Stub shaft bearing.

[snowcaine]

Having been married to a litigation attorney for close to 20 years, I feel pretty safe in saying that you'll be sledding in July before Yamaha engages with you to discuss a potential shortcoming of their product; especially one with the potential to cause injury.

Being a litigation attorney, I can confirm you’ll be sledding in July in Texas before Yam admits that product defect to you.

 

[beanie]

I've posted this information in another thread, but haven't updated my results so here goes:

My Winder clutch was hard on rollers. Running DTAY-1's on (close to) stock gearing I could take out a set in a single day if I did enough long, hard pulls. As many others have, I switched over to an Apex (RX1 actually) clutch and the roller eating was pretty much resolved. I did have one start egging out back in January of this year, and the RX clutch wasn't any quieter than the SW (which drives me nuts) so decided to try some stuff.

My stock winder fixed sheave developed a crack a few seasons back, and galled up the stub shaft when the primary spun on the stub. The clutch was rebuilt, and the stub cleaned up, and lapped. The plan for this year was to put a TAPP on, so I wanted to change out the stub for one that was perfect. Yamaha wants over $500 for this part, so I ended up using one from a 1049cc motor. If you break the Viper/Nytro stub down to just the stub itself (no bearing carrier or tone ring) it is dimensionally identical to the Sidewinder. My dealer didn't have the stock Koyo bearing in stock (63072RS) which I assumed was a C3 (additional clearance) based on the amount of radial movement I could get lifting up on the installed primary. I decided to try a C2 (normal clearance) bearing for the weekend to see how it would work. The thinking was that worst case scenario I'd have premature bearing wear (new bearing had a rpm rating well in excess of 9K). Buttoned everything up, put a new set of rollers in the SW primary and fired the sled up. The primary did not make any noise at all - the typical rattling sound that all these clutches have was completely eliminated. I rode about 300kms that weekend, which included 8-10 long pulls on the lake. I was past the point where my rollers previously would have started showing signs of wear, and these were still tight. I've kept the bearing in now for over 1000kms, and just recently upgraded my primary to a TAPP. When the clutch came off, the rollers were as tight as the day I put them in. This is way beyond the point that rollers would have completely failed previously.

There's one other member here who has this bearing now and will hopefully be able to back up my findings. Unfortunately, the season has ended for him so probably won't have any results until next season. I'm not suggesting anyone goes out and tries this on their own sled yet. I'd like to get more miles on mine and have the results backed up by others whose opinion I trust.

This is a link to my SW clutch after about 600kms with the new bearing & stub. I'd just pulled it into the shop after a 93 mile trail ride when this vid was taken:

https://1drv.ms/v/s!AtXBaxZL6IuUmQbIzgZ7A2XncSVU

 

[beanie]

Do you have the number for the c-2 bearing you used for replacement ?I have 13.5 k on my 17 and the clutches sound like I have a diesel motor in it even after a few complete rebuilds /

 

[lakercr]

I used a KML 6307-2RDQE6

 

[twyztid]

C2 clearance would be less than standard clearance for a bearing. C3 is greater than standard clearance. Standard clearance is C0 (or not marked).

 

[lakercr]

Part # I posted is a normal clearance bearing

 

[lakercr]

C2 clearance would be less than standard clearance for a bearing. C3 is greater than standard clearance. Standard clearance is C0 (or not marked).

This is correct. I’ll edit the original post so as not to confuse anyone. Not sure why I said C2

 

[beanie]

I used a KML 6307-2RDQE6

Good day, Can you tell me where you sourced that bearing ? I checked the KML site and cannot match the number up ? Mainly the 2RDQE6. No mention of that code on their bearings ? Can easily find the KOYO 63072RS near me at 1/4 the Yami price . Any thoughts that Yami has spec is different even tho the number is the same ? Thanks

 

[lakercr]

Sourced from a local (very large) bearing supply center. I've had a few people send me PM's about this particular bearing saying the same as you (that they can't find it). I'll try to get more info for you guys. I took a photo of the box and just checked it again; that's definitely the number that's on it.

Don't think Yamaha could spec a different bearing with the same part # - all those numbers mean something. Ex. - the '3' in 6307 refers to the hardness if I remember correctly (2 would be harder still), the 7 references the i.d. of the bearing x5mm (i'd' of this bearing should be 7x5 = 35mm). 2R = 2 rubber seals, and the remainder after that is the grease code (or so I was told).

 

[justinator]

with kml the 2rd means its a triple lip light contact seal on both sides and the qe6 means its a noise tested premium series. Im guessing the quietness lakercr found when installing this bearing comes from the standard internal clearance vs the most likely c3 looser tolerance that yamaha used from factory. Timken makes a bearing this size in standard clearance which is easily accessible. I have a stub shaft to rebuild I will keep as a spare. I may rebuild it with a timken standard clearance and see if I notice it being any quieter than the factory bearing. If it doesnt seem any different then maybe the qe6 factor of the kml bearing is helping or maybe just something about the klm bearings in general but my first guess is going to be its the tighter tolerance quieting things up.

 

[beanie]

with kml the 2rd means its a triple lip light contact seal on both sides and the qe6 means its a noise tested premium series. Im guessing the quietness lakercr found when installing this bearing comes from the standard internal clearance vs the most likely c3 looser tolerance that yamaha used from factory. Timken makes a bearing this size in standard clearance which is easily accessible. I have a stub shaft to rebuild I will keep as a spare. I may rebuild it with a timken standard clearance and see if I notice it being any quieter than the factory bearing. If it doesnt seem any different then maybe the qe6 factor of the kml bearing is helping or maybe just something about the klm bearings in general but my first guess is going to be its the tighter tolerance quieting things up.

Nice info thanks . Any idea where in the states this bearing is sourced from ?

 

[twyztid]

Nice info thanks . Any idea where in the states this bearing is sourced from ?

Anywhere you can get a 6307-2RS bearing (in a good brand name with Normal (C0) clearance.

 

[SledFreak]

I am hoping so...

View attachment 160837

Any news on how this is working yet?

 

[Thunder Products]

Any news on how this is working yet?

The new Adapt clutch is working well and a lot of riders and racers like it. We have sold many clutch kits for the Thundercat and 8000 models.

The new Adapt clutch uses way less weight than anticipated.

 

[Turboflash]

A. Can you actually get the ADAPT clutch? I've heard they're all back-ordered.
B. Can you get tuning parts?
C. How much less weight compared to same sled with Team Primary?

Tks