Big Matt
Junior Member
Newbie here, did a search! What is the reason for going to a 520 chain and sprocket, from the 530???
520 chain benefits?????
- Thread starter Big Matt
- Start date
Dropping unsprung weight.
yep, less rolling mass, means better/stronger drive, as the bike loses less power turning the sprockets and chain.
:thumbup:
Great questions and great answers so far guys, but........
Why didn't it just come wth a 520 to begin with?
Why didn't it just come wth a 520 to begin with?
mcteague
Junior Member
hazy
Junior Member
What is the purpose of stronger chain if the frequency of changing spares is reduced?What gain can Yamaha and other chain maker get with 530?
RJ2112
Junior Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,108
- Reaction score
- 23
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Dahlgren, VA/USA
If many models of Yamaha require the heavier 530 chain (liter bikes, etc.) then it becomes a matter of economic scale..... rather than buy a small volume of 520 and also 530 chain, it's more efficient to just buy one size.
Less money is spent by the company maintaining multiple parts lines.
Heavier chain, and thicker/stronger sprockets are almost certainly more durable than similar parts made of thinner materials. Routine maintenance is essential to getting the full 'life' out of either size components..... should equal maintenance and use occur, the 530 equipped unit will almost certainly outlast the 520 equipped unit.
When people start modifying their drive trains by changing over to the 520 setups, there are multiple points that can be mis-adjusted, or improperly installed. This will increase the rate of wear, and make for premature failure..... it's also true that most people who change the sprockets also change the ratios to increase RPM at a given ground speed.
Higher RPM also means higher HP.... which means accelerated wear compared to the base setup.... thinner parts combined with higher output, means faster wear.
Bryan-
Junior Member
*Chain n00b alert* So a 520 chain is lighter then a 530 chain because it's thinner or because it's shorter? Omgomg I don't understand.. 
RJ2112
Junior Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,108
- Reaction score
- 23
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Dahlgren, VA/USA
*Chain n00b alert* So a 520 chain is lighter then a 530 chain because it's thinner or because it's shorter? Omgomg I don't understand..
If you laid 10 links of 520 beside 10 links of 530, they would be the same length.
A 520 chain link is slightly narrower across the rollers than a 530.... the links/sides are just slightly closer together. The side plates are lighter as well.
As a result the sprockets that use the 520 chain have to be thinner as well... so the sprockets that the 520 chain run on are lighter compared to the 530 equivalent.
deeptekkie
Junior Member
I just know that the chain on my Fazer has stretched less than on any of my six previous bikes that I have owned before.
I was just talking to a Yamaha rep last week in Hotlanta about this very thing and he said that the factory chain was a very good quality chain.
(I believe that Yamaha got it right for my general street purposes)
I was just talking to a Yamaha rep last week in Hotlanta about this very thing and he said that the factory chain was a very good quality chain.
(I believe that Yamaha got it right for my general street purposes)
RJ2112
Junior Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,108
- Reaction score
- 23
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Dahlgren, VA/USA
I agree..... an OEM chain that lasts 25,000 miles is a good chain, in my view.
I got 30,000 miles on my stock chain and sprocket. I replaced it with another 530.
At the end of the day a 520 set up is....
1. lighter
2. narrower
3. not as durable as a 530 set up.
4. 520 has better pic up from a closed throttle, due to lighter weight, and hence, less rolling mass as stated previously....hence why race bike's usually use a 520 set up.
5. More expensive....cause it's a race bike thing! Lol!
My first set of 520 sprovkets & chain...last about 20000km's....maintenance was reasonable on my part....but they do stretch more quickly, and they do stress your sprockets more...
If you want a chain that last forever, go 530, if you want a chain and sprocket set up that gives you maximum drive, then get a 520 set up.
:thumbup:
1. lighter
2. narrower
3. not as durable as a 530 set up.
4. 520 has better pic up from a closed throttle, due to lighter weight, and hence, less rolling mass as stated previously....hence why race bike's usually use a 520 set up.
5. More expensive....cause it's a race bike thing! Lol!
My first set of 520 sprovkets & chain...last about 20000km's....maintenance was reasonable on my part....but they do stretch more quickly, and they do stress your sprockets more...
If you want a chain that last forever, go 530, if you want a chain and sprocket set up that gives you maximum drive, then get a 520 set up.
:thumbup:
hazy
Junior Member
How about 525?Somewhere in between 530 and 520.CBR600RR uses 525 as factory stock
I dont think 525 is that common, but i guessit is a compromise between the 520, and 530......little bit stronger than a 520 set up, little bit lighter than a 530 set up...
:thumbup:
RJ2112
Junior Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,108
- Reaction score
- 23
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Dahlgren, VA/USA
Wolfman,
How much lighter IS a 520 chain, compared to the 530 setup? Over 114 links, are we talking grams, 10s of grams or 100's? I know there's more difference in weight at the sprockets, but that's mainly due to most 520 setups going to aluminum rather than steel. Again, durability suffers.....
But how much more drive do you really think you are getting out of this?
Rotational parts in the loop = crankshaft/pistons all engine components, transmission, rear wheel (tire and rim), + chain and sprockets.
All of those parts have to accelerate together. The masses involved are substantial; and the mass of the chain is such a tiny part of the whole that I just can't see how you could reasonably expect there to be any measurable difference. When you take it the last logical step, and just subtract the 'savings' from the 520 conversion...... it's more of an ego boost than a performance gain...... Especially when you then have to accelerate the entire mass of the bike and rider.
The biggest 'gain' someone 'sees' as a result of going to the 520 setups has to do with the -1 front, +2 back. That effect would be so close to exactly the same, repeated with a 530 configuration @ -1/ +2 that I would be willing to bet 99.9% of FZ6 riders wouldn't be able to tell a difference in back to back testing.
'Unsprung mass' is another hooey sort of statement. Tire weights weigh as much as the difference in components, at the wheel.
From the brief research I've done a 520 saves you about 1.5 lbs. Where you can save more weight is by going to an aluminium rear sprocket, but they don't last very long. I think if your OEM 530 set up has worn out it is a good idea to replace it with a 520, but I wouldn't remove and perfectly good one.
For my bike I'm going to stick with a 530, but change to a high quality chain and use a Super Sprocket (alu center, steel teeth). Generally the better the chain the lower the friction, stronger, longer lasting.
For my bike I'm going to stick with a 530, but change to a high quality chain and use a Super Sprocket (alu center, steel teeth). Generally the better the chain the lower the friction, stronger, longer lasting.
Last edited:
As Pete Said, a 520 chain is substantially lighter, and there is a discernable difference. I have 2 FZ6's, one with a 530 chain and sprocket set up, and one with a 520 chain & sprocket set up, both in great condition ATM.
The difference is like chalk & cheese...the 520 set up is much faster in pick up, from a closed throttle, has less snatch, and as such, smoother drive...coupled with a decent set of rearsets, that give a much better than OEM positive, and smoother gearshift, also helped by decent quality Motul 7100 oil, and the difference, with all these parameters set in place is LARGE!
Ego has nothing to do with it, it is about performance, and my black bike is built to be a performance bike first, ego boost second!
The 530 set up on my other FZ6 suits the intended role of that bike perfectly, as it is set up as a commuter, touring mule...so durability is paramount in my concerns with that bike. I would like a smoother gearshift on this bike, so some decent oil, it needs an oil change now.
Oh, and re changing sprocket size being the biggest discernable difference when someone changes to a 520 set up, say -1, +2, is not just the gearing change....i have had standard 16/46 gearing with both a 520 set up, and 530 set up, and the difference is still noteable between the two...the 520 set up gives you better drive...and it aint in my head!
The difference in weight between tyres is also a consideration, hence the reason Michelin is using a light tyre weight as a selling point for the new Pilot Pure...
But it is also the case with chain weight...if it was'nt, people would not sacrifice chain life, if there was no performance gain, and, or weight reduction, because there would be no point in doing it then!
So leave my ego out of it!
:thumbup:
After all the posts, this seems to be best. Gets right to the point.
Also, is it just my imagination or is everyone seems tp be overweight? Talk about being weight sensitive, trying to save a pound or two on the bike. Wouldn't it just be easier to go on a diet?
