1000cc racers chains?

[Sparker]

I am just curious as to what some of your 1000cc racers use for chains? x-ring, 0-ring, etc?

[UglyDogRacing]

you already have the best chain that you can put on a bike.

[Sparker]

whats the exact brand and length you put on it if you can remember

[Anonymous]

DID ERV2 is the best out there right now...

[UglyDogRacing]

whats the exact brand and length you put on it if you can remember

DID ERV2 and it comes in 120 link length. You'll have to cut it depending on what sprockets you run.

[Sparker]

im still running the same sprockets you had on there. 3+ in the rear. do you remember the link amount?

[UglyDogRacing]

count the links when u pull the old one off. put new sprockets on, too. your sprockets will wear out before your chain does when you run the ERV2.

[~Barn~]

Speaking of chains... I know that chain conversions are done all the time in the effort for weight savings, but I've never done one.

What are the pros and cons of putting a 520 chain and sprockets on my R1? (when it's replacement time)

By exceeding the manufacturers recommended cc's for the chain, do I really run the risk of something failing?

[Sparker]

its cheaper in the long run, thats for sure

[~Barn~]

Are 520 chains, considerably lower in price, than 530's? I've never priced um. I guess I'll go look!

[Sparker]

go to kneedraggers and try in did erv2. there is a difference

[Sparker]

$35 difference from a 520 to a 530. i really dont know the difference performance wise but the price is better

[~Barn~]

Well, I guess individual mileage may very, but I just got this off of Starcycle.com ...

RK 520 STANDARD CHAIN 520S $42.95

RK 530 STANDARD CHAIN 530S $36.95

:dunno:

[Sparker]

Sparker :slap: Barn thats what you get for proving me wrong

[The GECCO]

Well, I guess individual mileage may very, but I just got this off of Starcycle.com ...

RK 520 STANDARD CHAIN 520S $42.95

RK 530 STANDARD CHAIN 530S $36.95

:dunno:

I imagine the 520s are more $$ because they are built stronger, possibly with better materials. This is necessary because it's a smaller chain so you have less metal/surface area that must absorb the same amount of energy.

Don't worry about a 520 failing just because you have exceeded the manufacturers CC rating. Every Superbike out there is running a 520, and they make a hell of a lot more HP than yours or my streetbike does. Shane Turpin, Ricky and Otis all race their high HP bikes with the same 520's you can buy off the shelf. In todays litigious society the manufacturers are just covering their asses. Just make sure you use a rivit link and replace it before it exceeds the stretch tolerance.

Why make the switch? In one word --> WEIGHT! Yes, the weight difference between a 530 and a 520 is rather small, but consider where that weight is and what it is doing, also consider that the 520 sprockets also weigh less than their full sized counterparts.

Why is this weight loss so important? Three reasons:

1) ANY weight loss improves overall performance. If you have a choice between adding HP or loosing weight - loose the weight EVERY TIME! Why? Because adding HP only helps you accelerate, loosing weight not only improves acceleration, it also means there is less intertia that must be overcome during braking and cornering. This is true for static weight (weight that is simply carried, like the rider, the bodywork, the radiator, etc) but is even more important when you talk about unsprung and/or rotating weight.

2) You are losing "Unsprung" weight, which is very key to handling, especially on a rough surface. "Unsprung" weight is any weight that is not supported by the suspension of the vehicle (ie, tires, wheels, etc). This is important because this weight must move up and down to conform to the bumps and other irregularities of the road surface. The inertia associated with too much unsprung weight leads to the tire loosing contact with the road at the top of a bump and tire deformity when the tire contacts again after the bump. The thinner 520 rear sprocket lowers unsprung weight. So does the smaller chain, since technically about 1/2 of the chain is unprung weight (as is the lower 1/2 of the spring and shock)

3) Most important - you are loosing rotating weight. The inertia of the chain and sprockets must be overcome during both acceleration AND braking. Anything you can do to lower the weight of ANYTHING that rotates (tires, wheels, rotors, crankshaft, chain, sprockets, etc) will have a profound effect on overall performance.

So, is it worth it? If you are racing this isn't even a question. For a streetbike it gets a little less cut and dry. You will gain performance, but you will also have to replace these components more often so the cost goes up.

Hope this helps
Glenn

[Kim-n-Dean]

Glenn - I've seen a lot of broken 1000cc cases with 520 chains. That's why I still run my stock chain. How often do you recommend changing a 520 on a 1000? Does twice a year provide any kind of guarantee it won't fail?

[Lurch]

Dean,

I have put a new chain on my bike every year and have had no problems. Your stock chain is proably weaker then a ERV2. It's not just 1000'c that break chains I have seen 600 and even 250's break them. I would gather to say that most chain failures are caused by them being to tight.

A loose chain is a happy chain.

Lurch

[Kim-n-Dean]

Dean,

I have put a new chain on my bike every year and have had no problems. Your stock chain is proably weaker then a ERV2. It's not just 1000'c that break chains I have seen 600 and even 250's break them. I would gather to say that most chain failures are caused by them being to tight.

A loose chain is a happy chain.

Lurch

Good deal! Looks like my parts list just got a little longer...

[The GECCO]

Dean,

I have put a new chain on my bike every year and have had no problems. Your stock chain is proably weaker then a ERV2. It's not just 1000'c that break chains I have seen 600 and even 250's break them. I would gather to say that most chain failures are caused by them being to tight.

A loose chain is a happy chain.

Lurch

:imwithstupid: