2013 versus 2014 wheel size

[dave]

Reducing the axel OD increases the bearing ID, unless the OD of the bearing was reduced also. A larger ID bearing should increase the service life of the bearings.

[Phadreus_imp]

Reducing the axel OD increases the bearing ID, unless the OD of the bearing was reduced also. A larger ID bearing should increase the service life of the bearings.

Did you mean to say "Reducing the axel OD, reduces the Bearing ID"? Small Shaft OD = small Bearing ID. If the Bearing OD remains the same as previous with the larger Shaft, then the Bearing Balls increase in diameter for the smaller Shaft. This in theory would increase service life expectancy. I may be misunderstanding what you're meaning Dave...?

[GoldOxide_imp]

Reducing the axel OD increases the bearing ID, unless the OD of the bearing was reduced also. A larger ID bearing should increase the service life of the bearings.

Did you mean to say "Reducing the axel OD, reduces the Bearing ID"? Small Shaft OD = small Bearing ID. If the Bearing OD remains the same as previous with the larger Shaft, then the Bearing Balls increase in diameter for the smaller Shaft. This in theory would increase service life expectancy. I may be misunderstanding what you're meaning Dave...?

Did you mean to say "Reducing the axel OD, reduces the Bearing ID"? Small Shaft OD = small Bearing ID. If the Bearing OD remains the same as previous with the larger Shaft, then the Bearing Balls increase in diameter for the smaller Shaft. This in theory would increase service life expectancy. I may be misunderstanding what you're meaning Dave...?
I would buy the theory of larger balls to share the load.

[tod.branko_imp]

Reducing the axel OD increases the bearing ID, unless the OD of the bearing was reduced also. A larger ID bearing should increase the service life of the bearings.

Did you mean to say "Reducing the axel OD, reduces the Bearing ID"? Small Shaft OD = small Bearing ID. If the Bearing OD remains the same as previous with the larger Shaft, then the Bearing Balls increase in diameter for the smaller Shaft. This in theory would increase service life expectancy. I may be misunderstanding what you're meaning Dave...?

Did you mean to say "Reducing the axel OD, reduces the Bearing ID"? Small Shaft OD = small Bearing ID. If the Bearing OD remains the same as previous with the larger Shaft, then the Bearing Balls increase in diameter for the smaller Shaft. This in theory would increase service life expectancy. I may be misunderstanding what you're meaning Dave...? That does make sense. Still, as you mentioned in your first reply, it probably has no noticable effect on flex at all. Can we confirm that the bearings have the same OD between 2013 and 2014? In that case wheels are probably interchangeable with a swap of bearings regardless of the shaft size? Unless the issue is in the size of opening in the swingarm itself

'14 CB1100 STD 5 speed

[pekingduck]

Reducing the axel OD increases the bearing ID, unless the OD of the bearing was reduced also. A larger ID bearing should increase the service life of the bearings.

Did you mean to say "Reducing the axel OD, reduces the Bearing ID"? Small Shaft OD = small Bearing ID. If the Bearing OD remains the same as previous with the larger Shaft, then the Bearing Balls increase in diameter for the smaller Shaft. This in theory would increase service life expectancy. I may be misunderstanding what you're meaning Dave...?

Did you mean to say "Reducing the axel OD, reduces the Bearing ID"? Small Shaft OD = small Bearing ID. If the Bearing OD remains the same as previous with the larger Shaft, then the Bearing Balls increase in diameter for the smaller Shaft. This in theory would increase service life expectancy. I may be misunderstanding what you're meaning Dave...? That does make sense. Still, as you mentioned in your first reply, it probably has no noticable effect on flex at all. Can we confirm that the bearings have the same OD between 2013 and 2014? In that case wheels are probably interchangeable with a swap of bearings regardless of the shaft size? Unless the issue is in the size of opening in the swingarm itself

'14 CB1100 STD 5 speed

Did you mean to say "Reducing the axel OD, reduces the Bearing ID"? Small Shaft OD = small Bearing ID. If the Bearing OD remains the same as previous with the larger Shaft, then the Bearing Balls increase in diameter for the smaller Shaft. This in theory would increase service life expectancy. I may be misunderstanding what you're meaning Dave...? That does make sense. Still, as you mentioned in your first reply, it probably has no noticable effect on flex at all. Can we confirm that the bearings have the same OD between 2013 and 2014? In that case wheels are probably interchangeable with a swap of bearings regardless of the shaft size? Unless the issue is in the size of opening in the swingarm itself

'14 CB1100 STD 5 speed The right side bearings are both 52mm OD, and the left side bearings are both 47mm OD. But the 2013 uses TWO bearings side-by-side, a combined width of 24mm, and the 2014's single bearing is only 14mm wide.

There are no bearing(s) that have the particular dimensions needed, so a 47mm x 10mm ring spacer needs to be pressed in, and a 10mm longer bearing spacer needs to be machined. The sprocket carrier uses the same bearings, but different spacers, and swingarm axle adjusters will need to be changed.

Doable, just not a bolt-in.

[jtopiso_imp]

Hmm...I call BS on the flex concept from Honda. If you look at where the Axel passes through the Swingarm and consider how close the adjacent Bearings are, the Axel has very little opportunity to flex. The Axel is nearly in sheer at the Bearing/Swingarm intersection, with nearly no unsupported distance allowing flex to occur. Regardless, if one considers the strength of material and the design configuration coupled with suspension designed to allow wheel movement, there is just not enough opposing/resisting force provided above the wheel to generate Axel flex. Ignoring all of that, if the Axel did flex, you're talking about flex measuring in thousands of an inch. Would take one seriously sensitive bum to discern that flex and perceive it as reduced harshness in ride.

Most likely answer is there was an economic reason to do so, which is fine. As long as it doesn't compromise performance, design integrity or safety, go for it.

Exactly. I was writing the same on another post. (it's good to check what others have said!).

The wheel axle is in shear at the intersections, and there is no bending.

[pekingduck]

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.

[GoldOxide_imp]

Yes. Less balls could be rough on rear CB1100 axle shaft.

[Phadreus_imp]

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.

[pekingduck]

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.

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.
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.