Sprocket gearing

[matt7chunk]

Hey
What gearings are you guys using and what do you all think are the best?

Need to change chain and sprockets but not sure if I should keep stock or not

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[matt7chunk]

Woops sorry for double post

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[unfazed]

I have kept it standard, never saw any reason to change it  :eek

[misterjayb1]

Iv only ever gone +1 or -1 from standard on the front sprocket.. I guess it would depend on the advantages you wish to gain from changing gearing and also your riding style.. Performance, economy etc..

[fazersharp]

So is it +1 on the front to get a little more umph 0-60 with the trade off of higher revs in 6th or will just 1 tooth not be enough to notice

[Slaninar]

I used to have stock front with a larger rear chainring. That was nice for in town riding - let me stay in 2nd gear as long as I'm not standing still.

For open road, speed limit is 80 km/h so that was doable in 6th gear at small revs, in spite of the "shorter" gearing.

[joebloggs]

I used to have stock front with a larger rear chainring. That was nice for in town riding - let me stay in 2nd gear as long as I'm not standing still.

For open road, speed limit is 80 km/h so that was doable in 6th gear at small revs, in spite of the "shorter" gearing.

How big was your rear sprocket?

Any chain length issues?

[Slaninar]

[quote author=Slaninar link=topic=19950.msg230570#msg230570 date=1461819685]
I used to have stock front with a larger rear chainring. That was nice for in town riding - let me stay in 2nd gear as long as I'm not standing still.

For open road, speed limit is 80 km/h so that was doable in 6th gear at small revs, in spite of the "shorter" gearing.

How big was your rear sprocket?

Any chain length issues?
[/quote]


I really can't recall right now. It was some 5 or something teeth larger. Took about 500 revs more to ride at the same speed.
Didn't notice any chain length issues, since the chain was sized to suit the chainrings - they were changed along with the chain by the prevoius owner. When I changed drivetrain chain and chainrings, I went to stock - and regretted it a bit.

[joebloggs]

That's proper oversize 

Thanks

[Val]

I have -1 front 14 tooth front. That gives me little more torque and more faster acceleration, but makes my revs a little higher than standard and top speed little lower. About 300 revs more in 6th and 500 revs more in 2nd. Acoording to gearing commander http://www.gearingcommander.com/ that also makes my top speed lower 133mph compared to 143mph standard.

I really do over 100 so not bothered at all  :lol

That improves the acceleration in foots per second from 22 to 25 ft/s2 according to:

http://motorcycleperformanceanalyzer.com...azer-1998/

14 tooth
9100 rpm
59mph
500 lbf
25 ft/s2

Standard:
9100 rpm
62mph
460 lbf
22 ft/s2

If you change ratio 1 tooth change in front equals 3 tooth change rear. Means -1 front = +3 rear. You can do both obviusly if you want bigger impact.

Moto gymkhana guys go say for smaller front and really huge rear sprocket. That gaves them huge acceleration and more torque. Not very suitable for road riding.

I am thinking about doing gymkhana at some point and have the 51 rear sprocket ready. I reckon because its not very drastical change I'll be able to ride on the road with it too 

Finally you can go the other way to have bigger front and smaller rear. This will make your ride more relaxed with less revs on the motorway.

If you want relaxed ride I suggest the Fazer 600 is not for you  :lol

The whole point of small capacity IL4 engine is to go in high revs and scream. It is detuned supersport engine.

You need relaxed ride get low revs twin engine. Like Honda Dullville  :rollin

Or really big liter bike one like FZS 1000. Or Bandit 1250. These are relaxed motoway tools if you want them to be.
 

[Slaninar]

The less teeth, the less the sprockets (and the chain) last. I'd rather go + than -. Especially wouldn't reduce the, already small, number of front sprocket teeth.

[fazersharp]

The less teeth, the less the sprockets (and the chain) last. I'd rather go + than -. Especially wouldn't reduce the, already small, number of front sprocket teeth.

So you are saying instead of - 1 front for some more acceleration it would be best to go +3 back for exactly the same effect

[Slaninar]

[quote author=Slaninar link=topic=19950.msg230606#msg230606 date=1461852632]
The less teeth, the less the sprockets (and the chain) last. I'd rather go + than -. Especially wouldn't reduce the, already small, number of front sprocket teeth.

So you are saying instead of - 1 front for some more acceleration it would be best to go +3 back for exactly the same effect
[/quote]


Exactly.


The same as for faster gearing, better to add +1 up front (and cheaper), than to deduct at the rear.

[Val]

The less teeth, the less the sprockets (and the chain) last. I'd rather go + than -. Especially wouldn't reduce the, already small, number of front sprocket teeth.

It is more complicated than that. There is something called Same Tooth - Same Link. Means how many revolutions the chain makes before hitting the same tooth. For the standard front is 3. If you do -1 you actually have better Same Tooth - Same Link it will be 7. The biggest Same Tooth - Same Link number means less wear.

It is true that smaller front sprocket means more Tooth-Links contacts. Standard is 2628 per mile. With my -1 that gets worst 2816 Tooth-Links contacts.

In practice that means your front sprocket will worn a little faster. If you service your chain slack properly it will need several chains to run on the same sprocket in order this to have any effect.

If you do rear +3 you will have 2792 Tooth-Links contacts per mile. Means no difference than -1 front in wear terms.

[joebloggs]

+ 10 on the rear means big wheelies so less front tyre wear....................

[Slaninar]

[quote author=Slaninar link=topic=19950.msg230606#msg230606 date=1461852632]
The less teeth, the less the sprockets (and the chain) last. I'd rather go + than -. Especially wouldn't reduce the, already small, number of front sprocket teeth.

It is more complicated than that. There is something called Same Tooth - Same Link. Means how many revolutions the chain makes before hitting the same tooth. For the standard front is 3. If you do -1 you actually have better Same Tooth - Same Link it will be 7. The biggest Same Tooth - Same Link number means less wear.

It is true that smaller front sprocket means more Tooth-Links contacts. Standard is 2628 per mile. With my -1 that gets worst 2816 Tooth-Links contacts.

In practice that means your front sprocket will worn a little faster. If you service your chain slack properly it will need several chains to run on the same sprocket in order this to have any effect.

If you do rear +3 you will have 2792 Tooth-Links contacts per mile. Means no difference than -1 front in wear terms.
[/quote]


Good poin! Now, less teeth means sharper chain angle as well as less links sharing load at the same time. That's critical for the front, the rear one is pretty big in all combinations.
So 7 TLC, instead of 3, vs more teeth to share the load. I have no idea which is better.

[Val]

Good poin! Now, less teeth means sharper chain angle as well as less links sharing load at the same time. That's critical for the front, the rear one is pretty big in all combinations.
So 7 TLC, instead of 3, vs more teeth to share the load. I have no idea which is better.

I have no idea too just reading gearingcommander stuff  :lol

The reason I have done the front only was when I tried to fit the new chain and the bigger rear too there was no place left and I was not able to put the chain because of the bigger rear. According to the specs it must fit but it wasn't.

[Slaninar]

The reason I have done the front only was when I tried to fit the new chain and the bigger rear too there was no place left and I was not able to put the chain because of the bigger rear. According to the specs it must fit but it wasn't.

From my vast cycling (riding and mechanic) experience - smallest sprocket in the drivetrain suffers the most and having bigger sprockets significantly increases drivetrain longetivity.

On motorcycles, I've seen that front sprocket gets worn while the rear looks OK (provided the chain is changed in time - when the chain gets "stretched" - it starts rapidly wearing the rear sprocket as well).

[joebloggs]

I have -1 front 14 tooth front. That gives me little more torque and more faster acceleration, but makes my revs a little higher than standard and top speed little lower. About 300 revs more in 6th and 500 revs more in 2nd. Acoording to gearing commander http://www.gearingcommander.com/ that also makes my top speed lower 133mph compared to 143mph standard.

I really do over 100 so not bothered at all  :lol

That improves the acceleration in foots per second from 22 to 25 ft/s2 according to:

http://motorcycleperformanceanalyzer.com...azer-1998/

14 tooth
9100 rpm
59mph
500 lbf
25 ft/s2

Standard:
9100 rpm
62mph
460 lbf
22 ft/s2

If you change ratio 1 tooth change in front equals 3 tooth change rear. Means -1 front = +3 rear. You can do both obviusly if you want bigger impact.

Moto gymkhana guys go say for smaller front and really huge rear sprocket. That gaves them huge acceleration and more torque. Not very suitable for road riding.

I am thinking about doing gymkhana at some point and have the 51 rear sprocket ready. I reckon because its not very drastical change I'll be able to ride on the road with it too 

Finally you can go the other way to have bigger front and smaller rear. This will make your ride more relaxed with less revs on the motorway.

If you want relaxed ride I suggest the Fazer 600 is not for you  :lol

The whole point of small capacity IL4 engine is to go in high revs and scream. It is detuned supersport engine.

You need relaxed ride get low revs twin engine. Like Honda Dullville  :rollin

Or really big liter bike one like FZS 1000. Or Bandit 1250. These are relaxed motoway tools if you want them to be.

14-51 gives some impressive figures, can't imagine it would do much for your fuel consumption

[fazersharp]

[quote author=Slaninar link=topic=19950.msg230661#msg230661 date=1461872833]
Good poin! Now, less teeth means sharper chain angle as well as less links sharing load at the same time. That's critical for the front, the rear one is pretty big in all combinations.
So 7 TLC, instead of 3, vs more teeth to share the load. I have no idea which is better.

I have no idea too just reading gearingcommander stuff  :lol

The reason I have done the front only was when I tried to fit the new chain and the bigger rear too there was no place left and I was not able to put the chain because of the bigger rear. According to the specs it must fit but it wasn't.
[/quote]
That's what I was thinking -1 on the front wont make much difference to the rear wheel position along its ajustment slot, but to get the same result by just doing the rear sprock by going +3 then surly that would be just too much for the chain to fit.
Is there such a thing as -1 front and +1 back