• There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.

Will the real axle torque please stand up???

spyderfish

spyderfish

Member
ST Maintainers, confusing information on rear axle torque.

2013 STS - Service Manual specifies 166 N-m in one place and 2 pages later 130 N-m.:bowdown:

Conventional wisdom from Spyderlovers points to 130 spec.

I see that the 2013 STS belt tension spec is higher than previous years. This makes me believe the 166 number is correct, and the reference to 130 is a misprint left over from previous years?

Anyone have any experience in this area?

All info appreciated.

Spyderfish - West Bloomfield, MI
 
BELT TENSION SPECS

BRP actually lowered them in a TSB ...... if you have Kritkit gauge you might find 165 lbs. as measured with wheel on the ground should also help with the Vibration issue .........................Mike :thumbup:
 
Agree...

:agree: but then if you are talking about the axle torque, as in the title, mine is at 96 ft.lbs...:thumbup:
 
2013 Belt Tension

Blue Knight,


Thanx for info, but I think the 2013 is different.

I just looked at the Service Manual, tension spec for belt is 1050 N (236 lbf) for 2013. The manual indicates this is not the correct spec for previous years 450 N, so I assume they changed the design in 2013 to support higher tension, and thus less vibration.

I am still not sure about the axle torque, which is ambiguously stated as both 166 and 130 N-m in the service manual.

Spyderfish
 
When I do the conversion to ft-lbs the 130N-M comes out at 96 lbs ( OK 95.8xxxxx but who has a torque wrench that reads that fine in their home garage?). That is the one I use to torque my axle and so far it has been just fine thru 22K+.
 
Axle torque. I say go with 166 lb-ft. The 2013 RT service manual has the same conflict in the service instruction pages but the technical spec page shows 166. The 2014 RT service manual does not show the 130 number at all, only 166.

Belt tension. BRP has gone back and forth on this. According to the TSB Mike notes above anything from about 550 newtons to 1050 newtons is OK. The instructions are to set it at whatever tension in that range results in belt vibration the owner is willing to live with.

Swing arm, axle, and belt are the same for ST and RT.
 
Last edited:
Buzzz, we have a winner -- 166 N-m (122 lbf-ft)

:firstplace::firstplace::firstplace:

Thanx Idaho for the info from the 2014 Service Manual. This definitely validates that there is an error in the 2013 Manual.

My belt currently reads around 225 on the Cricket. For last adjustment, I cranked the axle nut to 166 N-m, this is a whole lot of twist; used a 1/2 inch drive torque wrench, 18 inch handle. Takes a lot of forearm, I was afraid the frame was going to deform, but it finally clicked.

BTW, I put a new Kumho tire in February, along with the SmoothSpyder, there is virtually no vibration compared to as-purchased.

Thanks to all.

Spyderfish
 
BELT TENSION

spyderfish said:
Blue Knight,


Thanx for info, but I think the 2013 is different.

I just looked at the Service Manual, tension spec for belt is 1050 N (236 lbf) for 2013. The manual indicates this is not the correct spec for previous years 450 N, so I assume they changed the design in 2013 to support higher tension, and thus less vibration.

I am still not sure about the axle torque, which is ambiguously stated as both 166 and 130 N-m in the service manual.

Spyderfish
Click to expand...
...........I'll leave the axle torque alone you have that covered ............. However many folks here have found that reduced belt tension has resulted in LESS BELT VIBRATION ........I know this sounds contrary to what we might think BUT IT WORKS ask .....BAJARON ..... also if the belt is too tight MAJOR DAMAGE WILL OCCUR .....if it is too loose ( within reason ) nothing bad will occur ............... so which error do you want to make ...............good luck..... PS my belt is way below spec and I'm very Happy....................Mike :thumbup:
 
My service manual says 166 foot pounds. I had to go buy a very large torque wrench when I read that.
 
I questioned the 166 foot lbs with a Spyder tech I trust and he confirmed that it was 166 foot lbs. So that is what I have been doing.
 
Lower Belt Tension

Good info Blue Knight, thanks for the additional findings on the belt tension. Yes it does seem counter-intuitive, but so many things about the Spyder are very unconventional, this behavior is not surprising.

Good to hear that the lower belt tension is working for you. I am not sure exactly where to go with this info, the current vibe level on my Spyder is great. It is good to know all the alternatives, I'll spend some time looking through the posts on this..

Thx,

Spyderfish
 
I torqued it close to 100 and I couldn't do any tighter. Most riders seem to have no problems and neither do I.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BajaRon
  • Sticky
DRAFT - New FAQ's about BajaRon Sway Bar Kits Sticky - PLEASE DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD!
Replies
0
Views
285
BajaRon
BajaRon
Back
Top