Proper oring chain maker and model??

[b'knighted]

Hi Tim,

As I understand it, the O ring chains are 5/8" x ¼", running on 5/8" x ¼"sprockets but having a greater overall width than ordinary 5/8" x ¼"chains as the two O rings are outboard of the links. The side plates have the same strength as those on a wider chain and the pins have the same strength in shear at the side plates. The O ring holds manufacturers lubrication inside the rollers but slight external oiling will prolong the life of the chain by lubricating the outside of the O ring against the plates thus reducing wear on the rubber. Without lubrication the O ring gradually wears away until it fails to do its job and the chain becomes no better than standard, possibly worst if the longer pins now allow the outer plates to move out and damage the G50 plate. I am on my second O ring chain running a ¼" aluminium rear sprocket and a front sprocket which was turned thinner (all material removed from the outside?) using an abrasive tool. I don't know if the tool was actually a powered grinding wheel or just a piece of an old carborundum wheel held in the tool post. With the failure of my memory, I am assuming that the thinning allows the centreline of the chain to move towards the inner side of the final drive sprocket giving the additional clearance needed to clear the G50 plate. The quarter rear sprocket certainly mounts on the brake drum, as did the 3/8, so its centreline moves in by 1/16". It is possible that the additional clearance is needed inboard on the final drive sprocket as Trevor has in a previous thread told us about standard misalignment. If only I could remember where to look it up.

Cheers,

 

[vibrac]

Hi,
yes, 520 chain sorts the size problem out being 5/8 x 1/4 but being a much heavier chain, and sealed with either o /x ring seals it is a stiffer chain and I doubt if it will release more power to the rear wheel of you grey flash.
stumpy.

I would not think of using o ring chain far too much friction The nickasil chain is the best answer by far, I always used it for primary in the days before I went to belt we could do about 6 times more miles than 'normal' chain (all the primary got was a squirt of chain oil before the race). Mind you Nickasil is Pricey

 

[Ducdude]

Hi

You should know that even O ring, and even x ring chains need lubrication, even if only to lube between the chain rollers and the sprockets, It's life will be increased greatly if you do so. Roger Lord

Yup ! I lube the chains on the other bikes on a regular bases about every 2-500 miles depending on use..

Much Thanks,
Eric

 

[Ducdude]

Hi,
How much wider is this chain in comparison with a 520 chain, or a standard chain.

This chain is a 1.5-2.3 mm less wide then say a DID gold X link chain..ex 20.2mm vs. 18mm in this case 2.2mm less wide Standard chain 18.77mm wide.

The reason I ask, is we know that there is enough clearance between the back off the gear box sprocket and the crank case, and between the sprocket and the g50 plate to run a 520 chain , but will you have ennough to run this wider chain? Having arrived home in the pouring rain many many times, and found that my standard[ lubed by scott oilers] chain hanging like old knicker elastic I know wht my preferance is.
stumpy lord.

Thats just it pin to pin this 520 oring chain is not as wide as the standard chain I was running..

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Black Flash]

I just ordered a 520 chain for my bored and stroked Comet. It's a DID 520 NZ, the chain is strengthened over a Standard 520 chain and usually used on Moto Cross bikes, though not the bling bling version. (it is standard steel colour, not the one with golden colour outer plates)
the chain has a width across the pins of 18.8 mm. this is the same width as as for the oring chain you stated. this in turn means that the oring chain must have slimmer sideplates. the guy I ordered the chain from is one of the biggest suppliers in Germany and knows his business really well.
he strongyl advised to use the strengthened version on a big single and I think with a twin it is even more so. According to him the standard RK and DID chains will tear like chewing gum when used on powerful torquey engines. According to him the standard chain has less than a quarter life ( 2000 miles)to the strengened one when used on a KTM 640. I would rather prefer a good chainoiler though messy to a chain that is on its limits.

HTH
Bernd

 

[john998]

Hello, My experience is with a Conway's O ring kit. New chin and sprockets.
It has proved to be one of the best investments on the bike, next only to the Scott oiler.
Used together it is almost fit and forget at the annual mileages I now do, about 2 to 3K.
The out fit runs a standard chain, but with the addition of the Scott oiler it is lasting much better.
Regards John.

 

[Albervin]

There is a fair bit of misunderstanding with chains. An ordinary chain can give long life if treated well. A hi-tech chain can fail if mistreated. A Vincent twin has a very effective cush drive and is relatively highly geared. A Comet, on the other hand, is a different can of worms! For Eric I would say that a well engineered motorcycle chain, treated properly, will outlast a similar chain on a big bore single. A lot of chain stretch is induced by regular, high rev, over runs. That is, revving high in a gear and then backing off. The energy is being transferred from the drive end (engine) to the driven end (rear wheel) and this causes the stretch. As noted earlier, O and X ring chains DO need maintenance and this usually entails wiping over the chain with a cloth soaked in WD40 or similar. A normal chain needs to be wiped over periodically with a cloth soaked in WD 40 or paraffin (Kero) then sprayed with a chain wax. Every year I take my chain off using an old chain hooked up to the link; I then wash it in petrol and cook it in a tin of chain wax. I hang it on a thick wire to drain then thread it back onto the bike. Good for another 4-5,000 miles. My rear sprocket is now nearly 10,000 miles old with no hint of hooking or sharpening. Preventive maintenance can be a pain but it does pay dividends. Of course if you are high milage and a year round rider then a Scott oiler seems to be the answer. The point is that O rings are NOT maintenance free and if you do not do a high milage then they are a waste of money. Also, O and X ring chains absorb more horsepower from your bike! I would be interested to know if anyone has succumbed to the current fad of riveting rear chains. Now that is a waste of time!

 

[john998]

Hello,
For once I have to disagree with Albervin, After 30 years of removing, cleaning and boiling rear chains I decided that grease simply causes grit to stick to the chain.
The O ring chain only needs a wipe now and again as the Scott oil appears to flush the chain continuously. As for loss of power, if it was significant the O rings
would melt as the energy has to go somewhere. Also a clean chain is more efficient.
It looks like you need to rivet an O ring chain to get the most benefit, mine is, and causes a little more difficulty removing the back wheel but not too much on
a Vincent.
Perhaps road conditions are different in beautiful Illawarra.
Regards John.

 

[Howard]

Just a couple of coals to throw on the fire. Unless well under designed, chains don't stretch. The increase in length is due to wear on the pins, rollers etc, so anything that keeps those parts clean and lubricated has to be good.

I use standard chain on the Egli and O ring on the Fireblade. No real reason, they've both always been that way.

H

 

[John Cone]

I see to recall a special offer on chains and sprockets on the back of the last MPH £130.00 me thinks.