BRP Care - Axle Torque Confirmation Please

[Peteoz]

Hi Guys and Gals

There seems to be some confusion among both BRP techs and owners as to the correct torque specs for the rear axle nut for the RT and F3. It appears that it changed from 96ft/lbs to 166ft/lbs in around 2014 (perhaps to coincide with the 1330 motor?).

The trouble is, some BRP techs are telling 2015/2016 owners that the axle torque should be 96ft/lbs and are setting the torque to that when they refit the rear wheel. I am not sure if they are doing that because 96ft/lbs is the torque they have always used and are unaware of a change, or if the 2015/16 service manuals are shows the wrong setting at 166ft/lbs.

Is it possible to get a clarification from "the horses mouth", so to speak as to the correct torque specs for the RT and F3 please and when (if?) it changed from 96 to 166ft/lbs? I am a bit worried that some are using 96 when we should be using 166, which may cause issues down the track.

Regards,
Pete

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Hi Guys and Gals

There seems to be some confusion among both BRP techs and owners as to the correct torque specs for the rear axle nut for the RT and F3. It appears that it changed from 96ft/lbs to 166ft/lbs in around 2014 (perhaps to coincide with the 1330 motor?).

The trouble is, some BRP techs are telling 2015/2016 owners that the axle torque should be 96ft/lbs and are setting the torque to that when they refit the rear wheel. I am not sure if they are doing that because 96ft/lbs is the torque they have always used and are unaware of a change, or if the 2015/16 service manuals are shows the wrong setting at 166ft/lbs.

Is it possible to get a clarification from "the horses mouth", so to speak as to the correct torque specs for the RT and F3 please and when (if?) it changed from 96 to 166ft/lbs? I am a bit worried that some are using 96 when we should be using 166, which may cause issues down the track.

Regards,
Pete
I would say the 166 number is the correct one. The 2013 RT service manual has both the 96 and 166 numbers in it. It's 166 in the belt tension section and 96 in the belt alignment section as well as the specifications section at the end of the owner's manual. For 2014 the belt alignment section is missing but both of the other places show 166, actually 155 to 177 in the Specifications section.

When I tightened mine I used the 'max pull' method. Pulled on the breaker bar until the nut wouldn't turn any more! Hasn't worked loose yet!

[JayBros]

Why not send your request for clarification directly to BRPCare at brp.care@brp.com (http://brp.care@brp.com). I received a very prompt reply, less than six hours, to a question about antifreeze change interval for the 1330 engine.

[Peteoz]

Why not send your request for clarification directly to BRPCare at brp.care@brp.com (http://brp.care@brp.com). I received a very prompt reply, less than six hours, to a question about antifreeze change interval for the 1330 engine.

Because I couldn't find that address, JayBros :D:D Thanks mate......I'll do that now.:thumbup:

Pete

[Peteoz]

I would say the 166 number is the correct one. The 2013 RT service manual has both the 96 and 166 numbers in it. It's 166 in the belt tension section and 96 in the belt alignment section as well as the specifications section at the end of the owner's manual. For 2014 the belt alignment section is missing but both of the other places show 166, actually 155 to 177 in the Specifications section.

When I tightened mine I used the 'max pull' method. Pulled on the breaker bar until the nut wouldn't turn any more! Hasn't worked loose yet!

I agree, Idaho, but we have BRP techs out there telling people that the correct spec for their 2015/16 models is 96ft/lbs. This might convince BRP to release some sort of tech update globally to confirm the correct torque. I have now emailed BRP care and will post their response when I get it. Thanks Jaybros. :thumbup:

Pete

[KX5062]

I would be curious, but will never know, why they changed up the torque values. 166 lb/ft of torque on the rear axle nut is insanely high. 96 lb/ft sounds about right given the application. This figure is in line with other motorcycles of the same type (belt drive).

I've been wrenching on motorcycles for a long time now and I can think of no good reason to establish such a high number.

[Ex-Rocket]

When Spyderpops changed my rear tire, they set the torque at 155 lbs. I would think that is plenty even with a trailer hitch, which I have installed. Just made a long trip, 9100 miles pulling a trailer and checked torque of nut and its still tight.

[Winggirl]

Because I couldn't find that address, JayBros :D:D Thanks mate......I'll do that now.:thumbup:

Pete

Did you get an answer from the 'horses mouth'? Currently have a 2013 RTS and the manual definitely shows the 2 different torque specs and wondered what is the proper one.
Thanks.

[Grandpot]

I'm not looking at the Spyder right now, but I seem to recall the socket size for the nut is 36mm. If that is the case, then the thread size should be M24-2. The standard torque for a nut that size is 199 ft/lbs on the low side. The main consideration is the design of the wheel and what the engineers had in mind. A lower torque value can certainly be correct.

If the thread is not actually M24-2, disregard the above.
The best answer will be from BRO directly.

[SpyderAnn01]

I

When I tightened mine I used the 'max pull' method. Pulled on the breaker bar until the nut wouldn't turn any more! Hasn't worked loose yet!

Mac, I do your "max pull method" also followed by using the torque wrench and I can get 96 lbs but there is no way I could get 166 lbs. You must be a whole lot stronger than I am.

[Warlock]

I'm taking that their axle torque specs are a dry one. Just remember if you add lub to the threads you need to subtract 25% of the torque value.
David

[larryd]

I'm not looking at the Spyder right now, but I seem to recall the socket size for the nut is 36mm. If that is the case, then the thread size should be M24-2. The standard torque for a nut that size is 199 ft/lbs on the low side. The main consideration is the design of the wheel and what the engineers had in mind. A lower torque value can certainly be correct.

If the thread is not actually M24-2, disregard the above.
The best answer will be from BRO directly.


But you need to remember that the axle shaft is hollow, NOT solid...

[Grandpot]

But you need to remember that the axle shaft is hollow, NOT solid...

You are exactly right. There has to be a legitimate reason the engineers at BRP specified a different torque than is on the standard charts. That's why we really need to hear from them.

[south GA Farm Boy]

Had a Dealer Tech tighten my axle nut with air impact wrench from the left side (bolt head side) and my nut worked loose almost to safety pin! Had handling issues, so just happen to check it and found it loose! I tighten it with adjustable wrench once I re-set belt tension, and alignment. Doc Riverside tighten mine with torque wench to 150 PSI and I have had no more problems! If yours works loose, you will know it!

[Peteoz]

Did you get an answer from the 'horses mouth'? Currently have a 2013 RTS and the manual definitely shows the 2 different torque specs and wondered what is the proper one.
Thanks.

Here is the response direct from the "horses mouth" Winggirl. The problem is, does "since 2013" mean from the start of 2013, or end of 2013? I'll see if they can clarify......and yes, it appears there are a number of techs out there still torquing 2014/15/16/17s to the old 96ft/lbs figure, which is a worry......either they missed to BRP update or the didn't get one.


Hi Peter!

Since 2013, the torque spec for the rear axle nut has been increased to 166 lbs/ft on all models. So this is the value we should be using.

Pete

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Here is the response direct from the "horses mouth" Winggirl. The problem is, does "since 2013" mean from the start of 2013, or end of 2013? I'll see if they can clarify......and yes, it appears there are a number of techs out there still torquing 2014/15/16/17s to the old 96ft/lbs figure, which is a worry......either they missed to BRP update or the didn't get one.
Hi Peter!

Since 2013, the torque spec for the rear axle nut has been increased to 166 lbs/ft on all models. So this is the value we should be using.


Pete
Looks like the 166 applies beginning with the 2013 model year. The axle and nut part numbers changed from 2012 to 2013 which is probably a change to a stronger steel. That would explain the two different numbers in the 2013 service manual. When the manual was updated and revised from 2012 to 2013 the old number got left in the one spot.

However, if you order an axle by the old number it comes up with the new number. That would quite probably mean if you replace the axle on a pre-2013 Spyder with the new axle you should use the current nut and the new torque value! Ain't nuthin simple about life, is there?

Get clarification from BRP just to be doubly sure.

But that doesn't explain why Spyder techs aren't using the correct number. Probably a case of, "I've been doing this for years so I know what I'm doing! I don't need to keep looking things up in the manual!" Nothing like being 5 model years behind in knowledge!

[JayBros]

The techs that are using the old torque spec are probably the same ones who are telling '14 and later 1330 engine owners the bike needs the first oil change at 1,000 miles.

[UtahPete]

Here is the response direct from the "horses mouth" Winggirl. The problem is, does "since 2013" mean from the start of 2013, or end of 2013? I'll see if they can clarify......and yes, it appears there are a number of techs out there still torquing 2014/15/16/17s to the old 96ft/lbs figure, which is a worry......either they missed to BRP update or the didn't get one.

Hi Peter!

Since 2013, the torque spec for the rear axle nut has been increased to 166 lbs/ft on all models. So this is the value we should be using.


Pete

Thanks for this, Peter

[Peteoz]

Thanks for this, Peter

You're more than welcome, Pete. BRP did most of the work though ;)

Regarding the Year Clarification......the 166ft lbs includes 2013 models...

"Hi Pete,

Including the 2013 models."

[BoilerAnimal]

Great, now I have to torque mine to the higher value!

[Peteoz]

Great, now I have to torque mine to the higher value!

Sorry Boiler, blame me :thumbup:........no, wait, blame BRP. :ohyea:

I might ask one one more question of BRP Care, being -

"Why exactly was it changed, and what is the impact of running later models at 96ft/lbs?"......

I'm sure that, based on discussions here, there are quite a few 2013 and later Spyders running around with the axle torqued to 96, from both unaware dealers and owners. BRP must have made this change for a reason, so what was the potential issue that forced this fairly significant change ?

Pete

[BoilerAnimal]

I'm definitely curious for the reason as well. I don't really don't see a way that the rear wheel could twist sideways to any degree due to the bolts used to align the belt. If they were adjusted properly, they would hold the wheel in place no matter how hard you took off from a dead stop. The direction of pull would be checked by the bolt on the left side acting as a hold back on the tire.

If the tensioning bolts were loose or worked loose, then it might be possible to apply sufficient torque to twist the wheel. I would have more concern for the longevity of the wheel bearings if too much compression was applied. I know the spacer tube should prevent to much compression being applied to the bearings but metal does stretch and compress, just hope not enough in this case to effect anything.

[Wildrice]

I'm definitely curious for the reason as well. I don't really don't see a way that the rear wheel could twist sideways to any degree due to the bolts used to align the belt. If they were adjusted properly, they would hold the wheel in place no matter how hard you took off from a dead stop. The direction of pull would be checked by the bolt on the left side acting as a hold back on the tire.

If the tensioning bolts were loose or worked loose, then it might be possible to apply sufficient torque to twist the wheel. I would have more concern for the longevity of the wheel bearings if too much compression was applied. I know the spacer tube should prevent to much compression being applied to the bearings but metal does stretch and compress, just hope not enough in this case to effect anything.

Are we sure they're not talking about a semi-tractor trailer ??
Darrell

[Mad Mac]

I guess I can see the high torque value on the axle nut, but it still seems a little high. My only worry would be the collapsing of the bearing races or deformation of the bearings in those races, which could lead to burnt bearings down the road. Like someone else said, I can't see the wheel slipping to one side or the other with 96Lbs. feet of torque applied. But if BRP recommends the higher torque value, then so be it. Mac:dontknow:

[AY4B]

I just had my Tire replaced on Wednesday and asked the Tech who is well respected if he Uses the 166 He looked at me and said he torques them all at 140.

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

I just had my Tire replaced on Wednesday and asked the Tech who is well respected if he Uses the 166 He looked at me and said he torques them all at 140.
Maybe that's all the stronger his arm is! :roflblack:

[Peteoz]

I just had my Tire replaced on Wednesday and asked the Tech who is well respected if he Uses the 166 He looked at me and said he torques them all at 140.

Yeah, 140 isn’t too hard to achieve, AY. I torqued mine to BRP’s lower limit, which is around 150. That still required some strength. Did you ask him why he only went to 140? It would be interesting to know if was simply because of something simple like that’s as high as his torque wrench goes, or if it’s for a technical reason. It certainly shows that techs disregard BRP guidelines when they feel like it;)

Pete

[AY4B]

Yeah, 140 isn’t too hard to achieve, AY. I torqued mine to BRP’s lower limit, which is around 150. That still required some strength. Did you ask him why he only went to 140? It would be interesting to know if was simply because of something simple like that’s as high as his torque wrench goes, or if it’s for a technical reason. It certainly shows that techs disregard BRP guidelines when they feel like it;)

Pete

I did not ask him why, Just made mental note. He has all the tools to set it at whatever torque he wants to, and watching him work, he knows his ****. This is one of the few places that will install a car tire. I rode the extra distance with my Yokohama S drive strapped to the back of my spyder. He also gives the members of East Texas Spyder Ryders a 15% discount on all parts and labor. On top of that they provide a place for us to have quarterly meetings with free coffee and donuts. If anyone asks us where to take their Spyder for service we always point to them. They are Awesome. Who do you know that will hook up the BUDS computer to check out the system on a rear tire change, apply locktite and torque every bolt and double check the whole bike? His name is Chad and he is a credit to the Spyder community. If he says 140 PSI, he has good reason.
I own a torque wrench that will achieve 166 with little problem, It is about 2 foot long and what I use at home. Chad has tools that put mine to shame.

[AY4B]

Chad has an amazing way to install the wheel. He slips on the belt before he puts the axle, lowers the jack to the right height and holds the tire in place with his two feet while installing the axle with the belt on. It looks like a Yoga move. Also I never saw him removing the shock bolt. :yikes:

[Madison Sully]

Here is the response direct from the "horses mouth" Winggirl. The problem is, does "since 2013" mean from the start of 2013, or end of 2013? I'll see if they can clarify......and yes, it appears there are a number of techs out there still torquing 2014/15/16/17s to the old 96ft/lbs figure, which is a worry......either they missed to BRP update or the didn't get one.

Hi Peter!

Since 2013, the torque spec for the rear axle nut has been increased to 166 lbs/ft on all models. So this is the value we should be using.


Pete

Interesting. Due to inclusion of the phrase "on all models" I would interpret this to mean:
At some point in the year 2013,
BRP decided to change the torque spec for the rear axle nut,
to 166 ft*lbs,
On all Can-Am Spyders of any year.

If it was just due to the new motor, it would be simple to say "Higher torque on rear tires with the new motor." Boom, end, clear, answered.

So question from me, being a new guy. Is there a design change in the axle/axle nut area since 2010? Same part numbers? If yes, then at least it should be considered mechanically safe to apply the higher torque to the older models, no?

[KX5062]

The only reason I see that makes sense to me is the lawyers made me do it thing. Ya' know the big "L" (liability).

Mechanically it makes no sense to me. The swing arms are just thin walled boxed sheet steel. The axle adjusters are cast pot metal. The axle is hollow with drawn not cut threads. Bearings are bearings. The only difference being a car type tire on the back, which would have additional forces applied due to the large contact patch. Otherwise, it's not much different than a belt drive Harley and arguably their design would allow for greater torque ratings, and they only torque to 95-105 lb ft.

Mind you, I'm not arguing with BRP, I'm just wondering aloud. :ani29:

[Peteoz]

Madison, a couple of posts later I added further information from BRP where they stated that 166ft/lbs was to be applied to “including the 2013 models”. I don’t know when the 2013 models were first released.

Regarding your question, I’m sure if it was safe to apply 166ft/lbs to earlier than 2013 models, BRP would have said so in their communication. That’s going down a whole other rathole. I’m not quite sure where you are coming from though, as I find BRP’s communication has answered the question quite clearly.....166ft/lbs for 2013 and up, and 96ft/lbs for 2012 and below.

Pete



Interesting. Due to inclusion of the phrase "on all models" I would interpret this to mean:
At some point in the year 2013, BRP decided to change the torque spec for the rear axle nut,
to 166 ft*lbs, On all Can-Am Spyders of any year.

If it was just due to the new motor, it would be simple to say "Higher torque on rear tires with the new motor." Boom, end, clear, answered.

So question from me, being a new guy. Is there a design change in the axle/axle nut area since 2010? Same part numbers? If yes, then at least it should be considered mechanically safe to apply the higher torque to the older models, no?

[QuadRAGIN]

hi guys and gals

there seems to be some confusion among both brp techs and owners as to the correct torque specs for the rear axle nut for the rt and f3. It appears that it changed from 96ft/lbs to 166ft/lbs in around 2014 (perhaps to coincide with the 1330 motor?).

The trouble is, some brp techs are telling 2015/2016 owners that the axle torque should be 96ft/lbs and are setting the torque to that when they refit the rear wheel. I am not sure if they are doing that because 96ft/lbs is the torque they have always used and are unaware of a change, or if the 2015/16 service manuals are shows the wrong setting at 166ft/lbs.

Is it possible to get a clarification from "the horses mouth", so to speak as to the correct torque specs for the rt and f3 please and when (if?) it changed from 96 to 166ft/lbs? I am a bit worried that some are using 96 when we should be using 166, which may cause issues down the track.

Regards,
pete

It actually is 166Ft/LBS

[Peter Aawen]

don't do it you will strip your axle

Check the date Quad, you're replying to a thread that was started waaaayyyy back in 2017 & last posted to back in 2018! :shocked: :oldpost: . Aaaand from fairly early on, the thread discussion back then proceeds to mention people choosing to use lower torque limits and lower torque anyway.... :rolleyes: . So if anyone was ever gonna do it, their axle threads would've probably been stripped something like 3-4 years ago & we probably would've heard about it already! :gaah:

So, note for the future - it always pays to read the date on the first post in a thread, then at least skim read thru the thread & check the date on the last few posts in it before even thinking about replying to or extending the discussion on the thread. :lecturef_smilie: . Besides, answering something that's already been discussed, answered, and acted upon some years/a long time ago isn't really all that likely to help the person who asked the question or too many of the original posters! :banghead:

[Peteoz]

Yes, that issue is long past, Quad. Even techs with limited knowledge know about and are using the correct torque for the 14+ models…… p.s, just for someone who reads your comment above, it is actually 166 +/- 15 ;)

Pete

[CloverHillCrawler]

yea what they said...