Torque settings for the rear rotor, caliper, and axle nut on 2013?

[rwyma]

Can someone please tell me the torque settings for the rear rotor, caliper and axle nut. Have a 2013 RT L. I found them for a 16 RS but not sure its the same on mine. Also was said 177 FtLbs for axle nut. Seems way to high. Also the nut on the left side of axle is crimped to the axle. So do you just torque the right side. TIA, Rick

[CopperSpyder]

I have a 2012 RTL Should be the same as 2013 I would think. The rear Axle is 96 Ft. Lbs. and new cotter pin Rear Rotor 18 Ft. Lbs. Brake Caliper 18 Ft. Lbs. If you took the wheel encoder off the torque on that is 44 Ft Lbs. Again that is on a 2012 RT. I hope someone with a 2013 jumps in to confirm.

[knobby]

Just posted this on an "RT thread" about rear axle torque, but I actually own an ST

Rear axle nut tightening torque discrepancy:

I'm changing the rear tire and just looked at my PDF shop manual (Can-am). The subsection entitled "DRIVE BELT AND REAR WHEEL" shows the torque on page 5 (pg 622 on PDF) as 225 Nm / 166 ft-lbs, BUT 2 pages later it shows the same torque table that specifies 130 Nm / 96 ft-lbs ????????????????

[Possible]

Just posted this on an "RT thread" about rear axle torque, but I actually own an ST

Rear axle nut tightening torque discrepancy:

I'm changing the rear tire and just looked at my PDF shop manual (Can-am). The subsection entitled "DRIVE BELT AND REAR WHEEL" shows the torque on page 5 (pg 622 on PDF) as 225 Nm / 166 ft-lbs, BUT 2 pages later it shows the same torque table that specifies 130 Nm / 96 ft-lbs ????????????????

Just an error in the printing. The actual torque is supposed to be 166 lb.ft. It would appear that they didn't get the manual updated
in both places.

[AeroPilot]

Just posted this on an "RT thread" about rear axle torque, but I actually own an ST....

If you have the ST with the 998 engine I would go with the 96 lb ft torque - \\

The 1330 engine models and higher drive line torque load should probably go with the 166 lb ft (modified to slightly less if you clean and lightly lube the threads and washer).

[Possible]

Peggy's 2013 STS-SM5 specifies 166 lb.ft. exactly as the above stated: one place is 166 lb.ft. and the other place states 96 lb.ft. I went with
166 lb.ft. when I adjusted the belt location.

[ncll]

I change tires on the SRA-SF club bikes. I have done about 25 rear tires and on the rear axle nut I use 165 Ft Lbs. The F3S would be scary loose at 97 Ft Lbs I would think. I see that number on many posts by riders. After 2012 there are no longer a cotter pin used on the axle so a nut loosening could be a disaster

[Briorick]

Can someone please tell me the torque settings for the rear rotor, caliper and axle nut. Have a 2013 RT L. I found them for a 16 RS but not sure its the same on mine. Also was said 177 FtLbs for axle nut. Seems way to high. Also the nut on the left side of axle is crimped to the axle. So do you just torque the right side. TIA, Rick

I have the 2014 RTS. I just changed my tire 3 days ago and the torque settings were:

Rear Caliper Bolt - 77 ft. lbs.
Rear Rotor - 68 ft. lbs.
Rear Axle Nut - 166 ft. lbs.


Definitely appears to be some discrepancies in these numbers with different years.

And YES, just tighten the right side.

Rick

[ButterSmooth]

...
The 1330 engine models and higher drive line torque load should probably go with the 166 lb ft (modified to slightly less if you clean and lightly lube the threads and washer).

I suggest a little internet searching about reduced torque for lubricated fasteners. I use anti-seize on the nut axle and washer, which seems to eliminate the alignment changing when tightening. I've also through drilled the axle and use a split pin (Cotter). Some sources suggest a reduction of 30-40% in torque for lubricated fasteners. 166'# always seemed crazy tight to me...

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

166'# always seemed crazy tight to me...

166 lb-ft of torque would be crazy tight for a 1/2" bolt, but not for a 1" bolt. It wouldn't even begin to adequately tighten, say, a 3" bolt! Specified torque depends on the diameter of the piece being tightened and the material. Torque is a secondary measurement. The real parameter being controlled is tension in the bolt, but there is no practical way to measure it in a repair shop or home. Torque is the substitute measure. Bolts that hold the cover, or head, onto the vessel body of a nuclear reactor are not torqued. They are stretched to the required tension and then the nuts are spun down snug.

[ButterSmooth]

166 lb-ft of torque would be crazy tight for a 1/2" bolt, but not for a 1" bolt. It wouldn't even begin to adequately tighten, say, a 3" bolt! Specified torque depends on the diameter of the piece being tightened and the material. Torque is a secondary measurement. The real parameter being controlled is tension in the bolt, but there is no practical way to measure it in a repair shop or home. Torque is the substitute measure. Bolts that hold the cover, or head, onto the vessel body of a nuclear reactor are not torqued. They are stretched to the required tension and then the nuts are spun down snug.

And the desired tension is reached at a significantly lower torque when the threads are lubricated. 165 down to 132 per https://www.engineersedge.com/calcul...orque_calc.htm