Topic: 530 chain conversion on a 77 750

[bwaller]

Ah, just get it over with and convert to a 520 and be done with it. 

Just to stir the pot....

[ttr400]

bwaller, you beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing.......520 for me.

Kevin

[GammaFlat]

Anyone found a 530 front sprocket that takes two bolts to hold it down?

all the early ones do. sprocket specialist sprockets use a circlip which works quite fine.

eldar- i really don't care to argue with you, i was just pointing out that there is a "real" reason to switch. you're never gonna break a modern 530 chain that is properly maintained, and the benefit is hardly mythical. to each his own i guess.

My mistake here.  What I meant to ask (why is noone reading my mind properly ) was, "Where do I get a 530 front sprocket that is shaped like a 630 in terms of how it mounts to the shaft?"  630 equipped engines attach the front sprocket with one bolt and a funky big washer.  If memory serves me correctly, the 630 front sprocket is wider at the splines.  If you just "bolt on" a 530 sprocket, I think it would have lots of "end play". 

[754]

530 will bolt right on, use the thick Honda one.. the 750 early ones have lots of play. Anyway mount it as you would a 630, shim if needed.

What I meant to say in my last post was, how many bikes built today (or in the last 10 years, still come factory equipped with 630 chain??

I seem to still be able to buy skiptooth chain for my vintage bicycles, but it does not mean it is a popular or high-performance choice.

Any of you that ever ran Tsubaki 530QR or other good chains know that they do not run in and need ajusting right away like some cheapo chains..

[lordmoonpie]

bwaller, you beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing.......520 for me.

Kevin

Ha ha! +1 Bwaller. I mean why have 5630 when you can have a 520, with thinner lighter sprockets, less rotating mass. Oh and enough of this broken chain nonsense - these are modern chains - if they can put a 200bhp factory ducati through a 520 it'll do for my CB750...

[754]

Sure many of those bikes have 150 hp or more, and 50 series hold up well..

BUT.....

In the case we were dicussing, it was not just a mere sportbike that it was being used on!!...(& we all know no one runs them hard & the tires are not sticky!!)

 In this case it was the ..."MIGHTY".. 77/78 Honda K.. there is a big difference you know....

[eldar]

of course there is a difference. Does the duc weigh 500+ pounds wet? It is more than just the engine power that determines chain, it is also the weight it has to move.
Say you need to move a load that is 200 pounds but your rope is only made to handle 150. Chances are, it will break.
But before 754 gets foot in mouth disease, he should remember the f2/3 which IS faster than the 69, also uses a 630.

[MRieck]

bwaller, you beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing.......520 for me.

Kevin

Me 3!!

[754]

okay, that does it.. enough is enough.

lets get together and do a run of 70 series chain & sprockets.. I mean there is people out there, that have real life concerns about chain life... they must be helped..

[eldar]

Why do a chain. Everyone knows a shaft is best!

[BobbyR]

One more time. Buy a good chain and maimtain it. Any chain will be ruined through neglect.

Babemaster Bobby

[lordmoonpie]

of course there is a difference. Does the duc weigh 500+ pounds wet? It is more than just the engine power that determines chain, it is also the weight it has to move.
Say you need to move a load that is 200 pounds but your rope is only made to handle 150. Chances are, it will break.
But before 754 gets foot in mouth disease, he should remember the f2/3 which IS faster than the 69, also uses a 630.

Yup I'm sure that a modern Duc will weigh less but what does the rider weigh? And for that matter it may be better to compare torque - surely that has more to do with the demand placed on the chain and I don't see any manufacturers making chains that will *just* do the job.

Another point you won't convince me on Eldar - a 520 will take ANYTHING a CB750 will throw at it if it can take the power and massive torque that a factory v-twin Ducati can throw at it...

I don't think I've broken a single drive chain in 20 years of road and track riding but I have sheared a sprocket carrier bolt with a rather vicious downchange before now - chain was totally fine afterwards and well within service limit. 

[eldar]

I never said a 520 could not do the job. Look through ALL my posts. Have I said it? Nope not once. I KNOW it will but I also know there is nothing to be gained on these bikes by doing it. THAT is my point, NOT that the 630 is the only chain that can handle it. I know you seem to like making assumptions but before you do, there should be something to base it on.
Did you miss the part where I said I switched to a 530? Did you also miss the part where I said there was no difference? Did you also miss the part where a couple others said the SAME thing? Yet not ONE of us stated a 520 would break. Sheesh

[MRieck]

I never said a 520 could not do the job. Look through ALL my posts. Have I said it? Nope not once. I KNOW it will but I also know there is nothing to be gained on these bikes by doing it. THAT is my point, NOT that the 630 is the only chain that can handle it. I know you seem to like making assumptions but before you do, there should be something to base it on.
Did you miss the part where I said I switched to a 530? Did you also miss the part where I said there was no difference? Did you also miss the part where a couple others said the SAME thing? Yet not ONE of us stated a 520 would break. Sheesh

Eldar....just for reference.....I'm not on your case. You know that. Just an observation on my part after working with race  bikes etc.

[eldar]

No issue here. My only point is that a rider will not notice the change from a 630 to a 530 or probably even a 520. Not on a stock bike anyways. Maybe if there have been mods, it may be more clear. As for chain strength, chains have come light years from where they were, but you know that already!

I think the important thing is a GOOD quality chain. But you can get by with a substandard 630!

[754]

The difference is most noticeable after 7000rpm..

 maybe that why you cant notice it...

[BobbyR]

[paulages]

bwaller, you beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing.......520 for me.

Kevin

Me 3!!

me 4...  almost said it before, but i started enough of a stir suggesting that there was a benefit to a lighter chain. next thing you know someone'll be claiming that there's a benefit to lighter wheels, etc... while we're at it, i can't "tell" that the kibblewhite valve springs in my head are doing anything beneficial, but i'll trust the science. 

[eldar]

When you all ride a 78 F/K as your main bike with a 630 and a 530, then you can talk to me about it. Until you do, you do not know. Until then, you do not know. Going to a 530 has made NO difference on my bike, it has made no difference on other peoples K/F bikes either. But of course those of you who have NOT ridden a 78 know more than those of us who do right? Which probably means you can ride better than rossi right? PLease.

As for you paul, Kibbles do not probably change speed or torque, they certainly last longer though and in a way, isnt that performance? They probably weigh less but does that affect your speed or does it just allow the vavle train to operate better?  As for lighter wheels, you clearly read nothing so I will re post it for your benefit. Rotational mass is greater on a larger circumference. One ounce lighter on the rims will have a greater effect than 1 ounce on a chain. THAT is science. You could even test it yourself, unless you are so ready to believe manufacturer claims and just prefer to let them tell you what is right. Oh well, it still stands that on the K/F, a 530 gives no benefit over the 630. It may on other bikes, I do not know as I have not ridden other bikes with a 630 chain just like I bet you have not been on a k/f long enough to really know if there is a difference, have you.

As for only noticing it over 7000 rpm. That is just a stupid thought. Plain and simple. Mass can have an effect at ANY speed. Also, just for your info, when I ride, I regularly hit 7000. Problem is that even on our interstates( an interstate is a large road, just so you know 754) which has a speed limit of 75, I can easily break that speed in third gear. I can break it if I really want to push it, in second. I just choose not to do it all the time as this is my only bike and during the summer, I would rather ride than wrench. THAT is what winter is for. But then maybe that is why you are so cranky frank, you cant ride you bike right now.

So, lets recap. I know what mass is. I know what rotational mass is and what it does. I also know that a 530 chain on a stock F/K does not give any performance boost over the 630. I can pretty much say the same about the 77f/k as they are almost identical. Others have also stated the same thing as me. I do not know about other bikes as I have not ridden them. Two here just cant believe it even though they do not even ride much less own a 77/78 k/f 750, even though others have backed my findings. Sounds like they just want to argue and troll. Oh well, I KNOW the results on these bikes stated, they do not.

[lordmoonpie]

Ah so what you're saying is that because we don't ride a 78 f/K we don't understand the laws of physics? It's a fact that less mass in the valve train allows the engine to rev freer and higher - the moving weight of the valves etc is reduced significantly epecially at the dead stop positions of their motion curves. Less weight in the drive chain and in the case of 520 - the sprockets, means less rotational mass which means less inertia and of course, at high revs like above 7000 as an arbitrary limit, less gyroscopic force. All of that helps the engine to rev and the bike to turn - now why would you not want your engine to rev more freely and your bike turn more willingly?

Of course lighter moving parts help the performance of the bike and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise...

Ah - maybe I'm missing the point though - if a 78 F/K (no I don't know - I've never had one) is a right big moose of a bike then a weight saving will make no difference at all! 

[BobbyR]

[lordmoonpie]

Oh you're such a spoilsport BobbyR - 78 K/F owner baiting is a recreational sport surely?! 

[754]

Eldar only knows his 78..

 He may be forgetting that I did own a 77K in the 80,s, so maybe I do have some insight into it afterall..

 Still have parts of that bike around.... when I ran it I used 530 on it.

 A member on here has a 78K, bought it new, in this town & still lives here.. put 30K on it. I have ridden beside that bike on a few occasions..

 The owner of it has a pair of big-bore CB750,s.. a mostly stock 72 and that 78K.. His evaluation of the 78K performance differs greatly from Eldars opinion..

[mustangcar]

i run the 630 for the looks hey i did win two trophies on my K8 this past summer,took first place in the first show, third in the second, i do recall the judges saying dam that chain looks beefy tough not like a scooters give him the trophy (just kidding), to each his own,  i think my Honda Rebel runs a 530

[lordmoonpie]

Eldar only knows his 78..

 He may be forgetting that I did own a 77K in the 80,s, so maybe I do have some insight into it afterall..

 Still have parts of that bike around.... when I ran it I used 530 on it.

 A member on here has a 78K, bought it new, in this town & still lives here.. put 30K on it. I have ridden beside that bike on a few occasions..

 The owner of it has a pair of big-bore CB750,s.. a mostly stock 72 and that 78K.. His evaluation of the 78K performance differs greatly from Eldars opinion..

I guess that's the problem with being an eldar - the older you get the better things were