530 Chain Conversion

[earlfor]

The stock 15/42 is a 2.80 ratio. Changing to 17/48 is a 2.82 ratio. Its the same for all practical considerations. Speed at x rpm, shift points, etc., will remain the same. My sprockets now are #530 16/44 for a ratio of 2.75.
That was the closest I could find to the original ratio at the time I changed them.

(How much bigger (diameter) is a #630/42 than a #530/48.)............
42 teeth on a 630 sprocket would have a cirfumference at the pin position (when the chain is wrapped around the sprocket) of 31.5". So 31.5/3.14 equals a diameter of 10.03" since #630 chain sideplates are 3/8" high, if we deduct the pin thickness and add the sideplate overlap for the top and bottom chain run, then a #630/42 sprocket will be 10 1/4" in diameter.

a #530/48 has the same sideplate dimensions and pin thickness, so......
48 links at .625" pin to pin (5/8") equals 30". 30"/3.14 works out to a diameter at pin location of 9.55", and adding the sideplate overlap to that gives an overall diameter of 9.80"

A #630/15 sprocket is just shy of 4" in diameter.

A #530/17 is 10.625" in circumference, so 10.625/3.14 gives a pin height diameter of 3.38 and adding .25 yields an overall diameter of 3.63". You chain will be 3/16" closer to the swingarm on both sides of the swingarm.
Not enough to worry about.

Earl

Earl, with all these numbers being thrown around, I'm getting dizzy. :lol:
I didn't think of the chainguard thing. I wouldn't be able to lower my guard easily. The front is a plastic tab that slides under a hook on the swingarm. I could lower the back mount but then the guard would be tilted and look funny and maybe even cause the front tab to break.
Just to help me make a decision, what was your stock gearing and what is it now? You say a 630/42 is larger than a 530/48? By how much? I hope to avoid this chainguard mod'. So I'll go with 17/48 or even 18/51 if that's possible.

 

[KEITH KRAUSE]

Mark, Earl, thanks for that info! Much appreciated!

 

[earlfor]

E.

Mark, Earl, thanks for that info! Much appreciated!

 

[Hoomgar]

Earl's the master. He took what I said and made my post sound like trucker talk :lol:


Rock on earl! We appreciate it!

While on this topic I am wondering what the general feeling is on o-ring vs standard chain? I am going with a high quality o-ring chain but only because that is what Joe recommended. What do you use Earl and why?

 

[Jethro]

I'm not Earl, but he's gonna say O-ring all the way. Holds in lube and keeps out dirt much better than a standard chain. Also less noisy.

 

[earlfor]

I have tried cheap non "O" ring chain, standard non "O" ring chain, and high quality "O" ring chain. Hands down, the cheapest chain overall is the high quality "O" ring chain. Cheap chain on the 1150, the 2nd time I hit the throttle, I snapped the chain. I pulled a pin right through the sideplate. Never again on that one! LOL Standard non "O" ring chain, no matter how much I lubed it, the pins galled and it didnt flex freely. It also stretched beyond service limits very quickly and that had the additional cost of requiring new sprockets. I have had very good luck with Rk #630 SO "O" ring chain and Tsubaki high tensile "O" ring chain. I am using Tsubaki now and it has not required any adjustment in 2500 miles. I cant tell any difference between chain tension now and when I installed it. I try to keep things on hand that I know I will need, so I bought the Tsubaki chain about 6 months ago. I think I paid about $140 for it. Dont remember exactly. Old age Y'know.

I know the accepted norm is to change sprockets each time a new chain is installed. My feeling is there is an exception to that. There are a couple things to consider. A chain does NOT require any pretension to engage the sproket teeth correctly. Pretension shortens chain life and sprocket life.
"O" rings chains have all the lube they will ever need internally sealed on the pins by the "O" rings. The only reason to lube an "O" ring chain is to keep the sideplates from rusting and to keep the rubber "O" rings from drying out and becoming brittle. All chain lubes I have used, have to some degree attracted and held grit, which wears the "O" rings.

HERE is the biggie. The service limit on chain adjustment is 1 1/2 marks on the scale on each side of the rear axle on the swingarm end. If a new chain is installed with new sprockets.......lets say you adjust the chain, take the bike for a 50 mile ride to "set" the chain, then come back and re-adjust the chain for a starting point. If at that time the correct chain tension is with the adjuster aligned on the 3rd mark back from the front, then the maximum adjustment will be at 4 1/2 marks back from the front. Beyond that, the chain is worn out and sprocket wear will occur. The correct tension on a chain is when someone of your weight is sitting on the bike with it upright on the tires and there is 3/4 to 1" movement above AND below mid point on the lower chain run. If the chain is set with that degree of slack, a good quality "O" ring chain will wear very slowly. When 1 1/2 marks of adjustment has been used, replace the chain. I recently checked my sprockets against new replacements I have on hand and there is no noticable wear. The sprockets have about 20,000 miles on them and still look like new. I use a small squirt bottle filled with 90 weight gear oil on my chain and wipe any excess off after letting it sit for 5 minutes. No dirt attraction, no oil sling on the rear rim, no rust and the "O" rings stay pliable. A quart of gear oil is cheap and will lube a LOT of chain. It doesnt take much. I squirt a wipe off film of oil onto the sideplates and "O" rings about every 500 miles.

I also use Tsubaki clip type masterlinks. These masterlink sideplates fit so tightly that two "C" clamps and a couple small sockets are necessary to press the sideplate on. The spring clips also snap on very tightly. I have never had a clip break, had a sideplate come apart or thrown a chain because of using this type of masterlink. It may be in part because of the chain tension and chain maintenance. I dont know.

Earl

Earl's the master. He took what I said and made my post sound like trucker talk :lol:


Rock on earl! We appreciate it!

While on this topic I am wondering what the general feeling is on o-ring vs standard chain? I am going with a high quality o-ring chain but only because that is what Joe recommended. What do you use Earl and why?

 

[Anonymous]

Here is the Gear Calculator for all your answers.

Just input the Know variables, it will compute the rest, I use it for all my gear changes on my Busa, and other bikes.

http://home.cfl.rr.com/redbusa/GearSpeedCalc/index.html

 

[earlfor]

Pretty slick for calculating gear ranges in mph. Since it appears to assume either unlimited hp and zero drag, or simply ignores those factors, It will not predict top speed. You can gear for 200 mph at 10,000 rpm on a GS125, but its not likely you will achieve it. Handy though. Thanks

Earl

Here is the Gear Calculator for all your answers.

Just input the Know variables, it will compute the rest, I use it for all my gear changes on my Busa, and other bikes.

http://home.cfl.rr.com/redbusa/GearSpeedCalc/index.html

 

[Anonymous]

Do all the GS's use the 630 as stock? I have a 1980 GS550L and want to put a 530 on. I could have sworn that a bike shop guy told me the 530 was just fine and said nothing about spacers.

--Tyler

 

[earlfor]

Most of the GS's use #630 chain. I had a 450E and it used #530 chain. I am not sure about the chain size on a GS550. Just take a tape measure and measure the distance center to center between two pins on your chain.
If it is #530 the distance will be 5/8". If it is #630, the distance will be 3/4".

Earl

Do all the GS's use the 630 as stock? I have a 1980 GS550L and want to put a 530 on. I could have sworn that a bike shop guy told me the 530 was just fine and said nothing about spacers.

--Tyler

 

[Anonymous]

i'm still not exactly clear about the benefits of this conversion-- i know that the engine would have to move less weight because of there being less metal, but are there any other reasons really?

 

[earlfor]

Less weight is less vibration, but there shouldnt be much if any in the first place. There are a lot more choices in #530 chain. All chain manufacturers make #530, only a few #630. More sprocket ratios available in #530. #530 costs less. With progress in chain R&D, tensile strength of today's #530 is equal to or higher than the older #630.

When the time comes to replace sprockets and chain, due to product selection and cost, I would probably convert to #530. I would not discard a perfectly useful #630 chain and sprockets to do the conversion. If you always replace your chain before you have used more than 1 1/2 marks of adjustment on the rear of the swingarm, chances of sprocket damage from stretched chain are close to zero. Therefore, you can buy another #630 chain and use the old sprockets. In this instance, I think its silly to spend the money for a conversion.

Earl

i'm still not exactly clear about the benefits of this conversion-- i know that the engine would have to move less weight because of there being less metal, but are there any other reasons really?

 

[KGB]

I did it because I had more options.
More chain choices, more sprocket choices.

Yes less weight. It was very noticable. Plus it was a new chain and sprockets so I could feel the difference.

I don't think it was wasted money, it was time for chain.
So I did it.
I don't disagree with Earl, I never do ,it was time to do it.
If you can find a new 630 chain and your sprockets are still good, then keep the 630.

 

[first timer]

Do all the GS's use the 630 as stock? I have a 1980 GS550L and want to put a 530 on. I could have sworn that a bike shop guy told me the 530 was just fine and said nothing about spacers.

--Tyler

you have a 530 chain on the bike now, you don't need spacers just replace every thing with standard stuff.

if you want to get silly you could probly change to a 520, 510? chain and sprokets with little to no problem for use on your 550.

-ryan

 

[jimcor]

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.

An article from the 70s in the now defunct "Cycle" magazine addressed the 'tight turn' problem. With pictures, diagrams, formulas and a little smoke and a mirror the author (might have been Gordon Jennings) came to the conclusion that 16 teeth should be the minimum size front sprocket for maximum chain life/performance for a 530 chain.

 

[Hoomgar]

I have tried cheap non "O" ring chain, standard non "O" ring chain, and high quality "O" ring chain. Hands down, the cheapest chain overall is the high quality "O" ring chain. Cheap chain on the 1150, the 2nd time I hit the throttle, I snapped the chain. I pulled a pin right through the sideplate. Never again on that one! LOL Standard non "O" ring chain, no matter how much I lubed it, the pins galled and it didnt flex freely. It also stretched beyond service limits very quickly and that had the additional cost of requiring new sprockets.

Thx Earl. I felt this was the way to go regarding the chain.
I forget what chain it is but it was a top of the line chain we
picked out. It's a gold x-ring/x-link? o-ring chain. Joe said
it was one of the best ones we could get.

I am 90% sure I want stock gearing with 15/42. But maybe
one more step up in the front? Not decided for sure but I do
believe stock is going to be the way to go. Thoughts?

 

[Joe Nardy]

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.

An article from the 70s in the now defunct "Cycle" magazine addressed the 'tight turn' problem. With pictures, diagrams, formulas and a little smoke and a mirror the author (might have been Gordon Jennings) came to the conclusion that 16 teeth should be the minimum size front sprocket for maximum chain life/performance for a 530 chain.

I'm confused about this sprocket diameter thing. I understand that a bigger sprocket will be easier on the chain but shouldn't it be relative to the chain size? It is the number of teeth that matters, not the diameter. I.E. a 15 tooth sprocket for a 630 chain should present the same relative turning radius as a 15 tooth sprocket for a 530 chain or a 15 tooth sprocket for a bicycle chain or a 15 tooth sprocket for the tread on a bulldozer. Yes, the diameters will be significantly different but so will the chain pitch. If manufacturers have used 14 and 15 tooth sprockets for years (and continue to do so) why should we second guess them? Besides, proper maintenance will have much more effect on chain and sprocket life than adding a tooth or two to the sprocket.

Joe

 

[jimcor]

Joe, I looked thru the stacks, as many as I could get to, but couldn't find that article. I'm not going to tell you I understood the article because it was quite technical and was not all that interesting. The gist of it was that 'manufacturers had ignored the fact that some of their OE final drives ignored this 16 tooth minimum and that the aftermarket would be quite happy to replace that 14 tooth sprocket with a 12 (or whatever) and that is why your miracle O ring chain was shot in ten K miles .'

The only reason I even remember the thing is because the '80 550L came with a 15-51 tooth sprocket arrangement. Obviously no regard for longevity of chain or engine in a set-up like that. The damn thing must have been hell on wheels at the clutch drop tho'. Probably went 75 in 6th flat out screamin'. When I bought the bike the PO had changed sprockets to 16-46. Made 6th gear way to high. Got it where I want it now at 16-48. 108 links of x-ring 530 Japanese Parts Unlimited chain.

 

[Anonymous]

how is the partsunlimited chain? i've been looking at some of their stuff-- my boss has one of their X-ring chains on his honda C500R 2 stroke dirtbike, and he's happy with it (he's a desert racer, so if it's still attached to the bike, it's a miracle)

 

[jimcor]

how is the partsunlimited chain? i've been looking at some of their stuff-- my boss has one of their X-ring chains on his honda C500R 2 stroke dirtbike, and he's happy with it (he's a desert racer, so if it's still attached to the bike, it's a miracle)

Like Earl I've run 'em all too! But, talk about YMMV! This Parts Unlimited X-ring chain has been on the bike for 12,500 miles now and I have had to adjust it 3 times. Still lots of life left in it I'm very happy with it and I would buy it again. Especially since I only paid $72.00 for it at Dennis Kirk. I clean it regularly, with WD-40 and keep it lubed with Maxima Chain Wax.

I was disappointed with Tsubaki O ring chain. Chain got kinky and was very expensive. About $125.00 I got just over 10,000 mile out of that chain. Cleaning and lubing did nothing for this chain.

I also used RK O-ring chain twice. Long life, fairly good price. I unfortunately let the first chain go to waste on a long return trip to Lexington from out west. I didn't keep it adjusted and wore it out. My fault.
Second RK also worked well although it did have a tight spot from the time I installed it. I got my money out of that chain too. 'bout 100 bucks. But I felt the quality ahad slipped somewhat from the first to the second chain. What was top of the line was now second or third best. Taking a back seat to RK's X-ring chain.

I've also used some non-O ring chains one came with the bike and one I bought from a friend(?) (Jim, it's only got a few miles on it gimme 20 bucks :roll: What he should have said was 'it's only got a few miles left on it'). I don't recommend them.