suzuki 4ls brake on roadholders

You could also turn down the main part of the norton front axle to 15mm, then use a bushing of some sort in the timing side slider to go back to 17mm. The primary side of the axle, where it passes through the slider, could remain stock so you can use the stock slider and pinch bolt as normally used. The wheel would then have it's stock axle size, stock bearings and transition to norton parts at the axle/slider interface. Since the bike that the suzuki wheel came off of was a 67 hp 750 cc bike, you wouldn't expect the axle or bearings to be a problem on the norton.

If you did this kind of modification, you avoid the "small balls" problem completely... Just an idea that only requires the sacrifice of a stock norton front axle to modify, new 15mm ID wheel spacers, and fabricating a bushing for the slider at 17mm OD x 15mm ID.

t ingermanson said:

yes, the suzuki stock bearing bore is 35mm. <> the 6003 bearing has a notably lower rating for dynamic as well as static loads, than the stock 6202 bearing. the 6203 bearing has an increase in rated loads, but has a 40mm outer dimension.
the bore of the hub is relatively thin walled (compared to the other hubs i measured) at .250". it has stiffening ribs as well as a deserved reputation for being overbuilt, however, boring 5mm from the hub is questionable, at best.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what the hub looks like at the bearing bore. You'd have to enlarge the bore radius by 2.5 mm only, so there would be almost 4mm wall thickness left if your measurement is correct.

-Knut

o0norton0o said:

Knut, It sounds like you're dismissing my actual tested experience in favor of your unresearched conjecture that milling the hub would be safe. You should apply the same skepticism to your suggestion as you do to mine. The difference being that my suggestion has been tested and works well.

Click to expand...

Thanks 0norton0, I probably deserved your criticism, although I should point out I never warranted a milling operation on that specific hub which I haven't examined. What I did was comment on the feasibility of the mechanical operation in response to the OP's fear of causing an excentricity problem. You are correct in that there may be other questions to solve prior to undertaking a milling operation.

As for your bearing swap, I never expressed skepticism. Being of larger bearing size, it is probably less questionable than the 6203/6003 swap which reduces the dynamic load capacity considerably. My initial comment about not relying on the experience of others aimed at the mindless transpose of one solution to another area without doing one's homework.

-Knut

mdt-son said:

Thanks 0norton0, I probably deserved your criticism, although I should point out I never warranted a milling operation on that specific hub which I haven't examined. What I did was comment on the feasibility of the mechanical operation in response to the OP's fear of causing an excentricity problem. You are correct in that there may be other questions to solve prior to undertaking a milling operation.

As for your bearing swap, I never expressed skepticism. Being of larger bearing size, it is probably less questionable than the 6203/6003 swap which reduces the dynamic load capacity considerably. My initial comment about not relying on the experience of others aimed at the mindless transpose of one solution to another area without doing one's homework.

-Knut

Click to expand...

so i've done a bunch of head scratching and there's a few possibilities rolling around in my head. my favorite is adding a needle bearing on both sides, inboard of the smaller balled 6003 bearings. needle bearings have about 4 times the dynamic and static capacity of a deep groove ball bearing. the hub axle bore (not inclusive of the bearing bore), is pretty close to the OD of a needle bearing with an inner race that will take a 17mm axle. normally third and fourth bearing rows are a slip fit so as not to cause that aforementioned eccentricity problem. with that set up, in theory, there would be plenty of bearing for my needs, almost everything would remain stock (shy of a couple removable non-visable auxiliary bearings in the hub) except my needing to bore the brake plates which have already been shaved down in width.

anybody see any fault with that plan?

https://www.accessnorton.com/NortonCommando/4ls-front-brake.15826/

https://www.accessnorton.com/NortonCommando/suzuki-4ls-brakes.2200/

84ok said:

https://www.accessnorton.com/NortonCommando/4ls-front-brake.15826/

https://www.accessnorton.com/NortonCommando/suzuki-4ls-brakes.2200/

Click to expand...

i saw both those and neither had any definitive answers on how the wheel or bearings faired. the double row of bearings is great, but four of the same bearing raises the concentricity issue, especially trying to match the existing bore, just making it deeper. i'm trying to negate that with the smaller outer diameter roller bearings. that'll allow the slip fit of the more central bearings.

i'd like to fit this wheel as the brake is known to be a good one, the price was right, and the plates have already been skimmed. without further work the brake plates are useless, but i'd like to leave the non-reversable modifications to the brake plates. no reason to screw up perfectly good motorbike parts at this point in their life.

Honestly, I don't know what you are proposing with the needle bearing.... so it's hard to give an opinion. I don't think Needle bearings are good for angular force.

I thought a better solution was,... Buy a second stock norton front axle and turn the 17mm portion down to 15 and thread the end as a new axle bolt. Then you can use the wheel's original bearings. You'll only need to buy 15mm ID spacers for the axle and a 17mm to 15mm bushing for the slider on the timing side. No machining the hub, no machining the sliders, no small balls bearings. Your Norton sliders remain unmodified so you can switch back to stock by just bolting on the old parts... That's my answer.

t ingermanson said:

the double row of bearings is great, but four of the same bearing raises the concentricity issue, especially trying to match the existing bore, just making it deeper.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Why do you keep mentioning concentricity concerns when there are none? You are leading yourself and evenyone else astray. Initial worries should be put to rest for good.

Your inboard needle roller bearing idea should be binned. It will render the support system statically indeterminate and you wouldn't know where the forces go, which may lead to overloading one bearing. Every wheel design I have examined uses two bearings (save for the split rear wheel / brake drum) and so should you. A two bearing system constitutes a statically determinate system. This includes the double row bearing system although such bearings are frequently designed for high radial and axial loads which you don't have. It should be noted that a double row bearing is _not_ four bearings of the same.
I suggest you contact a chartered mechanical engineer to settle your case.

-Knut

mdt-son said:

Nonsense. Why do you keep mentioning concentricity concerns when there are none? You are leading yourself and evenyone else astray. Initial worries should be put to rest for good.

Your inboard needle roller bearing idea should be binned. It will render the support system statically indeterminate and you wouldn't know where the forces go, which may lead to overloading one bearing. Every wheel design I have examined uses two bearings (save for the split rear wheel / brake drum) and so should you. A two bearing system constitutes a statically determinate system. This includes the double row bearing system although such bearings are frequently designed for high radial and axial loads which you don't have. It should be noted that a double row bearing is _not_ four bearings of the same.
I suggest you contact a chartered mechanical engineer to settle your case.

-Knut

Click to expand...

needle bearings are ideal for auxiliary radial support as long as they are not relied upon for locating or thrust loads, or cause any parasitic thrust loads due to an axial misalignment (my concetricity issue i talk about, whose tolerance stack increases with every component or machining operation). if the ball bearings are the locating bearings for the axle, nothing will change about where the static forces will go, or when the wheel is loaded with a thrust force (steering/leaning) until the axle deflects and puts a (mostly) radial load on the axially "floating" inner race of the needle bearings, which are designed to help nullify the axial misalignment if used with a shaft liner/inner race that allows for float less than the internal radial clearance of the bearing when installed. the needle bearings are effective for the predominant static and dynamic radial forces (rolling/braking), increasing the static and dynamic potential of the hub, but are not detrimental for the thrust loads received by the ball bearings. the braking radial forces are what i'm most concerned about in the performance of the bearings, where the radial force will be highest.

i completely agree about not using two of the same bearing per side. that was offered up in one of the previous threads on the subject. however, pairing ball and needle bearings for similar applications are a well worn path. they can be housed in the same cartridge in a combined-type thrust-ball needle bearing for modern autos, motorcycles, and machine tools apparently, that have relatively massive ratings. in fact, there is a combination ball-roller bearing that is dangerously tempting to fit. however, an old motorcycle fork/hub/axle assembly is a fairly low tolerance situation with multiple slip fits. i'm not too worried about clearing this hurdle should it need to be cleared.

i'm married to an engineer. i've spoken to two friends, who are both engineers (whose specialty is wheels and hubs) who all say the roller bearings are probably overkill, but if machined correctly would only help. i bought the two friends lunch the other day to pick their brains, and they both said to run the small bearings and see what happens, which is what i will do, but if the small bearings don't work, i'd like to have a possible plan.

is it perfect? nope: it's a 60 year old motorcycle.

t ingermanson said:

needle bearings are ideal for auxiliary radial support as long as they are not relied upon for locating or thrust loads, or cause any parasitic thrust loads due to an axial misalignment (my concetricity issue i talk about, whose tolerance stack increases with every component or machining operation). if the ball bearings are the locating bearings for the axle, nothing will change about where the static forces will go, or when the wheel is loaded with a thrust force (steering/leaning) until the axle deflects and puts a (mostly) radial load on the axially "floating" inner race of the needle bearings, which are designed to help nullify the axial misalignment if used with a shaft liner/inner race that allows for float less than the internal radial clearance of the bearing when installed. the needle bearings are effective for the predominant static and dynamic radial forces (rolling/braking), increasing the static and dynamic potential of the hub, but are not detrimental for the thrust loads received by the ball bearings. the braking radial forces are what i'm most concerned about in the performance of the bearings, where the radial force will be highest.

Click to expand...

Hi. I am getting more and more sceptical to your arguments. First, a needle roller bearing will not endure axial bending. They are ideal for short shafts and pins, for instance the crankshaft big end of a single/v-twin engine. Another application is with the 1967-69 points housing of a Norton 750 engine. A third application is the universal joint of a propeller shaft. Bending and axial angular deflection will be negligible in these applications. This is certainly not the case for a m/c wheel shaft! Secondly, the axle will be required to have a very tight tolerance and a fine hardened surface, as the inner race is missing. This requirement is not fulfilled here. Third, the pair of ball bearings R+L need a spacer between them to ensure axial trust is absorbed externally. By fitting a needle roller bearing inboard you interrupt the axial load transfer, unless the roller bearing uses the spacer as inner race --- in which case the axle would need to have a thermal fit on the spacer, which of course isn't possible ....
So your model fails on a reality check, as I see it.

http://www.skf.com/group/products/b...bearings/deep-groove-ball-bearings/index.html

Examining the ball bearing selector for d=17mm and D=35 ... 40 mm, you will notice there is no bearing D=35mm proving a dynamic load capacity > 8 kN. In an emergency braking situation, maximum deceleration will be about -10 m/s^2 or -1.02g as long as the front wheel turns. Knowing that almost all weight is transferred to the front wheel upon hard braking, and assuming a two up Norton weighs 350 kg, a dynamic amplification of 2 and a margin of safety = 1.5, we may estimate bearing load to be 0.5*DAF*MSF*m*g*sqrt(1+1.02^2) = 7.4 kN.
Most versions of 6202 bearings have sufficient capacity (8.06 kN) while 6003 doesn't ..... Reverting to the 15mm axle proposal by 0norton0 seems to be your best (or only) option for this hub.

-Knut

To the OP, I’ve seen LOTS of these brakes in the front of Tritons et al over the years and I very much doubt any of they had been re engineered to take needle rollers etc.

I’m not clever enough to argue with the specifics, but it does seem like you’re rather significantly over engineering this task.

All only IMHO of course.

t ingermanson said:

hey all,

i've got a suzuki 4ls brake that has had the brake plates milled to fit a 7 3/8" roadholder fork. question is, the bearings in the suzuki hub seem much smaller inner diameter than the outer of the norton axle.

how have people dealt with that? different bearings or custom axle? both?

to that end, i'm looking for a good set of 7 3/8" yokes and shrouds.

thanks!

Click to expand...

I have a friend who has a 4LS brake set up off of a Benelli on his Atlas. Been that way for the 30+ years I have known him.
John in Texas

mdt-son said:

Hi. I am getting more and more sceptical to your arguments. First, a needle roller bearing will not endure axial bending. They are ideal for short shafts and pins, for instance the crankshaft big end of a single/v-twin engine. Another application is with the 1967-69 points housing of a Norton 750 engine. A third application is the universal joint of a propeller shaft. Bending and axial angular deflection will be negligible in these applications. This is certainly not the case for a m/c wheel shaft! Secondly, the axle will be required to have a very tight tolerance and a fine hardened surface, as the inner race is missing. This requirement is not fulfilled here. Third, the pair of ball bearings R+L need a spacer between them to ensure axial trust is absorbed externally. By fitting a needle roller bearing inboard you interrupt the axial load transfer, unless the roller bearing uses the spacer as inner race --- in which case the axle would need to have a thermal fit on the spacer, which of course isn't possible ....
So your model fails on a reality check, as I see it.

http://www.skf.com/group/products/b...bearings/deep-groove-ball-bearings/index.html

Examining the ball bearing selector for d=17mm and D=35 ... 40 mm, you will notice there is no bearing D=35mm proving a dynamic load capacity > 8 kN. In an emergency braking situation, maximum deceleration will be about -10 m/s^2 or -1.02g as long as the front wheel turns. Knowing that almost all weight is transferred to the front wheel upon hard braking, and assuming a two up Norton weighs 350 kg, a dynamic amplification of 2 and a margin of safety = 1.5, we may estimate bearing load to be 0.5*DAF*MSF*m*g*sqrt(1+1.02^2) = 7.4 kN.
Most versions of 6202 bearings have sufficient capacity (8.06 kN) while 6003 doesn't ..... Reverting to the 15mm axle proposal by 0norton0 seems to be your best (or only) option for this hub.

-Knut

Click to expand...

to be clear, the needle bearings would be fit with an inner sleeve race, with an ID of 17mm, to make a ground and hardened axle unnecessary, as well as used as a spacer between the radial bearings (they run edge to edge), with an additional spacer between the needle races. as i see it, the biggest issue would be to get the axle's deflection to fit within the IRC of the needle bearings. possible, but not as easy as other solutions. i think there would be a likelihood of levering the ball bearings around in their bores and causing trouble.

your calculations for some of the variables are assuming the bike will be stock and be ridden two up, which under me it won't, but it's a good conservative assumption to make as who know what the future holds? either two-up riding or hard racing and braking could push a marginal system over the edge. moreover, i wouldn't be comfortable selling a bike off that had a marginal system (of my doing) on it.

your points are well taken, and after doing some more thinking and fiddling around with the wheel, i too think the needle bearings are more likely to cause headaches than not. i've got another idea that i think will work better and be easier, but i'll ruminate on that a bit more.

i'm still hesitant to use a smaller diameter axle since the first thing one does to increase or decrease stiffness is change the diameter. the norton, with its 17mm axle is known for good handling, while the suzuki, with the 15mm axle is not. a smaller diameter axle will definitely affect handling every time i ride the bike, while a potentially short lived 6003 bearing (probably short-lived if i'm being honest) is less likely to effect the everyday use of the bike with an eye and mind on the wheel.

is all this over-engineered? yes! isn't it fun?!?

playing with machine tools is about as fun as it gets, second only to riding around on a motorcycle that's had trivial details overthought to the point of everyone else's nausea.

to that point, i've got some more measuring to do and will report back when and if something happens.

A trip to the bearing shop might solve your problem, but fitting a good disc brake might be better. With drum brakes, there is always a problem with linings. If they are too soft, the brake can be deadly when cold. If they are too hard, the brake doesn't work well when cold, but if you hold it on for long enough, it can heat up enough for the linings to stick and lock the brake. With a disc brake that never happens. The standard chromed Norton single disc is not much more effective than a drum, but at least it is reliable. Twin high-speed steel discs are much more effective than the standard Norton disc brake.
In the old days of road racing, drum front brakes and pudding-basin helmets killed a lot of guys. Road-race bikes with drum front brakes should be avoided like the plague.

I don't think you need to worry about bending the forks. Nothing puts as much load on Roadholder forks than when a Manx front brake locks at high speed and chucks the rider off. Normally when you brake the load on the forks is steady and progressive.

acotrel said:

A trip to the bearing shop might solve your problem, but fitting a good disc brake might be better. With drum brakes, there is always a problem with linings. If they are too soft, the brake can be deadly when cold. If they are too hard, the brake doesn't work well when cold, but if you hold it on for long enough, it can heat up enough for the linings to stick and lock the brake. With a disc brake that never happens. The standard chromed Norton single disc is not much more effective than a drum, but at least it is reliable. Twin high-speed steel discs are much more effective than the standard Norton disc brake.
In the old days of road racing, drum front brakes and pudding-basin helmets killed a lot of guys. Road-race bikes with drum front brakes should be avoided like the plague.

Click to expand...

yes, i've ridden drum brakes before. they have their pitfalls, to be sure. i would like to check out this brake as it's been a while since i've ridden one, and when i did it was the fact that it was on a two stroke that nearly killed me. saying that i'm not racing, so your points about fade don't apply would be naive, but i'm not racing, so i won't be headed into a 100mph corner hell for leather.

i've got twin discs on my triton and have gotten quite used to effective braking, hence the reason to try this brake out. the roads where i ride most are very narrow and twisty, so there's not a lot of speed to heat things up, but good speed shaving at a moment's notice is a very good thing.

if peak performance is what is most sought after, i would not be reconstructing a 500cc 63 year old motorbike from piles of parts. 1200cc wunderbikes are cheaper, easier to find, and give ample opportunities to kill oneself.

acotrel said:

I don't think you need to worry about bending the forks. Nothing puts as much load on Roadholder forks than when a Manx front brake locks at high speed and chucks the rider off. Normally when you brake the load on the forks is steady and progressive.

Click to expand...

not too worried about bending my forks, but the fork tubes have a good amount of rust on them from decades in a new zealand garage. new fork tubes are cheaper than hard chrome plating in california.

Yep, the eco nuts killed off most of the hard chromers. No competition.licensing permits barriers to entry. Naturally the big companies were go along get along happy to see upstarts eradicated

xbacksideslider said:

Yep, the eco nuts killed off most of the hard chromers. No competition.licensing permits barriers to entry. Naturally the big companies were go along get along happy to see upstarts eradicated

Click to expand...

i don't know man, we were a little too permissive about such things for so long. down the street from me, a decade ago, a plater's closed and they had to dig a giant pit 30-40 feet down to clear the heavy metals from the site. chromium is nasty, nasty, nasty stuff.

if it's super expensive to get stuff plated in the future, honestly, that's ok with me. i wish it wasn't so unbalanced that it's cheaper to buy new than to reuse, but what do you do?

...the pendulum swings...