630 series drive chain

[Boondocks]

Actually, Boondocks, you're wrong on a couple of things. First, the 530 sprockets ARE lighter & if you put a 45 tooth 530 sprocket on top of a 45 tooth 630 you will see why. The same gear ratio sprockets are CONSIDERABLY smaller in diameter. Therefore, LIGHTER! Also, The new 530s also can be bought with the SAME strength as the 630s, hence Pro Stock Bikes ALL running 530 chains. I race NHRA Division 7 ET/MC & the 530 is PLENTY strong to go an ENTIRE season problem free. So, Any of you guys thinking about converting to 530, DO it because it is FREE horsepower & strenght & longevity is NOT an issue with today's new 530 chains. Ray.

Ray, you have misconstrued my comments. Your example is flawed. A 45 tooth 630 sprocket is not coverted to a 45 tooth 530 sprocket. The common practice is to approximate the same sprocket diameters (about 20% more teeth on the 530 sprocket). This ensures the same gear ratio will result with no problems.

There are potential problems with changing front or rear sprockets to smaller diameters. From Z1 Enterprises Changing Chains & Sprockets:

Changing sprocket diameter can present problems - sprocket clearance on the front limits how big you can go, and you want to avoid going too small as the tight turn wears the chain prematurely. Additionally, you can run into problems with the chain slapping the swingarm if you go too small on front and/or rear. This is something you cannot always see when the bike is static, the combination of swing arm movement over the bumps, and acceleration or deceleration cause the chain to tag the top OR bottom of the swingarm.

Chains used for high powered drag racing are not the same ones used on the street. EK chains make a 630SHB-Z Drag Race Chain with a tensile strength of 30,000 lb.. 630 chains for drag racing are used for the most demanding highest horsepower applications. I must have missed the availablity of 530 chains that are this strong. Can you provide a link to a source of the 30,000 lb. tensile strength 530 chains?

The EK 530DRZ2 Pro Stock Drag Racing chain is as strong (11,500 lb. tensile strength) as the RK 630SO street chain, but it weighs the same for the same length. According to the EK site, the EK 530DRZ2 Pro Stock Drag Racing chain can not be used on street bikes.

Nobody is questioning the strength and longevity of premium 530 chains used on the street. EK Chain's newest and best 530 street bike chain, the EK 530 ZZZ is very strong at 11,000 lb. tensile strength and has lightening holes in the center of the side plates. A 116 link EK 530 ZZZ chain would be 0.67 lb. lighter than the equivalent length 96 link RK630SO chain. It comes in different finishes such as gold, silver, and chrome. Dennis Kirk has them, and 120 link chains (selection jumps from 110 to 120 links) are $192!:shock:

[jeff.saunders]

There are many factors to consider when looking at 530 versus 630. Realistically, tensile strength isn't one of them unless you want to run a cheapo Malaysian 530 chain.

They fit QUALITY 530 chains on all the modern sportbikes - not one of them runs a 630 chain - not the 'busas, not the ZX14's. With the exception of the Kawasaki KZ1000 Police bikes, all the other popular bikes were running 530 chain by the end of the 80's. Why? Very simple - chain technology (and sprocket quality) improved dramatically. None of the chain manufacturers have released an 'improved' version of the 630 chain in years - while all the brands keep tweaking the 530 chains. RK just released a revised version of the 530 X RIng chain - called the 530 XSO Z1 (no relation...). Slightly lighter, and stronger than their previous X-Ring chain. They've moved the sideplates in very slightly to narrow the overall width about 0.5mm.

X-Ring chain will outlast regular O-Ring chain in everyday usage models - mainly due to the X-Ring profile providing a double layer of protection from crud and water getting into the rollers of the chain.

The key is how you ride and how you maintain the chain.

530 chain is much more available. Need a 630 chain or chain link while out riding? You'd be lucky to find a 630 chain in the first 10 places you visit...

We sell a good number of 530 conversions - it's beneficial to most riders - quality X-Ring chain will out last the O-Ring 630 chain, you will gain a small amount of power at the rear wheel, you save a few dollars, you have more choices of chain, including just about any color chain you want.

Just avoid the cheap chains.

[Boondocks]

There are many factors to consider when looking at 530 versus 630. Realistically, tensile strength isn't one of them unless you want to run a cheapo Malaysian 530 chain.

They fit QUALITY 530 chains on all the modern sportbikes - not one of them runs a 630 chain - not the 'busas, not the ZX14's. With the exception of the Kawasaki KZ1000 Police bikes, all the other popular bikes were running 530 chain by the end of the 80's. Why? Very simple - chain technology (and sprocket quality) improved dramatically. None of the chain manufacturers have released an 'improved' version of the 630 chain in years - while all the brands keep tweaking the 530 chains. RK just released a revised version of the 530 X RIng chain - called the 530 XSO Z1 (no relation...). Slightly lighter, and stronger than their previous X-Ring chain. They've moved the sideplates in very slightly to narrow the overall width about 0.5mm.

X-Ring chain will outlast regular O-Ring chain in everyday usage models - mainly due to the X-Ring profile providing a double layer of protection from crud and water getting into the rollers of the chain.

The key is how you ride and how you maintain the chain.

530 chain is much more available. Need a 630 chain or chain link while out riding? You'd be lucky to find a 630 chain in the first 10 places you visit...

We sell a good number of 530 conversions - it's beneficial to most riders - quality X-Ring chain will out last the O-Ring 630 chain, you will gain a small amount of power at the rear wheel, you save a few dollars, you have more choices of chain, including just about any color chain you want.

Just avoid the cheap chains.

Jeff, I appreciate your lucid explanations, your contributions to this site and your good advice. Z1 Enterprises is one of the best parts resources for our old bikes, and your site contains useful information not found elsewhere. You've raised some interesting points and I agree with most of them. This is my viewpoint on:

There are many factors to consider when looking at 530 versus 630. Realistically, tensile strength isn't one of them unless you want to run a cheapo Malaysian 530 chain....

Tensile strength is the benchmark for chain durability. Chains with higher tensile strength will withstand shock and abuse better, and are just plain stronger, period. That's why the highest quality premium 530 X-ring chains always have the highest tensile strength. All else being equal (sealing rings), chains with higher tensile strength will also last longer. Extended chain life is a factor that most would consider when buying a chain.

None of the chain manufacturers have released an 'improved' version of the 630 chain in years - while all the brands keep tweaking the 530 chains...

This is no longer true. RK makes the 630GSV Premium XW-ring Chain, which is RK's most advanced sealing ring design. It has a max life wear index of 1,000 - the same as their other finest premium XW-ring chains.

X-Ring chain will outlast regular O-Ring chain in everyday usage models - mainly due to the X-Ring profile providing a double layer of protection from crud and water getting into the rollers of the chain....

There are other factors at play. According to the RK 630SO Specs, the 11,100 lb tensile strength O-ring chain has a max life wear index of 800. According to the 530XSO Specs, the 9,200 lb. tensile strength X-ring chain has a max life wear index of 750. I know that this seems to go against the flow of conventional wisdom regarding X-ring and O-ring marketing hoopla, but I am presenting RK's own data. I believe that the 630SO O-ring chain has a higher max life index because of its higher tensile strength.

[jeff.saunders]

It's best to think of tensile strength as JUST the strength of the chain - yes it does contribute to durability, but really not that much. If you take a 630 non 630 O-Ring chain, the tensile strength is excellent - the wear on the street sucks... I used to kill non O-Ring chains in 2-3,000 miles - but that's because the grime and water gets into the rollers.

The wear index of each of the chains gives an indication of the expected life - but I will tell you, a well maintained X-Ring chain can get far more miles than the comparable 630 O-Ring chain - we've a number of customers putting 20,000 miles on 530 chain on 900cc-1100cc motorcycles - a far cry from what they used to average with the 630 O-Ring chains.

Yes, there is the new W-Ring 630 chain - but it's too expensive to be considered a replacement for all but the most radical bikes - about $30 or more extra than the regular O-Ring version. What I was trying to say is companies like RK have continued to develop the 530 O-Ring chain from O to W and now the improved W-Ring AND KEEP the pricing the same. With 630 that hasn't happened - this new W-Ring 630 chain is not marketed as the replacement for the 630 O-Ring chain - that chain has been unmodified for years.

[Boondocks]

It's best to think of tensile strength as JUST the strength of the chain - yes it does contribute to durability, but really not that much. If you take a 630 non 630 O-Ring chain, the tensile strength is excellent - the wear on the street sucks... I used to kill non O-Ring chains in 2-3,000 miles - but that's because the grime and water gets into the rollers.

I think that everyone agrees that O-ring chains last much longer than non O-ring, for the reason you state. As I said, "All else being equal (sealing rings), chains with higher tensile strength will also last longer."

The wear index of each of the chains gives an indication of the expected life - but I will tell you, a well maintained X-Ring chain can get far more miles than the comparable 630 O-Ring chain - we've a number of customers putting 20,000 miles on 530 chain on 900cc-1100cc motorcycles - a far cry from what they used to average with the 630 O-Ring chains.

RK Chain guarantees at least 20,000 miles from the RK630SO chain. I get well over 20,000 miles from the 630 chains. Maintenance is important.

Yes, there is the new W-Ring 630 chain - but it's too expensive to be considered a replacement for all but the most radical bikes - about $30 or more extra than the regular O-Ring version. What I was trying to say is companies like RK have continued to develop the 530 O-Ring chain from O to W and now the improved W-Ring AND KEEP the pricing the same. With 630 that hasn't happened - this new W-Ring 630 chain is not marketed as the replacement for the 630 O-Ring chain - that chain has been unmodified for years.

Yes, the list price is $28 more for the RK 630 XW-ring chain, but then the list price is $140 for the O-ring chain. Nobody sells them at full retail list (except maybe dealers), and the difference should be commensurately less. The XW-ring chain is available at bargain prices if one looks. In fact, the RK 630 XW-ring chain costs no more than the least expensive 530 chain on the retail list price at RK XW-ring Chain Specs, and should last longer than the 530 chains due to increased tensile strength with equal ring sealing.

The RK 630XW-ring chain is not marketed as the replacement for the O-ring chain because it's an obsolete market. The point is, it's available. The 630 market was never huge to begin with, and today it's confined to people like us GS'ers. Suzuki started using 630 chains in 1977 and stopped in 1985. It's a dying market and is not going to get much attention from chain manufacturers.

As long as high quality 630 chains with bargain prices and a guarantee of over 20,000 miles are available, their choice is an economically viable option for those who prefer to make their own informed decisions. Chain conversion is always an option.

[rapidray]

Ray, you have misconstrued my comments. Your example is flawed. A 45 tooth 630 sprocket is not coverted to a 45 tooth 530 sprocket. The common practice is to approximate the same sprocket diameters (about 20% more teeth on the 530 sprocket). This ensures the same gear ratio will result with no problems.

There are potential problems with changing front or rear sprockets to smaller diameters. From Z1 Enterprises Changing Chains & Sprockets:


Chains used for high powered drag racing are not the same ones used on the street. EK chains make a 630SHB-Z Drag Race Chain with a tensile strength of 30,000 lb.. 630 chains for drag racing are used for the most demanding highest horsepower applications. I must have missed the availablity of 530 chains that are this strong. Can you provide a link to a source of the 30,000 lb. tensile strength 530 chains?

The EK 530DRZ2 Pro Stock Drag Racing chain is as strong (11,500 lb. tensile strength) as the RK 630SO street chain, but it weighs the same for the same length. According to the EK site, the EK 530DRZ2 Pro Stock Drag Racing chain can not be used on street bikes.

Nobody is questioning the strength and longevity of premium 530 chains used on the street. EK Chain's newest and best 530 street bike chain, the EK 530 ZZZ is very strong at 11,000 lb. tensile strength and has lightening holes in the center of the side plates. A 116 link EK 530 ZZZ chain would be 0.67 lb. lighter than the equivalent length 96 link RK630SO chain. It comes in different finishes such as gold, silver, and chrome. Dennis Kirk has them, and 120 link chains (selection jumps from 110 to 120 links) are $192!:shock:

AGAIN you are wrong! A 15 front & a 45 rear sprocket set up whether it is 420 or 630 doesn't matter- it is still a 3.00 to 1 gear ratio! Sprocket diameter has NOTHING to do with it! Get your engineering degree and THEN come back & argue this when you know what you are talking about & STOP trying to confuse people! And as far as chain strength goes we were talking about STREET bikes NOT top fuel 630 chain. Ray.

[denydog]

AGAIN you are wrong! A 15 front & a 45 rear sprocket set up whether it is 420 or 630 doesn't matter- it is still a 3.00 to 1 gear ratio! Sprocket diameter has NOTHING to do with it!

You are both absolutely correct. Boondocks was saying that people usually increase the teeth count on both sprockets when changing to the 530 sprockets, to keep the sprocket diameter from being too small, whether they keep the same ratio or not. It's not considered the best practice to use the same 15 tooth front sprocket in a 530, because the diameter will be smaller requiring the chain to bend around a tighter radius. You want to spread the load a little more around a larger sprocket closer in physical size to what will still fit to reduce stress and wear. The tooth counts and ratios are related to, but a different consideration than the diameter of the sprockets, which is what he was referring to (I think).

[earlfor]

I see one thing you are not considering. In converting from #630 chain to #530 there may be, and in my case there was, a problem with converting sprocket teeth exactly such as going from a 15/45 #630 to a 15/45 #530 setup. The ratio is the same, but the smaller sprocket diameter may not allow sideplate clearance on case bolts/fixtures at the countershaft sprocket. Also, with the direct, tooth for tooth conversion, there was not clearance on the chain run above the swingarm pivot. The only way to keep the chain from dragging across the swingarm pivot was to WAY overtension it and that caused it to stretch immediately. For street use I have found the best practice in conversions is to preserve the original clearances for the chain. I do that by keeping the same sprocket diameters, which also maintains the original gearing. The sprockets remain the same diameter as original and consequently, sprocket weight (for all practical purposes) remains the same. The weight difference them becomes mostly a matter of chain weight. On a 500+ lb street bike, a six ounce weight savings in my opinion,is not an economically sufficient reason to do the conversion. Although its true that less weight equals more hp, I think we need to ask ourselves if its useful hp. A tenth of a hp increase on a 500 lb street bike is not something I consider a useful improvement. There probably are many owner justifications for doing #530 conversions, but weight reduction and hp increases are not in the reality list.

Earl

Actually, Boondocks, you're wrong on a couple of things. First, the 530 sprockets ARE lighter & if you put a 45 tooth 530 sprocket on top of a 45 tooth 630 you will see why. The same gear ratio sprockets are CONSIDERABLY smaller in diameter. Therefore, LIGHTER! Also, The new 530s also can be bought with the SAME strength as the 630s, hence Pro Stock Bikes ALL running 530 chains. I race NHRA Division 7 ET/MC & the 530 is PLENTY strong to go an ENTIRE season problem free. So, Any of you guys thinking about converting to 530, DO it because it is FREE horsepower & strenght & longevity is NOT an issue with today's new 530 chains. Ray.

[denydog]

Ya, I think in my case the reduction in weight from a 530 conversion would be inconsequential since I'm still dragging around the original boat anchor of an exhaust system :-D

[earlfor]

Yeah, you're dragging 45 lbs of exhaust pipes behind you. I wouldnt worry about another 6 or 8 ounces of weight either. Hell, just leave your wallet at home if that little bit of extra weight concerns you. LOL

E. :-)

Ya, I think in my case the reduction in weight from a 530 conversion would be inconsequential since I'm still dragging around the original boat anchor of an exhaust system :-D

[Boondocks]

I see one thing you are not considering. In converting from #630 chain to #530 there may be, and in my case there was, a problem with converting sprocket teeth exactly such as going from a 15/45 #630 to a 15/45 #530 setup. The ratio is the same, but the smaller sprocket diameter may not allow sideplate clearance on case bolts/fixtures at the countershaft sprocket. Also, with the direct, tooth for tooth conversion, there was not clearance on the chain run above the swingarm pivot. The only way to keep the chain from dragging across the swingarm pivot was to WAY overtension it and that caused it to stretch immediately. For street use I have found the best practice in conversions is to preserve the original clearances for the chain. I do that by keeping the same sprocket diameters, which also maintains the original gearing. The sprockets remain the same diameter as original and consequently, sprocket weight (for all practical purposes) remains the same. The weight difference them becomes mostly a matter of chain weight. On a 500+ lb street bike, a six ounce weight savings in my opinion,is not an economically sufficient reason to do the conversion. Although its true that less weight equals more hp, I think we need to ask ourselves if its useful hp. A tenth of a hp increase on a 500 lb street bike is not something I consider a useful improvement. There probably are many owner justifications for doing #530 conversions, but weight reduction and hp increases are not in the reality list.

Earl

Dang it, Earl, will you STOP trying to confuse people!

[dardoonk]

A buddy of mine uses the 630 chain from Parts Unlimited on his Honda. He runs them to death & his normal maintenance is to replace the chain every 25K. He never has a problem & it costs him $80 bucks.
This bike is his only transportation - rain or shine, summer or winter - 40K per year.

[terbang]

Yes I have a 'O' ring 630 on mine and I have an 1100-L sprocket on the rear as well. Whilst the 630 is a larger chain, most manufacturers have put a lot of advancement in materials and technology into the 530s. My Hayabusa was pumping out 180 HP through a 530, I rode it hard too, and it barely stretched with only one adjustment over 20000 KM. However in keeping with the way the GS (X) is I shall keep the 630.

[80GS1000]

You are both absolutely correct. Boondocks was saying that people usually increase the teeth count on both sprockets when changing to the 530 sprockets, to keep the sprocket diameter from being too small, whether they keep the same ratio or not. It's not considered the best practice to use the same 15 tooth front sprocket in a 530, because the diameter will be smaller requiring the chain to bend around a tighter radius. You want to spread the load a little more around a larger sprocket closer in physical size to what will still fit to reduce stress and wear. The tooth counts and ratios are related to, but a different consideration than the diameter of the sprockets, which is what he was referring to (I think).

Exactly right. I went 17/48 when switching to a 520 chain and sprockets to keep the chain height right. It also kept the gearing ratio at 2.82; stock is 2.8

[Boondocks]

You are both absolutely correct. Boondocks was saying that people usually increase the teeth count on both sprockets when changing to the 530 sprockets, to keep the sprocket diameter from being too small, whether they keep the same ratio or not. It's not considered the best practice to use the same 15 tooth front sprocket in a 530, because the diameter will be smaller requiring the chain to bend around a tighter radius. You want to spread the load a little more around a larger sprocket closer in physical size to what will still fit to reduce stress and wear. The tooth counts and ratios are related to, but a different consideration than the diameter of the sprockets, which is what he was referring to (I think).

It's perfectly OK to use a 15T front sprocket with a 530 chain. It's a very common size on bikes that use 530 chains. There is no additional stress or wear, which occurs only as the number of sprocket teeth are reduced on the same size chain. Diameter isn't the issue, but the number of teeth. The reason for this is a potentially destructive chain vibration called Chordal Action. It induces a vibration which is transmitted through the entire drive line, affecting the chain, sprockets, and bearings.

The only reason a 15/42T 530 chain can't be used on our bikes is that there usually are clearance problems on bikes designed for larger 630 sprockets. On bikes designed to use the 530 chain, their smaller sprockets obviously weigh less than 630 sprockets with the same number of teeth. As Earl pointed out, the typical 630 conversion will usually maintain the same approximate sprocket diameters to ensure clearance and results in no significant sprocket weight reduction.