Primary Drive (RockyMtnATV's brand) Chain Opinions?

[Rich Rohrich]

I didn't snipe, I merely pointed out a truth: Jay has a vested interest as a chain lube manufacturer and his info should be taken in that light.

Maybe I'm missing something (and if I am feel fee to corrrect me), but you appear to be implying that Jay's views have a specific slant because he makes a chain lube. I'm telling you that while Jay might be a bit of a "nutjob" :) he is nothing if not consistent, products to sell or not.

I'm willing to believe that sniping wasn't your intent, but it sure doesn't "read" that way.

My only real point was, you made a request not to be prejudged, extending the same courtesy to others might help your case, or maybe not, who knows. :whoa:

 

[Jaybird]

From having experience in debating some of these issues with you in the past, I am pretty sure this will be a pissing match.

Did I call that one, or did I call that one? I'm also a swami in the off-season.

Ooh, a veiled slap at my profession. Good start. Feel better?

It wasn't veiled at all. It was fairly up front, I thought. And one of my pet peeves are writers who do not do the proper work to provide an accurate and comprehensive report of the subject matter. I am especially peeved with those writers who take some of the information they gathered during their less-than-thorough research, and turn it into something they have surmised on their own as factual and present it to the masses as such. Especially when they really didn't get the information from a credible professional, but rather cooked it up in their own mind, after gaining only bits and pieces of the truth.

Like I said, unless something has happened to the o-ring chain to cause the lube to seep out or become contaminated, the lube will last longer than the chain's serviceable life. Of course, this refers to bikes that are actually ridden and not stored for years. I never said the lube remains viable forever, just that a chemical breakdown of it in one's lifetime is unlikely.

This is where you are making one of your mistakes.
This has to be an example of when you take bits and pieces of the truth, and turn it into your own reality. Unfortunately, you are mistaken on this issue.

Again, aren't we talking about regularly ridden dirt bikes here? Most chains will reach their service limit in stretch long before any chemical breakdown of the lube occurs. Your making it out to be a real concern is not factual. Mechanical breakdown of the lube is genuine, but also of little import on a properly maintained, quality o-ring chain.

Let's assume we have a properly cared for sealed chain. At what point do you think the chain will start elongating, and why?
It seems to me that you are trying to get readers to buy your theory that if the sealing rings stay intact, and do their job, that the chain will only see an elongation of pitch by a lengthening of the side plates.

You mentioned that the wear protection provided in the sealed area will remain viable as long as the rings stay intact.
Would a sealed chain on a test bench simply keep running for an extended period of time? Would we have to wait to see the rings fail and let lube out before the chain starts to elongate in the lab?
And again, what is it in your mind that causes a chain to elongate in the first place?

Wait, I see you have already attempted to answer part of this...

An o-ring chain can stretch more because of its design, not because of any breakdown in the lube. The pins are longer on an o-ring chain and the gap between the side plates is larger to accommodate the o-rings. This allows more lateral loading of the pins and side flexing of the chain which accelerates stretch. That's why manufacturers have gone to different types of rings: to provide more sealing contact surfaces to prevent loss or contamination of the lubricant. This side loading is the reason that a straight chain path and straight sprockets are critical to the life of an o-ring chain.

See, now you have ventured into the area of ignorance. That whole statement is nothing but BS. Obviously made up in your head.
You have already qualified yourself by stating that you are simply gathering information and presenting it...why don't you cite your source on this one? Give us the name of the professional that gave you that information. Can I assume that all the chain mfg's are in agreement with you on this? If so, add them to the reference I am asking for.
A good writer, that is not a professional in the area that he is reporting on, would surely not be against citing his sources of information, would he?
*If your sources contain names like Schmuck & Bubbas Harley Shop, feel free to leave them off the list.

Well, since I never mentioned anything about manufacturer's wear ratings, I'm at a loss to rebutt this statement.

Hmmm...then where did you come up with this pearl of information?

The average life expectancy of an o-ring chain vs standard chain is about 3 to 1

If you look at mfg wear ratings on their marketing material, they also state similar ratios. So, I have to assume you are getting the information from mfg wear rating info.
Or are we again making assumptions based on our own anecdotal experiences?

Did you type that with a straight face? Like I said and say again, the ring chain will more likely than not reach its service limit for length long before any lube problem causes damage that renders it unserviceable.

Yes, a straight face indeed. And again, explain to us why the chain elongates if the lube is intact and working?
Explain it in detail, Rick. Some of us can hold our attention span for quite some time.
Or would you rather just submit that your analysis was based entirely on what you "think", rather than what has been provided to you by a credible professional?
I have already explained above why I abhor writers who make assumptions and post them up as facts.

Really? And how do you verify the amount of lube getting into each pin cavity on your standard chain? Is there a way to visually verify that each pin is properly lubricated? Puhleeze.

Well, you seem to be convinced that it may be hard for lubricant to see the friction area.

How much of the lube you spray on a standard chain do you think actually works its way into the pin cavities?

And that is a fairly astute observation, when considering the character of conventional chain lubes and waxes.
And yes, lubes with huge amounts of tackifier in them can cause problems. They can actually start to set up before they reach the friction area and coat all of the wear surfaces.
When placing this type of lubricant on the chain reel, it is not only possible, but probable that if you spray the tackifier rich lube on both sides of the bushing opening, that lube can create an air pocket in the middle of the pin/bushing area that actually pushes the lube from the middle and keeps it from entering the area completely. The result is a chain that doesn't have adequate lubricant at the pin/bushing area, yet it appears to be well lubricated.
Often times a person who lubricates their chain on a normal schedule will still see the chain elongating at an excellerated rate. And more often than not, it is the choice of product that is the root problem.

A dry-film lubricant works differently than a fluid film lubricant does. It is very thin bodied, normally a viscosity similar to water. You can see the droplet of lubricant penetrate the pin/bushing area if you want to. It is easy to see that a thin bodied, barrier rich penetrating fluid will find a home much easier than a thick, goo ladened spray of paraffin.

It is an easy task to confirm if your chain is seeing lube or not though...
Lube the chain under using your normal procedure and product. Then when you are done and ready to ride, take the chain off and inspect the master link. I guarantee that if lubed with a penetrating dry-film, there will be lubricant present on the pin and bushing. That cannot be guaranteed when using a tackifier rich, fluid film type lubricant.

BTW...
The lubricant collecting and holding on to grit and dirt is a mechanism of conventional fluid film chain lubes. Barrier type lubricants are carried on by a solvent (which actually cleans the surfaces while it's being applied). Once the solvent dissipates, all that is left are barrier type lubricants that adhere themselves to the metal surfaces and below.
A barrier type lubricant does not work like fluid films do. Fluid films must keep a thickness of the product between the metal surfaces of approx. .001 of an inch to be effective.
Barrier lubricants do not maintain this film between the surfaces, nor do they need to. They keep the surfaces from wearing in a much different manner than fluid film lubes do.

 

[RADRick]

Maybe I'm missing something (and if I am feel fee to corrrect me), but you appear to be implying that Jay's views have a specific slant because he makes a chain lube.

Just like his comments have an obvious slant of negativity towards my profession as a magazine writer. I guess you missed HIS "snipes" at me in that regard.

 

[RADRick]

Jay, I considered giving you another line-by-line rebuttal to your last post, but what would be the point? It's obvious you are intent on saying anything solely to try and discredit me and are not really trying to debate the issue. You have an obvious animus for people who do what I do for a living so getting anything resembling a fair shake from you is impossible. You assume that because I don't agree with you that I did "less-than-thorough research" in coming to my conclusions. You would rather ignore the fact that as a motorcyclist of over 35 years I have a wealth of personal experience to draw from in addition to easy access to many industry professionals, many which you appear to have disdain for, as well. You accuse me of parroting inept hypotheses from other sources as fact while you yourself ignore that I have years of practical experience with all kinds of motorcycles. Your posts sound more like salesmanship than science to me. For instance:
"And that is a fairly astute observation, when considering the character of conventional chain lubes and waxes." AND
"The lubricant collecting and holding on to grit and dirt is a mechanism of conventional fluid film chain lubes."

Unlike the products you sell, I'm sure. Whatever. If you want to tell riders that chain elongation is solely a function of lubricity (as it appears from your last post), go right ahead. I'm sure the more intelligent among us will see the fallacy in that assertion. Even those of us who aren't magazine writers. :coocoo:

 

[mtk]

To add a bit of gasoline to this fire:

Being a motorcyclist for 35 years means bupkis to me. I can walk across the street and find a half dozen Harley riders with that kind of experience and none of them know how to use the front brake. The moral of the story being that you can do something wrong for a long time; that doesn't make it correct.

Rick, the stuff you pulled out of Jay's post made perfect sense to my engineering brain. Conventional chain lubes, aka fluid film lubes, are fluid-based (hence the name) and fluids are known to attract and hold dirt particles. Dry film lubes are a different animal entirely, which Jay explained quite well, and their dry nature means that they're not a sticky, gooey mess that dirt will readily stick to if given the chance. Yes, they ARE wet when applied, but the solvent carrier is allowed to evaporate before they're put into use so they don't attract dirt. These types of lubricants are also commonly used in the firearms industry, for similar reasons.

On the other hand, Jay, Rick's point about the stresses on an O-ring chain are also correct. The side plates ARE spaced further out and as such the bending moments will be larger because of it. Whether or not this matters is another issue entirely; one which I won't be touching. But the bottom-line mechanics of it are undenyable.

However, Rick's point about O-ring chains and severe environments does make sense, at least to my engineering brain (as well as those employed by the manufacturers of off-road bikes, since they're standard equipment on many models as he noted). O-rings are a two-way seal; they keep the lube in but they also keep the crap out. On a bike that is frequently covered in mud, that is definitely going to be a feature.

Finally, unless the O-ring chain is assembled in a vacuum chamber there will also be oxygen present inside the sealed portion of the chain. That area also gets hot during operation, quite hot I would imagine since it is the primary friction area inside the chain and this frictional heat (amongst other sources) eventually raises the temperature of the entire chain. As such, oxidation of the lubricant is virtually guaranteed. How long this takes is another matter, one which I'm not touching.

 

[Rich Rohrich]

Just like his comments have an obvious slant of negativity towards my profession as a magazine writer. I guess you missed HIS "snipes" at me in that regard.

I was merely suggesting a high road approach that might buy you some consideration with folks here. Just a bit of friendly advice on my part nothing more.

 

[RADRick]

I was merely suggesting a high road approach that might buy you some consideration with folks here. Just a bit of friendly advice on my part nothing more.

You could have made the same request of Jay instead of singling me out, but I appreciate the effort. It shows you at least care. ;)

 

[RADRick]

Being a motorcyclist for 35 years means bupkis to me. I can walk across the street and find a half dozen Harley riders with that kind of experience and none of them know how to use the front brake. The moral of the story being that you can do something wrong for a long time; that doesn't make it correct.

If time in the saddle were my only qualification, I'd agree with you. Luckily, it isn't.

Rick, the stuff you pulled out of Jay's post made perfect sense to my engineering brain. Conventional chain lubes, aka fluid film lubes, are fluid-based (hence the name) and fluids are known to attract and hold dirt particles. Dry film lubes are a different animal entirely, which Jay explained quite well, and their dry nature means that they're not a sticky, gooey mess that dirt will readily stick to if given the chance. Yes, they ARE wet when applied, but the solvent carrier is allowed to evaporate before they're put into use so they don't attract dirt. These types of lubricants are also commonly used in the firearms industry, for similar reasons.

I pulled those quotes to illustrate two things. First, his previous use of an absolute statement in regard to his competitor's products, and second, the obvious bias towards his own products. While dry lubes have superior features, in the dirt bike environment much of the contaminants we get into come with their own binder. Mud, for instance, can cling to most anything regardless of what lube was on it previously. More so if the rear wheel and chain are submerged in it and spinning thereby removing the lube's protective film. Mud or wet sand doesn't have to cling to the lube, just to the part, to do its damage. On that basis Jay's absolute statement was ridiculous and his use of the word "conventional" was primarily a denigration of competing products.

On the other hand, Jay, Rick's point about the stresses on an O-ring chain are also correct. The side plates ARE spaced further out and as such the bending moments will be larger because of it. Whether or not this matters is another issue entirely; one which I won't be touching. But the bottom-line mechanics of it are undenyable.

When I worked in the tech industry I was involved in robotics. Specifically, automated machinery that ran on rails via chain-drive systems. We did tests that showed how chains that run slightly or more off axis ran at higher temperatures, stretched faster and failed sooner. We tried going to larger chains, but that only exacerbated the problem because of the wider link spacing and longer pins. The only viable solution was to correct the chain path to be more linear. Unlike Jay's assertion, I did not make up this problem from thin air.

However, Rick's point about O-ring chains and severe environments does make sense, at least to my engineering brain (as well as those employed by the manufacturers of off-road bikes, since they're standard equipment on many models as he noted). O-rings are a two-way seal; they keep the lube in but they also keep the crap out. On a bike that is frequently covered in mud, that is definitely going to be a feature.

Much like I said. Jay seems to have no recommendation at all for an o-ring chain. I, on the other hand, have seen the benefits they have for some applications. The manufacturers obviously agree with me. :laugh:

Finally, unless the O-ring chain is assembled in a vacuum chamber there will also be oxygen present inside the sealed portion of the chain. That area also gets hot during operation, quite hot I would imagine since it is the primary friction area inside the chain and this frictional heat (amongst other sources) eventually raises the temperature of the entire chain. As such, oxidation of the lubricant is virtually guaranteed. How long this takes is another matter, one which I'm not touching.

This is a valid chain concern, but not so much in a dirt bike application. Where it is of real concern is in environments where the chain is under constant tension such as in a conveyor system or enclosed. On a dirt bike, where the chain is exposed and constantly shifting between load/no load conditions, heat is not as big a concern. In this situation the majority of chain stretch comes from the rapid torque and release from riding, not so much from heat. If chain heat was such a critical problem on dirt bikes they would melt through the plastic and rubber guides and rollers used on them very quickly. These parts wear more from abrasive friction, not heat.

Thanks for the respectful, well-reasoned reply. I wish there were more of them. :cool:

 

[Jaybird]

Mud, for instance, can cling to most anything regardless of what lube was on it previously. More so if the rear wheel and chain are submerged in it and spinning thereby removing the lube's protective film. Mud or wet sand doesn't have to cling to the lube, just to the part, to do its damage. On that basis Jay's absolute statement was ridiculous and his use of the word "conventional" was primarily a denigration of competing products.

I use the word conventional because every lube you find on the moto shop shelf is old-school technology lubricants. Heavily takifier ladened fluid films that have caused as many problems, as have helped, the moto rider. Just about all of these shelf lubes may be of differing components, but are all using the same technology, which is old school and "conventional".

When I worked in the tech industry I was involved in robotics. Specifically, automated machinery that ran on rails via chain-drive systems. We did tests that showed how chains that run slightly or more off axis ran at higher temperatures, stretched faster and failed sooner. We tried going to larger chains, but that only exacerbated the problem because of the wider link spacing and longer pins. The only viable solution was to correct the chain path to be more linear. Unlike Jay's assertion, I did not make up this problem from thin air.

Just because you had an application that was experiencing poor engineering or adjustments, does not mean that you can propose that all sealed ring chain elongation is due to the construction of the chain links.

I too am familiar with robotic applications.
As amatter of fact, I am currently working on a project to automatically lubricate ~400 of them in a Ford assembly plant.
I also have a meeting this month with GM corporate to discuss doing the same on their machines corporate wide.

Auto lubricating the 3rd joint of this Kaw robot.

And I have my doubts that the antiquated chain drive of the 7th axis of a robot was using a sealed ring chain to begin with.
Most modern robots will utilize a servo driven rack and pinion to drive a linear bearing supported machine. But in any event, you saw a chain failing because of maladjustment. This has nothing to do with a properly adjusted dirt bike ring chain, and how it manages to elongate.

Rick, if you would have spent any time reading any of my previous offerings on this topic, you would see that I have stated early and often that a ring chain has it's place, and should be used when the conditions dictate.

But just as often, I will point out the disadvantages to running a ring chain all the time.
I also point out things in an attempt to bring some knowledge to the table, rather than try to get folks to use my chain lube, and base everything I provide on the eventual sale.
And like many of your misconceptions of how things really are in the mechanical world, so are your misconceptions of what would actually motivate my postings if I were indeed on a mission to spam.
For one thing, I sell ring chains...and have sold quite a few more of them than I have non-sealed chains in the past three years. They seem to be quite a popular item.
And it takes more of my lubricant to effectively lube a ring chain than it does a standard non-sealed chain.
So dissing ring chains would not be the best avenue for me to take, if revenues were the bottom line.
And important as they are, revenues are not my motivating factor here. I am simply bringing information about chain drives and how to properly take care of them to the table.

Over the years I learned that most all of us had the wrong thinking when it came to chains and sprockets. I learned first hand that some of the old-school methods that had been adopted over the years were, in many cases, degrading the lifespan of the drive, rather than helping it live as long as it could.
I became intrigued and decided to gain all the knowledge I could about the topic, as it was part of my livelyhood to begin with. What I learned about chain drive care can be used to everyones benefit, and I am simply sharing it.
Sure, revenues are driving forces for all of us...but in this instance, I can assure you that sales is not my driving factor.
Dewd...I sell hundreds of gallons a month of similar chain lubricants in the industrial field. And that is just another sideline of my real work. Which in part includes being a power transsmission specialist.

But back to chains...
You, as many do, have a very limited view of what conditions that chains in an industrial application, specifically conveyors, can see and have to live through.

This is a valid chain concern, but not so much in a dirt bike application. Where it is of real concern is in environments where the chain is under constant tension such as in a conveyor system or enclosed. On a dirt bike, where the chain is exposed and constantly shifting between load/no load conditions, heat is not as big a concern.

I see thousands of applications that are putting the roller chains through more severe punishment than a dirt bike, and it's knarliest rider, could ever hope to. That includes the shock loading that you were attempting to discribe.

In this situation the majority of chain stretch comes from the rapid torque and release from riding, not so much from heat. If chain heat was such a critical problem on dirt bikes they would melt through the plastic and rubber guides and rollers used on them very quickly. These parts wear more from abrasive friction, not heat.

You need to understand a couple of things here.
When we talk about heat on a chain, we are not talking about ambient temperature. The heat that the atmosphere places on a chain is of little importance.

What is important, is the heat that the chain itself creates.
When we have friction, be it from a rubbing situation, or from a shock loading, there are little microscopic shags of metal that are breaking one another off at the shank. With this severe microscopic action, there is a very intenese heat created at the micro level. This instantaneous micro heating is normally undetectable without sensitive equipment, but if this action is repeated over and over, there will be a heating of the surrounding area. Increased heating of this localized area will result in a greater area to become elevated in temperature. You will eventually be able to detect this micro level heating event due to the whole chain being warmed from the work that is happening at the microscopic level.
Not only does friction of the metal surfaces create heat when they rub against one another, but the action of a fluid film lubricant alone, doing what it's supposed to do, creates a bit of heat from the shearing action of the metal shags and the fluid.

It is not the heat that degrades the wear surfaces of the chain, but rather the wear surfaces are creating the heat via mechanical actions. The more wear, the more heat.
And yes, there are applications where the heat generated from other areas can help to degrade the friction surfaces, but chain drives are not one of them. It creates it's own problems.

There are simply more things going on than meets the eye. And to make general statements based on only what we see, often times will create misconceptions that are hard to shake out of our bias'.

A ring chain will live a good long life if you take care of the rings so that they remain viable. And keep the friction surfaces well lubricated.
But there will come a time that the lubricant in the sealed are will have become depleted, and it's usefulness has not lasted as long as the chain materials could have. Shortly after this point is reached, the chain will wear at a very increased rate, due to friction protection at the selaed area is no longer doing it's job. The result is wear on the face of the pins and the contacting inside diameter of the bushing.
This small scar of wear is in direct relationship to the pitch length of the chain due to the construction, and contributes to an increased overall chain length.

The only pitch elongation you will see from a properly adjusted chain side plate is the initial elastic stretch period. Once the metal has settled in, the only pitch elongation you will see is from wear of the pin/bushing sufaces.

 

[RM_guy]

Show me where I'm wrong and I might consider it.I don't consider myself an expert, but until you can show me any error in my statements in this thread, I'm just as much so as Jay. BTW, I believe Mr. Jay (could he be DigilubeJay from another forum? Hmm...) has some connection to the lubricant industry. Perish the thought that he might have an agenda in touting the benefits of standard chains--that need constant relubing, no doubt with products Jay sells--over an o-ring chain that requires less of said products. :think:

If you don't consider yourself an expert than don't try to come across as one. Over the years I've come to trust the judgment of some and not others. Years of good advice from Jay have proven to me that he is an expert on the subject of chains and lube.

I will continue to listen to Jay's advice and opinions--even in fields that he may not be an "expert" in-- because I trust him.

I hope you aren't as arrogant as you come across in your posts here on DRN. I give you the benefit of the doubt because people can be much different on boards like this than in person. I've seen it and maybe I'm different in person too but you'd have to ask others about that. Maybe we'll meet someday and I'll have a different opinion but until then I'm not too impressed.

 

[RADRick]

Jay, at this point I think it's obvious we both have some level of expertise on the subject. Just how much of it relates directly to dirt bikes may be debatable. The difference is I challenged your statements and your motivations. I never challenged your expertise. You challenged mine directly and did so almost completely on the basis of what I do for a living. You did it repeatedly in an attempt to garner support from other like-minded forum users. Condescendingly so. I take exception to that. Before I ever became a magazine writer I co-owned a Harley shop, built custom bikes, raced street and dirt bikes, and have been riding and wrenching on them since I was a kid. From 1979 to present I have never not owned a motorcycle, usually 2 or more, not to mention the many more I've had access to in the course of my work. I've worked in the aerospace industry, the tech sector, auto repair, was part owner in a custom cabinet shop, and was even an appliance repair tech for a number of years. I have a lot of technical and mechanical background and aptitude, the majority of it hands-on. It is this vast experience I draw from even when hypothesizing. It has served me well for years. In fact, I couldn't do what I do today if not for the background I had before.

Your arguments, while well reasoned, appear to be more general in nature and scientific in basis. My observations are based more on practical experience than laboratory analysis. You can talk all you want about the microscopic level and chemical reactions, etc., but at the end of the day it's what's happening in the real world that matters to consumers. Whatever the causes of chain stretch, the reality is that the choice between an o-ring and standard chain comes down to two things: Where it will be used and what level of diligence the owner is willing to commit to proper care. No amount of understanding of chains or lube will substitute for misapplication or misuse. That's the bottom line regardless of what either of us thinks. Good debating with you. :cool:

 

[Jaybird]

No, Rick...what I did was take exception to some of the information you posted.
And yes I did take a jab at your current profession, as many articles are written with about 75% (being generous here) factual and informative, while the remainder appears to be nothing but speculation, fluff, and conjecture.

And you made it quite clear from the get-go that you have recently written a technical article concerning this topic. Did that not paint a target on yourself when proclaiming your accomplishment? Surely, if we are going to provide the public with a technical article, we wouldn't be opposed to taking fire from the critics would we?

Making general maintenance recommendations is one thing, but to start providing a technical reference, you should first have a full grasp of the subject matter.

 

[RADRick]

Well, I tried to make nice. So much for that.

No, Rick...what I did was take exception to some of the information you posted.
And yes I did take a jab at your current profession, as many articles are written with about 75% (being generous here) factual and informative, while the remainder appears to be nothing but speculation, fluff, and conjecture.

No less than your generalized conjecture about the moto magazine business. Anything beyond your personal opinion to back up the numbers you just posited? Why aren't you offering to write articles for any magazines if they are so off the mark on the subject?

And you made it quite clear from the get-go that you have recently written a technical article concerning this topic. Did that not paint a target on yourself when proclaiming your accomplishment? Surely, if we are going to provide the public with a technical article, we wouldn't be opposed to taking fire from the critics would we?

Go back and read my post on that before you mischaracterize what was said. I clearly stated that I had used the products in question in an article about chains and could recommend them, nothing more. I made no comments on the article's scope or of it having anything to do with chain lube. FYI, it deals strictly with installing, maintaining and adjusting along with mention of some of the problems and products related to chains and sprockets. It mentions nothing specific about lubes beyond the proper way to apply them. A shootout comparo of different brands/types of lubes will follow at some point. Don't worry, I will contact you then if I need product or your expertise on the matter.

Making general maintenance recommendations is one thing, but to start providing a technical reference, you should first have a full grasp of the subject matter.

And who the heck are you to say I don't have a "full grasp" on anything? Just because I'm not a chemical or mechanical engineer doesn't mean I don't have an understanding of the subject or enough practical experience to make commentary on it. Man...and people call ME arrogant. People can take what they want from this Illiadic exchange. I'm not here to make people like me. When I see a subject I can contribute to, I will. If someone can reasonably disprove something I post, so be it, I'll live. But when all you have is an obvious disdain for me as a person and a negative bias for my profession to point to as proof, I will defend myself vehemently. Whatever message you may have had to bring to the debate was long lost in your attacks on me and on my profession. Maybe next time you'll just stick to the facts.

P.S. I notice you had nothing to say in disagreement with my bottom line summation in my last post. Maybe I said something intelligent after all? :laugh:

 

[Okiewan]

Jay... BAIL MISTER!! BAIL!!

 

[RADRick]

Jay... BAIL MISTER!! BAIL!!

Why are you trying to stir up trouble on your own website? Oh...I get it. Never mind. :p

 

[Vic]

 

[RM_guy]

LOL!!!! :laugh:

 

[2TrakR]

NOT to get in the pee-in match and most anyone who was actually looking for a response to the _original_ question has long since bailed...

My experience:
PD XRing on my 520 made it about 200 miles before the side plate on the master link snapped (permanent side of the master). It was a long cold walk back to the truck and a good reason for an EE slave cylinder guard (had not packed the spare masters back in new backpack).
Same chain on my TTR 250 is still going strong.
I'm back to only DID XRing chains. No failures, 10K+ miles on them (several chains in that distance).