The BSA A7-A10 Forum
Technical (Descriptive Topic Titles - Stay on Topic) => Gearbox, Clutch, Primary => Topic started by: andy on 30.09. 2012 17:50
-
what is the final drive chain size and what are you lot useing "plain", "o"ring, "x" ring cheers.........andy
-
Hi.
I also was unsure best route to go, decided to play safe and used plain chain by Regina Classic, size = 5/8 x 3/8 x 97L, cost was less than £40.00.
-
I use plain on the BSA's but if dirt and mud are your thing go O ring. The O and X ring chains rob a bit of power.
Cheers
-
on my race RR I run a 520 heavy plate, using B series sprockets. Not O or X.
Given the pulses a B series loads onto a chain, The A series don't need a 530.
I like the 520, If I need to replace sprockets on the SR, I'll do the same.
-
Just one thing to check for particularly on the plunger models is that you have enough clearance around the gearbox if you use a heavy duty or a "O" ring chain, they are wider than normal and can touch the gearbox.
-
The standard swing arm A10's ran a 530 final and 428 primary (in modern speak).
Theres usually bugger all clearance on any beesa's to run O or X.
-
thats great info esp about the clearance many thanks to all. wink2 wink2
-
Tried a "heavy duty" chain for a short while, not enough clearance to the primary case (plunger a10). Nearly ok, but not good. I guess the same would apply to an o-ring.
-
Hey RR, any chance of interpreting chain lingo into brain-friendly lingo? *smile*
I'm kind of half way there, but got lost..and also for the benefit of 'browsers'.cheers
-
I borrowed this quote from a forum on moderns:
"A 520 chain has a roller width of 6.35mm, and the 530 has a roller width of 9.52mm, they both share the same pitch (distance between 2 pins)".
The B series all run a 520 as std, the A10's the wider 530, (havent checked what the A7's run) so a small weight penalty and the rollers still wear out.
a std 520 gives better chain clearance (being narrower) and is common to most modern high performance machines, so quite suitable for an A10 if both the sprockets being done. The 530 sprockets are wider.
I hope this makes sense...
With a 520 you also have room to run a heavier plate chain or even a power sapping X (the O is typically still too wide). I run a plain heavy plate 520 on the RR
-
In Imperial.....
520 is 5/8 by 1/4
525 is 5/8 by 5/16
530 is 5/8 by 3/8.
This site (http://www.azusaeng.com/chain/mcyclchn.html) has dimensions.
-
Ta guys, knew it'd be simple, stuff I would've used to know, but haven't had to deal with for a while, having shaft drive on the Moto *smile*
Cheers duTch
-
So Ian would it be correct to assume the first figure "5" is the link length in 8/ths and the second figure "20" is the link width in 1/6ths (inchs)
I do so like an orderly world
-
Hi BSA bill almost but no cigar, 520 is 5/8 x 2/8, 525 is 5/8 x 2.5/8, 530 is 5/8 x 3/8 etc
Chain must be about the only thing still in imperial units eh.
I'm at the stage in my resto where I need to buy a rear chain and I'm a bit disappointed a 530 o ring probably won't fit, o rings lasting longer etc.
-
Piston rings.
Bore in mm
width in 1/16"
Radial dept in 1/10"
-
Hey isn't standardisation a wonderful thing
-
I suspect (but havent confirmed) a 520 x ring would fit a swing arm model - I would take in an old 530 link to a bike shop with some verniers and do a quick compare to a 520x.
The x rings are narrower than the O ring.
This will only be an option if you're also changing sprockets to the B type!