anti-seize and torque settings

...in the 80's I worked in Experimental Powertrain Engineering for the
Oldsmobile Division of General Motors...This I can tell you for sure.
There are _SO_ many variables regarding Fastener Clamp Loading that
_BOOKS_ have been written on the subject.

Today, modern manufacturing facilities utilize assembly machinery which
measures "torque to angle", _DURING_ the installation/tightening of a
fastener.

In my experience, _LUBRICITY_ is the "lesser variable" involved in
establishing and checking for adequate Fastener Clamp Load via a torque
wrench. It's friction due to _GALLING_ at the mating surfaces which
presents the "greater variable" when checking Fastener Clamp Load with
a torque wrench.

Also, Gage Repeatability & Reproduceability studies prove that a
properly used, low cost, _BEAM_ type torque wrench "can be" just as
accurate as an expensive dial (Snap-On) or electronic (wheatstone
bridge) type torque wrench. Adjustable "click" type torque wrenches are
very inaccurate as are those "torsion bar" extensions used with impact
guns.

Yep, this is a bit long winded. However this is the "stuff" that should
be published in the modern day moto-mags...not another "soccer ball
shoot-out test" where everybody wins...

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:44:09 -0500, MLB5611@webtv.net (Michael
Baldwin) wrote:

>..in the 80's I worked in Experimental Powertrain Engineering for the
>Oldsmobile Division of General Motors...This I can tell you for sure.
>There are _SO_ many variables regarding Fastener Clamp Loading that
>_BOOKS_ have been written on the subject.
>
>Today, modern manufacturing facilities utilize assembly machinery which
>measures "torque to angle", _DURING_ the installation/tightening of a
>fastener.
>
>In my experience, _LUBRICITY_ is the "lesser variable" involved in
>establishing and checking for adequate Fastener Clamp Load via a torque
>wrench. It's friction due to _GALLING_ at the mating surfaces which
>presents the "greater variable" when checking Fastener Clamp Load with
>a torque wrench.
>
>Also, Gage Repeatability & Reproduceability studies prove that a
>properly used, low cost, _BEAM_ type torque wrench "can be" just as
>accurate as an expensive dial (Snap-On) or electronic (wheatstone
>bridge) type torque wrench. Adjustable "click" type torque wrenches are
>very inaccurate as are those "torsion bar" extensions used with impact
>guns.
>
>Yep, this is a bit long winded. However this is the "stuff" that should
>be published in the modern day moto-mags...not another "soccer ball
>shoot-out test" where everybody wins...

Not at all long-winded.
I now feel better about my beam-type torque wrenches.


----
Go fast and aim for where the trees aren't.
----

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 07:03:53 -0800 (PST), "Whelan - '02 200exc (x2) & '04
MTD 38" <yosef@sisna.com> wrote:

>p235 December issue Dirt Rider:
>
>"Banish Stud Crud"
>
>"Use an antiseize compound on all cylinder head studs to get a more
>accurate torque reading."
>
>Didn't we conclude torque specs are based on solvent-cleaned threads
>and using antiseize then torquing over-torques?
>
>-Joe


You adjust by a factor driven by the specific anti-seize compound.

Some research:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GL...0/RP-1228.html
(OUTSTANDING... download it)

http://www.marylandmetrics.com/tech/data1torque.html

http://www.loctite.com/int_henkel/lo...rochure_uk.pdf
(note the torque coefficients)

http://home.jtan.com/~joe/KIAT/kiat_1.htm
(good stuff about 60% down)

http://www.loctite.com/int_henkel/lo...d=288&layout=2

I have absolutely no business doing posts like this. Sorry. Probably a
cheap attempt to purchase your affections.

Mike


--
Mike W.
96 XR400
70 CT70
71 KG 100 (Hodaka-powered)
99 KZ1000P (training)
99 KZ1000P (rider)
00 Beta Rev-3

DDave notes:

> Amend that to "torque to the same torque and count turns" and it'll
> get you there.

Oh yea, that'd work. Extensometer is a cooler word though.


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

Mike W. points to:

>http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GL...0/RP-1228.html
> (OUTSTANDING... download it)

That's Barrett's design manual. Try to keep up will ya?


> I Probably a
> cheap attempt to purchase your affections.

How much you got?


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

Michael Baldin says:

> Also, Gage Repeatability & Reproduceability studies prove that a
> properly used, low cost, _BEAM_ type torque wrench "can be" just as
> accurate as an expensive dial (Snap-On) or electronic (wheatstone
> bridge) type torque wrench. Adjustable "click" type torque wrenches are
> very inaccurate as are those "torsion bar" extensions used with impact
> guns.

You got a citation for that as I can't find it? I know for a fact
Charlie
Wilson at IFI claims otherwise and I remember in some corner of my
beer deflicted brain that NASA did a study that contradicts Barrett's
chart VII (also an IFI citation). Or are you talking personal
experience?


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

In article <qeqel3dftfm0muvhslq2egrsjl2uishm4l@4ax.com>,
Mike W. <outofthe@emailbiz.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 07:03:53 -0800 (PST), "Whelan - '02 200exc (x2) & '04
> MTD 38" <yosef@sisna.com> wrote:
>
> >p235 December issue Dirt Rider:
> >
> >"Banish Stud Crud"
> >
> >"Use an antiseize compound on all cylinder head studs to get a more
> >accurate torque reading."
> >
> >Didn't we conclude torque specs are based on solvent-cleaned threads
> >and using antiseize then torquing over-torques?
> >
> >-Joe
>
>
> You adjust by a factor driven by the specific anti-seize compound.

In theory
>
> Some research:
>
> http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GL...0/RP-1228.html
> (OUTSTANDING... download it)

I guess...too...much theory for me. So, what DO I do with the damn
head bolts, Mr. Barrett?
>
> http://www.marylandmetrics.com/tech/data1torque.html
>
> http://www.loctite.com/int_henkel/lo..._Anti_Seize_br
> ochure_uk.pdf
> (note the torque coefficients)
>
> http://home.jtan.com/~joe/KIAT/kiat_1.htm
> (good stuff about 60% down)

Nice and practical. Like this the best.

> http://www.loctite.com/int_henkel/lo...d=288&layout=2
>
> I have absolutely no business doing posts like this. Sorry. Probably a
> cheap attempt to purchase your affections.

I started one of these threads a while back meself. What I found was
that none of the anti-seize mfrs. wanted to really pin down exactly
what to do with torque specs. [1], and it seemed to make a significant
and sphincter-tightening difference on some bolts.

I applied some anti-seize compound on the 3 bolts that hold the head
to the upper frame on a YZ. These were steel bolts with steel locking
nuts (don't know what their name is, they have 2 opposing wings at the
end away from the bolt head that wedge into the threads). They had a
tendency to corrode from their close contact with the aluminum bracket
and head, so I cleaned them up and applied some anti-seize compound. I
never did get the torque to even 85% of specs., it just kept slowly
spinning to the point where I was pretty sure the bolt and threads
were about to shear. I never could get those bolts to tighten properly
even after cleaning them with brake/contact cleaner, and would up
tossing them and buying nice new made-in-nippon bolts.

My standard now is to just follow the OEM manual specs. If it calls
for a torque value, and doesn't indicate thread lube, I just make sure
the threads are clean and dry. The only place I routinely use
anti-seize is on steel bolts into aluminum threads such as on engine
and frame fittings/suspension fittings.


[1] Loctite sez "here's the new K factor" but unless you know the K
factor the design engineers used to create the torque spec. you have
no idea how much of a difference the new K value will make on the
torque spec. to produce the same clamping level. The good ol' dog
chasing tail syndrome. They state:

T(n)=K(n)FD

where
T(n) is the reduced torque value
K(n) is the (n)ew "nut coefficient" roughly equal to an experimentally
derived friction coefficient supplied by Loctite
D is diameter of bolt known from measuring particular bolt
F is clamp load--what you're really trying to achieve by torqueing the
nut.

The only way to solve the reduction factor is to first determine the
original clamp load F:

F = T/DK(o) where K(o) is the original nut coefficient used by the
mfr. and T is the known torque spec.

Then, using the clamp load F, the reduced torque value can be
calculated using the first equation above. But I've never seen K(o)
specd. I'm stumbling around in the dark, as usual.

--
Charles
'99 YZ250

>On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:11:16 -0500, scrape <scrapeNOTHANKS@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:44:09 -0500, MLB5611@webtv.net (Michael
>Baldwin) wrote:
>
>>..in the 80's I worked in Experimental Powertrain Engineering for the
>>Oldsmobile Division of General Motors...This I can tell you for sure.
>>There are _SO_ many variables regarding Fastener Clamp Loading that
>>_BOOKS_ have been written on the subject.
>>
>>Today, modern manufacturing facilities utilize assembly machinery which
>>measures "torque to angle", _DURING_ the installation/tightening of a
>>fastener.
>>
>>In my experience, _LUBRICITY_ is the "lesser variable" involved in
>>establishing and checking for adequate Fastener Clamp Load via a torque
>>wrench. It's friction due to _GALLING_ at the mating surfaces which
>>presents the "greater variable" when checking Fastener Clamp Load with
>>a torque wrench.
>>
>>Also, Gage Repeatability & Reproduceability studies prove that a
>>properly used, low cost, _BEAM_ type torque wrench "can be" just as
>>accurate as an expensive dial (Snap-On) or electronic (wheatstone
>>bridge) type torque wrench. Adjustable "click" type torque wrenches are
>>very inaccurate as are those "torsion bar" extensions used with impact
>>guns.
>>
>>Yep, this is a bit long winded. However this is the "stuff" that should
>>be published in the modern day moto-mags...not another "soccer ball
>>shoot-out test" where everybody wins...

*****************************
>Scrape commented:
>
>Not at all long-winded.
>I now feel better about my beam-type torque wrenches.
>
>
>----
>Go fast and aim for where the trees aren't.
>----
**************************

Then Jim threw in his penny's worth:
Mike Baldwin has been one of my resources for engine metallurgy and
machining for the last 9 years. I just listen to what he says and
take notes.

However, I can't completely keep my mouth shut. I'll share a few of
my thoughts on this subject with ya'll.

First,
I am actually more comfortable with my beam type torque wrench, than
I am with my "click type" torque wrench. Using the beam type wrench
not only still retains the "feel", but actually enhances that feel
which I use to measure torque with my fingers.
I refer to this "feel" as the Zen method of measuring fastener
torque. I've been using this since I was 11 and hit puberty. (That's
when all the fasteners on my bike started twisting off.)
I didn't have a torque wrench, and probably hadn't heard of one. I
just learned how much torque applied from how many fingers it took to
snap all the popular sized fasteners, using different implements of
destruction. I also became proficient at removing broken bolts.

Secondly,
I use either antizeize or some form of thread lock on every
fastener, thread and underside of the head.
In 2006, when I tore down Gabe's XC250 top end after Idaho, I had one
head bolt seized tighter than Dick's hat band. I was afraid that I
would break it, down in the cylinder, so I took the easy way out.
Since I was in Anoka, MN at the time, I called Bill Stavish (Matt
Stavish's dad) to get some help. ( Bill operates CheckPoint Machine,
and does some neat stuff with his equipment. He's the one who gave me
that "billet aluminum racing titties" business card I had at Wudi9.)

Bill took the cylinder and head with him. About 30 minutes later, he
came back. He said that as soon as he removed the head from the bolt
and separated the cylinder from the cylinder head, the remainder of
the bolt easily unscrewed from the head using just his fingers.
The "bolt seizure" was in the interface between the underside of the
bolt head and where it seated against the head.
I know how to keep that from happening to me again.

Mike, the Wudi Ride will be on the last weekend of February for 2008.
Watch "Talking Smack" in Ride Headquarters for info.

Good Riding to you and Merry Christmas!

Jim
Wudsracer/Jim Cook
Smackover Racing
'06 Gas Gas DE300
'82 Husqvarna XC250
Team LAGNAF

"Joseph Rooney" <ikerooneyat@yahoo.com> writes:
> I don't think Fiat is a font (bastion?) of reliability and quality,
> especially with things mechanical

true. Here in Italy, Italian cars and bikes are generally not
considered very reliable, even if I think things have improved quite a
lot since 1967 (but there are still working Cinquecento almost that
old). But don't judge FIAT research center by the final product. Those
guys have developed common rail engines, have worked with Ferrari and
Ducati, are developing fuel cells and hybrid cars. If final quality is
low, it's not because they not know how to build cars. Looking at some
past managers, I probably know the reason...

> Bono fortuna,

Ciao
--
Carlo Vittoli
Quartu S.Elena, Sardinia, Italy

"Jeff Deeney" <jld@nospam.com> writes:
> If continued clockwise rotation results in decreasing torque, I
> simply back up to the point where the threads are once again firm

maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't decreasing torque mean that the bolt has
been stressed over the point of elastic deformation? As far as I know,
this is done only in some special case, and the bolt cannot be reused

Ciao
--
Carlo Vittoli
Quartu S.Elena, Sardinia, Italy