Chains Chain size?
- Thread starter pitchy
- Start date
- Status
Good, when I reply to a question I try to keep it in line with what is available to the general public, a lot of us have access to better parts or machinery that others may not. A lot of builders, especially first timers can get very confused with all the info we sometimes post.
sbest
Active Member
The sprockets on my Grubee GT5A are 1/8" wide, not 1/4", so I don't understand why anyone would run an over wide 1/4" chain on them?
Am I missing something here?
Do some of the HT kits run 1/4" sprockets allowing you to use #41 chain? or are you running the #41 chain on the narrow sprockets?
Greg, I jumped around a bit with my career, took automotive in 1976, then machinist, then industrial mechanic, and then became a reliability technician making mods and improvements to industrial machinery. Eventually I became the night maintenance supervisor for a 1200 person factory. That makes for a lot of years in the industrial field too but I also know there are often exceptions to almost every rule. I don't know a lot about bicycles. Just wondering what I am missing here?
Skyash, for a given horsepower, the faster a chain runs, the less torque there is on it.
So the fast moving primary chain can afford to be smaller than the slower moving secondary chain to the wheel.
Steve
Am I missing something here?
Do some of the HT kits run 1/4" sprockets allowing you to use #41 chain? or are you running the #41 chain on the narrow sprockets?
Greg, I jumped around a bit with my career, took automotive in 1976, then machinist, then industrial mechanic, and then became a reliability technician making mods and improvements to industrial machinery. Eventually I became the night maintenance supervisor for a 1200 person factory. That makes for a lot of years in the industrial field too but I also know there are often exceptions to almost every rule. I don't know a lot about bicycles. Just wondering what I am missing here?
Skyash, for a given horsepower, the faster a chain runs, the less torque there is on it.
So the fast moving primary chain can afford to be smaller than the slower moving secondary chain to the wheel.
Steve
Steve, I have been trying to help with the subject of this thread. Since we don't know what the ratio of his reduction will be I though the heavier #40 clutch would be a good starting point. Some kits do come with a wider front sprocket, my latest from eBay came with a sprocket that was somewhere around .200 thousands wide, the 415 rode high and tight on it. The rear sprocket is a little narrow but has given zero problems.
The engine has a one inch shaft and will carry a 12 tooth sprocket with a 40 chain running too a 24 tooth sprocket on a 3/4 inch jackshaft.
From there a clutch with a 12 tooth sprocket will run a 40 chain too a 44 tooth wheel sprocket.
R
RA7769
Guest
Hybriped sprocket is 50 tooth and can be freewheel.
HeadSmess
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 4:53 AM
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,048
you want the primary chain to be as small/ fine as possible. #35. cam chain from pitbikes etc is pretty darn tough.
the smaller a pitch you use, the larger a redux you can get. ie, #35 12T is a lot smaller than a 1/2" pitch chain, and , if it DOES snap...it has a lot less weight, it doesnt do as much damage to things.
the faster a chain runs, the higher its load rating. until it runs so fast it lifts off the sprocket.
smaller sprockets allow for faster chain speeds but also increase chain wear due to extra flexing as they wrap around the smaller sprockets. dont be tempted by the 6T things used on those little 50cc pocket rockets.
personally, i like the idea of using flat belt with a slipper clutch as the primary drive over using chains. bit old school, but they work really well when set up correctly, ie, crowned pulleys...
did i see someone mention tsubaki?
mmmm, tsubaki...got a dealer around here, yet, now they have a new sales guy that doesnt give me the 25% discount, i can get the same chain cheaper on ebay, including postage...
only strange thing i found with tsubaki was the retainer clip always came off. replacing with RK or similar, no issue, but the tsubaki clip...always came off! (yes, i always put them on the correct way
) saving grace was that you have to press the master clips together rather than just slip them on like smaller chains do.
oh, and they didnt stock 630 chain, the obsolete old clunker chain they used on the older four cylinder bikes like my kwaka gpz750 turbo....
could get up to 35,000km from a tsubaki plain chain on my bikes. better to replace at 15,000 though, before the sprockets got chewed up too much. 2-3 chains then replace sprockets as well.
and then the bike shops try to sell you the latest and greatest W ring chains for five times the cost and you still only get 20,000 from them... i cant stand o-rings and refuse to use them! plain chain all the way!
the smaller a pitch you use, the larger a redux you can get. ie, #35 12T is a lot smaller than a 1/2" pitch chain, and , if it DOES snap...it has a lot less weight, it doesnt do as much damage to things.
the faster a chain runs, the higher its load rating. until it runs so fast it lifts off the sprocket.
smaller sprockets allow for faster chain speeds but also increase chain wear due to extra flexing as they wrap around the smaller sprockets. dont be tempted by the 6T things used on those little 50cc pocket rockets.
personally, i like the idea of using flat belt with a slipper clutch as the primary drive over using chains. bit old school, but they work really well when set up correctly, ie, crowned pulleys...
did i see someone mention tsubaki?
mmmm, tsubaki...got a dealer around here, yet, now they have a new sales guy that doesnt give me the 25% discount, i can get the same chain cheaper on ebay, including postage...
only strange thing i found with tsubaki was the retainer clip always came off. replacing with RK or similar, no issue, but the tsubaki clip...always came off! (yes, i always put them on the correct way
) saving grace was that you have to press the master clips together rather than just slip them on like smaller chains do.oh, and they didnt stock 630 chain, the obsolete old clunker chain they used on the older four cylinder bikes like my kwaka gpz750 turbo....
could get up to 35,000km from a tsubaki plain chain on my bikes. better to replace at 15,000 though, before the sprockets got chewed up too much. 2-3 chains then replace sprockets as well.
and then the bike shops try to sell you the latest and greatest W ring chains for five times the cost and you still only get 20,000 from them... i cant stand o-rings and refuse to use them! plain chain all the way!
Last edited:
HeadSmess
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 4:53 AM
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,048
so just under 8:1 redux?
thats pretty tall gearing... unless you got 16"-20" tyres?
12:24 =1:2
12:44=1:3.something...close to 4.
4X2=8:1.
you really want about 12:1-15:1 in total.
its also best to use redux ratios that are not evenly divided, ie, use a 12:27, and 12:45... it spreads the wear out between the chain and sprocket teeth..."non-hunting" is the correct term.
with hunting redux ratios, the same spot hits the same spot and any uneven wear is increased. not such a big thing with chain as the number of links between the sprockets changes things a bit, but very important on gears!
timing gears are the one place where they have to "hunt".
Thanks for the replies, yep my original idea was to high geared.
I changed everything and went with a 12 tooth heavy duty clutch on the engine running a 40 chain to a 26 tooth sprocket on the jackshaft and from there a 12 tooth and 40 chain to a 40 tooth rear sprocket.
It works perfect.
I changed everything and went with a 12 tooth heavy duty clutch on the engine running a 40 chain to a 26 tooth sprocket on the jackshaft and from there a 12 tooth and 40 chain to a 40 tooth rear sprocket.
It works perfect.
- Status
