530 chain advantages

question...

How are you gaining more clearance with a 530 when the chain widths are the same or am I missing something here?

NOTE: I realize the pitch is different, you get more chain color and sprocket variations with the 530, tensile strengths are compariable with new chain technologies but width clearnaces are throwing me off...


OMR

compare the same type of chain o" ring chain to o" ring chain its not much but it is a little,depending on your rear tire it all helps!:laugh: you can also run 520 sprockets with the 530 chain if you are really trying to squeeze everything out of it.i also tend to run as long of a chain as i can to slide wheel back as much as possible in adjusters to gain a little more wheelbase without people noticing.

I don't agree with cheaper as far as 530 chains go. (If you are talking dollars)
I replaced sprockets and chain on my 1000 this summer. I did lots of shopping around (found the good folks at Z1 to be the best deal- go figure). Anyways, the difference in price between 530 and 630 was about $1.70, I went with 630.

i came up with $166.92 for 630 and!$124.92 for the 530 from z1 without getting really specific about gearing

I think a good 530 is good enough for anything our bikes can do. Pretty sure new sportbikes come with 530's. If they can handle 160hp out of a Gixx or R1 I'd say they'll take the 100 or so we can throw at them.

PS - 530 x-ring on my 650, havent had to adjust it yet, put it on two years ago. After she's 810 I'm sure I'll stretch it a bit more but thats normal.

alot of the newer bikes even run a 520. The chain i used for my 810 build is a non o-ring 530(went non o-ring to help out with the tight clearance). It is rated for motors up to 1400cc's. I thought that was pretty impressive for a 530.

Yes, the 520 chain width is what I can understand, you save about a 1/4" in width that has screwed with all of us in these swing arm conversions.

Problem is in finding a counter sprocket with the 1/2" - 5.8" offset with 18 tooth (15 to 18 conversion). Hell, I had a hard time even finding a 530 18 tooth count. Found a 15 tooth 530 but they wouldn't budge on making an 18 which by the way struck me ass being odd.

Anyhoot, I too stuck with the 630 for since I'm not racing this bike, that extra pound in weight isn't going to matter and I can live with a non colored chain/sprocket.

As for the pricing, I got my O-ring for roughly $97 at Z1 which was ~ $30 cheaper plus than the 530 ZZ series elsewhere. The XW ring is $122 from Z1... How much cheaper can you get!

Boy, this topic (630 to 530 to 520, chains, CC sprockets) just keeps on coming back LOL! We're doomed I tell ya, run OMR run....

OMR

jordan wrote:

alot of the newer bikes even run a 520. The chain i used for my 810 build is a non o-ring 530(went non o-ring to help out with the tight clearance). It is rated for motors up to 1400cc's. I thought that was pretty impressive for a 530.

What he said. You boys who think 530s are weak are all on crack cocaine! The 530 can take anything our old bikes can dish out.

henrymski wrote:

... You boys who think 530s are weak are all on crack cocaine!....

Book 'em, Danno!

I got this off the Z1E site.
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
I used the 630 for the same reason as omr. It was hard to find the front sprocket.

I had a 630 on the GPz drive train and it does indeed look like a farm implement. ;)Kinda looks out of scale on the smaller bikes.

All of this also has to do with how much your bike is beefed up...

There's no reason aside from full Mod drag 810 would I see the need for a 630 on anything smaller than a liter bike. Why carry the extra reciprocating weight if you don't need to.

IMO of course.

Am wondering what accounts for the overall weight difference between 630 and 530? Is it significant? And is it really worth the hassle?

Have not separately measured weights of the two equal overall length chains (630 vs 530) in order to compare them. However, with the chain width and overall chain length being equal. The 630 would have larger but fewer rollers, whereas the 530 would have more but smaller rollers. Likewise, the 630 would have fewer but longer side plates, and the 530 have more but shorter side plates.

Am thinking the overall length of both chains will have equivalent cumulative lengths of side plates. Maybe the 530 side plates are smaller and/or thinner than the 630 side plates, so that perhaps the greater number of 530 side plates weighs less than the lesser number of 630 side plates.

Also thinking maybe the greater number of smaller 530 rollers weighs less than the smaller number of 630 rollers.

Eye of the beholder, different strokes, and all that, but imho the huge massive knarly agricultural-looking 630 chain on the Z1 has exuded a macho he-man appearance from the first time MaKaw stuck it on there, and still does.

The peanut galley has spake. :lol: