Has anybody converted their wheel bearings from these POS single row-deep groove, to a slightly wider double row bearing?

As I understand it, removing length from the internal bearing spacer is the only modification required.

Would like to hear from others...

Note: looking at the Timken 5205KE

 

man, i'm all about this! anybody got any ideas?

 

The stock bearings are an industry standard size, unless you have ABS. If you have problems, just visit any bearing supplier, who can supply you with good quality alternatives. Best to take one of your POS ones, as it will have data the bearing people can use. Is it possible to install a different style, such as twin-row? Quite probably, but unnecessary IMHO. I have single row bearings in my Buell, bought new. The stock ones failed around the time the original tyres wore out, but I don't expect problems with their replacements.

 

Check the chart at the bottom of this page comparing double row to single row and explain to me why you want a double row bearing.
http://www.mitcalc.com/doc/help/en/c_bearing_choice.htm

 

Check the chart at the bottom of this page comparing double row to single row and explain to me why you want a double row bearing.
http://www.mitcalc.com/doc/help/en/c_bearing_choice.htm

 

The Harley OE 25MM bearing on their earlier releases (08 - 09 - 10's) was an inferior design and has a well deserved reputation for premature failure. This is an obvious "weak link" in the overall bike! Harley has since "superseded" that bearing with an improved design (higher walls for the roller ***** to roll on). Earlier design bearings (pre 2008) were serviceable and have a much better service record than the 25's.

 

That is a deep groove bearing, not double row.
http://www.motionindustries.com/moti...3EBall+Bearing

 

Why does someone want a different exhaust than the next guy, when the performance difference is nil? 'cause he wants to.

I recall saying I was looking at the bearing... not buying it yet. The 5205KE is also a angular contact piece.... and the chart shows an angular contact type, dual row, has an an average higher performance as compared to a deep--groove single row... except J & K, which when pressed into a machined hub... rather eliminates those two as concerns.

E & F, high speed, high running accuracy is not much of a concern either. 60mph is just under 1000rpm for a standard FXDC front tire.

... thanks for the chart.

Like I mentioned at the beginning... I'm looking at it... determining factors that might make it appealing. Internal and external wheel/bearing spacers would need to be modified... but is do-able. Just not sure of the bank for the buck, outside of saying "I got dual-row bearings"... which in this world of bolt-ons... can be enough for some people to do it.

I'm simply tossing this out there for conversation. I do a fair amount of design work... so I have a pretty good idea of what I would be getting myself into.

Let's keep the conversation going.. in a path of 'what if'... not 'wtf'.. thanks.

 

Is you wheel c-bore deep enough? I know I had a Fatboy rim off a 2003 that came with the star wheel on the front of my bike and it had over 100K on it and the bearings felt like new. I only used the star. The Fatboy rims was only 3" wide

 

On the wide glide hub I plan on using, it is deep enough on the non-flange side. The bearing in question is 20.64mm wide.

The flange side seat looks to be ~1.55mm too shallow. I could probably have it machined down, as there is a 'land' there (small, proud ring ~.02 high) ... but that is just more expense and work.. and I can't justify that much work.. yet

That 'star' wheel hub, looks to be exactly what I am thinking of... I am going to be lacing a 17x3 steel deep drop center rim, onto my wide glide hub (converting to a fat front end)