630 to 530 chain conversion.

To clarify on the chain width - the width of the rollers are the same for 530 and 630 chain.

The actual width varies a fair amount based on the type of chain - non o-ring is the narrowest chain. There are a bewildering array of O-Ring varieties - from simple round cross-section, X-ring, W-Ring, thin W-Ring and more.

630 tends to be a little wider due to the rivets being fatter and protruding a little more when peened over.

Here's some measurement info from Z1E

www.z1enterprises.com/reference/chaintypesize.aspx

As I understand this, chains are measured in inches using the "Rule of Eighths"

The first digit represents the pitch or distance between rollers so that the 6 in size 620 means 6/8" = 3/4" pitch. The second two numbers represent the roller width and have an imaginary decimal point between them so that the 30 in size 630 is read as 3.0 meaning 3.0/8" = 3/8" width.

This measurement technique applies to the other sizes as well, for example #530 chain is 5/8" pitch and 3.0/8 = 3/8" width.

And so on, resulting the figures shown in the Z1E link:

520 5/8 inch pitch, 1/4 inch wide
525 5/8 inch pitch, 5/16 inch wide
530 5/8 inch pitch, 3/8 inch wide
630 3/4 inch pitch, 3/8 inch wide


In #520, the 20 is read 2.0/8 = 2/8 = 1/4" roller width
In #525, the 25 is read 2.5/8 = 5/16" roller width


A corollary to this is that 530 or 525 or 520 chains could actually fit onto and be used with a 520 or 1/4" thick sprocket, but a 520 chain is too narrow to fit onto a sprocket with thickness designed for a 530 chain (likewise for a 525 chain being too narrow to fit onto a 530 sprocket.) Best practice, of course, is to use a sprocket thickness designed expressly for the particular size chain.


I believe an apparent visual difference between the width of a 630 and 530 would likely be due to only one of the chains being an o-ring -- but having the same actual roller width, but due to the o-rings, having a wider overall width.

Am I mis-reading the weight difference between a 630 and 530 chain -- by understanding that the 630 weighs almost 1 pound more than the 530? With the same overall length, it seems that the additional rollers in the 530 chain would make the 530 chain the heavier. What am I overlooking here??

nads.com wrote:

Cafe, is your myth holding water? You are the chosen one for proof the power gain is real. Do you have noterized proof that the 530 is faster than the 630? I'll even take your word for it, a few convincing adjectives will be enough to send me over the edge. Or else it will just be a money thing. I,ve considered the fact that by changing the chain over, and the wheels to lighter ones, may change the acceleration rate to something less desirable than before. Like don't fix it if noone can identify the disadvantages of the 630 chain.

Mass = Inertia, the more a flywheel, wheel, sprocket, and chain weigh the greater amount of energy needed to accelerate it, the more energy lost to accelerating mass the less energy available to the tire/road interface.

"But", mass also stores energy, the greater the rotating mass the more it wants to keep rotating. A good example is the difference between braking a KZ1000 and an 80,000 lb truck. A KZ1000 will stop from 90 mph in a lot shorter distance than the 80,000 lb truck and generate a whole lot less heat (getting rid of the energy stored in inertia in the process) while doing it.

Dragracers running heavy vehicles with small motors will use a heavy flywheel to launch, because the increased mass stores energy and helps to launch the heavy vehicle. A heavy chain and wheel do nothing to help the launch because they aren't turning until the light turns green

Simple definition of inertia:
"A mass at rest tends to stay at rest, a mass in motion tends to continue in motion"

So because of its stored energy from the extra mass, which i assume is weight not size, the 630 chain will keep my bike rolling beetween gears, whereas the lighter 530 chain will allow the weight of the bike to pull my speed down. And the theory of perpetual motion continues.

nads.com wrote:

So because of its stored energy from the extra mass, which i assume is weight not size, the 630 chain will keep my bike rolling beetween gears, whereas the lighter 530 chain will allow the weight of the bike to pull my speed down. And the theory of perpetual motion continues.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "And the theory of perpetual motion continues", but you can verify what I said by reading any High School Physics text book (at least from when I went to school).

Or just read This

Perpetual motion law assumes that there are no trade off's when reducing friction. If the 630 chain's mass helps to keep the back wheel rolling while i shift into the next higher gear, the energy output at the drive sprocket will not be lugged down "absorbed" where the 530's ligher mass does not have as much stored energy and beetween gears the bike is starting to slow. When the next gear is engaged, the output at the drive will be used to get the bikes mass moving again. I figure the two energy change offs are bound to be equal minus .000001.

Patton wrote:

Am I mis-reading the weight difference between a 630 and 530 chain -- by understanding that the 630 weighs almost 1 pound more than the 530? With the same overall length, it seems that the additional rollers in the 530 chain would make the 530 chain the heavier. What am I overlooking here??

Same question comes to my mind as well.

Possibly the rollers are bigger diameter... so heavier?

Post edited by: loudhvx, at: 2006/12/24 23:15

It's a question of rotational mass. A lot of guys with bikes that came stock with a 530 chain set are switching to 525 or 520 in order to decrease rotational mass, especially when they switch to aluminum sprockets. It's like lightening the flywheel.

Less rotational mass also means less gyroscopic force, which means the bike will handle better.

Will you notice a difference on your classic KZ900 or 1000? Hard to say. I'd like to find out, but I also plan to do it because it's cheaper and there's a greater assortment of chains and sprockets to choose from.

nads.com wrote:

Perpetual motion law assumes that there are no trade off's when reducing friction. If the 630 chain's mass helps to keep the back wheel rolling while i shift into the next higher gear, the energy output at the drive sprocket will not be lugged down "absorbed" where the 530's ligher mass does not have as much stored energy and beetween gears the bike is starting to slow. When the next gear is engaged, the output at the drive will be used to get the bikes mass moving again. I figure the two energy change offs are bound to be equal minus .000001.

I don't think there would be much difference in those circumstances, the difference arises when accelerating from a dead stop, or when stopping. Unless you are the worlds slowest shifter, the bike is not going to spend enough time between the gears to make a measurable difference.

nads.com wrote:

Cafe, is your myth holding water? You are the chosen one for proof the power gain is real. Do you have noterized proof that the 530 is faster than the 630? I'll even take your word for it, a few convincing adjectives will be enough to send me over the edge. Or else it will just be a money thing. I,ve considered the fact that by changing the chain over, and the wheels to lighter ones, may change the acceleration rate to something less desirable than before. Like don't fix it if noone can identify the disadvantages of the 630 chain.

I would assume this was directed to me since it's to "cafe"?

If not, ignore the following.

The 530 chain isn't going to be faster than the 630 chain. Just lighter.

Also, I think you may be confused of what we're discussing here. There's not power gain to be had from running a 500 series chain instead of a 630 series chain at all. You will still have the same amount of power available. What will be different is the use of that power.

A lighter chain takes less power to turn initially. Like guitargeek said, it's like a lightened flywheel. Guys run aluminum flywheels in their cars to get them to rev up and down quicker than a steel flywheel.

Put simply to explain, imagine that it takes 5 hp to turn a 600 series chain with a 14f/45r ratio.... it may take say 3.5hp to turn the same thing with a 500 series chain and aluminum sprocket on the rear end of the bike. You're not adding horsepower, you're just reducing the amount needed to do the same work.

Running a lighter chain, lighter drive sprockets, and lighter wheels can only have one effect on the specific acceleration of the bike... it will allow the bike to work LESS to accelerate FASTER.

So, if you are trying to make your bike work harder and accelerate slower, you would be wasting money.

Don't forget though that there's a lot more to the powerband of a bike and its usefullness than the driveline alone.

Building a bike or car is like leading an orchestra... if everyone in the orchestra isn't playing the same song together, the end result isn't quite what you would hope for.

Chassis mods, driveline modification, fuel system upgrades, strengthening internals... they all play their part.

Hope that addressed your questions. If not, just let me know.

The rollers, pins and side plates are all heftier - the side plates in particular retain the same peanut shape for both 530 & 630 chain, but the link is not only longer, but higher. It's the height of the chain that's where the extra weight is