Video - These are THE BEST rod bearings for your S65/S85 - Mahle Motorsport

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by tdott

This sums it up nicely.

Thanks!

[S85 builder]

Originally Posted by Helmsman

Cheers. Pretty sure the original BE shell was slightly more open but understand they've modufied it. Still curious to why the latter/current is up to 0.068mm. Lets see if Green Egg chime in

Ps. Nope, have not turned of notifications!

Because BMW had finally disclosed the nominal spec and tolerance range for the clearance so BE made revisions accordingly, but there's no substituting for detailed measurement of your rod journals, but that's only practical if your crank is out.

[Helmsman]

Originally Posted by S85 builder

Because BMW had finally disclosed the nominal spec and tolerance range for the clearance so BE made revisions accordingly, but there's no substituting for detailed measurement of your rod journals, but that's only practical if your crank is out.

Hmm, interesting. From what I understand BE state clearande (nominal, target clearance) based on the shaft numbers they earlier estimated (believe from a number of measured shafts). Wonder why the target clearance all of a sudden would change, if they revised the shell according to BMW disclosed spec, or do I miss something?

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Assimilator1

Helmsman (tagged, seeing as you have turned off thread notification ).

Yes it is, from their page - http://wiki.rcollins.org/core/index....-2.29:_SP1527F

Bearing clearance specification.
For v1 bearings :-
Nominal Rod Bearing Clearance 0.0597 mm 0.00235 inch

For v2 bearings :-
Nominal Rod Bearing Clearance 0.0681 mm 0.00268 inch

*************************

Apologies to the op for keep talking about rival bearings, but at least you're getting your thread bumped up more often!

As I said earlier, these numbers are, and always have been, based on actual measurements that are shown in the tables included on the wiki. Feel free to verify them.

You will also notice that the same language and "specifications" are provided for ACL, King, VAC, and others. Important to understand that it would be inconsistent of the wiki page to have different definitions for different manufactures. So, to say it one last time: these are all measured clearances and can be verified based on the actual measurements found on the wiki page.

When a manufacture provides actual specifications, then you will see a separate section entitled "Theoretical Clearances." Theoretical clearances are calculated clearances based on manufacturer's specifications.

Originally Posted by Helmsman

Cheers. Pretty sure the original BE shell was slightly more open but understand they've modufied it. Still curious to why the latter/current is up to 0.068mm. Lets see if Green Egg chime in

Ps. Nope, have not turned of notifications!

These are based on measurements. The target clearance specification has never changed, not even since V1, but manufacturing processes do change. Therefore, BE will update the shell thicknesses on occasion to get the measured clearances closer to the target clearance specification.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by S85 builder

Because BMW had finally disclosed the nominal spec and tolerance range for the clearance so BE made revisions accordingly, but there's no substituting for detailed measurement of your rod journals, but that's only practical if your crank is out.

Not correct. BE clearance specification has never change since the beginning of time. But tweaks were made to shell thickness (4-times for V1, 1-time for V2) to get the measured clearances closer to the specified clearances. The target clearance was, and always has been 0.0024 inch on a nominal journal. This target clearance specification has not ever changed.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Helmsman

Hmm, interesting. From what I understand BE state clearande (nominal, target clearance) based on the shaft numbers they earlier estimated (believe from a number of measured shafts). Wonder why the target clearance all of a sudden would change, if they revised the shell according to BMW disclosed spec, or do I miss something?

Simple answer: because the claim by S85 builder is not correct. It's probably just a misunderstanding, or possibly misinformation provided by a competitor. Sadly, the latter has happened many times by the same competitor.

[S85 builder]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Not correct. BE clearance specification has never change since the beginning of time. But tweaks were made to shell thickness (4-times for V1, 1-time for V2) to get the measured clearances closer to the specified clearances. The target clearance was, and always has been 0.0024 inch on a nominal journal. This target clearance specification has not ever changed.

The thicknesses DID change that's not in dispute. Therefore the actual clearances for BE did actually change. BMW also did also at some point release their clearance spec, that's not in dispute either. Perhaps, I'm reading this to say that despite knowing the OEM released the actual nominal spec, BE did still did nothing in reponse, that would be a very very odd reaction to new information.

Perhaps, you're taking specific issue with how I worded the sentence to say target clearance, in this case 0.0024, which I have no issue with.

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Simple answer: because the claim by S85 builder is not correct. It's probably just a misunderstanding, or possibly misinformation provided by a competitor. Sadly, the latter has happened many times by the same competitor.

As for this comment, it's pure a garbage response. I don't make or sell bearings, I'm not a competitor. I was an early customer. I've used BE on 2 of my builds (oh I actually did sell a 3rd set since a friend wanted a set and couldn't get them in late 2019). The others I did were ACL because the customer wanted ACL and they were available with BE bearings were unobtainable.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by S85 builder

The thicknesses DID change that's not in dispute. Therefore the actual clearances for BE did actually change. BMW also did also at some point release their clearance spec, that's not in dispute either. Perhaps, I'm reading this to say that despite knowing the OEM released the actual nominal spec, BE did still did nothing in reponse, that would be a very very odd reaction to new information.

Perhaps, you're taking specific issue with how I worded the sentence to say target clearance, in this case 0.0024, which I have no issue with.

The only reaction BE took in response to the discovery of the BMW specs was to publish them (the BMW specs) on the BE wiki page on May-15, 2019. The last, and final, revision to BE V1 shell thickness prior to this discovery was May, 2015 (four years prior), and the introduction of the +025mm shell in July, 2016. The BE V2 shell was released in May, 2022 -- six or five years after the final change to the BE V1 thickness depending on which shell you're comparing to. There's clearly no correlation between any information from BMW and any reaction by BE. Besides, it doesn't make any sense that BE would change anything in response since the target clearance of 0.0024 inch had never changed, and the nominal journal size had not changed.

As for this comment, it's pure a garbage response. I don't make or sell bearings, I'm not a competitor. I was an early customer. I've used BE on 2 of my builds (oh I actually did sell a 3rd set since a friend wanted a set and couldn't get them in late 2019). The others I did were ACL because the customer wanted ACL and they were available with BE bearings were unobtainable.

I think you missed this in my comment: "It's probably just a misunderstanding" -- which definitely seems like that is the case.

[uk215m3]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

Not correct. BE clearance specification has never change since the beginning of time. But tweaks were made to shell thickness (4-times for V1, 1-time for V2) to get the measured clearances closer to the specified clearances. The target clearance was, and always has been 0.0024 inch on a nominal journal. This target clearance specification has not ever changed.

Can i clrify something here as i must have misunderstood.

"The target clearance was, and always has been 0.0024 inch on a nominal journal. This target clearance specification has not ever changed"

If this is the case why is nominal clearance stated for V2 0.00268 inch ???

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by uk215m3

Can i clrify something here as i must have misunderstood.

"The target clearance was, and always has been 0.0024 inch on a nominal journal. This target clearance specification has not ever changed"

If this is the case why is nominal clearance stated for V2 0.00268 inch ???

You're referring to the BE Wiki page. The BE Wiki page has always presented measured data. You'll see this for all manufacturers listed on the page, not just BE. Right under each section, you'll see the measurements themselves and should be able to verify the results presented above them.

[uk215m3]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

You're referring to the BE Wiki page. The BE Wiki page has always presented measured data. You'll see this for all manufacturers listed on the page, not just BE. Right under each section, you'll see the measurements themselves and should be able to verify the results presented above them.

sorry maybe my question is also misleading, im referring to your post, not wiki, mentioned in your post 0.0024, but not mentioned anywhere i can find on the wiki page, your post seems to insinuate that 0.0024 is what BE is aiming for "and always has been" ????? just confused where this measurement is coming from as cant find any other reference to it ? or i have it all wrong

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by uk215m3

sorry maybe my question is also misleading, im referring to your post, not wiki, mentioned in your post 0.0024, but not mentioned anywhere i can find on the wiki page, your post seems to insinuate that 0.0024 is what BE is aiming for "and always has been" ????? just confused where this measurement is coming from as cant find any other reference to it ? or i have it all wrong

Correct, that is the spec and the target clearance. Everything else comes from measured data, not theoretical specs.

[PaulGros]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

You're referring to the BE Wiki page. The BE Wiki page has always presented measured data. You'll see this for all manufacturers listed on the page, not just BE. Right under each section, you'll see the measurements themselves and should be able to verify the results presented above them.

I'm struggling to verify them.

If I take BE V2 which is an uncoated bearing, I have (from the wiki) the following wall thickness

Upper - 1.9939 - 2.0066mm
Lower - 1.9812 - 1.9939mm

If I use the following sizes crank / housing sizes

Housing - 56.013mm (OE published max size)
Journal - 51.9811mm (wiki states 2.0465" used for calculations)

using the wiki formula for calculating theoretical MAX clearance

BEmax - JDmin - LWRmin - UPRmin - (2*CTmin) gives the following

56.013 - 51.9811 - 1.9812 - 1.9939 - (2*0.00) = 0.0568mm (.0022")

This calculated theoretical max clearance is marginally smaller than the target 0.0610mm (.0024")?

What data is being used to calculate the target clearance?

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by PaulGros

I'm struggling to verify them.

If I take BE V2 which is an uncoated bearing, I have (from the wiki) the following wall thickness

Upper - 1.9939 - 2.0066mm
Lower - 1.9812 - 1.9939mm

If I use the following sizes crank / housing sizes

Housing - 56.013mm (OE published max size)
Journal - 51.9811mm (wiki states 2.0465" used for calculations)

using the wiki formula for calculating theoretical MAX clearance

BEmax - JDmin - LWRmin - UPRmin - (2*CTmin) gives the following

56.013 - 51.9811 - 1.9812 - 1.9939 - (2*0.00) = 0.0568mm (.0022")

This calculated theoretical max clearance is marginally smaller than the target 0.0610mm (.0024")?

What data is being used to calculate the target clearance?

It took me a while to figure out what you did here. I see one difference, and one mistake. The difference: you started with metric measurements, then converted to US; that introduces a small rounding error (even if it is technically correct to calculate in metric). The mistake: You used the nominal rod journal size for your calculations instead of the theoretical minimum size that was posted (2.0464). When I changed to your numbers, I get your results. Using the published data, I get 0.00234 inch theoretical max clearance. Using the ACL data for journal size, I get 0.00244.

There's definitely a difference between theoretical values and measured values, and I think that's the benefit of data like this.

[PaulGros]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

It took me a while to figure out what you did here. I see one difference, and one mistake. The difference: you started with metric measurements, then converted to US; that introduces a small rounding error (even if it is technically correct to calculate in metric). The mistake: You used the nominal rod journal size for your calculations instead of the theoretical minimum size that was posted (2.0464). When I changed to your numbers, I get your results. Using the published data, I get 0.00234 inch theoretical max clearance. Using the ACL data for journal size, I get 0.00244.

There's definitely a difference between theoretical values and measured values, and I think that's the benefit of data like this.

All published size data is in metric, including the BE wall measurements so I used metric to minimise rounding errors.

The use of the nominal rod size was NOT a mistake. I used this figure as it has been stated that the BE target clearance is based on this. Yes, I accept that it IS technically incorrect, but I was following how BE is stating they are calculating.

So if I rerun the numbers using ACL crank data I get a max theoretical clearance of

0.0629mm (.002476")

Now this is still very close to the claimed target clearance of .0024"

Given the target clearance is also theoretical I can't see how this figure can be achieved with out all bearings being on minimum wall thickness and crank / housing on max limit? So how is BE arriving at the .0024" target clearance figure?

The industry standard for quoting a nominal clearance figure would be to use the mean figure between theoretical minimum and theoretical maximum. ACL does this and my calculations concur with their claims.

ACL published 0.035mm (.001378")
My calculation 0.0355mm (.001398")


If I then use the same for BE (using ACL crank sizing) I get the following

Theoretical Max 0.0629mm (.002476")
Theoretical Min 0.0085mm (.000335")
Theoretical Avg 0.0357mm (.001406")

So if we want to compare apples with apples for published clearances we need to calculate in the same way, otherwise the data is meaning less for comparison purposes.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by PaulGros

All published size data is in metric, including the BE wall measurements so I used metric to minimise rounding errors.

BE uses values and performs calculations that originate in US measurements and are converted to metric for the wiki.

The use of the nominal rod size was NOT a mistake. I used this figure as it has been stated that the BE target clearance is based on this. Yes, I accept that it IS technically incorrect, but I was following how BE is stating they are calculating.

Here's why I say it's incorrect: you said that you used this average journal value to calculate "the theoretical maximum clearance." The average journal size is not the value used by BE for this calculation. The value shown in the previous post was the correct value for that calculation. Even calling it theoretical maximum clearance is not correct. "Theoretical values" should always be derived from the specs (blueprint values), which BE has never published, nor has anybody else except ACL. Maybe these should be called "derived specifications" not theoretical ones. Just my $0.02.

]So if I rerun the numbers using ACL crank data I get a max theoretical clearance of

0.0629mm (.002476")

Now this is still very close to the claimed target clearance of .0024"

Given the target clearance is also theoretical I can't see how this figure can be achieved with out all bearings being on minimum wall thickness and crank / housing on max limit? So how is BE arriving at the .0024" target clearance figure?

The industry standard for quoting a nominal clearance figure would be to use the mean figure between theoretical minimum and theoretical maximum. ACL does this and my calculations concur with their claims.

Every calculation on the BE wiki does this as well, and I just confirmed it for all bearings discussed at the wiki, except King it appears this data is missing, and Mahle Motorsport which doesn't have measurements posted yet. It always starts with the measured results. The smallest measurement uses the largest rod journal size (2.0468) to calculate minimum clearance. The largest measurement uses the smallest rod journal size (2.0464) to calculate maximum clearance. The mean (or mode) measurement uses the mean journal size of 2.0465. Every single entry on the wiki follows this exact convention and that can be confirmed because every measurement on the wiki is provided to allow anybody to double check the math.

So, let's pull one at random: ACL H-STD.
The smallest measurement was 2.04840. Using maximum journal size, subtract 2.04680, giving clearance of 0.00160. The largest measurement was 2.04875, subtract 2.0464, giving clearance of 0.00235. The mode (not average) measurement was 2.0484, subtracting 2.0465, giving clearance of 0.00190. The decision to use mode instead of average on ACL is a different discussion. But it's easy to verify that these are the exact values posted on the wiki page and how they were derived exactly as you suggested above.

If you've found a mistake in the wiki, then please point it out and explain how it doesn't follow this same convention.

ACL published 0.035mm (.001378")
My calculation 0.0355mm (.001398")


If I then use the same for BE (using ACL crank sizing) I get the following

Theoretical Max 0.0629mm (.002476")
Theoretical Min 0.0085mm (.000335")
Theoretical Avg 0.0357mm (.001406")

So if we want to compare apples with apples for published clearances we need to calculate in the same way, otherwise the data is meaning less for comparison purposes.

They are all calculated exactly the same way -- remembering these are measured (or derived) results, not theoretical results. All theoretical values should be calculated from the published specification. All derived values should be calculated from the measurements.

[PaulGros]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

BE uses values and performs calculations that originate in US measurements and are converted to metric for the wiki.



Here's why I say it's incorrect: you said that you used this average journal value to calculate "the theoretical maximum clearance." The average journal size is not the value used by BE for this calculation. The value shown in the previous post was the correct value for that calculation. Even calling it theoretical maximum clearance is not correct. "Theoretical values" should always be derived from the specs (blueprint values), which BE has never published, nor has anybody else except ACL. Maybe these should be called "derived specifications" not theoretical ones. Just my $0.02.



Every calculation on the BE wiki does this as well, and I just confirmed it for all bearings discussed at the wiki, except King it appears this data is missing, and Mahle Motorsport which doesn't have measurements posted yet. It always starts with the measured results. The smallest measurement uses the largest rod journal size (2.0468) to calculate minimum clearance. The largest measurement uses the smallest rod journal size (2.0464) to calculate maximum clearance. The mean (or mode) measurement uses the mean journal size of 2.0465. Every single entry on the wiki follows this exact convention and that can be confirmed because every measurement on the wiki is provided to allow anybody to double check the math.

So, let's pull one at random: ACL H-STD.
The smallest measurement was 2.04840. Using maximum journal size, subtract 2.04680, giving clearance of 0.00160. The largest measurement was 2.04875, subtract 2.0464, giving clearance of 0.00235. The mode (not average) measurement was 2.0484, subtracting 2.0465, giving clearance of 0.00190. The decision to use mode instead of average on ACL is a different discussion. But it's easy to verify that these are the exact values posted on the wiki page and how they were derived exactly as you suggested above.

If you've found a mistake in the wiki, then please point it out and explain how it doesn't follow this same convention.



They are all calculated exactly the same way -- remembering these are measured (or derived) results, not theoretical results. All theoretical values should be calculated from the published specification. All derived values should be calculated from the measurements.

I'll reply in more detail tomorrow as it's late here in the UK.

But I'm still struggling to understand how a target clearance of. 0024" can be achieved with the stated wall thicknesses? Please explain how this figure is arrived at.

[PaulGros]

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

BE uses values and performs calculations that originate in US measurements and are converted to metric for the wiki.



Here's why I say it's incorrect: you said that you used this average journal value to calculate "the theoretical maximum clearance." The average journal size is not the value used by BE for this calculation. The value shown in the previous post was the correct value for that calculation. Even calling it theoretical maximum clearance is not correct.

I was questioning the BE claimed target clearance of .024" at nominal journal size here on m3post. Can you show how .024" can be achieved using a nominal journal size and the published BE wall data from the WIKI?

It is correct to state Theoretical max clearance for the nominal journal size that the stated BE target is based on.

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

"Theoretical values" should always be derived from the specs (blueprint values), which BE has never published, nor has anybody else except ACL. Maybe these should be called "derived specifications" not theoretical ones. Just my $0.02.

Incorrect. ACL, MAHLE and King have all published max wall data and it is publicly available. In fact it is standard for any bearing manufacturer to publish the max wall thickness. This data is ALWAYS from the print. Only BE has not published

ACL - 1.998mm
King SV - 1.996mm
King GPC - 1.996mm
MAHLE - 1.997mm
BE - Assumed 2.0066 & 1.9939 from the wiki data

All of the above also publish crank and housing size data except BE.

Granted, they are not publishing tolerances or minimum wall thickness, although these are generally known for at least ACL (8um) & MAHLE (9um)

So from the above data we get a maximum wall thickness as follows:

ACL - 2 x 1.998mm = 3.996mm
King SV - 2 x 1.996mm = 3.992mm
King GPC - 2 x 1.996mm = 3.992mm
MAHLE - 2 x 1.997mm = 3.994mm
BE - ??? Assumed 2.0066 + 1.9939mm = 4.005mm from the wiki data

The above also assumes that for BE you pack one of each size bearing

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

So, let's pull one at random: ACL H-STD.
The smallest measurement was 2.04840. Using maximum journal size, subtract 2.04680, giving clearance of 0.00160. The largest measurement was 2.04875, subtract 2.0464, giving clearance of 0.00235. The mode (not average) measurement was 2.0484, subtracting 2.0465, giving clearance of 0.00190. The decision to use mode instead of average on ACL is a different discussion. But it's easy to verify that these are the exact values posted on the wiki page and how they were derived exactly as you suggested above.

The WIKI states that a nominal rod size of 2.0465" is used for clearance measurements as per image attached. In the example you quote the WIKI gives a clearance of .0019" not .0016"?

The WIKI also doesn't state that mode rather than median is used. I would be interested in why mode rather than median was used. I remain to be convinced that this is a fair comparison, any parts with a wider tolerance show "Improved" clearance.

Originally Posted by Green-Eggs

They are all calculated exactly the same way -- remembering these are measured (or derived) results, not theoretical results. All theoretical values should be calculated from the published specification. All derived values should be calculated from the measurements.

It would be easier for BE to publish at least Max wall thickness, crank and housing sizing data as other manufacturers do. This would then allow anyone to easily compare all available parts with their chosen crank & housing data.

[Brandoch]

Why is there 4 or more threads going at the same time about the same thing. It's to hard to follow along any more.

Please make a thread dedicated to discussing the engineering and technical aspects of bearings. Leave the other threads to their original point.

[Green-Eggs]

Originally Posted by Brandoch

Why is there 4 or more threads going at the same time about the same thing. It's to hard to follow along any more.

Please make a thread dedicated to discussing the engineering and technical aspects of bearings. Leave the other threads to their original point.

Oh, you mean like this thread which is not only the most viewed thread on this entire sub-forum, but answers more than 90% of all questions asked, including many of those asked above?

https://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892838

[Adam M]

Green-Eggs,

Do you have a connection to BE?

I asked on another thread but don’t recall seeing an answer.

[tdott]

Originally Posted by Brandoch

Why is there 4 or more threads going at the same time about the same thing. It's to hard to follow along any more.

Please make a thread dedicated to discussing the engineering and technical aspects of bearings. Leave the other threads to their original point.

When you are claiming THE BEST bearing, it's inherently a technical point and is the topic of this thread.

Sorry you don't have the capacity to grasp the concepts. Perhaps a little more reading will help you