630 series drive chain

[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!:wink:

 

[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.

 

[Guest]

You guys are giving me a headache. I'm sticking with my 630 o-ring chain.:-D

 

[jeff.saunders]

I traded communication with a techie at RK - here's what they said about the wear index and chain life.

"The wear life index is based off the tensile strength and dimensions of the chain. The information used in calculating chain wear life index is based off of information gathered during static testing and not when the chain is in dynamic motion, or everyday regular use"

"...The main reason the 530XSO chain is lasting longer than a 630SO chain on these bikes is the advanced X-ring in the 530XSO chain. The X-ring not only keeps grime and water out of the chain better than the standard O-ring chain, but it helps keep lubrication within the chain better along with creating less friction than the standard O-ring chain. Thus an X-ring chain will not get as hot as an O-ring chain and heat is a big factor in the deterioration and wear of a chain"