Maney gearbox outrigger bearing: help please...

Status
Not open for further replies.
kerinorton said:
hello, is there an engineer out there looking at this??????
All bearings should be a tight fit in the shafts they are supporting or shoulld be locked to the shaft by the correct method.
Most electic motors run sealed bearings which can do 1000's of hours. [ 1 hour = equivalent of 60 mph ]
Would you fit a new superblend to your cranckshaft if it had 20thou clearance??????.
Norton said the swing arm pin should be an easy slide fit [ what utter bullshit. Its a king pin and all king pins are a tight fit in the axle or they will flogg out ]
Think---- Dont speculate
Click to expand...

Good points. The general practice is tight or press fit but apparently in the case of this outrigger bearing there is clearance. Apparently the outrigger clearance is not an issue as it still supports a floppy flexing main shaft. Crankshaft and main shaft are chalk and cheese. One is a eccentric load and one is a single direction deflection.

Electric motor bearings might be an analogy but they rarely see shock loading nor vibration.

I have changed a couple of sealed bearing on belt drive clutch baskets and need to change an outrigger bearing that Herb Becker built for my Norton 750 USS. I have never had to change a gearbox sleeve bearing and rarely need to change out the crank bearings. Just saying
 
Chaps,

Does anyone have access to an unused, or at least unworn, mainshaft sleeve gear and could measure the OD of the end that protrudes into the primary drive case seal as standard?

I am now quite sure that mine has been 'cleaned up' probably by Norman when he rebuilt the box for me. I only have verniers, But should be able to at least confirm against a new one if someone could give me a figure.

I'm convinced that the outrigger will not offer meaningful support, indeed it may cause other issues, vibration etc if the clearence allows fretting etc against the sleeve gear.

If I'm correct, my conclusion is that the outrigger will stay on the shelf until such time as I need to, or can be bothered to, strip and rebuild the box to replace the sleeve gear.

(Oh yes, to the chap who very sensibly suggested I talk to Steve Maney, well firstly I'm pretty certain that the part he supplied if not at all at fault, but more pertinently, he's on holiday for two weeks)!
 
Huh, just more evidence yoose guys don't know what ya missing out on really stressing drive train of a potent Commando's power hits and reason you are all missing vital points about the out rigger clearance factor. The main shaft/cradle is pulled closer to the rear axle by top run of chain compressing the LH pair of isolastic cushions up to 3/16" [think tire distorting wheelie clutch drop] so even if main shaft was as thick as your arm it would still be pulled back far enough out of parallel to rear axle to take up any Clarance around shaft.
 
Fast Eddie said:
If I'm correct, my conclusion is that the outrigger will stay on the shelf until such time as I need to, or can be bothered to, strip and rebuild the box to replace the sleeve gear.
Click to expand...

Good conclusion if something is amiss.

No doubt, Steve Maney makes top quality race stuff.
 
Three box's 28.4 28.48 and 28.5 so i guess the 28.5 is the size.



Fast Eddie said:
Chaps,

Does anyone have access to an unused, or at least unworn, mainshaft sleeve gear and could measure the OD of the end that protrudes into the primary drive case seal as standard?

I am now quite sure that mine has been 'cleaned up' probably by Norman when he rebuilt the box for me. I only have verniers, But should be able to at least confirm against a new one if someone could give me a figure.

I'm convinced that the outrigger will not offer meaningful support, indeed it may cause other issues, vibration etc if the clearence allows fretting etc against the sleeve gear.

If I'm correct, my conclusion is that the outrigger will stay on the shelf until such time as I need to, or can be bothered to, strip and rebuild the box to replace the sleeve gear.

(Oh yes, to the chap who very sensibly suggested I talk to Steve Maney, well firstly I'm pretty certain that the part he supplied if not at all at fault, but more pertinently, he's on holiday for two weeks)!
Click to expand...
 
SKF lists bearings at 28.575mm bore diameter. Not sure if the OD, width and service duty are a match.

Bearings in that range start to jump their ID by 5mm increments so if you had a bearing with say a 30mm ID then the clearance would be about 0.060" (30mm - 28.5mm = 1.5mm or 0.060")

Interesting and odd size.

Have a look at the ID of the bearing you have. Might be worth a look at the catalog number on the bearing.
 
Hi, just check my out rigger,so it fits over the sleeve gear , the bearing ID with my humble caliper should be 28.5mm
and the sleeve gear smooth end at 28.45mm, but those figures could be totally different after a second lecture , so it's not reliable enough , must have a mike , but the reference n° of the bearing is R18Z.....hope this help!
 
I think i need a translator, 30mm ID bearing with a clearance of .060 ? whats that mean,

Dances with Shrapnel said:
SKF lists bearings at 28.575mm bore diameter. Not sure if the OD, width and service duty are a match.

Bearings in that range start to jump their ID by 5mm increments so if you had a bearing with say a 30mm ID then the clearance would be about 0.060" (30mm - 28.5mm = 1.5mm or 0.060")

Interesting and odd size.

Have a look at the ID of the bearing you have. Might be worth a look at the catalog number on the bearing.
Click to expand...
 
john robert bould said:
I think i need a translator, 30mm ID bearing with a clearance of .060 ? whats that mean,

Dances with Shrapnel said:
SKF lists bearings at 28.575mm bore diameter. Not sure if the OD, width and service duty are a match.

Bearings in that range start to jump their ID by 5mm increments so if you had a bearing with say a 30mm ID then the clearance would be about 0.060" (30mm - 28.5mm = 1.5mm or 0.060")

Interesting and odd size.

Have a look at the ID of the bearing you have. Might be worth a look at the catalog number on the bearing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

john robert bould said:
Three box's 28.4 28.48 and 28.5 so i guess the 28.5 is the size.
Click to expand...

I thought I posted this already:

30mm - 28.5mm = 1.5mm or 0.060"

Someone already bantered about a clearance of 0.060" so if the outrigger is fitted with a 30mm ID bearing and your number for the shaft diameter (28.5mm) is correct then there is 0.060" clearance....or 30mm ID bearing with a clearance of 0.060".... on the shaft.

The point is it all would seem to make sense.
 
john robert bould said:
Three box's 28.4 28.48 and 28.5 so i guess the 28.5 is the size.

Thanks John, that seals it!

My sleeve gear measures up at 28.10. The bearing ID at 28.55 (theses are both at 'vernier levels of accuracy').

If I stick the vernier in between the splines, I get 28.5, there is a small but visible step. Clearly my sleeve gear has been slightly ground / cleaned up at some point and is now under size.

So, the outrigger will stay on the shelf, ready to fight another day. The primary will go together 'as is' for now.

I already have a strengthened AN shell, plus with the belt, alloy clutch basket and baronet clutch pack, there is a huge reduction in weight hanging on the end of the mainshaft. So, finger crossed, we'll be OK!
Click to expand...
 
What does this coversion do? The sleeve gear is close to it's bearing, well supported] and the mainshaft still sticks through the sleeve gear ,supported by the steeve bush. Doe's the support resist rear chain pull or the engine /clutch pull?
 
john robert bould said:
What does this coversion do? The sleeve gear is close to it's bearing, well supported] and the mainshaft still sticks through the sleeve gear ,supported by the steeve bush. Doe's the support resist rear chain pull or the engine /clutch pull?
Click to expand...

I agree with Chris, John, but the gearbox failures that occur in race bikes are due to mainshaft flex, it really doesn't matter which plane that flex is in it will disturb the mesh of the main and layshaft gears. The problem is less pronounced with short shaft boxes and lower horse power, and lighter clutch drums (pre Commando cluches or belt drives). Other mitigations are to spin the box faster with a higher primary ratio to reduce torque loading and to support the layshaft in a proper bearing at the kickstart end (a la Manx, but of course you have to remove the kickstarter shaft)

When you sat the sleeve gear is well supported....all things are relative...the TTi box is designed for racing and uses two bearings to support the sleeve gear..and the mainshaft is a larger diameter......and most are used with a higher primary ratio and a lighter clutch drum, no outrigger required.

As has been noted, ways to improve the surviveability of a race box

My personal view is that an outrigger like this should not be needed on a road bike with a 4 Speed box, especially one with a lighter belt drive.

And the fact that most posters here are unfamiliar with outriggers sort of confirms that.....
 
Peter Williams and others at the time [early seventies] where having problems with the gear box's, was that due to the shaft bending, or poor manufacturing? .
 
john robert bould said:
Peter Williams and others at the time [early seventies] where having problems with the gear box's, was that due to the shaft bending, or poor manufacturing? .
Click to expand...

The shafts bending, I believe.

The race shop would have had choice of all the best parts and / or would have machined their own if required. So I doubt poor machining or even assembly would have been behind such chronic failures.

Design limitation would seem the culprit.

Consensus appears to support the shaft bending theory.

What I've never understood though, is why Norton boxes suffer this and Triumph boxes don't!? Apart from the silly design of having bearings so big there's no metal between them in the housing, the rest of a Norton box looks at least as strong as aTriumph. Yet I've raced 90bhp Nourish engines with standard road based Triumph 5 speed boxes and never had a failure!

Maybe I just ride like a girl!!
 
Fast Eddie said:
john robert bould said:
Peter Williams and others at the time [early seventies] where having problems with the gear box's, was that due to the shaft bending, or poor manufacturing? .
Click to expand...

The shafts bending, I believe.

The race shop would have had choice of all the best parts and / or would have machined their own if required. So I doubt poor machining or even assembly would have been behind such chronic failures.

Design limitation would seem the culprit.

Consensus appears to support the shaft bending theory.

What I've never understood though, is why Norton boxes suffer this and Triumph boxes don't!? Apart from the silly design of having bearings so big there's no metal between them in the housing, the rest of a Norton box looks at least as strong as aTriumph. Yet I've raced 90bhp Nourish engines with standard road based Triumph 5 speed boxes and never had a failure!

Maybe I just ride like a girl!!
Click to expand...

Said it before but seems some don't listen.....Williams et al had problems with Quaife 5 Speeds flexing shafts......no kickstarter and a proper bearing on the right hand end of the layshaft (unless it was a production racer.).....mainshaft too long....clutch too heavy....neaded stabilisation...eventually they fixed it to get a few finishes....

We shouldn't compare Quaife 5 Speeds in racers with standard 4 Speeds, OK some of those broke too, I suspect abuse and poor assembly was highon the causal factors list.....

I don't think Triumph boxes have a stupid bush in the end of the kickstarter shaft, which is inside another bush, as a critical part of layshaft location....mainshaft bending, sleeve gear bearing movment (I had one that span the sleeve gear bearing in the case and I know I wasn't the only one, but the box didn't break) and layshaft flopping around with skinny gears, driven by too low a primary ratio....it was almost bound to happen.....2nd and 3rd gear ratios don't need to disengage far as you are banging through the box to cause a real problem....
 
SteveA said:
Fast Eddie said:
john robert bould said:
Peter Williams and others at the time [early seventies] where having problems with the gear box's, was that due to the shaft bending, or poor manufacturing? .
Click to expand...

The shafts bending, I believe.

The race shop would have had choice of all the best parts and / or would have machined their own if required. So I doubt poor machining or even assembly would have been behind such chronic failures.

Design limitation would seem the culprit.

Consensus appears to support the shaft bending theory.

What I've never understood though, is why Norton boxes suffer this and Triumph boxes don't!? Apart from the silly design of having bearings so big there's no metal between them in the housing, the rest of a Norton box looks at least as strong as aTriumph. Yet I've raced 90bhp Nourish engines with standard road based Triumph 5 speed boxes and never had a failure!

Maybe I just ride like a girl!!
Click to expand...

Said it before but seems some don't listen.....Williams et al had problems with Quaife 5 Speeds flexing shafts......no kickstarter and a proper bearing on the right hand end of the layshaft (unless it was a production racer.).....mainshaft too long....clutch too heavy....neaded stabilisation...eventually they fixed it to get a few finishes....

We shouldn't compare Quaife 5 Speeds in racers with standard 4 Speeds, OK some of those broke too, I suspect abuse and poor assembly was highon the causal factors list.....

I don't think Triumph boxes have a stupid bush in the end of the kickstarter shaft, which is inside another bush, as a critical part of layshaft location....mainshaft bending, sleeve gear bearing movment (I had one that span the sleeve gear bearing in the case and I know I wasn't the only one, but the box didn't break) and layshaft flopping around with skinny gears, driven by too low a primary ratio....it was almost bound to happen.....2nd and 3rd gear ratios don't need to disengage far as you are banging through the box to cause a real problem....
Click to expand...

But many 4 speed boxes crack their case, even in road use.

Isn't flexing of the shafts the primary cause of these cracks?
 
Fast Eddie said:
But many 4 speed boxes crack their case, even in road use.

Isn't flexing of the shafts the primary cause of these cracks?
Click to expand...

The cracking of the area around the bearings seems worse after 40 years! It is not that it didn't happen back then, after all Norton strengthened it for a reason, but my expereince was the bearing turning in the case, as was that of others....but more had broken layshafts....

My main point is that the works racing experience with Quaife 5 Speeds is largely irrelevant to road 4 Speeds.

There are ways to keep your transmission together without outriggers, and you have gone a long way towards that Eddie.

In my opinion the fitting of an outrigger now is a nice to have and good for peace of mind. If you were going racing I might say different, but Chris Tyler's Rickman has a close ratio 4 Speed with a kickstart shaft in it and it was raced without one last year, and recently at Pembrey with Chris on it and yesterday with young Dan Rootes on it! (Best news here is that Dan enjoyed the Norton)

If I was concerned about gearbox reliability on that bike my next choice of action would be to remove the Kkckstart shaft and fit a Manx style bearing in the inner cover....assuming I couldn't afford a TTi for it, which I would want mainly in the search for more gears...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Maney gearbox outrigger
2
Replies
25
Views
6,141
Hobot
Hobot
Back
Top