Tightening the Compensator nut
#1
#3
I'd go with the manual personally. If HD wants to update their manuals for this value they need to make their consumers aware of it by a SB, TSB, EA or something. I would then ask how the tech came about that calculation for your particular year, model, ect.
And further more, I'm a mechanic by trade also, and in my twenty years of wrenching, I've torqued an astronomical amount of fasteners, whether on cars, trucks, motorcycles or mostly jets, and I've have never heard of a mfg calling out a torque like that. Even in aviation I have come across numerous specialty tools digital protractors, inclinometers, but none are used for load or bearing seating (ie, torque). Your calculation of 40 deg in addition to mfg torque = 200ft pounds, maybe, your calculated eye might be different than my calculated eye, and that's the biggest reason I would shoot this down and say BS.
And further more, I'm a mechanic by trade also, and in my twenty years of wrenching, I've torqued an astronomical amount of fasteners, whether on cars, trucks, motorcycles or mostly jets, and I've have never heard of a mfg calling out a torque like that. Even in aviation I have come across numerous specialty tools digital protractors, inclinometers, but none are used for load or bearing seating (ie, torque). Your calculation of 40 deg in addition to mfg torque = 200ft pounds, maybe, your calculated eye might be different than my calculated eye, and that's the biggest reason I would shoot this down and say BS.
#5
The following users liked this post:
badbaggerz (05-27-2021)
#6
#7
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: along the shore of Mishigami
Posts: 15,718
Received 4,770 Likes
on
2,533 Posts
The following users liked this post:
ABQ-Jammer (05-27-2021)
Trending Topics
#8
WOW, I am truely floored, I'll take my BS flag now and stick it in my mouth. I have honestly never seen such a procedure in writing or practice but you guys have obviously seen technical data that stands as proof. I just am struggling to embrace that idea, do you realize how much variance that can allow, from one person to the next. Does sound like though that procedue might be prior to 06 models if I am understanding this right though, sorry for any misleading on my part fellas.
The following users liked this post:
DutchJo (03-02-2023)
#9
I don't remember exactly what the part was, but the '99 BMW R1100GS I owned for awhile used a similar procedure on something. Tighten to a specific torque and then add a certain number of degrees past. I think I still have the gauge that's used to measure the degrees added (it's not done by eyeball).
#10
not to hijack, but when you torque the comp nut, I assume you use the bar idea between the clutch and comp spr
I have noticed that this causes the primary chain to deflect in a manner that causes it to place load on the "bump" that is one of the holes for a primary cover screw
by which I mean, the lower part of the chain pulls tight, but cannot become straight without contacting aforesaid bump
I had considered placing in gear, and using rear brake, to avoid chain tension
In the manual, it shows the chain hanging outside the inner primary
but in reality, the chain sits partially inside
I have always found this strange
my book, for 09, says 140 ft/lbs
I have noticed that this causes the primary chain to deflect in a manner that causes it to place load on the "bump" that is one of the holes for a primary cover screw
by which I mean, the lower part of the chain pulls tight, but cannot become straight without contacting aforesaid bump
I had considered placing in gear, and using rear brake, to avoid chain tension
In the manual, it shows the chain hanging outside the inner primary
but in reality, the chain sits partially inside
I have always found this strange
my book, for 09, says 140 ft/lbs