Official S65 Bearing Specification/Clearance Wiki

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Any proof pictures of you actually measuring the bearings? Measuring with a clock and slip should be far more accurate than a mic.

Of course I have pictures.

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

I wouldn't call it confidence inspiring exactly.

If you zero out a tenths clock on a 2mm inspection slip and measure a 2.000000mm item you won't see any deviation at all on the dial irrespective of lever angle. It's a comparison check and extremely accurate.

ie, If RG had used any one of those 4 scenarios as shown in his pictures and compared a 2mm slip to a 2mm shell, he would have got exactly the same result, not a .0015" error ('Raw test indicator')

Snow, you're not using it correctly. You've shown pictures of your use and not obeyed the manufacturer's own instructions. Then you didn't use a correction factor to adjust the measurements.

Remember a few pages ago when we were discussing all those math formulas and you said you didn't know what they mean. That was OK then, but now it's very relevant. Those same formulas explain the error and use of correction factors. At this point, I think swamp2 could explain the errors in your measurements better than I can.

But it should definitely be confidence inspiring that I followed the manufacturer's instructions, calculated the correct correction factor, made the measurements, and they corroborated the ball anvil micrometer. Unfortunately, this just isn't the right way to measure bearings.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

I have managed to get some information from BMW on part numbers:
"part number 11247838088 was replaced October 2, 2011 and 11247838089 was replaced March 2, 2011".
Not a massive amount of use but there you go....I tried to get some idea of what changed but so far no luck...still waiting on some replies though.
Weird that the numbers changed in different months.

Originally Posted by catpat8000

What is the source for these statements?

It looks like the same data that I posted here. I think these represent the dates of manufacture for the bearings, not the dates they began installation in the engines. Notice the two dates are six months apart. I found the info on the parts at the URLs below. Notice these dates are listed as production dates.

http://bmwfans.info/parts-catalog/11247838088
http://bmwfans.info/parts-catalog/11247838089

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

What is the source for these statements?

Don't really want to get into that except its BMW...I'm still trying for more info.
You will have to take my word that its valid - or not as you like.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

Of course I have pictures.



Snow, you're not using it correctly. You've shown pictures of your use and not obeyed the manufacturer's own instructions. Then you didn't use a correction factor to adjust the measurements.

Remember a few pages ago when we were discussing all those math formulas and you said you didn't know what they mean. That was OK then, but now it's very relevant. Those same formulas explain the error and use of correction factors. At this point, I think swamp2 could explain the errors in your measurements better than I can.

But it should definitely be confidence inspiring that I followed the manufacturer's instructions, calculated the correct correction factor, made the measurements, and they corroborated the ball anvil micrometer. Unfortunately, this just isn't the right way to measure bearings.

Yes, I do understand trigonometry, and I certainly know how to measure accurately.

I don't think you are understanding the method. It doesn't matter at all about the angle of the clock when used as a comparator. 45 degrees, 10 degrees, skewed to the side, they would all give exactly the same result when zero'd out on a 2mm slip compared to a 2mm item.

Swamp will understand

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Yes, I do understand trigonometry, and I certainly know how to measure accurately.

I don't think you are understanding the method. It doesn't matter at all about the angle of the clock when used as a comparator. 45 degrees, 10 degrees, skewed to the side, they would all give exactly the same result when zero'd out on a 2mm slip compared to a 2mm item.

Swamp will understand

You're right, I don't get it. I do know that we're both using it as a comparator. We both had to use a slip gauge as reference, then we both had to use that reference as a comparator. Yet I was able to come up with the same results as the ball anvil micrometer when I followed the manufactures instructions for measuring angle and using the correction factor to fix the cosine error introduced by being off angle.

Snow if this turned out to be better, I would use it going forward. It just wasn't better for me.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Originally Posted by regular guy

It looks like the same data that I posted here. I think these represent the dates of manufacture for the bearings, not the dates they began installation in the engines. Notice the two dates are six months apart. I found the info on the parts at the URLs below. Notice these dates are listed as production dates.

http://bmwfans.info/parts-catalog/11247838088
http://bmwfans.info/parts-catalog/11247838089

Cool...I asked my guy ages ago and he only just got back to me....still good to have 2 separate sources that agree.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by regular guy

You're right, I don't get it. I do know that we're both using it as a comparator. We both had to use a slip gauge as reference, then we both had to use that reference as a comparator. Yet I was able to come up with the same results as the ball anvil micrometer when I followed the manufactures instructions for measuring angle and using the correction factor to fix the cosine error introduced by being off angle.

Snow if this turned out to be better, I would use it going forward. It just wasn't better for me.

Imagine this:

Lay the 2mm slip down and zero the clock. Now remove the slip and replace with another identical 2mm slip (Or the same slip again).

What would the clock now read if the lever was at 45 degrees?

What would the clock read if the lever was at 5 degrees?


I think you are introducing an error that's not there to start with. You should take the raw indicator reading, not calc for trig

[kawasaki00]

This has really turned into a pissing contest.
If anyone wants to say a ball mic that has a .00005 accuracy is not good enough to measure a bearing you are on crack plain and simple.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

This has really turned into a pissing contest.
If anyone wants to say a ball mic that has a .00005 accuracy is not good enough to measure a bearing you are on crack plain and simple.

Sorry pal but if you think 4 tenths" is irrelevant that's your problem. No pi$$ing contest here.

If members are sending $600 over for a service, they should expect accuracy.

[swamp2]

I believe one must use correction factors for these indicators, it is not about the zero point those will indeed always be zero for any angle of the tip. The point is about CHANGES from the zero. Sorry YS - you're totally wrong here.

Think about this simple thought experiment - use the device totally incorrectly and place the tip vertically (or very close to vertical). What happens when you change from a cal gage to an item of a different height - the darn tip does not move! In this configuration it can only respond to fore/aft changes (or left right, however you are situated). Obviously though when level the tip does move and this is how the darn thing is designed and calibrated. Thus there is a simple trigonometric correction factor, not for the zeros but for the relative movement from zero.

rg's measurements showing the very close correspondence between two techniques only with the correction factor also completely validates the method.

Also, YS - do you have the audacity to claim the manufacturer of the equipment themselves don't understand how to get accurate measurements from it?

I think it is time to close down the measurement debate technique. YS - you "won" the it's OK to measure at the bearing saddle with a ball indicator, rg has won the correction factor for tip angle. It turns out they are related! Let's move on to some real understanding.

[kawasaki00]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Sorry pal but if you think 4 tenths" is irrelevant that's your problem. No pi$$ing contest here.

If members are sending $600 over for a service, they should expect accuracy.

So you are telling me I dont know how to measure with a mic. You are the one with a problem. So you jump up and down about how great your methods are and then you slam everyone elses. I post pics of the mic on the bearing and it is still discredited.
Furthermore, when it really comes down to it the only measurement that matters is what it is torqued in the rod. Measuring bearing thickness is all fine and dandy but in the end it is a worthless number. The only two numbers that matter are clearance and crush. That my friend is fact and not up for debate.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I believe one must use correction factors for these indicators, it is not about the zero point those will indeed always be zero for any angle of the tip. [b]The point is about CHANGES from the zero[b]. Sorry YS - you're totally wrong here.

Think about this simple thought experiment - use the device totally incorrectly and place the tip vertically (or very close to vertical). What happens when you change from a cal gage to an item of a different height - the darn tip does not move! In this configuration it can only respond to fore/aft changes (or left right, however you are situated). Obviously though when level the tip does move and this is how the darn thing is designed and calibrated. Thus there is a simple trigonometric correction factor, not for the zeros but for the relative movement from zero.

rg's measurements showing the very close correspondence between two techniques only with the correction factor also completely validates the method.

Also, YS - do you have the audacity to claim the manufacturer of the equipment themselves don't understand how to get accurate measurements from it?

I think it is time to close down the measurement debate technique. YS - you "won" the it's OK to measure at the bearing saddle with a ball indicator, rg has won the correction factor for tip angle. It turns out they are related! Let's move on to some real understanding.

Swamp. I certainly don't have the audacity to suggest the manufacturer is wrong, but I don't think you are seeing my point.

From the pics it looks like RG is zeroing the clock on the table, then laying a .050" slip under the clock so the clock is doing the measurement. (not a comparison test) In this instance, trig certainly needs to be considered. It's easy to see how a total .050" rotation of the dial will be skewed by cosin errors. That is what the manufacturer is referring to and I fully agree

If he put zero'd onto a .050" slip, them measured another .050" item, the result would be absolutely accurate irrespective of lever angle. The dial would be in exactly the same position with no dial movement taking place. (A direct comparison test) How can you trig it out when the lever shows .0000" movement?

Can you see what I mean? I guarantee I am correct.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by kawasaki00

So you are telling me I dont know how to measure with a mic. You are the one with a problem. So you jump up and down about how great your methods are and then you slam everyone elses. I post pics of the mic on the bearing and it is still discredited.
Furthermore, when it really comes down to it the only measurement that matters is what it is torqued in the rod. Measuring bearing thickness is all fine and dandy but in the end it is a worthless number. The only two numbers that matter are clearance and crush. That my friend is fact and not up for debate.

I don't recall saying you don't know how to use a mic. What I am saying is that it's difficult to measure a soft faced bearing. Three people will have three different results as proven in this thread.

My method is 100% accurate whichever side of the globe you are on and whoever is doing the measurement.

I have already stated that I agree with rod and journal sizes which are very easy to measure and consistent. They all appear to be within .0001" which is excellent.

The only differences that crop up are when the bearings are fitted in the rods. That's why it's important to do a thorough size check of the bearing before it's fitted. Then again afterwards when it's torqued in the rod for a full diameter check.

This will denote whether any problems are due to bad assembly or inconsistent bearings. Some of the assembled sizes are varying by .0005" which can only be down to these two points.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

From the pics it looks like RG is zeroing the clock on the table, then laying a .050" slip under the clock so the clock is doing the measurement. (not a comparison test) In this instance, trig certainly needs to be considered. It's easy to see how a total .050" rotation of the dial will be skewed by cosin errors. That is what the manufacturer is referring to and I fully agree

I see a 2mm gage being used. I think the thinner gage is only a reference when discussing the tilt of the entire unit (more or less tilt around the axis of the tip).

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

If he put zero'd onto a .050" slip, them measured another .050" item, the result would be absolutely accurate irrespective of lever angle. The dial would be in exactly the same position with no dial movement taking place. (A direct comparison test) How can you trig it out when the lever shows .0000" movement?

Can you see what I mean? I guarantee I am correct.

Yes, like I said, if you only measure things exactly the same size as your gage no corrections are required. However, a correction is required for ANY delta from the gage whether 1/10th or .01". Here there is a delta so there is a correction. You may be correct on one point but that doesn't make you correct about not needing a correction for rg's measurements.

I think we can all agree that all that really matters is the measurement after installation so maybe we can focus on this.

[rocket_science]

For those who are looking for some general info on bearings and tolerances:

http://kingbearings.com/files/Geomet...e_Bearings.pdf

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by rocket_science

For those who are looking for some general info on bearings and tolerances:

http://kingbearings.com/files/Geomet...e_Bearings.pdf

^^^^

That's a great read.

Thanks for posting the link. It gives me an idea to add a link to the front page of the thread. Let's see if I can remember to do it.

[flipm3]

I have no idea how I overlooked this thread, but man I have some serious reading and studying to do.

Before I embark on this crazy rod bearing journey, I just wanted to thank everyone who was involved in collating and putting together all this information.

Time to take out those reading glasses!

[regular guy]

Quick update:

Here's where we are so far. I've got the virgin 702/703 bearings, and already measured the thicknesses. You've seen a preview of the results here. I will post a full write up a little later when I also measure the clearances.

There's still no word on the 088/089 bearings. It looks like 088 bearings are gone for good. But I've got a lead on a set of virgin 089 bearings. They are very pricey @ $40 per! I waiting to hear the final word on if I can get these bearings. Since 088's appear to be completely gone, I will have to make a set of my own using the best 088's that I have. I've got about 5 different bearing sets to chose from, and I'll be looking for the eight best I can find.

I also have a near 13/16ths set of Calico coated bearings that I plan to measure at the same time. Don't ask me why 1.5 cylinders of shells were missing when they sent to me. I've already measured the thicknesses of these and will post the results later as well.

So far, here's the expenses.
8 x 702 bearings @ 17.86 ea = $142.88
8 x 703 bearings @ 24.49 ea = $195.92
32 x Rod Bolts @ 5.51 ea = $176.32
9% sales tax = $46.36
Total = $561.48

Total donations: $950.00
Balance: $388.52

If the 089 bearings come through, then this will eat up all but $40 of the donations. If the 089 bearings fall through, then I'll do the same as 088's to make up the best set I can get. If that's the case, then I will refund the balance to everybody proportionally based on how much they gave.

Friday I will pick up the crankshafts I left at Van Dyne. The next big data dump will come after Christmas. If anything of note comes up, I will update the thread.

[SenorFunkyPants]

Its going to be interesting to see what results you get...according to the person I've been exchanging emails with at BMW the rod bearing revision in 2011 was a materials change only and the "the dimensions remained the same".

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Its going to be interesting to see what results you get...according to the person I've been exchanging emails with at BMW the rod bearing revision in 2011 was a materials change only and the "the dimensions remained the same".

That seems to confirm the findings on page 1

You can see a difference in overlay colour between old and new type bearings along with sizes here in RG's post from P1

Originally Posted by regular guy

Since I posted this, I ordered and received samples of each of these rod bearings including the oversized bearings. Yesterday, I measured and photographed all of the rod bearings.

Rod Bearings:
11 24 7 838 089 Blue, 53.000 mm, +0.000 mm, 0.07890" Thick, Ended
11 24 7 841 703 Blue, 53.000 mm, +0.000 mm, 0.07890" Thick, Replacement for 089 bearing
11 24 7 838 091 Blue, 52.750 mm, +0.250 mm, 0.08370" Thick, Currently available

11 24 7 838 088 Red, 53.000 mm, +0.000 mm, 0.07875" Thick, Ended
11 24 7 841 702 Red, 53.000 mm, +0.000 mm, 0.07875" Thick, Replacement for 088 bearing
11 24 7 838 090 Red, 52.750 mm, +0.250 mm, 0.08370" Thick, Currently available

Here's a photo of the old and new bearings side-by-side with part numbers shown. As seen in the photo, the bearing surfaces are quite different. More Photos Here.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Its going to be interesting to see what results you get...according to the person I've been exchanging emails with at BMW the rod bearing revision in 2011 was a materials change only and the "the dimensions remained the same".

That's what we all thought until kawasaki measured them. And now my measurements with two different methods have confirmed his.

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

That seems to confirm the findings on page 1

You can see a difference in overlay colour between old and new type bearings along with sizes here in RG's post from P1

It's almost guaranteed that those first measurements were wrong. Those measurements were taken on 09/13 before this thread was created and before I visited Van Dyne on 09/19 to learn how to measure bearing thickness. That data has not been updated since, and will always remain incorrect because it is from old and stale posts. But it will be updated and replaced soon with official measurements.

Page-1 will soon be updated official thickness measurements for 702/703 bearings. For now, you can assume they are already posted here:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...postcount=1643

[biglare]