Superblend bearing profile
- Thread starter comnoz
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 5,411
Rohan said:
Britain in the 70s-80s?
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 7,608
Look up the histories of GKN, AE, T&N and any of the major UK automotive companies and the factories they owned and the clues of what happened to Hoffman/RHP are there to be seen, and it still continues today at my last factory.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-34723207
Except its now includes high Energy costs as well as labour costs etc.
Reynolds
Heopolite
etc etc
Every year was a monotonous chorus from customers 'Why should we buy off you when we can get cheaper bearings from Eastern Europe/Far East' and and senior corporate management 'What are you doing to bring your costs down to match the factories we could buy in the Far East and move the machinery we own out of your factory '.
I take my hat off to any factory that has survived this long in the UK.
Brooking 850
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,618
I think Jim is on the Myth Busters payroll!!!
Regards Mike
Regards Mike
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 150
If you were handeling a bearing with barrel shaped rollers it would be noticeable as you slid the inner race in and then out the other side. If the rollers had just a few thousandths crown the inner race probably wouldn't come out by hand. It would also be important to locate this bearing in assembly with the ends of the races flush with each other. The bearing at the other end of the crank would need to be a slip fit so as not to pull the "superblend" out of position.
If any of this mythical bearing ever existed there would be a bunch of posts here saying how you could tell the difference just rolling one around with your hands. Special instructions to install one. Those posts aren't here.
If any of this mythical bearing ever existed there would be a bunch of posts here saying how you could tell the difference just rolling one around with your hands. Special instructions to install one. Those posts aren't here.
edgefinder said:
The myth of barrel shaped superblend bearing did indeed exist. Many years ago I was told by one of the more reputable Norton parts and service shops that the superblend was barrel shaped. Until Jim Comstock's excellent video proved otherwise, I was under the misapprehension of a barrel shaped superblend bearing. If the myth never existed, as you infer, why do you think Comstock went to the trouble of showing us the rollers are absolutely flat?
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 150
bearing, mythical bearing. Thanks JimC, hope I got the rest right
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,112
It never ceases to amaze me how some members can go on and on about a subject (off track) having obviously not watched the video or understanding the subject of the post. I guess as we age some of us forget how to learn because we have too much contrary information in our old brains.
The problem is that disinformation and just plain bad information is rampant on the web and some poor sole will get confused or worse doing a search for an answer.
I watched the first 90 seconds of Jim's video and could see where it was going...the bearing is flat not crowned.
Sorry if this post offends anyone, but there was a point to why Jim took the time to do this...most get it, some never will.
I wonder how many newtons escaped from that bearing while Jim was measuring it?
Sorry I couldn't help myself.
The problem is that disinformation and just plain bad information is rampant on the web and some poor sole will get confused or worse doing a search for an answer.
I watched the first 90 seconds of Jim's video and could see where it was going...the bearing is flat not crowned.
Sorry if this post offends anyone, but there was a point to why Jim took the time to do this...most get it, some never will.
I wonder how many newtons escaped from that bearing while Jim was measuring it?
Sorry I couldn't help myself.
It's interesting to read such a vast amount of detail on the history of this bearing. One thing that has been touched on is the number of rollers - I can't help but notice that all mention of the successful examples involved bearings with odd numbers of rollers, whereas the failures seemed to always involve an even number. Let me expand on why I find this interesting...
Somewhere back in my dim and distant past as a race-car/bike engineer, I became aware of the fact that even-numbered bearings can suffer failures due to a harmonic resonance building up between individual pairs of balls/rollers. What happens is that the pairs rattle back and forth in a mirror-image fashion, breaking them free of the track, and thus creating a sort of stop/start vibration which generates massive load spikes. Rather inevitably, when this occurs, the time to failure can be very short indeed. This resonance can't happen when there's an odd number though.
Let me illustrate the above with a little account of an experience I had shortly after I started at Lucky Strike Suzuki in 1991, when the team had been suffering from a plague of crankshaft failures. Basically, the mains were failing without warning, often at very low mileages.
Unusually for the motor racing world, I started mid-season at a Grand Prix at Mugello in Italy (people usually join/leave out of season). My job remit was to bring in and run the on-board computers and do the data acquisition analysis (primarily for Kevin Schwantz). Up until then, the team had relied on holding a finger up in the air and guessing.
Although I was immediately labelled 'The Computer Guy', my background actually also included a lot of engine development work, mostly on Cosworth V8s (as well as other stuff like motorcycle chassis fabrication). I therefore took note when an engine failed and the whole team stood around and gawped as the crank was pulled out.
A very senior Suzuki management representative was there - ironically, he was actually called 'Suzuki' (Suzuki-san being the correct term) although he was no relation to the factory's founders. He'd come over from Japan specifically to try and work out why the cranks kept breaking. Everyone was scratching their heads as nothing obvious was wrong. I looked over their shoulders and said 'I can see the problem from here'. At this several people gave me 'What the f would you know about it' looks. I said 'The balls are too big, and you've got an even number of them - if it's going to survive, there should be an odd number'.
At this, Suzuki-san turned and said 'Ah - you have experience of this?', to which I thought - I've only got one chance for them to take me seriously, so I replied 'No, not on a motorcycle engine - but on a Formula One engine, yes'. I then explained about bearing harmonics and did a quick calculation that suggested that the balls were running at a track speed that was about 30% too high. The Japanese staff said nothing, but a fax was quickly sent back to base. Apparently, they'd been making the balls progressively bigger, but each time they did so, the cranks failed even sooner...
Nothing was ever said to me about it again - but when the next set of engines came through, I noticed that the mains had an odd number of very small bearings. And we never suffered another failure.
I received no thanks whatsoever - but I did notice that whenever I said anything at a meeting or when we were discussing some kind of a problem, there was ALWAYS a member of the Japanese staff standing to one side writing down what I said - as soon as I finished, he'd fax it straight back to Japan.
Somewhere back in my dim and distant past as a race-car/bike engineer, I became aware of the fact that even-numbered bearings can suffer failures due to a harmonic resonance building up between individual pairs of balls/rollers. What happens is that the pairs rattle back and forth in a mirror-image fashion, breaking them free of the track, and thus creating a sort of stop/start vibration which generates massive load spikes. Rather inevitably, when this occurs, the time to failure can be very short indeed. This resonance can't happen when there's an odd number though.
Let me illustrate the above with a little account of an experience I had shortly after I started at Lucky Strike Suzuki in 1991, when the team had been suffering from a plague of crankshaft failures. Basically, the mains were failing without warning, often at very low mileages.
Unusually for the motor racing world, I started mid-season at a Grand Prix at Mugello in Italy (people usually join/leave out of season). My job remit was to bring in and run the on-board computers and do the data acquisition analysis (primarily for Kevin Schwantz). Up until then, the team had relied on holding a finger up in the air and guessing.
Although I was immediately labelled 'The Computer Guy', my background actually also included a lot of engine development work, mostly on Cosworth V8s (as well as other stuff like motorcycle chassis fabrication). I therefore took note when an engine failed and the whole team stood around and gawped as the crank was pulled out.
A very senior Suzuki management representative was there - ironically, he was actually called 'Suzuki' (Suzuki-san being the correct term) although he was no relation to the factory's founders. He'd come over from Japan specifically to try and work out why the cranks kept breaking. Everyone was scratching their heads as nothing obvious was wrong. I looked over their shoulders and said 'I can see the problem from here'. At this several people gave me 'What the f would you know about it' looks. I said 'The balls are too big, and you've got an even number of them - if it's going to survive, there should be an odd number'.
At this, Suzuki-san turned and said 'Ah - you have experience of this?', to which I thought - I've only got one chance for them to take me seriously, so I replied 'No, not on a motorcycle engine - but on a Formula One engine, yes'. I then explained about bearing harmonics and did a quick calculation that suggested that the balls were running at a track speed that was about 30% too high. The Japanese staff said nothing, but a fax was quickly sent back to base. Apparently, they'd been making the balls progressively bigger, but each time they did so, the cranks failed even sooner...
Nothing was ever said to me about it again - but when the next set of engines came through, I noticed that the mains had an odd number of very small bearings. And we never suffered another failure.
I received no thanks whatsoever - but I did notice that whenever I said anything at a meeting or when we were discussing some kind of a problem, there was ALWAYS a member of the Japanese staff standing to one side writing down what I said - as soon as I finished, he'd fax it straight back to Japan.
I really think that "Superblend" is sort of a 70's thing. They could have called it the "Mellow out" bearing or "The Groovy Smoothy" or perhaps the "Shagadelic". Hows about the "Bitchin" or the "Boogie" bearing.
Someone got high and said, " Man oh man, that bearing is super blend......grooooooovy!"
Someone got high and said, " Man oh man, that bearing is super blend......grooooooovy!"
Paddy_SP said:
Sorry to shoot you down on what could have been a good theory paddy, but if you count the rollers in Jims NJ306E video,
they sum to 12.
The early dommies only had 11 rollers, as I showed in a pic.
Despite all the palava, some folks think that it was simply the extra roller that made FAG's successful.... ?
And maybe better steel (??).
We have all heard the stories of the RAF and RoyalNavy making clandestine runs to Sweden during the war,
for supplies of bearings that were essential to some machinery.
Like some of he bearings in the Merlin.
It was said that the swedish steel was somehow superior, and needed in some heavy duty bearing applications.
In real high stress situations, the absense of inclusions in steel is a true measure of the quality - ask any swordmaker - for many millenia back.
Meanwhile, over on the NOC Forum, someone has (accidently) thrown double row SPHERICAL bearings into the discussion. !
What next ??
Note that it says there someplace these are ONLY used in industrial applications, at low speed/heavy loadings.
eg conveyor belts at mining sites etc.
What next ??
Note that it says there someplace these are ONLY used in industrial applications, at low speed/heavy loadings.
eg conveyor belts at mining sites etc.
On the NOC Forum they are also saying it was a worn bearing being measured, and that maybe the special shape has worn off !!
If the bearings soon 'wear dead flat', and continue to do good service for many more tens of thousands of miles,
what does that say about needing any special shape to survive in a Commando ??
So, Nortons just should have specified a heavier duty bearing (more rollers) in the Combat,
and then this whole Combat bearing saga would never have happened. ??
P.S. If you put a flat edge against the rollers, and try the old light test with them, they would appear to be perfectly flat.
This can reportedly see gaps of less than a millionth of an inch. (depending on your flat edge being perfectly flat of course).
This doesn't even require a new bearing to be destroyed to test it...
If the bearings soon 'wear dead flat', and continue to do good service for many more tens of thousands of miles,
what does that say about needing any special shape to survive in a Commando ??
So, Nortons just should have specified a heavier duty bearing (more rollers) in the Combat,
and then this whole Combat bearing saga would never have happened. ??
P.S. If you put a flat edge against the rollers, and try the old light test with them, they would appear to be perfectly flat.
This can reportedly see gaps of less than a millionth of an inch. (depending on your flat edge being perfectly flat of course).
This doesn't even require a new bearing to be destroyed to test it...
Rohan said:
That doesn't shoot me down at all - it just suggests that if the bearing had 13 rollers it would have been even better. I don't remember where I came across the paired-resonance thing - possibly it was when I worked at the British Internal Combustion Engine Research Institute.
- Status
Similar threads
