BritBike Forum logo
BritBike Sponsor BritBike Sponsor BritBike Sponsor
BritBike Sponsor

BritBike Sponsor

BritBike Sponsor
BritBike Sponsor BritBike Sponsor BritBike Sponsor
  JWood Auction  
Home | Sponsors, Newsletter | Regalia | Calendar | Bike Project | BritBike Museum | Spiders Cartoons, "OLD" BritBike Forum | DVD- Manuals & Parts books | BritBike Stickers & Decals
Upgrade to: Premium Membership | Premium Life Membership | Vendor Membership | Site Sponsor Membership
Photo posting tutorial

Member Spotlight
oggy
oggy
Lancashire, England
Posts: 48
Joined: January 2014
Show All Member Profiles 
Shout Box
Search eBay for motorcycle parts in following countries
Australia, Canada, France, Holland, Italy, United Kingdom, USA
Random Gallery photo
Who's Online Now
218 registered members (Adam M.), 1,805 guests, and 551 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Brian Ellery, Jon Andrews, Berni Ernst, johnguppy, michael morgan
9955 Registered Users
Top Posters(30 Days)
btour 190
koan58 100
Stuart 84
NickL 66
Popular Topics(Views)
437,253 mail-order LSR
Forum Statistics
Forums33
Topics65,272
Posts632,156
Members9,955
Most Online3,995
Feb 13th, 2017
Like BritBike.com on Facebook

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
#712716 - 10/25/17 11:11 pm Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom"  
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
koan58 Online content
BritBike Forum member
koan58  Online Content
BritBike Forum member

Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
Isle of Wight, UK
Hi folks,
This was being touched on indirectly in a couple of recent threads, but I thought it better to bring it out into its own thread.
Quite simply, in pre-unit and early unit 650 twins, using ball main bearings BOTH sides, these bearings are very tight on both the crank journals and in the crankcases.
Without even considering whether they are clamped at their respective ends, it is difficult to see how expansion of the cases is allowed for, without putting axial stress on the bearings.
OK later models had a roller at on end or the other, no problem then, my question applies only to the 2 ball bearing situation. Also, MUCH later models had bearing inners as a slip fit on the crank, this again is not relevant to this query.
What in this twin ball setup allows for this? Or was it just not allowed for?
I find it hard to believe that a designer would not have taken this into account, so how was it done?
Dave

Support Your #1 BritBike Forum!
Membership Type! Free
Member
Premium
Member
Premium Life
Member
Vendor
Member
Site
Sponsor
Recognition No Premium Member Premium Life member (5 years) Vendor Member Site Sponsor Membership
Post commercial threads No No No Yes Yes
Custom title No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Upload avatar & photos No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link avatar & photos Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Private Message Storage: 10 100 100 100 100
Length of signatures 255 600 600 600 600
Removes this very advert island between post 1&2 No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Price Free $12.90/year $105.00 No End
$55.00/5 years
$210.00/year
($17.50/month)
Email
Click on button >>
  Premium Member Premium Life member Vendor Member Site Sponsor Membership
#712749 - 10/26/17 7:05 am Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 530
Stein Roger Online content
BritBike Forum member
Stein Roger  Online Content
BritBike Forum member

Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 530
Skudeneshavn Norway
The drive side shaft is free to move i inside its bearing, it isn't clamped by the sprocket and nut. The bearing can be considered "free" on the shaft without being a really loose fit.
The downside to this practice is that the shaft will eventually wear and you get a sloppy fit and noisy operation. Converting to a ball/roller set up is sound advice IMHO.

#712835 - 10/26/17 9:05 pm Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
koan58 Online content
BritBike Forum member
koan58  Online Content
BritBike Forum member

Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
Isle of Wight, UK
Thanks Stein
But I still can't visualise the way that is meant to work. The idea of the bearing inner having to slide backwards and forwards on the journal with every expansion/contraction doesn't sound right to me. Also, I'm glad to say, my bearings are a tight fit both inside and outside, as intended, so just imagine the axial force required to shift them. They are not expected to handle such loads surely?

Done a little scurfing:

In Thomas Gunn's Overhaul manual (1967) TriCor

http://www.billymegawatt.com/uploads/6/8/4/6/6846461/overhaul_manual_1963_and_up.pdf

(this is a great resource, though I don't agree with some of the techniques advised, for instance loosening interference fits of the main bearings in the cases and on the crank, using emery)

Unit 650 models start DU101 (1963)
DU13375 - 24874 Crankshaft located by driveside
(BEFORE DU13375 and AFTER DU24874 crankshaft located by timing side - see applicable parts manuals and CD411)

Looking at the workshop manual 1956-62 E/N 0945 and D101 onward (Pre-unit)

http://www.classicbike.biz/Triumph/Repair/56-62Triumph.pdf

it shows clamping washers at both ends of the crank, 18 timing side and 42 drive side in the diagram P32.

So with the clamping washer on the timing side in 1962 and earlier, the location was on that side, though I still do not understand how the thermal expansions would have been accomodated in the 2 - ball main bearing engines.

The journals were NOT a slip fit in the bearing inners, and the bearing outers were NOT a slip fit in the cases, irrespective of whether or not they were clamped to the ends of the crank. I've found it quite hard work to get the bearings off the crank, indeed when I used balls both sides, it was necessary to heat the cases and drop them out before even think about drawing them off the crank. So how can they move for expansion?

Anyone out there with one of this era in pieces able to see if the sprocket will clamp to the d/s inner of the ball bearing? I think the shoulder of the sprocket is able to go all the way to the bearing inner, if not what stops it?

I have had some conflicting suggestions, including from the most knowledgable. Some have said the crank was held by the drive side (pls don't forget P/U), yet the clamping washer (it is necessary for timing side location) is present on the timing side, which seems to have continued with the earliest units, still twin ball mains, (see above) then for some reason a brief experiment with crank location from the drive side, 1965 ish, as far as I know still ball both sides.

In very short order, this was changed to timing side location with a roller on the drive side, at this point my concern, tho not my interest ends, as this seems to me to be the only way to go (other than both rollers and shimming-got the T shirt, another discussion).

In the Nelson texts, this is described as "reverting", which suggests that this had been a departure from usual practice, which I think it was.

Why, after a short time of production of the new units, still using balls both sides and timing side location, would they make what is actually, quite a major engineering change? These things cost money, something must have justified it.

So for maybe a year they tried locating the crank at the drive end, with 2 ball bearings, perhaps looking for a simple solution to a problem, yet not finding it presumably, 'cos they went back to timing side control but with the new roller bearing on the drive side.

Whatever the problem was, I think that was the answer.

This is why I have persisted with this question, and I await a convincing answer, the main bearings in a pre-unit Triumph are a stubborn fit both on the journals and in the cases, so what gives for expansion? I do not accept that the bearing inners are required to slide (under great force) on the journals, or the outers to slide (again with great force) in their housings. The axial forces here are frightening!

Enlightenment needed fellas!
Dave

#712839 - 10/26/17 9:43 pm Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,881
triton thrasher Online content
BritBike Forum member
triton thrasher  Online Content
BritBike Forum member

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,881
scotland
The bearing outers are not tight in hot crankcases.


Amateur Loctite enthusiast.
#712841 - 10/26/17 10:22 pm Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: triton thrasher]  
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
koan58 Online content
BritBike Forum member
koan58  Online Content
BritBike Forum member

Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
Isle of Wight, UK
Thanks TT, that does seem to be a bone of contention! and I have read the logic for it, even with original spec dimensions. My machine, which is not so disimilar to yours, has shown no signs of bearings spinning in the case, or any movement at all, which I would expect to see some evidence of, considering the millions of heat variations endured.
I have absorbed with interest, PeteR and others scientific descriptions of why, at a certain operating temperature, the fit becomes slack enuf for the bearing outer to "walk" within its housing. I have no problem with this if the interference fit is not as it should be, but I don't think it is as designed.
Those simple expansion calcs assume equal temperatures of bearing and crankcase, I see no reason to assume this. The crankcase is only receiving heat from upstairs and oil, the main bearings are getting all of that as well as doing a lot of work, hopefully not much friction but lots of oil shifting (rather like tyres on a wet road) so generating heat. Thus I would expect the bearings to be significantly hotter than the cases around them, and the non-sliding fit to be maintained.
Or maybe its just a load of hot bearings?

#712870 - 10/27/17 2:53 am Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,547
TR6Ray Online content
BritBike Forum member
TR6Ray  Online Content

BritBike Forum member

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,547
Illinois, USA
Originally Posted by koan58
Hi folks,
This was being touched on indirectly in a couple of recent threads, but I thought it better to bring it out into its own thread.
Quite simply, in pre-unit and early unit 650 twins, using ball main bearings BOTH sides, these bearings are very tight on both the crank journals and in the crankcases.
Without even considering whether they are clamped at their respective ends, it is difficult to see how expansion of the cases is allowed for, without putting axial stress on the bearings.
OK later models had a roller at on end or the other, no problem then, my question applies only to the 2 ball bearing situation. Also, MUCH later models had bearing inners as a slip fit on the crank, this again is not relevant to this query.
What in this twin ball setup allows for this? Or was it just not allowed for?
I find it hard to believe that a designer would not have taken this into account, so how was it done?
Dave

Dave, this was discussed at length (and resolved IMHO) in a thread called '64 Crank location. Don't waste your time looking for it though, because that thread, along with a lot of others, was lost in the great thread deletion fiasco on here back in 2013. Some pieces of the discussion were referenced elsewhere, and they remain (see links below). A much more tragic loss happened not long after that when Pete R, who had participated extensively in that thread, passed away. He is missed!

FSM was wrong

6T primary side bearing

Check the pictures in this one: Crankshaft endfloat

After clicking this link, scroll down a bit till you see the picture of the dial test indicator: Checking crankshaft endfloat

Enjoy!

TR6Ray


'64 TR6R Plus some Twins from other countries (U.S., Germany, Japan)
#712884 - 10/27/17 9:24 am Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,887
kommando Online content
kommando  Online Content


Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,887
Scotland
Quote
Without even considering whether they are clamped at their respective ends, it is difficult to see how expansion of the cases is allowed for, without putting axial stress on the bearings.


You need to think of this as forceXdistanceXtime

When installing the bearing inner on the crank you apply 4 or 5 hammer blows over a distance of 1" in say a minute.

When the crank expands it does it with a much larger force but over a distance of a few thou in say 15 minutes.

So it much easier for the crank to move in the inner during heating and cooling than when being installed as the force is greater but only being applied over a very small difference and over a much greater time. Add it that the crank is also spinning at several 1000 rpm with a weight hanging off it.

#712930 - 10/27/17 7:45 pm Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: kommando]  
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,581
quinten Online content
BritBike Forum member
quinten  Online Content
BritBike Forum member

Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,581
Pacific northwest
Originally Posted by kommando
Quote
Without even considering whether they are clamped at their respective ends, it is difficult to see how expansion of the cases is allowed for, without putting axial stress on the bearings.


You need to think of this as forceXdistanceXtime

When installing the bearing inner on the crank you apply 4 or 5 hammer blows over a distance of 1" in say a minute.

When the crank expands it does it with a much larger force but over a distance of a few thou in say 15 minutes.

So it much easier for the crank to move in the inner during heating and cooling than when being installed as the force is greater but only being applied over a very small difference and over a much greater time. Add it that the crank is also spinning at several 1000 rpm with a weight hanging off it.

so the inner race on the crankshaft
is tight enough so it doesn't spin
but loose enough
to move the couple of thousands needed ... as the aluminum case width changes with temperature
by side forces exerted on it through the ball bearings and outer race ?

?

#712937 - 10/27/17 8:46 pm Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
koan58 Online content
BritBike Forum member
koan58  Online Content
BritBike Forum member

Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
Isle of Wight, UK
Thanks to all you patient folks for "bearing" with me and giving your thoughts.
The matter was a technical interest to me, as my pre-unit in my ownership since 1980 has been run with CN roller driveside, C3 ball timingside, with timingside clamping washer, of course driveside also clamped to the inner main.
I have never run the balls both sides, and I am now glad that I didn't, because my set-up was of course still clamped to the driveside bearing inner (a roller) as well as being clamped on the timingside with the clamping washer behind the pinion.
I took so long to accept the arrangement in the pre-units with balls both sides because it did not seem to be "engineering", to rely on this slipping of the timing side bearing inner on the crank journal.
Taking that as the "case" so to speak, I would certainly go for the more stressed driveside bearing to be clamped, leaving the less stressed timingside to wallow back and forth (what a horrible idea!).
It does make me wonder how the engines were happy with the twin ball cranks, say 15 years of pre-units with driveside location, then a year or so of units twin ball timingside location, then at last they go to timingside location with a roller on the driveside, bearing inners clamped both sides - whatever the issue, solved.

If, as I incredulously accept, that the twin ball arrangement required the timingside crank journal to slide within the bearing inner to accommodate expansions, how hideous! It shocks me that that would be in the design.
And this of course requires that the clamping washer on the timingside is omitted, whereas I find it on all p/u diagrams. I think ET's having a laugh!
Cheers Dave

#712938 - 10/27/17 8:50 pm Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: quinten]  
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
koan58 Online content
BritBike Forum member
koan58  Online Content
BritBike Forum member

Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
Isle of Wight, UK
Quinten, yes that is just the conundrum I have been trying to resolve! Thanks

#712980 - 10/28/17 11:10 am Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,887
kommando Online content
kommando  Online Content


Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,887
Scotland
Quote
If, as I incredulously accept, that the twin ball arrangement required the timingside crank journal to slide within the bearing inner to accommodate expansions, how hideous! It shocks me that that would be in the design.


If the shaft movement was a problem then there would have been a lot of timing side main bearing failures but it was the drive side that suffered instead due to the pull of the primary chain and this was upgraded to the roller.

And the same advice on installation is still recommended today, note on that on the first 4 recommendations there is always a tight inference fit for one ring and a loose one for the other ring. It makes sense when dealing with alloy cases to make the outer the tight interference partially to compensate for the greater expansion of the alloy and the loose interference for the main inner to allow for the expansion movement.

http://www.bearing.co.il/FITS06.pdf

I measured a crank journal on the timing side of a 67 650 crank and it was measured the bearing inner size exactly, but the bearing would not go on by hand pressure more than a 1/4 of the distance as they still interfere as both will not be exactly round, I have no idea if it left the factory that way but I am not planning to change anything as it will function as is.

#713087 - 10/29/17 3:33 pm Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
koan58 Online content
BritBike Forum member
koan58  Online Content
BritBike Forum member

Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
Isle of Wight, UK
Thanks Ray and Kom for the interesting links and thoughts.

At the end of it all, it does seem to me that this was one of those "best of a bad job" situations. In hindsight it seems the arrangement with crank located at timingside and roller driveside would have been the proper engineering setup, and hence how it ended up - eventually.

The twin ball setup with free sliding timingside inner exposes it to creep and journal wear.

Alternatively, if the inner is anything tighter than free sliding, that will result in expansion force exerted axially on the balls in their tracks in order to shift the inner - which can't be good for bearing longevity. And this won't necessarily be the timingside brg that suffers most, as the expansion force applies equally to both mains. Indeed, as the driveside is already more heavily loaded with drive duties, the addition of extra axial load could be seen as a straw to break the camels back sooner.

The situation may be worse in the cooling scenario, as the shifting of the brg inner is not assisted by the rotating/flexing crank, and the axial force is borne by balls in static points in their tracks (think slightly overtightened steering head bearings).

If the brg inner is anything tighter than free sliding there will be a certain static friction on its journal. The expansion/contraction force must rise to this before the inner will shift in a step, and repeating this process as temperature changes further. Thus there will be axial loadings on the balls roughly equal to the static friction for significant periods of time.
I speculate that pre-unit cases were more forgiving and accommodating of this situation than stiffer unit cases. And perhaps the introduction of duplex drive also provided another "last straw", which forced a properly engineered solution.

Kom, when I study those 5 situations for brg setups in your link, the one that I find best applies to our cranks is the 5th one "Direction of load indeterminate due to variation of direction or unbalanced load". The 1st four all have unidirectional loads, eg as in wheel bearings, whereas the unbalanced crank (with a weight hanging off it, as you say) exerts highly variable loads in all directions. The intro also stresses the undesirability of a fit that allows the possibility of creep.

A very interesting document, thanks for posting!

All in all, I give great thanks for driveside roller bearings and timingside clamping washers! Dave

#713098 - 10/29/17 5:52 pm Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,547
TR6Ray Online content
BritBike Forum member
TR6Ray  Online Content

BritBike Forum member

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,547
Illinois, USA
Koan58, that is a thoughtful summation. While, at first glance, those Triumph bottom end issues may seem less than desirable, there was always an alternative. Look at the stuff piled on my old work table today. In this case, BSA=British Scrap Allocation. grin

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

A while back, I dragged home a basket beeza that included a set of empty cases. Later, the PO found some more parts for me, which included a couple of cranks. They looked like they had been less than hermetically sealed, while resting in a mud puddle in an open field. The cleaner crankshaft and con rods did look almost exactly like the other one until I did some derusting and polishing. I have been idly cleaning up some random parts out of curiosity to see if there is anything left. I may start a thread about this archeological exercise.

[Linked Image]

One pair of rods cleaned up nicely, and I will do some measuring on them, but John Healy's mantra keeps running through my mind, "If you measure the length of the rod, the big or small end eye, and they have stretched or gone out of size or round, cut the rod in half before it does the same to your crankcases." Maybe I can save these and make an artistic lamp or something.

No pair of ball bearings were used in here, so who had the better idea?:

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

One of my hang-ups has always been whether or not to reuse old parts. So, what do you think of this con rod?

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

Before you answer, let me say that I'm only kidding. I'm not serious.

But . . . those cases are number matched to each other and to the frame, and there are ways to sort of fix that TSB. People have started with less . . .

Ray


'64 TR6R Plus some Twins from other countries (U.S., Germany, Japan)
#713110 - 10/29/17 7:32 pm Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
koan58 Online content
BritBike Forum member
koan58  Online Content
BritBike Forum member

Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
Isle of Wight, UK
Thanks Ray for your contribution to my thought process, which ultimately led me to the conclusion that the early design was good enuf to cope with normal use at the time, and not anticipating 100.00 mile (or perhaps even 50,000) bottom end attention. Today I generally expect the roller bearing to be say twice the price of the ball, I am here talking of quality examples, not the cheapest "equivalents" to be found in bearing factors. Conceivably the roller may have come at more of a premium in the early days, by manufacturing unit cost and scale of production? Whatever, Triumph preferred not to use them until it became problematical otherwise.
I suppose my interest arose from my background, not in automotive but chemical engineering, where the impact of heat expansion/contraction is important to take into account, where machines are expected to run for millions of hours between major work. This "spinning cone column" was my primary concern, and depending on the application, it could be used under vacuum or pressure, so operating temp could be from ~24 degC to maybe 150, though the RPM was only in the several hundred. The shaft and "crankcase" great length of course exacerbated expansion related concerns for the bearings! You may find link this interesting, there are many of these machines in the wine growing regions of California and other parts of the world.

http://flavourtech.com/products/spinning-cone-column/

With regard to your "Bits Stuck Anywhere" treasure trove, why the tops in particular of those rods are so eroded (looks as if they,ve had caustic soda poured over them!) I've not seen anything like it, but if they still measure up, I'd run 'em, only a BSA after all, hope you know I'm jesting too!

Though I've had examples of the major 3 British makers over the years, my choice of Triumph twin, pre-unit in particular, but if unit then only 650, for my most enduring passion was decided by the engineering (also a passion for the featherbed, for which the pre-unit is much better suited).
I never liked the engines with plain bush timingside, Kev Cameron's article makes a convincing case for centre feed, though that just confirms an intuition I had 30 odd years ago (and this is what scares me off triples, I couldn't cope with some of the rebuild costs to do it properly). In spite of the potential for noise, I much preferred the gear drive for all things in the timing case, rather than all those chains thrashing about. So that puts Beezas and Nortons out. In my junior days I didn't really know of the others (Ariel, AMC, RE) so Triumph it had to be. Allied to that, and helping enormously, was that the original design changed so little thru the decades, that many later, sometimes better, parts could be employed in my ~1960 pre-unit. It has been fabulous fun to experiment in this way, of course I had the freedom of it being a triton, so originality not a concern.

The most common problems I read in this forum seem to be oil leaks (mainly pushrod tube), smoking (mixture of break in and valve guide problems, often thought to be wet sumping), genuine oil pump problems, almost universally dirt in the balls, and carb tuning problems.

The latter is a bone of mine, I did a lot of work on this, and posted on it a few times, yet it still confuses a lot of knowledgable folk. Once I got to the bottom of it, the difference it made to the running of my engine was truly remarkable, compared to how it had been for ~30 years. I hasten to add, this only applies to the Concentric.

Cheers Dave

#713115 - 10/29/17 8:29 pm Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,048
Tridentman Online content
BritBike Forum member
Tridentman  Online Content

BritBike Forum member

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,048
New Jersey USA
Ray----seeing those BSA parts reminds me of when I was growing up in Rugby UK.
It was the headquarters of two manufacturers of steam turbine generators.
One was BTH (same company as made the motorcycle magnetos) employing 12000 people and the other was English Electric employing 10000 people.
The population of the town was about 50000 people.
Talk about a one industry town!
However they used to store the blanks for the turbine shafts (about 100 feet long and 6 feet in diameter) outside in the open for five years to naturally stress relief the blanks before machining them.
Perhaps the previous owner of your BSA parts was working on a similar principle?
As an aside one of my friends was an apprentice turner working at BTH.
One day they started rotating one of the shafts for machining it but had not secured the shaft properly in the lathe.
Although the rotational speed was not large the energy involved was so great that the shaft came out of the lathe rolled though the factory wall, through the fence and ended up three fields away having killed two cows in the process!
But I think the Beeza will be kinder to you!

#713120 - 10/29/17 8:54 pm Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
koan58 Online content
BritBike Forum member
koan58  Online Content
BritBike Forum member

Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 165
Isle of Wight, UK
I'm humbled, that is the longest and fattest shaft I've heard of!
I've got this crazy image of the 2 longest flattest cows, ready made for the bbq!

#713139 - 10/30/17 12:27 am Re: Pre-Unit Crankshaft end "freedom" [Re: koan58]  
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,547
TR6Ray Online content
BritBike Forum member
TR6Ray  Online Content

BritBike Forum member

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,547
Illinois, USA
Tridentman, that's a good story -- for everybody other than the apprentice, the cows, and whoever else happened to be in the way. I have never met the PO of this BSA, but I think "stress relief" to them took on a different meaning -- probably more chemically induced -- such that they didn't care if these parts survived outdoors or not.

koan58, that is the first time I have heard of an SCC. It would make a good topic for one of those TV shows about how things are made. I can see how your study of bearing life would come into play.


'64 TR6R Plus some Twins from other countries (U.S., Germany, Japan)

Moderated by  John Healy 


Home | Sponsors | Newsletter | Regalia | Calendar | Bike Project | BritBike Museum | Spiders Cartoons | "OLD" BritBike Forum | DVD- Manuals & Parts books | BritBike Stickers & Decals
Upgrade to: Premium Membership | Premium Life Membership | Vendor Membership | Site Sponsor Membership
UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.149s Queries: 15 (0.006s) Memory: 0.9426 MB (Peak: 1.2360 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2017-11-21 12:05:35 UTC