Big Matt
Junior Member
Newbie here, did a search! What is the reason for going to a 520 chain and sprocket, from the 530???
Dropping unsprung weight.
Great questions and great answers so far guys, but........
Why didn't it just come wth a 520 to begin with?
Heavier chain is more durable?
Tim
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?
*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..
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)
How about 525?Somewhere in between 530 and 520.CBR600RR uses 525 as factory stock
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:
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.
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:
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?