Sprocket change, chain too short? WTH?

[pattonme]

Going for cheap on a chain is just flat-out stupid. You spend $200/set + mount for a set of tires and you might get 12K miles out of them. And you think sourcing a 30-50 dollar chain from overseas from who knows where and what if any QC of materials is a bright idea? Don't eat for a few days but buy a proper, quality chain. No, you don't have to spend $120+; the RK are around $80. Properly maintained they'll do in the neighborhood of 15K miles and hopefully more. The EK and DID in the $150 range will do considerably better (2x). The Sunstar 525 RDG can save you a few bucks. I personally use EK chains.
 
Also, you do realize the '20' in 520 is the width of the chain, not the pitch. 525 and 520 take up the same amount of room around a same tooth sprocket modulo the 520 perhaps having slightly less meat around the pins.
 
One of your earlier posts mentioned that without pressure on the suspension the chain would rub on the swingarm with the 17/38 combo and the guide was taking up needed slack as well. I presume you compressed the suspension when trying to find that last 1mm with the 106 link configuration?
 
I have run both clip and rivet master and never had a clip come off except on my KTM motard (converted dirt bike). The key to the clip is to make sure you orient it correctly and have only *just* enough of the pin groove showing for the clip to fit. On occasion I've been known to flare the clip master link pins, because I can.

[ddog]

The bike is standing outside. What you see is only superficial, the kind that grows here in a week or two of not riding, The chain is perfectly fine. I use lithium grease. It's a dry type of grease that only sticks in the rings.

 
The rings seal the chain. When you apply lubricant it's to lubricate the chain/sprocket points of contact and to protect the chain from rust. If your chain lubricant isn't preventing rust I would use something else.

[markstertt]

I can't imagine running 18/38T on the -07, I recently installed a vortex 17T. c/s sprocket and 44T. steel rear with a DID 520 chain from Bellissimoto, nice set up. I'm running 110 links and have the axle almost all the way back, I wanted the chain long in case I decided to go up to a 45T. rear. I'm finding I really like the 17/44 combo as it makes first gear just tall enough, useable now and for the life of me I can't tell any difference in acceleration, first gear just winds out real nice now. 67 miles over to the coast and back yielded 64 mpg average at anywhere from 35-65 mph but no steady state high speed cruise. I can't speak to top end but 0-80 for 1/4 mile of freeway on and off felt as strong as with 16/43 gearing. I have no idea if it will pull 6th gear to redline but with the Yoshi and Hord parts it might but don't really care. I installed with riveted link using MikesXS unbranded DID chain tool, $46.00, got this tip here on the forum I think, much cheaper than through DID.
 
I had a cheap chain break on my '66 Bonnie, punched a nice hole in the case above the c/s sprocket, partly my fault for poor maintenance but it sure sucks.
 
Vortex 17 T. sprocket and DID 520 ERV3 chain from Bellissimoto...best price I could find.
 

[ducttapewd40]

After reading this thread, please just take this bike in to a local bike shop. It shouldn't be hard to find one that will press a chain on for around $25 and should be able to give you some professional advice while you're there on the topics discussed here.

[level41]

Going for cheap on a chain is just flat-out stupid. You spend $200/set + mount for a set of tires and you might get 12K miles out of them. And you think sourcing a 30-50 dollar chain from overseas from who knows where and what if any QC of materials is a bright idea? Don't eat for a few days but buy a proper, quality chain. No, you don't have to spend $120+; the RK are around $80. Properly maintained they'll do in the neighborhood of 15K miles and hopefully more. The EK and DID in the $150 range will do considerably better (2x). The Sunstar 525 RDG can save you a few bucks. I personally use EK chains.  
Also, you do realize the '20' in 520 is the width of the chain, not the pitch. 525 and 520 take up the same amount of room around a same tooth sprocket modulo the 520 perhaps having slightly less meat around the pins.
 
One of your earlier posts mentioned that without pressure on the suspension the chain would rub on the swingarm with the 17/38 combo and the guide was taking up needed slack as well. I presume you compressed the suspension when trying to find that last 1mm with the 106 link configuration?
 
I have run both clip and rivet master and never had a clip come off except on my KTM motard (converted dirt bike). The key to the clip is to make sure you orient it correctly and have only *just* enough of the pin groove showing for the clip to fit. On occasion I've been known to flare the clip master link pins, because I can.

Give me one good reason why this is not a good way to go? A master link, or pressing in one of the rivets is just about the same.
In fact, I think that it is safer to press back the original rivet, than using a master link (with clip), since it's a lot more sturdy, and doesn't have a clip to fly off.
The amount of force to press in the rivet is several hundreds of LB of force (if not thousands, but without a metered press, it's kind of hard to say).
The amount of lateral forces these rivets go through is only a few LB.
Those pins are not going to fly off, even if an elephant stomped on it for a year!
I WAY prefer to use my method, and,
It is MY chain, so I have the freedom to do with it what I want.
I fully believe it's a safe practice, even if it's unconventional. Been doing it for years, and never had a problem!
Heck, back in the day, if a chain broke, just replace the rivet with a nail, and it worked!
 
As far as the 106 chain went, yes.
I sat on the bike, and used the good old hammar trick, and the whole setup fitted,
However, I had not even got 0.50" chain play. The chain was as tight as a string on a guitar, so I undid the whole thing.
I'm thinking of perhaps going with a 39t instead.
 
I don't do it for saving $500 of gasoline, over the lifetime of the bike.
I do it for ride comfort. You may be ok with it revving at 10k RPM on the interstates, but I prefer 4k.
That's how I feel happy, and what I want; and that's why I do it.
Engine revs lower, I feel like I have more than enough power, and gas mileage is a side benefit.

[level41]

I can't imagine running 18/38T on the -07, I recently installed a vortex 17T. c/s sprocket and 44T. steel rear with a DID 520 chain from Bellissimoto, nice set up. I'm running 110 links and have the axle almost all the way back, I wanted the chain long in case I decided to go up to a 45T. rear. I'm finding I really like the 17/44 combo as it makes first gear just tall enough, useable now and for the life of me I can't tell any difference in acceleration, first gear just winds out real nice now. 67 miles over to the coast and back yielded 64 mpg average at anywhere from 35-65 mph but no steady state high speed cruise. I can't speak to top end but 0-80 for 1/4 mile of freeway on and off felt as strong as with 16/43 gearing. I have no idea if it will pull 6th gear to redline but with the Yoshi and Hord parts it might but don't really care. I installed with riveted link using MikesXS unbranded DID chain tool, $46.00, got this tip here on the forum I think, much cheaper than through DID. 
I had a cheap chain break on my '66 Bonnie, punched a nice hole in the case above the c/s sprocket, partly my fault for poor maintenance but it sure sucks.
 
Vortex 17 T. sprocket and DID 520 ERV3 chain from Bellissimoto...best price I could find.
 

Thanks for the heads up! It appears like you could even install a 19t front, if you'd remove the plastic chain guard.
I have a 17t front, with 525 chain, and the plastic chain guard on the left of the sprocket, needs to be inserted after the sprocket is in place, because the tolerance is so small. I can imagine you having more space than I, especially after removing that plastic chain guard.
 
Any more specifications on what sprocket type it is that fits the bike?

[ducttapewd40]

The chain in the first link you posted, the $30 one, is a NON O-RING chain that's rated for a maximum of 250cc. The second, the XSO is a good chain I've used before and is rated for up to 750cc. Just order one with a few extra links than you think you'll need and remove as necessary.

[peteinpa]

Can you post pics of the pin ends you've opened and then closed and the tool you did it with?
 
The countershaft sprocket guard is there to save your engine case if the chain breaks. Don't delete it.

[pattonme]

A master link, or pressing in one of the rivets is just about the same.
In fact, I think that it is safer to press back the original rivet, than using a master link (with clip), since it's a lot more sturdy, and doesn't have a clip to fly off.
...
The amount of lateral forces these rivets go through is only a few LB.

 
Are we to believe you have practical engineering experience designing chains for power-transmission, and can offer proof why straking the pins is something all manufacturers do because they were bored at the shop one night and though the little dimples looked cool?
 
Clips don't "fly" off, they walk themselves out of the snap groove and/or get sheered off (how many PSI does it take to sheer 0.8mm worth of steel?) by that "only a few LB of lateral force". I suspect you know as much about chains as you know how to take sap, silica, and an oven and make a rubber door stop.
 
> It is MY chain, so I have the freedom to do with it what I want.
 
Last I checked I wasn't pointing a projectile acceleration device in your direction to compel you to spend a king's ransom on a wiggly, articulated steel worm.
 
> I fully believe it's a safe practice, even if it's unconventional. Been doing it for years, and never had a problem!
 
Good for you. Do check back and let us know when the next one lets go and takes a bite out of your leg and/or makes a royal mess of your engine cases.
 
> However, I had not even got 0.50" chain play. The chain was as tight as a string on a guitar
 
Well duh. But at least you achieved Yamaha "factory spec", then. Heh.
 

[kbob2000]

Last I checked I wasn't pointing a projectile acceleration device in your direction to compel you to spend a king's ransom on a wiggly, articulated steel worm.
 

To say I found this amusing would be an understatement.  I read it to my 7 year old son, and he thought it was pretty amusing too.

[markstertt]

You may only need that c/s sprocket guard once but when you do you'll be glad it's there. I'm pretty sure that with available sprockets you can gear this bike tall enough to render 6th gear almost useless, unless you're building something with a lot more hp/torque. 17/41 would be pretty tall and really stretch first gear out, I would think most people would find this tall of gearing to emasculate the little beast and wouldn't like it. I'm not sure why you're interested in gearing that would be taller...care to enlighten?

[level41]

You may only need that c/s sprocket guard once but when you do you'll be glad it's there. I'm pretty sure that with available sprockets you can gear this bike tall enough to render 6th gear almost useless, unless you're building something with a lot more hp/torque. 17/41 would be pretty tall and really stretch first gear out, I would think most people would find this tall of gearing to emasculate the little beast and wouldn't like it. I'm not sure why you're interested in gearing that would be taller...care to enlighten?

Sure, It's purely my preference.
I prefer a gentle pull of an engine (like a turbo powered engine), over direct raw power, where the engine is spending most of it's energy revving up it's own mass.
When racing the tracks, you probably are running the bike at 6 to 8.5k rpm.
On the streets, I rev it 3k RPM lower, and at those rev ranges, the gear spacing is very small.
Plus, not to mention that I don't really need the power.
 
I agree that with a 17t front, there's no need for further gearing, unless you take it out on the highways and interstates.
 
I see no disadvantage for widening the gearing by this margin. At least, not for my riding style, and environment.
To me it only offers benefits.
- Less shifting in cities.
- Lower RPM on the interstates.
- Better MPG.
- Feels nicer to me (people don't like jerky throttles, and this makes bikes smoother).
 
If any disadvantage, would be me trying to shift in 6th gear at 40MPH, is going to lug the engine.
But that's more because of the restrictive exhaust.
Once the exhaust is open, the bike runs fine from 1500RPM without lugging (vs 3000-3250rpm stock).
 
 
 

[r1limited]

You may only need that c/s sprocket guard once but when you do you'll be glad it's there. I'm pretty sure that with available sprockets you can gear this bike tall enough to render 6th gear almost useless, unless you're building something with a lot more hp/torque. 17/41 would be pretty tall and really stretch first gear out, I would think most people would find this tall of gearing to emasculate the little beast and wouldn't like it. I'm not sure why you're interested in gearing that would be taller...care to enlighten?

Sure, It's purely my preference.
I prefer a gentle pull of an engine (like a turbo powered engine), over direct raw power, where the engine is spending most of it's energy revving up it's own mass.
When racing the tracks, you probably are running the bike at 6 to 8.5k rpm.
On the streets, I rev it 3k RPM lower, and at those rev ranges, the gear spacing is very small.
Plus, not to mention that I don't really need the power.
 
I agree that with a 17t front, there's no need for further gearing, unless you take it out on the highways and interstates.
 
I see no disadvantage for widening the gearing by this margin. At least, not for my riding style, and environment.
To me it only offers benefits.
- Less shifting in cities.
- Lower RPM on the interstates.
- Better MPG.
- Feels nicer to me (people don't like jerky throttles, and this makes bikes smoother).
 
If any disadvantage, would be me trying to shift in 6th gear at 40MPH, is going to lug the engine.
But that's more because of the restrictive exhaust.
Once the exhaust is open, the bike runs fine from 1500RPM without lugging (vs 3000-3250rpm stock).
 
I prefer a gentle pull of an engine (like a turbo powered engine
 
Just the above statement tells me you have never experience what happens when a turbo kicks in.  There is nothing mild about it at all, in fact in the 969 carrea we have you would shit your pants with 700 HP hitting boost.
 
 

 

 

[level41]

Ok, it was dumb of me not to count the chain links when I took off 2 links. It appeared that the original chain had 106 links, and the reason why the math didn't make any sense.
I bought a new 106 link chain, which fits perfectly. A cheaper 7700lbs chain. Other chains like these were 400cc certified.
But when I do the math, the FZ does about 50 lb ft of torque, which means on the small sprocket it would do no more than 1000LBS on torque (500 if math serves me well), and well within the range of the 1/3rd of the 7700LB the chain can hold.
 
I've lowered the rear spring tension to the softest, and without load I could fit the chain in place with the chain guard. Once I sit on it, it probably has like 2 or 3 mm play before hitting the chain guard.

[faffi]

Good thing you got it sorted. Personally, I always measure a chain on a bike before cutting, be that a new chain that must be cut to size or after a sprocket change. A stronger chain will last longer, all things else being equal, so may turn out to be the more economical choice in the long run.

[r1limited]

Good thing you got it sorted. Personally, I always measure a chain on a bike before cutting, be that a new chain that must be cut to size or after a sprocket change. A stronger chain will last longer, all things else being equal, so may turn out to be the more economical choice in the long run.

I use the Chainculator algorithm it is like this: sin(3) -0 = 1/2 arcsin ~ oops cos2 (0)
 
Ya that makes sure your chain wont fall off in a rainstorm at night in the snow going up the down hill backwards naked after eating chicken
 

[markstertt]

You may only need that c/s sprocket guard once but when you do you'll be glad it's there. I'm pretty sure that with available sprockets you can gear this bike tall enough to render 6th gear almost useless, unless you're building something with a lot more hp/torque. 17/41 would be pretty tall and really stretch first gear out, I would think most people would find this tall of gearing to emasculate the little beast and wouldn't like it. I'm not sure why you're interested in gearing that would be taller...care to enlighten?

Sure, It's purely my preference.
I prefer a gentle pull of an engine (like a turbo powered engine), over direct raw power, where the engine is spending most of it's energy revving up it's own mass.
When racing the tracks, you probably are running the bike at 6 to 8.5k rpm.
On the streets, I rev it 3k RPM lower, and at those rev ranges, the gear spacing is very small.
Plus, not to mention that I don't really need the power.
 
I agree that with a 17t front, there's no need for further gearing, unless you take it out on the highways and interstates.
 
I see no disadvantage for widening the gearing by this margin. At least, not for my riding style, and environment.
To me it only offers benefits.
- Less shifting in cities.
- Lower RPM on the interstates.
- Better MPG.
- Feels nicer to me (people don't like jerky throttles, and this makes bikes smoother).
 
If any disadvantage, would be me trying to shift in 6th gear at 40MPH, is going to lug the engine.
But that's more because of the restrictive exhaust.
Once the exhaust is open, the bike runs fine from 1500RPM without lugging (vs 3000-3250rpm stock).
 
 

Ok, thanks for explaining. Just a little input, I just came back from my longest outing on mine with 17/44 sprockets and after the first 250 miles I decided 17/43 would be about ideal for touring,( 150# solo rider) however, as it is it wasn't bad at all and after 650 miles was averaging in the mid 60's mpg (ex. and intake mods) The only gripe about this gearing is that I have a new whine or drive line noise starting around and most noticeable at about 4000 rpm. I think it's the undamped countershaft sprocket and if so I may go back to a narrowed OEM 16T. front and a 41T. 520 rear to be able to use my new chain. I hate to give up the larger diameter sprockets but may if this bothers me to much. Of course it could be my homemade chain tensioner but will sort that first.  I'm afraid our definitions of lugging this engine may be different but let's just leave it at that. 

[level41]

Good thing you got it sorted. Personally, I always measure a chain on a bike before cutting, be that a new chain that must be cut to size or after a sprocket change. A stronger chain will last longer, all things else being equal, so may turn out to be the more economical choice in the long run.

Yeah, Before I cut the chain, I tried tying the ends together with some steel wire, and it almost fit!
They were about 1/4th" short, but I thought it was because I wasn't really fully stretching the chain.
 
The new chain ended up costing me $11!
Believe it or not!
The last chain of it's kind on the salesfloor.
The salesman had it in store too long. He sold exactly the same chains with more links for $+25, but this one (106 links) was the only one at half price.
I guess no one buys them, since most people try to put taller rear sprockets on (thus, needing more links, not less).
 
 
 
 
Did a short ride on my bike.
The cons so far seem to be:
 
- First gear is a little harder to start out with, but after 10MPH (basically engine idling in 1st gear) the acceleration feel very natural and pleasant!
- Riding in grass, kind of lugs the engine (at idle, I need to feather the clutch, not to go too fast), but the FZ doesn't seem to stall.
- I don't seem to be able to use 6th gear in the city (too slow speeds). In 5th I'm usually hovering at around 35MPH indicated (2700RPM) the lowest.
The gearing difference is about 20%, so 35MPH indicated means 42MPH on GPS. 
- The math on speeds is not very easy. It's 1/5th added to my indicated speed. 
A 17/42t gives 8% difference, and a 17/41t gives 11% difference. This would be a lot easier to do on the fly conversion of real life speed.
- For some reason, I feel like the engine has an easier time riding in final gear at 2700RPM, than it had with the stock gears.
I don't feel the engine lugging there, and I'm still trying to understand why it is, that I increase the load, and my stable idle goes down in RPM to 2700 (vs 3000 before).
It's contrary to what I always believed to be true, and I'm still trying to understand why.
 
 
 
Pro's on the gearing:
 
- Very mild acceleration, and I like that! (Still, first gear is pretty fast).
- Acceleration in 1st gear feels awesome above idle RPM. It now has a reasonably tall first gear, and the difference in gearing feels very much like the difference  between shifting with skipping 1 gear per shift.
- First gear gets you really far (almost 3/4 a block, before shifting).
 
- I have an extra gear when coming out of city. I always found myself looking for an extra gear when hitting 50+MPH. Well, not anymore.
- It pulls really nicely to 60MPH (street legal top speed; I need to testrun it at faster speeds soon)
- Lot less shifting in the city. I find the first three gears are great for acceleration, leaving 4 and 5 for cruising, and 6 for Highway speeds.
- First gear will no longer lift the front up off the ground (even when sitting upright, unless when wanting it to come up); and I like that!
- The bike does show a MPG gain of +11% at low speeds from previous setup (with just the 17t). High speed tests will follow.
- I yet have to stall the bike.
 
 
Conclusion:
If you would like to do a sprocket swap in this manner, I would recommend a 39t rear the smallest (with a 17t front). 
I used a 38t, and find it borderline. However I do enjoy the bike a lot more riding at 50-55MPH!
39t rear would solve some issues I'm facing now (like converting the speed readout to GPS speed, and having to break the chain or buy a new one).
A 41t rear would allow you to use the stock chain, and speed conversion is a lot easier (around +10%); but you won't have additional MPG gains.
 
38t rear is near to perfect for Florida (where the roads are level), and I'm only 170 LBS, so i don't need more...
The bike is now tuned for more comfortable riding, not really for fast acceleration.

[faffi]

I did a similar thing with my old Z650 four, going from 16/42 to 18/40. That gave me a 15% reduction in rpm. I could still use top gear from as little as 30 mph on level ground due to it being a four, and it pulled easily from 40 mph onwards. Not quickly, but easily. The reason was to calm down a busy sounding ending. I still searched for another gear above 55 mph. However, I do not find the MT-07 nearly as busy, despite it turning about the same rpm as my stock Z650 did.
 
Performance must have suffered with the taller gearing I used, but it was usually only noticed in top gear. Sometimes, the taller gave better performance than the lower stock gearing - since every gear would do 15% more speed than before, I could often stay in 2nd or 3rd when I previously had to shift up a gear because I ran out of gears.
 
Basically speaking, taller gearing means more shifting on the road because often the bike will not carry top gear up hills (4th was now equal to 5th stock) and for me about the same amount of shifts in town (something I do very little of). On winding roads I sometimes saved a change, other times had to make an extra.
 
I could see the M-07 being well able to pull a taller gearing, and if the revs stressed me I would have done it right away. But since I'm comfy listning to it, I prefer the extra acceleration. And since I do more than 60 miles to the gallon, saving fuel isn't on the agenda, either.

[faffi]

BTW, a GPS speedo would help both showing the correct speed and could be placed where it is easier to read. You can keep the stock pod for additional information.

[markstertt]

BTW, a GPS speedo would help both showing the correct speed and could be placed where it is easier to read. You can keep the stock pod for additional information.

Exactly what I plan to do, I get real tired of taking eyes off road to look down for speed and when you're conscious of it you realize how often you do it, my full face helmet precludes just lowering the old eyeballs. 
Just me ok? But I don't like to gear a bike to where I have to downshift to get up into the torque to safely pass on the highway, now with 17/44 or probably even with 17/43T. and mild engine mods and I'm doing 65 mph in 6th gear, I just open the throttle and in an instant I'm hitting 80 with the passee long gone in the mirror and cruising at 4-4500 rpm is easy on this engine, as in mechanically, sometimes it's easier on an engine to use a higher rpm and lower manifold pressure than vice versa, lower bmep etc. to generate the same hp/torque. It's all good and what makes each of us happy is what we should do. 
 

[ducttapewd40]

This is just me wasting time at work but unless my math is wrong one could go to a 14 tooth front and a 60 tooth rear. Then set your Speedo to kph where it would roughly accurately display your speed in mph.
 
Or buy a speedo calibration kit. Whichever seems more practical.

[level41]

Yeah, the speedo correction isn't all that bad.
In 6th, at 35mph indicated, I just have to add 8mph, so I'll assume I'm going 45mph the slowest. On the interstate, at 65mph, I'll have to add 14mph, so I assume I'm going 80mph.
In other words, final gear adds between 10 to 15mph. I won't go faster than 65mph indicated, because speeds of over 80mph gps gets you a ticket quickly over here.
 
As far as riding goes, final gear still pulls quite ok all the way to 100MPH. I'd be doing 6k RPM, just under the HP band.
Didn't try any faster.
 
Mpg numbers are great!
Instant mpg recalculated (gps, not indicated), shows 55MPG at 75MPH.
I did a 35 mile trip, with 25% city, 75% at 65-75 MPH, and my fuel indicator hasn't even lost 1 bar!

[faffi]

Note that your mileage will be 20% low from now on and will not be correct for service intervals or for the next owner. Instant readout about MPG will also be off. I'd get meself a speedo healer to make life easier for myself.

[level41]

I just did a 68 mile trip, according to Google Maps; mostly highway speeds of 60-75MPH, and fueled 1.013 gal.
Comes out to be 67MPG avg for the trip.
Not bad. Before I used to fuel 1.5Gal doing the same, or 2 gal I'd I would speed.