530 Chain Conversion

[Joe Nardy]

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.

Okay, I see what you're saying now. According to Cycle World the manufacturers were wrong to use a front sprocket with so few teeth, regardless of chain pitch. So if I apply what I said earlier about the diameter being irrelevant and the pitch of the chain being what matters then no chain should be bent around a sprocket of less than 16 teeth?

Thanks,
Joe

 

[80gs1000e]

I just replaced both my sprockets and got a new chain. Stock teeth/gearing and a brand new high quality heavy duty RK 630 o-ring chain. The tensile strength is pretty high with the 630, perhaps overkill compared to the 530 but like the rest of the bike, its overbuilt and bulky which is why I like it.

Doing the 530 conversion saves you what.....1 or 2 pounds at best on an old overweight GS tankbike? A little friction.....perhaps? I've heard that the 630 chain will last longer, know its a lot stronger and that the 530 can be sloppy and noisey potentially (or so I have been told if you don't get the spacer right). I guess if you want a lot of options as far as chains go then the 530 is the better choice. For me, The RK heavy duty 630 o-ring chain is just what I needed and the setup is 100% stock. RK states that the 630 I got outlasts standard chains by five to eight times. That's all good! 8)

 

[earlfor]

Yep, the more teeth on the sprocket, the more load bearing surface you have and consequently the slower the wear rate. I try to use the largest sprockets I can. 15/45 is 1:3, 16/48 is 1:3 as is 17/51, so gearing is the same, but there is a big difference in wear rate.

Earl

Okay, I see what you're saying now. According to Cycle World the manufacturers were wrong to use a front sprocket with so few teeth, regardless of chain pitch. So if I apply what I said earlier about the diameter being irrelevant and the pitch of the chain being what matters then no chain should be bent around a sprocket of less than 16 teeth?

Thanks,
Joe

 

[KEITH KRAUSE]

When I get around to this mod', I'm going with 17/48 instead of the stock 15/42. Basically the same gearing.
I think the front sprocket should be larger and I don't want the chain closer to the swingarm. I think the smaller 530 15 tooth would make it too easy to rub the swingarm. Also, installing a 530 42 tooth would be much smaller and look funny so far below the chainguard. I wouldn't want to modify the chainguard to lower it.
Now I just hope the sprockets I need come in 17/48.

 

[Anonymous]

i think it'll be beneficial for me to just stick with the 630, and upgrade to an o-ring chain until i wear the sprockets down a bit more- they still look pretty good, and until i get the chain off, i won't be able to tell 100%. if it turns out i'm gonna have to invest in new sprockets, i might just go with a 530. dunno.

 

[Joe Nardy]

i think it'll be beneficial for me to just stick with the 630, and upgrade to an o-ring chain until i wear the sprockets down a bit more- they still look pretty good, and until i get the chain off, i won't be able to tell 100%. if it turns out i'm gonna have to invest in new sprockets, i might just go with a 530. dunno.

Beware that it is often very difficult to "see" a bad sprocket. Yes, you can see a very badly worn sprocket but just because one looks okay does not mean it is. Try pulling your chain off the wheel sprocket at the rear of the sprocket. It should be snug against the sprocket with very little free play. If you can pull it off even a couple millimeters chances are the sprocket is worn as well as the chain. Putting a new chain on worn sprockets will ruin the new chain in a hurry. Spend the extra bucks for sprockets. You'll save money in the long run. Like the old commercial says..."You can pay me now or pay me later"

Thanks,
Joe

 

[perkins43]

530 Conversion

530 Conversion

In a word, DON'T. I tried it on my 81 GS750EX, at the recommendation of a formerly trusted bike shop parts guy. The chain (o-ring, of course) was less of a problem than the ALUMINUM rear sprocket he sold me, steel being a rare piece for the swap. Dispite regular lubing it just about wore smooth smooth on a trip from Toronto to SD and back. I switched back to a split, O-ring 630 with factory sprockets front and rear and have had zilch problems ever since. I also switched from the Bel-Ray whale-snot foamy lube to their chain wax; it seems to clings better.

I'd also look into a Scottoiler which, if you believe the testemonials, doubles and triples chain life.

 

[Hoomgar]

When I get around to this mod', I'm going with 17/48 instead of the stock 15/42. Basically the same gearing.
I think the front sprocket should be larger and I don't want the chain closer to the swingarm. I think the smaller 530 15 tooth would make it too easy to rub the swingarm. Also, installing a 530 42 tooth would be much smaller and look funny so far below the chainguard. I wouldn't want to modify the chainguard to lower it.
Now I just hope the sprockets I need come in 17/48.

I am now going with 16/45 Keith. Your comment about the rear sprocket showing through under the cover was the clintcher. I look at it this way. I will try hard to hit it right. If it doesn't work out or I don't like it. I can always change it again. That's what is so great about our bikes

 

[jimcor]

None of this matters to me anymore...I must have the blue and gold chain with the flashing LEDs. A set of Tireflies. Some Cyalum light sticks taped under my tank and fenders... 8)

 

[Anonymous]

you do that too? I thought I was the only one :swoon:

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I just completed my own chain conversion. I called Dennis Kirk and told them I had a 1980 GS750 L and that I wanted different ratios. Stock is 15/42, but I ride the interestate about 500 miles a month and 70mph is rough with that ratio and a 5 speed. I went to a 18/38. For the spacer, I used two 1" inside diameter washers from Tractor Supply Company. The width on those came out to about 6.75 - 7.0 mm, a little more than the 6mm spacer they said to use, but it isn't affecting it at all. Everything was really easy except for getting the nut off the countershaft spline. That was a pain, but I got it eventually.

The 18/38 ratio works very well. A little slower on the take-off, but it'll still take anyone that wants some competition. The big difference is my highway performance. 70 is much smoother now and my fuel milage jumped 7 miles per gallon.

 

[KEITH KRAUSE]

Wow. To 18/38 from a 15/42. That's quite a drop. I'm a little surprised it pulls well enough for you.
As long as you're happy with it that's all that matters. Thanks for the info.

 

[Anonymous]

so wait--- as long as the gearing remains the same (fractional, i mean) then the performance would be the same, right? or would there be some sort of a drop off?


is it safe to assume that 16/48 and 15/42 would have the same performance traits, but would have different wear rates, correct?

 

[earlfor]

16/48 is a 1:3 ratio and 15/42 is a 1:2.8 ratio. For 16/48, the countershaft sprocket will turn 3 times for each time the rear sprocket turns. For the 15/42, the countershaft will turn 2.8 times each time the rear wheel rotates. Acceleration will increase slightly with the 16/48 and gas milage will decrease slightly. Rpm for a given speed will be increased about 9%, as will be chain and sprocket wear.

Earl

so wait--- as long as the gearing remains the same (fractional, i mean) then the performance would be the same, right? or would there be some sort of a drop off?


is it safe to assume that 16/48 and 15/42 would have the same performance traits, but would have different wear rates, correct?

 

[Nerobro]

Doing the 530 conversion saves you what.....1 or 2 pounds at best on an old overweight GS tankbike? A little friction.....perhaps? 8)

Each pound of rotating mass counts against the bike three times. If you manage to save three pounds of rotating mass that is like knocking nine pounds off the bike. and as an added benifit you are taking weight off the rear swingarm, which makes for less unsprung weight, that improves handling.

Though your arguement holds water too

 

[Anonymous]

16/48 is a 1:3 ratio and 15/42 is a 1:2.8 ratio. For 16/48, the countershaft sprocket will turn 3 times for each time the rear sprocket turns. For the 15/42, the countershaft will turn 2.8 times each time the rear wheel rotates. Acceleration will increase slightly with the 16/48 and gas milage will decrease slightly. Rpm for a given speed will be increased about 9%, as will be chain and sprocket wear.

Earl

Hmm. That's good information to consider. I think I'm prolly just gonna bite the bullet and convert my bike. I have everything else in pieces, what's one more baggie of parts gonna hurt?

Would the 16/48 combination be suitable for around-town riding, with little to no highway time? Is there a more well-rounded gearing that would be more appropriate for all types of riding?

 

[earlfor]

Sure, it would be fine. I doubt you will notice any difference around town.

Earl

Would the 16/48 combination be suitable for around-town riding, with little to no highway time? Is there a more well-rounded gearing that would be more appropriate for all types of riding?

 

[KEITH KRAUSE]

Would the 16/48 combination be suitable for around-town riding, with little to no highway time? Is there a more well-rounded gearing that would be more appropriate for all types of riding?

If your stock gearing was 15/42, then 16/45 would be almost exactly the same. Your 16/48 choice would make your bike a little slower off the line and cruise at a little lower rpm.

 

[Anonymous]

Your 16/48 choice would make your bike a little slower off the line and cruise at a little lower rpm.

Keith,

You have that backwards. The 16/48 will provide a bit more jump off the line and result in slightly higher cruising revs than the 16/45. Mileage will also likely drop off a touch.

Mark

 

[KEITH KRAUSE]

Your 16/48 choice would make your bike a little slower off the line and cruise at a little lower rpm.

Keith,

You have that backwards. The 16/48 will provide a bit more jump off the line and result in slightly higher cruising revs than the 16/45. Mileage will also likely drop off a touch.

Mark

Oops! That's right. Just not paying attention to what I'm typing.
Fine advice giver I am. :roll: