Stock Chain of 06

[Ga426owner]

Your doing nothing wrong. Maybe we should clarify all this by simply saying there are better chains available than the stocker. So if you rank them on durability where does the stocker really rank?

Not sure why anyone would waste time defending the stock chain. It , like many other parts on a new bike, are there to be adequate because they know most people will change them with their preference. So if your asking....I PREFER a better chain. They last longer when you don't properly maintain them ..... :ride:

Yea like the stock handlebars on every 1998-2004 YZF are great too...as good as Renthal.......ha ha ha too funny

[Wheel]

Proper maintenance also means measuring stretch. A stock chain on any YZ exceeds the limit in a very short time.

The ERT is a much stronger chain than stock, and yet we have already broken a DID ERT on our 450 this year, probably caused by a rock. The chances of breaking a stock chain are obviously much greater. Besides the wear factor, the top quality chains are worth it for safety sake. The last thing I want to have happen is my rider break a chain on the take off of a nasty triple.

[grayracer513]

SureBlue,

There is no way to compare the two by doing that. There are different clearances between the side plates in the new items.

Now, I am surprised. You know that side plate clearance without clearance within the pin/bore interface will not allow a chain to bend laterally. Besides, all sealed chains have gaping clearances between the inner and outer plates to make room for the seals. Account for that. Apples and oranges? Maybe. But apples and oranges are both fruits, and some characteristics apply to them all.

Send me you stock chains....right off the new bikes...and I will show you how to make them last a good long while....

Those who do know how to properly maintain their equipment will see good life out of the stock chains. How can that be?

So, you are suggesting then, that most new YZF's are delivered with inadequately lubed and incorrectly adjusted chains to the extent that it causes them to need a major adjustment within the first 20 minutes of riding to remove the slack. What must they be lubed with that causes them to wear so rapidly? How excessively tight are they set that the chains go from however they are set to near falling off in less than an hour, and that that the wear goes on unabated even after the excess tension has gone from the chain? And further, that there is some maintenance program that the new bike could be put on within the first twelve seconds of its life that would prevent all that? "How can it be", you ask? I suggest that it can't.

But if I ever run across a new bottom-of-the-line DID 520, you can have it.

[DigilubeJay]

But apples and oranges are both fruits, and some characteristics apply to them all.

But the practice of flexing a length of chain to assess it's worth is a bad idea. There are too many different clearances, pin sizes, etc... for there to be any sort of standard for that procedure.

The only way to truely know if your chain is serviceable is to measure the pitch lengths.

So, you are suggesting then, that most new YZF's are delivered with inadequately lubed and incorrectly adjusted chains to the extent that it causes them to need a major adjustment within the first 20 minutes of riding to remove the slack.

Yes, that is basically what I'm saying.

We also must consider that a new chain like the ERT has been "proof stretched" at assembly. Which means it was placed in a stress condition that was up to 60% of it's ultimate tensile yield. This proof stretching takes up the initial elastic elongation that the side plates will see in the first few stresses.

A lower end chain will not have been proof stretched, and the small amount of initial stretch that all chains see will be realized between mounting and first adjustment.

As far as lube and adjustments, I contend that the majority of riders are either hosing up their adjustment procedure or not lubricating properly, either by mfg recommendations or by common standards. Most likely they are missing both points.

Many will claim they are, but truth is they are not. This goes especially for dealers.

And when a kid gets a new bike, he probably expects the chain to be properly adjusted and lubricated, when it is more likely than not, neither.

But, he's off to the races right away...and soon blaming his chain for being junk.

CRFThumper,

I never said that the OEM chains are of the quality of the ERT or similar top shelf chain. Read again and see what I did say. (sheesh)

[grayracer513]

As far as lube and adjustments, I contend that the majority of riders are either hosing up their adjustment procedure or not lubricating properly, either by mfg recommendations or by common standards. Most likely they are missing both points.

Many will claim they are, but truth is they are not. This goes especially for dealers.

And when a kid gets a new bike, he probably expects the chain to be properly adjusted and lubricated, when it is more likely than not, neither.

But, he's off to the races right away...and soon blaming his chain for being junk.

Show of hands; anybody buy that? Anyone think that's why you can nearly destroy an OEM chain in under ten hours?

[RCannon]

I like Jay and I like his lube. Its all I use anymore. However, I think he is nuts with the stock chain issue. The quality is so bad that I dont see myself using a stock chain except to put back on when I sell the bike. I believe Jay is the mad scientist type. I believe some of his madness may be reflected in the protection of stock chains.

[Satch0922]

this is funny now. Bottom line...WHO CARES! Ride with the stocker....hell that is why we ride bikes to start with.....for the excitement!