In light of the thread being fouled with much opinion and few facts I'm entertained by the following:
Because these fasteners have failed it appears to be justification to randomly pick a derated torque value as the NEW "STANDARD" while offering ZERO supporting evidence as to how its OK!
Again - if this were an internal engine part like a connecting rod bolt, you would FIX THE PROBLEM AND NOT just derate the manufactures specification!! On the flip side, at least we don't have stores of flying sprockets sawing things apart due to stud failure!
If we read about every success story would that be a value add? Lets add some perspective: From 2003
when this part was introduced I'm guessing that tens of thousands have been replaced! (NO FACTS :spank: ) But
are there thousands ++++ of threads on FAIL?
People write about fail because it took a basic moment in time and wrecked it.
That is not justification that the specification is wrong.
Just sayin...
/end rant
On post #9, on
this thread, I posted a link, once there, (post #29). Once clicked upon,
pertaining to the failures. SIX (6) different threads with numerous failures, fixes, etc (didn't take long to find BTW).
Please take the time and effort
to read them as you keep saying there is
"NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE".
It is literally there in black and white.
Also, as you pointed out, if a torque wrench is off by say up to 30%, add that to the indicated 72 ft lbs, guess what, failure big time-gaurenteed. If its reading low, you'll probably get away with it.
We are talking about studs that simply hold a sprocket on. NOT a critical connecting rod bolt. It is NOT holding a piston while rotating up and down with extreme forces on it...
As YOU posted in the above mentioned thread (that I referred to), even (in
your chart), with the
hardest bolt, the max torque is
62 ft lbs.
I'm very entertained as well, how in
your post,
your own chart, in
your own words, stating that
72 lbs is good with the
ONLY evidence being the FSM (which we all know has misprints).
Bottom line, should we believe the
FSM or the chart, showing the hardest bolt, again the
FSM being 10 lbs above it..
Want examples?
What is the torque value of the lug nuts on your auto/truck? And yes, its a different application, however,
simple common sense, a car lug nut, with twice as many threads
(its obviously taller) as the nuts in question (are easily half as tall), more surface area, generally only takes slightly more torque (in most cases). How can that be? Do all the auto manufacturers use cheap bolts to secure their wheels?
Using the above thought process, those lug nuts should be around 130 ft lbs (I'm guesstamating)
BTW, contrary to your believe and pictures, 72 ft lbs is NOT keeping that sprocket from spinning on the hub, the
studs are. Take the nuts off altoghter. NOW, spin the sprocket on the hub, does it spin?
No, it does not..
You've ignored this point before so I'll bring it up AGAIN...(to be ignored once again I'm sure)
Sleeved studs are there yet so there's no flattening of threads should the sprocket move the hub. Least we NOT forget, the hub does indeed have rubber cushions to soften the proverbial clunk when shifting into first etc.
Please rememember, most folks here DO NOT have a $300 Snap on torque wrench, that is accurate to 3% or under. They have something that works, of course won't be as accurate as the Snap On, and if it reads high, will probably have an issue. As noted earlier, if their torque wrench reads low, they'll likely get 72.
I would like to know the reasoning for posting and believeing a chart that says
62 lbs max should NOT be believed over the FSM of 72?. Each of those 6 nuts are almost as tight as the axle!! Why??
Needless to say, choose to ignore failures, but there are right there, in black and white, should you choose to at least read them...
For anyone and everyone reading, just do your own research and YOU decide...
Safe riding..
(And Randy,
NOTHING PERSONAL, just different point of view)
