The BSA A7-A10 Forum
Technical (Descriptive Topic Titles - Stay on Topic) => Frame => Topic started by: Tumbleweed on 20.11. 2012 15:18
-
hi everybody, the rear wheel on this old a10 i am doing up did not have a distance tube between the bearings, can anyone give me measurements , it looks to me as if the part number should be 67-6061, if it is it looks easy enough to make up thanks . tw
-
This is what you are after TW. The measurements dont make much sense, it doesnt seem to be metric or imperial so I have measured it in metric.
OD 30.25 mm
ID 22.5 mm
Length 56.6 mm
The tin placement washer that is around the outside of it is made from 1.4mm metal and the outer diameter is 47.5 mm. The parts book shows it having two of these and from memory there should be two.
-
thanks brian, that will do nicely *smile*
-
hi guys/tumbleweed, this pic may give you a better veiw,good luck,cheers,Bob
-
Could have sworn I did a post earlier, to say these sometimes appear on ebay, as one I collected- must've found a vortex *eek*.
If you want to make one, I've observed that while the OD of the scalloped ring OD is just less than the ID of the hub, and it's function is to hold the spacer tube in 'suspension', as the axle is removed, to allow easy relocation thereof.
Need to bear in mind, the 'scallops' are to straddle the rivets and need to be clear of them on installation, or else(clunk,clunk, clunk).
cheers,duTch
-
thanks again, just looking now, makes me wonder as to what purpose this spacer serves the bearing cant be forced inwards as there are lugs (rivets?) to prevent this, unless this is a type of wheel that didnt need one and thats the reason it didnt have a spacer when i removed the bearings *conf* . tw
-
hi everybody, after making my inner sleeve for the rear bearings, thanks to your help ,on fitting the wheel it seems to bind the more i tighten the spindle, could i be over tightening it the spacers are in , it doesent bind when i slacked off a couple of threads *sad2*
-
Hi tw,
Somethings amiss ??????????
Are the bearings seated in the hub properly? it sounds like side pressure is being applied when you tighten the spindle?
The sleeve should be a snug fit between the bearings when fitted
other than that is some spacer missing or not fitted correctly??
HTH
John
-
I agree with John. The bearings must be getting loaded. Might be time to pull apart and get the verniers out to measure things. Post a pic of the hub disassembled with all parts in order.
-
thanks , i think you are both right there are loads of things missing from this bike, there wasnt collar 22 on bobs drawing, so i made one up but i dont have the exact measurement that would be very handy , and does it butt up to collar 26,? the inner sleeve i made fits very well i dont like disturbing it although i will have to if the collar dosnt work, thanks again chaps :! tw
-
hiya T-dubbwya,
This is a copy of a request that I sent to "Lightning Spares' a while back, to no fruition, but may be worth, having a look.
Pictures attached
67-6077--------Hub Collar(R/h)?? (Not on your list, yet?)
similar to -> 67-6066, but shorter, photos attached.
(O.D.1 x O.D.2 x I.D.x length)=35.0mm x 31.12mm x 22.6mm x 17.24mm long, Sorry 'bout the metric- Imp.verniers not here.In English~1,3/8 x 1,1/4 x 1,7/8 x11/16 L.
Thanks for the reminder-something else I have to deal with, I think they're a bitch setup, and I may be wrong but think that the spindle needs to be tightened in conjunction with the bearing retainer 23 (67-6076), to load the bearing evenly from both directions, if you know what I mean, as the bearing OD is a more snug fit in the hub than the subsequent '54-'57, and '65->A65 Swing Arm models, which seem to 'float', and find their own place.
I hope the photos are a bit of help,
, just looking now, makes me wonder as to what purpose this spacer serves the bearing cant be forced inwards as there are lugs (rivets?) to prevent this,
Regarding this, I'm not sure which spacer you mean, presumably 28/ 67-6061, It's there to space the bearings correctly, very important, otherwise they WILL jam-bigtime.
And yes it does butt up to #26(67-6066) length is obviously more crucial than diameters, though ID should be snug slide on spindle
As I said it's something I also have to tend to, so will try and stay in tune ('t ain't easy!!)
Cheers, duTch
-
thanks dutch, i made the collar but it was too long for this wheel so i shortened the inner sleeve 67/6061,using the same collar so the bearing goes further into the hub to the ridge where it stops, and tried the tightening sequence you mentioned and it is better but still binds a bit if i put more pressure (i dont know how tight it has to be) on it would get worse, i am thinking it might bed in with use, or perhaps i am wrong , the wheel is in the center of the frame,the chain wheel is free enough when the wheel is off. i will have another go soon and see what happens *conf* ps i have just noticed on the haynes drawing it looks as if the r/hub bearing sleave 67-6060 goes thro the bearing locking ring 67-6076 on to the bearing itself, mine dont it butts up to the lock ring leaving quite a groove *eek*
-
T-dub, I think all the measurements are fairly critical, and would be inclined to not have the bearing butted tight in the hub. At least if there is clearance there, there is allowance for 'adjustment'(that's still stuff I'm working out myself).
I just dug out the NOS 6061 I bought on ebay a while ago, and as Brian says 'neither metric nor imperial' just a random measurement(mine 56.48-56.50/2.2225), but I suggest that so long as what you make is longer than the minimum possible distance between the bearings, it should be ok and compensate the length of 67-6077, and also you need to consider the overall measurement between the 'Axle mounting lugs', and nothing compromises the location of the chainwheel;-re-G/box sprocket alignment
All the bits-(# ->below accrue to measure as above- 'overall measurement between the 'Axle mounting lugs''
21 65-5883
22 67-6077
26 67-6066
28 67-6061
30 65-5883, butt up to(36) 67-6060, and it's bearing,89-3022 and spacer(12)67-6078, (which is not listed in at least one parts book) all the other bits do their own stuff.
Sorry if that's a bit long winded, and hopefully not too complex, and that all measurements are correct-ish, feel free to triple check?
cheers and good luck, (it's not hard if you have the right info)
Also the Haynes I have is a'73 version, and can't find mention of these wheels
-
spot on dutch thanks ,all those parts now butt up together ,after making the ID of bearing retainer 6076 17 so bearing 30 butt up to bearing sleeve 67 6060 it now spins freely , thanks for your time and trouble, this must be a oddball hub , there is no bearing retainer 23 there is no thread and the one that was in was not 6076 because the ID was smaller ,any way its sorted now. my bike picture was how i got it so i suppose there will be a few more headaches to come although i am well into it now. ill climb back into my box now thanks again to all, *smile*
-
Glad you have it sorted TW.
You say there is no bearing retainer 23 and no thread, does your hub have threads in both sides ? If not then it is not a plunger hub, its from a s/arm model.
-
hi bri, my hub has threads on the sprocket end but not on the other on which the bearing is just pressed in there is fairly deep recess on that side , ive just had new rim and spokes on this hub so i hope i havent got to find the right hub , it is central to the plungers so i think i will leave it on for now unless anyone tells me it wont work ? thanks tw
-
If it only has thread on one side it is not a plunger hub. But if you have managed to get it to line up and spin freely then it should work.
Are both sides of the hub, the crinkly parts, the same diameter. If they are then you can use the same spokes and rim if you find the correct hub one day. The hub you need looks identical to the one you have but with threads on both sides.
-
Yes T-dubb, as Brian says, if I didn't say before, there seem to be a variation of hubs, all same on drive end, but plunger have the screw in bearing retainers both ends, where as Brian says the swing arm mods ('54-'55/6) only drive side and different spacer, and as I maybe said the R/H bearing 'floats' a bit more readily- maybe?,(it's what I've had in mine before I knew otherwise)
I could be wrong but the ~'65-'69 hub is also similar, but may? have a thread, or notches or both on the RHS to accommodate a speedo drive (hoping someone will verify?)
Otherwise don't really matter as I said the important bits is as I said, the other stuff is semantics,and important only for dead-set orignality.
Don't go thinkin' I some kind of expert, I've only discovered this by my own misdemeanor *conf* *eek*
Good luck sounds it's getting there, any dramas I happy to try and help
cheers for now, duTch
-
thanks brian/ dutch , its good to know this back wheel is probably going to be ok you are all experts to me dutch, and they say learning the hard way is the best .anyway now ive got to find out how the mudguard fits i dont know if the L shaped brackets are bent or even if the mudguard i have is off a plunger flash so its a bit of head scratching this weekend, (in between beers) cheers tw
-
No drama T-Dubb,
First I am NOT an Expert at anything- specially typing
maybe can't feed too much on the m'guard, as mine was cut off just behind the stays when I found it, and the bottom part of the stay also, so I've had to improvise, as with many bits.
Not being a resto all ok hopefully not too far from piccie time
Expert - NO NOT me, no way get....f.....f.....off.....- that's a bit from an Angels song(aussie band-could've been Acca Dacca, but..... *whistle*)
but good luck , happy to chuck in me two bobs worth
also don't talk to me about '(in between beers-?- I think 'while beer is happening' ) ' *smile*
-
LOL Dutch *smile*