Skip to main content
000000 000001 000002 000003 000004 000005 000006 000007 000008 000009 000010 000011 000012 000013 000014 000015 000016 000017 000018 000019 000020 000021 000022 000023 000024 000025 000026 000027 000028 000029 000030 000031 000032 000033 000034 000035 000036 000037 000038 000039 000040 000041 000042 000043 000044 000045 000046 000047 000048 000049 000050 000051 000052 000053 000054 000055 000056 000057 000058 000059 000060 000061 000062 000063 000064 000065 000066 000067 000068 000069 000070 000071 000072 000075 000078 000081 000084 000087 000090 000093 000096 000099 000102 000105 000108 000111 000114 000117 000120 000123 000126 000129 000132 000135 000138 000141 000144 000147 000150 000153 000156 000159 000162 000165 000168 000171 000174 000177 000180 000183 000186 000189 000192 000195 000198 000201 000204 000207 000210 000213 000216 000219 000222 000225 000228 000231 000234 000237 000240 000243 000246 000249 000252 000255 000258 000261 000264 000267 000270 000273 000276 000279 000282 000285 000288 000291 000294 000297 000300 000303 000306 000309 000312 000318 000321 000324 000327 000330 000333 000336 000339 000342 000345 000348 000351 000354 000357 000360 000363 000366 000369 000372 000375 000378 000381 000384 000387 000390 000393 000396 000399 000402 000405 000408 000411 000414 000417 000420 000423 000426 000429 000432 000435 000438 000441 000444 000447 000450 000453 000456 000459 000462 000465 000468 000471 000474 000477 000480 000483 000486 000489 000492 000495 000498 000501 000504 000507 000510 000513 000516 000519 000522 000525 000528 000531 000534 000537 000540 000543 000546 000549 000552 000555 000558 000561 000564 000567 000570 000573 000576 000579 000582 000585 000588 000591 000594 000597 000600 000603 000606 000609 000612 000615 000618 000621 000624 000627 000630 000633 000636 000639 000642 000645 000648 000651 000654 000657 000660 000663 000666 000669 000672 000675 000678 000681 000684 000687 000690 000693 000696 000699 000702 000705 000708 000711 000714 000717 000720 000723 000726 000729 000732 000735 000738 000741 000744 000747 000750 000753 000756 000759 000762 000765 000768 000771 000774 000777 000780 000783 000786 000789 000792 000795 000798 000801 000804 000807 000810 000813 000816 000819 000822 000825 000828 000831 000834 000837 000840 000843 000846 000849 000852 000855 000858 000861 000864 000867 000870 000873 000876 000879 000882 000883 1.slide1 2.slide2 3.slide3 4.slide4 5.slide5
English French German Italian Spanish

Holland Norton Works: X-ring chain set #H21

Forums

As this is 5/8*1/4" as opposed to 5/8*3/8”, presumably the theory is that the 20 per cent reduction in bearing area is more than offset by

  1. improved internal chain lubrication, thanks to consistent lubrication by grease as opposed to intermittent lubrication by grease/grinding paste
  2. improved lubrication of the chain/sprocket interfaces, thanks to more regular cleaning and re-lubrication encouraged by knowledge that this won’t compromise internal chain lubrication.

Does practice bear out this theoretical expectation?

http://www.hollandnortonworks.eu/en/exclusive-commando-parts

Permalink

Will a 5/8"x 1/4" X ring chain fit a 99 ? .Can you get it with a spring clip ?. Does anyone use one on a Dommy,,.Is that a 520 size?.

Permalink

I've run 1/4, aka 520, chain for years. Modern chain (DID, Regina) is so much stronger and better made than the Reynolds stuff that was standard in the 70s. I use non o-ring. O-ring is quite wide and can rub against the gearbox unless the sprocket is spaced out. Whether o-ring is worth the extra cost/hassle will depend on your mileage and weather conditions

1/4 gearbox sprockets are easy. Rears are the problem. The choice seems to be thinning down the Norton item or, as I do, bolting on a suitable ring (which makes changing the gearing easy). All of which requires machining; presumabley that what Holland are doing for the money

Permalink

My 961s had some strange size like 525 whereas my 750 Honda uses an O'ring 520. All managed 2,000 plus miles each year with no significant wear showing. My Norton Dominator 650 needed to change its 5/8 x 3/8" Renolds after less than 3 years of moderate riding and regular lubing.

I know a few Norton people who have traded in their 5/8 x 3/8" (530) chains for slimmer 1/4" wide O'ring versions, including some Commando owners. All have been pleased with the change. The only drawback of such a switch is the rear brake drum/sprocket. Most replacement versions of this item, that are available, are nothing like as good as the originals and a poorly made 1/4" wide sprocket is going to fail quite quickly.

Permalink

When Norton changed from 5/8x1/4 (520) to 5/8x3/8 (530) chains sometimes in the sixties, it meant that the chain came closer to the inner primary cover. I've read that some X or O-ring 530 chains will interfere with the primary cover on a Commando. Probably why the Dutch offer the thinner 520. I think you can check on your Dommie how much clearance there is. Also check the dimensions with chain manufacturers data sheet. Some D.I.D X-ring chains comes with a spring link, some are for rivet links only. A bit of investigation needed.

I've not decided yet if I'll go for 1/4 or 3/8 width on my 650SS project. Have both options available. Depends a bit on if it will be a track or a touring bike. If long distance touring a sealed will be better. If mostly track I'll have a non sealed chain.

Permalink

I,ve used a DID 520ERV3 X ring chain since 2007, the main consideration being width, strength and longevity for touring, occasional track days and all year riding. Reason for using it was to fit modern radials on a custom swingarm without having to modify the frame or primary cases. A Japanese cush drive mated to the Mk3 hub uses a normal JT bolt on sprocket to make the awful and pricey Norton setup redundant

Works perfectly for me and the complete assembly is lighter but it,s hard to see where a stock Commando would benefit from this very expensive CNW set when there are loads of more than adequate 530 X ring chains available that clear the primary case

The latest in the DID 520 ERV series is the 7 and like the 3, used in Moto GP, World Superbikes and alot of big bore sportbikes. Even the Hogslayer would have trouble breaking these

 

Permalink

… in these responses; many thanks to all. My interest in the HNW set-up is for two reasons:

  1. at some point in the foreseeable future I'm going to need new gearbox and rear-wheel sprockets in any case, so the choice is either standard parts from (e.g.) Andover Norton at £160 ex-VAT, or the HNW conversion at about £260 ex-VAT (at today's EUR:GBP rate of 0.902:1.00). The HNW offering also includes a new (and improved?) bearing; a standard bearing from AN would add another £27.20.
  2. durability and low maintenance: I have an O-ring chain on my Ducati ST3, which was still in perfect adjustment after a return trip to Bologna last year. A friend with a Multistrada also reports zero-adjustment needs on multi-thousand-mile tours. These are bikes with 100 bhp and 160 bhp respectively.

Replying to comments in order:

     Robert: HNW offers a version for Dominators (i.e. bolt-up rear wheels)

     Stan: in the absence of anything to the contrary on the HNW site, I assume that these are new sprockets

     Phil: a useful cautionary note, but lots of people speak enthusiastically about the quality of HNW stuff, and I've not seen any complaints.

     Mikael: I'm slightly surprised that there are spring-link versions of X-ring chains, but perhaps that's because the ones I'm familiar with are riveted versions intended for bikes with very much more power than a standard Commando. HNW's illustration clearly shows a riveted chain.

     Neill: I entirely agree about the stupidity of the traditional British combined brake drum/sprocket, especially with even numbers of teeth. I have contemplated having a standard drum adapted with a welded-on flange for bolt-up sprockets (if anyone has any suggestions for someone who could do this, preferably convenient to London, I'd like to hear more). As to cost, the HNW kit is only £90 ex-VAT more than the equivalent (but arguably less desirable) components from AN. This seems worth paying for the touring advantages you point to. And less-massive components that at least match the performance of heavier ones are surely desirable in their own right. 

 

Permalink

Julian

As a stand alone piece for someone who wants to convert from a 530 the HNW 520 kit is top quality like all their products. In this case they also include a sealed bearing with what appears to be new O.E. sprockets machined to 520 dimensions. The lighter weight is definitely a bonus. I cleaned, lubed and adjusted my chain on a pre dyno service earlier this month and was surprised how easily the back wheel spins. All 2RS wheel bearings were renewed in May so very little additional friction with a high mileage X ring chain which probably renders unsealed chains obsolete except on cost

My current ERV3 chain setup has done over 15k miles since 2018 used in all weathers including alot of forgetting to add extra lube in heavy rain or other adverse conditions. I,m hoping for another 10k until I replace sprockets and chain together. I would expect the HNW 520 kit with regular lubrication to last at least this long using the rivet link as Mikael suggested

I recall another forum poster a while back doing an alloy CNC cush drive conversion for the Mk3 which used the commonly available JT sprockets. I contacted them with a view to buying one for my spare wheel but no reply so maybe it wasn,t viable

Permalink

Hi 

I made a batch of these for the MK3 a couple of years ago. If it was me you contacted I am sorry I thought I replied to all, I wanted to give them some time before I made another batch I have had no problems with mine or those I sold, I will get some material and make some more. 

Best regards 

Katherine Scott

 

Mk3 520 conversion

Mk3 520 conversionMk3 520 conversion

 

Norton Owners Club Website by White-Hot Design

Privacy Policy