525 Vs 520 chain?

[Dabteacake]

I have noticed on a few threads that people change from a 525 chain to a 520. Can anyone explain the difference please and why you would make the change

[jambo]

Less weight.

[Dabteacake]

Thanks for the simple answer to my simple question. So there is nothing different in terms of longevity to the sprocket or chain?

thanks to the Mod who changed the title probably makes more sense now

[Ruffy]

520 is narrower than 525, hence having less weight as there's less material in the chain/sprockets. Note you need narrower 520 sprockets as well as the chain otherwise rapid wear of both will ensue.

For a given set of manufacturer's materials, in theory 520 will be weaker than 525 but on the SV it's unlikely to make a difference due to the relatively low power of the bike. Shoddy maintenance (cleaning/adjustment) will kill any chain more quickly.

If you buy decent stuff it's unlikely to be a problem, but I'm not sure you'd notice a real difference either. I wouldn't spend money to change until it was time to change a worn out chain/sprocket set anyway.

[embee]

First number is "eighths of an inch" pitch (distance between pin centres), second+third numbers is "eighths of an inch" sprocket thickness (nominally).

"520" means "5" eighths of an inch pitch, and "2.0" eighths of an inch sprocket thickness = 1/4" (nominally).
"525" is 5/8" pitch and "2.5" eighths thick = 5/16" nominally.

The strength comes in the sideplate and the shear of the pins, there is generally speaking no significant difference in either of these between 520/525. The big difference is in the wear area between the rollers and the sprockets.

520 is commonly used for racing purposes, I understand, and can be without the O-ring feature (= high maintenance).
525 "O-ring" is a better compromise for road use where wear/life is a significant factor.

[Dabteacake]

Embee thanks for the clever answer to my simple question lol.

So just stick with the 525 is the best course of action then

[davegixer1300r]

Chain drives are very power sapping possibly one of the most inefficient forms of power transmission, by running a 520 chain yes less weight, gyroscopic effect and it also causes less drag you can free up a couple of ponies by running a well lubricated and ajusted chain most racers use 520 size chain us included.:smt041

[Dabteacake]

Cheers for that gonna have a nosy and base it on price when I need to replace it I think

[mikerj]

Chain drives are very power sapping possibly one of the most inefficient forms of power transmission,

Sorry but that's simply incorrect; a properly lubricated/adjusted roller chain is a very efficient form of mechanical power transmission. If you want to see poor efficiency look no further than a shaft drive, vastly worse than a chain.

[andrewsmith]

Unless your racing stick with 525 as they're more robust and will last longer

[Dabteacake]

525 it is then I am 6'4" and 15 1/2 stone so hrd wearing is best I suppose lol

[hardhat_harry]

On an SV a 520 is just as robust as a 525 70hbp aint gonna make any difference at all.

They fit 520's to 1000cc race bikes without issues.

[yorkie_chris]

On an SV a 520 is just as robust as a 525 70hbp aint gonna make any difference at all.

How many miles have you got out of one then?

[hardhat_harry]

Well about 4000 on my ZXR400 before I sold it without issue, 6000 on the hornet before selling that again no issue, cant remember how long I had one on the R6. Only 300 miles on the SV at the moment.

[yorkie_chris]

Well when you get it past 35,000 I'll consider them a viable alternative ;)

[hardhat_harry]

My latest SV is a keeper as it was a ground up build out of bits so I'm attached to this one maybe it might reach such high numbers.