NEED HELP ASAP, PORFAVOR!

Interesting post on this thread.......http://www.bikernewsonline.com/2006/01/triumph-rocket-iii-having-engine.htm

Haave an 05 w/ 22,000 I bought in 99 had a problem at 9500 miles the final drive bearing came apart. I put in an aircraft turbine engine bearing cost about $350 but should outlast that cheeeeesy bearing the factory used. cut out problems are only when I redline unless I have let it set out in the rain too long then water gets into the fuel.I have changed the factory exaust to headders and have a problem with back fire when i let off throttle. I have the chip and have tried several tunes cant seem to get rid of the POP. But great bike. NO Harleys will touch it.

Glad to see you got it fixed! There are quite a few bearing supply houses to support all kinds of industrial applications and what surprises me, is that for almost any bearing there are different grades ( referred to as ABEC ratings ) and the cost difference, in my opinion is negligible. Like a standard JEM bearing that is $15 can be bought in ABEC 7 for $25.
So, how does it make sense for Triumph to put crap bearings in a bike that retails for 15K? Anyway, glad you got her done, enjoy your trip!

Has there been a change on wheel bearing size on the Rockets with ABS? The reason I ask this is because Harley Davidson went to a narrower wheel bearing with there ABS systems. This has caused a lot of premature failures. Roughly around 20,000 miles and the bearings need to be replaced vice 30,000 to 40,000 with the wider older style bearing (PRE-ABS). No matter how good or bad the quality of a wheel bearing may be if it is not installed correctly it will not last.

I wouldn't have thought considering the application, that ABEC rating came into it. I've fitted many ABEC 7 rated bearings to many machine tool spindles and each one is marked with a circle where the maximum concentricity error is and then can be set against each other to negate the run out and get better accuracy but you're talking microns.

I still think there's an error there somewhere as the tighteneing should not nip the bearings. It's probably why the 2nd set shagged so quickly. I personally would keep investigating that area until it wasn't influenced but that's my machine tool background.

In another life, I so want to be a true machinist. Good on ya.

sonny said:

Has there been a change on wheel bearing size on the Rockets with ABS? The reason I ask this is because Harley Davidson went to a narrower wheel bearing with there ABS systems. This has caused a lot of premature failures. Roughly around 20,000 miles and the bearings need to be replaced vice 30,000 to 40,000 with the wider older style bearing (PRE-ABS). No matter how good or bad the quality of a wheel bearing may be if it is not installed correctly it will not last.

Click to expand...

FYI -
These are the bearings I just put into my 2012 R3R rear wheel.


These are the OEMs from Bike Bandit:
3: BEARING,BALL,20 47 14 3305630 T3800703
7: BRG,BALL,20 47 20.6 3334945 T3800706
18: BEARING, BALL 1380808 3800018-T0301

Blackthou said:

I wouldn't have thought considering the application, that ABEC rating came into it. I've fitted many ABEC 7 rated bearings to many machine tool spindles and each one is marked with a circle where the maximum concentricity error is and then can be set against each other to negate the run out and get better accuracy but you're talking microns.

I still think there's an error there somewhere as the tighteneing should not nip the bearings. It's probably why the 2nd set shagged so quickly. I personally would keep investigating that area until it wasn't influenced but that's my machine tool background.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
I did not know about ABEC ratings.
Think I shall give a call to the bearing company and ask about what I bought.
I did indeed ask for the best they had, so ???

Pretty certain it was lateral forces that puked the last set.
I be no lightweight myself and I do work the twisties pretty hard.
There was NO roughness felt in spinning the old bearings up some with a drill motor.

There you go again calling your own self FATBOY

Steve did you set the final drive by the book ? It could be possible to put a little too tilt to one side or the other if you didn't. Or there could even be something not cut correctly in that wheel. None of these bearings should have failed yet.

Blackthou said:

... I still think there's an error there somewhere as the tighteneing should not nip the bearings. It's probably why the 2nd set shagged so quickly. ....

Click to expand...

What it suggests is that there had to be some 'space' between the spacers and the bearings - the spacers should be a 'perfect' fit, so that when the axle is torqued, they do not impart any side-load on the bearing inner ring with respect to the outer ring.
Torquing it was then physically moving the bearing center races, taking up that space
Two causes of that could be that the spacers themselves are not dimensioned properly OR (more likely to be honest) the bearing was not fully seated in the pocket.
That would then create a side-load once the axle is torqued in compression and cause rapid wear.

Did you happen to notice Steve, particularly on the long spacer, if it was snug? or loose? when you removed it?
And when re-installed?

I'm sure you've replaced bearings a number of times, so this is not meant to be teaching 'how to suck eggs':
best installation method is to 'press' them in - the press can be home-made, threaded rod with a couple of end plates;
I have a lathe so could turn up some plates pretty quickly. (but if you have access to some big sockets, those can work nicely)
the press should never be working on the bearing inner ring alone.

One thing that is curious is that the 6204-2RS is a sealed bearing, yet there is still an external seal used (item 4)
Was the original OEM bearing sealed?
Don't see it being a problem to be sealed but that makes the external seal somewhat questionable