520 Conversions

[Dragginazz]

I'm not sure if I'm going to do it or not when the time comes, but how do you Guys that have done the conversions on the 1k bikes like it? Actually, let me rephrase that...do any of you feel the sense of weakness in your chain, you know what I mean? I know my bike is NO dragbike, but going to a smaller chain just doesn't sit well for some reason. Well, the reason is basically because I tend to yank Her up in 2nd and 3rd quite often, and it would really suck if that chain snapped! I think I'm a lil paranoid, but I don't know so I'm wondering if any of you have experienced or heard of bad shit happening.

[stoinkythepig]

520 chains are not weak. They simply have less bearing surface so they don't last as long. That's the downside to the weight savings, not broken chains.

[Dragginazz]

520 chains are not weak. They simply have less bearing surface so they don't last as long. That's the downside to the weight savings, not broken chains.

Stoinky, what are you riding? I'll have to keep my eyes open for you this year when passing through town!

I know the chains aren't weak, but when you compare the 2, the 520 just looks so dinky. But then I look at my 530 and think...Christ that's a big FN chain! Like I said, I think I'm just Paranoid about the 520. But you think it's just the wear factor that's the real issue huh? I think I could live with that.

[Ray-Ray]

I Just changed mine for the second time this winter. Ive had 520's on two different bikes. Ive NEVER had a problem with it. As long as its installed right, then theres no reason it should cause you any problems.

[Dragginazz]

I Just changed mine for the second time this winter. Ive had 520's on two different bikes. Ive NEVER had a problem with it. As long as its installed right, then theres no reason it should cause you any problems.

Thanks Bro. What bikes did you put them on?

[vintage ex race]

you think that 530 is big look at the stock 630 on any of the early 80's gs 750E/L's or the GS 1100 E/Ls now thats a big f#!@ing chain

[Cerberus]

520 chains are not weak. They simply have less bearing surface so they don't last as long. That's the downside to the weight savings, not broken chains.

not actually incorrect... but..
520 chains are weakER typically than an equal 530

Really it is all about tensile strength, and you can spend good money to get a high end 520 that has equal or better tensile strength than a standard 530.. but WHY?
for 99% of riders (and i know people will refute this..) there is NO DIFFERENCE between a 530 and 520 chain. the real perceptible difference come from changing gearing. Personally i like to stay with a 530 and go -1tooth up front for a bit more low end usable torque, and bit less ludicrous speed potential.
Plus it is a cheap, easy and fast change to make (assuming you don't have enough milegae in the rest of the drivetrain to warrant replacing all components)

[Ray-Ray]

Thanks Bro. What bikes did you put them on?

Ive had them on my 02 1000, and my 05 750. Also 2 of my buddies have CBRs and they never had a problem with it. BUT at the same time, they are only good for weight loss. The loss is nothing too dramatic. I personally use them for the look and the loss . I uses a gold chain with my as well. If you want some good speed top or bottom, then thats when you start messing with sprocket teeth numbers, I have a quick acceleration kit on mine so im -1 in the front and +2 in the rear with a speedo healer.

[stoinkythepig]

Pearl lime green 2001 zx9r and I wear a gray Aerostich. Where are you in Raymond? I live off Mountain Road.

The weakness of the chain is in the side plates. They are basically the same on the 520 and the 530 (maybe a little thinner on some 520s) because they have the same pitch (length of the link). The biggest difference between the two chains is the width of the rollers and length of the rivets. When you look at a 530, it looks much more substantial because of the wide rollers. That's the extra bearing surface.

I hate spending money and I'd rather ride than wrench, so I run the 530. I'm on my fourth set of chains and sprockets on my bike. If I had converted to 520, I'd likely be on my 6th or seventh set.

[Ray-Ray]

not actually incorrect... but..
520 chains are weakER typically than an equal 530

Really it is all about tensile strength, and you can spend good money to get a high end 520 that has equal or better tensile strength than a standard 530.. but WHY?
for 99% of riders (and i know people will refute this..) there is NO DIFFERENCE between a 530 and 520 chain. the real perceptible difference come from changing gearing. Personally i like to stay with a 530 and go -1tooth up front for a bit more low end usable torque, and bit less ludicrous speed potential.
Plus it is a cheap, easy and fast change to make (assuming you don't have enough milegae in the rest of the drivetrain to warrant replacing all components)

Tru that bro. True that.

[stoinkythepig]

not actually incorrect... but..
520 chains are weakER typically than an equal 530

Really it is all about tensile strength, and you can spend good money to get a high end 520 that has equal or better tensile strength than a standard 530.. but WHY?
for 99% of riders (and i know people will refute this..) there is NO DIFFERENCE between a 530 and 520 chain. the real perceptible difference come from changing gearing. Personally i like to stay with a 530 and go -1tooth up front for a bit more low end usable torque, and bit less ludicrous speed potential.
Plus it is a cheap, easy and fast change to make (assuming you don't have enough milegae in the rest of the drivetrain to warrant replacing all components)

Agreed, but no one really needs the extra tensile strength of these chains, it's WAY more than the tension our bikes are capable of producing. High tensile strength does not necessarily mean longer-lasting. Higher tensile strength usually means a harder alloy and that should lead to less stretch, a nice thing.

[Dragginazz]

Yeah I probably won't mess with the gearing, I was just thinking about lessening rotating mass for possibly a little more acceleration if any. Do you guys notice any improvement?

Stoinky, I'm over here on Langford rd. near the power-lines, I'll have to catch up with you this year!

[Ray-Ray]

Yeah I probably won't mess with the gearing, I was just thinking about lessening rotating mass for possibly a little more acceleration if any. Do you guys notice any improvement?

Stoinky, I'm over here on Langford rd. near the power-lines, I'll have to catch up with you this year!

your not gonna notice anything without changing your sprockets either up or down. if you dont touch your gearing, then you just have a 1LB lighter bike HAHAAHA

[Dragginazz]

your not gonna notice anything without changing your sprockets either up or down. if you dont touch your gearing, then you just have a 1LB lighter bike HAHAAHA

Yeah no improvement huh, well that's no good. And I guess I wouldn't be saving any money either since they wear quicker.

Thanks for your input Gentlemen!

[Awesome]

I went from 525 to 520 on my 600 and snapped it. If you're putting around on the 1000 it'll wear quicker, if you're riding it hard it will wear a lot quicker and probably snap at some point. The benefits are non existent.

[Dragginazz]

you think that 530 is big look at the stock 630 on any of the early 80's gs 750E/L's or the GS 1100 E/Ls now thats a big f#!@ing chain

Oh that's right! I remember my 87' GS700E, and the 1100 were some big ass chains!!

[Dragginazz]

I went from 525 to 520 on my 600 and snapped it. If you're putting around on the 1000 it'll wear quicker, if you're riding it hard it will wear a lot quicker and probably snap at some point. The benefits are non existent.

That's one bad-ass 600 my Friend! Scary Shit right there.

[Awesome]

That's one bad-ass 600 my Friend! Scary Shit right there.

stock 2003 cbr 600, lost the chaining shifting into second.

[Dragginazz]

stock 2003 cbr 600, lost the chaining shifting into second.

Ah yes, see, CBR, I was right

[OreoGaborio]

Yeah I wouldn't bother switching to a 520 on a street bike.

This is hardly a performance mod. The only difference that you'll actually notice (if any) are increased chain & sprocket wear.

[danny86]

I HATED the 520 kit.

It made my 08 CBR1KRR rev alot higher alot quicker. (obviously)

A lot of people like that but I enjoy extending the gears as much as possible before getting that high rev feeling. The smooth throttle acceleration feel

[Dragginazz]

Yeah I wouldn't bother switching to a 520 on a street bike.

This is hardly a performance mod. The only difference that you'll actually notice (if any) are increased chain & sprocket wear.

Point taken, it doesn't sound worth it at all. I'll stick with the 530, I'm actually getting real good milage, 12,000+ and still have IDK...maybe 2-4 adjustments to go on the chain and sprocks are lookin good, so if I'm not getting any real benefits with the 520 I'll stick with what's been proving to be the way to go.

[Degsy]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.337 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

I HATED the 520 kit.

It made my 08 CBR1KRR rev alot higher alot quicker. (obviously)

A lot of people like that but I enjoy extending the gears as much as possible before getting that high rev feeling. The smooth throttle acceleration feel

Wh..Wh... What? That's nothing to do with a 520 kit? A 520 kit can't significantly change the way your bike revs.

[Awesome]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.337 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)



Wh..Wh... What? That's nothing to do with a 520 kit? A 520 kit can't significantly change the way your bike revs.

HEY! Don't you go bringing these 'facts' and 'logic' into discussions here on NESR!

[RandyO]

I HATED the 520 kit.

It made my 08 CBR1KRR rev alot higher alot quicker. (obviously)

that has nothing to do with the pitch and everything to do with the sprocket ratio you chose

same number to teeth on a 525 or 530 drive line would have yielded the same quick rev results