428 or 520?

[Oldwolf]

Bike = happiness!!!

So, my brozz just turned over 700 miles most of which was on the road. Which is exactly opposite of what I had planned. (Better, but diffrent) So the new plan is to drop a tooth in the front get that extra 5 MPHs so I can cruise comfortably at 60. As long as I'm going in I figure ill upgrade both sprockets and the chain. Which leads to today's questions:

Is there room on the brozz to run a 520 chain?
Is there any downside to running a bigger chain?
Tensile strength, if I get parts way stronger than what is required will it last a longer time or cause issues?
If I do stay with the 428 can I reuse the chain? Chain was updated earlier and has about 200 miles on it.

Thanks gang!

[tknj99]

Ill answer what i can.. i think 428 will work best on the Brozz, 520 is probably overkill and adds weight to the drivetrain, whether or not that matter im not certain..
Also, to increase top speed youd need to stick with the 17 in front (dropping in the front slows the bike down and increases torque feel) while dropping teeth in the rear.. how much you drop is up to how much you are willing to lose as far as torque pull when you twist that throttle.. if you drop to much that you'll have extra hard time maintaining speed on uphill roads. I dropped mine to 42 in the rear and kept the 17 for a while in front until i favored to get the torque back and then dropped front to 16.
Also regardless of chain you go with, make sure its either o-ring or x-ring (best) and ditch the stock chain which loves to stretch

[Wild Dog]

520 is an overkill for these bikes, but some people like them.
People get around 20.000 / 25.000 km from 428 chains. Yes you may need to adjust them every 500 km but they are cheaper and they not adding unneed weight.

[JerseyTBR7]

Both work.

I went 520 100 link chain with 13/32 front/rear. I also use an aftermarket simple and inexpensive chain tensioner that bolts on the swing arm.

There are more selections for the sprockets in 428 size, but I prefer a stronger chain, even if a bit overbuilt for such a small engine.

[TxTaoRider]

Mine came with a 530 chain which was way heavy and overkill. Since I swapped sprockets I went to a 520 - still way overkill on a 15 hp motorcycle.
I'd probably go 428 if I were to do it again.

[China Rider 27]

Originally Posted by JerseyTBR7

Both work.

I went 520 100 link chain with 13/32 front/rear. I also use an aftermarket simple and inexpensive chain tensioner that bolts on the swing arm.

There are more selections for the sprockets in 428 size, but I prefer a stronger chain, even if a bit overbuilt for such a small engine.

May I ask what kinda chain tensioner you using?

[JerseyTBR7]

This one.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

On Amazon:
Ambienceo Universal Aluminum Motorcycle Chain Tensioner Bolt on Roller Motocross Chopper ATV Dirt Street Bike

[Wild Dog]

Originally Posted by TxTaoRider

Mine came with a 530 chain which was way heavy and overkill. Since I swapped sprockets I went to a 520 - still way overkill on a 15 hp motorcycle.
I'd probably go 428 if I were to do it again.

It is. It just add weights and you are not going to get a better lifespan from a 428. We are talking about a low powered engine. A quality chain from D.I.D, Takasago, etc will last a long time.
Sure a 530 chain will make it look more "real" but...

[Megadan]

Just to toss this out there as a comparison of two setups I have run.

DID X-ring 428 Chain at 128 links for a 17/43 sprocket setup weighed 4.2lbs

DID X-ring 520 Chain at 100 links for my 13/33 sprocket setup weighed 3.3lbs

Sprocket weights may be slightly diferent, but since a 520 chain is actually a hair narrower, the chances of the sprockets weighing less are higher.

Same gearing ratios, same bike.

520 chain is heavier per 100 links, but it takes 28% more links of the lighter chain to create the same length, and it actually ends up being heavier. The 520 chain is also narrower when comparing the same styles, so it actually allows for better tire clearance side to side.

Just saying...

[Megadan]

Don't take this an an endorsement that the 520 chain is the end all, be all, of chain selection. There are advantages to the smaller chain, such as the higher link and teeth counts creating less severe angularity around the given sprocket circumferences. This can lead to less long term wear in theory as well as quieter operation.

I just hate when people say "520 is heavy" with zero context. 520 IS heavy when comparing like for like, but this is not a like for like comparison in terms of link count.

Either style of chain will suit you just fine. but the low power argument makes me giggle because there are low power factory bikes that come with 520 chains too.

[TxTaoRider]

Another thing to consider is sprocket availability. The 530 chain that came with my bike allowed the use of 11t -13t front sprocket. When I added a Niche o ring 520 chain (using 520 width sprockets) the links were a little taller than the stock. This caused contact issues with the case using a 13t and it hit the retaining bolts using the 11t. I used Allen head bolts and solved that. So with the aftermarket chain, only the 12t works without modding... and that could vary depending on the brand.

Also, the niche o ring 520 was actually heavier by 1/2lb than the stock 530 chain. Lol.

So many variables.

[Megadan]

Originally Posted by TxTaoRider

Another thing to consider is sprocket availability. The 530 chain that came with my bike allowed the use of 11t -13t front sprocket. When I added a Niche x ring 520 chain (using 520 width sprockets) the links were a little taller than the stock. This caused contact issues with the case using a 13t and it hit the retaining bolts using the 11t. I used Allen head bolts and solved that. So with the aftermarket chain, only the 12t works without modding... and that could vary depending on the brand.

Also, the niche o ring 520 was actually heavier by 1/2lb than the stock 530 chain. Lol.

So many variables.

That is exactly why I wanted to compare my like for like setups. Same manufacturer, same chain style.

[OneLeggedRider]

(hitches jeans up, adusts hat slightly forward, and spits tobacco in your general direction) "Real men run 520, if any of you Nancies wanna argue that it's overkill let's step outside, I'll getcha straightened out.."

[Wild Dog]

Originally Posted by OneLeggedRider

(hitches jeans up, adusts hat slightly forward, and spits tobacco in your general direction) "Real men run 520, if any of you Nancies wanna argue that it's overkill let's step outside, I'll getcha straightened out.."

It´s shame i don't live near, because it would be fun to test different setups and see how they behave.

I swear to the 428 DID "HD" and the combo 17 front - 43 to 50 rear.

Originally Posted by Megadan

Either style of chain will suit you just fine. but the low power argument makes me giggle because there are low power factory bikes that come with 520 chains too.

That's because they are fitted for the taste of the area they are being sold.

Here you are not going to find any CG clone that use a 520 chain and is not even a price thing.
Because when we are talking about chinese chains the average the same fro a 428 or a 520.
Japanese brand the difference is marginal at best.

With the 520 you have limited selection of sprockets (for our motorcycles), you may run into clearance issues.
In my experience, 520 were a hair wider than the 428, maybe because i was looking at non oring chains.

[TxTaoRider]

When I installed the o ring 520 on the bike it was about 40 degrees out and the chain was so stiff I couldn't hardly straighten it to install. There was a noticable drag on the wheel after installed. I hear they loosen up when they run awhile, but I haven't had a chance to test that yet.