What about chain lube?
- Thread starter JonS
- Start date
- Status
If your chain was trashed in one day, I promise you there was an issue that was unrelated to the type of chain you had. And it was not the shear brute strength of the 500.
I'm not trying to sound like an butt or anything, I'm just saying that I make my living with these issues and I guarantee if I were there that day, I could have pointed out the flaw. And there was a flaw.
You must realise that the standard chains and ring chains are virtually the very same animals.
I have seen lots of folks claim the demise of their stock chains in one day, but I contend they too had an issue. Many can get lots of hours out of stock or sub-standard chains. How could this be?
As far as rings doing a better job. The term you have missed is "adequate". Conventional rings do an adequate job of containing the lube and protecting from outside contaminents.
Xrings or any other new fangled profile ring does not help with the sealing. That is being done as good as it can be done. Sure a mfg will show you how a profile can have advantages, but if the conventional ring is doing the job, all else is overkill, and marketing points.
The new ring profiles do actually help in providing less friction.
If all things are equal, and the rings of both an o and x ring chains remain intact(ie..rings not damaged), they will both survive an equal amount of time.
But again, I contend that a standard chain can and will last longer than any ring chain, with proper care and lubricant.
The 125/250/500 all use the same chain stock and the 500 is harder on the chain than either 125 or 250.
I broke the bike in at Lakewhitney MX park in Texas, It's a heavy potholed rutted, whooped out sand track. There was nothing wrong with chain, other than stock CR chains usually degrade like unfridged cheese, yes the 500 was much harder on the chain.
Yes the chain was toast, buts that typical of stock CR non orings, the 500 just accelerated the issue, as I fiqured I could atleast get a month out of it like a 250.
But nope
I broke the bike in at Lakewhitney MX park in Texas, It's a heavy potholed rutted, whooped out sand track. There was nothing wrong with chain, other than stock CR chains usually degrade like unfridged cheese, yes the 500 was much harder on the chain.
Yes the chain was toast, buts that typical of stock CR non orings, the 500 just accelerated the issue, as I fiqured I could atleast get a month out of it like a 250.
But nope
As far as rings doing a better job. The term you have missed is "adequate". Conventional rings do an adequate job of containing the lube and protecting from outside contaminents.
Xrings or any other new fangled profile ring does not help with the sealing. That is being done as good as it can be done. Sure a mfg will show you how a profile can have advantages, but if the conventional ring is doing the job, all else is overkill, and marketing points.
The new ring profiles do actually help in providing less friction.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.(If you go back I said the same thing)
If all things are equal, and the rings of both an o and x ring chains remain intact(ie..rings not damaged), they will both survive an equal amount of time.
2.(agreed)
But again, I contend that a standard chain can and will last longer than any ring chain, with proper care and lubricant.
3. That I've never seen, the main reason I don't run non orings they are too hard on the pocket book, and don't hold up. I guess if you soak it after every ride maybe it will come 1/2 way close close, but that's alot of extra maintence.
The best non orings are rated at 300 hours life the best Orings are rated as high as 1200 hours life.
That quite of bit of difference, and my experience maintence will not make up the difference, only sitting in the garage would do that.
Xrings or any other new fangled profile ring does not help with the sealing. That is being done as good as it can be done. Sure a mfg will show you how a profile can have advantages, but if the conventional ring is doing the job, all else is overkill, and marketing points.
The new ring profiles do actually help in providing less friction.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.(If you go back I said the same thing)
If all things are equal, and the rings of both an o and x ring chains remain intact(ie..rings not damaged), they will both survive an equal amount of time.
2.(agreed)
But again, I contend that a standard chain can and will last longer than any ring chain, with proper care and lubricant.
3. That I've never seen, the main reason I don't run non orings they are too hard on the pocket book, and don't hold up. I guess if you soak it after every ride maybe it will come 1/2 way close close, but that's alot of extra maintence.
The best non orings are rated at 300 hours life the best Orings are rated as high as 1200 hours life.
That quite of bit of difference, and my experience maintence will not make up the difference, only sitting in the garage would do that.
I've learned alot of things concerning chains and sprockets since my first bike in 1969.
I used to pull the dipstick out of an old Ford 8n and slother it on the chain every once and awhile.
I have since become involved with chains and sprockets as part of my advocation. I make my living with these animals.
Only thing I want to stress is this...people have been doing things for years, and sometimes folks tend not to really know why they do what they do, it simply may just be conventional wisdom that drives their maintenance schedule.
However, I have found that there are lots of misconceptions when it comes to motorcycle chain maintenance.
Take the argument on ring profiles for instance.
The only advantage a differnt ring profile can give you is perhaps a bit less friction when the link is flexed. The profile of the ring is being touted as something that will add longevity to the chain. That's a load of junk.
But what about the graphs and promises the chain mfg makes?
Well, prove them wrong...or prove them right for that matter. You can't. Not sufficiently enough to prove your case in court.
So, the mfg's can say what they want to, really.
They aren't telling you the whole story.
Like on a lifespan graph...they obtain this information from controlled testing. If they were to keep replentishing the standard no-ring chain they put up against a ring chain, it would live longer than the ring chain that has a finite amount of lbe available. But that wouldn't be a good thing for the graph they want you to buy off on.
How do I know this? I've done the testing myself. Both bench and field.
These points can be proven. And quite easily as well. I will take a challenge from anyone, including the chain mfg's, to test it. I guarantee you no chain mfg's will take me up on the offer...they know what I know.
One point to always remember...the top shelf non-ring chain and the top shelf ring chain of a certain mfg will be virtually the same animals. Only differnce will be in the pin lengths and perhaps plate thickness, to accept the extra area of the rings. The working parts are exactly the same.
The wrong methods have proven to be part of the problems with chain drives. Adjustment being the thing most often missed or messed up.
Another issue chains have is lubricant.
Most every motorcycle specific lubricant on the market is crap. Not just a few, but most ALL of them can contribute to the demise of a ring chain. Many are too sticky and gooey to keep from attracting grit, and grit will kill a ring chain fast..when the non may possibly (most likely) survive when encountering the same grit.
Also, many lubes have decided that they would make it dry up fast. Well, these lubes do protect the outside of the chain, and may give you a false sense of security thinking the fricntion points are being protected, but that is rarely the case. Some lubes set so fast that they don't even have time to reach the friction points.
I have a hard time with this argument with most folks because it just doesn't sit well with conventional wisdom.
Other have found that what I'm ranting about is true.
Another point...just about any thread on any board that I bring this issue up, there will be at least one person who touts how their fire breathing beast is the culprit in killin their chains. I claim that is completely wrong.
If the chain has a tensile rating of at least 3-4000 psi, it can handle anything that a 500cc two stroke can throw at it. Or even a 450cc 4banger for that matter. (the 500cc 2-stroke can produce about 1800lbs pull on a good day)
Tensile strength is a marketing tool at best.
If you have a nonring chain wear out in a day, then there was something worng with your procedure, not the chain.
I used to pull the dipstick out of an old Ford 8n and slother it on the chain every once and awhile.
I have since become involved with chains and sprockets as part of my advocation. I make my living with these animals.
Only thing I want to stress is this...people have been doing things for years, and sometimes folks tend not to really know why they do what they do, it simply may just be conventional wisdom that drives their maintenance schedule.
However, I have found that there are lots of misconceptions when it comes to motorcycle chain maintenance.
Take the argument on ring profiles for instance.
The only advantage a differnt ring profile can give you is perhaps a bit less friction when the link is flexed. The profile of the ring is being touted as something that will add longevity to the chain. That's a load of junk.
But what about the graphs and promises the chain mfg makes?
Well, prove them wrong...or prove them right for that matter. You can't. Not sufficiently enough to prove your case in court.
So, the mfg's can say what they want to, really.
They aren't telling you the whole story.
Like on a lifespan graph...they obtain this information from controlled testing. If they were to keep replentishing the standard no-ring chain they put up against a ring chain, it would live longer than the ring chain that has a finite amount of lbe available. But that wouldn't be a good thing for the graph they want you to buy off on.
How do I know this? I've done the testing myself. Both bench and field.
These points can be proven. And quite easily as well. I will take a challenge from anyone, including the chain mfg's, to test it. I guarantee you no chain mfg's will take me up on the offer...they know what I know.
One point to always remember...the top shelf non-ring chain and the top shelf ring chain of a certain mfg will be virtually the same animals. Only differnce will be in the pin lengths and perhaps plate thickness, to accept the extra area of the rings. The working parts are exactly the same.
The wrong methods have proven to be part of the problems with chain drives. Adjustment being the thing most often missed or messed up.
Another issue chains have is lubricant.
Most every motorcycle specific lubricant on the market is crap. Not just a few, but most ALL of them can contribute to the demise of a ring chain. Many are too sticky and gooey to keep from attracting grit, and grit will kill a ring chain fast..when the non may possibly (most likely) survive when encountering the same grit.
Also, many lubes have decided that they would make it dry up fast. Well, these lubes do protect the outside of the chain, and may give you a false sense of security thinking the fricntion points are being protected, but that is rarely the case. Some lubes set so fast that they don't even have time to reach the friction points.
I have a hard time with this argument with most folks because it just doesn't sit well with conventional wisdom.
Other have found that what I'm ranting about is true.
Another point...just about any thread on any board that I bring this issue up, there will be at least one person who touts how their fire breathing beast is the culprit in killin their chains. I claim that is completely wrong.
If the chain has a tensile rating of at least 3-4000 psi, it can handle anything that a 500cc two stroke can throw at it. Or even a 450cc 4banger for that matter. (the 500cc 2-stroke can produce about 1800lbs pull on a good day)
Tensile strength is a marketing tool at best.
If you have a nonring chain wear out in a day, then there was something worng with your procedure, not the chain.
(((If the chain has a tensile rating of at least 3-4000 psi, it can handle anything that a 500cc two stroke can throw at it. Or even a 450cc 4banger for that matter. (the 500cc 2-stroke can produce about 1800lbs pull on a good day)))))
my 500cc 2stroke stretched a stock non oring rk in one day stetched beyond limit it was starting to ride the tops of the teeth and eating sprockets, the replacemnent oring lasted a year as normal with my offroad orings, had I not replaced the chain ,I'd of been replacing sprockets and I wanted atleast 1 year out of them. that was many years ago.
More recent I put a non oring on a 400 motard street 8800 tensil, it lasted 1500 miles bubed every 200 miles , the typical orings sometimes are good for up to 5 to 10,000 miles before excessive wear begins to show or breakage risk . However Have been running a chain with Heavier plating than normally stock, and it's doing supurb in comparison to any of the other 3 chains I've used. 10,000 miles 1 click of adjustment.
As far as tensil strength, most GOOD chains in 520 run 7500 to 8500 psi, you want to say 3000psi chain will perform as well; Okay I'll buy that.
What it comes down to in reality, X manufacturer may say their chain rating is 8,800 lb tensile, while Z brand chain may be only 8,100 lb, yet lower tensil may last 3 times as long as the one with higher rating. Your are right in that if you look at the individual components, platings thickness and pin diameter, you are much more knowledgable of finding chain that can do what you need.
Your argument though of not adjusted right, or not lubed right as the only possibility, and discounting cheap stock chain as possibility is pooey.
But I accept your opinion as an expert in this field, what kind a chain do you sell?
[ August 21, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Mackelroy ]
my 500cc 2stroke stretched a stock non oring rk in one day stetched beyond limit it was starting to ride the tops of the teeth and eating sprockets, the replacemnent oring lasted a year as normal with my offroad orings, had I not replaced the chain ,I'd of been replacing sprockets and I wanted atleast 1 year out of them. that was many years ago.
More recent I put a non oring on a 400 motard street 8800 tensil, it lasted 1500 miles bubed every 200 miles , the typical orings sometimes are good for up to 5 to 10,000 miles before excessive wear begins to show or breakage risk . However Have been running a chain with Heavier plating than normally stock, and it's doing supurb in comparison to any of the other 3 chains I've used. 10,000 miles 1 click of adjustment.
As far as tensil strength, most GOOD chains in 520 run 7500 to 8500 psi, you want to say 3000psi chain will perform as well; Okay I'll buy that.
What it comes down to in reality, X manufacturer may say their chain rating is 8,800 lb tensile, while Z brand chain may be only 8,100 lb, yet lower tensil may last 3 times as long as the one with higher rating. Your are right in that if you look at the individual components, platings thickness and pin diameter, you are much more knowledgable of finding chain that can do what you need.
Your argument though of not adjusted right, or not lubed right as the only possibility, and discounting cheap stock chain as possibility is pooey.
But I accept your opinion as an expert in this field, what kind a chain do you sell?
[ August 21, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Mackelroy ]
I realise that you feel very strongly about the tensile strength issue, but I contend it is nothing mre than marketing hype...that apparently works. The facts are that sufficient sideplate stength is sufficient. If the potential power the bike can make cannot meet or exceed the sideplate tensile rating, then the chain can withstand whatever the bike can throw at it.
The tensile rating has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other components of the chain including pin, bushing, and roller. And those items are where we see chain wear and elongation, not on the sideplates.
Yes a cheapo chain can wear very fast if not taken proper care of. But try to digest this...
IF the lubricant placed on the chain coats the surfaces and protects the metal surfaces properly, then there will be a very low wear rate. This goes for ALL chains, cheap or high-dollar.
Take a dry film lube that provides lubricating polar solids, that form platelets that carry both shock load and protect from friction. These platelets will allow a very minute bit of metal to shear off no matter what, but by their nature, they will keep the metal surfaces from wearing excessively at the barrier regime.
If it is the platelets carrying the load, then the metal isn't even in play. It matters not what the metal is, the lubricant is keeping the metals from wearing one another. In other words, there is a barrier between the metals. How could it matter what the metals are if this is the case? Only when the protective barrier is violated, does it matter.
Now, when the *lubricant used cannot protect from wear properly, for what ever reason, the metal used matters greatly. In the condition of substandard lubrication, a chain with cheap metal will absolutely wear at a much faster rate than a top-shelf chain with quality metals.
I contend that if a person wears a chain out in a short period of time, there is a reason for it. And that reason can be found and corrected.
I also contend that if taken proper care of (by proper adjustment/cleaning/and lubrication) even a cheaper chain can last and last. Myself as well as many of my customers have seen that this is fact.
I sell Regina, D.I.D., RK, and EK brands.
I also highly reccommend Tsubaki and Diamond brand chains.
*99% of the motorcycle specific chain lubes on the market are complete crap.
The tensile rating has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other components of the chain including pin, bushing, and roller. And those items are where we see chain wear and elongation, not on the sideplates.
Yes a cheapo chain can wear very fast if not taken proper care of. But try to digest this...
IF the lubricant placed on the chain coats the surfaces and protects the metal surfaces properly, then there will be a very low wear rate. This goes for ALL chains, cheap or high-dollar.
Take a dry film lube that provides lubricating polar solids, that form platelets that carry both shock load and protect from friction. These platelets will allow a very minute bit of metal to shear off no matter what, but by their nature, they will keep the metal surfaces from wearing excessively at the barrier regime.
If it is the platelets carrying the load, then the metal isn't even in play. It matters not what the metal is, the lubricant is keeping the metals from wearing one another. In other words, there is a barrier between the metals. How could it matter what the metals are if this is the case? Only when the protective barrier is violated, does it matter.
Now, when the *lubricant used cannot protect from wear properly, for what ever reason, the metal used matters greatly. In the condition of substandard lubrication, a chain with cheap metal will absolutely wear at a much faster rate than a top-shelf chain with quality metals.
I contend that if a person wears a chain out in a short period of time, there is a reason for it. And that reason can be found and corrected.
I also contend that if taken proper care of (by proper adjustment/cleaning/and lubrication) even a cheaper chain can last and last. Myself as well as many of my customers have seen that this is fact.
I sell Regina, D.I.D., RK, and EK brands.
I also highly reccommend Tsubaki and Diamond brand chains.
*99% of the motorcycle specific chain lubes on the market are complete crap.
Well, Jay now that you've got our attention, I gotta know- what are the very few lubes that provide the kind of lubrication that you speak of? If you can't mention brands give us some more info in order to search these out, please.
I imagine you're referring to moly, graphite or teflon dry film lubes when you mention platelets?
I imagine you're referring to moly, graphite or teflon dry film lubes when you mention platelets?
Yeah, what lubes are junk? I myself still use WD40 pretty much as a cleaner/lube on my DID 525 xring chain. Last one went over 33,000 miles before I replaced it (and that was because I re-geared the bike, not because the chain wore out). Current chain has about 25,000 miles on it.
I'd imagine Jay is referring to dry film lubes for products that work well. If you can pour or rub dirt and or sand on a chain and it sticks to the chain, then you may want to try a different chain care product, especially if your chain driven product is exposed to contaminants (i.e. off road motorcycles).
Oil’s can provide good film strength as long as the oil is there, but the oil film is quickly displaced or washed off or runs off unless it’s replenished and it should be obvious to all of us that oils attract dirt. The Scott oilier that some people use on street bikes keeps chains continuously lubed and it’s probably a good option for street bikes, but if the chain is going to be frequently exposed to contaminants such as dirt, sand, mud, etc, then oil by itself is probably not the best choice for a chain lube.
Waxes have come a long ways, but there are still many chain wax products that attract dirt, sand, dust, etc. Most of the chain waxes I’ve seen form a coating on the outside of the chain and they don’t do much in the way of penetrating into the links. Many don’t hold up well in water, especially if you’re riding an off road bike through water crossings, bogs, etc. Many waxes also have a tendency to build up and form a cake of gritty goop on the chain, especially inside the countershaft cavity. The wax itself doesn’t provide much protection in the way of shock, load or film strength and many of them cake up to form a grinding compound if they become contaminated. While some chain wax products are better than others, I feel there are better choices.
WD40 always brings out strong opinions on both sides of the fence and for good reason, but I’m sure the more informed group here would agree that WD40 itself isn’t the best lubricant or corrosion protector and doesn’t offer much in the way of film strength to minimize shock & load, etc. It is however a very good water displacer (hence the name WD). Its solvency also cleans things pretty well and since we all know a clean chain is a happy chain, then it should makes since that WD40 can be good for a chain in the sense it disperses / washes away abrasives and other contaminants that would otherwise shorten chain life in addition to providing very limited lubrication and temporary corrosion protection.
Some people say WD40 does not affect o-rings and some disagree, but there’s good reason for this because not all rings are made from the same materials, process or share the same qualities. Many of the higher performance name brand chains today use high quality materials for their rings and WD40 will likely ‘not’ pose any issues during the ‘normal’ life of a motorcycle chain, but there are chains out there that use lower quality materials or sub standard processes for their rings and they can be subject to deterioration from the use of WD40. I think WD40 has its place and can be used with good results on many chains, but we should all be smart enough to know that it’s far from being the best product at providing protection in the way of film strength, shock, load, corrosion, etc.
Dry film lubes such as Schaeffer’s 227 Moly Roller Chain Lube have a number of advantages. First of all, they don’t attract or hold dirt, dust, sand or other contaminants and that in itself is a huge plus compared to wet, sticky or gooey lubes. They also typically resist water washout much better than other types of chain lubes and some have stronger attractions to metal surfaces than many of the oils or wax products. There are many good choices out there, but I’ve been using Schaeffer’s 227 Moly Roller Chain lube with excellent results for off road race bikes. I also like the way the chain / sprockets look after this product is used and they stay looking great for a long time. There is usually a significant & noticeable reduction in friction & noise with the use of this product that you can feel for yourself if you spin your rear wheel by hand while your bike is on a stand. Lube your clean chain with WD40 and spin your rear wheel. Then dry it off and lube it with Schaeffer’s 227 and you’ll hear and feel the difference.
http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/227.pdf
The Schaeffer’s product contains a super thin carrier that disperses microscopic platelets of dry lubrication (MoS2 / Molybdenum Disulfide) that are ‘attracted’ to metal surfaces. These microscopic platelets fill the microscopic pores in the metal and form a sacrificial overlapping friction reducing protective armor coating that’s very resistant to water washout and corrosion. Here’s some interesting links on this site about Moly in general…
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly.html
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly1.html
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly2.html
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly3.html
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly4.html
The Schaeffer’s moly roller chain lube product is not a product that’s used just a few seconds before you go riding. It goes on very wet and is very runny so it can penetrate into the links, but the carrier will dry out within several hours and will leave your chain dry to the touch by the next day, so keep that in mind when using this product or something similar to it.
Another very interesting dry film chain lube product is Ultra Film. ‘Jaybird’ hasn’t mentioned it, but I believe the following link is a link to his company and the products he sells / believes in. I believe he just runs this company on the side as a hobby because he has a passion for chains and likes ‘helping’ others, but I think he works full time in an industry that has to do with manufacturing lubricants, chain lubricators, conveyor components and other chain driven industrial equipment based on what I’ve surmised from reading information in various threads.
I personally tried out some of the Ultra Film product a ways back and it worked very well, but I still have a lot of the Schaeffers 227 on hand and I may as well use it up and then I’ll evaluate my choices again at that time, but I do know they’re both good products. Here’s a link to what I think is Jaybird’s web site that has various product and technical info on it…
http://www.best-motorcycle-chain-lube.com
If you like reading about chains / sprockets, then take a look a some of his tech articles…
http://www.best-motorcycle-chain-lube.com/motorcycle_maintenance_chain_sprocket_tips.htm
In summary, I think people who take good care of their chains will get decent life from their chains / sprockets, particularly if the chain / sprockets are kept clean, adjusted and aligned, no matter what their lube choice is as long as they’re applying their lube with some frequency. I also believe that using a high quality dry film lube will significantly extend the life of chains / sprockets compared to using chain oils, chain waxes, WD40, etc, especially if the chain is used in a harsh environment (i.e. off road use).
Oil’s can provide good film strength as long as the oil is there, but the oil film is quickly displaced or washed off or runs off unless it’s replenished and it should be obvious to all of us that oils attract dirt. The Scott oilier that some people use on street bikes keeps chains continuously lubed and it’s probably a good option for street bikes, but if the chain is going to be frequently exposed to contaminants such as dirt, sand, mud, etc, then oil by itself is probably not the best choice for a chain lube.
Waxes have come a long ways, but there are still many chain wax products that attract dirt, sand, dust, etc. Most of the chain waxes I’ve seen form a coating on the outside of the chain and they don’t do much in the way of penetrating into the links. Many don’t hold up well in water, especially if you’re riding an off road bike through water crossings, bogs, etc. Many waxes also have a tendency to build up and form a cake of gritty goop on the chain, especially inside the countershaft cavity. The wax itself doesn’t provide much protection in the way of shock, load or film strength and many of them cake up to form a grinding compound if they become contaminated. While some chain wax products are better than others, I feel there are better choices.
WD40 always brings out strong opinions on both sides of the fence and for good reason, but I’m sure the more informed group here would agree that WD40 itself isn’t the best lubricant or corrosion protector and doesn’t offer much in the way of film strength to minimize shock & load, etc. It is however a very good water displacer (hence the name WD). Its solvency also cleans things pretty well and since we all know a clean chain is a happy chain, then it should makes since that WD40 can be good for a chain in the sense it disperses / washes away abrasives and other contaminants that would otherwise shorten chain life in addition to providing very limited lubrication and temporary corrosion protection.
Some people say WD40 does not affect o-rings and some disagree, but there’s good reason for this because not all rings are made from the same materials, process or share the same qualities. Many of the higher performance name brand chains today use high quality materials for their rings and WD40 will likely ‘not’ pose any issues during the ‘normal’ life of a motorcycle chain, but there are chains out there that use lower quality materials or sub standard processes for their rings and they can be subject to deterioration from the use of WD40. I think WD40 has its place and can be used with good results on many chains, but we should all be smart enough to know that it’s far from being the best product at providing protection in the way of film strength, shock, load, corrosion, etc.
Dry film lubes such as Schaeffer’s 227 Moly Roller Chain Lube have a number of advantages. First of all, they don’t attract or hold dirt, dust, sand or other contaminants and that in itself is a huge plus compared to wet, sticky or gooey lubes. They also typically resist water washout much better than other types of chain lubes and some have stronger attractions to metal surfaces than many of the oils or wax products. There are many good choices out there, but I’ve been using Schaeffer’s 227 Moly Roller Chain lube with excellent results for off road race bikes. I also like the way the chain / sprockets look after this product is used and they stay looking great for a long time. There is usually a significant & noticeable reduction in friction & noise with the use of this product that you can feel for yourself if you spin your rear wheel by hand while your bike is on a stand. Lube your clean chain with WD40 and spin your rear wheel. Then dry it off and lube it with Schaeffer’s 227 and you’ll hear and feel the difference.
http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/227.pdf
The Schaeffer’s product contains a super thin carrier that disperses microscopic platelets of dry lubrication (MoS2 / Molybdenum Disulfide) that are ‘attracted’ to metal surfaces. These microscopic platelets fill the microscopic pores in the metal and form a sacrificial overlapping friction reducing protective armor coating that’s very resistant to water washout and corrosion. Here’s some interesting links on this site about Moly in general…
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly.html
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly1.html
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly2.html
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly3.html
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly4.html
The Schaeffer’s moly roller chain lube product is not a product that’s used just a few seconds before you go riding. It goes on very wet and is very runny so it can penetrate into the links, but the carrier will dry out within several hours and will leave your chain dry to the touch by the next day, so keep that in mind when using this product or something similar to it.
Another very interesting dry film chain lube product is Ultra Film. ‘Jaybird’ hasn’t mentioned it, but I believe the following link is a link to his company and the products he sells / believes in. I believe he just runs this company on the side as a hobby because he has a passion for chains and likes ‘helping’ others, but I think he works full time in an industry that has to do with manufacturing lubricants, chain lubricators, conveyor components and other chain driven industrial equipment based on what I’ve surmised from reading information in various threads.
I personally tried out some of the Ultra Film product a ways back and it worked very well, but I still have a lot of the Schaeffers 227 on hand and I may as well use it up and then I’ll evaluate my choices again at that time, but I do know they’re both good products. Here’s a link to what I think is Jaybird’s web site that has various product and technical info on it…
http://www.best-motorcycle-chain-lube.com
If you like reading about chains / sprockets, then take a look a some of his tech articles…
http://www.best-motorcycle-chain-lube.com/motorcycle_maintenance_chain_sprocket_tips.htm
In summary, I think people who take good care of their chains will get decent life from their chains / sprockets, particularly if the chain / sprockets are kept clean, adjusted and aligned, no matter what their lube choice is as long as they’re applying their lube with some frequency. I also believe that using a high quality dry film lube will significantly extend the life of chains / sprockets compared to using chain oils, chain waxes, WD40, etc, especially if the chain is used in a harsh environment (i.e. off road use).
((I realise that you feel very strongly about the tensile strength issue))
Not really , I've just learned that some manufacturers tensil ratings can be over stated. This may influence ones decision to buy on that alone (i've made that mistake myself), and I think you mentioned that.
Ive found a 520 chain that holds up very well it's somewhere around 8000+tensile (2.2mm)thick inner/outer plating(oring), so far the difference in performance and longevity is pretty substantial in comparison to the standard xrings (2mm)thick, inner/outer plated xring or oring.
Not really , I've just learned that some manufacturers tensil ratings can be over stated. This may influence ones decision to buy on that alone (i've made that mistake myself), and I think you mentioned that.
Ive found a 520 chain that holds up very well it's somewhere around 8000+tensile (2.2mm)thick inner/outer plating(oring), so far the difference in performance and longevity is pretty substantial in comparison to the standard xrings (2mm)thick, inner/outer plated xring or oring.
Tensile stregth is one of the biggest driving factors there is, consumer purchasing wise. That is why I state it's nothing but a marketing ploy.
If it takes a 10 lb wench to pull a load...you can hook up a 500lb wench, but you haven't done anything at all to help anything. Use the 10lb wench and be happy.
There simply isn't any difference between a chain with 2.2mm plates and one with 2mm plates, as far as longevity is concerned. The plates are simply a moot point on this issue.
If you are seeing differnces in longevity between the x and o ring chains (of equal quality), there is something else contributing to the difference. It's not related to the build of the chain.
If it takes a 10 lb wench to pull a load...you can hook up a 500lb wench, but you haven't done anything at all to help anything. Use the 10lb wench and be happy.
There simply isn't any difference between a chain with 2.2mm plates and one with 2mm plates, as far as longevity is concerned. The plates are simply a moot point on this issue.
If you are seeing differnces in longevity between the x and o ring chains (of equal quality), there is something else contributing to the difference. It's not related to the build of the chain.
There simply isn't any difference between a chain with 2.2mm plates and one with 2mm plates, as far as longevity is concerned. The plates are simply a moot point on this issue.
If you are seeing differnces in longevity between the x and o ring chains (of equal quality), there is something else contributing to the difference. It's not related to the build of the chain.
_______________________________________________
I've used the exact same chain in an xring and oring design, they last about the same. So we agree on that issue.
AS far heavier plating it does not flex as easy, therefore I'm less likely to snap them(I consider this a Longevity benefit).
If you are seeing differnces in longevity between the x and o ring chains (of equal quality), there is something else contributing to the difference. It's not related to the build of the chain.
_______________________________________________
I've used the exact same chain in an xring and oring design, they last about the same. So we agree on that issue.
AS far heavier plating it does not flex as easy, therefore I'm less likely to snap them(I consider this a Longevity benefit).
If you are adjusted properly, you WON'T snap a chain.
The construction of the pin and bushing if FAR more of a concern than the tensile strength of the sideplates.
Like I have stated...tensile strength ratings are nothing but a marketing ploy used by nearly all of the mfg's.
Unless I were drag racing with around 1000cc's, I wouldn't concern myself with tensile strength too much.
A CR500 2stroke is a fire breathing beast...and it can only create about 1800lbs pull.
Do the math.
The construction of the pin and bushing if FAR more of a concern than the tensile strength of the sideplates.
Like I have stated...tensile strength ratings are nothing but a marketing ploy used by nearly all of the mfg's.
Unless I were drag racing with around 1000cc's, I wouldn't concern myself with tensile strength too much.
A CR500 2stroke is a fire breathing beast...and it can only create about 1800lbs pull.
Do the math.
I snapped a chain across an inner link section of side plates, evidently it can happen and does.
This First one I've ever broke, this was not on a cr500, but a bike with about half the horse power, just under 10,000 miles on the chain. It was set 40 to 45mm slack, the recommend.
It wont happen again cause I'm running a much better and heavy chain now, and the longevity has already shown to be much greater improvement.
I had been running the RK XSO's I went through 2 of them (the first lasted 14,000, extremme wear in the pin link area with front to back play , the second one snapped at 9,000 miles, the pin wear was still good, I was shocked it broke but it did. I'm Now running a Regina ATV chain, it's an impressive improvement longevity wise. It will go 20,000 I'd say, already at 10,000 miles with only 1 click snail of adjustment at 1500 miles, ((its just not moving)) as the rk's would be in an accelerated degrade in their last half of life by now.
I think you may be too wrapped up in thinking I'm too wrapped up in tensile strength, which is not the case, you seem to dwell on it alot
.
[ August 29, 2005, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Mackelroy ]
This First one I've ever broke, this was not on a cr500, but a bike with about half the horse power, just under 10,000 miles on the chain. It was set 40 to 45mm slack, the recommend.
It wont happen again cause I'm running a much better and heavy chain now, and the longevity has already shown to be much greater improvement.
I had been running the RK XSO's I went through 2 of them (the first lasted 14,000, extremme wear in the pin link area with front to back play , the second one snapped at 9,000 miles, the pin wear was still good, I was shocked it broke but it did. I'm Now running a Regina ATV chain, it's an impressive improvement longevity wise. It will go 20,000 I'd say, already at 10,000 miles with only 1 click snail of adjustment at 1500 miles, ((its just not moving)) as the rk's would be in an accelerated degrade in their last half of life by now.
I think you may be too wrapped up in thinking I'm too wrapped up in tensile strength, which is not the case, you seem to dwell on it alot
[ August 29, 2005, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Mackelroy ]
I can tell you that if your chain driver were adjusted properly, you would not simply snap the sideplates of an RK XSO. It is a top shelf chain constructed of quality materials. I'd be suspect of even a cheap chain snapping.
I've seen it all when it comes to roller chains, and I have seen many times a chain drive that the rider felt he had it adjusted properly, but was a tad off, causing a problem, or accelerated wear. And yes, breakage.
But unless you can show a defect anomoly in an individual chain, your bike will NOT snap it.
Not unless it is adjusted too tight, of course.
When you say the bike mfg recommends 40-45mm slack...what exactly did that mean to you? At what position is the bike (particularly the swingarm) in when you adjusted the chain to that spec?
I've seen it all when it comes to roller chains, and I have seen many times a chain drive that the rider felt he had it adjusted properly, but was a tad off, causing a problem, or accelerated wear. And yes, breakage.
But unless you can show a defect anomoly in an individual chain, your bike will NOT snap it.
Not unless it is adjusted too tight, of course.
When you say the bike mfg recommends 40-45mm slack...what exactly did that mean to you? At what position is the bike (particularly the swingarm) in when you adjusted the chain to that spec?
[At what position is the bike (particularly the swingarm) in when you adjusted the chain to that spec? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Tension checked midway between sprockets both wheel off the ground and on side stand.
I've been through many chains and many bikes over last 30 years, that was first chain snap I'd had with RK or any other. Shortly after several others with same chain had same thing happen on the same bike, with the exception of the one with Primary drive brand.
here's a link to that chain
http://www.rockymountainmc.com/viewLargerImage.do?prodImage=P/PRI_DRI_CHAINS.JPG
The RK's are a useable brand, I've ran them for many years with decent life, however I've found much better performer and longer wearing which equals less issue. Offroad I was getting 12 to 18 months on RK xrings or orings until they were shot. The same chain was faring about 10,000 miles and the deterioration would accelerate.
I really needed much better performance with the milege I was running on the street, going to much heavier chain is really playing out well.
Tension checked midway between sprockets both wheel off the ground and on side stand.
I've been through many chains and many bikes over last 30 years, that was first chain snap I'd had with RK or any other. Shortly after several others with same chain had same thing happen on the same bike, with the exception of the one with Primary drive brand.
here's a link to that chain
http://www.rockymountainmc.com/viewLargerImage.do?prodImage=P/PRI_DRI_CHAINS.JPG
The RK's are a useable brand, I've ran them for many years with decent life, however I've found much better performer and longer wearing which equals less issue. Offroad I was getting 12 to 18 months on RK xrings or orings until they were shot. The same chain was faring about 10,000 miles and the deterioration would accelerate.
I really needed much better performance with the milege I was running on the street, going to much heavier chain is really playing out well.
my 02, IMO the adjustment range spec'd for many bikes is too tight at the low end and too loose at the far end. This has a big impact on chain life or failure IMO. I've verified this many times by removing the shocks or spring and moving the susp through it's travel.
On something like a cr500 what usually breaks or stretches the chain isn't the power of the bike, but a whip effect (like snapping a towel) in the chain under a certain set of circumstances.
When driving down the highway pay attention to bikes next to you and observe how the chain acts. It's real obvious that many do not keep them adjusted, scarey sometimes.
On something like a cr500 what usually breaks or stretches the chain isn't the power of the bike, but a whip effect (like snapping a towel) in the chain under a certain set of circumstances.
When driving down the highway pay attention to bikes next to you and observe how the chain acts. It's real obvious that many do not keep them adjusted, scarey sometimes.
Many make the mistake of mis-adjusting their bike chains.
It is more common than folks would imagine. That is why I took the time to do a write-up on the proper adjustment procedure for ALL motorcycle chains.
When you adjust your bike chain, it needs to be with the swingarm such that there is a straight line from the front sprocket shaft, through the swingarm, and to the rear sprocket shaft. One straight lineup.
At that point, your suspension is in the tightest possible travel it can encounter. It is from THERE that you need to adjust your chain tension. The exact amount, when your chain is in that position, is to have approx. 1-3%of the distance between front shaft and back shaft, of total up-and-down play in the chain.
If you do not adjust your chain in that fashion, you run the risk of being too tight or too loose. It happens ALL THE TIME, and I see folks snapping chains, and wearing out coutnershaft seals, and wheel bearings, simply because they haven't really followed the adjustment procedure properly.
I know folks will add their years of experience into the mix...but trust me, I ride with folks who have also ridden for thirty of forty years and still do things incorrectly. Time is no teacher at all...it simply keeps time.
If it's any consequence, I've been riding dirt bikes since 1969.
I now make my living dealing with power transmissions and conveyance machinery. Chains and sprockets are part of my life, you might say.
Anyway, my point is that the RK line of chains is top notch. They have no issues of breakage due to substandard equipment that is being reported anywhere.
If one breaks, I guarantee there is a problem unrelated to the chain construction. Most likely an adjustment or lubrication issue.
Some may have it all figured out, but I will provide a link to my in-depth discussion on chain and sprocket issues.
http://www.best-motorcycle-chain-lube.com/motorcycle_maintenance_chain_sprocket_tips.htm
It is more common than folks would imagine. That is why I took the time to do a write-up on the proper adjustment procedure for ALL motorcycle chains.
When you adjust your bike chain, it needs to be with the swingarm such that there is a straight line from the front sprocket shaft, through the swingarm, and to the rear sprocket shaft. One straight lineup.
At that point, your suspension is in the tightest possible travel it can encounter. It is from THERE that you need to adjust your chain tension. The exact amount, when your chain is in that position, is to have approx. 1-3%of the distance between front shaft and back shaft, of total up-and-down play in the chain.
If you do not adjust your chain in that fashion, you run the risk of being too tight or too loose. It happens ALL THE TIME, and I see folks snapping chains, and wearing out coutnershaft seals, and wheel bearings, simply because they haven't really followed the adjustment procedure properly.
I know folks will add their years of experience into the mix...but trust me, I ride with folks who have also ridden for thirty of forty years and still do things incorrectly. Time is no teacher at all...it simply keeps time.
If it's any consequence, I've been riding dirt bikes since 1969.
I now make my living dealing with power transmissions and conveyance machinery. Chains and sprockets are part of my life, you might say.
Anyway, my point is that the RK line of chains is top notch. They have no issues of breakage due to substandard equipment that is being reported anywhere.
If one breaks, I guarantee there is a problem unrelated to the chain construction. Most likely an adjustment or lubrication issue.
Some may have it all figured out, but I will provide a link to my in-depth discussion on chain and sprocket issues.
http://www.best-motorcycle-chain-lube.com/motorcycle_maintenance_chain_sprocket_tips.htm
- Status
