The rear axel torque finally BUSTED

[firefly]

OK guys I asked the dealer,the guy that prepares bikes for delivery.
" this is part of Yamaha factory PDI ( pre-delivery inspection )
Rear Axel torque for FJR, Vmax, Venture is 110 ft-Lb."
" I feel it is a little too much but this is what Yamaha wants! 95 ft-lb is OK."
So this is the end of that.

what a damaging myth that was, people even said that this was a misprint in the service manual, NO IT IS NOT A MISPRINT this is what the manufacturer specification is!!!
I am glad I asked, but for those who want to torque 55, 35 or 25 well it is your bike do what you find fit.
I'll torque mine to 95 ft-lb!.
Ibrahim
________
halfbaked

 

[Buster Hymen]

OK guys I asked the dealer,the guy that prepares bikes for delivery.
" this is part of Yamaha factory PDI ( pre-delivery inspection )
Rear Axel torque for FJR, Vmax, Venture is 110 ft-Lb."
" I feel it is a little too much but this is what Yamaha wants! 95 ft-lb is OK."
So this is the end of that.

what a damaging myth that was, people even said that this was a misprint in the service manual, NO IT IS NOT A MISPRINT this is what the manufacturer specification is!!!
I am glad I asked, but for those who want to torque 55, 35 or 25 well it is your bike do what you find fit.
I'll torque mine to 95 ft-lb!.
Ibrahim

Not to dispute what you've been told, but I take everything I hear from the dealer with a big grain of salt.
I've run the ass end at the manufacturers spec and it runs HOT. Just my :twocents:

 

[mikemax04]

OK guys I asked the dealer,the guy that prepares bikes for delivery.
" this is part of Yamaha factory PDI ( pre-delivery inspection )
Rear Axel torque for FJR, Vmax, Venture is 110 ft-Lb."
" I feel it is a little too much but this is what Yamaha wants! 95 ft-lb is OK."
So this is the end of that.

what a damaging myth that was, people even said that this was a misprint in the service manual, NO IT IS NOT A MISPRINT this is what the manufacturer specification is!!!
I am glad I asked, but for those who want to torque 55, 35 or 25 well it is your bike do what you find fit.
I'll torque mine to 95 ft-lb!.
Ibrahim

So the 110 ft/lbs from Yamaha is not as good as the real torque value from firefly. All the other values everybody is running with are all wrong and the one you picked out of thin air is OK. "Damaging" ???? What got damaged?? Did you order that good looking brace for your Max yet? I want to see it on your bike when you install it. The 110 ft/lbs is for the most extreme conditions possible. Those that ride their Max for the pleasure of it and don't have this need to beat it to death, can lessen the torque without any complications and have the pumpkin run freer with less drag. Some torque specs are very important like rods, heads and steering. Others are for those that have no idea how much a bolt will take before it breaks or how much force is needed to hold two parts together, without distortion. Finding the value Yamaha has intended is good news for all and the manual is NOT wrong, but don't make up a value of your own and call it THE right one. I think 94 ft/lbs is even better than 95. :compute:

 

[firefly]

So the 110 ft/lbs from Yamaha is not as good as the real torque value from firefly. All the other values everybody is running with are all wrong and the one you picked out of thin air is OK. "Damaging" ???? What got damaged?? Did you order that good looking brace for your Max yet? I want to see it on your bike when you install it. The 110 ft/lbs is for the most extreme conditions possible. Those that ride their Max for the pleasure of it and don't have this need to beat it to death, can lessen the torque without any complications and have the pumpkin run freer with less drag. Some torque specs are very important like rods, heads and steering. Others are for those that have no idea how much a bolt will take before it breaks or how much force is needed to hold two parts together, without distortion. Finding the value Yamaha has intended is good news for all and the manual is NOT wrong, but don't make up a value of your own and call it THE right one. I think 94 ft/lbs is even better than 95. :compute:

Mike, that 95 was the guy at the dealer because he also feels 110 is exessive. this is not my opinion, it is what the manufacturer wants!
________
marijuana strains

 

[mikemax04]

Mike, that 95 was the guy at the dealer because he also feels 110 is exessive. this is not my opinion, it is what the manufacturer wants!

Glad you cleared that up firefly and thanks for researching this. I've been running with the 25 lbs of torque now for almost 2 years and have had absolutely no problems. If I was to take it off road and ride it like a dirt bike, or take it to the strip, perform wheelies, pop the clutch etc. you can count on my giving it more torque. Reason I went so low is because many were using the 35# and having no problems. With the bike on the main stand, I did some testing (by feel) and found that mine had more drag at the rear with a higher torque value. As it loosens up from new, I'll recheck and tighten accordingly. This is my personal experiment and others should follow their manual or whatever. I'm also a bit leery of the dealer's mechanics. My new Max was delivered running on 3 cylinders. With so few Maxes to work on, it's little wonder they know squat.

 

[firefly]

I'll go to a honda dealer to ask what is the torque on the rear axle nut of a gold wing just to get ~ figure, and if it is something like 110 ft-lb then that myth is definitely busted.
why don't we disbelieve all other torque settings in the service manual ?
to propagate that this is a mis print is just sick.
I never take people's words without checking them very very closely!
this is why my bike's engine and exhaust are and will remain stock!
I read every day that people are having problems with all sort of performance mods while I put the key and go every day with NO problem what so ever. if I wanted a faster bike I could have easily bought a busa and saved some money too.
________
buy digital scale

 

[MNFatz]

I've been running with the 25 lbs of torque now for almost 2 years and have had absolutely no problems.

Which is interesting for two different reasons:

1) They eat Royale's With Cheese for lunch at the factory where VMAXs are built and;

2) 110 newtons comes out to about 75 lb ft.

Somebody forgot to convert that spec from metric to english...

Edit: As a matter of fact, here's a picture of the page from the manual. That's precisely what's going on--the prep guys didn't convert from N/m to lb/ft. Yamaha says 85 lb/ft.

Click on it to supersize it into something readable:

 

[firefly]

Which is interesting for two different reasons:

1) They eat Royale's With Cheese for lunch at the factory where VMAXs are built and;

2) 110 newtons comes out to about 25 lb ft.

Somebody forgot to convert that spec from metric to English...

But Mike is not english and no it is 110ft-lb not newtons
________
Suzuki Sixteen

 

[MNFatz]

But Mike is not english and no it is 110ft-lb not newtons

No, that's wrong--it's clear as day in the manual.

Yamaha specifies 85 ft-lbs OR 120 Nm.

There's a pic in my original post.

 

[maleko89]

Both of my Yami manuals have 85 ft/lbs of torque. Same with my Clymer...but.....they say for 2001 to current is 111 ft/lbs. I'm thinking that's due to the fact a cotter pin is no longer used.

 

[firefly]

No, that's wrong--it's clear as day in the manual.

Yamaha specifies 85 ft-lbs OR 120 Nm.

There's a pic in my original post.

I am not sure which manual you are looking at, the 2003 yamaha manual says 150 NM or 15.0 m-kgf or 110 ft-lb
unless they changed the torque from 83 to 03.
I am looking at the manual in front of me.
________
Suzuki H engine specifications

 

[maleko89]

Bikes before 2001, 85 ft/lbs. Yamaha raised it to 110 ft/bls in 2001.....due to no more cotter pin.

 

[firefly]

Bikes before 2001, 85 ft/lbs. Yamaha raised it to 110 ft/bls in 2001.....due to no more cotter pin.

Are they so concerned about it coming loose and if so why? that is interesting.
________
Toyota Publica specifications

 

[markmax]

I torqued mine to 95 ft/lbs last night after installing my new plate bracket. Guess i'll see how hot it gets and adjust from there. I was thinking better to tight to start with then too lose.

 

[Rusty McNeil]

Perhaps the high torque value has nothing to do with bearing tension/pressure and everything to do with creating a stiffer "BOX" out of the swingarm and improving handling by eliminating rotational "twist" in the swingarm??????

Mines a "99 with no cotter pin.

I've never looked it up in the manual; but with the "pinch bolt holdinig the axle it's not coming out even if there was no nut at all I would think.

I do realize swingarm flex could be a problem with a too lose nut; allowing each side of the swingarm to more easily move up and down without being exactly in synch with other side due to it's flexibility.

You'd thing for the price of this bike that has not had a single R&D dollar spent on it in 22 years they could throw a good aluminum swingarm on it. A freakin $7500 dollar sportbike even has that on it and that's with them still trying to recuop R&D dollars on the deal.

Since the axle has an edge on it on the non drive side I can see where you would need to set the tension on the axle with the big drive side nut BEFORE tightening down the pinch bolt on the non-drive side.

It looks to me like the nut basicall sets "tension" on the whole assembly so I just can't for the life of me see why it would need to be so tight unless it's too stiffen the swingarm.

On top of that the cottterless nut is a "kept" style nut with the nylon insert. I've never had one of those come loose.

This whole thread has me really curious;

 

[firefly]

Perhaps the high torque value has nothing to do with bearing tension/pressure and everything to do with creating a stiffer "BOX" out of the swingarm and improving handling by eliminating rotational "twist" in the swingarm??????

Mines a "99 with no cotter pin.

I've never looked it up in the manual; but with the "pinch bolt holdinig the axle it's not coming out even if there was no nut at all I would think.

I do realize swingarm flex could be a problem with a too lose nut; allowing each side of the swingarm to more easily move up and down without being exactly in synch with other side due to it's flexibility.

You'd thing for the price of this bike that has not had a single R&D dollar spent on it in 22 years they could throw a good aluminum swingarm on it. A freakin $7500 dollar sportbike even has that on it and that's with them still trying to recuop R&D dollars on the deal.

Since the axle has an edge on it on the non drive side I can see where you would need to set the tension on the axle with the big drive side nut BEFORE tightening down the pinch bolt on the non-drive side.

It looks to me like the nut basically sets "tension" on the whole assembly so I just can't for the life of me see why it would need to be so tight unless it's too stiffen the swingarm.

On top of that the cottterless nut is a "kept" style nut with the nylon insert. I've never had one of those come loose.

This whole thread has me really curious;

Thanks man for giving it some thought, this is what I was thinking too, people just follow a myth without even thinking, I am also guilty of that, its amazing.
And the fact that yamaha changed the torque over the years but never less than 85ft-lb
means they are paying attention to this issue and insist on a torque that high because of the way THEY designed it. my 03 manual says 110ft-lb, other years are different, does that look like a mistyped error?
________
EL

 

[Rusty McNeil]

Next time I've got the rear wheel off I think i'm gonna look at this really hard.

does the nut torque make the bearings tighter?

Or does it just pull all the spacers and stuff tighter without over tightening the bearing;
Are the bearings of a non-tapered design anyway where torque doesn't make the bearing any tighter?

I can't remember....

Rusty

 

[firefly]

Next time I've got the rear wheel off I think i'm gonna look at this really hard.

does the nut torque make the bearings tighter?

Or does it just pull all the spacers and stuff tighter without over tightening the bearing;
Are the bearings of a non-tapered design anyway where torque doesn't make the bearing any tighter?

I can't remember....

Rusty

This is great, Thanks.
________
buy no2 vaporizer

 

[Buster Hymen]

Next time I've got the rear wheel off I think i'm gonna look at this really hard.

does the nut torque make the bearings tighter?

Or does it just pull all the spacers and stuff tighter without over tightening the bearing;
Are the bearings of a non-tapered design anyway where torque doesn't make the bearing any tighter?

I can't remember....

Rusty

I'm pretty sure they are tapered bearings which is why it runs hot when it is over torqued.

 

[SPOFF]

I'll go to a honda dealer to ask what is the torque on the rear axle nut of a gold wing just to get ~ figure, and if it is something like 110 ft-lb then that myth is definitely busted.

Jumping into this argument months later, I've got a Valkyrie with an axle at least 50% larger in diameter than my V-Max and the factory spec is 67 ft/lbs. No cotter pin. No pinch bolt. And there's no way in hell I'm tightening up the tiny V-Max axle beyond 75 ft/lbs.