Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
stoltecmoto

New Product: 520 Chain Conversion Kits

Recommended Posts

New Product!
 
 
 
DSC_2354-2.jpg
 
520 chain conversion kits for your FZ-09/XSR900/FJ-09. Not only does this kit save rotating and unsprung mass, but you'll have the option of running the stock length chain (110 link) or longer (112 link). We had success running this on our FZ-09, and the FJ-09 benefits from the same geometry adjustments.  The longer wheelbase and steeper steering head combine to maintain the bike's inherent flickability while also increasing drive out of corners. Also helps quell the triple's raucous wheelies.
 
Includes Supersprox sprockets and DID ZVMX chain.
 
14+ FZ-09/XSR900/FJ-09 520 Chain Conversion Kits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guess I'm not the only one who feels going to a longer chain adds stability & improves handling. :-) Since the only difference between a 525 & 520 chain is width (rollers on the 525 chain are longer) then going to a 112 or 114 link chain in a 525 will extract the same benefits; except the 525 is slightly heavier than the 520 conversion. Their mistake in their ad/promotion is that they state that stock length is 112 links. As everyone knows it's actually 110 links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have only 9,100 miles on the OEM chain & sprockets but want to drop the front sprocket to 15T, which should lengthen the wheel base a bit.
 
When I need a new chain probably this year, I'm considering your 520 conversion but leave the front at 16T and up the rear to 47T (+ 4.44% "lower" / higher numerically over OE), so how many added links will I need to be +2 links over the OEM wheel base with 16/47? 114 links or even 116?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for catching that. Fat fingered that one!
Is the pic you posted 112 or 114 links (if you remember)?Thanks
 
 
It is 112 link. 114 was a typo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have only 9,100 miles on the OEM chain & sprockets but want to drop the front sprocket to 15T, which should lengthen the wheel base a bit. 
When I need a new chain probably this year, I'm considering your 520 conversion but leave the front at 16T and up the rear to 47T (+ 4.44% "lower" / higher numerically over OE), so how many added links will I need to be +2 links over the OEM wheel base with 16/47? 114 links or even 116?

The 112 links on the stock gearing (16/45) increases the wheel base by approximately 16 mm (exact increase is dependent on where you measure in the wheel travel and how much chain slack you have).
 
112 links on your proposed gearing (16/47) increases the wheel base by approximately 7 mm.  114 links increases the wheelbase by 23 mm.  This could technically be possible, but you're going to have less axle adjustment to take up the chain slack as it wears.  Not sure how many miles you'll get out of the chain before you're at the end of the adjustment.  Don't have a setup here to measure this hypothetical situation, but I'd estimate you'd only have about 6-8 mm of adjustment left.
 
112 links on 15/45 gearing would increase the wheelbase by almost 19 mm.  This is only 3 mm longer that what the +2 arrangement would net you, so if you're sold on the gearing, this is what I'd personally start with.  See how it goes.
 
Of course, if you wanted to get fancy down the road when the chain lengthens, you could take 2 links out to maximize the chain life (i.e. axle adjustment).  It's really a matter of balancing your starting and ending lengths within the allowable axle adjustment.  If chain life is a concern of yours, you want to leave enough adjustment to keep it in service.  If the extra wheelbase is more important, you'll need to make amends with possibly changing chains more often (or getting fancy with taking links out, as mentioned above).
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've not put enough mikes on my FJ to understand or believe that I need this "new product " I think I got sucked into trying to understand the need by believing that perhaps changing gearing might be advantageous.
My problem is that I'm having trouble quantifying the change. Is this going to be night and day change or will the average rider even see the change?
I'm thinking that if I raced I might want this kind of "improvement" but really if I was racing I don't think I would be doing so on an FJ-09.
Perhaps I'm very wrong. If so please enlighten me. ?

Brick
2015 Yamaha FJ-09 "Red Molly"
2014 Yamaha Super Tenere' ES
1999 Suzuki SV650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people will notice a 16 mm increase in wheelbase. Will you? Sounds like your mind is already made up. But don't take my word for it, you can ask around. It sounds like bruceintucson has experience with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people will notice a 16 mm increase in wheelbase. Will you? Sounds like your mind is already made up. But don't take my word for it, you can ask around. It sounds like bruceintucson has experience with it.
 
Oh my mind is not made up... I'm doing just as you state... I'm asking around. ??

Brick
2015 Yamaha FJ-09 "Red Molly"
2014 Yamaha Super Tenere' ES
1999 Suzuki SV650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry if my reply came across as terse. We often get asked "Is XYZ worth it for me?" As you can imagine, that is a loaded question. We deal with a lot of high end componentry that oftentimes costs a lot of money. To some folks, a $1500 shock is a show stopper while to others, it is just the price of admission. A person's expectations are inversely proportional to their budget, so a major outlay of cash better be a night and day difference. Of course, that's just talking about the financial aspects - lots of other 'technical' factors to consider.
 
So, my point is that it depends on what you're after. If you're riding the bike in a way that will reward a geometry change like what we're describing here, it's worth it. If you're mostly touring/commuting and rarely 'ride it like you stole it', this probably isn't going to rewrite your story. But, if you're due for a chain replacement, this is almost a no-brainer. Better geometry to stabilize the bike under power and less rotating mass to improve the suspension's reaction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 112 links on the stock gearing (16/45) increases the wheel base by approximately 16 mm (exact increase is dependent on where you measure in the wheel travel and how much chain slack you have). 
112 links on your proposed gearing (16/47) increases the wheel base by approximately 7 mm.  114 links increases the wheelbase by 23 mm.  This could technically be possible, but you're going to have less axle adjustment to take up the chain slack as it wears.  Not sure how many miles you'll get out of the chain before you're at the end of the adjustment.  Don't have a setup here to measure this hypothetical situation, but I'd estimate you'd only have about 6-8 mm of adjustment left.
 
112 links on 15/45 gearing would increase the wheelbase by almost 19 mm.  This is only 3 mm longer that what the +2 arrangement would net you, so if you're sold on the gearing, this is what I'd personally start with.  See how it goes.If your increase in wheelbase #'s are correct, then a 114 link with stock gearing will not be a viable option. With a FJ-09 with ~ 4K miles and 1.24-1.5" of chain free play puts the axle approx. 23-24mm from the end opening on the swingarm, so there would be no adjustment left even with 16/47 gearing. A 112 link with stock gearing would still leave approx. 6-7mm of tightening available which should be sufficient. I've considered extending the back of the opening on the swingarm by 12mm or so to be abl to run a 114 link chain; pretty easy to do since it's just aluminum. A longer wheelbase (especially  longer effective swingarm length) will always add stability, raise the static rear end ride height of the bike & slightly tighten the rake number, all other things being equal. Read where BMW added a 15-16mm longer swingarm to their new R1200RS vs the naked R1200R to "added stability at speed." Don't think they would have made such a minor change if it wasn't noticeable! BTW your 520 conversion kit is beautiful. :-)
 
Of course, if you wanted to get fancy down the road when the chain lengthens, you could take 2 links out to maximize the chain life (i.e. axle adjustment).  It's really a matter of balancing your starting and ending lengths within the allowable axle adjustment.  If chain life is a concern of yours, you want to leave enough adjustment to keep it in service.  If the extra wheelbase is more important, you'll need to make amends with possibly changing chains more often (or getting fancy with taking links out, as mentioned above).
 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're spot on, Bruce. The 114 links won't work with the stock gearing. 112 link on 16/47 will work because the rear sprocket is bigger. Net increase is about 7 mm longer than stock.
 
Yamaha made a big stink with the FZ-10 about it having the shortest wheelbase in the FZ lineup. Of course, it is. But I can assure you it was out of laziness and cost. Same chain and front sprocket as the R1, but +2 on the rear sprocket. Of course it's shorter. Doesn't mean it's best. Sometimes we get lost in the marketing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Sometimes we get lost in the marketing...
...my name is Peter..., and I'm also a victim... :|
Thank you Peter, for sharing.  ::) 
BTW - those SuperSprox sprockets are Da' BOMB! I've been using them for years on my bikes. Aluminum carrier, steel teeth.

Piedmont of NC
'15 FJ-09
'94 GTS-1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're spot on, Bruce. The 114 links won't work with the stock gearing. 112 link on 16/47 will work because the rear sprocket is bigger. Net increase is about 7 mm longer than stock. 
Yamaha made a big stink with the FZ-10 about it having the shortest wheelbase in the FZ lineup. Of course, it is. But I can assure you it was out of laziness and cost. Same chain and front sprocket as the R1, but +2 on the rear sprocket. Of course it's shorter. Doesn't mean it's best. Sometimes we get lost in the marketing...
Since the rear axle is 16mm and the slot in the swingarm where the axle fits thru is 20mm, it's obvious that the axle sits in the end blocks/plates and not in the slot in the swingarm. It would be very easy to lengthen the swingarm slot with a 3/4 inch (just over 19mm) sanding drum like this:http://www.rockler.com/sanding-drum-3-4-by-1-with-1-4-shankAs mentioned the swingarm is just cast aluminum and it would be easy to add 10-12mm to the end of the swingarm slot. Drums are available in course, medium & fine abrasive. The slot increase size would not be that critical since as mentioned the axle rides on the end blocks.A way to get an extra 18-25mm wheelbase easily, and don't feel the strength/integrity of the swingarm would be compromised at all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  


×