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. 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. 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 Thanks mate......I'll do that now.

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.

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 Thanks mate......I'll do that now.

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 ........no, wait, blame BRP.

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

[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.