Quote from: Janx101 on September 06, 2013, 06:28:00 AM
Despite asking all these questions ... I reckon I'll go with a screw type anyway ... Since 'they new and hip and cool' ... And possibly best of both worlds.... Strong yet removable ... Win!

Removable??

Are you sure about that?

Like I said earlier......some people just haven't got a clue what it is they are talking about 

Quote from: The Buddha on September 06, 2013, 09:50:12 AMThe nut isn't even required to be on there AFAIK. Its press on. Nut is the install tool. The bolt may even break away, its necked past the threads.
Cool.
Buddha.

Interesting. I suppose I misunderstood the use of the nut. Did a little more reading, the nut actually gets removed after tightening, and the threads broken off. You say such a thing has come loose in your experience?

Quote from: codajastal on September 06, 2013, 12:37:03 AM
I have had the clip fail on one of my bikes and had the chain wrap itself around the front sprocket so bad it had to be torched off BUT I would still, and do still buy that type for all my bikes as they are quite safe and easy to put on at home with little effort.
And no offence to anyone but listen to the many on here and not the few

Are you sure the clip failed? We know chains can break anywhere. A rock or bit of shrapnel between the chain and sprocket could do some serious damage.
So did you actually confirm that after you removed the chain the master link was not there?

Now, now  . There is no need to sh1tstir just because they disagrees with you. There are two sides to every story, he is just giving the other. Nothing he has posted has been untrue. I hate how these treads seem to descend into little squabbles lately.

Yep. Cats are what we need.
More cats.
Cats.
More cats.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Quote from: adidasguy on September 06, 2013, 11:13:42 AM

Quote from: codajastal on September 06, 2013, 12:37:03 AM
I have had the clip fail on one of my bikes and had the chain wrap itself around the front sprocket so bad it had to be torched off BUT I would still, and do still buy that type for all my bikes as they are quite safe and easy to put on at home with little effort.
And no offence to anyone but listen to the many on here and not the few

Are you sure the clip failed? We know chains can break anywhere. A rock or bit of shrapnel between the chain and sprocket could do some serious damage.
So did you actually confirm that after you removed the chain the master link was not there?

Yes it was the master link that failed. I had to get my mechanic to remove it and confirmed it was the link as there were still half of it attached to the chain

Quote from: sledge on September 06, 2013, 10:07:34 AM

Quote from: Janx101 on September 06, 2013, 06:28:00 AM
Despite asking all these questions ... I reckon I'll go with a screw type anyway ... Since 'they new and hip and cool' ... And possibly best of both worlds.... Strong yet removable ... Win!

Removable??

Are you sure about that?

Like I said earlier......some people just haven't got a clue what it is they are talking about 

woops    .. ok fair enough.... my perception of them was like Ross .. thought they were... ive always said on this forum that i'm happy enough to be told i'm wrong ... politely.... the smugness makes it a little rough but fair call... and so long as you still mean some people as a general thing .. and not being a smug and clever ass and just pointing out me!

i cant be arsed clicking back to find an earlier question and answer either... but ... ok ... we dont know how much force in lb/ft a big power bike puts on a chain.... fair enough... most folks around here are focussed on the GS500 .. so do we know how much force a GS500 puts on a chain? ... i havent read through the manual totally.. i reference pages of it for what i need at the time...

... so .. Mr Engineer .. im genuinely .... confusticated ... you mention the breaking strength of the 520 R1 chain as 7k something lb/ft .. and yeah ok if the links reduce that by a nominated and defined percentage .. then that figure drops to 5k something lb/ft ... i didnt do the math but sounds reasonable and about where it should be ... but .... quoting some referenced figures and mentioning elsewhere the engineering background ... still does not a proven case make!! ...

i have in the past had mates who did engineering .. one a Civil, one  Electrical and a couple Mechanical ... with their chosen focus in local government or mining specifics to help get them work... if i ask the Civil a question about hydrodynamic forces behind a retaining wall and what drainage needs to be applied then he is all over it... if i ask about the tensile strength of a car frame repair... he doesnt know to start with .. but can work it out using general engineering principles... and his super duper (way too many buttons!) calculator ...

similarly ... my business moved a doctors house the other week... i dropped in to see how things were going and say hello to the customer... said to her in conversation "dont worry i wont ask you about a hangnail or anything .. but .. how many people ask you about health problems when you not at work? .. itd have to be a annoyance" .. her reply was ... "i have no idea, i'm a doctor of philosophy and my thesis was on abuse of power in the clergy" .. which was funny as it just showed what a title can do for perceptions ...

which brings me to.... what type of Engineer? ... i cant remember reading which one .. but i cant remember a lot of stuff... like commenting on Jboogies stock bike ... (I dont dispute that i did though... i'll have to look it up again) ... Engineers generally are pretty cluey .. no dispute there either... a Mechanical Engineer though, still specialises or focuses on a narrower subfield after qualification (i think?) ..
here we have a chain problem... so asking the bloke who has worked with motor vehicle design is likely to be better than asking the bloke who worked with aircraft tech or biomechanics ..

it seems like its likely vehicle related ... knowing to reference lb/ft tensile strengths of chains... and their subsequent reductions of strength by inferior methods... but then ..

Quote from: sledge on September 06, 2013, 06:05:30 AM.... and I am not clever enough to work it out. What is a factor though is the margins the designers build in. If they overate the chain capacity and specify say 10% ... .... ... ...... is anyone here qualified to say otherwise?? ......

... ...... ......

.... especially when the costs involved to totally remove the risk are very low.  I can accept the fact that people have never had problems themselves but I am not going to let people tell me and others they are reliable when my own experience and engineering background says the polar opposite.

.. do not inspire me to take it as read that the lb/ft figures are anything more than a reference... and totally??? .. so thats a vote for rivet links being 100% failsafe then?!

....

i'm being a personal & picky biatch i know... i might get into trouble with the authorities around these parts... just... ive run across (in my non university educated life)  those that spray qualified figures around to be held in high regard... i get interested in a concept they mention and want to ask more... then the helpful and qualified info stops ... because their particular branch of whatever is actually elsewhere but being a "xyz" means they have to be better people .. right?

i do genuinely love picking the brains of "degree'd" people .. to get things ive 'always wondered about' partly/better explained... i love it even more when they can start with the facts .. and back them up with the 'workings out' and end result.

sheesh .. now i sound like a fuel thread ... so .... doesnt bother me if the rest of the data arrives or not really ... just bothers me if its started and couldnt be finished because it was a 'throw away line' to be clever!

.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Man, adidas is on a cat rampage.

Just to clear some things up with the maths involved... The GS produces around 30 ft-lb of torque (according to wikipedia and other sources). We'll assume first gear, since it's the highest ratio (16.29:1). So, using the primary reduction ratio (2.714:1) and first gear (16.29:1) we get a final torque multiplication of about 44 (2.714*16.29 = 44.211). This gives us a final torque of around 1326 ft-lb (44.211*30 = 1326.33). The rear sprocket diameter is around 2.5" on a 15T (yes, I measured ), so the radius is 1.25", or .10416 ft. Using this, we can calculate a force of around  12,734 lb of tension force acting on the chain (1326.33/.10416 = 12,733.583). That's quite a bit of force. RK X-ring chains are rated at around 8,500 lb/ft of tensile strength (http://www.amazon.com/RK-Racing-Chain-520XSO-110-Connecting/dp/B004XAXD02). The length of the chain from center-to-center of the sprockets is about 28 inches (I measured from the sprocket cover...), so we'll just say 2 ft. That means that the chain can withstand a force of 19,000 lbs of tensile force (8500*2 = 19,000). Assuming a general safety factor of around 2, the chain could withstand 28,000 lbs of force before actually failing. Even if you reduce that by 30%, that's still 19,600 lbs, or 13,300 lbs using the quoted strength. So, the bike can produce about 95% of the force required to break the chain at its rated strength, with no losses, if there were no safety factor, and assuming a 30% strength reduction due to a clip link.

Yay, maths! 

Edit: I made a slight error.  As pointed out by John, chain tensile strength is force per unit WIDTH, not length. So, the chain will actually only be able to withstand about 703 lb of force (8500*(1/12) = 703.33). This is SIGNIFICANTLY less than the initial calculation. Apologies for the error.

Interesting math.....but what about the reduction rules?

"The rule of thumb for roller chain operating on a continuous drive is for the chain load to not exceed a mere 1/6 or 1/9 of the chain's tensile strength, depending on the type of master links used (press-fit vs. slip-fit)[citation needed]. Roller chains operating on a continuous drive beyond these thresholds can and typically do fail prematurely via linkplate fatigue failure."

From here.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roller_chain

Quote from: JAS6377 on September 06, 2013, 09:01:59 PM
Just to clear some things up with the maths involved... The GS produces around 30 ft-lb of torque (according to wikipedia and other sources). We'll assume first gear, since it's the highest ratio (16.29:1). So, using the primary reduction ratio (2.714:1) and first gear (16.29:1) we get a final torque multiplication of about 44 (2.714*16.29 = 44.211). This gives us a final torque of around 1326 ft-lb (44.211*30 = 1326.33). The rear sprocket diameter is around 2.5" on a 15T (yes, I measured ), so the radius is 1.25", or .10416 ft. Using this, we can calculate a force of around  12,734 lb of tension force acting on the chain (1326.33/.10416 = 12,733.583). That's quite a bit of force. RK X-ring chains are rated at around 8,500 lb/ft of tensile strength (http://www.amazon.com/RK-Racing-Chain-520XSO-110-Connecting/dp/B004XAXD02). The length of the chain from center-to-center of the sprockets is about 28 inches (I measured from the sprocket cover...), so we'll just say 2 ft. That means that the chain can withstand a force of 19,000 lbs of tensile force (8500*2 = 19,000). Assuming a general safety factor of around 2, the chain could withstand 28,000 lbs of force before actually failing. Even if you reduce that by 30%, that's still 19,600 lbs, or 13,300 lbs using the quoted strength. So, the bike can produce about 95% of the force required to break the chain at its rated strength, with no losses, if there were no safety factor, and assuming a 30% strength reduction due to a clip link.

Yay, maths! 

Smartass

Quote from: JAS6377 on September 06, 2013, 09:01:59 PM
Just to clear some things up with the maths involved... The GS produces around 30 ft-lb of torque (according to wikipedia and other sources). We'll assume first gear, since it's the highest ratio (16.29:1). So, using the primary reduction ratio (2.714:1) and first gear (16.29:1) we get a final torque multiplication of about 44 (2.714*16.29 = 44.211). This gives us a final torque of around 1326 ft-lb (44.211*30 = 1326.33). The rear sprocket diameter is around 2.5" on a 15T (yes, I measured ), so the radius is 1.25", or .10416 ft. Using this, we can calculate a force of around  12,734 lb of tension force acting on the chain (1326.33/.10416 = 12,733.583). That's quite a bit of force. RK X-ring chains are rated at around 8,500 lb/ft of tensile strength (http://www.amazon.com/RK-Racing-Chain-520XSO-110-Connecting/dp/B004XAXD02). The length of the chain from center-to-center of the sprockets is about 28 inches (I measured from the sprocket cover...), so we'll just say 2 ft. That means that the chain can withstand a force of 19,000 lbs of tensile force (8500*2 = 19,000). Assuming a general safety factor of around 2, the chain could withstand 28,000 lbs of force before actually failing. Even if you reduce that by 30%, that's still 19,600 lbs, or 13,300 lbs using the quoted strength. So, the bike can produce about 95% of the force required to break the chain at its rated strength, with no losses, if there were no safety factor, and assuming a 30% strength reduction due to a clip link.

Yay, maths! 

I've never seen tensile strength listed as a function of length.  A 1 foot chain is just as strong as a 2 foot chain So I don't quite understand that figure.

Quote from: sledge on September 06, 2013, 09:59:28 PM
Interesting math.....but what about the reduction rules?

"The rule of thumb for roller chain operating on a continuous drive is for the chain load to not exceed a mere 1/6 or 1/9 of the chain's tensile strength, depending on the type of master links used (press-fit vs. slip-fit)[citation needed]. Roller chains operating on a continuous drive beyond these thresholds can and typically do fail prematurely via linkplate fatigue failure."

From here.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roller_chain

I completely forgot about that. So, for continuous drive situations, divide that figure by 6 or 9, depending on the link type. Good catch.

Quote from: 007brendan on September 07, 2013, 12:30:57 AM
I've never seen tensile strength listed as a function of length.  A 1 foot chain is just as strong as a 2 foot chain So I don't quite understand that figure.

Neither have I. I've always seen it as force per length^2. It confused me at first, but I think it has to do with the fact that as you add more links, you add more surface area over which the force can be spread. But even that doesn't make sense, as one link will transfer the same force to the next link... But even the RK website has it listed as a function of length... I'll look into it more.

Edit: It's actually force per unit WIDTH.
"For some non-homogeneous materials (or for assembled components) it can be reported just as a force or as a force per unit width" ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tensile_strength). So, that actually means that the chain's tensile strength is WAY lower than I initially calculated. I'll fix that.

Quote from: JAS6377 on September 07, 2013, 06:14:42 AM

Quote from: sledge on September 06, 2013, 09:59:28 PM
Interesting math.....but what about the reduction rules?

"The rule of thumb for roller chain operating on a continuous drive is for the chain load to not exceed a mere 1/6 or 1/9 of the chain's tensile strength, depending on the type of master links used (press-fit vs. slip-fit)[citation needed]. Roller chains operating on a continuous drive beyond these thresholds can and typically do fail prematurely via linkplate fatigue failure."

From here.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roller_chain

I completely forgot about that. So, for continuous drive situations, divide that figure by 6 or 9, depending on the link type. Good catch.

Quote from: 007brendan on September 07, 2013, 12:30:57 AM
I've never seen tensile strength listed as a function of length.  A 1 foot chain is just as strong as a 2 foot chain So I don't quite understand that figure.

Neither have I. I've always seen it as force per length^2. It confused me at first, but I think it has to do with the fact that as you add more links, you add more surface area over which the force can be spread. But even that doesn't make sense, as one link will transfer the same force to the next link... But even the RK website has it listed as a function of length... I'll look into it more.

Edit: It's actually force per unit WIDTH.
"For some non-homogeneous materials (or for assembled components) it can be reported just as a force or as a force per unit width" ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tensile_strength). So, that actually means that the chain's tensile strength is WAY lower than I initially calculated. I'll fix that.

You lost me after "Neither have I. I've always seen it as blah blah blah blah" 

Quote from: JAS6377 on September 07, 2013, 06:14:42 AM

Quote from: sledge on September 06, 2013, 09:59:28 PM
Interesting math.....but what about the reduction rules?

"The rule of thumb for roller chain operating on a continuous drive is for the chain load to not exceed a mere 1/6 or 1/9 of the chain's tensile strength, depending on the type of master links used (press-fit vs. slip-fit)[citation needed]. Roller chains operating on a continuous drive beyond these thresholds can and typically do fail prematurely via linkplate fatigue failure."

From here.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roller_chain

I completely forgot about that. So, for continuous drive situations, divide that figure by 6 or 9, depending on the link type. Good catch.

So.............can I assume you agree with and will reinforce my earlier statement that slip fit links are in fact up to 30% weaker then press fit links and therefore less reliable in when compared in identical applications?

Looks like my work here is done 

Quote from: sledge on September 07, 2013, 06:47:06 AM
So.............can I assume you agree with and will reinforce my earlier statement that slip fit links are in fact up to 30% weaker then press fit links and therefore less reliable in when compared in identical applications?

Looks like my work here is done 

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, really. I just figured some hard numbers would allow us to see exactly what's going on under our butts. After doing the calculations, though, yes. It is a little disconcerting seeing something being used that isn't really rated for what it's supposed to be. However, you never really hit full torque for continuous periods, so those reduction rates play a little bit less of a role.

In any event, the numbers are there so that we can make an informed decision about what kind of chain to get.

So what does slip fit side plates on master links have to do with motorcycle applications now anyway?  Any chains I've bought in recent years have had a heavy press fit on the clip type link side plates.  Been a couple decades since I've seen a slip fit on a mc chain clip type master link but I do buy name brand quality chains, maybe there is some old stock or super cheapo brands some are using that have the old slip fit plates?

Too much lawyer engineering here I think, when a chain fails because the link was not installed properly they sue the motorcycle maker since they have more money than the mechanic that put it on wrong.  Get ready to fasten your seat belts riders.    

i've broken a master link (clip style) and thrown the chain at interstate speeds once.

how/why:

chain was left too loose, and (i guess) it slapped the chain guide just right a few times, wearing/breaking the clip, then ejecting the side plate, and finally the rest of the master link. plain and simple chain tension neglect.

i'll still use them, they're great for changing wheels and gear ratios twice a week for different types of rides:
tough woods on sunday, then commute/gymkhana the rest of the week.



as much as i like rivet style links, they're just not reasonable for how often i change chain, cogs, and wheels.

the dirt-only chain is downstairs soaking in a zip lock bag of kerosine / engine oil to loosen up all the dirt. works great.

I had no idea I'd start a thread like this! You'd think I mentioned oil.

Anyway, installed the new chain today. Fit the clip style link on there. Went on pretty easy, had to use some pliers to push it enough to get the clip "recesses" to show. Other than that, pretty simple. Made sure to install it the correct way (closed side facing direction of travel).

I'm going to probably order a rivet style link to put on next weekend if time allows because I'll be changing the front wheel out anyway. I think I need the piece of mind even though I maintain my chains well. The clip style ~seems~ pretty strongly on there. The circlip holding the front sprocket on worries me more than the clip itself. Not that the circlip isn't installed correctly or anything. I got a very positive snap into place when the circlip seated itself. Even yanked on the front sprocket a couple times to make sure. But the fact a front sprocket isn't held on by a loctite'd nut is...interesting.


Thanks for everyone's feedback. This has been an interesting read. Keep it going. The math is particularly interesting.