Sprockets: Steel vs Aluminum - Page 3

koorbloh · 10-29-2012, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by dragracer1951

Rather than dig up a 4 year old thread? Ya
And yes. I AM a dick
Ask anyone that knows me.

it is a hell of a good thread to dig up though.

mjn · 10-29-2012, 09:52 AM

While it is nice of you guys to stand up for the new guy... a couple of questions for ya;

*Do you know anyone that has paid 160$ for an aluminum sprocket? (if you do...send them my way, I've got some stuff I'll sell 'em.)

*Do you know anyone that completely wore out an anodized aluminum sprocket on the street in one summer? Unless they put 10-12K on....

I'll bet DR noticed those two items.. and that is most likely the reason for his comment.

We've been dealing with a bunch of worthless older-than-dirt thread bumps lately... it is frustrating when these come back up without any intelligent information. It merely plugs up the home page with junk.

If you have good information that adds quality content to the thread, by all means... put it in. Keep in mind, this is the Mechanical and Technical area... not a great place for BS posts.

PeteN95 · 10-29-2012, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by mjn

*Do you know anyone that completely wore out an anodized aluminum sprocket on the street in one summer? Unless they put 10-12K on.....

I wore out two this summer before I got a steel one, although I did a few track days and using a 520 Al sprocket on an SV1000 may not be the best idea.

mjn · 10-29-2012, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by PeteN95

I wore out two this summer before I got a steel one, although I did a few track days and using a 520 Al sprocket on an SV1000 may not be the best idea.

Wow... 320.00 in sprockets in one year?

WaGigKPN · 10-29-2012, 12:20 PM

I replaced my sprockets this summer. I ride a VFR so it was a no brainer to go Steel. I commute with occasional joy rides and no track days.

In my searches i found a titanium set that was lifetime guarantee to never need replacement. I dont have time to look it up again. They were spendy tho.

My thought, Since sprockets are so close to the center of rotating mass i dont think they will have noticeable difference (if you stay stock 530). If you switch to 520 i hear the weight savings is in pounds which i imagine would make a difference. That being said, there is a reason they use 530 as stock...Longevity...

So if you are a racer go 520 with AL or Titanium.

If your not a racer standard 530 Steel.

If your rich, why do you care? do what you want!

Transported · 10-29-2012, 02:28 PM

Bikes are already too damn heavy. I go with aluminum and do notice a slight difference (along with the smaller-gauge chain).

WaGigKPN · 10-29-2012, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Transported

Bikes are already too damn heavy. I go with aluminum and do notice a slight difference (along with the smaller-gauge chain).

That would mean you are running a 520 setup? which i have heard does make a difference...

courier11sec · 10-29-2012, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by dragracer1951

So you feel the need to bump a four year old thread to tell us you wore out your alum sprocket in one summer?
Way to go.
But let's not do that stupid shit again.
K?

RC51 · 10-30-2012, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by Transported

Bikes are already too damn heavy. I go with aluminum and do notice a slight difference (along with the smaller-gauge chain).

I'm calling bullshit on that one. I can see telling the difference between a 530 and 520 chain kit, but just changing the sprocket out for an aluminum one? I don't think so.

RedKat600 · 10-30-2012, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by WaGigKPN

That would mean you are running a 520 setup? which i have heard does make a difference...

It also wears out much faster.....

RC51 · 10-30-2012, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by RedKat600

It also wears out much faster.....

Not always the case. Too many variables to make a blanket statement. There are quality 520 chains out there that have more tensile strength than cheap 530 chains. Then there are the different ring types, o, x, r, whatever they come up with next. I'd take a quality 520 over a cheap 530 any day of the week.

Transported · 10-30-2012, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by RC51

I'm calling bullshit on that one. I can see telling the difference between a 530 and 520 chain kit, but just changing the sprocket out for an aluminum one? I don't think so.

I changed from steel to aluminum and 530 to 520. Made a noticeable difference.

RC51 · 10-30-2012, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Transported

I changed from steel to aluminum and 530 to 520. Made a noticeable difference.

Exactly, you changed both at the same time.

fastfoodfred · 10-30-2012, 08:38 AM

I remember an article from an old magazine that weighed the OEM set and a 520 aluminum rear/steel counter shaft sprocket set that seemed like it saved 3.5 lbs or so. That's not insignificant by any means, and will have an effect on rotating mass and unsprung weight.

jnicola · 10-30-2012, 09:39 AM

On sports bikes I won't bother with aluminum sprockets. I've had them wear out in under 3k miles. There's more than enough power there to compensate for the tiny bit of weight difference you get from steel.

In the dirt, I've run both steel and aluminum without noticing much of a difference. I've run both steel and aluminum on my trail and MX bikes without noticing a difference in weight, power or wear... so I just go for whatever is cheapest.

RC51 · 10-30-2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by fastfoodfred

I remember an article from an old magazine that weighed the OEM set and a 520 aluminum rear/steel counter shaft sprocket set that seemed like it saved 3.5 lbs or so. That's not insignificant by any means, and will have an effect on rotating mass and unsprung weight.

And how much was the chain vs. the sprocket?

Comparing aftermarket 520 aluminum sprockets to OEM 530 sprockets isn't going to be a good comparison. It's apples and oranges.

Start by comparing a set of 520 sprockets in different metals. Or the same with 530.

RedKat600 · 10-30-2012, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by RC51

Not always the case. Too many variables to make a blanket statement. There are quality 520 chains out there that have more tensile strength than cheap 530 chains. Then there are the different ring types, o, x, r, whatever they come up with next. I'd take a quality 520 over a cheap 530 any day of the week.

Tensile strength has absolutely nothing to do with wear. That is the breaking point of the chain.

The issue with the 520 set is that the tooth area is significantly smaller as is the roller itself. This leads to more pressure on the roller and tooth surface area which leads to more wear. Add aluminum sprockets into the mix and you get even less mileage out of them.

I agree, don't compare different ring chains against others. If you compare apples to apples, the 530 will have a longer wear cycle.

WaGigKPN · 10-30-2012, 01:26 PM

I feel like we are all arguing about agreeing about the same thing.

Rainy day in the PNW!

RC51 · 10-30-2012, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by RedKat600

Tensile strength has absolutely nothing to do with wear. That is the breaking point of the chain.

The issue with the 520 set is that the tooth area is significantly smaller as is the roller itself. This leads to more pressure on the roller and tooth surface area which leads to more wear. Add aluminum sprockets into the mix and you get even less mileage out of them.

I agree, don't compare different ring chains against others. If you compare apples to apples, the 530 will have a longer wear cycle.

Yes, tensile strength is the ultimate strength of the chain, when it will break, not how quickly it will wear. It is also indicative of the quality of the materials used to make the chain. Material quality will dictate wear characteristics. Again, that is why you will see cheap 530 chains with lower tensile strengths than quality 520 chains.

dragracer1951 · 10-30-2012, 01:59 PM

Tinsile strength is a function of hardness. As measured on a Tinious Olson machine. It measures ultimate strength and elongation as a eprcentage of sample cross sectional area. Wear is somewhat related to hardness but is really more a function of a materials toughness.


10-29-2012, 09:52 AM	#42
mjn Joined: Jul 2005 From: Tri-Cities Blog Entries: 1 I Ride: '05 Busa, '03 KLR 650, '81 Seca 550, '78 Hawk, '71 SL 350, '69 Z50A	While it is nice of you guys to stand up for the new guy... a couple of questions for ya; Do you know anyone that has paid 160$ for an aluminum sprocket? (if you do...send them my way, I've got some stuff I'll sell 'em.) Do you know anyone that completely wore out an anodized aluminum sprocket on the street in one summer? Unless they put 10-12K on.... I'll bet DR noticed those two items.. and that is most likely the reason for his comment. We've been dealing with a bunch of worthless older-than-dirt thread bumps lately... it is frustrating when these come back up without any intelligent information. It merely plugs up the home page with junk. If you have good information that adds quality content to the thread, by all means... put it in. Keep in mind, this is the Mechanical and Technical area... not a great place for BS posts. __________________ Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter Last edited by mjn; 10-29-2012 at 10:19 AM..


10-29-2012, 12:20 PM	#45
WaGigKPN Peg Dragger Joined: Mar 2012 From: Gig Harbor, WA I Ride: 2002 Honda VFR800	I replaced my sprockets this summer. I ride a VFR so it was a no brainer to go Steel. I commute with occasional joy rides and no track days. In my searches i found a titanium set that was lifetime guarantee to never need replacement. I dont have time to look it up again. They were spendy tho. My thought, Since sprockets are so close to the center of rotating mass i dont think they will have noticeable difference (if you stay stock 530). If you switch to 520 i hear the weight savings is in pounds which i imagine would make a difference. That being said, there is a reason they use 530 as stock...Longevity... So if you are a racer go 520 with AL or Titanium. If your not a racer standard 530 Steel. If your rich, why do you care? do what you want! __________________ Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter


10-29-2012, 02:28 PM	#46
Transported Moto2 Contender Joined: Dec 2006 From: Portland, Oregon Blog Entries: 1 I Ride: '06 FZ1, '99 R1, '80 Suz GS450S	Bikes are already too damn heavy. I go with aluminum and do notice a slight difference (along with the smaller-gauge chain). __________________ Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter


10-30-2012, 08:38 AM	#54
fastfoodfred Moto2 Champion Joined: Mar 2006 From: spokane, wa I Ride: 2008 SXV4.5 + 1985 RZ350 + 2010 YZ250F +	I remember an article from an old magazine that weighed the OEM set and a 520 aluminum rear/steel counter shaft sprocket set that seemed like it saved 3.5 lbs or so. That's not insignificant by any means, and will have an effect on rotating mass and unsprung weight. __________________ Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter


10-30-2012, 09:39 AM	#55
jnicola Shredical Joined: Aug 2009 From: Mt Hood OR Blog Entries: 1 I Ride: DIRT BIKES!!!!!!	On sports bikes I won't bother with aluminum sprockets. I've had them wear out in under 3k miles. There's more than enough power there to compensate for the tiny bit of weight difference you get from steel. In the dirt, I've run both steel and aluminum without noticing much of a difference. I've run both steel and aluminum on my trail and MX bikes without noticing a difference in weight, power or wear... so I just go for whatever is cheapest. __________________ Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter


10-30-2012, 01:26 PM	#58
WaGigKPN Peg Dragger Joined: Mar 2012 From: Gig Harbor, WA I Ride: 2002 Honda VFR800	I feel like we are all arguing about agreeing about the same thing. Rainy day in the PNW! __________________ Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter


10-30-2012, 01:59 PM	#60
dragracer1951 Joined: Sep 2005 From: Bremerton I Ride: 05 KTM 625smc, 03 Are See fiddy one, 05 DRZ470SM, 95 FZR1040, 69 Combat Commando Roadster, 73 Commando Interstate, 67 BSA B44, 71 BSA B50	Tinsile strength is a function of hardness. As measured on a Tinious Olson machine. It measures ultimate strength and elongation as a eprcentage of sample cross sectional area. Wear is somewhat related to hardness but is really more a function of a materials toughness. __________________ Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode