Crank bolts 3 questions

Hi again,

I'm about to bolt the Combat crank together after a .030" re-grind.

Firstly, bolting the halves together sans flywheel, we discovered the need to produce a push fit dowel (no not the big one in the center) to secure them together accurately for grinding.
I would have thought at least one, or maybe two of the upper crankshaft bolts and holes would have been reamed to a push fit to achieve this, but apparently they aren't. Is this normal on a Norton crank or do I have a rogue one here? Neither bolts nor holes appear to be worn.

Secondly, why the locking plate between the lower studs? If a stud loses its tension, would the locking tab have much function at all except for being chewed up? The plate is a bit softer than the crank, I'd sooner leave it out. Is a nut locking method required at all? If so wouldn't Loctite do the job better, or even a punch mark?

Thirdly, I see various torque figures quoted, from 35 lbf in the book to 25 lbf said to be recommended by Les Emery. Can I go very wrong using any of these numbers? Or do I simply split the difference, politician style?

Thanks
SR

My understanding of the plates are not, as commonly believed, to lock the nuts. The purpose is to stop the dowel from falling out.
I believe some of the bolts are"fitted" as some were difficult to install but the dowel is critical to allignment.
Cheers
Rob

How obvious now that you point it out to me!

Thanks Rob,
SR

tri-man said:

Thirdly, I see various torque figures quoted, from 35 lbf in the book to 25 lbf said to be recommended by Les Emery.

Click to expand...

Which "book" says "35" lb.ft.?

The usual figure is 25 lb.ft. except for the 850 Mk3 crank as that has larger (3/8") diameter fasteners (30 lb.ft.).

http://www.classicbike.biz/Norton/Repai ... mmando.pdf

I apologize as the WM clearly says 25.

SR