the cam is trashed as well, but Dale has it right now. the rest of the bearings in the motor were bad too, but not too the eye. the flywheel actually did that a while back and I had a new one since my ignition went out last year and i never put the new flywheel that cam with the stator on.
Was this a result of just bad rocker bearings, or did the old style mains blow out also? ie. prior to rockers going.
Also, what made you decide to keep the counter balancer?
Also, what made you decide to keep the counter balancer?
the mains went out after the roller rockers. probably as a result of the metal bits going through them. the reason Im keeping the balancer is 1) it would cost more to remove it 2) the old bearing was in better shape than any of the other bearings in the motor 3) I like how smooth it is with it.
Parsko, the "new" style bearings are cylindrical rollers I dont have the numbers for them but here is the # for the "old" style ball bearings 6206/C4. thats an SKF number.
Parsko, the "new" style bearings are cylindrical rollers I dont have the numbers for them but here is the # for the "old" style ball bearings 6206/C4. thats an SKF number.
Joined Mar 2003
582 Posts | 2+
Waterbury, Connecticut, USA
I see. Roller vs. ball. The roller is going to have lower pressure on the roller due to more surface area on contact with the races, vs the ball which will have smaller "contact patch". Hence better life... See see as the blind man pee'd into the wind...
It's also easier to machine a flat contact patch, which would lead one to believe that rollers are more reliable, cheaper, etc. than the balls, which need a round cut into the race.
Ouchy on the blown parts. I've been there too... Mine looked the same. This is one great reason to change erl often often often, wash out those old metal deposits. I just checked, you're right. I used SKF 6206's, but I can't remember if they were balls. The caging on the balls is going to inhibit erl from getting in there easily. I can imagine the rollers don't have such caging, allowing easier erling. Would you agree?
It's also easier to machine a flat contact patch, which would lead one to believe that rollers are more reliable, cheaper, etc. than the balls, which need a round cut into the race.
Ouchy on the blown parts. I've been there too... Mine looked the same. This is one great reason to change erl often often often, wash out those old metal deposits. I just checked, you're right. I used SKF 6206's, but I can't remember if they were balls. The caging on the balls is going to inhibit erl from getting in there easily. I can imagine the rollers don't have such caging, allowing easier erling. Would you agree?
you are right about the cylindrical rollers, the thing is fitting them. Dale has a tool to check alignment, but if its out it requires some serious machining.
Joined Mar 2003
582 Posts | 2+
Waterbury, Connecticut, USA
Fitting them? Please explain. Oh, wait, is there NO inner race on the roller style crank bearings? Leaving a somewhat uncontrolled inner race made by the actual crank itself...? Would this be where the fit issue comes into play? I know from some of the stuff designed here, that bearing preload is a significant design variable. If there is an inner race, premachined to X tolerance, that is reliable and preload is repeatable.
I believe Dale's alignment is for case misalignments in general, not being specific to roller bearings.
The roller bearings are standard parts for the 2003 models(Numbers can be found in the downloadable 2003 parts guide), and some of the late 2002 models. There was even a service bulletin out about the upgrade.
The roller bearings are standard parts for the 2003 models(Numbers can be found in the downloadable 2003 parts guide), and some of the late 2002 models. There was even a service bulletin out about the upgrade.
Register CTA
Register on Husaberg Forum! This sidebar will go away, and you will see fewer ads.
Sign Up
