Front Sprocket - rubber OEM vs all steel - Page 2 - Kawasaki Versys Forum
 16Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-18-2019, 05:23 AM
Member
 
Smiley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Elgin County SW Ontario
Posts: 1,120
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by fasteddiecopeman View Post
My Gen 3 SERVICE MANUAL calls for 122 '/# so that's what I use, SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than the factory does!
Mine is the very first year '06. The '07 factory manual states 92 ft/lb. I use 90. If they are so difficult to remove at that torque, I cannot image why they would up it to 122 ft/lb. Good luck with removing it.

The Versys doesn't have much more hp than my 72 Combat Commando and less torque. I have never heard of a front sprocket that was properly installed coming off, so I trust the 90 ft/lb. To each his own.

Observations on life and motorcycling, short stories and photos, with no annoying political or religious rhetoric
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Smiley is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-18-2019, 08:46 AM
Member
 
quexpress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
I'm going to use the factory spec. 122 ft lbs? But I will use the moly-oil lube on the threads to make it easier to remove next time.

You are now making it much tighter than it should.
IMHO 122 ft lbs is for dry torque. By adding lube to the threads, one should use no more than 75% of the suggested dry torque, i.e.: 90 lbs.


Note: I like to use 90 ft lbs dry (no lube).
Smiley likes this.

I still have a full deck.
I just shuffle slower.
quexpress is offline  
post #23 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-18-2019, 04:12 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Fly-Sig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by quexpress View Post
You are now making it much tighter than it should.
IMHO 122 ft lbs is for dry torque. By adding lube to the threads, one should use no more than 75% of the suggested dry torque, i.e.: 90 lbs.


Note: I like to use 90 ft lbs dry (no lube).
My service manual calls for use of "MO", which they define as oil-moly mixed 10:1 by weight, put on the threads before assembly. The torque spec is 122 ft-lbs. Interestingly, 92 ft-lbs is 75% of 122 ft-lbs. It makes me wonder if they messed up the spec in the 2015 service manual.

I won't assemble it dry. My torque wrench which goes that high is the old fashioned bending bar with a pointer. Accuracy depends on technique and eyeball angle to the pointer. Which is to say I will be somewhere in the ballpark, which should be good enough with the bent washer to prevent it from loosening.
Fly-Sig is online now  
 
post #24 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-18-2019, 06:01 PM
Member
 
invader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kapuskasing Ontario Canada
Posts: 7,812
I agree...

Quote:
Originally Posted by invader View Post
It's definitely 92 ft-lbs, and not 122 or 125.

It's normal that it sticks a bit the first time you crack it loose... Mine came off as it should with a padded wood stud across rear wheel in the swingarm, and a pipe extension on 1/2" drive breaker bar with 6-point 1-1/16" socket. One hand on the bar extension, and the other hand supporting the deep socket for proper leverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by invader View Post
If 122 ft-lbs is the dry torque value, then 92 ft-lbs is the wet torque value at 25% torque reduction when using such a fine molybdenum disulphide oil solution on countershaft and sprocket nut threads!
Quote:
Originally Posted by invader View Post
It's obviously an error... 92 ft-lbs is 75% of 122 ft-lbs as a torque reduction % with molybdenum lube.

92 ft-lbs wet and 122 ft-lbs dry are the figures that correlate and actually make sense technically for this application... You can confirm this with a Kawasaki engineer in Japan when you get a chance.
quexpress likes this.
invader is offline  
post #25 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-18-2019, 08:23 PM
Member
 
quexpress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
My service manual calls for use of "MO", which they define as oil-moly mixed 10:1 by weight, put on the threads before assembly. The torque spec is 122 ft-lbs. Interestingly, 92 ft-lbs is 75% of 122 ft-lbs. It makes me wonder if they messed up the spec in the 2015 service manual.

I won't assemble it dry. My torque wrench which goes that high is the old fashioned bending bar with a pointer. Accuracy depends on technique and eyeball angle to the pointer. Which is to say I will be somewhere in the ballpark, which should be good enough with the bent washer to prevent it from loosening.
In the 2015 Service manual, glance at page 11-10 final Drive.
"Torque - Engine Sprocket Nut: 165 Nm (16.8 kgfm, 92 wet 122 dry ftlb"
invader and onewizard like this.

I still have a full deck.
I just shuffle slower.
quexpress is offline  
post #26 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-18-2019, 09:41 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Fly-Sig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by quexpress View Post
In the 2015 Service manual, glance at page 11-10 final Drive.
"Torque - Engine Sprocket Nut: 165 Nm (16.8 kgfm, 92 wet 122 dry ftlb"
Mine doesn't say that! Towards the bottom on page 11-10 in bold is "Torque - Engine Sprocket Nut: 165 Nm (16.8kgfm, 122 ft-lb)" Nothing more. No mention of dry vs wet.

On page 11-3 the table shows the same numbers along with the remark "MO", and then below the recipe engine oil & moly grease. Again, no mention of dry vs wet.

My book is dated May 18, 2015, Second Edition. I am guessing it has been updated and corrected since then.

Last edited by Fly-Sig; 06-18-2019 at 09:50 PM.
Fly-Sig is online now  
post #27 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-19-2019, 12:10 PM
Super Moderator
 
fasteddiecopeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kelowna, BC - summer; Florence, AZ - winter
Posts: 17,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiley View Post
Mine is the very first year '06. The '07 factory manual states 92 ft/lb. I use 90. If they are so difficult to remove at that torque, I cannot image why they would up it to 122 ft/lb. Good luck with removing it....
After the initial removal/ re-install, re-torque of the sprocket I've NEVER had problems removing them, at 92'/# on my '08 OR at 122'/# on the '15.

Ed
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


'08 V AZ, '15 V650LT BC
Ride to D2D 2013, June '13

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Ride to D2D 2015, June '15

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Ride to D2D 2016, June '16

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
fasteddiecopeman is offline  
post #28 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-19-2019, 12:54 PM
Member
 
quexpress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 907
My memory ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
Mine doesn't say that! Towards the bottom on page 11-10 in bold is "Torque - Engine Sprocket Nut: 165 Nm (16.8kgfm, 122 ft-lb)" Nothing more. No mention of dry vs wet.

On page 11-3 the table shows the same numbers along with the remark "MO", and then below the recipe engine oil & moly grease. Again, no mention of dry vs wet.

My book is dated May 18, 2015, Second Edition. I am guessing it has been updated and corrected since then.
My memory still functions as it should but it sometimes forgets ...


My printed service manual is dated Sept. 26, 2014 ... and has no mention of dry vs wet torque.


However, a while back, I had updated my PDF version (with Adobe) in order to show wet vs dry torque values. That's what I referred to yesterday ... not remembering the update that I had done.


Sorry about the confusion. However I still believe in dry vs wet torque values.


See attached pic.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg torque001.jpg (55.9 KB, 10 views)
Smiley likes this.

I still have a full deck.
I just shuffle slower.
quexpress is offline  
post #29 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-20-2019, 01:19 AM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Poland
Posts: 213
Ah, if it's printed in 2014 it's for a Gen 2. Gen 3 has a different value:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg sprocket.jpg (20.9 KB, 7 views)

2015 Versys 650
_Big_Mac_ is offline  
post #30 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-20-2019, 09:07 AM
Member
 
quexpress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Big_Mac_ View Post
Ah, if it's printed in 2014 it's for a Gen 2. Gen 3 has a different value:
It's for a Gen 3 (2015).

I still have a full deck.
I just shuffle slower.
quexpress is offline  
post #31 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-20-2019, 03:24 PM
Super Moderator
 
fasteddiecopeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kelowna, BC - summer; Florence, AZ - winter
Posts: 17,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Big_Mac_ View Post
Ah, if it's printed in 2014 it's for a Gen 2. Gen 3 has a different value:
NOT correct - the "2014 date" is the PRINTING DATE, and IS for the 2015 V650s. The date on MY 2015 MANUAL is: "First Edition(1), Sep.26,2014".

As a result of the inputs on the AMENDED page, I've updated MY MANUAL to read the 92'/# WET figure.

THANKS for the HEADS-UP!

-
quexpress likes this.

Ed
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


'08 V AZ, '15 V650LT BC
Ride to D2D 2013, June '13

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Ride to D2D 2015, June '15

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Ride to D2D 2016, June '16

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
fasteddiecopeman is offline  
post #32 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-21-2019, 03:44 AM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Poland
Posts: 213
Interesting! Any ideas why the metric value is not given in wet and dry variants?

2015 Versys 650
_Big_Mac_ is offline  
post #33 of 33 (permalink) Old 06-21-2019, 09:35 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
Fly-Sig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Big_Mac_ View Post
Interesting! Any ideas why the metric value is not given in wet and dry variants?
Cause metric is just wrong!

(in my manual the metric values are given, but it just doesn't have the wet vs dry clarification)
Fly-Sig is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Kawasaki Versys Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome