|
|
Chain
Jan 29, 2008 20:28:18 GMT -5
Post by mattb on Jan 29, 2008 20:28:18 GMT -5
I don't know anything about chains. I see the number 530 referred to, so am I right in assuming that if we need a (drive) chain, we can get any universal one so long as it is a 530 and has enough links, or are there other dimensions I need to check?
Matt
|
|
|
|
Chain
Jan 29, 2008 20:32:10 GMT -5
Post by modrocker on Jan 29, 2008 20:32:10 GMT -5
yes...though for the same size, e.g. 530, o-ring chains are slightly wider than "standard" chains
|
|
|
|
Chain
Jan 29, 2008 21:10:33 GMT -5
Post by colinjay on Jan 29, 2008 21:10:33 GMT -5
With regards to all the chain size, here is how chain is measured;
The first digit in the number is the distance between pin centres in 1/8's of an inch, i.e. for the common sizes, "4" = 4/8 or 1/2", "5" = 5/8" and "6" = 6/8 or 3/4" pitch.
The second two digits in the number is the width of the roller / distance between side plates, agian in 1/8 of an inch, i.e. "2" = 2/8 or 1/4" and "3" = 3/8".
So, a 520 chain is a 5/8" x 1/4" chain (5/8" pitch, 1/4" width) and a 530 is a 5/8" x 3/8" chain (5/8" pitch, 3/8" wide).
An yes all chain is still measured in imperial sizes, there are some odd sizes like 428 and 625 that don't quite translate to the general rule above but thay are not that common on bikes now days.
As mentioned, HD and O'Ring chains are wider overall, but still have the same dimensions between the insides of the sideplates. There were some heavy duty O'ring 530 chains that would actually rub on the engine crankcase, however I havn't seen one in a long while.
CJ
|
|
|
|
Chain
Jan 30, 2008 1:55:23 GMT -5
Post by caferacercarl on Jan 30, 2008 1:55:23 GMT -5
you can go back to 520 chain and sprockets but you will need an XT/TT sprocket spacer to correct the 3mm thinner sprocket, 530 chain is still referred to as 50 size chain so keep that in mind, there is a HUGE difference in quality of chain [even with one manufacturer] they all do at least 5 grades of quality in each size, dollar for dollar I use DID X ring gold for the road bikes and 50NZ for the track bikes [or 520] , if you want to run a 18t front ever, you will need to use 520 non O ring to miss the engine. regards Carl.
|
|
|
|
Chain
Jan 30, 2008 18:10:12 GMT -5
Post by chew652 on Jan 30, 2008 18:10:12 GMT -5
you can go back to 520 chain and sprockets but you will need an XT/TT sprocket spacer to correct the 3mm thinner sprocket, Great advice. I wish it was mentioned everytime someone says "You can go to 520 chain it's lighter" When I had my motor out recently I discovered a flattened piece of steel wire beneath my loose countershaft sprocket. The PO had fashioned his own spacer for his 520 conversion.I looked up the part for a TT of the same year and saw it was a different part number and more expensive so I ordered one on faith. Thanks for the confirmation Carl. If one was making a spacer instead of buying the new part ,would it need to be 1.5 mm thick or 3mm thick? I'm guessing 1.5 but I already have the new spacer. |
|
|
|
Chain
Jan 31, 2008 12:03:32 GMT -5
Post by miker on Jan 31, 2008 12:03:32 GMT -5
I think the spacer would depend on what you did at the other end. Couldn't both sprockets line up with the "inside" side of the original 530 and be aligned?
miker
|
|
|
|
Chain
Jan 31, 2008 16:23:30 GMT -5
Post by colinjay on Jan 31, 2008 16:23:30 GMT -5
Regarding the need to use the spacer from the XT/TT engine, it is about being able to tighten up the nut holding the C/Shaft sprocket that becomes an issue. I found that when using a 520 sprocket on my SR, that the nut would tighten up fully, but the sprocket was still loose on the shaft and would wobble. By using the spacer from one of my XT engines, which is a fraction longer, the nut tightened up to the correct torque and the sprocket didn't wobble on the shaft.
CJ,
|
|
|
|
Chain
Feb 1, 2008 11:50:53 GMT -5
Post by miker on Feb 1, 2008 11:50:53 GMT -5
Makes sense. So thickness wouldn't be critical, as long as it's enough to let the nut tighten the sprocket down.
miker
|
|
