of a numpty question I think, but here goes…
My bike’s just come back from its 6000k service and the chain adjustment is, in my opinion, way too tight.
On the couple of times I’ve adjusted it I’ve set the deflection at 35-45mm dimensioned from the inside to the inside of the chain, the BMW technician has set this closer to 45mm deflection outside to outside chain dimension (which equates to around a 20-25mm internal deflection)
So have I been adjusting this incorrectly? Or are BMW looking to increase chain and sprocket sales?
FWIW The riders manual clearly indicates the internal dimension.
Bit of a numpty question I think, but here goes…
My bike’s just come back from its 6000k service and the chain adjustment is, in my opinion, way too tight.
On the couple of times I’ve adjusted it I’ve set the deflection at 35-45mm dimensioned from the inside to the inside of the chain, the BMW technician has set this closer to 45mm deflection outside to outside chain dimension (which equates to around a 20-25mm internal deflection)
So have I been adjusting this incorrectly? Or are BMW looking to increase chain and sprocket sales?
FWIW The riders manual clearly indicates the internal dimension.
Sooty09
Registered user
To check the chain free play I put the bike in gear and move it a bit to make the top chain run tight. I then move the chain up and down to check the free play. It makes no difference which part you measure, its the distance the chain moves vertically you are measuring (Try link pin centres)
The manual says to check the bike on its side stand but having paid for a centre stand I use it,checking for tight spots is easier (Don't forget chains do not wear at the same rate so you will eventually have a chain just right for 30% of its length and too slack for the rest)
Having checked the bike on and off its stand several times I have found 35-45mm free play means with little pressure you can push the chain up till it just touches the buffer on the swing arm bottom. As a quick check now I leave the bike in gear on its side stand and push the chain up with my boot toe. If it is tightish by the time it touches the buffer I leave it alone
When adjusting error on the slack side, the adjusting screws are a bit coarse and turning 1/4 rev makes a big difference.
The manual says to check the bike on its side stand but having paid for a centre stand I use it,checking for tight spots is easier (Don't forget chains do not wear at the same rate so you will eventually have a chain just right for 30% of its length and too slack for the rest)
Having checked the bike on and off its stand several times I have found 35-45mm free play means with little pressure you can push the chain up till it just touches the buffer on the swing arm bottom. As a quick check now I leave the bike in gear on its side stand and push the chain up with my boot toe. If it is tightish by the time it touches the buffer I leave it alone
When adjusting error on the slack side, the adjusting screws are a bit coarse and turning 1/4 rev makes a big difference.
ZZ10
Registered user
well, it is somewhat insane to use 530 on a F 800 GS
or do you have a 800 model similar to the guys who uses 530 chains
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqoFFCvBwbc
blueback
Guest
I full agree with the boot test touching the lower wear buffer.
However I have a simple method for axial (chain)alignment. First slack off the chain adjustment screws. Then snub up the axial nut so that it will move but stay where it is moved to. I now use a 2 lb rubber dead blow hammer to tap the axial back to give the right chain tension and equal alignment on both sides. Then I tighten the axial nut to full NM specs. The I back out and torque to specs the adjusters, which of course can't move the axial at this point. However they will hold against the chain snatch moving the axial over time.
PS: The left side axial sliding guide has to be shimmed (I used .020 thou. so it won't rotate out of vertical alignment when the axial nut is torque to full specs.
Blue
freeloader
Registered user
ide508
Registered user
This is the correct way to go, but what the manual doesn't say is that one should also sit on the bike before checking the correct chain deflection...
Rendering the operation quite hard to do by yourself !
Cheers all,
Blue - I'd noticed the slider had a tendency to rotate slightly as you tighten the axle but hadn't thought about shimming - good plan!
Blue - I'd noticed the slider had a tendency to rotate slightly as you tighten the axle but hadn't thought about shimming - good plan!
blueback
Guest
That was atest to see if you were paying attention--LOLI read that as far as the third "axial" before I realised you meant "axle"...
Axial adjustment of the axle is my story and I am sticking with it.
freeloader
Registered user
Greggers
Registered user
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,285
- Reaction score
- 0
I knew what you meant... 
When do you stop riding for the winter?? You must be well into snow season by now!
G:
When do you stop riding for the winter?? You must be well into snow season by now!
G:
blueback
Guest
We have our first snow in the mountain passes to the interior.I knew what you meant...
When do you stop riding for the winter?? You must be well into snow season by now!
G:
The Fraser Valley is warm and wet, but most of us pull the pin by mid-Oct.
lunchbox
Registered user
This is the correct way to go, but what the manual doesn't say is that one should also sit on the bike before checking the correct chain deflection...
Rendering the operation quite hard to do by yourself !
The 35 to 45mm deflection is for an unloaded bike, on side or centre stand makes no real difference. I agree that the boot test, ie the chain just touching the plastic guard under the swingarm on deflection, seems to get it about right. To make absolutely sure and reduce anxiety get a mate to sit on the bike so that the rear suspension is compressed and the swingarm horizontal to the ground (this is where the chain is tightest), roll back and forth until you get the tightest spot and there should be a small amount of freeplay there - just enough so there is no tension load on the chain.
If you are riding with an overtight chain you will usually notice odd vibrations and sometimes noises through the drivetrain that should warn you to stop and check.
Similar threads
