not the typical steering head bearing question

[ninjaneer]

so it seems that i'm retorquing the bearings a lot like every 500 miles--this doesn't seem right to me. idk how many miles it should be in general, but 500 seems problematic. i'm being realistic and not dreaming of never having to revisit the steering head bearings, but hold long should one expect between retorques?

i studied the manual and it stated to make sure that the ring nut are screwed in with the tapered side up. my top one was upside down. but idk, would an upside top ring nut not hold the bottom ring nut down such that it remains torqued properly?

i recently upgraded to Progressive springs which is showing signs that i installed them with too much compression damping and as such am in process of fine tuning the forks. could the overly compression damping add to or be the root issue to my problem of not being able to keep the steering heads torqued down?

 

[[email protected]]

so it seems that i'm retorquing the bearings a lot like every 200-300 miles--maybe 400-500--in any case this doesn't seem right to me. idk how many miles it should be in general, but 400-500 seems problematic. i'm being realistic and not dreaming of never having to revisit the steering head bearings, but hold long should one expect between retorques?

i studied the manual and it stated to make sure that the ring nut are screwed in with the tapered side up. my top one was upside down. but idk, would an upside top ring nut not hold the bottom ring nut down such that it remains torqued properly?

i recently upgraded to Progressive springs which is showing signs that i installed them with too much compression damping and as such am in process of fine tuning the forks. could the overly compression damping add to or be the root issue to my problem of not being able to keep the steering heads torqued down?

Tapered? How are they tapered? I read that in the manual too, I'm not arguing with you but I don't see them being tapered. I noticed that they have what looks like a flat washer surface built into one side. I figured that part goes down.

 

[ninjaneer]

I wondered the same but after looking closley at one, one side is flat as I would suspect, but the other side between each notch, the side is, in a sort, "tapered".

regards from my tapatalking android...

 

[dannymax]

I puzzled over this terminology also and concluded that they used 'tapered' when the correct term would have been 'champered'.

 

[SpecOps13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapered_roller_bearing

 

[alorio1]

Make sure top triple tree bolts are loosened when torquing..........just looking at the pics the taperd nut face each other with the bottom nut having flat side down. Mine has a locking tab on it also, this pic is from my 85 and never been taken loose from bike.

 

[Miles Long]

Make sure top triple tree bolts are loosened when torquing..........just looking at the pics the taperd nut face each other with the bottom nut having flat side down. Mine has a locking tab on it also, this pic is from my 85 and never been taken loose from bike.

When reading the numerous and continuing posts about steering head problems, I've often thought that perhaps the above underlined piece of info is what some folks fail to do - essentially because not everyone of us is mechanically inclined, no disrespect intended. The top triple tree bolts have to be loosened to allow wear-induced clearances between the bearing components to be reduced - the "retorquing" process limits the reduction to factory-recomended specs.
As for the "tapered" question - a previous poster hit the right button - "champfered" is the correct word. Generally speaking , if a nut is champfered, that side goes up.
The steering head on my bike looks essentially the same as Alorio1's pic, with one difference - that rubber washer in his pic has been replaced with a stainless steel one. Yes, boys and girls, I'm talking about that unmentionable topic - the dreaded F_ _ ber F_ x. Something I did three years and 50,000 kilometers ago, to correct a viscious low-speed wobble condition. Steady as a rock since. Let the debate begin again!
Cheers, Miles

 

[ninjaneer]

Make sure top triple tree bolts are loosened when torquing..........just looking at the pics the taperd nut face each other with the bottom nut having flat side down. Mine has a locking tab on it also, this pic is from my 85 and never been taken loose from bike.

i always loosened the top triple fork pinch bolts--it just made sense to me, but now my instincts are affirmed by you guys--thanks.

thanks for the pic alorio! maybe i misread the manual, but even it states the contrary, i'm more inclined to accept your configuration, because it's "never been taken loose from bike" plus it is how i thought i had found it originally before flipping it around due to the manual.

i did notice that my rubber washer looks distorted--squashed and not really circular. i guess i will suck it up and use the FF washer, BUT ONLY B/C I NEED TO REPLACE THE WASHER--NOT BECAUSE THE FF WASHER IS ANY BETTER OR ANYTHING, BUT BECAUSE IT IS A "WASHER" THAT I HAVE LYING AROUND READILY AVAILABLE.

Let the debate begin again!

so after that stubborn bit of venting, i'm standing back and thinking that if i have a warped rubber washer that perhaps there is a benefit to the FF washer, but different from my position that it doesn't cure the dreaded wobbles. I still stand by the opinion that properly torqued bearings is The Answer--of course as RaWarrior and his responders have attested to in a separate thread, there is a HUGE number of factors to consider, but IMO properly torqued bearings is part of The Answer. Perhaps it doesn't cure the ailment at hand, meaning because of it the wobbles go away, but perhaps with it, properly torques steering bearings remain properly torqued longer. But if this argument has any merit, then it isn't any different than replacing the old rubber washer with a new rubber washer.

 

[[email protected]]

so it seems that i'm retorquing the bearings a lot like every 500 miles--this doesn't seem right to me. idk how many miles it should be in general, but 500 seems problematic. i'm being realistic and not dreaming of never having to revisit the steering head bearings, but hold long should one expect between retorques?

i studied the manual and it stated to make sure that the ring nut are screwed in with the tapered side up. my top one was upside down. but idk, would an upside top ring nut not hold the bottom ring nut down such that it remains torqued properly?

i recently upgraded to Progressive springs which is showing signs that i installed them with too much compression damping and as such am in process of fine tuning the forks. could the overly compression damping add to or be the root issue to my problem of not being able to keep the steering heads torqued down?

The Yamaha FSM says for the ring nuts to be installed tapered side DOWN.
Alorio's picture shows them facing opposite directions.
Ninjaneer says his manual (Clymer I'm guessing?) shows them facing up
..........WTF??..........

 

[alorio1]

After reading my statment "always loosen the top triple fork pinch bolts" thats wrong, you should loosen the bottom tripple tree pinch bolts then torque. If you loosen the top tree bolts and torque the top tree will slide down the top of tubes. With just the bottom pinch bolts loose the tubes stay stationary on top tree and any movement by torqueing will pass thru the bottom tree, which is what you want. Their is only one reason I can think of that might cause you to have to keep retorqueing, and that is the races were not driven to the bottom of the stops in neck or brgs were not bottomed out on tree. If you think your top nuts are backing off due to improper installation, simply draw a line across both nuts down to the top tree with a sharpie or finger nail polish to verify nuts are staying where you torqued them to. I would overtorque a good bit and then back off to the proper setting.

i always loosened the top triple fork pinch bolts--it just made sense to me, but now my instincts are affirmed by you guys--thanks.

thanks for the pic alorio! maybe i misread the manual, but even it states the contrary, i'm more inclined to accept your configuration, because it's "never been taken loose from bike" plus it is how i thought i had found it originally before flipping it around due to the manual.

i did notice that my rubber washer looks distorted--squashed and not really circular. i guess i will suck it up and use the FF washer, BUT ONLY B/C I NEED TO REPLACE THE WASHER--NOT BECAUSE THE FF WASHER IS ANY BETTER OR ANYTHING, BUT BECAUSE IT IS A "WASHER" THAT I HAVE LYING AROUND READILY AVAILABLE.

so after that stubborn bit of venting, i'm standing back and thinking that if i have a warped rubber washer that perhaps there is a benefit to the FF washer, but different from my position that it doesn't cure the dreaded wobbles. I still stand by the opinion that properly torqued bearings is The Answer--of course as RaWarrior and his responders have attested to in a separate thread, there is a HUGE number of factors to consider, but IMO properly torqued bearings is part of The Answer. Perhaps it doesn't cure the ailment at hand, meaning because of it the wobbles go away, but perhaps with it, properly torques steering bearings remain properly torqued longer. But if this argument has any merit, then it isn't any different than replacing the old rubber washer with a new rubber washer.

 

[ninjaneer]

Ninjaneer says his manual (Clymer I'm guessing?) shows them facing up
..........WTF??..........

i'm an idiot. both the clymer and haynes say DOWN. thank god there are knowledgable folks here like you to keep my the roadrash off my ass.

 

[dannymax]

Ninjaneer, when you say 're-torque' do you mean disassembling the triples and going through the complete 2 step torque process, or are you using the term 're-torque' to describe a 'snugging' up of the nuts?

What signs are you getting that tell you the nuts are loosening....increased low-speed wobble, more bounces on the bounce test or both?

 

[ninjaneer]

Ninjaneer, when you say 're-torque' do you mean disassembling the triples and going through the complete 2 step torque process, or are you using the term 're-torque' to describe a 'snugging' up of the nuts?

What signs are you getting that tell you the nuts are loosening....increased low-speed wobble, more bounces on the bounce test or both?

"re-torque" = snugging up. the first indication is on the road--the steering just "feels loose". the second indication is when i jack it up and do the bounce test--with a slight push, the front end turns to one side and slams into the stops.

 

[dannymax]

"re-torque" = snugging up. the first indication is on the road--the steering just "feels loose". the second indication is when i jack it up and do the bounce test--with a slight push, the front end turns to one side and slams into the stops.

OK, so it appears they are loosening up OR, they didn't seat properly initially, and the bumps over 500 miles are settling them in.

I believe the only purpose of the rubber washer between the nuts is to keep them from backing out and its removal won't cause any issues (maybe Sean can comment here). So, what I'm thinking is to remove the rubber washer, jam the nuts together and drive it 500 miles and see what happens.

Kinda like the 'Furbur Fix' without the 'Fix'! :biglaugh: Make a 'witness mark' on both nuts and the stem with a felt tip or whatever....it may give you an indication if the nuts are loosening.

Just a thought......otherwise :confused2:

 

[ninjaneer]

will try out the suggestions and report back 500 miles later

 

[[email protected]]

i'm an idiot. both the clymer and haynes say DOWN. thank god there are knowledgable folks here like you to keep my the roadrash off my ass.

Hopefully you didn't take my post the wrong way. The "WTF" wasn't directed to you. I was more or less wondering why we couldn't come up with a concrete answer to which way they should face.

 

[dannymax]

Tell you the truth Mike, I looked them over and the chamfer is so slight I can't believe it'll make a pinch of coon shit's difference which way they face....so I've been ignoring it! I may have them both wrong, or both right.....:confused2:.....and don't really care! unk:

 

[wildweasel_pt]

The two chanfers are facing each other, this is the lower nut has chanfer facing upwards and upper nut has chanfer facing downwards, The rubber washer sits between both on that chanfer, at least thats how it was on my bike from factory...

 

[dannymax]

The two chanfers are facing each other, this is the lower nut has chanfer facing upwards and upper nut has chanfer facing downwards, The rubber washer sits between both on that chanfer, at least thats how it was on my bike from factory...

And that makes sense....with the chamfers facing each other there is probly less chance of pinching the rubber washer.

Unfortunately the Haynes manual, Part 6, 'Frame, Suspension & Final Drive'....pg. 6-13 & 6-14 specifically says "with tapered side facing down" for both upper & lower nuts.

And the factory has them facing each other......:ummm:

I must return to my conclusion....it don't make a pinch of coon's shit difference! unk: :rofl_200:

 

[tugla]

my manual says to install lower ring with tapered side down, do all the tightening and torquing then install rubber then upper ring nut with tapered side down.

so both down.

im sure the coons shit wont know the difference, so what ever floats your boats boys