I guess I've been tensioning my chain wrong

To be clear, there are two effects being talked about.

One is the antisquat issue, and the other is uneven wear in the chain and sprockets.
The first one depends on where the swingarm position is, and the second depends on rotating the wheel until a slightly tighter spot is located.

Bottom line is: just make sure it's not any tighter than specified. Slightly looser is better than slightly tighter.

Cool. Thought about mounting my cam under the box to see what my old chain was doing. It was making so much noise, I'm glad I didn't now.
Would have made me stop riding the thing.
Steve

Wow I'm really glad I found this thread! On my first bike, I was taught to adjust the chain by loosening everything and pulling the back wheel snug against the chain (thus removing all slack, but not pulling tight). I never even questioned this because I did the same thing when I was riding bicycles.

missionkz wrote:

82KZ305Belt wrote: I've never noticed any difference in tension no matter where the wheel is. I've always been and still am baffled by the comment that it should be tighter at some point. The manual for my 305 doesn't specify whether to measure the top or bottom run. Since the muffler interferes with a clear view of the bottom run I've always measure the top. But I also don't see signficant difference in tension between runs, as far as I can measure it. I guess once again I could have interpreted the diagram to mean I must measure the bottom run, but I'll again gripe that if that's what they mean they should SAY THAT!

I also don't understand the business about putting weight on it, and since my manual doesn't say I should I'm wary of doing it any other way. I will continue to ride around never quite knowing if I'm doing it right I guess. 5 years and I'm not dead yet, though I suppose that could always change.

OK. Then you have the unobtainable, perfect wearing chain and sprockets.
And you'll always be measuring it wrong because you don't understand the mechanics of it all. LOL

Are you telling me I should tighten my chain in a way not described by my manual? I'm not saying that's wrong, but I need more convincing before I agree that its right. I'm the one who has to take responsibility for my own safety.

@loudhvx, thanks for the diagram. That one I understand, with your description of how forces affect the geometry. So I now understand (I think) why some people put pressure on the wheel before adjusting the chain. It makes perfect sense. But wouldn't Kawasaki have said to do it that way in my manual if that's how I should be doing it?

@patton those diagrams are helpful too. The chain tension diagram is the same as in my manual. But I still don't find tight or loose spots in the chain anywhere in its rotation. Those other pics seem to show out of alignment sprockets, unless I'm misinterpreting. I was super vigilant when I converted my belt drive to chain. I rode it for a short while, didn't like the sound the chain was making, and determined the rear sprocket wasn't aligned properly even though others (I think with 440's) had been able to do a simple swap of belt pulley for chain sprocket. But I had to get a custom offset sprocket made in order to get perfect alignment. It showed uneven sprocket wear very quickly with the old sprocket; it shows none after thousands of miles with the offset sprocket.

the instructions for my chain are on page 24 here.

www.scribd.com/doc/34889983/Kawasaki-KZ-...-a-82-Service-Manual

82KZ305Belt wrote: . . . the instructions for my chain are on page 24 here.
www.scribd.com/doc/34889983/Kawasaki-KZ-...-a-82-Service-Manual

And information about chain stretch parameters is on page 144, which also include the following chart:



The FSM refers to a non-o'ring chain, but which would in my opinion also apply to an o'ring version.

I wouldn't expect a relatively fresh well-maintained final drive chain to exhibit a very noticeable "tightest position" due to "uneven chain wear" on any model motorcycle.

If the chain at hand is kink-free, well lubed, not worn past the specified stretch limits, and passes the rear sprocket pull-away test, and the slack is adjusted within spec at mid-way between either lower or upper run, you are in my opinion good to go.

The instructions in the FSM at hand are typical of the instructions shown in all the Kawasaki Factory Service Manuals with which I'm familiar.

Failure to exhibit a noticeable "tightest position" should be welcomed as an indication of good chain condition.

Precise sprocket alignment is also a "best practice" condition.

An excellent relatively inexpensive easily applied chain lube with high-cling very low "sling-off" should be readily available at automotive suppliers, Lowes, etc.



The above product is clean in application and suitable for a wide variety of lubing uses.

Good Fortune!

82KZ305Belt wrote: ...
@loudhvx, .... But wouldn't Kawasaki have said to do it that way in my manual if that's how I should be doing it?

Kawasaki wrote the manual assuming the suspension was not modified. Once modified, the amount of change in the slack during bumps etc, will be different.

Do we know for a fact that the chain drive bikes have the same geometry as the belt drive bikes? (It's very possible.)
But what if they designed the belt drive geometry to minimize belt tension changes during suspension movement?


In my opinion, the manual should have said" Find the total range of motion of the swingarm. Then remove the shocks to set the swingarm to a position within that range which yields the least amount of slack in the chain. Then set the axle so the slack, in that position, has a motion of one inch up or down. (Pressing up and down with 2 lbs of force)".
Or something like that. But it doesn't.

I think if it was more critical, they would have been more elaborate on the tension procedure.

It's a lot of variables to deal with, so I say just adjust it for the looser end of the given range. I'm often even beyond the looser end of the range by a small bit, and haven't had any problems in 35 years.

82KZ305Belt wrote:

missionkz wrote:

82KZ305Belt wrote: I've never noticed any difference in tension no matter where the wheel is. I've always been and still am baffled by the comment that it should be tighter at some point. The manual for my 305 doesn't specify whether to measure the top or bottom run. Since the muffler interferes with a clear view of the bottom run I've always measure the top. But I also don't see signficant difference in tension between runs, as far as I can measure it. I guess once again I could have interpreted the diagram to mean I must measure the bottom run, but I'll again gripe that if that's what they mean they should SAY THAT!

I also don't understand the business about putting weight on it, and since my manual doesn't say I should I'm wary of doing it any other way. I will continue to ride around never quite knowing if I'm doing it right I guess. 5 years and I'm not dead yet, though I suppose that could always change.

OK. Then you have the unobtainable, perfect wearing chain and sprockets.
And you'll always be measuring it wrong because you don't understand the mechanics of it all. LOL

Are you telling me I should tighten my chain in a way not described by my manual? I'm not saying that's wrong, but I need more convincing before I agree that its right. I'm the one who has to take responsibility for my own safety.

@loudhvx, thanks for the diagram. That one I understand, with your description of how forces affect the geometry. So I now understand (I think) why some people put pressure on the wheel before adjusting the chain. It makes perfect sense. But wouldn't Kawasaki have said to do it that way in my manual if that's how I should be doing it?

@patton those diagrams are helpful too. The chain tension diagram is the same as in my manual. But I still don't find tight or loose spots in the chain anywhere in its rotation. Those other pics seem to show out of alignment sprockets, unless I'm misinterpreting. I was super vigilant when I converted my belt drive to chain. I rode it for a short while, didn't like the sound the chain was making, and determined the rear sprocket wasn't aligned properly even though others (I think with 440's) had been able to do a simple swap of belt pulley for chain sprocket. But I had to get a custom offset sprocket made in order to get perfect alignment. It showed uneven sprocket wear very quickly with the old sprocket; it shows none after thousands of miles with the offset sprocket.

the instructions for my chain are on page 24 here.

www.scribd.com/doc/34889983/Kawasaki-KZ-...-a-82-Service-Manual

I didn't know if that was directed at me too but what I am saying is the +80% of all home shop, self service or back yard, self repair owners (especially neophyte owners) will not tension their chains correctly, regardless of how many times they read their manual and they will error on the too tight side most of the time... because too loose looks wrong, but is actually much safer then too tight,
As long as the chain does not fall off a sprocket, slap the swing arm pivot tube or engine case (etc.).... loose is always better.

The chain and sprockets I just took off made a awful racket unless the chain was way loose. Standard chain. The O ring chain and new sprockets are smooth and quiet. I have 1 1/4" up and down slack. Standard chains are the BUNK. :blink:
Steve

swest wrote: . . . Standard chains are the BUNK. . . .

Rumor has it that standard non-o'ring chains are considered by drag racers as creating slightly less friction which promotes lower E.T. due to a more efficient drive line.

As I understand it, the theory is that o'rings collectively consume some slight power due to the friction induced by the o'rings during the movement of links.

Even the standard non-o'ring chain should do okay for 1/4 mile.

That said, for me the use of messy maintenance-intensive standard non-o'ring chains is ancient history.

Good Fortune!