I'm going to be replacing my chain and sprocket, and hoped to hear from someone who had gone with the 520 chain. Is it worth the extra money? Is there a noticeable performance difference? Thanks

 

I'd stick with the 530 chain.520 will wear out faster and unless you are racing you won't feel a difference.

 

first, 520's are CHEAPER than 530's. - so you're saving money, not spending extra by going to a 520

and i feel a difference between the two. there is a huge difference in weight between the two, and its rotational mass so the weight savings are squared. i have over 10k miles on the chain i have right now, and it just now is about half way to needing a new chain. i beat on my bike every once in a while, but i also use it to commute. just take good care of it and you'll be fine.

 

How is the backlash with the 520 vs. 530? This is what I can't stand about chain drive, so I'm willing to change it more often if the backlash is lessened. What is the actual weight difference?

This company makes belt conversions for cruisers, wish they had one for the 954.

Scootworks - Belt Drive Kits for Kawasaki, Suzuki, and Honda Motorcycles

 

2.5 lbs, so since its rotational mass, it'll fell like roughly 5lbs lighter. - thats a real difference when it comes to chain drive.


i don't notice blacklash at all really. - however, i haven't ever ridden a belt driven bike

 

The 520's also wear out a good bit faster than the 530 chains so you'll make up the cost in replacement of the parts .... I've done the 520 conversion on my bike and it's really not that much of a difference and not really worth it in my opinion for street riding ... If you're a professional sponsored racer who replaces his chain and/or sprockets like every other race so you can have the best ratio set up for a certain track then the cost of your parts is not an issue ...


I took care of a buell 1125CR for a short period of time (about 2 months) ... the belt drive is pretty nice when it comes to having to do very lil maintenance ...

 

Try one if you get a chance. There is no maintenance, not sure what 9-5 is talking about. I think it is the slack in the chain that is most noticeable when shifting gears, I might try running mine on the tight side. I've been shifting still on the gas some to reduce it. The belt drive always has tension on it, plus I'm sure it's lighter, so you feel nothing when shifting.

 

Moose, i'm talkin about keeping it clean and just checkin it over occasionally to make sure it's not rubbing/walking off the cogs to one side or the other and eating away at itself on something ... I'm not talkin about lubricating or tightening or anything like that .. belt drives dont need care like that ... lol

 

look, if i can put 20k miles on it.... which its lookin' like im going to be able to - thats longer than most people keep their bikes. and i've ran 530's and 520's on multiple bikes - if you're on the street - they don't stretch out because you're not ringing your bike out as much or as often. they're cheaper and the performance is there.

belt drives are pretty cool in that respect (no maintainence, clean, etc.) but i did have a frat brother with a buell xb9r that had a belt brake on him when he was going around a corner... that was nuts

 

I think i'll go with the 520. 20k miles is 4 years of riding at least, that's good enough for me.