Jump to content
IGNORED

02 RT grind grind grunch.... then coast off the highway


Redman

Recommended Posts

RogerRT (Been in digital backwater last few days)

 

Doesn't .0045 TIR give .009" double amplitude relative motion? once per revolution with only a couple of teeth sharing any torque load? and simultaneously applying a major unidirectional side load to the crankshaft rear main bearing? A major formula for fretting.

 

And on the "spiral" effect of tooth wear - I had a revelation that it is probably caused by the axially displaced location of the flex plate/clutch spider. Cele001's added spacer adds length to the wrong end of the spline interface if the goal is to radially load the spline teeth uniformly.

 

FWIW - I helped a friend relube the splines on his older K750RT0. He had done it 20K miles before with the GuardDog stuff, which we also used again. Things were nice and oily. The GuardDog Moly seemed stickier than the Honda Moly 60 I had worked with before.

Link to comment
roger 04 rt
RogerRT (Been in digital backwater last few days)

 

Doesn't .0045 TIR give .009" double amplitude relative motion? once per revolution with only a couple of teeth sharing any torque load? and simultaneously applying a major unidirectional side load to the crankshaft rear main bearing? A major formula for fretting.

 

And on the "spiral" effect of tooth wear - I had a revelation that it is probably caused by the axially displaced location of the flex plate/clutch spider. Cele001's added spacer adds length to the wrong end of the spline interface if the goal is to radially load the spline teeth uniformly.

 

FWIW - I helped a friend relube the splines on his older K750RT0. He had done it 20K miles before with the GuardDog stuff, which we also used again. Things were nice and oily. The GuardDog Moly seemed stickier than the Honda Moly 60 I had worked with before.

 

0.0045" offset is just that, it's not double that. What I'm asking is simply is a 0.0045" centerline displacement what caused that wear?

 

Revelations aren't explanations of the wear. To have an explanation we need a description of the relative motion.

 

Is there any evidence that lubrication matters?

Link to comment

I should have said .0045 centerline offsets, but this still gives .009 p-p relative motion which translates to .009 TIR. Of course the rear crankshaft main bearing will wear under a major sustained side load to give an egg shaped bearing shell, while the transmission input bearing forces the crankshaft to rotate around a new offset center.

 

I assumed that this wear causes the crankshaft shaft to eventually rattle around a new location in the main bearing. That's what I was trying to take into account when relocating the transmission WRT the engine.

 

The relative motion of the two spline elements (hub vs shaft) is a nutating motion caused by a longitudinally located radial load that is centered on the clutch disk spider and in our coordinates is fixed in the direction of the alignment offset. The longitudinal center of this force is in the plane of the clutch flex spider.

 

This nutating radial force is not lengthwise-centered on the spline surfaces. Rather it is concentrated at one end of the spline, where it causes most of the wear.

 

Obviously lubrication matters if there is relative 1/rev motion and associated wear. If there was only relative motion during clutch use (i.e. thrust motion) it might not be as necessary to be replenished.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...