Topic: 530 chain conversion on a 77 750

[fishhead]

Who cares? Use the size chain you like and feel comfortable with.


Besides, You guys are missing the whole point. Every one knows that only using Castrol GTX adds a couple of horsepower alone. Castrol GTX is the only oil that Chuck Norris uses, and no one argues with Chuck Norris.

 And..
Whats your political afiliation?
   Every one knows that the liberals have higher horse power numbers due to their liberal use of better lubricants.

Whats your religion?
  Christians have smoother running bikes because God is on their side.

and the Christian Liberals ride shaft drive motorcycles
 Duh..
 

[BobbyR]

I ride a K8 and I have a 630 chain. Now back to my second favorite activity. 

[eldar]

His opinion differs in what way. Maybe you should specify. Are you talking the overall performance or the difference in a chain swap? Also, maybe HE could say it himself, it is easy to suddenly have a friend that has one. Also YES, I DID say I only know the K8 but as the K7 is identical in its drive train, I can make a pretty good assumption. As this is the FIRST time you have mentioned having a 77, well I would have expected you to play that card earlier in previous posts, so as it is........ I would have expected it to be said in our previous "debates" not suddenly now ESPECIALLY when previous debates were on the perf of the 77/78. Sorry, just having a hard time believing it since you are suddenly using it now. I am sure you can understand my hesitation.

Also IF you did have a 77K, you ran a 530. How long did you use the 630 if at all? If you did not use the 630, how would you know. Also given your rancor against the 78, I just cant see how you would own a 77 when they are almost virtually the same bike. Some contradictory statements there frank.

As for riding beside his bike, so what. That does not mean you know it. i could drive along side a Ferrari, does not mean I know it.
Also, again you try to throw in big bore. Why do you always try that? We are not talking about a big bore so it does not matter. I am sure a big bore will be different than my stocker. It would be stupid to assume otherwise. But again, STOCK is the topic here, NOT big bore. You seem to have a hard time staying on topic.

As for my opinion on the 78 performance. The same rags that did tests on the 69 also did the later bikes and the F is faster than the 69 and the K was only slightly slower. These were posted by more than just me too.

Hey I had a friend that had a 69, he took off the 530 and put a 630 on there for better strength. Wow that was easy to make up now wasn't it.

Hey moonpie, I seem to recall you being older than me, so whos memory may be dimmed with age? Or is that just a stab at my name? That would be pretty lame.

[lordmoonpie]

Who cares? Use the size chain you like and feel comfortable with.

And what if you're not Kinaesthetic fishhead? Comfort has nothing to do with it if you're visual and the chain looks bad!  

I reckon Christian bikes must be slower too - I mean they don't say "Needs must when God rides" do they, It's "Needs must when the Devil rides" so it stands to figure that Old Nick has a faster bike....with a 52o chain and sprocket set LOL!  

Oh and just to finish, Chuck uses Castrol R30 not GTX - keeps his chestwig more supple

[eldar]

Wrong again pie. Chuck dont need oil. Engines run cause they are afraid of chuck!

[lordmoonpie]

Hey moonpie, I seem to recall you being older than me, so whos memory may be dimmed with age?

Ha ha Eldar - you are exposing your young years once more. With age comes much wisdom and you will come to realise that both time and age are relative so the numbers just don't matter!

I dunno - the youth of today  

[lordmoonpie]

Wrong again pie. Chuck dont need oil. Engines run cause they are afraid of chuck!

LOL! Actually Chuck probably needs Emu Oil these days - can't imagine all that hong kong phooey has doe his joints much good!

Do you have Emu oil in the USA or you guys still on goose fat?

[eldar]

Well like I stated, I know my bike but not others. However I am not alone in my opinion and that counts for something.
Does it really matter though? isnt the important thing a chain that works? big deal about the rest of it.

As for goose fat. We never used it. We do the LARD! I think chicken fat was tried but it gets sticky when it dries!

[lordmoonpie]

Well like I stated, I know my bike but not others. However I am not alone in my opinion and that counts for something.
Does it really matter though? isnt the important thing a chain that works? big deal about the rest of it.

As for goose fat. We never used it. We do the LARD! I think chicken fat was tried but it gets sticky when it dries!

Ah most excellent - LARD is a wonderful invention and useful in so many things, you have discerning tastes young Eldar. Who'd have ever thought it possible that you can use it in ways other than in a sandwich?!

[eldar]

Well it does good job curing dutch ovens too!

[moham]

and the Christian Liberals ride shaft
 

you said shaft....

[BobbyR]

[754]

Ok I will explain..

 around 81 or 82, I bought a low mileage 77K, that had  done an endo..

 The frame had damage, so I put the motor in a 72 I had that was a supposed 900cc, that started to urn way too much oil. I ran that 77k in there a while, actually rode it to Sturgis and back and further, cant remember how long exactly. I think I ran it with 77 carbs and earlier carbs.. I know I used the 77 mini-squirts at one time..

 I still have parts of that 77 kicking around the shop, but I sold that motor long ago. I have mentioned before that I had a 77 and even offered the tank for sale on here.. Matter of fact, the triple trees and front caliper/hanger on my bike are from that bike.

 Anyway, my buddy that has the 78 since new.. I met him the first or second year he owned it.. and ever since. He has at least 4 cb 750,s, one being the stock motored 72 and rode his 836 wlie it was still a 736cc. So he does have an accurate comparison.. He put 30K on the 78 so I think he knows a bit about it.

 Wether he wants to comment on it on here is entirely up to him.. I have asked him to in the past..

[eldar]

I just find it funny that is it the first time you have brought it up in our discussion after numerous other ones. I am sure you see my point. Regardless, you ran with a 530 and not the 630 so you cant accurately compare the 2. Your buddy might be able to but it is up to him and I will not expect him to. All I can say is me and other have had the same experience on the subject.

[754]

Well it is pretty clear that some in your position cant feel or tell the difference..

 Others on here have engage in activities that can show  the difference..

 Like dragracing several times a month or dyno-testing, or roadracing.

 A couple hundredths of a second can make a huge difference in a dragrace, a second or 3 can in a roadrace.

 Riding with other bikes and running through the gears against them can show this too, but the ass-dyno, will not always register small differences..

 If running that 77K motor had been more memorable or remarkable, I would mention it more..

[eldar]

Which, if you read my posts, is exactly what I said. You will only see the difference in a drag or speed trap, maybe.

As for the motor you had, unless it was in poor tune or condition, it has all the power any of the earlier motors had excepting maybe the 69/70. After all, it IS basically the 75/76 F motor with some changes. And I am sure you can agree the 75/76 f was better than the k2-6.

[paulages]

damn, eldy, you are one stubborn guy.  i could be wrong, but i don't a single poster above has tried to say that changing from a 630 to a 530 (or 520 for that matter) alone will make a noticeable difference... it just seems that several people were trying to point out disputing a known principal of physics is silly. maybe we're talking in circles here, but reducing that rotational mass and reducing the amount of resistance between the crank and rear wheel will do something. you can dispute whether that small amount of something really matters at all, you just can't dispute the science. if you're opining on the latter and not disputing the former, then i don't really think there's an argument here. a person's entitled to their opinion. unless you're a bush-administration scientist, science isn't usually a matter of opinion. 
 
are we on the same page here?

[eldar]

You also should re-read. I never disputed that fact. I said you will not notice a difference. BIG difference isn't there. No where have I argued against physics. Just that a rider will not see a difference. I suppose in a 1/4, a couple hundredths of a second makes a difference on a clock but it is too small of an amount for a person to notice on the street. I thought I was pretty clear on all of this. Going back through, I still see what I typed as being clearly stated.

Is this clear enough?  A RIDER WILL NOT NOTICE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 630 AND A 530 ON THE STREET. THUS NO REASON TO MAKE A SWITCH BASED ON PERFORMANCE REASONS. How is that?

To further prevent mistaking me, the OP is not asking about racing or anything like that. He is not asking about big bore. He is asking about a street bike that is stock. That is what my answer is referring too. 
As for bush science, it would all be gods doing anyways when he created the bikes.

[lordmoonpie]

damn, eldy, you are one stubborn guy.  i could be wrong, but i don't a single poster above has tried to say that changing from a 630 to a 530 (or 520 for that matter) alone will make a noticeable difference... it just seems that several people were trying to point out disputing a known principal of physics is silly. maybe we're talking in circles here, but reducing that rotational mass and reducing the amount of resistance between the crank and rear wheel will do something. you can dispute whether that small amount of something really matters at all, you just can't dispute the science. if you're opining on the latter and not disputing the former, then i don't really think there's an argument here. a person's entitled to their opinion. unless you're a bush-administration scientist, science isn't usually a matter of opinion. 
 
are we on the same page here?

Yup we're all right ! Young Eldar is right in the context he is happy to describe it in, and those of us who want to extend it to racing and drag racing are right also - it's a different context though. I know from RACING it makes a huge difference but that's not what Young Eldar is saying. I got an extra 1250 revs out of my Black Bomber by dropping to a nice light 520 chain so it made a difference on track. Would I notice on the street? Possibly not - it doesn't exercise the bike hard enough to know if I want to stay safe.

Now as we're all in agreement let's get a nice slice of lard for Eldar and kick back over a few beers 

[lordmoonpie]

OHMYGOD! I think I just agreed with Eldar

[eldar]

You did! See I knew someone would come to their senses!
I agree with the track/racing part too. But it is 2 different areas so as such, will get different results.
You can keep the lard though, pass me some of that pork fat!

[fishhead]

Is this clear enough?  A RIDER WILL NOT NOTICE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 630 AND A 530 ON THE STREET.

  I'll have to disagree with you elder, If you reach down and feel your chain, you can feel the difference between the 630 and 530 chain and you'll NOTICE the DIFFERENCE would be that the 630 chain feels bigger than the 530 chain. Just dont do it when you are riding down the road as you could hurt yourself or cut off some fingers.

 I couldn't help myself...

[754]

This no reason to make the switch for performance reasons"

This is what I do not agree with for at least 2 reasons..

First it is a step in the right direction..performance wise.
Second, it is far easier(and cheaper) to get an even wider variety of sprocket sizes.
Third smaller pitch gives greater choice of gearing combos..

All of the above, matter a lot to some of us..

[moham]

I don't get one titter for the "shaft" joke??

[lordmoonpie]

I don't get one titter for the "shaft" joke??

Titter yee not!