RT Bad Pulley

The bike is a 2015 RT-S SE6. Mileage is a bit over 15,000. Front Pulley had to be replaced. Three months out of stock warranty. BEST warranty says it's a "wear item" so it won't cover it. BRP did step up with a "Good Will" coverage so Thank You, BRP. A shout out to Escondido Cycle Center for their excellent service since they are behind during jet ski season here in the San Diego area and we are leaving for a 2500+ mile trip to Bend, OR and back on September 5th. The shop properly diagnosed, negotiated the warranty coverage, ordered the part and performed the repair all in a 9 day time frame. Thanks Guys!! You saved our vacation!

So, I had been off of the bike for about 2 months due to a surgery. First time back on, did about 110 miles with some friends and noticed a distinct gravelly, grinding, not pleasant sound coming from the left front side of the bike but only during deceleration. When I was accelerating, it was fine. When I was pretty "neutral" in my speed, it was fine. Only could hear it when there was engine back pressure while slowing down. I'm thinking that the condition came on slowly and therefore my ears got more and more used to it. The absence off of the bike allowed me to get back on fresh and say "hey, that ain't right".

The mechanic at the shop could easily hear the noise. He pulled some tupperware and his first telltale sign was some reddish, powdery deposits on the inside of the cover that goes over the pulley. He had seen this previously on a couple of RS's he said but never on an RT. Once he removed the bolt from the pulley the one sided wear on the pulley teeth were very obvious. He said that the splines on the shaft coming out of the transmission are cut in such a way that they don't go across the entire width of the pulley so this made it pretty difficult to get the pulley off. The wear had left a small full portion area of the spline tooth at both the front and back face of the pulley, probably with a substantial burr in those areas as well. It took some work to get the pulley off.

Hope this information might help somebody else with a proper diagnosis. The talent of Herme the mechanic saved us from possibly tearing into the transmission for no good reason, being without the bike for an extended period and missing the vacation we had planned for a year.

Glad BRP stepped up on this for you ....and thanks very much for posting this ..... the wear is very obvious ...... Now the question for me is .... WHY, did this occur !!!! .... and did He have any recommendation on HOW this could be prevented ? ? ? ...... Mike :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUEKNIGHT911

Glad BRP stepped up on this for you ....and thanks very much for posting this ..... the wear is very obvious ...... Now the question for me is .... WHY, did this occur !!!! .... and did He have any recommendation on HOW this could be prevented ? ? ? ...... Mike :thumbup:

---

The mechanic stated that he thought that the part had "missed the heat treat operation". I informed him that I work for a commercial heat treat facility and have access to the Rockwell hardness testing machines necessary to take some hardness readings on the part. Of course, we don't know what the hardness SHOULD be, I would only be able to tell you what it actually is. The problem is that as a warranty item, the shop is obligated to keep the part in their possession for 30 days minimum. The picture is one I took when I picked up the bike. In a month from now, I will probably be the only one still wondering what went wrong and the part will find its way to the dumpster.

The mechanic did also note that the shaft from the transmission that the pulley is mounted on looked just great. At least the engineering worked that says that the pulley must be softer than the shaft so that if there is wear, it happens to the easier to replace component.

I just picked it up last night. I was thinking of crawling around underneath a bit and seeing if it is possible to poke my finger up inside of the cover that is over the pulley itself. In this manner, it might be possible to take a wipe with your finger and see if there is any of the reddish / grayish / powdery filings that manifest when a steel on steel wearing takes place. This would possibly be your only way of initially diagnosing this problem other than the noise factor that started me on my search. Short of tearing things half apart and doing a visual of the component at specified intervals "just to make sure".

Glad BRP came through and there has been some pulley failings on the F3 as well. My RS did this and was due to the holding bolt coming loose. I replaced the pulley and the bolt and washer, which they recommend. Back before even mine there was a pulley change and a belt tension adjustment said to help but I suspect that was more for the rear wheel bearings and the output shaft bearings....:banghead:

I'm sorry to hear that you had to come back to an experience like this...
Are you all back to 100%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

I'm sorry to hear that you had to come back to an experience like this...
Are you all back to 100%?

---

The shop did a great job and this weekend we pack for our 2500 mile vacation on the bike. Life is good.

Holy snapping doggy donuts!! :shocked: That's a LOT of 'one sided wear' on the splines!!! :gaah:

Is it just me/the angle of the pic that makes it look like this end/side has worn somewhat more than the other end?? The unworn lip on this end looks somewhat larger than the other end. If that's the case, it sorta suggests that the pulley was never mounted onto the splined shaft squarely, & that leads one to think that even if the securing nut was done up to torque spec initially, the angled fit may have allowed enough movement to eventually produce wear like that.... :dontknow: I take it BRP now has the part so you can't check?

Glad that the Dealer & BRP stepped up for you tho, & that you can now head off on your trip without that hanging over you! Enjoy!! :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pontow

The mechanic stated that he thought that the part had "missed the heat treat operation". I informed him that I work for a commercial heat treat facility and have access to the Rockwell hardness testing machines necessary to take some hardness readings on the part. Of course, we don't know what the hardness SHOULD be, I would only be able to tell you what it actually is. The problem is that as a warranty item, the shop is obligated to keep the part in their possession for 30 days minimum. The picture is one I took when I picked up the bike. In a month from now, I will probably be the only one still wondering what went wrong and the part will find its way to the dumpster.

The mechanic did also note that the shaft from the transmission that the pulley is mounted on looked just great. At least the engineering worked that says that the pulley must be softer than the shaft so that if there is wear, it happens to the easier to replace component.

I just picked it up last night. I was thinking of crawling around underneath a bit and seeing if it is possible to poke my finger up inside of the cover that is over the pulley itself. In this manner, it might be possible to take a wipe with your finger and see if there is any of the reddish / grayish / powdery filings that manifest when a steel on steel wearing takes place. This would possibly be your only way of initially diagnosing this problem other than the noise factor that started me on my search. Short of tearing things half apart and doing a visual of the component at specified intervals "just to make sure".

---

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions :thumbup: ..... If He is correct about the Heat treatment it's very likely not to effect Spyders made possibly 4 mos.( and earlier ) but something to definitely be aware of .... Just recently it has been discussed whether the Halogen bulbs used in the 14 model year were from a different supplier and possibly not of high quality , because they don't seem to last anywhere near as long as they used to.....:banghead: ...............Mike :thumbup:

This showed up on quite a number of early Spyders due to the bolt being inadequately torqued on assembly. BPR 'revised' it in a service bulletin. It was very topical some years ago and with major failures, some including spline damage. :banghead: It's happening again on some F3 models isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Aawen

Holy snapping doggy donuts!! :shocked: That's a LOT of 'one sided wear' on the splines!!! :gaah:

Is it just me/the angle of the pic that makes it look like this end/side has worn somewhat more than the other end?? The unworn lip on this end looks somewhat larger than the other end. If that's the case, it sorta suggests that the pulley was never mounted onto the splined shaft squarely, & that leads one to think that even if the securing nut was done up to torque spec initially, the angled fit may have allowed enough movement to eventually produce wear like that.... :dontknow: I take it BRP now has the part so you can't check?

Glad that the Dealer & BRP stepped up for you tho, & that you can now head off on your trip without that hanging over you! Enjoy!! :thumbup:

---

Yes, the dealer must keep the part for 30 days to satisfy warranty requirements. The wear was very consistent around the entire diameter. The mechanic, to the best of my knowledge, did not find any problem with the bolt holding the pulley in place. The difference between the wear toward each face of the pulley seems to be a result of the length of the splines and how it all fits together. Nothing apparent about torque or anything else. A consistent wear pattern, just an awful lot of it. Again, I work at a commercial heat treating company and this wear does look like a hardness problem rather than a mounting or application problem. Sometimes, a single part gets left out of a furnace load. Sometimes, it's a "batch" of parts in one furnace load that isn't done correctly but gets shipped anyway. It's very explainable from the viewpoint of a batch process as to why it can apply to one or a small group of parts and not to the entire quantity of that model of part.

This might not have any bearing on what happened ..... but do you know what tension was used on the drive Belt ???....... Mike :thumbup:

I have seen damage like that on motors and pump

both motor and pump needed to rebuilt or scraped

Some F3's are having this problem. After the third replacement BRP is replacing the transmission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUEKNIGHT911

This might not have any bearing on what happened ..... but do you know what tension was used on the drive Belt ???....... Mike :thumbup:

---

Internet connection down. Responding from phone. Belt tension with Kricket gage. My notes show 240 lbs when on the ground according to my notes from last rear tire change. Mechanic made no mention of belt tension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pontow

Internet connection down. Responding from phone. Belt tension with Kricket gage. My notes show 240 lbs when on the ground according to my notes from last rear tire change. Mechanic made no mention of belt tension.

---

Wow, my Kritkit reading is around 160 , on the ground........ 160 is less than BRP spec, but I don't think it's that much lower ..... Mike :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUEKNIGHT911

Wow, my Kritkit reading is around 160 , on the ground........ 160 is less than BRP spec, but I don't think it's that much lower ..... Mike :thumbup:

---

Mike -

Internet connection back up. I'm going to try to get around to checking the belt tension as the mechanic has most recently set it after replacing the pulley. According to my notes when I last had the rear wheel off for mounting a new tire, the required settings that I recorded came from Bajaron but I can't remember if it was a flyer that came with the Kricket gage or a post that I had come across on my research. I do remember that there was a plethora of different opinions and supposedly "official" belt tensions so I kind of took a cross section and then after settling on a value and setting the tension, I did an old fashioned "push and pull" with my hand and decided that it was reasonable.

I have not noticed any other symptom that I would attribute to belt tension. I rarely experienced any belt vibration either before the pulley or during the 40 minute ride home from the shop (highway speeds). My belt alignment on the back pulley has been very consistent. I did notice on the drive to work this morning (surface streets) that I seem to have a new, and somewhat annoying, whining noise in the 40 - 47 mph range. Nothing above or below that speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUEKNIGHT911

Wow, my Kritkit reading is around 160 , on the ground........ 160 is less than BRP spec, but I don't think it's that much lower ..... Mike :thumbup:

---

Mike - Won't have a chance to verify belt tension today but hopefully tomorrow. Did look up OEM spec on tension in shop manual and it states 1050 ±150 Newtons. That works out to 236 ±34 lbs. That is a measurement at room temp, rear tire off the ground, (3) separate wheel locations (all 3 wheel sprockets aligned with the swingarm, 1 then 2, then 3) and then take the average of those (3) readings. They also use a very ..... interesting.... sonic type meter that appears to attempt to measure the harmonic vibrations when you "thump" the belt while the meter is in position. Seems to me to be an awful lot of variables that could render that measurement technique inaccurate.

I'll try to get a measurement tomorrow both off the ground and on the ground with the Kricket gage.

[QUOTE=pontow;1297143]Mike - Won't have a chance to verify belt tension today but hopefully tomorrow. Did look up OEM spec on tension in shop manual and it states 1050 ±150 Newtons. That works out to 236 ±34 lbs. That is a measurement at room temp, rear tire off the ground, (3) separate wheel locations (all 3 wheel sprockets aligned with the swingarm, 1 then 2, then 3) and then take the average of those (3) readings. They also use a very ..... interesting.... sonic type meter that appears to attempt to measure the harmonic vibrations when you "thump" the belt while the meter is in position. Seems to me to be an awful lot of variables that could render that measurement technique inaccurate.

I'll try to get a measurement tomorrow both off the ground and on the ground with the Kricket gage.[/........ Not sure but I think Ron ( of BAJARON ) had a conversion comparison for the two ..... so folks would know what their Kritket was telling them .... annnnnnd it makes no sense to me to do the test " wheel off the ground " .... do you ride with it that way :lecturef_smilie:...I don't think so and lifting your Spyder to check the Tension gets pretty old fast .... He has a comparison if you do it on the ground also ........... PM Him He will give you the LINK ......Mike :thumbup:

I'll try to get a measurement tomorrow both off the ground and on the ground with the Kricket gage.[/........ Not sure but I think Ron ( of BAJARON ) had a conversion comparison for the two ..... so folks would know what their Kritket was telling them .... annnnnnd it makes no sense to me to do the test " wheel off the ground " .... do you ride with it that way :lecturef_smilie:...I don't think so and lifting your Spyder to check the Tension gets pretty old fast .... He has a comparison if you do it on the ground also ........... PM Him He will give you the LINK ......Mike :thumbup:[/QUOTE]

Mike - Did some searches and found some great information. Yes, BajaRon already covered this in early 2015. First of all, for my bike (2015 RT-S) the numbers I found were a match for he numbers he gave. Regarding wheel on or off the ground, the on the ground conversion numbers he shows were only through I believe 2012 models. He stated that on the ground numbers for 2013 - 2015 would exceed the range of the Krikit II therefore he only gives off the ground numbers for 2013 and up.

Now for as why you use the off the ground measurements. BRP only gives it this way and there is a reason. Ron's explanation as to why also makes sense to me. Variations in swing arm position due to tire size, tire wear, current payload in the bags, etc. causes an on the ground reading to be inconsistent. The only common position not affected by these variables is with the rear shock fully extended. Only in this condition are all the bikes of the same model exhibiting the same swingarm position and thus the same distance from front to rear pulley. Only with the rear wheel off the ground can you be consistent. That is at least why BRP does it this way. I'm sure one could develop their own "conversion" by measuring on the ground and off the ground to find values that they could use for "on the road" checks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pontow

Mike - Won't have a chance to verify belt tension today but hopefully tomorrow. Did look up OEM spec on tension in shop manual and it states 1050 ±150 Newtons. That works out to 236 ±34 lbs. That is a measurement at room temp, rear tire off the ground, (3) separate wheel locations (all 3 wheel sprockets aligned with the swingarm, 1 then 2, then 3) and then take the average of those (3) readings. They also use a very ..... interesting.... sonic type meter that appears to attempt to measure the harmonic vibrations when you "thump" the belt while the meter is in position. Seems to me to be an awful lot of variables that could render that measurement technique inaccurate.

I'll try to get a measurement tomorrow both off the ground and on the ground with the Kricket gage.

---

The Gates Sonic Tension Meter is the only approved tool for setting the belt tension. It is called out specifically in the service manuals. Used properly, it is extremely accurate. They work just like an electronic guitar tuner. I bought one new at an online auction site for a steal. (I guess no one knew what it was.) One of these days I'd like to meet up with someone who has a Kriket and compare the readings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pontow

I'll try to get a measurement tomorrow both off the ground and on the ground with the Kricket gage.[/........ Not sure but I think Ron ( of BAJARON ) had a conversion comparison for the two ..... so folks would know what their Kritket was telling them .... annnnnnd it makes no sense to me to do the test " wheel off the ground " .... do you ride with it that way :lecturef_smilie:...I don't think so and lifting your Spyder to check the Tension gets pretty old fast .... He has a comparison if you do it on the ground also ........... PM Him He will give you the LINK ......Mike :thumbup:

---

Mike - Did some searches and found some great information. Yes, BajaRon already covered this in early 2015. First of all, for my bike (2015 RT-S) the numbers I found were a match for he numbers he gave. Regarding wheel on or off the ground, the on the ground conversion numbers he shows were only through I believe 2012 models. He stated that on the ground numbers for 2013 - 2015 would exceed the range of the Krikit II therefore he only gives off the ground numbers for 2013 and up.

Now for as why you use the off the ground measurements.... I DON'T - I USE ON-THE-GROUND BRP only gives it this way and there is a reason. Ron's explanation as to why also makes sense to me. Variations in swing arm position due to tire size, tire wear, current payload in the bags, etc. causes an on the ground reading to be inconsistent. The only common position not affected by these variables is with the rear shock fully extended. Only in this condition are all the bikes of the same model exhibiting the same swingarm position and thus the same distance from front to rear pulley. Only with the rear wheel off the ground can you be consistent. That is at least why BRP does it this way. I'm sure one could develop their own "conversion" by measuring on the ground and off the ground to find values that they could use for "on the road" checks.[/QUOT......t OK it may not have been Ron I was quoting, but I did read where someone ( reliable ) did the conversion from His BRP sonic reading to His Kritket reading ..... the years don't really matter it is the belt spec changes that BRP has made - then you can adjust using that .......Mike :thumbup:

Thanks to all for your comments. One of the concerns on this thread was that belt tension may have had an effect on the degradation of the pulley. From my viewpoint, holding the pulley in my hand, knowing the history of the bike, knowing the mechanics involved (including myself) it is my opinion that there is zero correlation between belt tension and pulley damage in this particular situation. For some other situation, there may be different results.


Since this thread somewhat turned to a belt tension thread, I did some research and found the following (only interested in my own machine at this point, 2015 RT-S SE6):

BRP has changed belt tensions many times for many different models. All values are with the wheel off the ground. For my RT, the manual started at 1050 (236#) +/-150 Newtons. I have also seen official BRP documents that are stating 775 (175#) +/-150 and 630 (142#)+/-100 but I don't know their time frame because the examples of the documents on this site did not have a date showing.

In several cases, there are comparison stating that the results of the Krikit gage were very close to the Gates sonic gage so "no worries" in using the Krikit.

In my case, using a Krikit II, I measured 250# with the wheel on the ground and 200# with the wheel in the air. This is immediately after picking it up this week from a very reputable dealer after having the pulley replaced. It is lower than the original BRP shop manual call out but not as low as some of the "revised" figures that I have seen. I don't have any significant vibration issues (feel some from time to time) and I don't have any belt "walking" issues so I'm totally happy with where it is. This will probably be one of those "to each his own" and we will each have our own philosophy for as to why we think so.

Signing off as we will be on the road for the next 2 weeks, riding from San Diego to Bend, OR and back. To all, have a great Holiday weekend and be careful out there!