630 chains

If the sprocket is tight on the splines, there should be no difference in shaft wear between the 530 or 630 sprocket, ie, there should be none at all!

Because many sprockets were/are a pita to fit, they were often opened out a bit, which made the fit far too sloppy, ruining the shaft pronto.  Apparently, many 630 sprockets were a bit sloppy from the start.  My own RGS has only recently recieved its first 530 chain after I used up my 630 stock, the drive shaft is still perfect after about 90000km.

I have also seen a few shafts buggered by sloppy 530 sprockets...

piet
 
sfcpiet said:
If the sprocket is tight on the splines, there should be no difference in shaft wear between the 530 or 630 sprocket, ie, there should be none at all!

Because many sprockets were/are a pita to fit, they were often opened out a bit, which made the fit far too sloppy, ruining the shaft pronto.  Apparently, many 630 sprockets were a bit sloppy from the start.  My own RGS has only recently recieved its first 530 chain after I used up my 630 stock, the drive shaft is still perfect after about 90000km.

I have also seen a few shafts buggered by sloppy 530 sprockets...

piet
Click to expand...

Must have had several sloppy fitting sprockets then as I've never had to fuck with a sprocket to fit it. The Motodd has a longer chain run, can't remember how many 630 links but there are 114 530 links. Use to go through a set of sprockets with every chain, then changing to 530 I got 2 530 chains to a set of sprockets. On the recent rebuild changing to Suzi rims I'm using a 40tooth ally rear and there is signs of wear after only a couple of thousand kays. I'm really liking my BM these days :D
 
Could have had an aluminium one if you had asked Nick, I normally value longevity over aesthetic presence when selecting wearing parts... I suppose it must juxtapose nicely with your mudflap 

Keith, you are having a senior moment old chap, cos I did ask and you didn't have any. And I think it better to lose half a ton in unsprung weight meself, and the alloy has lasted 10 years. So not too bad methinks! ;) And let's face it, it's not doing many miles in the scheme of things, more of a Sunday afternoon blaster, the BMW is for the miles.....and ain't going to need a chain anytime soon!And my mudflap is staying ....might drill some lightening holes in it as I fear it acts as a windbreak! Have often wondered that about our over large number plates...can't help, surely?
 
Just because I'm like that, I wanted to point out that your weight is sprung, Nick, not unsprung, and therefore improves suspension performance while reducing bike performance.

I need to lose 10kg or so too - but that can wait until I stop playing rugby!

--
Dick
 
hi, surely if you have a 630 sprocket that's gives more surface contact area with the shaft, that must mean less force and reduce wear.
my motodd mk1 as had 630 on it for 30years with no spline wear.
regards andy
 
laverdas said:
hi, surely if you have a 630 sprocket that's gives more surface contact area with the shaft, that must mean less force and reduce wear.
my motodd mk1 as had 630 on it for 30years with no spline wear.
regards andy
Click to expand...

No -- the 530 and 630 sprockets have the same width.
 
VanguardontheLav said:
Just because I'm like that, I wanted to point out that your weight is sprung, Nick, not unsprung, and therefore improves suspension performance while reducing bike performance.

I need to lose 10kg or so too - but that can wait until I stop playing rugby!

--
Dick
Click to expand...


[smartarse mode on]
Afraid you are wrong, Dick.

Wheels, brakes, swingarm, part of the chain, part of the rear suspension units, fork sliders and everything solidly attached to them constitute the unsprung mass of a motorcycle.  In short, everything that moves in relation to everything that is supported by the suspension.  That makes the frame, engine and rider sprung mass.

Reducing unsprung mass enhances suspension performance, as less mass needs to accelerated and decelerated through suspension movement, causing it to have less influence on the rest of the vehicle.  Cannot recognise why it should reduce bike performance...

You can look it up if you like...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass[smartarse mode off]

piet ;)
 
I use what I believe to be an EK 630 X-Ring chain in my 71 750SF. Paid something like $150 for it 20 years ago and it's still on my bike with NO sprocket wear.

One thing I had to do was file clearance for the extra width in the tyranny output sprocket chamber. Once tensioned it does not drag on the swing arm.

Clean her twice a season with diesel fuel then rinse with a hot solution of detergent an water and spray with a reputable No Drip Paraffin or Silicon Chain Lube.

One thing I should mention is: Don't trust Master Link Keeper shim Quick Link - You're better off Pin Riveting the Master Link - Buy the tool.
 
630 on an SF? Wow.
I use a 530 O ring on my SF2 and even that scrapes the crankcase if I let it get too loose.
I have a non O ring 530 on the SFC, lovely chain.
Paul
 
Paul: Your probably right my chain is  a 530 Japanese EK O-Ring or Triple X-Ring. I have never changed the original sprockets and pitch.

Bikes in storage right now but gotta say that chain with original sprockets has lasted me over 30 years without much maintenance.

Will check and get back.
 
sfcpiet said:
[smartarse mode on]
Afraid you are wrong, Dick.
piet ;)
Click to expand...

[Super smartarse mode on]

I am afraid you are wrong Piet.

You need to re-read what Dick has said. He is saying Nick's weight is sprung, and I quote from Dick's post:-

"Just because I'm like that, I wanted to point out that your weight is sprung, Nick, not unsprung"
 
Nick was referring to the weight of his sprockets, Dick was referring to his own weight...

Don't see an increase in sprung weight improving suspension performance either.  But Dick correctly points out that an increase in sprung weight does affect overall bike performance.

Best to leave it to Dick to clarify what he meant. :D

piet
 
He (i.e. I) meant Nick's weight, not the sprocket's, since Nick said "better to lose half a ton in unsprung weight meself" which I took to mean his own weight. Re-reading Nick's post I see that his ambiguously punctuated post probably means the half ton is lost from the sprocket not from him (and seeing as I remember him as being a long streak of piss, means that he probably doesn't have half a ton to lose!)

(Dick by name... :))

I agree entirely that the sprocket is unsprung. (And I continued to use Nick's incorrect term "weight" which is less accurate than the term "mass"...)

My contention that additional sprung weight "improves suspension performance" is described in the companion piece on Wikipedia to yours: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprung_mass. "The larger the ratio of sprung weight to unsprung weight, the less the body and vehicle occupants are affected by bumps, dips, and other surface imperfections..." To my mind, the purpose of suspension is to reduce the effect of bumps, dips and other surface imperfections to the designed geometry of the suspension and therefore either reducing unsprung or increasing sprung weight both improve suspension performance. Reducing either sprung or unsprung weight is the usual target since it improves bike performance and stresses all components less - or allows the same stress at higher speeds!

So I still think I'm right - just like you!

--
Dick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top