Replaced/Renewed rear sprocket?

Post by **sirch345** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:33 am

Has anybody fitted a new rear sprocket (to their Storm) using a torque wrench and the specified torque value to re-tighten the 5 retaining nuts

The reason I ask is because we had this discussion recently, and I thought the specified figures available in the Haynes and Honda workshop manual's , also in the Kamware link seem to be rather excessive

Chris.

Stormin Ben · Post by **Stormin Ben** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:51 am

Yes, and yes I did use the specified torque

Its excessive for a reason and that reason is
You REALLY don't want those puppies coming off at speed!!!

Gonna be subject to a hell of a lot of vibration so need to be properly tight

Post by **sirch345** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:24 pm

Stormin Ben wrote:Yes, and yes I did use the specified torque

Its excessive for a reason and that reason is
You REALLY don't want those puppies coming off at speed!!!

Gonna be subject to a hell of a lot of vibration so need to be properly tight

Interesting Ben, so you have actually tightened them up to 108Nm and they didn't shear off

Chris.

Squiffythewombat · Post by **Squiffythewombat** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:49 pm

sirch345 wrote: , so you have actually tightened them up to 108Nm
Chris.

Does sound alot actually!

stevevtr1 · Post by **stevevtr1** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:56 pm

just cehcked this on my honda manual cd ,& it does spec 108 NM/80ft/lbs-in old money..maybe i'll forget about alley sprocket nuts.
cheers
Steve

Stormin Ben · Post by **Stormin Ben** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:40 pm

Mine are alloy nuts (oh -err!

)
They've got steel inserts for the thread though and 108Nm was no problem

Post by **sirch345** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:11 am

Stormin Ben wrote:Mine are alloy nuts (oh -err! )
They've got steel inserts for the thread though and 108Nm was no problem

Thanks for the info Ben, I just felt 108Nm was rather a lot when the rear axle nut and swingarm nut was only 93Nm and those nuts are a lot bigger 27mm, but obviously not

Cheers,

Chris.

Pete.L · Post by **Pete.L** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:24 am

Ahhh! 80ft/lbs
Thanks Steve, now I know what we are talking about

Thats nothing for those studs Chris. I must admit I've replaced plenty of sprockets over the years,never torqued a single one, but I do go around the bolts as if I was doing up a cylinder head to make sure they are all the same.

Pete.l

Tempest · Post by **Tempest** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:40 pm

Just to let you know.

I recently changed my rear sprocket (went up to 43 teeth at the back) and I torqued mine all up to the 108Nm they say.

Took them all to 50 first, then 80, then 100, and finally tweaked to 108.

One of them would not tighen to that level (seemed to be going round but not getting any tighter) but left it, as it was over 100 anyway. the rest clicked to 108 fine.

Still think it's a BIT tight, but then, that's what all the book say, so who am I to argue?

I'd think 100 was fine personally (wild guess)

Post by **sirch345** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:35 am

Tempest wrote:Just to let you know.

I recently changed my rear sprocket (went up to 43 teeth at the back) and I torqued mine all up to the 108Nm they say.

Took them all to 50 first, then 80, then 100, and finally tweaked to 108.

One of them would not tighen to that level (seemed to be going round but not getting any tighter) but left it, as it was over 100 anyway. the rest clicked to 108 fine.

Still think it's a BIT tight, but then, that's what all the book say, so who am I to argue?

I'd think 100 was fine personally (wild guess)

Thanks for that info Tempest

It sounds like the one which seemed to be going round has stripped it's threads imo

What's your opinion on the lower gearing so far

Chris.