Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[John S]

Though I cannot find it now, I know that S&S has sent out a bulletin stating that they will not warrantee any lower end changes with their stuff on new Harley motors w/o the Timkin setup.  I think they also had pictures somewhere too.  Their whole argument was that the new setup was not strong enough to handle the side loads that high performance engines dish out.   [smiley=huepfenlol2.gif] [smiley=nervous.gif] [smiley=huepfenlol2.gif]

Quite frankly, if you are not going crazy, say up to [highlight]slightly [/highlight]aggressive 95" or 103" motor you will probably be OK with the new bearings.  Really, that's all Harley has to worry about.  However, many, many riders do heavy modifications that will significantly increase sideloading and add much more stress to the bearing.  In these cases it is a smart more, and cheaper in the long run, to have the bearing upgraded.  [smiley=xyxthumbs.gif]

I have a very aggressive duty motor so it was a no brainer for me.  

[AUSSIE_FLSTFSE]

"I have a very aggressive duty motor so it was a no brainer for me"






John,
Did you go the timkin or the bearing support bracket??

 [smiley=drink.gif]

[yelladeuce]

yes!!! tunedse2 someone in here has had that exact problem. At less than 5k on the odometer. When the bearing gave it up it locked up my motor and destroyed it. My back tire locked and I slid more than 100 feet to a slight high side. It was 2 am in the morning, high gear, 70 mph, going downhill...talk about no load on the motor. It could have killed me. They also said they had never heard of this as well.

[John S]

Aussie:  I went with just the Timkin.  I have  lifelong  experience by working in and now owning a metalworking plant.  We do Areospace components all the time.  I can appreciate good quality and proper design.  I am sure the bracket helps but as far as I am concerned the Timkin setup is vastly better.  In my humble opinion!!   [smiley=huepfenlol2.gif]

[d-rock]

I did the timken conversion when I went with the 113 inch motor. But for the price of the of this support, and that I am putting a six speed and heavy duty clutch in my bike why not put the support also. I've talked about it with a few people and think that it can't hurt. I have been known for getting the front wheel off the ground once or twice   .so I may need it.   Droc

[hdhiwayman]

Droc,
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that I read on another forum that the HD six speed is only
set-up to hand about 125 hp and tq. I no nothing about the other brands but you could be going into problems. High HP + wheel standing + weak Tranny = broken parts. [smiley=nixweiss.gif]

[grc]

Droc,
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that I read on another forum that the HD six speed is only
set-up to hand about 125 hp and tq. I no nothing about the other brands but you could be going into problems. High HP + wheel standing + weak Tranny = broken parts. [smiley=nixweiss.gif]

hdhiwayman,

I also read the same thing in some Harley literature - 125 lb ft torque capacity.  I would imagine that is a very conservative number designed to limit Harley's warranty liability, rather than a real maximum capacity.  There are folks on this site, like Hubbard, running the H-D six speed with more torque than that.  I wouldn't sweat it unless I was drag racing and doing clutchless shifts.

Jerry

[d-rock]

hdhighwayman,
I don't think the 6 speed can be any less reliable than the stock 5 speed with the same power. I may be wrong but my dealer has'nt said anything,  but I will be sure to ask. I really need the six gear since I went with the lower gear with the SE primary chain set-up. 80mph = 4100rpm it runs great like that but can't be good for the long haul and the vibration is a little much after a hour or so.  Droc

[hdhiwayman]

After I posted what I read on the 6-speed. I thought "well what is the 5 speed rated for?"
For all I know the 6 could be stronger. lol  
With all thats going on between cam chain shoes, crank bearings, and trannys. I'm thinking about hiring a good wrench and opening my own shop.  8-)

[fatboyse2]

Got a call back from the factory tech today.  I had asked him explicitly about any service bulletins or notices on crank bearing servicing or failures or recommended remediations or preventative maintenance items.  There are NONE.  As a matter of fact, he went so far as to say they had no reported failure history of any marginal note.  I had also asked about the change in bearings type highlighted in this thread that happend from 2003 forward.  He had no specific details on this and noted that the crankshaft bearing performance had been thoroughly tested with all HD SE performance enhancements. [smiley=nixweiss.gif]

[EAGLE1]

Aussie:  I went with just the Timkin.  I have  lifelong  experience by working in and now owning a metalworking plant.  We do Areospace components all the time.  I can appreciate good quality and proper design.  I am sure the bracket helps but as far as I am concerned the Timkin setup is vastly better.  In my humble opinion!!   [smiley=huepfenlol2.gif]

John, I must add my .02 to this. and put this issue to rest.

First off,  yes, the Timken setup is better than just the oem roller set up. but if you add the outer support bearing on the stock roller setup, you will be much stronger than just the timkins alone. no question! like they said about their testing " Extensive testing has been done with 160 +hp motors with no failures."  I would like to see the results of the same tests done with just the Timken setup, I would bet money that there would be failures. guaranteed!  This is all about the OHL and the amount of torque applied to it. The overhung load can be determined by dividing the output torque by the radius of the sprocket or pulley. I have been designing drive systems for 15 yrs. that would make a Harley motor look like a swiss watch in comparison. The Timken bearings because of their angular arrangement help support the shafts overhung loads, resulting in lower bending moments.
but the fact is,  with the outer support bearing being utilized, you remove the OHL forces from the equation, the shaft is supported on both sides of the sprocket and will be able to withstand much greater torque loads applied to it. Period.  so if you like to get on the throttle and lift the front end up, like some of us have proclaimed, then I would get the bearing. even though I bought a five year plan with my bike, mine's going in this winter, I would rather be riding than rebuilding. so like Hubbard says, there Edith the lesson!

[AUSSIE_FLSTFSE]

John, I must add my .02 to this. and put this issue to rest.

First off,  yes, the Timken setup is better than just the oem roller set up. but if you add the outer support bearing on the stock roller setup, you will be much stronger than just the timkins alone. no question! like they said about their testing " Extensive testing has been done with 160 +hp motors with no failures."  I would like to see the results of the same tests done with just the Timken setup, I would bet money that there would be failures. guaranteed!  This is all about the OHL and the amount of torque applied to it. The overhung load can be determined by dividing the output torque by the radius of the sprocket or pulley. I have been designing drive systems for 15 yrs. that would make a Harley motor look like a swiss watch in comparison. The Timken bearings because of their angular arrangement help support the shafts overhung loads, resulting in lower bending moments.
but the fact is,  with the outer support bearing being utilized, you remove the OHL forces from the equation, the shaft is supported on both sides of the sprocket and will be able to withstand much greater torque loads applied to it. Period.  so if you like to get on the throttle and lift the front end up, like some of us have proclaimed, then I would get the bearing. even though I bought a five year plan with my bike,and mine's going in this winter, I would rather be riding that rebuilding. so like Hubbard says, there Edith the lesson!

That makes a lot of sense to me. I wasn't considering the OHL the way you put it!

 [smiley=drink.gif]

[EAGLE1]

Aussie,
glad ya get it mate!

cheers [smiley=drink.gif]

[John S]

As you add horsepower and torque you will always begin the process of finding the “weak link in the chain” (the driveline).  Whatever's between the engine and the rear wheel will be suspect as you put more and more HP and TQ in the bike.  But this whole process is what I call finding the high pole in the tent.  As soon as you take out the highest pole another pole becomes the high one!   [smiley=confused5.gif]

I have learned an awful lot from this website in the few weeks I have been on it and I need to thank everyone for that.   [smiley=xyxthumbs.gif]….from  where I could get better brakes (thanks Spydglide) and about the rear wheel strength with the 40 spoke setup (thanks OTIS).  Now I am hearing talk about the six speed transmission so I am VERY interested in what info others may have on this subject.

I put a Baker in my Springer figuring it was make in the Good Ol' USA and even though it is more money, I was counting on a better product, certainly better than those $700.00 units made on the Pacific rim.  Anyway, I never gave the structure of the transmission a second thought as a potential weak link.  In my case (pun intended) I kept the same case and just put in the gear set.  From this I am relying on the case itself as being strong enough because it is rigidly mounted between the frame and the motor.  However, if there are thoughts out there questioning the integrity of the 6-speed, especially the Baker, I would like VERY much to hear them.   [smiley=nixweiss.gif] [smiley=nervous.gif]

[Unbalanced]

John,

When I put my Baker in my 124" they recommended they being Baker that I use the stock cases as it was as good as theirs.   The only issues I have ever really had with the baker is getting the gearing the way I liked and that it takes time to get 6th gear right it likes to pop out at times if not adjusted correctly.

-harry