On my current MB build (my second), my bike's still inside my house, but it's road ready -- except for tweaking the chain tension situation. With the stock "Erector Set®"-style chain tensioner that came with my 4-stroke Hua Sheng/Q-Matic kit, I just can't seem to get the tensioner positioned in such a way that the chain doesn't eventually bind on the 56-tooth drive sprocket. (Despite all of the usual chain/sprocket/engine alignment activities.) And I'm a bit paranoid because of the frequent "chain throwing" habit that my first MB build had vexed me with. That was a major pain in the arse.
This is how I'm testing it: I've got my bike standing on its double kickstand with the rear wheel free to roll, and then (by hand) I pedal the bike increasingly faster. With the chain tensioner mounted and carefully positioned and tightened in what looks like an appropriate position, the chain eventually binds on the rear sprocket. But when I remove the tensioner altogether, and rotate the pedals by hand, I can spin it as fast as I please, and the chain never binds on the sprocket. This latter situation happens with a rather loose chain. I mean, I can spin the heck out of that rear sprocket and the chain stays where it belongs -- slack as it is. I know I don't want it this slack on the road, though.
What I think I want to do is to forget the tensioner altogether, and just "break" the chain down to a length where it's tight enough without a tensioner. I'm using hefty #41 chain with a master link, and I've got adequate experience with breaking and resizing these chains with my SmithTool B-5035 "Chain-A-Part" chain breaker.
I think that my bike -- a 2012 Giant "Simple Single" cruiser with various upgraded motorcycle parts (brake lever, jackhammer throttle/grips, mirror, killswitch, etc.) looks better without that kit tensioner anyway.
So my query to you guys on this forum is: what do you think of running a MB without a tensioner? The way I figure it, if it runs well without it, and resultingly looks good to boot, why do I need a tensioner? And in my way of thinking, ten feet of #41 roller chain at Fastenal or Tractor Supply or Grainger is pretty cheap, so I'm not worried about replacing it when necessary.
I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts from forum members, and any comments on my latest build (pic attached).
This is how I'm testing it: I've got my bike standing on its double kickstand with the rear wheel free to roll, and then (by hand) I pedal the bike increasingly faster. With the chain tensioner mounted and carefully positioned and tightened in what looks like an appropriate position, the chain eventually binds on the rear sprocket. But when I remove the tensioner altogether, and rotate the pedals by hand, I can spin it as fast as I please, and the chain never binds on the sprocket. This latter situation happens with a rather loose chain. I mean, I can spin the heck out of that rear sprocket and the chain stays where it belongs -- slack as it is. I know I don't want it this slack on the road, though.
What I think I want to do is to forget the tensioner altogether, and just "break" the chain down to a length where it's tight enough without a tensioner. I'm using hefty #41 chain with a master link, and I've got adequate experience with breaking and resizing these chains with my SmithTool B-5035 "Chain-A-Part" chain breaker.
I think that my bike -- a 2012 Giant "Simple Single" cruiser with various upgraded motorcycle parts (brake lever, jackhammer throttle/grips, mirror, killswitch, etc.) looks better without that kit tensioner anyway.
So my query to you guys on this forum is: what do you think of running a MB without a tensioner? The way I figure it, if it runs well without it, and resultingly looks good to boot, why do I need a tensioner? And in my way of thinking, ten feet of #41 roller chain at Fastenal or Tractor Supply or Grainger is pretty cheap, so I'm not worried about replacing it when necessary.
I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts from forum members, and any comments on my latest build (pic attached).
Attachments
Last edited: