Educate me on Chains

[rsw81]

Okay guys. This may sound like a naive question given that I've been riding for several years now and logged 40k+ miles.

I frequently read about people replacing their chains and going to a "520" chain. What does this mean exactly? After a quick google search, my Triumph takes a "525". Why is one better than the other?

I fundamentally get why people change the sprocket sizes.

Once again, sorry if this seems mundane to you.

Rob

[G21forme]

520 chains are lighter so people think it makes them wicked fast.

[Degsy]

Wirelessly posted

520 is the chain width. It's lighter and maybe stronger if ita a quality one.

Less rotating mad is a good thing.

[rsw81]

So if you want to go to a 520 chain, do you need to swap the sprockets to that width as well? I mean, I'd probably stick with the stock size, but just want to understand this stuff.

[LN600K5]

yes, switching to a 520 chain will require both of your sprockets to be changed to accomidate the narrower width of the new chain. The whole idea is, narrower chain/sprocket, the less rotational mass from your engine to your rear wheel... technically, even if you dont regear your sprocket sizes, it should give you a little more power to the rear wheel.

[PhilB]

The first digit is link length -- for streetbikes it is almost always a 5. The other two digits are link width, the bigger the number, the wider (and heavier and stronger) the chain. Sprockets must aways match the chain. My personal opinion is that converting to a lighter chain is really only worthwhile if you are racing for money. Otherwise it's a small benefit related to the cost of the changeover and the decreased strength and increased wear.

PhilB

[rsw81]

Awesome, thanks guys.

[OreoGaborio]

Wirelessly posted
520 is the chain width. It's lighter and maybe stronger if ita a quality one.
Less rotating mad is a good thing.

I hate rotating mad!!! HATE IT!

Seriously though, for my street bikes I generally stick with stock chain & sprocket width and use quality parts. Going from a 525 down to a 520 makes very little difference in the way of performance.

[Rambunctous]

I gained 15 horsepower just lubing the thing.

[OreoGaborio]

I gained 15 horsepower just lubing the thing.

[RandyO]

the advantage of 520 is at the track where vendors are more likely to have 520 spares in stock, on the street its bling, 520 will not last as long, even though the chains may be as strong, the sprockets will still wear faster, on a cost benefit analysis, your better to go to 530, although initial cost is more, cost per mile is less, considering how long chain and sprockets last how much they cost and how much they cost to install, MY V-strom 1k, stock chain & sprockets were 525 and lasted me 16k, replacement 530 chain & sprockets lasted me 45k

fwiw, my 82 XV920R still has origninal chain & sprockets at 60k miles, its a 630 chain & sprockets (non o-ring btw but enclosed)

[stoinkythepig]

I can't figure out why 520 chains are weaker than 525 or 530 chains. They all use the same plates and the same diameter pins. The only difference is the length of the pins and the width of the rollers.

[RandyO]

I can't figure out why 520 chains are weaker than 525 or 530 chains. They all use the same plates and the same diameter pins. The only difference is the length of the pins and the width of the rollers.

520 chains are not weaker, but 520 sprockets are, there is also more force of impact, or rather the same force of impact spread over a smaller surface when the sprocket teeth hit the rollers = more force per square inch of surface area

[GNTurbo6]

My thinking is you should generally replace your sprockets at the same time as chain anyway so really no reason not to convert to $520. Especially when kits run for about $150 or possibly even less.

[aldend123]

My thinking is you should generally replace your sprockets at the same time as chain anyway so really no reason not to convert to $520. Especially when kits run for about $150 or possibly even less.

It's like you ignored all of the posts in this thread.

Why do you feel people would WANT to upgrade to 520? Yes, I understand why it is a good opportunity, but what do you feel the benifit is?

[RandyO]

It's like you ignored all of the posts in this thread.

Why do you feel people would WANT to upgrade to 520?

upgrade? how do you figger that, a DOWNGRADE imho, don't last as long, cost more per mile

[DankDirtyBird]

I went through this same conversation before the season started with one of the techs at Kyle Racing (since I have a CBR1000rr, and thats what they have raced there for years). According to them, there should really be no difference in the durability of a 520 chain, especially one of them fancy X ring chains, and you can bet your ass that I grilled them on this. The issue that you have with chains is the stretch, and generally not the sprocket wearing out (as long as you buy quality steel sprockets).

This is what I know, and this is what I'm sticking to until Jesus tells me otherwise.

[DankDirtyBird]

It's like you ignored all of the posts in this thread.

Why do you feel people would WANT to upgrade to 520? Yes, I understand why it is a good opportunity, but what do you feel the benifit is?

People WANT to upgrade to it because it gives them marginal, YET important performance gains. One of the best performance upgrades you can do to any vehicle is to lower its weight, especially if its unsprung weight, and most importantly rotating mass.

This is exactly why I spent a few extra dollars on a quality X ring 520 chain (which should last longer than my stock 530 O ring chain) with a light weight rear sprocket. Reduce weight where it effects you the most in stopping and changing direction. Thats just my humble opinion.

[csmutty]

Get whatever makes you happy. As long as its not an sv650.

[Jim]

:smuttysucks:

[csmutty]

[stoinkythepig]

I went through this same conversation before the season started with one of the techs at Kyle Racing (since I have a CBR1000rr, and thats what they have raced there for years). According to them, there should really be no difference in the durability of a 520 chain, especially one of them fancy X ring chains, and you can bet your ass that I grilled them on this. The issue that you have with chains is the stretch, and generally not the sprocket wearing out (as long as you buy quality steel sprockets).

This is what I know, and this is what I'm sticking to until Jesus tells me otherwise.

The rollers wear on the pins. That's how chains wear out. The difference between 520, 525 and 530 chains is the width of the rollers and pins. The bigger chains have a larger wear surface area and last longer. It's really not that complicated.

[RandyO]

People WANT to upgrade to it because it gives them marginal, YET important performance gains. One of the best performance upgrades you can do to any vehicle is to lower its weight, especially if its unsprung weight, and most importantly rotating mass.

This is exactly why I spent a few extra dollars on a quality X ring 520 chain (which should last longer than my stock 530 O ring chain) with a light weight rear sprocket. Reduce weight where it effects you the most in stopping and changing direction. Thats just my humble opinion.

another person comparing apples to oranges, compare oem quality to oem quality and aftermarket smancy gold x-ring to aftermarket smancy gold x-ring

also, not everyone wears chains first, its not uncommon to toast the front sprocket before anything else

[aldend123]

upgrade? how do you figger that, a DOWNGRADE imho, don't last as long, cost more per mile

I agree that it seems to be a downgrade. I based the word upgrade on his wording

so really no reason not to convert to $520.

If he thinks there is 'no reason not to', then he considers it an upgrade. I was more or less asking him to elaborate, because I felt his post was pretty useless.

[Kurlon]

I'm switching to 428 chain, maybe 420 on my CBR250R next I think.