10-08-2021, 05:11 AM
(10-08-2021, 02:50 AM)Phadreus_imp Wrote:That interesting PD. I would venture to say what kills bearings over time is heat, caused by friction. Fewer balls should equate to less friction, but few points to carry the load which should increase friction. Would take more information than I have to find the balance point between these two to design the ultimate bearing configuration.(10-07-2021, 09:41 PM)pekingduck_imp Wrote: Given the same outside dimension, a bearing with a smaller inner diameter will allow for a larger diameter ball, which carries more load, and also rotates more slowly. It may result in a lesser number of balls however.That interesting PD. I would venture to say what kills bearings over time is heat, caused by friction. Fewer balls should equate to less friction, but few points to carry the load which should increase friction. Would take more information than I have to find the balance point between these two to design the ultimate bearing configuration.
Another point to consider with this Bearing application is the inherent overdesign aspect which comes with most power transmission applications. If you look strictly at loading vs Bearing capacity, you will most likely see that the Bearing selected has far more capacity than the application warrants, at least in typical application conditions. That overdesign often times equates in benefits such as increased life expectancy, less noise in the application, less consumption of lubrication, better use of standard/common components, better sourcing availability of components, larger safety factor, lower costs and so forth. Consider all those factors, and you end up with Honda's Bearing choice, which at a first glance is as I stated earlier, would appear over designed for the application.
My main point is, it would seem possible to change Axel and Bearing sizes within the range of our discussion with little to no risk of adverse results.
Another point to consider with this Bearing application is the inherent overdesign aspect which comes with most power transmission applications. If you look strictly at loading vs Bearing capacity, you will most likely see that the Bearing selected has far more capacity than the application warrants, at least in typical application conditions. That overdesign often times equates in benefits such as increased life expectancy, less noise in the application, less consumption of lubrication, better use of standard/common components, better sourcing availability of components, larger safety factor, lower costs and so forth. Consider all those factors, and you end up with Honda's Bearing choice, which at a first glance is as I stated earlier, would appear over designed for the application.
My main point is, it would seem possible to change Axel and Bearing sizes within the range of our discussion with little to no risk of adverse results.
I agree, Mark. We don't know why the change, but either axle size is more than sufficient. I have never heard of an axle fracture failure in a stock application. Likewise an OEM wheel bearing failure except when greatly overloaded, mis-installed, or dirt/water contaminated. I will say that aftermarket bearings from China/India/SE Asia usually come with little grease in them, even double sealed ones.
The reason for the change could be as simple as saving 25 cents on a bearing and 10 cents on a smaller axle (on 15,000 units).
It's always a struggle for a manufacturer to get a first-year model out with no problems. After the original blueprints are all finalized, then comes the edict to see where pennies or fractions of pennies can be saved.