

| Subject: | Re: Rear axle torque specs? |
| From: | David Beierl |
| Date: | Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:12:32 -0400 |
At 06:09 AM 6/3/2015, Frank Condelli wrote: >in the Bentley, it is from my own >observations. AND to add more to the confusion, >I have NEVER been able to understand why the 360 >ft. lbs. of torques is needed on that axle >nut. It’s just compressing the hub, bearing >inner races and spacer up against the circlip on the axle. That's actually pretty simple, Frank. Just as they did with the alternator pivot bolt they found that the six-slot castellated nut was exerting insufficient clamping force to keep the assembly from shifting and wearing under load. It may be that they needed a nut of higher strength (more carbon, different heat treatment) or it may be that the variation in clamping force allowed by a sixth of a turn tolerance was too much, and the only difference in the nut is ten slots instead of six. That could be determined from engineering specs for the nuts or from metallurgical testing of them. Either way they ended up with a higher measured assembly torque and a smaller increment to get to the next slot lining up with the pin-hole in the axle. I *think* the only issue here is of parts shifting and wearing against each other. In the case of the alternator pivot bolt the issue was the original bolt breaking; and the new one breaking it not torqued enough. In multiple attempts I have not yet been able to understand why a bolt becomes less subject to fatigue failure by being (with apologies to Phil Zimmerman) pre-loaded in tension,** but it is a fact. And the stronger the bolt, the more tension it must be under. **no, by Jove, I may have just gotten it, finally! The idea is to keep all forces safely to one side of the stress/strain hysteresis curve, never approaching zero. For some value of "safely". Maximum force has to be below what would cause additional yield, and minimum has to be above the zone where the fatigue mechanism is invoked. I may have just stated a truism rather than understanding what the ordinary explanations are trying to convey, but I suddenly feel a great deal clearer about fastener torque needs. Yours, David
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »