H
Hbmtr
Well-known member
the mrsnaglepusssays its a 4stroke but pics are proof at this point.
how many hours are the new double row bearings good for?
- Thread starter Uncle si
- Start date
2015 Mountain Slayer & new bearings
I will post pics after field testing. At this time we are still in the "Gearage" dyno testing with the wheels on, working out some electronic grimlins. This is not your typical snow bike build. The goal was to build a DEPENDABLE high HP & torque, non-turbo, fuel injected, premium pump gas, machine that would simply work. Once the in house testing is complete and the TS MH kit is installed (new bearings & all) and on the mountain the proof will hopefully be in the pudding, we are however still in the kitchen building supper if we cannot find ingredients (parts) we make them on the lath or whatever ourselves, all this takes time and lotsa money. Now hopefully we won't burn it (blow it up)!
PS There is four inches of fresh snow outside my door tonight, motivation or what?
I will post pics after field testing. At this time we are still in the "Gearage" dyno testing with the wheels on, working out some electronic grimlins. This is not your typical snow bike build. The goal was to build a DEPENDABLE high HP & torque, non-turbo, fuel injected, premium pump gas, machine that would simply work. Once the in house testing is complete and the TS MH kit is installed (new bearings & all) and on the mountain the proof will hopefully be in the pudding, we are however still in the kitchen building supper if we cannot find ingredients (parts) we make them on the lath or whatever ourselves, all this takes time and lotsa money. Now hopefully we won't burn it (blow it up)!
PS There is four inches of fresh snow outside my door tonight, motivation or what?
I'm willing to bet it's probably a Hayabusa engine or another liter engine with a couple goodies on it in a chromoly frame with some carbon fiber parts.
I'm no TS rider, more a DIY snow bike kit builder.
Have recognized the wear of chaincase bearing of my previous builds.
See the jackshaft as a seesaw with the bearing in the middle. Then you can understand why all load goes to this bearing.
On my second kit, I made a housing with double 6005 bearings.
The theory was that double bearings would take double load.
This didn't work as planned.
I saw that only one bearing took all the load and the other unaffected. Don't know why, maybe flex or missallignment?
Redesigned the housing and installed a single beefier bearing, 6305 with C3 rating (wider tolerances). That seems to be a better solution.
Hope that TS have made thorough testing on their solution and that it works
Have recognized the wear of chaincase bearing of my previous builds.
See the jackshaft as a seesaw with the bearing in the middle. Then you can understand why all load goes to this bearing.
On my second kit, I made a housing with double 6005 bearings.
The theory was that double bearings would take double load.
This didn't work as planned.
I saw that only one bearing took all the load and the other unaffected. Don't know why, maybe flex or missallignment?
Redesigned the housing and installed a single beefier bearing, 6305 with C3 rating (wider tolerances). That seems to be a better solution.
Hope that TS have made thorough testing on their solution and that it works
I'm no TS rider, more a DIY snow bike kit builder.
Have recognized the wear of chaincase bearing of my previous builds.
See the jackshaft as a seesaw with the bearing in the middle. Then you can understand why all load goes to this bearing.
On my second kit, I made a housing with double 6005 bearings.
The theory was that double bearings would take double load.
This didn't work as planned.
I saw that only one bearing took all the load and the other unaffected. Don't know why, maybe flex or missallignment?
Redesigned the housing and installed a single beefier bearing, 6305 with C3 rating (wider tolerances). That seems to be a better solution.
Hope that TS have made thorough testing on their solution and that it works
I remembered you had not great results with your double bearing I was curious about your experience vs. the new fix I hope one of the doubles does not act like a single!
2015 Mountain Slayer
griff u are very intuitive, I used to race Busa's, GXRS, 1150 EF (my first screaming demon), and RM 250 smokers, ah yes the Suzuki days. The MS motor is lighter and more adaptable for snow bike application but u are on the right track ( no pun intended or was there?) We tried aluminum/mag frames but ur right there, went back to chromoly, and yes there are bits of CF blended in. Oh yes and just to keep this on track I can't wait to thrash TS MH new bearings.
( just kidding Allen & gang, but I will do it, why? Faster, lighter, stronger is my creed)
"Track On Snow Brothers"
griff u are very intuitive, I used to race Busa's, GXRS, 1150 EF (my first screaming demon), and RM 250 smokers, ah yes the Suzuki days. The MS motor is lighter and more adaptable for snow bike application but u are on the right track ( no pun intended or was there?) We tried aluminum/mag frames but ur right there, went back to chromoly, and yes there are bits of CF blended in. Oh yes and just to keep this on track I can't wait to thrash TS MH new bearings.
( just kidding Allen & gang, but I will do it, why? Faster, lighter, stronger is my creed)
"Track On Snow Brothers"
Hmm. If I were to do it I would rather do a V-twin. A KTM 1290 or 1190. They are narrower and lighter. Also they have a pivot bolt like a dirt bike engine.
I would probably just slap the Chromoly snow bike skid right on a KTM 1290 Super Duke and gut the stuff you don't need. It would probably be easier and less headache.
Hmm. If I were to do it I would rather do a V-twin. A KTM 1290 or 1190. They are narrower and lighter. Also they have a pivot bolt like a dirt bike engine.
I would probably just slap the Chromoly snow bike skid right on a KTM 1290 Super Duke and gut the stuff you don't need. It would probably be easier and less headache.
Unfortunately slapping on a kit is not that easy. Fitment of fit kit (non exist), stripping the bike down (a good thing it's over 450lb wet) , the frame is a hanging as opposed to a cradle like typical dirt/snow style ( smash that oil pan & header pipewith a buried rock/log) the geometry of the sub frame kicks up too high in passenger seat area. KTM has now pushed LC8 75 degree v-twin to 1301 cc from 990 by increasing strke 2mm &bore by3mm pistons are f1 style super light, twin plug etc giving it 150hp and 92 ft. lb. torque a proven motor that has now been super tweaked a good snow bike candadate to be sure No question it sits narrower in the frame but also over twice as deep and at a higher center of gravity. With the duke stripped down, proper mods, chromoly skid frame added etc. track kit on I would guess it to fall in still over 400lb I do not have to remind u what it's like trying to up right a snowbike from the down hill side in 4feet of POW the Mountain Slayer will come in under 300lb
I think the motor discussion deserves its own thread. This thread is about the maintenance interval on double row bearings in the 2010 to 2014 mountain horse kits.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Thats exactly what I think.
Double bearings doesn't seem to have double durability compared to a single, at least thats what I know from my tests. Especially in slight missallignment or flexing asemblys.
Two bearings together might lead to all load goes to just one row.
The single 6305 works way better but I havent enough time on it yet to say anyting of the durability. So far it looks promising
A spherical selfaligning bearing would be the best solution but the dynamic and static radial load is way less than a single/double row standard bearing.
Great Thread!!
That KTM is dead-sexy!!
.
.
Hey ST, great work on your self-build!
Agreed that selfaligning bearing is the solution - Have been using them last season, lots of miles and all running silky smooth.
Reduced dynamic/static radial load is noted. 1400kg Dynamic load rating for a single 6205 bearing is just over the equivalent selfaligning bearing (1205). But the static rating is very different. Info only - We´re not even close to experiencing failure through excessive radial/axial load.
The issue is one of misalignment. http://www.dynaroll.com/alignment.asp
To cater for misalignment with a roller bearing, I like your idea with loose tolerance - Maybe even C5, real loose! A bit dodgy but hey, if it works?
Potentially TS have declined the self-aligning solution as they want to stiffen up the whole kit via driveshafts. From the engineering perspective, this scenario needs some real beefy bearings. Current ones are inadequate for the application. Ahhh, the benefit of hindsight!
The load rating of a roller bearing size equivalent to a 6205 is almost 4 times higher. 2x taper roller bearings mounted face to face/back to back should fit into the new double-row housing. Maybe 30205J bearings... They´re exactly the same size as 6205s. A worthy upgrade?
Agreed that selfaligning bearing is the solution - Have been using them last season, lots of miles and all running silky smooth.
Reduced dynamic/static radial load is noted. 1400kg Dynamic load rating for a single 6205 bearing is just over the equivalent selfaligning bearing (1205). But the static rating is very different. Info only - We´re not even close to experiencing failure through excessive radial/axial load.
The issue is one of misalignment. http://www.dynaroll.com/alignment.asp
To cater for misalignment with a roller bearing, I like your idea with loose tolerance - Maybe even C5, real loose! A bit dodgy but hey, if it works?
Potentially TS have declined the self-aligning solution as they want to stiffen up the whole kit via driveshafts. From the engineering perspective, this scenario needs some real beefy bearings. Current ones are inadequate for the application. Ahhh, the benefit of hindsight!
The load rating of a roller bearing size equivalent to a 6205 is almost 4 times higher. 2x taper roller bearings mounted face to face/back to back should fit into the new double-row housing. Maybe 30205J bearings... They´re exactly the same size as 6205s. A worthy upgrade?
Your dead on cowboy I bored out the shoulder and ran the 5205 last year no problems, this year bought a Husaberg 650 need a left drive to making new side plates were my jackshaft will run full lenth of frame so I can run left or right drive changing to 1 inch shafts that way all i have to do is face a 50 sprocket for 520 chain std bore 1" 1/4 key going with Timken GYA100RRB with greasable flangeette going to run stiffing rods from side frame to side frame no more sideload problem. The new up date kit uses the std bearing next to the brake rotor guess whats going to get masive side load.
Apologies to the OP for hijacked thread!
Good call replacing the TS proprietary shafts with an off-the-shelf item. Go-karts use 1 inch dia 1/4 keyway and would also save alot of headache sourcing replacement sprockets at a reasonable price.
Intrigued with your 1" bearing - GYA100RRB. Is that a spherical insert bearing you´re planning on fitting to a nonstandard housing like UFL005 - becoming a selfaligning system, or has it got straight sides to fit into 52mm TS housing.
To deal with the massive flex especially in the driveside panel, conscious of rising weight I decided to replace the whole alloy chain tensioner item with a stump of metal pipe. Feels pretty solid now.
Good call replacing the TS proprietary shafts with an off-the-shelf item. Go-karts use 1 inch dia 1/4 keyway and would also save alot of headache sourcing replacement sprockets at a reasonable price.
Intrigued with your 1" bearing - GYA100RRB. Is that a spherical insert bearing you´re planning on fitting to a nonstandard housing like UFL005 - becoming a selfaligning system, or has it got straight sides to fit into 52mm TS housing.
To deal with the massive flex especially in the driveside panel, conscious of rising weight I decided to replace the whole alloy chain tensioner item with a stump of metal pipe. Feels pretty solid now.
Last edited:
Similar threads
