Cheap chains for adventure riding

[dino3310]

It's not just marketing, there are differences. Given that dirt bikes chew chains more than road bikes, I'd say it is a combination of grit and thumper power pulses - big thumpers chew chains more so than little thumpers.

The o-rings can have various shapes which varies their friction & sealing ability eg o, x, w & z. "O" being the simplest, cheapest & most primitive - I don't think I'd ever buy less than "X" unless I stepped down to a non-o-ring HD chain (no o-rings to worry about, can/must be water-blasted and lubed, cheap!) as the benefits per dollar are substantial and universally agreed.

These guys have concise summaries:
http://www.chaingangchainsandsprocke...20/cat_40.html
They thoroughly recommend the better sealing of the XW-rings for mud & sand. In endurance racing (safari, cross-country etc) chains get abused and they see marked differences in durability. So far the best-value chain on my 640 has been the RK XSO, a mid-range chain at a low-range price. 85% of the km vs the GXW, for 61% of the $. Hard to justify the XW at that performance, although the sprockets haven't lasted as long with the cheaper chain.

One point to note if you are shopping for value: it is important to match the quality of the chain to the sprockets. As the each component wears, it takes the others with it. So a cheap chain will chew out expensive sprockets prematurely, and vice versa.Tensile strength comes at the expense of either weight or dollars... take your pick.

lucky im a tight prick and everythings a cheapy
Good bit of info there WW

[dino3310]

[pete376403]

wrt tensile strength - has anyone ever BROKEN a chain, ie snapped the side plates or sheared the pins when there was no underlying reason such as totally rooted sprockets, no lubrication for the past 5000 kms, etc?

Given that most adv bikes (not counting KTM 950/990) don't have that much power anyway, is there any point in paying a premium for high tensile numbers?

[warewolf]

Chain Gang have had enough reports of DID 520 VMs breaking on KTM 640s to warn people off. VMs don't exactly rank as "high tensile" but they certainly should be plenty strong enough for the 640. If "high tensile" translates to tougher, ie more durable, then they could be more economical. They are noticeably heavier, that's for sure. My own experience suggests that a mid-range chain at a sharp price is better value.

[cooneyr]

wrt tensile strength - has anyone ever BROKEN a chain, ie snapped the side plates or sheared the pins when there was no underlying reason such as totally rooted sprockets, no lubrication for the past 5000 kms, etc?

Given that most adv bikes (not counting KTM 950/990) don't have that much power anyway, is there any point in paying a premium for high tensile numbers?

Higher tensile strenght would mean less elastic deformation hence less sprocket wear. Not sure if this is significant in a ADV application with all the contamination on a lumpy power output single.

My experience with twins (950 and S10) is that extra power is offset by power being more linear and chains seem to last pretty well.

[NordieBoy]

Given that most adv bikes (not counting KTM 950/990) don't have that much power anyway, is there any point in paying a premium for high tensile numbers?

It's the lumpyness of the big singles (also smaller singles without cush drives) that causes the problem.

[dino3310]

wrt tensile strength - has anyone ever BROKEN a chain, ie snapped the side plates or sheared the pins when there was no underlying reason such as totally rooted sprockets, no lubrication for the past 5000 kms, etc?

Given that most adv bikes (not counting KTM 950/990) don't have that much power anyway, is there any point in paying a premium for high tensile numbers?

yep just a standard heavy duty (Non O-ring, DID me thinks) brand new on the BIG, it broke right on the joining link, i thought it was a one of so i put another joiner on friggen did it again so i put on an o-ring and rivited the bugga on and that sorted it