Skip to main content
English French German Italian Spanish

Chaincase nut too tight

Forums

I cannot understand how the chaincase side footpeg support tube can be too short...

The only way I can get the left footpeg on to my 16H is by tightening the big chaincase nut far too much - I don't want to wreck the cover. Are modern rubber bands stiffer than the originals? Do they take up more space? And is there any adjustment to the tube length possible?

I have the correct nut+washer and the case is the right shape. I'm sure it's all obvious when dis-assembled, but the manuals and parts list don't help much. Is the tube welded to the engine plates?

Bike is 1937 - nearly the same as WD.

I might 'just' machine the nut to reduce its thickness to maybe half...

Permalink

The footrest tubes on civilian models were welded to the engine plates. Most WD (those from 1937 onwards) were detachable tubes which made the whole assembly less rigid but easier to replace.

If the rubber were thinner then the outer cover would sit even closer to the clutch (and there are enough outer covers around with a hole ground in them).

I had the same problem when assembling mine from autojumble parts and I ended up slimming down a nut to ensure that it didn't sit proud of the tube and foul the hanger serrations. I used an NOS WD footrest tube so that should have been correct.

Your bike presumably has original parts. It was not clear to me if there were differences in some chaincases or alternative nuts, so I made it fit with what I had.

Permalink

I had issues with mine too.

When I got the WD bike it had some home made hash up of a primary cover fitted, so I had to source originals from ebay and jumbles. I built up quite a collection of inner and outer cases. It's hard to believe just how many versions there are that look superficially identical!

Anyway, I eventually found a pair that fitted on the frame AND seemed to line up with the footpeg tube but the tube was nowhere near long enough to pass through. In the end I just cut and welded two together to give the the extra length required. It was painful to do because thoseserratedtubes aren't cheap!

But it solved the problem. I don't think a slimmed down nut would have done it for me, not enough threaded section to clear the outer case. Probably points to wrong primary cases, but I'm not looking for any more, so there.

I think someone, not me I'm far too lazy, should write thedefinitiveguide to primary chain case styles and dimension. It should only take a year or three. Maybe they could release one volume a year like old Peter Jackson does with his films? Be a good source of income.

Permalink

Hello David, I am wondering if you can't overcome your tight outer case problem by fitting a foam seal, which has plenty of 'give', or adjustment in it. Have a read of the post about 9 below (Primary chaincase and clutch) , maybe this could help you?

I know that when I tighten up my outer case nut (using polyethylene foam band), It is possible to wind it in a lot further than when the old rubber band was fitted. I tighten it down so as to have the serrations just proud to engage the foot rest, then another turn. No problems!

Paul

Permalink

Thanks Paul - and Paul...

There's no reason for the chaincase to be anything other than original, so I was hoping that a new band would fit. It's the proper Norton Singles wedge-shaped band. My Dommie has a bulkier rectangular band that takes up probably 3/8" more space and definitley won't fit. The PO suggested to me that maybe pre war rubber bands were softer - maybe natural rubber (in which case they'd soon become softer still...)

It looks like the chain case is much stiffer than the Dommie one- with deeper flanges - and can take a tighter nut without distress. But an over-tight nut might be one of the reasons it was to difficult to remove the case a couple of weeks ago.

Anyway - nearly ready to fire it up after well over 30 years! Just annoying delays like this...

 


Norton Owners Club Website by 2Toucans