Xring or Oring chain for YZF450


40 replies to this topic
  • Chad76

Posted April 27, 2005 - 05:34 PM

#1

Just wondering what type people prefer to go for and why?

How long should I expect the stock standard crappy chain to last on a brand new 450?

  • saucebox

Posted April 27, 2005 - 05:38 PM

#2

i've had my stock chain on for a year now and its sooooo worn out... if i wasn't broke as a joke I'd have a new one on order. Thank god theres only 2 weeks of college left till i start working my summer job and get some real cash flowing. if you got the cash ditch that stock one cuz all it does is stretch stretch stretch and its worn out after about 10 hours.

  • rmracer27

Posted April 27, 2005 - 05:58 PM

#3

I have the DID X-ring and does not need to be tightened yet. I have about 10 hours on it so far with no adjustments made.

  • hotrodheathen13

Posted April 27, 2005 - 07:13 PM

#4

The stock chain is worthless. I was able to get 6 hours on the stocker before I had to take a link (I guess it's 2 links really) out. I rode rode it for another 8 hours and it was toast. I now have the RK x-ring chain with about 30 hours on it and it works great. Only minimal adjustments after every ride (1/2 turn or so on each axle block adjusting screw). I still have the stock sprocket/counter sprocket on, and although there is a little side to side play with the 520 chain, they seem to be holding up well. The only problem I've noticed is that the chain nibbles on the subframe, and the stock chain guide the pins on the master link down. There isn't any wear on the case, but the subframe and chain guide are kind of annoying; not real bad just keep an eye on those link pins and replace the masterlink if necessary. Oh yeah, and I went with the x-ring style because it had a higher tensile strength rating than the o-ring. It's still an o-ring chain, I'm not sure of the differences between the o, x, and t style rings. It's tough and it's got rubber rings to help seal out the crap so I'm happy! I hope this helps.

  • grayracer513

Posted April 27, 2005 - 07:46 PM

#5

If your question is, should you use a high quality O, X, or Z-ring chain, the answer is yes.

I prefer the Regina chains, personally.

  • tnl

Posted April 27, 2005 - 07:53 PM

#6

My preference is for a non o ring chain because I like to clean it really good after riding with a pressure washer and oil the hell out of it with motor oil. O ring chains are sealed so they don't need lubrication at all but you have to be carefull when cleaning it because you don't want to force water into the sealed portion of the chain. Also, some chemicals can be bad for the chain like wd-40 or any other kind of de greaser that has harmful chemicals it it. They cost a little more too. Call me crazy/over the top but I like to get the grit off of my renthal chain and sprockets to prevent excessive wear to my $190 parts. It comes down to personal preference no matter what the next threads say! This question is like the "which kind/weight of motor oil do I use" for my bike. Lots of threads out there regarding this topic.....SEARCH!

  • Chad76

Posted April 27, 2005 - 08:42 PM

#7

Thanks for the info everyone.

What is a Z ring? Never heard of them.

So it sounds like a X ring will last a bit longer than the standard O ring. Is this correct? Does anyone know what is the actual difference between a X and a O ring chain?

The reason I ask, is I have only ridden my brand new YZF 450 04 once and the chain has already stretched. So I cant imagine it lasting too long.

Another thing I don't understand is why the WR gets a O ring standard whilst the YZF dose not. You think it would be the other way around.

  • cowboyona426

Posted April 27, 2005 - 08:51 PM

#8

The stock chain will stretch after every ride, it's junk. I replaced mine with an RK X-ring and I'm way happy with it. The difference between X and O ring is the shape of the ring- X has X shaped rings, O has O shaped rings... the X shaped rings are supposed to provide better sealing or something. If I were you, I would ride the stock chain/sprockets until they wear out, then replace everything with new stuff. Ironman sprockets are the best, chain is kind of up to you... they are all about the same IMO.

  • cowboyona426

Posted April 27, 2005 - 08:53 PM

#9

Another thing I don't understand is why the WR gets a O ring standard whilst the YZF dose not. You think it would be the other way around.


O-rings (or X-rings) are better for off-road bikes because they seal out water better, sometimes MX only people prefer a standard chain because they are considerably lighter compared to O or X ring chains.

  • mj2412

Posted April 27, 2005 - 11:20 PM

#10

The difference between the different chains is the shape of the sealing rings. The o ring is a standard ring like you use for many sealing stuff. The advantage of a X shaped rubber seal over a O ring chain are the 4 sealing lips, the grease which can be hold in the little space between the lips and the less friction. The X shaped sealing rings are introduced by DID and therefore Regina invented the Z shaped rings with the similar advantages over the standard O shaped (2 contact points)chain like the X ring chain. The difference between X and Z ring chains is only marketing.
Chains without any rings are often used for MX because of the weight and the efficiency factor (lost of power). The friction is less for a chain without sealing rings. For MX use it is common to change the chain more often than for an enduro bike.

Martin

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • grayracer513

Posted April 27, 2005 - 11:28 PM

#11

What is a Z ring? Never heard of them.

Regina's ORZ chain; their answer to DID's X-ring. The cross section of the sealing rings is "Z" shaped, sealing at the points of the Z. The presumptive advantage of either chain is in the reduced drag achieved compared with simple O-rings, and arguably, slightly better sealing. Maybe.

However, since no more than 8 O-rings are ever actually in motion at any moment, I wonder if the extra expense compared with either manufacturer's top quality O-ring chain is worth it.

The Regina O-ring chains I have bought have lasted over two years until the lube began to fail, never stretching significantly over that entire period.

  • grayracer513

Posted April 28, 2005 - 09:19 AM

#12

My preference is for a non o ring chain because I like to clean it

Well, now, I can't argue with that. However, how hard a chain is to clean depends on how dirty it gets, which depends on what you put on it and where you ride. Clay mud is a problem, of course, but the important thing is to avoid using a chain lube that attracts and holds dirt. Waxes and some other synthetic products that dry up "clean", so you can touch the chain and not get anything on your fingers are the best choice, if you use anything at all. The only thing absolutely required is rust prevention after washing, but some lube on the exterior of the rings is good, and it doesn't hurt the outer rollers, either. I use Maxima Synthetic Chain Guard. Simple Green an low pressure water normally remove everything, lube, the little dirt it collects, all of it. O-ring chains can be pressure washed IF you abck up about two feet and spray only straight at the sides. Pressure washers are hazardous to an O-ring chain, but also to wheel bearings, swing arm pivots, RS linkage, and your engine.

...and oil the hell out of it with motor oil.

:naughty: Yeech!! Motor oil? You must enjoy cleaning the back of your bike, too. Motor oil has to be one of the most inferior lubricants for an open roller chain that you could choose. It won't stay put, which means it won't lube the inner bushings and pins for very long, but it will prevent mud from sticking to your swing arm, fender, rim, and left leg.

They cost a little more too. Call me crazy/over the top but I like to get the grit off of my renthal chain and sprockets to prevent excessive wear to my $190 parts.

I have no trouble spending a couple extra minutes with a "tooth" brush cleaning the rear sprocket, but I simply don't have the time or the desire to spend it weekly removing, cleaning, lubing, and reinstalling a chain that isn't going to last a third as long as as one I don't have to do much of anything to at all. The cost is higher only in terms of the up front price. In dollars per year spent on rear chains, they are far cheaper. They don't stretch because they don't wear. Since they don't stretch, they fit your sprockets better, and the sprockets last longer. That ends up being cheaper, too.

I had a CR500 that was, among other things, a kind of destructive testing lab for tires and final drive parts. I got it with a near new standard chain and quickly destroyed it. I put one Regina ORS6 on the bike shortly after I bought it, and never replaced it. I had it for two years. The new owner has had it for about a year now, and it's finally ready to be changed out. During that time, I wore out three rear sprockets and two fronts, but the chain stretched less than 2%. Another thing I learned was that Renthal rears don't last very much longer than Sunstars, and that Tags cost less than Renthals and last quite bit longer. If you want the ultimate in long wearing (and cool looking) rear sprockets, go with Ironman.

  • BigDesto

Posted April 28, 2005 - 01:38 PM

#13

O-rings (or X-rings) are better for off-road bikes because they seal out water better, sometimes MX only people prefer a standard chain because they are considerably lighter compared to O or X ring chains.



I run Non O-ring DID MX Strongest chain!!

  • sirthumpalot

Posted April 28, 2005 - 06:06 PM

#14

I run Non O-ring DID MX Strongest chain!!


Tensile strength and wear life are not directly related. The DID x-ring chains are strong. The 520 ERV2 (top of the line DID x-ring) is used on liter class super bikes when they convert to 520 to save weight. If a 150+HP crotch rocket doesn't break it, I doubt our little 50HP bikes will put it in any danger. I'm sure there are other 520 sealed chains used in the same conversion, but the ERV2 is the best I have personally used. :naughty:

  • grayracer513

Posted April 28, 2005 - 07:37 PM

#15

Once I start randomly snapping my 8000 lb Reginas in half, I'll consider a 9000 lb DID non-O ring. So far, it hasn't been a problem.

  • DigilubeJay

Posted April 28, 2005 - 10:37 PM

#16

A couple of things I want to touch on here:

Tensile strength is of no concern. A marketing tool at best.
Before you argue this point, get your data together that shows how much force your bike creates, then we can discuss.

Lubrication is completely necessary for ALL ROLLER CHAINS, ring or no ring. If you have information that a mfg states that their ring chain needs no lube, bring that info. I've not seen it.

grayracer, I see you as a person that uses, as well as provides, information well.
Being a power transmission proffesional, I submit that if you wore out sprockets and your chain was indeed within 2% of it's original length, then you definately had another problem that was unrelated to chain and sprocket integrity. And no, it was not the brute force of your CR500. That bike will create about 1800lbs force on a good day, and that is well less than the tensile strength rating of even your bottom shelf chains (see my first comment).
Just about each and every time I encounter a rider who has trouble keeping sprockets and chains together, (that is if they follow a good cleaning and lubing schedule) I find they have missed at least one small point on adjustment. In the world of chain tension, a 1/4 turn can mean the difference between proper and catastrophe.

Which brings me to this:
Everyone who has had bad luck with the stock Yamaha chains need to realise that your chain and sprockets were mounted and adjusted by the shop or dealer where you bought your bike. I can't count the times I've been in dealerships and performance shops that have bikes on the showroom floor with chains that are completely too tight.
I think the problem is that dealers want things to look good on the floor, rather than actually being correct (or they simply don't know what correct is ((most likely)).
Many riders also have their chains too tight as a rule. They simply haven't learned the proper way to adjust them, so they blame their equipment for the shortcomings.
This is much more common than anyone imagines.

  • rmracer27

Posted April 29, 2005 - 03:37 AM

#17

I would also look at who makes the chain and goto there website and see what the max cc rating is for that chain, alot of the books does not say what the max cc rating is.

  • BigDesto

Posted April 29, 2005 - 08:14 AM

#18

The MX is for 500cc and up, the ERT/ERV are for 250cc. The higher tensile strength means less stretch! Besides O-rings/X-rings are for guys that ride in mud /water/slop which is rare in so-cal :naughty:

  • grayracer513

Posted April 29, 2005 - 09:11 AM

#19

Lubrication is completely necessary for ALL ROLLER CHAINS, ring or no ring.

I agree, as I said. I use MSCG to lube the outer rollers, the sprockets themselves, and to lube and protect the exterior surfaces of the rings. Just be careful selecting a lubricant, as one too sticky will actually cause grains of sand, etc., to work under the seals and damage them. But the internal lube is unaffected by that practice, and the fact remains that there are a lot of people using next to nothing on the outside of their O-ring chains with satisfactory results whether or not you and I think it's a good idea.

I submit that if you wore out sprockets and your chain was indeed within 2% of it's original length, then you definately had another problem that was unrelated to chain and sprocket integrity. And no, it was not the brute force of your CR500. That bike will create about 1800lbs force on a good day, and that is well less than the tensile strength rating of even your bottom shelf chains (see my first comment).
Just about each and every time I encounter a rider who has trouble keeping sprockets and chains together, (that is if they follow a good cleaning and lubing schedule) I find they have missed at least one small point on adjustment. In the world of chain tension, a 1/4 turn can mean the difference between proper and catastrophe.

Of course tensile strength isn't a factor. But 65+ horsepower comes with a certain amount of torque, and that translates to driveline loads, so it contributes.

The wear pattern on a sprocket that is worn by a stretched chain is entirely different from one worn by a chain running at the correct pitch. You, of course, know this already. When a chain is overlength, the drive load is carried by only the farthest forward tooth at the top of the rear sprocket, just before it rolls out of contact with the chain. This is because the distance between that last roller and the next one back down the sprocket is greater than the distance between the sprocket's teeth, and leads to the classic "hooked", or "ratchet" appearance of the sprocket. On mine, none of the teeth were ever hooked. The rear facing edge of the tooth, which is the surface that bears the drive load, was a perfect quarter circle the exact radius it was originally cut to, but it was moved farther forward on the cog, making the gaps between teeth appear "half-oval", rather than half-round. Checking the fit of the chain on the replacement sprocket, I always found it to be correct, not stretched.

The "problem" was simply in using inexpensive (or just soft, in the case of the Renthal) aluminum sprockets on a high powered bike ridden in a harsh, sandy environment for a long time, that's all. Front sprockets are always more subjet to wear just because they turn faster. Each tooth contacts the chain four times as often. Avoiding overtight chains is important, but if anything, I run my chains on the loose side.

The higher tensile strength means less stretch! Besides O-rings/X-rings are for guys that ride in mud /water/slop which is rare in so-cal

All premium chains, including yours, are subjected to pre-stretching. Between 50 and 70% of the chains rated tensile strength is applied to the material used to make the plates before finishing. Any material that is pulled in tension will give easily at first, then resist progressively more and more as it approaches its limit. Because this is done in the manufacturing process, the initial "easy" yield is taken out of the plates already, and the chain does not stretch in use at all in the true sense. "Stretching" is actually the result of the cumulative wear at each pin and inner bushing. This wear increases the pitch of the chain, making it longer overall.

Sealing the lube in the chain leads to longer chain life because the chain is always lubed, and always internally clean, whether you ride in mud or dust.

  • BigDesto

Posted April 29, 2005 - 09:50 AM

#20

:D :naughty: :naughty: :D





Related Content

 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.