Topic: O ring or HD chain with 520 pitch?

[kajtek]

ive purchased some 520 pitch front and rear sprockets for my 400 4, now just deciding what chain to get.

HD chains are obviously cheaper,  everwhere online says o ring last longer but this is on forums geared towards modern sports bikes. ive also seen it noted that an or ing chain can use 2hp more (??!!) than an HD. a big difference when you only have 30hp!

i ride all year round and probably do about 150 miles per week in all weather.

my only concern is that wear would be more with a 520 hd than a 530 hd due to the smaller roller width.

one last point... o ring i need to buy a chain tool and mess around. HD uses split link.

any help deciding?

[domer]

Can u even use an oring chain on a 400? I know you can't on the 500 ( my cases have the scars to prove it)... Just throwing that out there...

[754]

 Some O-ring chains use a master link that is not riveted.. I have one here Primary Drive o-ring 520.. cant say if its good or bad..

[tlbranth]

I put an RK x-ring on my 750 and don't regret it for a minute. Screw the HP loss - although I can't tell the difference. I just know that I don't have to adjust it anymore - just squirt it once in a while.

[Harsh]

I do not like using a master link/clip style chain.  I have had the clip physically come off.  When discovered the chain link was barely holding on.  If it had slipped completely out it could have been nasty.  Do youself a favor, but a rivet tool or borrow one.  Furthermore, this is the first time I have ever heard of a HP loss using an O or X ring chain.  Until isee some definitive proof of it I am going to raise the BS flag.  I also run a 520 chain on my Triumph Daytona 675 which puts out a lot more HP that our CB's.  It used to be hard to find rear sprockets in steel, but they are becoming more and more popular.  The aluminum sprockets are great, but wear a bit faster than steel.  For those of us that prefer to change out both sprockets and chain as a set it can get a little expensive having to do it more frequently.

[kajtek]

Thanks for the replies, I didn't realise I could rivet a hd chain, all the ones I've seen use a master link. I've got an Alu rear sprocket For rear, not too concerned as used one on a street triple and didn't wear noticeably more.. Currently cost is an issue too, an o ring chain generally costs double or more than a hd.

I'm pretty good at keeping up with maintenence, so leaning towards a hd currently, tho will see what the best price I can find an o ring for.

Ashley

[TwoTired]

...Furthermore, this is the first time I have ever heard of a HP loss using an O or X ring chain.  Until isee some definitive proof of it I am going to raise the BS flag.  ...

It's almost entirely a weight issue.  Oring/Xring chains are heavier than standard chains, so it takes more energy to change their momentum.  In cruise, they won't use significantly more HP while they are moving at a constant speed (If the Orings are tight it will use more energy to overcome that friction resistance to bending and unbending around the sprockets, though.)  On acceleration, the extra weight will consume energy that would otherwise be coupled to the rear wheel, not only to move the chain, but also the added weight gained by the bike overall. 

Oversize tires have a similar effect, by the way, as do 20-200 cheeseburgers. 

Cheers,

[EDU]

Sorry to highjack the thread but where do buy 520 pitch sprockets, especially the Aluminum ones? I need chain and sprockets for my 'project' CB500 and would love to be able to run a decent 520 chain on it (say DID EVR3).

[Harsh]

...Furthermore, this is the first time I have ever heard of a HP loss using an O or X ring chain.  Until isee some definitive proof of it I am going to raise the BS flag.  ...

It's almost entirely a weight issue.  Oring/Xring chains are heavier than standard chains, so it takes more energy to change their momentum.  In cruise, they won't use significantly more HP while they are moving at a constant speed (If the Orings are tight it will use more energy to overcome that friction resistance to bending and unbending around the sprockets, though.)  On acceleration, the extra weight will consume energy that would otherwise be coupled to the rear wheel, not only to move the chain, but also the added weight gained by the bike overall. 

Oversize tires have a similar effect, by the way, as do 20-200 cheeseburgers. 

Cheers,

Not sold.
If that were the case why does every sportbike racer use an o/x-ring chain?  Those people excel at getting every bit of HP they can out of their machines.  While I see the merits of your argument I can honestly only see a fraction of an HP being lost.  Racers don't care about wear on their chains and sprockets because they are changed virtually every race and numerous times during practice.

[jessezm]

Can u even use an oring chain on a 400? I know you can't on the 500 ( my cases have the scars to prove it)... Just throwing that out there...

I've used standard 530 O-ring and 520 x-ring chains (with 520 sprockets) both on my 400/4 and have not had the same clearance issues I've heard about with the 500, so I don't think that's an issue. 

Right now I'm using a split-link 520 EK gold (x-ring) chain on my 400.  I've got the rivet tool but the shop didn't have a rivet-type link so I have to order one, which I also recommend.

[kajtek]

I got my sprockets from dm engineering in the uk, fair price plus they also supply spacers for the rear required due to the thinner 520 size.

Interesting point about weight, can't remember where I saw it but the suggestion was that the o rings themselves increased drag.

[EDU]

Racers don't care about wear on their chains and sprockets because they are changed virtually every race and numerous times during practice.

Not really. And yes, I race. The reason racer don't care about running a 520 chain is because what really kills the chain (other than the lack of maintenance) is the stop and go you get from traffic. Since you have none of that at the track, the chain lasts for a long time regardless (except on 200hp+ bikes). Chain adjustment is also a big problem. Run it too tight and you're lucky to finish a weekend... it will either break or cause the suspension to misbehave BADLY.

If you buy a decent 520 chain it will last at least a full season on a race bike. I say 'at least' because mine is on its 2nd season and I'm pretty sure I won't need another any time soon... I do ride a 600cc though which is not as harsh on the chain but does put out almost 120hp at the wheel.

[Harsh]

The weight issue got me thinking so I checked out DID's site.  According to their documentation their standard non o-ring chain weighs in at 3.71 lbs  where as their 520ERV3 x-ring chain comes in at 3.30 lbs...lighter.  I will add that they also list a number of 520 and 525 chains that are heavier than the non o/x-ring chain so it could depend on which one you get.  Their website also states that the x-ring chain reduces friction.  Whether that holds true or not I can't say.

By racers I meant not us club/weekend folks.  I was talking about MotoGP and the like.  While what you say is mostly correct, you must be real nice to your chains/sprockets.

[Dimitri13]

...Furthermore, this is the first time I have ever heard of a HP loss using an O or X ring chain.  Until isee some definitive proof of it I am going to raise the BS flag.  ...

It's almost entirely a weight issue.  Oring/Xring chains are heavier than standard chains, so it takes more energy to change their momentum.  In cruise, they won't use significantly more HP while they are moving at a constant speed (If the Orings are tight it will use more energy to overcome that friction resistance to bending and unbending around the sprockets, though.)  On acceleration, the extra weight will consume energy that would otherwise be coupled to the rear wheel, not only to move the chain, but also the added weight gained by the bike overall. 

Oversize tires have a similar effect, by the way, as do 20-200 cheeseburgers. 

Cheers,

Not sold.
If that were the case why does every sportbike racer use an o/x-ring chain?  Those people excel at getting every bit of HP they can out of their machines.  While I see the merits of your argument I can honestly only see a fraction of an HP being lost.  Racers don't care about wear on their chains and sprockets because they are changed virtually every race and numerous times during practice.

"O-ring chains are most notably used in motorcycles, one of the most demanding applications for a metal chain. High rpm and heavy loads require bulky chains, but such engineering increases the effect of friction compared to lighter chains. So lubrication plays a vital role here, but the high rpm also make it very difficult to keep lubrication inside and on the chain. Additionally, motorcycle chains are exposed to a large volume of contaminants and particles and must be protected. O-rings, as described above, fit this application perfectly." (Source: Wikipedia entry on O-ring chain)

The o/x-rings basically keep the lubrication ON the chain, and where it's needed. Weight saved from a chain is like weight saved from a wheel (only on a smaller scale). It amounts to more basically because it moves and requires energy to turn it (or something like that). Similar to what TT said.

[Harsh]

But the o/x rings don't keep the lubrication ON the chain they keep it IN the chain.

[EDU]

If you want longevity, what you should be worried about is tensile strength more than anything else. Here's a little list I stole**:

EK ZZZ 530=11,400
EK MVXZ 530=9,900
DID ZVM2 530=10,370
EK ZZZ 520=9,400
EK MVXZ 520=9,000 
RK GXW 520=8,800
DID ERV3=8,660
Regina's GPZ 520=8,204

As you can see, some 520 chains offer a tensile strength pretty close to that of a 530 one. The lighter ones won't last as long but on a bike that is not putting out more than 100hp I wouldn't be too worried.

**The website where the crime took place: https://www.motomummy.com/store/product.php?productid=16291&cat=602&page=1

[Dimitri13]

I misspoke. When I said 'on the chain, where it's needed,' I meant 'where it's needed on the chain.'

[TwoTired]

...Furthermore, this is the first time I have ever heard of a HP loss using an O or X ring chain.  Until isee some definitive proof of it I am going to raise the BS flag.  ...

It's almost entirely a weight issue.  Oring/Xring chains are heavier than standard chains, so it takes more energy to change their momentum.  In cruise, they won't use significantly more HP while they are moving at a constant speed (If the Orings are tight it will use more energy to overcome that friction resistance to bending and unbending around the sprockets, though.)  On acceleration, the extra weight will consume energy that would otherwise be coupled to the rear wheel, not only to move the chain, but also the added weight gained by the bike overall. 

Oversize tires have a similar effect, by the way, as do 20-200 cheeseburgers. 

Cheers,

Not sold.
If that were the case why does every sportbike racer use an o/x-ring chain?  Those people excel at getting every bit of HP they can out of their machines.  While I see the merits of your argument I can honestly only see a fraction of an HP being lost.  Racers don't care about wear on their chains and sprockets because they are changed virtually every race and numerous times during practice.

And, I'm not selling.  I just explained the rudimentary physics of it, which you can feel free to verify, refute, or quantify scientifically.   If you have a "belief" that you are loathe to change, then I'll not convince you otherwise.

The weight issue got me thinking so I checked out DID's site.  According to their documentation their standard non o-ring chain weighs in at 3.71 lbs  where as their 520ERV3 x-ring chain comes in at 3.30 lbs...lighter. 

What exactly are you comparing?  530 to 520 oring/xring?  I couldn't find any on that chart with a 3.71 lb weight.

I will add that they also list a number of 520 and 525 chains that are heavier than the non o/x-ring chain so it could depend on which one you get.

Welcome to the world of specsmanship.

There's a danger to applying parts for racers onto street vehicles.  Note the plate thickness differences.  One could argue that plate wear during a race is less than pin wear, requiring a different need for street bikes that use a chain in conditions where plate wear may be more significant, or where inspection intervals are farther apart.

Also, the DID chart contained no pricing info.   Could be that the plates can be smaller if more expensive or exotic metals/materials are used.  I didn't follow the money, just the physics.

[Harsh]

...Furthermore, this is the first time I have ever heard of a HP loss using an O or X ring chain.  Until I see some definitive proof of it I am going to raise the BS flag.  ...

It's almost entirely a weight issue.  Oring/Xring chains are heavier than standard chains, so it takes more energy to change their momentum.  In cruise, they won't use significantly more HP while they are moving at a constant speed (If the Orings are tight it will use more energy to overcome that friction resistance to bending and unbending around the sprockets, though.)  On acceleration, the extra weight will consume energy that would otherwise be coupled to the rear wheel, not only to move the chain, but also the added weight gained by the bike overall. 

Oversize tires have a similar effect, by the way, as do 20-200 cheeseburgers. 

Cheers,

Not sold.
If that were the case why does every sportbike racer use an o/x-ring chain?  Those people excel at getting every bit of HP they can out of their machines.  While I see the merits of your argument I can honestly only see a fraction of an HP being lost.  Racers don't care about wear on their chains and sprockets because they are changed virtually every race and numerous times during practice.

And, I'm not selling.  I just explained the rudimentary physics of it, which you can feel free to verify, refute, or quantify scientifically.   If you have a "belief" that you are loathe to change, then I'll not convince you otherwise.

And, I guess the same could be said to you.  Like I said I understand the merits of what you said and to some degree agree with you, just not to the your degree.  What also hasn't been taken into account is that 530 sprockets are heavier due to their size.  There is some of additional weight you are not taking into account.

The weight issue got me thinking so I checked out DID's site.  According to their documentation their standard non o-ring chain weighs in at 3.71 lbs  where as their 520ERV3 x-ring chain comes in at 3.30 lbs...lighter. 

What exactly are you comparing?  530 to 520 oring/xring?  I couldn't find any on that chart with a 3.71 lb weight.

Yes I was comparing a 530 standard chain to a 520 o/x chain.  When I was looking for the specs I noticed they had two spec sheets.  This is the one where I found the 3.71 lbs for the standard 530 chain.
http://www.didchain.com/standardChains.html

I will add that they also list a number of 520 and 525 chains that are heavier than the non o/x-ring chain so it could depend on which one you get.

Welcome to the world of specsmanship.

Not sure what you mean by this comment.  I was trying to be as open and honest as I could by pointing out that they do have chains that are heavier.

There's a danger to applying parts for racers onto street vehicles.  Note the plate thickness differences.  One could argue that plate wear during a race is less than pin wear, requiring a different need for street bikes that use a chain in conditions where plate wear may be more significant, or where inspection intervals are farther apart.

Also, the DID chart contained no pricing info.   Could be that the plates can be smaller if more expensive or exotic metals/materials are used.  I didn't follow the money, just the physics.

They don't list prices because afaik they don't sell directly to the public.  I am comparing the 520ERV3 (since it was specifically mentioned) to their 530.  The plate sizes are the same between the two.  The ERV3 has a wear resistance of 3100 while the 530 only has a 100.  What an amazing difference that directly relates to a longevity difference between the two chains.  I don't like how we have gotten into the racer vs street rider thing.  I know I brought it up, but I guess I should have said high performance chain.  I don't know about everybody else, but I prefer not to be forced to service and replace my chain as often with a premium x ring chain on my street bike.

[TwoTired]

I lost track of the quote indents, so I put my recent comments in blue.

...Furthermore, this is the first time I have ever heard of a HP loss using an O or X ring chain.  Until I see some definitive proof of it I am going to raise the BS flag.  ...

It's almost entirely a weight issue.  Oring/Xring chains are heavier than standard chains, so it takes more energy to change their momentum.  In cruise, they won't use significantly more HP while they are moving at a constant speed (If the Orings are tight it will use more energy to overcome that friction resistance to bending and unbending around the sprockets, though.)  On acceleration, the extra weight will consume energy that would otherwise be coupled to the rear wheel, not only to move the chain, but also the added weight gained by the bike overall. 

The weight issue got me thinking so I checked out DID's site.  According to their documentation their standard non o-ring chain weighs in at 3.71 lbs  where as their 520ERV3 x-ring chain comes in at 3.30 lbs...lighter. 

What exactly are you comparing?  530 to 520 oring/xring?  I couldn't find any on that chart with a 3.71 lb weight.

Yes I was comparing a 530 standard chain to a 520 o/x chain.  When I was looking for the specs I noticed they had two spec sheets.  This is the one where I found the 3.71 lbs for the standard 530 chain.
http://www.didchain.com/standardChains.html

Wait a minute.   I'm not comparing 530 weights to 520.  Only the addition of an oring feature on the same chain size.  As far as I know, you were the one to introduce that concept as a means to win your argument.  I think I see where the BS flag got raised.
Further, Honda specifies a DID 50 Chain, which shares SOME of the 530 dimensions, but not all the specifications.

Welcome to the world of specsmanship.

Not sure what you mean by this comment.  I was trying to be as open and honest as I could by pointing out that they do have chains that are heavier.

Specmanship is displaying the specifications for your product in the maximum favorable light and either downplaying or minimizing specs that can be perceived to be less than favorable.  Nearly all manufacturers do such for their product.  It's up to the reader to know which ones are important for their application.   You are providing a perfect example of this comparing chains outside the family and one not specified for use on the bike.
Honda stipulates a DID 50 chain in the parts catalog.  Not the 530 you referenced and compared to their higher performance and no doubt more expensive chain.  The plate thicknesses are indeed different between the DID50 and the 520 you referenced (as well as the wear rating,  more on this later).

There's a danger to applying parts for racers onto street vehicles.  Note the plate thickness differences.  One could argue that plate wear during a race is less than pin wear, requiring a different need for street bikes that use a chain in conditions where plate wear may be more significant, or where inspection intervals are farther apart.

Also, the DID chart contained no pricing info.   Could be that the plates can be smaller if more expensive or exotic metals/materials are used.  I didn't follow the money, just the physics.

They don't list prices because afaik they don't sell directly to the public.  I am comparing the 520ERV3 (since it was specifically mentioned) to their 530. 


The plate sizes are the same between the two.  The ERV3 has a wear resistance of 3100 while the 530 only has a 100.  What an amazing difference that directly relates to a longevity difference between the two chains.  I don't like how we have gotten into the racer vs street rider thing.  I know I brought it up, but I guess I should have said high performance chain.  I don't know about everybody else, but I prefer not to be forced to service and replace my chain as often with a premium x ring chain on my street bike.

The plate thickness are not the same for the proper chain.  See excerpts below.

Do you understand what the wear rating is all about?  It is endurance of the chain when un-lubricated!
Since the oring xring chains have the lube sealed in.. DUH it lasts longer under such conditions!  WTF!
No one said that it was a requirement to neglect chain maintenance.  And certainly, the ring chains endure neglect more gracefully at the expense of more weight and power absorption.   Properly maintained, a Standard chain can well outlast a neglected or abused ring type chain.

Anyway, the OP stated he was willing to provide the proper maintenance to maximize chain life, making the wear rating difference one of specsmanship.

Best of luck with your choices, whatever they are!

[Retro Rocket]

Properly maintained, a Standard chain can well outlast a neglected or abused ring type chain

Well thats scientific and beyond refute....   How much neglect, how much abuse, what type of standard chain....
With both types of chains well maintained ,  the O, X ring chains will leave the rest for dead. Neglect both and the O,X ring will win again If anyone is trying to sift through this mess and work it all out, X and O ring chains are far superior to the standard style chains, period, just make sure that the chain clears everything, there have been some guys here that have installed O ring chains only to have them chew into the cases. Forget the chains robbing HP, its virtually a non event these days with the advances in metallurgy and the design of modern chains.  Most late model high horse power  bikes run 530 and 520 chains {up too 200 plus HP}, that would have been unheard of 35 years ago... {which means the old Honda specs for chains don't hold much relevance at all}

[Hinomaru]

Interesting point about weight, can't remember where I saw it but the suggestion was that the o rings themselves increased drag.

From my own observations ... O-ring chains do have more drag until they warm up. After they come up to operating temp, then it’s the same or better performance than a non O-ring chain. Drag should be a non-issue for most vintage Honda riders when making a chain selection.   

[kajtek]

Interesting point about weight, can't remember where I saw it but the suggestion was that the o rings themselves increased drag.

cool thanks, im leaning towards o ring, tsubaki probably... will let you know what i end up with.

sprockets turned up, look very cool and.. race.

From my own observations ... O-ring chains do have more drag until they warm up. After they come up to operating temp, then it’s the same or better performance than a non O-ring chain. Drag should be a non-issue for most vintage Honda riders when making a chain selection.   

[754]

If an O-ring chain had no drag, then how could the X-ring have less drag....think about it..

I have seen incredible life out of well maintained standard chains, over 40 K , on a CB 750..

 I will put this out there;
If an oring chain holds in its lubricant, is that not a bit like NOT EVER CHANGING the lubrication? I am thinking, that constant lubing of a standard chain could flush out thw woren metal paricles.. while the oring lube just turns to metalflake . Constant lubing can keep it cleaner in there..

[kajtek]

Went with o ring in the end, tsubaki omega, economy o ring rated to 60hp. Perfect! Attached a pic of new sprocket and spacer..

[Lostboy Steve]

I have bought many lengths of bulk chain on ebay, mostly gold zinc coated. Haven't had a problem yet. Just keep it clean and lube it regularly. I even use it on my yz through mud, streams, snow (salt). O and X ring chains seem to keep dirt in. My buddy lives by them and we only ride off road together, he replaces his chain once a season, I'm still on one from 4 seasons ago. Previously people were talking about strength of chains on this forum and I believe the final outcome was that good old fashion zinc coated or ss chains were way stronger than x or o ring. I'm more worried about my Buell's "lifetime" Belt.