Dominator 99 main bearings

Phew - I did the right thing with the 99 engine I have just built up. A relief!

In the message from the member, they state and mention 'ball on the drive and roller on the timing' , is this a little bit of confusion on their part, as the reply is for fitment the other way around (and correctly so)

Paul

Previously wrote:

In the message from the member, they state and mention 'ball on the drive and roller on the timing' , is this a little bit of confusion on their part, as the reply is for fitment the other way around (and correctly so)

Paul

Hello Paul even a woman like me knows that the roll bearing fits on the driveside ie left hand side, Ball bearing fits on the timing side ie right hand side , so it cannot be more clearer than that, your anna j

Oops - didn't spot the juxtaposition of the ball and roller bearings in the posting - surely just a typo. I still built my engine correctly. Even though I am just a man.

Curious as to how Dale came to some of the above conclusions.

The crankshaft end float is controlled by shims to 0.010"-0.024". So it is possible for the crank to float by a max. of 0.024" between the bearing outer races as it spins. This will not cause any wear to pistons as the clearance between the con-rod small end width and the piston gudgeon pin bosses is 0.100". So crank end float can't be transmitted to the piston. Never come across ANY piston exhibiting side wear.

Fitting a ball race bearing to one end of a crankshaft will not prevent the crank from flexing under load. All cranks are subjected to bending forces due to forces created by the reciprocating components and combustion pressures. Designs incorporating central main bearings reduce flex.

I can see absolutely no way in which the triplex primary drive will 'centralise' the crankshaft. It spins at the same speed as the crank but has significantly less mass so therefore cannot produce a greater force than the crankshaft assembly and therefore cannot overcome the crankshafts inertia. A new chain will 'bend' by approx. 0.500" so will not transmit axial force to the crank. Also the greatest force generated by the primary drive is radial not axial.

Dale is correct stating the secondary forces are 'masked' by the isolastics. A more accurate description is absorb, as in shock absorber. The job of the rubber within the iso's is to absorb and dampen the primary and secondary forces created by the reciprocating masses. Balance shafts do a better job and have been around since the early part of the 20th century. Engines without rubber mounting or balance shafts will transmit the out of balance forces to bike and rider.

Don't no why Tony Ripley forwarded a 'technical' article with so many dubious claims with out any supporting evidence.

Also there's no such thing as superblend bearings. NJ306E are the ones in the FAG catalogue the rollers of which are parallel, not barreled.

Seems Dale's prejudices are getting the better of him once again.

Put your wooden spoon away Simon. This topic is about Dominators and although drive and timing side are initially confused, the advice is essentially sound. Dale's throwaway comments about Commandos are best ignored. If you want to dispute what he writes then I suggest the Commando section is the place to do it.

Your opening comment is based on what exactly? If you wish to insult somebody I suggest you do it face to face. My comments are in the interests of technical accuracy. The positions Dale and Tony volunteered for carry a duty to inform members as accurately as possible and not let subjectivity bias technical comment. There are members who are dependent on the advice of others and to provide information which is misleading and technically incorrect is irresponsible. As I was replying to content within this section why go else where? Or maybe Dale should have placed his views pertaining to Commando's in the relevant section.

p.s When I stated 'engines without rubber mounting or balance shafts' I was referring to single and twin cylinder engines, as other configurations through engine design can reduce vibration to acceptable levels.

Insults? Pot calling kettle black, Simon...

The important thing Dale said is that the roller provides axial restraint to Dominator cranks whereas Commandos rely on being properly shimmed to control end float. That's hardly likely to mislead anyone is it?

And don't lets go on about the shape of the rollers yet again. It's clear from the manufacturer's web sites that they claim their bearings have fancy shapes and are not simple cylinders. They might or might not be barrel shaped (sherry, wine, beer, keg lager? who knows? who cares?) but the Norton sales dept use of the 'Superblend' name is at least a helpful warning to take care and buy good quality bearings. If Norton choose to place a particular label on a product - then that is what the product is. e.g. a 'clutch push rod' is what it says on the packet - it's not much use just labelling it 'here's a useful bit of metal rod for your Norton'. So a Superblend suits a Commando better than a washing machine.

I'm off to ride the bike at last. Hooray!

The inaccurate/misleading points I refer to are all contained in the second paragraph. I was not disputing that a deep groove ball bearing (is that what you meant by roller?) provides axial location apart from the clearance within the bearing itself.

Why not go on about the shape of rollers? If your wrong your wrong, and in this case you are most definitely wrong.

An NJ306E bearing has rollers which are parallel, end of story. They are not barreled and never have been. NJ refers to the inner and outer race design which incorporates two lips on the outer ring and one on the inner. E refers to a larger roller set and thus are capable of carrying an extremely high loading. They can also carry thrust loads in one direction. So positioned as they are on Commando cranks thrust loads are carried in both directions along the shafts axis. Barrel roller bearings include MB in the part numbers.

This information is direct from FAG catalogue 41 510 EB. Which web site were you looking at?

Sales departments in my view know very little about engineering. That's probably why they came up with the misleading name of 'superblend' which infers misalignment of shafts not the quality of the bearing and creates confusion. I agree that 'clutch push rod' describes the product within the packet. 'Superblend' however, does not. Call parts what you like, but don't be surprised if the ones provided are not fit for purpose.

NJ306E bearings would work very well in a washing machine but as the out of balance forces and rotational speeds are considerably less than a parallel twin then I suspect deep groove ball bearings would be used as they are cheaper and meet the designed life expectancy of the machine.

If you'd like to point out any insults I've made I'll apologise to the injured party(ies).

Meeow!

This is getting into 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' territory, the original advice which was 'use a full-complement ball race on the timing side and the best quality roller you can get on the drive side' is undoubtedly sound IMHO. Whether 'Superblend' is a real word in the outside world is irrelevant, in Norton circles we all know what is meant by it.

Incidentally a statement cannot infer, it implies, and the receiver infers from it.

Now that's me being catty, and I left school at 15.

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Meeow!

This is getting into 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' territory, the original advice which was 'use a full-complement ball race on the timing side and the best quality roller you can get on the drive side' is undoubtedly sound IMHO. Whether 'Superblend' is a real word in the outside world is irrelevant, in Norton circles we all know what is meant by it.

Incidentally a statement cannot infer, it implies, and the receiver infers from it.

Now that's me being catty, and I left school at 15.

Hello Forget all this nonsense The Bearing you need are Ball bearing timing Side R&M MJ30 And Roller Bearing For The Drive side R&M 3MRJA30M These are Still available I have a pair for Stand by, These are the Bearing That Norton Used in all there dominator range So get you fingers no you key board and put these numbers in and see what you get, happy web hunting.

Hello just looked on the web site, my self and ,I have R&M phone number for you

R&M phone number is 0113 263 119 give them a call and quote the Bearing number I have given you, and you get the Right Bears for your Machine the same one that was fitted by Norton at Bracebridge street Aston Birmingham 50 odd years ago, Yours Anna J

Hello again well I have emailed R&M and they tell me they have these bearings In stock you need to just give them a call, with the number in the last thread , yours anna j

Simon previously wrote:

Your opening comment is based on what exactly? If you wish to insult somebody I suggest you do it face to face. My comments are in the interests of technical accuracy. The positions Dale and Tony volunteered for carry a duty to inform members as accurately as possible and not let subjectivity bias technical comment. There are members who are dependent on the advice of others and to provide information which is misleading and technically incorrect is irresponsible. As I was replying to content within this section why go else where? Or maybe Dale should have placed his views pertaining to Commando's in the relevant section.

p.s When I stated 'engines without rubber mounting or balance shafts' I was referring to single and twin cylinder engines, as other configurations through engine design can reduce vibration to acceptable levels.

My opening comment is based on your post which is almost entirely irrelevant to a discussion about Domiinator 99 main bearings. You are stirring a discussion about Commando bottom ends into a Dominator engine thread. Further your post would likely confuse a novice Norton owner unfamiliar with the detail of Norton twin cylinder engine development as you do not anywhere state that you are writing about Commando engines. You are providing information in a manner which is misleading and contentious. This is the same error of which you accuse Dale.

I would be happy to discuss the finer points of Norton engineering with you face to face and trade insults if required but on this occasion I am mystified as to where the insult lies.

Clearly, if both main bearings had cylindrical rollers the crankshaft would be free to float right through the cases - NOT a good thing! Having a heavy duty ball on the lighter loaded timing side and a full contact roller on the heavily loaded drive side sounds like good engineering practice as it doesn't rely on shims to tame the crankshaft float. Barrel-shaped rollers would also control end float and are more forgiving of crankshaft flex - "Yer pays yer money and yer makes yer choice". Bearing factors/suppliers are fine for these (and wheel bearings, for instance)and there are numerous on the internet. You don't even have to step out of the door for them!

Anyone living in the Southampton area might remember the bearing shop in Lodge Road - I think it was Timken's. They used to have a gigantic roller bearing in the window - about 4ft diameter I think! Even a Commando couldn't break one of those!

Cheers, Lionel

Previously wrote:

In the message from the member, they state and mention 'ball on the drive and roller on the timing' , is this a little bit of confusion on their part, as the reply is for fitment the other way around (and correctly so)

Paul

This was my message to Dale initially. Yes it was just a typo. The ball bearing is on the timing side and the roller on the drive side.

Just by looking at the OTT reactions to this posting you can see why I sought his advice.

Some of you guys have clearly got too much time on your hands.

Quite right Jason. It was a useful post with a typo - and obvious to anyone who has worked on a Norton twin engine. Gosh what a fuss blew up over it. Hopefully the dust is settling now. I hope it hasn't put Tony off posting more useful info -but I bet it has.

Previously wrote:

Simon previously wrote:

Your opening comment is based on what exactly? If you wish to insult somebody I suggest you do it face to face. My comments are in the interests of technical accuracy. The positions Dale and Tony volunteered for carry a duty to inform members as accurately as possible and not let subjectivity bias technical comment. There are members who are dependent on the advice of others and to provide information which is misleading and technically incorrect is irresponsible. As I was replying to content within this section why go else where? Or maybe Dale should have placed his views pertaining to Commando's in the relevant section.

p.s When I stated 'engines without rubber mounting or balance shafts' I was referring to single and twin cylinder engines, as other configurations through engine design can reduce vibration to acceptable levels.

My opening comment is based on your post which is almost entirely irrelevant to a discussion about Domiinator 99 main bearings. You are stirring a discussion about Commando bottom ends into a Dominator engine thread. Further your post would likely confuse a novice Norton owner unfamiliar with the detail of Norton twin cylinder engine development as you do not anywhere state that you are writing about Commando engines. You are providing information in a manner which is misleading and contentious. This is the same error of which you accuse Dale.

I would be happy to discuss the finer points of Norton engineering with you face to face and trade insults if required but on this occasion I am mystified as to where the insult lies.

Must admit to being guilty about trying to 'stir' into a Dominator engine thread information regarding Commando crankshafts. Having re-read Dale's original message I couldn't find any mention of Commando crankshaft 'shuffle', 'whip', triplex primary drives, 'superblend' bearings or isolastics.....apart from the entire second paragraph.

Lionel's quite correct stating that the 'crankshaft would be free to float right through the cases', myself and every Commando owner I know has experienced this problem. It is most likely to occur when the bike is heeled hard over through a corner, gravity taking advantage of a poor design.

Next time I need advice regarding bearings I certainly shan't be bothering referring to any catalogues produced by FAG. What do they know! Certain members of the NOC and technical team are far more knowledgeable than a company that simply manufacture the things. Must go, just heard a clank from the garage, I think the crank's shuffled right through the cases....again!

Previously wrote:

Must admit to being guilty about trying to 'stir' into a Dominator engine thread information regarding Commando crankshafts. Having re-read Dale's original message I couldn't find any mention of Commando crankshaft 'shuffle', 'whip', triplex primary drives, 'superblend' bearings or isolastics.....apart from the entire second paragraph.

Lionel's quite correct stating that the 'crankshaft would be free to float right through the cases', myself and every Commando owner I know has experienced this problem. It is most likely to occur when the bike is heeled hard over through a corner, gravity taking advantage of a poor design.

Next time I need advice regarding bearings I certainly shan't be bothering referring to any catalogues produced by FAG. What do they know! Certain members of the NOC and technical team are far more knowledgeable than a company that simply manufacture the things. Must go, just heard a clank from the garage, I think the crank's shuffled right through the cases....again!

Hello There Well I will Defend the poor Design bit, the Norton twin was not poorly designed its more to do with the Engine being over Stretched of one and the fact that F.A.G Bearing being made in India and some in China And the dimension not being the same as the original bearing , I will not have anything to do with F.A.G bearings , They are after market product. the Original Super blend Bearing as it was called , were Made By Ransom And Marles . and if you put the two side by side one F.A.G bearing and one Ransom And Marles Bearing you see the difference ,that the Ransom and Marles as more meat or made stronger than the F.A.G Bearing . So this may contribute to having to use shims to stop crankshaft end play. So its all down the Bearing design and the F.A.G a Germany Bearing company farming out is work to get there Bearings made at the lowest Cost , yours Anna J

Hi Anna, there's nothing wrong with Commando crank assemblies with the correct grade of bearing and there's nothing wrong with FAG bearings either. Regarding the above message.... I was taking the piss.

excuse me but I do not take the piss as you call is ! I write as fact not fiction ! yours anna j

No Anna, you misunderstand. My message from Friday at 8.08, I was being sarcastic with reference to some of the previous replies.

Actually, Anna, having re-read your reply regarding FAG bearing sizes are you sure you haven't made this up? Also, China and India both have capable manufacturing industries. Tata Motors of India seem to be doing very well with Jaguar and Land Rover. Jingoism would appear not to be dead within the NOC.

Here's another one to add to the pot! http://www.bearingboys.co.uk/1306_ETN9_SKF_Self_Aligning_Bearing-3322-pA self-aligning double-row ball bearing.Its a 30x72x19mm bearing to suit heavy twins crankshafts, timing side. "Bearing Boys", "Bearing Shop UK" and "Simply Bearings"to name but3 places you can go for bearings. One internet shop said that their FAG bearings were made in Germany.

For those who don't know the current bearing numbers, here's a few of the popular ones: -

Timing side main (ball)= 6306; Drive side main(roller)= NJ306 - but it's "back-to-front" with the rollers captive on the outer ring. Gearbox Layshaft = 6203 (Original SKF still available); Gearbox Mainshaft = RLS5 LS7; Wheel Bearing Double-row = 4203; Wheel Bearing Single-row = 6203 (Coincidence!).You could get sealed bearings for your wheels and open bearings for engine & gearbox. There's usually a choice of budget or higher quality bearings of various makes including SKF and FAG (!!).

This is just a few I've found. I'm not saying it's the definitive list!

Cheers, Lionel

PS:-I've just checked NJ306E roller bearings and they also seem to have the rollers captive in the outer ring, rather than the inner, as per Norton originals. Unless the website pictures are wrong? I bought one from a well-known Norton spares firm and that one is the same. Dunno if it gives problems with assembly or dis-assembly? Anyone know?

hello yes F.A.G Bearings May Have Made In Germany stamped on them but There Made else where in the world under license. And Ransom & Marles Bearing are very much still alive and kicking. And they still stock the same bearings They just have to be more expensive . But you will be keeping a British Job. Buying goods from so were else in the world cost jobs hear.as the money goes to that country this the main reason that this country is on its knees

Sorry to disillusion you Anna but FAG and Ransom and Marles are just parts of the same global corporation NSK FAG SKF INA RHP Precision Bearing Co. Ltd

Bearing manufacture has long been rationalised withing the company and vehicle bearings have not been manufactured in Newark at the old R&M site for many years. Most automotive products are manufactured in Guangdong and then marketed under the name of one of the constituent companies.

Previously wrote:

Previously wrote:

Sorry to disillusion you Anna but FAG and Ransom and Marles are just parts of the same global corporation NSK FAG SKF INA RHP Precision Bearing Co. Ltd

Bearing manufacture has long been rationalised withing the company and vehicle bearings have not been manufactured in Newark at the old R&M site for many years. Most automotive products are manufactured in Guangdong and then marketed under the name of one of the constituent companies.

So why have they still got a website !and still made in Newark UK And the Bearing boys are Distributors Not Manufactures . try www.HB.bearing.co.uk or www.ransom and marles.co.uk and see what you get. yours anna j

FAG, SKF and NSK etc are still independent brands. NSK FAG SKF INA RHP Precision Bearing Co. Ltd looks like it is just a chinese distributor.

Ransom and Marles ceased to exist in 1969 when it merged to form RHP which was then bought by NSK of Japan. www.ransom and marles.co.uk is just a site selling off old stock.

Furthermore to the roller/ball bearing controversy; embarassed by the piles of Commando crankshafts littering the sides of the roads, Norton finaly saw the error of their ways such that they decided to build the rotary with not only a heavy duty roller bearing at each end of the rotor shaft, but also a deep groove ball bearing on the primary drive side to control axial float.

Joking aside, I have had properly shimmed NJ306E "superblends" in my 650 engine for 20+ years with none of the ill effects mentioned in the first post of this thread.

Well said (about the bearings) Robin. As you & I both now, the end play is adjusted to factory specs with simple shims, I also run superblends in all my Norton twins (all pre-commando). Maybe we should install an ex-wd jet engine, no bearings !!

Previously wrote:

FAG, SKF and NSK etc are still independent brands. NSK FAG SKF INA RHP Precision Bearing Co. Ltd looks like it is just a chinese distributor.

Quite right, my mistake!

However, according to the Newark Advertiser ,"The manufacture of bearings for the machine tools and spares industry is now the only work done at Northern Road. Previously the factory made precision bearings for planes, trains and road vehicles but bearings for wheeled vehicles are now made elsewhere and NSK left the aeronautical business in 1992.".

It seems that more recently NSK have invested in the Newark factory but to make specialised bearings for machine tools.

And allegedly there is a thriving trade in counterfeit bearings - to such an extent that the 'genuine' carboard boxes from the likes of SKF are worth cash on the black market since they are more difficult to copy! So a manufacturer can use genuine bearings and his employees can sell the boxes...

One alleged indicator is thatthe etched script on some counterfeit bearings can be more legible than it is on the genuine article - so the prettier product is NOT the genuine one. So watch out for cheap internet deals - keep your local supplier in business!

This is just as I said there still making Bearing And Stock ones for the Automotive industry. and your Norton they have the original bearings they maybe old stock but they will new bearing from that time period and better that counterfeit bearings with a good name on them you can tell if this the right one R&M used Bronze Cages and there is more meat on the bearing.

Previously wrote:

Well said (about the bearings) Robin. As you & I both now, the end play is adjusted to factory specs with simple shims, I also run superblends in all my Norton twins (all pre-commando). Maybe we should install an ex-wd jet engine, no bearings !!

Skip - ex-wd jet engines do indeed have bearings - and you don't want to have one just behind your seat whan they fail!

Maybe Skip meant a rocket engine????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9V6VpoED4A