News:

Welcome to the DMF

 

Stainless Clutch springs

Started by grandpa nate, January 26, 2009, 11:38:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

grandpa nate

January 26, 2009, 11:38:01 AM
Howdy do.  I have a silly silly question...anybody install stainless clutch springs in a dry clutch and have any issues?  Just wondering.  Friend of mine just painted my clutch cover and the stock springs look like dookie.

Slide Panda

#1
January 26, 2009, 11:40:30 AM
Lots of folks have.  Never heard any issues of significance.  The stainless springs are usually stuffer than the more mild OEM springs.. but that's it.
-Throttle's on the right, so are the brakes.  Good luck.
- '00 M900S with all the farkles
- '08 KTM 690 StupidMoto
- '07 Triumph 675 Track bike.

Smokescreen

#2
January 26, 2009, 05:25:05 PM
there's no problem with using stainless springs, at least not on the two bikes that I've put them on.  In fact, mine don't feel tough at all, although on Blue there's also one of those fancy slave cylinders from Evo...  i think...
Catching a yellow-jacket in your shirt at seventy miles per hour can double your vocabulary. 

Only a biker knows why a dog sticks his head out of a car window.

Norm

#3
January 27, 2009, 06:45:17 AM
I always use them, if you want an easier clutch pull, take 2 out.

Spidey

#4
January 27, 2009, 02:28:49 PM
Just be careful when torquing the clutch springs.  They really don't need much.
Occasionally AFM #702  My stuff:  The M1000SS, a mashed r6, Vino 125, the Blonde, some rugrats, yuppie cage, child molester van, bourbon.

Norm

#5
January 28, 2009, 07:25:54 AM
" not much" is an understatement, I think the spec is in inch/pounds.

Slide Panda

#6
January 28, 2009, 07:40:21 AM
Not sure what the standard translation is to inch/pounds, but the metric is 7 N/m for those bolts.
-Throttle's on the right, so are the brakes.  Good luck.
- '00 M900S with all the farkles
- '08 KTM 690 StupidMoto
- '07 Triumph 675 Track bike.

grandpa nate

#7
January 28, 2009, 08:02:31 AM Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 08:52:14 AM by grandpa nate
According to a conversion site it works out to 61.955218178 in lbs.  I need to find a table that I can print and put on the wall of my garage.

ducatiz

#8
January 28, 2009, 08:04:20 AM
Quote from: grandpa nate on January 28, 2009, 08:02:31 AM
According to a conversion site it works out to 61.955218178 in lbs.  I need to fing a table that I can print and put on the wall of my garage.


that's INCH/lbs not ft/lbs tho

easy conversion:  a ft lb is 73% of a n/m.  where ever you see n/m, multiply by 0.73 and you are gold.  i usually go with 3/4th of the n/m number and drop a few lbs.

Check out my oil filter forensics thread!                     Offended? Click here
"Yelling out of cars, turning your speakers out the window to blast your music onto the street, setting off M-80 firecrackers, firing automatic weapons into the airâ€"these are all well and good. But none of them create a merry atmosphere of insouciance and bonhomie quite like a revving motorcycle.

Slide Panda

#9
January 28, 2009, 08:33:42 AM
Quote from: ducatizzzz on January 28, 2009, 08:04:20 AM
that's INCH/lbs not ft/lbs tho

easy conversion:  a ft lb is 73% of a n/m.  where ever you see n/m, multiply by 0.73 and you are gold.  i usually go with 3/4th of the n/m number and drop a few lbs.



Nothing wrong with inch pounds, as long as you're using a wrench set for it.  I've got a torque wrench that's calibrated for in/lbs.

Ok, now it's ringing a bell - spring retainer bolts was 7 N/m or 5 ft/lbs = which matches up to that 73% spec you noted.
-Throttle's on the right, so are the brakes.  Good luck.
- '00 M900S with all the farkles
- '08 KTM 690 StupidMoto
- '07 Triumph 675 Track bike.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions