Todd Mullins wrote:
> 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 . . . it bugs
> the holy shit out of me.
Then never, ever, consider Holy Matrimony, Todd.
> 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?
I _think_ it has to do with when wheel bearings were constructed of BALL
BEARINGS. They are not so happy about being preloaded from the side. All the
modern bearings I have purchased have been TAPERED ROLLER BEARINGS and, like
you, I tighten them down like an old Chevy, forget about the shims (but leave
the spacer in place) and have never had any problems.
> Anybody got any wisdom on this oh-so-British assembly?
Nope. Just conjecture and experience.--
Bob Allen, Kansas City, '69CGT, '75TR6, '61Elva(?)
"I am an equal-opportunity bigot. I only associate with intelligent people."
|