REICHLE, CHRISTOPHER writes:
> [ ... ] If someone decided to take
> out the shims and torque it like an american car would be done you will have
> problems. The torqing of the nut only squeezes the inner part of the bearing
> (that does not move) between the castleated nut/washer and the cone with
> shimms.
This is something that I've never understood about the 'B, and when I
can't understand something about the typically anvil-simple 'B, it bugs
the holy shit out of me.
What possible harm can come from eliminating the shims and the conical
spacer entirely, and simply tightening the outer bearing until the hub
spins freely without binding? It's not like the races are going
anywhere, pressed into the hub as they are. And it's not like the inner
bearing is going anywhere either.
I once burned up an outer bearing, which welded itself to the stub axle
and destroyed the spacer in the process. After brutal extraction
(involving a monkey with a torch) I was left with a knackered-but-usable
stub axle, and ran it without a spacer for two years or so without any
problems. I finally replaced the stub axle because the torching left it
slightly out-of-spec and the threads were marginal, but the bearings
never suffered a bit. But I still don't use any shims, and it's been
that way for four years now, riding solid as a rock.
Anybody got any wisdom on this oh-so-British assembly?
--
Todd Mullins
Todd.Mullins@nrlssc.navy.mil On the lovely Mississippi (USA) Coast
'74 MGB Tourer that the babe called a "cool car"
|