530 Chain Conversion

[Joe Nardy]

Question. (I'm still running 630.) Since a 15 tooth 530 sprocket is smaller in diameter than a 15 tooth 630 sprocket and like-wise the 42's, to retain the original gear ratios, in my case 15/42, what number of teeth do the new 530 sprockets have to be?
Or do both new sprockets, being smaller in diameter, cancel each other out?

Keith,

I'm pretty sure the ratios work out the same regardless of the chain size. Since the links are a fixed length the distance traveled around the sprockets will stay proportionately the same. So 15/42 with a 630 chain is the same as 15/42 with a 530 chain. If I'm wrong, somebody please let me know.

Thanks,
Joe

[KEITH KRAUSE]

Thanks for the reply Joe. You may be right, I don't know.
Too much for my scattered brain to make sense of.
It seems to me that sprockets smaller in diameter will turn faster and change the gearing. In an earlier reply to this topic, Marcovan...mentioned this, if I read his post properly.
If someone here has replaced their 630's with 530's, (same # of teeth) has it changed your rpm's at a given speed?

[gs650gt]

Question. (I'm still running 630.) Since a 15 tooth 530 sprocket is smaller in diameter than a 15 tooth 630 sprocket and like-wise the 42's, to retain the original gear ratios, in my case 15/42, what number of teeth do the new 530 sprockets have to be?
Or do both new sprockets, being smaller in diameter, cancel each other out?

17/48

[KGB]

No RPM stayed the same, just a little better overall performance.
In less weight to get moving. Less unsprung weight also.

The ratio stays the same, the sprocket sizes are different.
And now they're clean and look better

Thanks for the reply Joe. You may be right, I don't know.
Too much for my scattered brain to make sense of.
It seems to me that sprockets smaller in diameter will turn faster and change the gearing. In an earlier reply to this topic, Marcovan...mentioned this, if I read his post properly.
If someone here has replaced their 630's with 530's, (same # of teeth) has it changed your rpm's at a given speed?

[KEITH KRAUSE]

gs650gt, Thanks for that!
KGB, do you agree? Are you now running 17/48?
Anyone, how do you calculate the gearing you want?

[Jethro]

My bike with the 530 has a 15t up front and a 42t on the back. If my brain is working today, proportionally the ratios should stay the same. I'm kinda guessing, but I think Joe was right. The chain travel should be the same as your stock setup with the same amount of teeth, 630 or 530.

I think, I think...

[Billy Ricks]

One bit of advice. Since the links are shorter on the 530 go with a bigger drive sprocket. Go up about 3 or 4 teeth. A 530 15 tooth is going to be smaller in diameter than a 15 tooth 630. You need the larger diameter to give the chain an easier path around a tight turn. Just work out your ratios to pick the rear sprocket.

[Hap Call]

Look at these past discussions...lots of tips on chain length, spacer location, and alignment.

http://www.thegsresources.com/_forum/viewtopic.php?t=2071&highlight=530+chain

http://www.thegsresources.com/_forum/viewtopic.php?t=7194&highlight=530+chain

http://www.thegsresources.com/_forum/viewtopic.php?t=11139&highlight=530+chain

Hap

[Anonymous]

17/48

Nope. The ratios of teeth always give the reduction ratio, regardless of chain size, since the pitch is the same for both sprockets in a set. So a 15/42 will always be a reduction ratio of 42/15=2.8, no matter what size chain you are talking about. The 17/48 combo will give a reduction of 48/17=2.8235, Close, but not the same thing.

There, I feel MUCH better now....


Mark

[Hoomgar]

I am also doing this as we speak. My freshly rebuilt engine will be going back into the bike with a 530 conversion.

[Anonymous]

One bit of advice. Since the links are shorter on the 530 go with a bigger drive sprocket. Go up about 3 or 4 teeth. A 530 15 tooth is going to be smaller in diameter than a 15 tooth 630. You need the larger diameter to give the chain an easier path around a tight turn.

Yes, the 530 sprocket is smaller in diameter, but the chain pitch is shorter, as well. Proportionally, a 15 tooth 530 sprocket forces the same turn on the 530 chain as a 15 tooth 630 sprocket forces on the 630 chain. So it is no change to the chain itself.

That said, the bigger the sprocket the better, for chain life. If you have room to put a 16 tooth 530 sprocket in there, then it is an improvement. I would go with a 16/45 set on the conversion, it will give a bit better acceleration (slightly shorter ratio than the 15/42 set) and the chain will live longer.

Mark

[KGB]

I don't disagree with any of you.

I kept the stock gearing 15/42 no problems.
By the way, this bike is ridden, and ridden hard.
It does see a few trips to redline and does lots of 2 up riding.

It's not unusual for a Sunday ride to be 300 miles.
The bike is not babied..and the chain in has been adjusted once.
That was at about 500 miles.
I do use chain wax,Maxima on it.

[KEITH KRAUSE]

KGB, what thickness are your spacers for the front sprocket? The same as the dampening collars that get removed?

[KEITH KRAUSE]

I am also doing this as we speak. My freshly rebuilt engine will be going back into the bike with a 530 conversion.

Man, this gets confusing. Everyone has a different opinion. 15/42, 16/45, 17/48...get a bigger front to improve chain life...
Mark, what sprockets are you going to go with? Do you want to retain the exact same gearing as stock? I like my gearing just the way it is. I don't want the rpm's to be higher or lower at a given speed.
And how about this issue of spacer(s) on the front?

[Anonymous]

Man, this gets confusing. Everyone has a different opinion. 15/42, 16/45, 17/48...get a bigger front to improve chain life...

It doesn't have to be. I merely mentioned that a larger front sprocket will improve chain life. That said, a high quality O-ring chaing will get 20,000+ miles if cared for, so life is not a real big issue for most of us. If you like the stock gearing, keep it and merely go to the 530 sized chain. And then go ride your bike, don't worry about the chain anymore.


Mark