Ironman v. standard steel sprocket

[grayracer513]

Gray, so how do you perform this chain measurement for wear?

One of the easiest accurate ways is to use a 6" vernier caliper. These can be had for around $20 in the non-dial version, and they will do outside, inside, and depth measurements. Draw the chain tight and take a measurement from the inside of 1 roller to the inside of the 11th roller (it will be a measurement close to 6"). A new chain should measure 5.85". By multiplying this by 1.015, we get 5.94". 6" is 102.5%, and is the 2.5% stretch limit recommended in the manual.

Be sure to measure several sections, as the wear may not be even throughout the chain, and one long spot will damage the sprockets just as if the whole chain were long, although it will take longer.

[mxpro125]

I had a set of Rental Chain and Sprockets on my 125 that lasted forever, like 3+ years

[DigilubeJay]

I do want to add to that that the tolerance allowed in the Yamaha manual, which specifies the chain be replaced at 2.5% longer than manufactured pitch, is a little generous, and a chain run at 2% or more will misfit the sprockets badly enough to cause accelerated wear. I recommend the chain be replaced at 1.5% over-length if the sprockets are in reusable condition, and you want to keep them that way.

I think the Yamaha manual has the type of chain in mind when they provide this recommendation. A standard roller chain, that is being well maintained, has about the same growth rate from new pitch to 1% over, as it does from 1% to 2.5% over length. This is due to the chain seeing the very same maintenance and lubrication protection from start to finish. And as engineering standards already state that a quality sprocket of the #50 size can function and remain viable when used with a chain of up to ~2.5% over pitch length. The better the maintenance, the longer the standard chain will last.

The sealing ring chain, on the other hand, has a finite lifespan. The sealed in lubricant can only serve it's purpose for so long before it becomes ineffective and no longer able to protect the wear surfaces. Once the internally sealed in lubrication is no longer viable, the chain will start to see an immediate growth of pitch. Unless you happen to be using a lubricant that can penetrate the more than likely worn rings, there is nothing you can do to stop the wearing of the chains firction points, and the chain will grow at a very, very fast pace.

The graph showing the wear of a standard chain will be a slow steady rising line that is fairly predictible from new to worn. The graph showing the wear of a ring chain will be a flat line for quite some time, however once the lube is not viable any more, the graph line takes a dramatic swing upwards.

So yes, when a ring chain starts to see 1%-1.5% of growth over new pitch, you should change the chain out before waiting, as the wear is happening very fast at this point and only a couple of rides will show you that it can no longer take the abuse. The 2.5% will come and go before you know it when running a worn ring chain. So will the teeth of your sprocket.

But the thing that is overlooked in the above post is the effect of the environment on the drive train. There very simply is no amount of maintenance, and no miracle chain lube that will keep the dirt off the sprockets and chain, especially in muddy or sandy conditions. You can use lubes that will discourage, or at least will not encourage, it from sticking there, but if you're going to ride through the stuff, you can't keep it off. There is also no amount of protection that any chain lube can provide that will prevent the abrasive grit in that dirt and sand from wearing at the contact faces of the sprocket.

If you are using a dry-film lube, you can indeed keep sand and dust from sticking to the chain and sprocket. This I know from not only real world, but from testing as well.

And yes mud will adhere to the chain no matter what you do, but the only pertinent place the mud matters is on the roller faces, as they are all that comes in contact with the working faces of the sprocket teeth. Once the mud gets squished out from the roller area, it will no longer do much damage. Especially if the roller metal has already embedded moly, as the dirt will try to gain the space of the metals asperities, but will lose out to the polar moly.

And yes some face wear can occur, but unless you drive back and forth through a mud puddle for the majority of your riding, the occasional mud bog won't do too much harm to the drive.

When a person sees lots of wear on the sprocket faces, and KNOWS that his chain is within specifications, he needs to look very closely at the rollers, and how they are functioning. Many times a chain will collect dirt and grit between the ID of the roller and the OD of the bushing, which can cause the roller to not roll. This condition can easily cause tooth face wear, and is more than likely what riders see when the sprocket wears with a chain that is known to still be viable in length.

*Note that all of this is depending on the chain being adjusted properly. I have found that folks running chains with bad adjustments are of epedemic proportions, and if your drive isn't adjusted properly you will start to see damage to both the chain as well as the sprockets...AND other components like wheel bearings and shaft seals. Often times these maladjusted drives will see blame placed on the equipment, when the fact is that the mechanic is to blame for most of the wear.

Improper adjustments of chain drives is the number one cause for failures and fast wearing equipment.

As a result of riding in the desert a lot, I have had more than one rear sprocket wear out while the chain was still under 1% stretched. My CR500 went through 3 on a single chain once. The wear this produces is distinctly different in appearance to that caused by a stretched chain, and you can easily tell one from the other. Stretched chains wear at the tops of the load bearing side of the tooth, and give it a "pulled froward", or "bent over" look. Abrasive wear with a chain the correct length wears the load bearing side of the tooth, too, but it stays the right shape. Under these conditions, the tooth looks upright, and fairly normal, but is thinner than it should be, and the front edges of the roller pockets will look to have moved forward, so that they are half-oval, rather than half-round.

That kind of wear is what can be reduced by the use of either hard anodized aluminum sprockets, like Tag or AFAM, or steel sprockets.

Can you show us any examples of a sprocket worn by an over pitched chain as opposed to one worn by grit? I'd love to see that.

Yes, a steel sprocket of any flavor is harder than an aluminum, and it will resist any sort of abrasion much better. But hardcoat anodizing of an aluminum sprocket is only a very mild surface treatment at best. And the 5 or so thousandths of material that has been slightly hardened up will not fight the degredation of sand or grit very much. Not even close to a point that it makes anodizing a must. If you are concerned about abrasive wear, then steel should be the only material option that will help much.

[grayracer513]

... the tolerance allowed in the Yamaha manual, which specifies the chain be replaced at 2.5% longer than manufactured pitch, is a little generous, and a chain run at 2% or more will misfit the sprockets badly enough to cause accelerated wear. ...

I think the Yamaha manual has the type of chain in mind when they provide this recommendation...

But, do you disagree that a chain at 2% overlength is already at a point of causing accelerated wear?

There ...is no amount of maintenance, (or) chain lube that will keep the dirt off the sprockets and chain, ...You can (keep) it from sticking there, but ... you can't keep it off. There is also no amount of protection that any chain lube can provide that will prevent the abrasive grit in that dirt and sand from wearing at the contact faces of the sprocket.

....Once the mud gets squished out from the roller area, it will no longer do much damage. Especially if the roller metal has already embedded moly, as the dirt will try to gain the space of the metals asperities, but will lose out to the polar moly.

If I read this right, you're saying that a sprocket with moly worked into the surface is impervious to wear caused by sand trapped between the roller and sprocket. Sorry, moly is hard, but it isn't that hard.

..... Abrasive wear with a chain the correct length wears the load bearing side of the tooth, too, but it stays the right shape. Under these conditions, the tooth looks upright, and fairly normal, but is thinner than it should be, and the front edges of the roller pockets will look to have moved forward, so that they are half-oval, rather than half-round.

That kind of wear is what can be reduced by the use of either hard anodized aluminum sprockets, like Tag or AFAM, or steel sprockets.

Can you show us any examples of a sprocket worn by an over pitched chain as opposed to one worn by grit? I'd love to see that.

On page 3-31 of your manual (the "Sprockets/Chain Inspection" page in section 3, if your pagination differs) there is an illustration of a sprocket showing two teeth. The tooth to the right is worn at least partly by a chain running too long. The tooth at the left is typical of those worn under a chain of the correct pitch. I showed you a photograph of one of my old sprockets once already, and you accused me of prevarication.

As far as hard anodizing goes, you cannot possibly support the assertion that moly-bearing lubes will reduce wear significantly and simultaneously assert that hard anodizing is of no significant consequence. Hard anodizing, in the first place, is not a coating. It is a surface treatment that becomes a part of the surface, penetrating into it roughly as deep as it stands above it. Aluminum oxide is typical of the compounds used in HA treatments, and if this name sounds familiar, check the back of your next sheet of sandpaper. That's probably where you last saw the words, and if you don't think it's hard, well, just be careful with sand paper. The fact is that, even though they are thin, many good hard anodizing treatments are harder than untreated chrome-moly steel, and they will extend the wear life of the part. To say otherwise is no different than saying that there's no point in Nikasil plating an aluminum cylinder.

[DigilubeJay]

But, do you disagree that a chain at 2% overlength is already at a point of causing accelerated wear?

I agree that 2% over pitch is about the point that some wear will start to show itself on softer sprockets. A hard sprocket will resist this initial wear pattern, and the energy that would normally cause the sprocket to deform gets transferred back to the chain itself, accelerating the wear of the chain.

If I read this right, you're saying that a sprocket with moly worked into the surface is impervious to wear caused by sand trapped between the roller and sprocket. Sorry, moly is hard, but it isn't that hard.

I never used or implied the term impervious. What I am saying is that a grit of sand may well get squashed between the roller face and the sprocket tooth, but it will not remain there, nor will the dust that came to be when the grain of sand more than likely exploded from pressure. Moly doesn't work by being hard, but rather by occupying the voids in the metal asperities and creating a plating type action.

Some lubes may well allow the dust and dirt to reside on the metal surfaces and can indeed help to wear things more.

I showed you a photograph of one of my old sprockets once already, and you accused me of prevarication.

I don't recall seeing any photos of your sprockets, nor did I recall accusing you of prevarcation. (maybe you should point this specific thread out to back up this accusation?)

For you to lie, you would first have to know you were giving bad info. It is obvious you do not have a full grasp of the concept as of yet, so your info may well be provided in good faith.

I do recall us disscussing a photo provided by Ironman sprockets. You were making wrong assumptiond then, and you are still.

On page 3-31 of your manual (the "Sprockets/Chain Inspection" page in section 3, if your pagination differs) there is an illustration of a sprocket showing two teeth. The tooth to the right is worn at least partly by a chain running too long. The tooth at the left is typical of those worn under a chain of the correct pitch.

What I submit is that you are both making assumtion as to what the manual is showing us, as well as providing your own personal theory as fact.

I don't think you can find any sort of material anywhere else that wil back you up on your explination of wear on a sprocket that is caused by contamination, rather than from chain elongation.

This thread is were we previously discussed this issue, and you were making wrong assumptions then. You are again passing on your own flawed theory as fact.

https://www.thumpertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=298992&page=3

As far as hard anodizing goes, you cannot possibly support the assertion that moly-bearing lubes will reduce wear significantly and simultaneously assert that hard anodizing is of no significant consequence. Hard anodizing, in the first place, is not a coating. It is a surface treatment that becomes a part of the surface, penetrating into it roughly as deep as it stands above it. Aluminum oxide is typical of the compounds used in HA treatments, and if this name sounds familiar, check the back of your next sheet of sandpaper. That's probably where you last saw the words, and if you don't think it's hard, well, just be careful with sand paper. The fact is that, even though they are thin, many good hard anodizing treatments are harder than untreated chrome-moly steel, and they will extend the wear life of the part. To say otherwise is no different than saying that there's no point in Nikasil plating an aluminum cylinder.

I am fairly well versed on anodizing procedures and the differing results. And I really don't think I need a IT man tryting to school me on chemistry or metallurgy.

Hardcoat anodizing will protect the finish somewhat, but it is not near as resilliant as steel. You can talk broad and general about these process', but let's stick to how they pertain to the application.

[Kyle Prior]

If anodizing is so strong, how come it is already visibly wearing from the teeth on my tag front sprocket that has been on for many 5 hours of riding? I think my chain is too worn and needs replacing, but the anodizing doesnt seem to be as hard as it is billed to be.

[grayracer513]

If anodizing is so strong, how come it is already visibly wearing from the teeth on my tag front sprocket that has been on for many 5 hours of riding? I think my chain is too worn and needs replacing, but the anodizing doesnt seem to be as hard as it is billed to be.

Tag front sprockets, and everyone else's I'm aware of, are steel, and are heat treated, not anodized. There's no coating to wear off. Measure your chain for wear.

I never used or implied the term impervious. What I am saying is that a grit of sand may well get squashed between the roller face and the sprocket tooth, but it will not remain there, nor will the dust that came to be when the grain of sand more than likely exploded from pressure. Moly doesn't work by being hard, but rather by occupying the voids in the metal asperities and creating a plating type action.

What I submit is that you are both making assumtion as to what the manual is showing us, as well as providing your own personal theory as fact.

This thread is were we previously discussed this issue, and you were making wrong assumptions then. You are again passing on your own flawed theory as fact.

https://www.thumpertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=298992&page=3

I am fairly well versed on anodizing procedures and the differing results. And I really don't think I need a IT man tryting to school me on chemistry or metallurgy.

Hardcoat anodizing will protect the finish somewhat, but it is not near as resilliant as steel. You can talk broad and general about these process', but let's stick to how they pertain to the application.

The crushing of the sand that you refer to is exactly what leads to the wear of the sprockets in a situation like the one I presented, where the chain is the right length. The fact that the sand stays there for one cycle, instead of being glued into a paste by oily grease is all well and good, and it will take longer to effect a lot of wear without that. But it is undeniable that it's not a good thing to have sand run through the sprockets, or that it happens, and if the sprocket surface is not hard enough to resist the penetration of the surface caused by the sand crystals being pressed against it with that kind of force, damage will be done, and wear will occur that not even the best lube can mitigate.

The only way to address the problem is either to eliminate the sand, or to make the sprocket harder, which is why, way back at the start of this thread, the OP was interested in steel sprockets.

Rather than take the time to dig up the old post, I give you this:

Now, before you go off about how the sprocket was obviously worn by a stretched chain, let me point out that this (a Sunstar) was the second of 3 rears I had on my CR500. It was bought at a time when the budget was tight, and lasted 7 months of one desert season. The chain that ran over this one was reinstalled with a Tag that was still on the bike, along with the same chain, 8 months later when I sold it. At that time, the chain was still worn to less than 2% over its manufactured pitch.

Your reference to me as an "IT man" was a nice try, but you know perfectly well that I was first a motorcycle and automotive technician for 35 years. You're also smart enough to know that one's chosen profession places no limits on his knowledge or intelligence, either. I also think you probably should not have selected that particular thread, since it showcases your tendency for name calling. But that's your choice. Either way, "schooling" you would not have been something I would undertake. However, since you categorized hard anodizing as "only a very mild surface treatment at best", I simply offered a counterpoint for those interested.

As to it's applicability to motorcycle sprockets, since the right process, correctly done, can produce a surface harder than that of case hardened steel, and as hard as some gem stones, I don't see how there's any doubt.

[OcotilloBound]

Now there will still be those who will say that I'm full of bullshit, and that their Ironman really rocks and the best thing since ring chains...but just consider that there are millions of motorcycles in the world, and being mfg'd every day that have aluminum sprockets on the back.

If we really needed to have a more robust, superhard, sprocket on the back, why would they still be putting the softer ones on?

There is one very simple answer to that question - cost. It would cost the manufacturers and the end users more to put a case hardened chrome steel sprocket on each and every bike out there. But neither the manufacturers or every rider are willing to do that. Those that do, read their comments in the first part of this thread - they are believers. Those that don't - like to find excuses for their sprocket wear, like chain type, or lube, or adjustment. Bottom line is, as with many products that tout superior quality of materials and manufacturing, you get what you pay for. This isn't true everywhere - but it usually is on devices that one can compare to other similar devices and show longevity, or quality of experience, as being better than the lesser products. It's like comparing Hyundais to Ferraris - sure, they are both vehicles that will get you from a to b, but the experience is of much greater quality in one than the other. But you can buy a lot more of the other to make up for that loss of quality, if you don't insist upon it or decide you can't afford it. So the few get to enjoy the experience of the quality, because they decide they can afford it, but the unwashed masses settle for the cheapie, because it fits their budget. All boils down to money....

Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance.......

[DigilubeJay]

gray,

The pitch of the chain that was run on that sprocket was obviously elongated. And you can throw all the anecdotal evidence at this you want, there is no way that the sprocket shown above was not damaged by an elongated chain.

And I have never denied that surface abrasion takes place at differing levels. But that sprocekt you showed was not just worn by surface abrasion.

And you may well have seen something about the superior methods of aluminum anodizing when you did your google search, but I can assure you that aluminum motorcycle sprockets do not undergo those types of process'.

Do another search and read up about the process used to place color.

OcotilloBound,

Money may well be a deciding factor for many, especially when they are convinced that the Ironman sprockets must be really something great with such an elevated price...

But we are not talking Hyndais and Ferraris here...we are simply talking about a single component. And yes, generic standard carbon steel sprockets will indeed be hardened. And a better quality steel sprocket will be case hardened to provide a softer, shock absorbing center core. Rather than the through hardned Ironman that has little or no shock absorbsion factor at all, other than by it's geometric design.

I'm just telling you that the money factor here is geared towards a gimmick, in the case of the Ironman. They know that the super hard material will resist a chain that has been elongated. And they also know that this will accelerate the wear of the chain...but then they aren't giving you a warranty on chain now are they?

Do you think that the one Ironman will outlast 4 of the case hardened standard steel sprockets? Or 3 of them for that matter?

Yes, it does all boil down to money...yours.

And not once until now have I mentioned the shoddy work that Dirt Tricks puts out as finished product, which has been reported on numerous occasions.

[Ga426owner]

gray,

The pitch of the chain that was run on that sprocket was obviously elongated. And you can throw all the anecdotal evidence at this you want, there is no way that the sprocket shown above was not damaged by an elongated chain.

And I have never denied that surface abrasion takes place at differing levels. But that sprocekt you showed was not just worn by surface abrasion.

And you may well have seen something about the superior methods of aluminum anodizing when you did your google search, but I can assure you that aluminum motorcycle sprockets do not undergo those types of process'.

Do another search and read up about the process used to place color.

OcotilloBound,

Money may well be a deciding factor for many, especially when they are convinced that the Ironman sprockets must be really something great with such an elevated price...

But we are not talking Hyndais and Ferraris here...we are simply talking about a single component. And yes, generic standard carbon steel sprockets will indeed be hardened. And a better quality steel sprocket will be case hardened to provide a softer, shock absorbing center core. Rather than the through hardned Ironman that has little or no shock absorbsion factor at all, other than by it's geometric design.

I'm just telling you that the money factor here is geared towards a gimmick, in the case of the Ironman. They know that the super hard material will resist a chain that has been elongated. And they also know that this will accelerate the wear of the chain...but then they aren't giving you a warranty on chain now are they?

Do you think that the one Ironman will outlast 4 of the case hardened standard steel sprockets? Or 3 of them for that matter?

Yes, it does all boil down to money...yours.

And not once until now have I mentioned the shoddy work that Dirt Tricks puts out as finished product, which has been reported on numerous occasions.

Whatever, everyone is entitled to their opinion .........I have had great success with Ironman products. Go pick up a JT Hardened steel sprocket/Primary Drive set if you are cheap. They are a bit heavier than Ironman and they have no 1 yr guarantee. Either way you will go through 3-5 aluminum sprockets if you a hardcore vs 1 Ironman ......

[grayracer513]

See, I told you that you'd say that. Jay, I installed that sprocket new using a chain that was at that time 0.8% over length at its worst section. I ran it for 7 months, and replaced it, at which time the chain had worn to 1% over. The sprocket that came after this one ran for 8 months from then until I sold it and was in better condition than the one shown. The chain by that time was at 1.4% over. So, you can make all the gratuitous assertions to the contrary that you'd like to, but it simply doesn't change the facts. You did not have the chain in front of you to measure, you did not take the measurements, and you have no logically supportable grounds to submit that the information is inaccurate, short of suggesting that I can't read a caliper, because you weren't there.

Tag and AFAM will both be interested to know that they don't actually use hard anodizing to process their sprockets. You should write them and tell them to stop misleading the public.

The point of the Ironman sprocket has never been that it will outlast other steel sprockets, and I doubt that you can document a case of either they or myself having said anything of the sort. The point is that they will provide the wear resistance of steel without the usual weight penalty. That's all that they or I or anyone I can think of has said of them.

[DigilubeJay]

...So, you can make all the gratuitous assertions to the contrary that you'd like to, but it simply doesn't change the facts. You did not have the chain in front of you to measure, you did not take the measurements, and you have no logically supportable grounds to submit that the information is inaccurate, short of suggesting that I can't read a caliper, because you weren't there...

I wasn't there, but I can easily find logic in questioning your information.

What I do have, is a picture of a sprocket that you claim was worn only by trail debris. That picture is indicative of a sprocket that has been deformed due to an elongated or maladjusted chain. Not from simple trail debris.

Ironman also provided a pic of a sprocket that was also deformed from elongated or maladjusted chain, and you also claimed it too was a pic indicative of a debris worn chain.

Since I know that the sprockets in question were not simlply worn by sand or debris alone, I can logically assume that at least some of your data is corrupt.

There are lots of variables that you could have hosed up, or are mistaken about...but it's all anecdotal evidence at best. You may feel that you are superior enough to most that anything you provide...whether you can back it up with more than your words or not, is spot on info. But I think perhpas you should humble yourslef a bit and realize that you just may have one or more points of proper chain/sprocket maintenance fouled up.

Tell us where you got the information of what the Yamaha manual is showing us in section 3? Did Yamaha tell you this is the sort of wear that occurs due to trail debris as opposed to a worn chain? Or...did you simply give that too us as another assumtion you have made after you spent hours studying the picture?

In any event, your information on sprocket tooth wear patterns is incorrect.

[grayracer513]

Whatever, Jay, what ever.

The claim as to what caused the wear on the Ironman was from the manufacturer's web page, not mine.

The dimensions I took from the chain I measured are accurate.

Since the chain was not too long, the wear was not caused by too long a chain.

And yet, you can sit there and discard that information as incorrect when you have no basis on which to do, other than the fact that facts it produces are inconvenient. You expect to be taken at your word, yet you will give credit to the veracity of no one else.

Doesn't really seem useful to continue the discussion with you, somehow.

All the Best,

[gmtech16450yz (motobark)]

Wow, nothing like analyzing something to death.

Here's my take, in the last 20 years I have about 20k miles of riding and bike service documented. That history shows standard chain and alum sprockets last roughly 1k miles. O-ring chain and alum sprocket, about 2k. Ironman and high quality o-ring chain, 3k miles and still looking better than a non-o-ring /alum sprocket at 500 miles.

I will never buy anything other than the Ironman and the best o-ring chain setup for my bikes. Being able to put a chain and sprockets on and not worrying about it for 2 or 3k miles is pretty awesome. I also put them on peoples bikes I maintain because they tolerate lack of maintenance and adjustment way better than an alum sprocket / non o-ring chain setup. If they can't or don't know how to lube and adjust their chains, it's better to put something on there and tell them don't touch it!

[live4toys]

Wow, nothing like analyzing something to death.?

Here's my take, in the last 20 years I have about 20k miles of riding and bike service documented. That history shows standard chain and alum sprockets last roughly 1k miles. O-ring chain and alum sprocket, about 2k. Ironman and high quality o-ring chain, 3k miles and still looking better than a non-o-ring /alum sprocket at 500 miles.

I will never buy anything other than the Ironman and the best o-ring chain setup for my bikes. Being able to put a chain and sprockets on and not worrying about it for 2 or 3k miles is pretty awesome. I also put them on peoples bikes I maintain because they tolerate lack of maintenance and adjustment way better than an alum sprocket / non o-ring chain setup. If they can't or don't know how to lube and adjust their chains, it's better to put something on there and tell them don't touch it!

X2...

[ncmountainman]

well here's my $.02, i tried the ironman and found the traits that digidude mentioned (not to take sides) the feel was harsh on/off the throttle,i could actually feel it up through the trannie. and i did experience accelerated chain wear(faster than i'd ever seen),at the time it was a DID o-ring and yes both sprockets and chain were replaced at the same time. also have tried sidewinders tri metal with their front and a new krause "ti" chain,talk about over priced and overrated....the chain wore out in no time and replaced it with a new regina ORN,but the sprockets must have been too far gone and nothing lasted. called sidewinder and they just wouldn't accept it:excuseme: what i run now is sunstar steel baby,case hardened and tough. pair it with a parts unlimited o-ring chain (made by EK) for $50 odd and the whole set is under $100! now i have tried the sprocket specialists "titan tough" hard anodized alum paired with a Regina ORN and was very impressed with the wear in fact it may have been the longest lasting (for chain and sprocket together) set i've ever ran. in fact i sold the sprocket to "goosedog" for $20 and he ran it the rest of the season (couple-3 mnths i beleive) i may just get another to save some weight (the switch to steel was noticeable but money was tight at the time) my ? goes to the titan tough for alum and sunstar for steel,moose racing makes a copy of the ironman for $80 but have not heard anything about it:excuseme: