Tweet
A while back, a member was looking for an odd (or early standard) size of MC Drive Chain. It seems 530 is a modern standard and considered strongest, with 520 the weakest but this member was looking for an early chain that is narrower(sic).I don't know much about MC chain and could benefit from some real knowledge. Can any AMCA members shed more light on this? I may have a need for a narrow chain on the Sport Scout I'm working on as the clearance at the chain guard/fender junction is really tight and I'm not comfortable with that. I can always modify things to make it work, but I'd rather not do that.
-
Eric Smith
AMCA #886 -
520 to 530 chain is a pitch change thus not interchangeable on the same sprockets.
You mentioned narrow (width), O ring design chains are always wider than the standard (non o ring) chain. Heavy duty series have thicker side plates also so you would want to avoid those as well.
Hope this helps... -
A metric 10B-1 chain is fractionally narrower than a 530 std chain. Pitch and roller width are the same, i think. Check dimensions on websites for the actual chain you are using now, then compare to metric series.Comment
-
Most appreciated. I've always bought MC chain based on brand name, and quality and clearance was never an issue. Now that clearance is an issue, I'll do what is mechanically needed and use a quality chain. Again, thanks for the information.Eric Smith
AMCA #886Comment
-
I reversed the Master Link which put the link plate, and 'unsprung hero' to the inside of the hub which gave me the clearance I needed on the Sport Scout chain guard. The clearance issue seems to be resolved, but I don't like the master link being less accessible. As a side note; I recall reading a small instruction paper that came with a motorcycle chain; (many years ago), and they called the spring steel retainer an 'unsprung hero' which I think is a bone-fide tribute to a hard working, under-appreciated, critical part.Eric Smith
AMCA #886Comment
-
I riveted master link will gain you a fraction of an inch, at the expense of convenience.
Comment
Comment