power zap from various rear chains.

[Dellortoman]

OK, being serious for a minute ?

General rules of thumb:
1. Smaller pitch chain will be more efficient than large pitch because of reduced chording or polygon effect (google it). So going from 630 to 530 will make the drive smoother and more efficient.
2. Narrow chain will be more efficient than a wider chain because it's lighter. So going from 530 to 520 will improve efficiency, but sprockets may wear faster because of the higher load on the narrow teeth.
3. Plain unsealed (no-ring) chain is more efficient than O-ring and X-ring chains because the friction between side plates is increased by the sealing rings.
4. X-ring is supposedly an improvement over the older O-ring design, and is thought to be more efficient.

The above is only true of chains in new condition. For knackered chains, who knows?


I use 530 sealed (X-ring or O-ring) chains on my road bikes for longevity. I don't care that they might soak up a couple of horsepower. I still have enough power left to get myself into trouble.
On my race bike I used 530 no-ring for minimal power loss. I could have gone to 520 but sprocket availability was an issue. I didn't want to have to machine the sprockets down to 1/4" thickness. They're not easy to machine.

Valentino Rossi's MotoGP bike uses DID ERV3 520, which is a light weight X-ring chain specifically designed for racing, with low friction sealing rings. Chain life is only 500km max . I've read that he also uses titanium sprockets which would be strong and light, but beyond the budget of most of us. Although I suspect Jacques might be cruising the internet looking for one now 

I'd have thought they'd use a no-ring chain in GP racing, but maybe there's a risk of it not lasting for the full race distance, or perhaps the efficiency dropping off too much as it wears. Motorcycling racing technical journalist Neil Spalding says "The ?No-ring? days, when people were looking for every ?-hp on their RS125s, seems to be just about over".

 

[chrisk]

Greg Parish supplied my 520 chain and sprockets, front and rear.

 

[Dellortoman]

Thanks Chris. I didn't know Greg had 520 sprockets. But I reckon I'll stick with 530 because I probably won't live long enough to wear the existing ones out.

 

[sfcpiet]

OK, being serious for a minute ?

General rules of thumb:
1. Smaller pitch chain will be more efficient than large pitch because of reduced chording or polygon effect (google it). So going from 630 to 530 will make the drive smoother and more efficient.
2. Narrow chain will be more efficient than a wider chain because it's lighter. So going from 530 to 520 will improve efficiency, but sprockets may wear faster because of the higher load on the narrow teeth.
3. Plain unsealed (no-ring) chain is more efficient than O-ring and X-ring chains because the friction between side plates is increased by the sealing rings.
4. X-ring is supposedly an improvement over the older O-ring design, and is thought to be more efficient.

The above is only true of chains in new condition. For knackered chains, who knows?


I use 530 sealed (X-ring or O-ring) chains on my road bikes for longevity. I don't care that they might soak up a couple of horsepower. I still have enough power left to get myself into trouble.
On my race bike I used 530 no-ring for minimal power loss. I could have gone to 520 but sprocket availability was an issue. I didn't want to have to machine the sprockets down to 1/4" thickness. They're not easy to machine.

Valentino Rossi's MotoGP bike uses DID ERV3 520, which is a light weight X-ring chain specifically designed for racing, with low friction sealing rings. Chain life is only 500km max . I've read that he also uses titanium sprockets which would be strong and light, but beyond the budget of most of us. Although I suspect Jacques might be cruising the internet looking for one now 

I'd have thought they'd use a no-ring chain in GP racing, but maybe there's a risk of it not lasting for the full race distance, or perhaps the efficiency dropping off too much as it wears. Motorcycling racing technical journalist Neil Spalding says "The ?No-ring? days, when people were looking for every ?-hp on their RS125s, seems to be just about over".

Budget too tight to allow new chains for each practice/race??

Doubt they'd need to preserve every last 1/4hp now that they have 50+ with "loads" of torque already in Moto3.  Different with a narrow power-band 2-stroke 125...

Don't really understand why this topic is turning into rocket surgery, a simple spin of the rear wheel quickly shows what type of chain affords less friction/resistance.  Wheel bearings and brake system need to up to scratch as well, otherwise you're chasing your tail.

piet

 

[Paul Marx]

Budget too tight to allow new chains for each practice/race??

Doubt they'd need to preserve every last 1/4hp now that they have 50+ with "loads" of torque already in Moto3.  Different with a narrow power-band 2-stroke 125...

Don't really understand why this topic is turning into rocket surgery, a simple spin of the rear wheel quickly shows what type of chain affords less friction/resistance.  Wheel bearings and brake system need to up to scratch as well, otherwise you're chasing your tail.

piet

And loose a few kg.

Paul

 

[laverdas]

And loose a few kg.

Paul

that's sums it up just nicely stop eating all the pipes and get a life

 

[Laverdalothar]

seeing that power-loss is assumed to be between 12 and 15% from clutch to wheel, my assumptions (!) are:

-there is something like 2-3% that might lay in the chains. With a 1000 SFC putting out 95HP (crank), you can expect another 2 - 2,5 Ponies showing up between a 630 O-Ring chain and a 520 X-Ring
-the rotating mass will be also quite much adding to how the bike revs (just like if you reduce the mass from the crank or other internals).

I use alloy chainwheels on my 1000 SFC and the Jota, no sign of massive wear after 10.000km (1000 SFC) or 15.000 km (Jota) since the conversion. Lubing it well is key though.

 

[tyelav13]

I changed from a 630 to a 530 on my TS Mirage and not sure about any power gains but the transmission was much nicer, more than I expected. As for chain /sprocket life, well I changed them about 8 years ago and they are still there and in good condition (it helps that I ride other bikes too ).

 

[redfox]

i too, changed from a 630 o-ring to a much more modern 530 x-ring and alu rear sprocket, as i wrote earlier, but is there much more to be gained going to a non oring 530 or slimmer chain.
i also run tubeless, have lighter brake discs, lightened, drilled, balanced and polished clutch drum , inner, outer and cover, plus other parts changed to aluminium or titanium which relates to the rotating mass.
i cannot afford to loose more weight, i am already light enough, thanks.
for me this question is relevant and interesting as well.
i cannot imagine that motorcycle factories and end users as well wouldn't be interested as well.
if one wants a heavy bike, so be it. i want my sfc to be lighter and better. that is my interest.
kind regards,
jacques
ps, i am not interested in gsxr1100 wheels at this time, as i prefer the originals. i do see the quite good weight saving though.

 

[helicopterjim]

................. I can inform you that going from a 320 chain to a 520 will reduce power loss, a bit.

I would think that the power loss with a 320 chain would be enormous once you opened the throttle ........ so the 520 would be much better as I doubt it would snap from the amount of power the Laverda produces.

 

[Laverdalothar]

i too, changed from a 630 o-ring to a much more modern 530 x-ring and alu rear sprocket, as i wrote earlier, but is there much more to be gained going to a non oring 530 or slimmer chain.
i also run tubeless, have lighter brake discs, lightened, drilled, balanced and polished clutch drum , inner, outer and cover, plus other parts changed to aluminium or titanium which relates to the rotating mass.
i cannot afford to loose more weight, i am already light enough, thanks.
for me this question is relevant and interesting as well.
i cannot imagine that motorcycle factories and end users as well wouldn't be interested as well.
if one wants a heavy bike, so be it. i want my sfc to be lighter and better. that is my interest.
kind regards,
jacques

Hi Jacques,

ps, i am not interested in gsxr1100 wheels at this time, as i prefer the originals. i do see the quite good weight saving though.

if you ever rode GSX-R-Rims with according brake-discs on your bike, you would never change back... They look almost like the Oscam's (if painted right...) and offer one of the most impressive riding improvements on both my Jota and the 1000 SFC that I'd never expected...

I stored the Oscam's well in my basement and enjoy the improvement any time I ride the bike. I had a 1000 SFC classic some years ago that I worked over and sold again. Riding both bikes in comparison was a real good experience and made me stick with the GSX-R's... It comes at a cost though (Rims between 250 - 350?/Set, machining the chain-wheel-carrier and the front wheel to take the speedo-drive-ring, painting, machining of some distance-pieces, diferent calipers, different rear caliper with holder, different front discs, new tires etc.) that can easily sum up to 1.250 - 1.500?, depending on if you can make most of the machining yourself/for free or not. But really worth it...

 

[Tom Eatman]

Back in the day when I played with race bikes for a living chains were a big thing. Once while testing in Rijeka we tried a 428 chain instead of the normal 520 size on a production 250 Aprilia. This change alone made a 1.5 second difference in lap times. Back-to-back tests without changing anything else. Unfortunately after two short runs the chain was absolutely toasted. The normal routine would be to install a new chain Saturday evenings and save the used stuff for free practices. On the dyno we would see a 3 to 4 HP loss with a tired chain. Racing is one world, the street is something else. O-Rings are good for lazy people  .

Tom

 

[Dellortoman]

That's an interesting experiment Tom. Well, it is to me anyway, since my interest is in the area of all things mechanical.

Ideally with any chain drive, you choose the smallest chain possible for the load, so as to minimise losses. That goes for pitch as well as width. A 428 (?" pitch) chain would run smoother than a 530 (?" pitch) and would also be considerably lighter.

I'm wondering how the chain failed. Did it break, or just stretch beyond an acceptable limit?  The rollers of a 4xx chain are smaller than a 5xx chain, so the pins would be smaller too, and therefore less able to handle the load. Also, since there are more links in the smaller pitch chain, a bit of wear at each pin would add up to more stretch over the same length than in a larger pitch chain.

I suppose if you had a bottomless pit of money in your racing budget, you could use ?" pitch for the power advantage and change it after each race. Although if you take the brave step to go to ?" pitch, you may as well go to a narrower 420 (rather than 428) to reduce weight a bit more.  Probably only an option on tiddlers though, say 250cc or less. I don't think you'd wanna try it on a MotoGP bike!

 

[Grant]

A 530 chain has a 5/8 pitch (5/8 x 3/8). A 630 chain has a 3/4 pitch. (6/8 (= 3/4) x 3/8)

 

[Dellortoman]

Yes, sorry. I meant 5/8", not 3/4"

 

[Tippie]

That is a stunning improvement Tom. Finding 1.5 secs laptime at the level of racing you were involved in is no easy matter.
I?ve just recently discovered Scottoilers and fitted them to my roadbikes, they work!

 

[Cosi]

That?s a massive gain from changing down one chain size , if I could get 1.5 seconds on my rs 250 from changing the chain then I would, it doesn?t sound realistic, if your going as fast as you can then maybe a couple of tenths, 1.5 seconds, BS, I?ve broken 3 or 4 520 chains, but we are punching 73+ at the rear.

 

[Dellortoman]

I?ve just recently discovered Scottoilers ...

You must have had your head in the sand Quentin 
Scottoilers have been around for 30+ years.

They work well and are a good idea if you do a lot of miles and don't want to be oiling your chain all the time. I've never used one myself because I don't tend to do large distances. On the rare occasion when I do go on a long trip, I check the chain each day and give it a squirt with a can of aerosol chain lube like Rocol.

I've just been reading the blurb on the Scottoiler website. They used to just have a vacuum operated valve, but now you have the option of buying one with a smart electronic system to sense when the bike is in motion and pump a metered amount of oil, not to mention the graphic display screen and a bunch of other features. Oiling the chain isn't rocket science so I think I'd find it difficult to justify a couple of hundred bucks worth of computer control. But people who like gadgets would probably love it.

 

[Laverdalothar]

As far as AndyChain said, Scott-Oilers only make sense on chains without O- or X- or Z-Rings. I tend to tink different, as you not only need lubrification on the internals of a chain (which a sealing ring holds inside the chain), but also outside on the rolers. So - even those fancy Z- or X-Ring chains would benefit from the scott-oiler. I have one on my Jota and use chain-saw oil in it, as it is a) more sticky than normal oil and b) is cheap to get in large amounts. Worked always great! The only thing I agree the modern, electronicly adjusted ones do better is: they do not send oil to the chain while standing at a traffic light but do send more oil when you are on a highway etc. Makes a lot of sense and can extend chain-life a lot...

 

[motoddrob]

I used a scottoiler on the Motodd for 55000 kays same sprockets 2 chains.
Nowhere to put it out of the way on the Motodd  after the rebuild so now it sits in a box.