X rings and other things .

Hi,

Norton Commando inner chaincase to gearbox shell clearance was designed to fit the classic Renold 5/8 x 3/8” drive chain. The pin length of the Renold chain is 18,7 mm wide and should be no problem to run free from both inner chaincase and gearbox shell nevertheless over time quite a few Commando’s show scraping wear either in the gearbox shell or in the inner chaincase due to occurred slight misalignment of associated parts or chain run-out. Because of the rather tight clearance I recommend to fit (any type) chain with a pin length close to the original pen width to avoid possible pin scraping in gearbox shell, inner chaincase or chain guard. For instance the modern DID 520 X-ring chain pin length (18,7 mm) is exactly the same as the original Renold 5/8 x 3/8” pin so very suitable to fit the Commando, of course in combination with matching 5/8 x 1/4” sprockets. The modern DID 530 X-ring pin length is 23,7 mm wide (5 mm longer than the 520 pin!) It is tempting to fit just an 530 X-ring chain on your existing 5/8 x 3/8” sprockets and maybe it does just fit with a tight clearance to inner chaincase, gearbox shell and chain guard but don’t be surprised to find more or less scraping wear to these parts over time.

Constant Trossèl
www.hollandnortonworks.eu

worntorn said:

I suspect that the clip type xring masterlink does not retain its seals as well as the rivet type.
The rivet type is needed to maintain case clearance. The clip type are quite wide in 530 sealed and probably will contact things.

Click to expand...

The clip type masters require that the side plates are "pressed" together with the tool pictured above or equivalent once both plates are in place in order to fit the clip; I doubt that there will be any issues with the seals, but I have less than 50K miles of experience with them. I am ready to stand and be corrected.

ISWIS chains are, probably, the best of the non-sealed drive chain options, but a good quality "O" ring chain, properly installed and maintained will out last quite a few. Any ruminations about horsepower loss are meaningless. So you opt for a non-sealed chain because it cheaper, but you replace them more often?? In for a penny, in for a Pound; the value proposition doesn't favor such a buyer,

To demonstrate full disclosure (the PC police call it transparency) my '70 TR6R was fitted by me with a non-sealed drive chain. I did this because if the chain lasts 5K miles that will get me past my expiration date...

Best.

I used a clip type mlink on an O ring chain about 15 years ago, first experience with a sealed chain. That one went together like a standard clip masterlink, slide fit. It did lose its seals after awhile so I replaced it at least once.
It's good to know that these have been tightened up.
Only thing is, I used the clip type for ease of chain removal.
If the new clip type require the tool for assembly, they probably require a chain breaker for disassembly?
If so, any advantage over the rivet type would be diminished.
I guess the clip type should still be reuseable if you are forced to break the chain whereas the rivet type aren't.
I've never had to break a rivetted mlink sealed chain until worn out, then just cut it off with zip wheel.

Glen

When I worked for Honda I staked a lot of chains on the early CB 750s as part of a "recall". Given the ease of removing the engine or the rear wheel without splitting the chain no big deal stake vs. clip, on the Honda. The current masters for sealed chains do require the same tool to push the pins past the outer plate, but the staked pins should be ground flat to the plate which generates a fair amount of fine metal dust which is hard to remove and can get into the nearby links, and if you go for a direct attack on the staked pins without grinding you will ruin the punch pin of the tool; I know this from personal experience and won't try this shortcut again. You can, certainly, wash the chain with an appropriate solvent, kerosene was/is popular.

However.

You need the chain tool kit to set the plate onto the pins whether or not you stake the pins or install a clip; I have found greater peace-of-mind using a clip and it is (for me) a lot easier.

I have found, and I'm still on the journey, that working on a Norton makes me realize that the more I know, the more I don't know. If you have read or get the opportunity to read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" remember or read the first half, the rest gets pretty (too) existential (crazy?) Sorry for the commentary, but chains have many facets...

Best.

Holland Norton Works said:

Hi,

Norton Commando inner chaincase to gearbox shell clearance was designed to fit the classic Renold 5/8 x 3/8” drive chain. The pin length of the Renold chain is 18,7 mm wide and should be no problem to run free from both inner chaincase and gearbox shell nevertheless over time quite a few Commando’s show scraping wear either in the gearbox shell or in the inner chaincase due to occurred slight misalignment of associated parts or chain run-out. Because of the rather tight clearance I recommend to fit (any type) chain with a pin length close to the original pen width to avoid possible pin scraping in gearbox shell, inner chaincase or chain guard. For instance the modern DID 520 X-ring chain pin length (18,7 mm) is exactly the same as the original Renold 5/8 x 3/8” pin so very suitable to fit the Commando, of course in combination with matching 5/8 x 1/4” sprockets. The modern DID 530 X-ring pin length is 23,7 mm wide (5 mm longer than the 520 pin!) It is tempting to fit just an 530 X-ring chain on your existing 5/8 x 3/8” sprockets and maybe it does just fit with a tight clearance to inner chaincase, gearbox shell and chain guard but don’t be surprised to find more or less scraping wear to these parts over time.

Constant Trossèl
www.hollandnortonworks.eu

Click to expand...

True, the DID vx530 pin length is quite a bit more than a standard 530 chain.
I measure a bit less than 23.7 though. The chains I have here are 23.3 mm which agrees with the DID chart posted earlier.
More importantly, to borrow from an old saying, a standard chain is only as narrow as its widest link!
And that would be the masterlink, a clip type on the standard chain. These are almost as wide as the DID vx 530 pins. I use a rivet type Masterlink with these so all pins are 23.3

If one needs an even narrower chain there is the RK 530 uwv, specifically made for Vintage bikes that might lack clearance but have 530 sprockets.
Standard 530 masterlink

Well I'm a good few $ down my fault I should have done my research both this sight and the NOC. GB are a good connection to all things Norton : and don't be afraid to use EBay I have my chain, sprockets, and joiner and couldn't be happier (sort of)

I've used the standard 530 forever and find that I need to grind a few thou off the masterlink pins to keep from contacting the primary. My latest chain I bought from the Chain Man, he says it's German (Iwis?) and it's very quiet. For the number of miles I do in a year I think it'll outlast me.

Re Timewarp's mention of the Ducati on dyno-It makes sense that the Oring chain pulled a bit of power vs the unsealed. The manufacturers claim there new xring types have less drag than the old O ring type.
I should have been specific, my coasting test was between xring chain and a standard chain, both chains fairly new and lubed. It was done on the flat, on a road through an old lake bottom.

Glen

You seem to be basing your calculations on the 530 chain instead of the 10B [ 5/8 x 3/8 British Std ] the bike was designed for.

The new IWIS chains are the same dimensions as 10B. Mine has lasted so far, 4 times longer than any other chain I have used and I have adjusted it slightly only twice.

So many people have been reinventing the wheel on these bikes. Some great improvements and others just money and time wasters. I am a retired auto engineer, And was taught to fix problems, rather than just fit parts.
Before I knew much about Commando's, in the mid 70's I worked out a few modifications to mine which have made the bike a lot better.
1/ throwing away the useless side stand on my 71- 750.
2/ Making up and hard chroming a new swing arm "kingpin" and winding it into the g/box frame with a tool designed for mini suspensions. That pin is so tight, it will never come loose.
3/ Work out a gravity feed for the 90 oil, to the swing arm.
4/ Reinvent the centre stand so it could never break. [ its built now like a brick shithouse ].
5/ Reinvent the pivoting system for the centre stand so it cant flog out the g/box frame, and never work loose.


5/ about 5-6 years ago, and before I knew about this forum, I had made up new cushion pads for the isolastic's on both my bikes. They are a white plasticy substance somewhat similar it seems to the stuff Ludwig used on his extra centering devices and the "Ludwig Head Steady "
6/ I made up my own Ludwig head steady.
7/ Fitted an Iwis rear chain.

My observation, is that the simplest modification which is solid and unbreakable is the best solution. Other head steadies on the market are expensive and complicated. The engineers who make them would probably be better of making other specialized parts rather than waste their valuable time making things like that, but that's up to them. They work, and while rich buggers out there with more money than sense buy them, I say good luck to them and good business..

As an aside, I rode the length of the South Island of NZ, without a head steady, and not knowing it wasn't attached. I have mentioned this before, while riding through St Arnaud, I heard a light metallic rattle, but could not ID what it was, and the bike performed normally. I arrived in Dunedin for the National Rally, and did the ride the next day up to Palmerston, on to Middlemarch and then back down to Dunedin via Mosgiel, following John on his 500 SINGLE and Murray on his Mk III. The next day was shite weather, rain rain rain. We then attempted to leave Dunedin on the Monday Morning after a very rainy night, and found that a lot of bikes would not start easily, including mine. Mine turned out to be a faulty ignition switch, but in the process of looking, found the bolts to my head steady had disappeared. After getting the bike operating, I found the Bill Veitch had some BSF bolts so went to see him in Mosgiel. He got longer bolts and cut them short enough to just about bottom in the head when they were tightened. They have never come loose. A big thanks to Bill, and when I offered to pay for them etc. He would not hear of it.

I can only suggest that because I had those white plasticy cushions set to 5 though gap, in my isolastic's, the bike still handled normally. I don't normally ride fast but the ride from Middlemarch did prove how well the old 500 could go pretty fast, and i kept up with them without any effort;. Steep winding sweepers all the way up and down.

I experience a broken head steady on my 750 way back in 1974 . The bike was like riding a rubber band. Bloody awful, so I know what I should have felt on the 850 ]
After the Dunedin ride, I stripped and cleaned the 42 year old ignition switch. It was caked with grey graphitey looking dry crud. After cleaning, the contacts looked like they were brand new. Its back on and still working perfectly.

Happy New Year.

Dereck

Kerinorton wrote"You seem to be basing your calculations on the 530 chain instead of the 10B [ 5/8 x 3/8 British Std ] the bike was designed for."

They are one and the same.
The 5 in 530 stands for 5/8" pitch.
The 3 stands for 3/8 internal width.
Just a different numbering system, same old 5/8" x 3/8" Imperial sized chain.

I have twice run into the problem where the master link hits the primary case or the chain guard. The cheap and quick solution is to flip the master link over and run the plate and clip on the wheel side of the chain. The problem is that it's awkward to get to.
For those of us who still use the standard chain with a master link, I wish Reynolds or Iwis offered a master link in a different color so it would be easy to find

seattle##gs said:

I have twice run into the problem where the master link hits the primary case or the chain guard. The cheap and quick solution is to flip the master link over and run the plate and clip on the wheel side of the chain. The problem is that it's awkward to get to.
For those of us who still use the standard chain with a master link, I wish Reynolds or Iwis offered a master link in a different color so it would be easy to find

Click to expand...

Dab a little red enamel paint on the brake spay cleaned up master link area and let it harden. Kinda like the timing chain red 10 links apart thing.

530 chain has thicker links than the 10B, so is wider. So not one in the same. Bugger all difference but can be all it takes to miss the primary. The original design for the 500 twin used 1/4 or 8B chain. The design hasn't changed but the chain has necessarily got bigger/stronger/more wear resistant. Best to fit the joining link in from the outside and the clip on the inside whatever chain you use. I never had trouble finding my joining link, but I don't need to look now with the Iwis.
Years ago I used to have two chains for my T500 Titan.,. I used to clean and re-grease in a hot pan every 1000 miles. Chains didn't last any longer so now I just oil my Iwis more frequently and leave it on the bike. Saves a lot of effort. I have better things to do with my time than piss around swapping out chains etc, even though it doesn't really take that much time.
Dereck

Ps . It wasn't John in the previous speel. It was B J.

Glen
Has followed the discussion.
Had actually decided to go for the vx530 for my mk3. After the discussion that has taken place, I'm not so sure, but I really want to try. There are several of you out there who have good experience with this type, so I choose to trust what you have experienced.
Vidar

Please report back your results.

Vidar, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want a 530vx on there. There are people who have never fitted sealed chain and are perfectly happy that way. They aren't doing the miles some of us are, so a chain with a shorter life is adequate. Some probably just don't want to change the way they have always done things.

If you do a lot of miles, or even a moderate amount of miles, the sealed chains are the only way to go.
I've got the older wider DID xring on my MK3. It was Jim Comstock who mentioned it would fit right on, and it did. Chain problem solved for at least 20,000 miles. Cost was less than $100 as I recall.

This was before the narrower 530vx existed. If I ever wear out the existing x ring, it will get replaced with a VX, if they are still available!
As an added bonus, DID lists a "wear life index" for each chain.
520xring is multiples higher than 530 conventional.
We know that holds up in the real world. The bonus is that 530 xring has an even higher wear life index than 520 xring.
The other bonus is that your sprockets last longer with sealed chain. A chain that does not need adjustment in 20,000 miles is a chain with a constant pitch. It's easy on sprockets.
A chain that needs adjusting (unsealed)has a changing pitch. It will continually wear away the sprockets to make them match it's ever growing pitch.



Glen

worntorn said:

The other bonus is that your sprockets last longer with sealed chain. A chain that does not need adjustment in 20,000 miles is a chain with a constant pitch. It's easy on sprockets.
A chain that needs adjusting (unsealed)has a changing pitch. It will continually wear away the sprockets to make them match it's ever growing pitch.

Click to expand...

Thats a good point. That I’d never thought of !

Thanks Glen.
Then I go for the VX530
Vidar