Source for quality wheel bearings
- Thread starter a_smerek
- Start date
MSZ
Moderator
Miniac
Member
You can't go wrong with OEM, and like MSZ recommended, AllBalls is also a good source of quality bearings. I buy from McMaster-Carr for work pretty regularly and I have sourced bearings from them with good results. They will sell to the general public, just put it on the old credit card. They have one of the best look-up engines on line, and have lots of other good stuff, too, like metric hardware. Be careful, tho', . . . . sometimes their prices are really good and sometimes they're way high. Caveat emptor, huh?
-kevin
-kevin
This is one item with which it's easy to be pennywise & kilobuck foolish, at least with a road bike. There are significant differences between bearing lines even from the same manufacturer. On a stock or mildly modded bike, OEM should be fine, though I can't see any practical reason for not upgrading to sealed units, at least. For a 50mph+ bike, this is one item that should be made in Japan (NTN/Koyo) or Germany (FAG). At first blush, spending close to 18 bucks a pop seems a rip...until one considers that buys motor grade bearings (21000 rpm max, and 923lbs static load, each). Might be considered massive overkill, but it's damn cheap peace of mind for less than 40 bucks. I run NTNs top line bearings in my bikes, never had a problem and that's saying something. There's 13000 miles on the set in my rear hub; put somewhere between 6-7000 on the fronts before retiring that front end (they're still like new).
i agree with upgrading to sealed bearings...personally my bikes do not get much abuse, but if i ever intend on doing serious riding you can bet all those wheel bearings will be upgraded..going back 30plus years on these bikes oem bearing were good then and still good today....however in this day and age it makes little sense to not buy very good quality sealed bearings if you have any inclination of harsh routine use for your bike..bearings are not cheap...but are one item where upgrade to better quality then oem should strongly be considered...
ps:i wish i could find some upgrade rear shocks for the st90 and or hodaka...shocks and forks on these old bikes are beyond pathetic (of course back then we all thought we had the latest and greatest)...
ps:i wish i could find some upgrade rear shocks for the st90 and or hodaka...shocks and forks on these old bikes are beyond pathetic (of course back then we all thought we had the latest and greatest)...
Miniac
Member
OK, here you go:
McMaster-Carr
a standard precision ABEC-1 sealed bearing with a max load of 2200 pounds (for us really hefty mini riders) and a 19000 RPM limit, . . . for $7.06 a piece. Of course shipping will probably double the cost if you only buy a couple, so be sure to get bags of 6x1 and 8x1.25 nuts, or maybe:
McMaster-Carr
some cool blue allen head bolts for the case covers.
McMaster-Carr is like Toys-R-Us for mechanic nerds.
-kevin
McMaster-Carr
a standard precision ABEC-1 sealed bearing with a max load of 2200 pounds (for us really hefty mini riders) and a 19000 RPM limit, . . . for $7.06 a piece. Of course shipping will probably double the cost if you only buy a couple, so be sure to get bags of 6x1 and 8x1.25 nuts, or maybe:
McMaster-Carr
some cool blue allen head bolts for the case covers.
McMaster-Carr is like Toys-R-Us for mechanic nerds.
-kevin
mcmaster has decent stuff....any bearing store that deals with industrial applications (or hydrolic) in your area will have top of the line stuff..timken (sp?) etc....here in ILL...berry bearing in chicago...springfield bearing (aka illinois bearing if i remember)..etc etc...cant go wrong
Miniac said:
Precision ball bearings are manufactured to standards established by the Annual Bearing Engineers Committee (ABEC) of the Antifriction Bearing Manufacturers Association (AFBMA). They have been accepted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and conform essentially with the standards set by the International Standards Organization (ISO). Doesn't tell the average person (myself included) a whole lot, but gives an idea as to what the term "ABEC" means. Basically ABEC is a grading set up to identify and set dimension tolerences in the manufacturing of bearings.
ABEC does not cover: Radial Play, Raceway Curvature, Roundness or Surface Finish, Material, Ball Complement, Number, Size or Precision Level, Lubrication, Cleanliness at Assembly or Packaging, Retainer Design. If you're looking for useful information, it doesn't tell you much. Made-in-PRC motors usually come with iso-compliance stickers attached. More puffery than guarantee. It's still buyer beware.
Dynamic load ratings can be as much as 250% of static load rating and are "stated" in multiple ways. I consider them meaningless. Those NTNs top dynamic rating is 2770 - pure b/s, IMO. FWIW, "ABEC-1" is the lowest grade (9 being the top).
All of which is confusing information overload.
You don't see many failed bearings on vintage CT70s. OEM bearings came from Koyo & NTN. Going with a known supplier covers the "buyer beware" side of things and simplifies the entire process. Even 900lbs static load + 10000rpm is massive overkill for any bike, let alone one with 10" wheels. Odds are, that for anything other than a 50mph+ road bike, most bearings available will be okay. Worst case, a wobbly wheel at 25mph allows plenty of time to stop safely. On the other hand a roadgoing bike, with more than 110cc of motorvation in the frame, potentially puts the rider in very different scenarios...like being stuck on the road (between "No" and "Where") or going down at freeway speed. Whether spending an extra 35 bucks is a large outlay is an individual call. Could turn out less costly, at the bottom line, than two sets of cheapies after the first one goes away after 620 miles.
Miniac
Member
Since my humble post is the object of such adversarial scrutiny I feel obliged to respond point by point:
Uuuuuhh, actually that's Annular Bearing Engineers Committee. As in "shaped like a ring", not as in "meeting once a year".
Sorry, it's easy to drop terms one is used to using without thinking twice. I'll try to do better from now on, but I may occasionally err. At least I can depend on there being good folks here who will let me know when I slip up. (Whew, . . . I was worried about that!)
Everything is still buyer beware, but since you brought it up, ABEC ratings do address most pertinent bearing tolerance issues that I face with any regularity when specifying bearings, and I think that you give the wrong impression when you start quoting a punch list of things that are not covered by the ABEC. For instance, "Radial Runout" is a value specified by the ABEC, "Radial Play" is not, and they are not the same thing, at least not exactly. But if you build a bearing that meets rigid Radial Runout specs, by default the Radial Play is drastically minimized. You can't have one without the other, and it's that way with most specs. When manufacturing an item you don't typically get to select the specifications that you want to meet, . . . they are defined by your industry, and you use the testing methods and standards that are recognized and approved by your industry (like the ABEC scale), or your competition will certainly point out to all of your customers that you don't.
Re: ISO ratings, from what I can see, all that ISO guarantees is that if you make junk you will have a record of how you did it and make it the same way every time. But please don't tell my corporate ISO officer that I said that. <HA>
Static and dynamic loading are vastly different. I work with engineers who specialize in static loading and with engineers who specialize in dynamic loading, and often when hashing out new designs we have to put our heads together to insure that we don't focus on one loading problem to the neglect of the other. (Or others, as the case may be.) The static load ratings and dynamic load and RPM ratings have enormous meaning to the designers who develop them, . . . and to the attorneys who represent them if, in fact, their ratings turn out to be pure b/s.
Stated that way, I think it gives the wrong impression. The ABEC scale is a rating of degrees of precision. Many radial ball bearings do not meet any of the ABEC scale ratings. ABEC-1 is the scale with the "loosest" specifications, and is the specification that the vast majority of ABEC rated bearings meet, but you can be sure that an ABEC-1 bearing is superior to any non-ABEC bearing, unless, perhaps, the non-ABEC bearing is some sort of specialized, one off part. Also, as the ABEC rating goes up, the price goes up dramatically, and, typically, either the load rating or the max RPM rating will go down.
Consider this, . . . in bearings sized for a 12mm axle, like our minis have, the allowable radial runout in the ABEC-1 rating is 0.0003", or roughly 1/10th the thickness of a human hair. I suspect that the runout in hubs, wheels, and tires of most of our 30+ year old minis is enough to make 0.0003" pretty darned insignificant. So for wheel bearing applications on Honda MiniTrails an ABEC-1 bearing with a 2200 pound dynamic load rating, and a 13000 max RPM rating, is clearly overkill, but you've made a strong case for a little overkill being a good thing, and I'd have to agree.
(Also, FWIW, I think that the ABEC-1 rating is part of the specification for the 6301 bearings used in our minis, since I cannot find an unrated 6301 in any of my catalogs.)
Ya think??
Look, all I hoped to do with my post was offer a source of excellent quality bearings that haven't had their prices jacked by a seller who wants you to think that they are something more than what they are. All of the bearings that I have purchased from McMaster-Carr have been from respected manufacturers, like SKF, Fafnir, NTN, FAG (side note - it's actually pronounced "fog"), Timken, NSK, etc. I think that anyone who has hung around and endured this thread is now drowning in other people's opinions, and has probably been able to form their own opinion on the matter.
. . . . but what do I know, . . . I buy new seals and clean and repack the original factory bearings every few years, and they seem to be lasting forever.
-kevin
Uuuuuhh, actually that's Annular Bearing Engineers Committee. As in "shaped like a ring", not as in "meeting once a year".
Sorry, it's easy to drop terms one is used to using without thinking twice. I'll try to do better from now on, but I may occasionally err. At least I can depend on there being good folks here who will let me know when I slip up. (Whew, . . . I was worried about that!)
Everything is still buyer beware, but since you brought it up, ABEC ratings do address most pertinent bearing tolerance issues that I face with any regularity when specifying bearings, and I think that you give the wrong impression when you start quoting a punch list of things that are not covered by the ABEC. For instance, "Radial Runout" is a value specified by the ABEC, "Radial Play" is not, and they are not the same thing, at least not exactly. But if you build a bearing that meets rigid Radial Runout specs, by default the Radial Play is drastically minimized. You can't have one without the other, and it's that way with most specs. When manufacturing an item you don't typically get to select the specifications that you want to meet, . . . they are defined by your industry, and you use the testing methods and standards that are recognized and approved by your industry (like the ABEC scale), or your competition will certainly point out to all of your customers that you don't.
Re: ISO ratings, from what I can see, all that ISO guarantees is that if you make junk you will have a record of how you did it and make it the same way every time. But please don't tell my corporate ISO officer that I said that. <HA>
Static and dynamic loading are vastly different. I work with engineers who specialize in static loading and with engineers who specialize in dynamic loading, and often when hashing out new designs we have to put our heads together to insure that we don't focus on one loading problem to the neglect of the other. (Or others, as the case may be.) The static load ratings and dynamic load and RPM ratings have enormous meaning to the designers who develop them, . . . and to the attorneys who represent them if, in fact, their ratings turn out to be pure b/s.
Stated that way, I think it gives the wrong impression. The ABEC scale is a rating of degrees of precision. Many radial ball bearings do not meet any of the ABEC scale ratings. ABEC-1 is the scale with the "loosest" specifications, and is the specification that the vast majority of ABEC rated bearings meet, but you can be sure that an ABEC-1 bearing is superior to any non-ABEC bearing, unless, perhaps, the non-ABEC bearing is some sort of specialized, one off part. Also, as the ABEC rating goes up, the price goes up dramatically, and, typically, either the load rating or the max RPM rating will go down.
Consider this, . . . in bearings sized for a 12mm axle, like our minis have, the allowable radial runout in the ABEC-1 rating is 0.0003", or roughly 1/10th the thickness of a human hair. I suspect that the runout in hubs, wheels, and tires of most of our 30+ year old minis is enough to make 0.0003" pretty darned insignificant. So for wheel bearing applications on Honda MiniTrails an ABEC-1 bearing with a 2200 pound dynamic load rating, and a 13000 max RPM rating, is clearly overkill, but you've made a strong case for a little overkill being a good thing, and I'd have to agree.
(Also, FWIW, I think that the ABEC-1 rating is part of the specification for the 6301 bearings used in our minis, since I cannot find an unrated 6301 in any of my catalogs.)
Ya think??
Look, all I hoped to do with my post was offer a source of excellent quality bearings that haven't had their prices jacked by a seller who wants you to think that they are something more than what they are. All of the bearings that I have purchased from McMaster-Carr have been from respected manufacturers, like SKF, Fafnir, NTN, FAG (side note - it's actually pronounced "fog"), Timken, NSK, etc. I think that anyone who has hung around and endured this thread is now drowning in other people's opinions, and has probably been able to form their own opinion on the matter.
. . . . but what do I know, . . . I buy new seals and clean and repack the original factory bearings every few years, and they seem to be lasting forever.
-kevin
Last edited:
Overall, you've drawn the wrong conclusion and I'll take my rightful share of the blame on this one. I'm not your adversary, just disagreed with some of the assertions put forth. This time around, I did the copy & paste thing from this same discussion carried on elsewhere - warts & all. I'm more than tired of the topic and got lazy. Okay, my bad on that one for not going through it with surgical precision and making the corrections.
Forget the catchy-sounding acronyms, they can be meaningless. The terms and sometimes system, too, are widely abused - much to the detriment of companies that excercise due dilligence and end users both. A sad commentary on the current state of things, but reality isn't always pretty. Keep it simple; know your seller and stick with what works.
The integrity of your bearing supply house isn't being questioned, they seem a solid outfit. M-C lists two bearings, the "precision plus" is shown as $16.94, sans shipping. Are you saying that it's nothing more than hype & a "jacked-up" price? The manufacturer isn't specified, however, $18 is wholesale dealer cost, delivered, on the bearings I use in my personal bikes. I would think that someone who's experienced problems on a road bike (a_smerek, who started this thread) might be motivated to seek something better. I mean, even at 35 bucks delivered for a set of four "regular" bearings we're needlessly debating over $37 dollars(!) To each his own; a key point.
Vintage OEM wheel bearings were of good quality. If you like doing the R&R, cleaning/repacking and replacing seals, enjoy. No fargin' way I'm dealing with them on my road bikes. That $3/year (and dropping) premium is worth it to me, for the convenience alone. When restoring wheel assemblies - brake shoes, tires, tubes, bearings & seals are tossed. There's better available in the 21st century and rolling stock that's old enough to have kids in college owes me nothing. That's merely my opinion of the proper way of doing things, not some sublime wisdom carved in stone.
At this late date, most board members should be reasonably familiar with my approach - hardcore perfectionist + thousands of road miles every year. If something is going to wear out, I'm going to to be the canary in the coal mine - and that's the perspective I brought to this discussion. By all means, feel free to disagree; last time I checked, that was still among our remaining civil liberties.
Forget the catchy-sounding acronyms, they can be meaningless. The terms and sometimes system, too, are widely abused - much to the detriment of companies that excercise due dilligence and end users both. A sad commentary on the current state of things, but reality isn't always pretty. Keep it simple; know your seller and stick with what works.
Miniac said:
The integrity of your bearing supply house isn't being questioned, they seem a solid outfit. M-C lists two bearings, the "precision plus" is shown as $16.94, sans shipping. Are you saying that it's nothing more than hype & a "jacked-up" price? The manufacturer isn't specified, however, $18 is wholesale dealer cost, delivered, on the bearings I use in my personal bikes. I would think that someone who's experienced problems on a road bike (a_smerek, who started this thread) might be motivated to seek something better. I mean, even at 35 bucks delivered for a set of four "regular" bearings we're needlessly debating over $37 dollars(!) To each his own; a key point.
Vintage OEM wheel bearings were of good quality. If you like doing the R&R, cleaning/repacking and replacing seals, enjoy. No fargin' way I'm dealing with them on my road bikes. That $3/year (and dropping) premium is worth it to me, for the convenience alone. When restoring wheel assemblies - brake shoes, tires, tubes, bearings & seals are tossed. There's better available in the 21st century and rolling stock that's old enough to have kids in college owes me nothing. That's merely my opinion of the proper way of doing things, not some sublime wisdom carved in stone.
At this late date, most board members should be reasonably familiar with my approach - hardcore perfectionist + thousands of road miles every year. If something is going to wear out, I'm going to to be the canary in the coal mine - and that's the perspective I brought to this discussion. By all means, feel free to disagree; last time I checked, that was still among our remaining civil liberties.
Miniac
Member
I'm more than happy to play nice and be friends, and I will happily admit that I am more than capable of drawing the wrong conclusion.
Here's how it came across to me: I made a statement, basically one sentence, and inadvertently made reference to an obscure industry standard. Your response related to just that acronym was 3 paragraphs long. Doesn't that seem like a bit much for 4 letters that could have been omitted for all practical purposes? Your second paragraph was clearly critical of that obscure standard, and the third, critical of bearing ratings in general.
Three things occur to me.
The first is that I don't think that I am the only one on the board that would view this as you being critical of my statement, and by extension, of me.
Second, I don't think that anything I said warranted a three paragraph analysis, which makes it seem all the more critical.
And third, I would venture to guess that if anyone ever responded to one of your posts in like manner, you would view it as confrontational and inflammatory, and would issue a terse response, or as happened once this past year, close the thread.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all there is to know about Honda MiniTrails, and I have learned tons over the last year on the board, particularly from you, racerx. I wouldn't even call myself an expert on bearings, though my 9to5 requires me to have a pretty extensive knowledge of them. I don't have a problem with folks who have strong opinions, or that are perfectionistic. I enjoy discussions, even friendly debates, with people who are knowledgeable and passionate about any given subject. But please don't try to convince me that strong opinions, perfectionism, expertise, . . . any of those things, are a justification for the tenor of your response.
And if you really want to understand about the "jacked up" price on the $16.94 bearing, it's explained in the descriptions.
-kevin
Here's how it came across to me: I made a statement, basically one sentence, and inadvertently made reference to an obscure industry standard. Your response related to just that acronym was 3 paragraphs long. Doesn't that seem like a bit much for 4 letters that could have been omitted for all practical purposes? Your second paragraph was clearly critical of that obscure standard, and the third, critical of bearing ratings in general.
Three things occur to me.
The first is that I don't think that I am the only one on the board that would view this as you being critical of my statement, and by extension, of me.
Second, I don't think that anything I said warranted a three paragraph analysis, which makes it seem all the more critical.
And third, I would venture to guess that if anyone ever responded to one of your posts in like manner, you would view it as confrontational and inflammatory, and would issue a terse response, or as happened once this past year, close the thread.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all there is to know about Honda MiniTrails, and I have learned tons over the last year on the board, particularly from you, racerx. I wouldn't even call myself an expert on bearings, though my 9to5 requires me to have a pretty extensive knowledge of them. I don't have a problem with folks who have strong opinions, or that are perfectionistic. I enjoy discussions, even friendly debates, with people who are knowledgeable and passionate about any given subject. But please don't try to convince me that strong opinions, perfectionism, expertise, . . . any of those things, are a justification for the tenor of your response.
And if you really want to understand about the "jacked up" price on the $16.94 bearing, it's explained in the descriptions.
-kevin
Point(s) taken, now let's try to reel this thread back in.
At this point, I'm in favor of deleting everything after post #6, unless you have some objection. That even leaves the M-C link info while pruning-out the flaming tumbleweeds.
- It wasn't a shot at your expertise, but rather knocking the piss out of yet another acronym. In the current dumbed-down era of sound bytes, cliche'-of-the-week and other ostensible "shortcuts" that end up supplanting independent thought, they confuse more than clarify. You know your stuff and deal at the engineering & OEM level. Being a lifelong resident of what's becoming the graveyard of the domestic auto industry, I've been afforded access to a wealth (embarrassment of riches, more like) of the same kind of talent, plus insider information for decades. Most people, being outside that loop, are left in the dark to some extent. The average person might not even suspect that a 3 dollar PRC-made bearing, with the same quality assurance acronyms affixed, is asking for trouble.
- The bulk of the original text was cut & pasted, as was mentioned. My original text was the last 11 lines, hardly a bloated post. The point being the juxtaposition of the rambling diatribe with a simple solution, i.e. forget acronyms & buying on price and just go with a known quantity...problem solved, crisis averted, world saved...
- Our only significant diagreement involves less than nine bucks per bearing an amount, within the context of a whole bike project, I still consider insignificant and you do not. Oh well...somehow, I'd be willing to bet that sunset will still occur at the same time regardless.
At this point, I'm in favor of deleting everything after post #6, unless you have some objection. That even leaves the M-C link info while pruning-out the flaming tumbleweeds.
personally i found the debate interesting yet bullshit...other then PRC (chicom) stuff any quality branded bearing will last for years..and yes its your proragative to toss and replace...me?..hell i repack the bearings but if i rode extensivly on the street you can bet that old stuff would be replaced with high quailty sealed bearings...this all reminds me of the whole silicon(E) rectifier upgrade thread..guess i enjoy riding and am not a purist..if i can make the bike better i will.....overall...bearings like harmonic distortion are fraught with completely bullshit and abused standards
Well summarized. When it comes to my personal bikes, I'm not a purist either with the exception of one show-quality resto. I do a number of concours-quality restos, but unless someone specifically requests a certain wheel bearing, it's more hassle than it's worth. Buying in quantity levels that playing field somewhat. As for the OE selenium rectifier vs newer silicon, other than appearance, who cares? I'd go with what best fits the application. For my bikes, function is top priority.
Funny you should mention audiophile equipment. 30 years ago we used to laugh our asses off over things like IHF and ILS power ratings, redefining them as "if hell freezes" and "if lightning strikes":21: Since that time, even rms ratings have been watered down. I still enjoy my late `60s vintage MC275 amp and a 20-year-newer XL600. Going strictly by advertised specs, that shouldn't be possible. Known quantites, known results...not everyone's cuppa either...
Miniac
Member
Sorry, . . . slow response - The boss called Sunday after lunch and all I can say is Fuchsstadt is lovely this time of year. (The one near Hammelburg, . . . yeah, that's Hammelburg, Germany. And who would have ever guessed that there'd be more than one Fuchsstadt??) Being there for a mere 36 hours in order to smooth over ruffled feathers for a big dollar customer stinks, tho'. My butt is sore from sitting on airplanes, and has anyone ever noticed that American Airlines has some of the oldest stewardesses in the world? But I digress, . . . .
I don't think we ever got even remotely close to flame stage, (this is still one of the most civil sites around, thank goodness) and I seen no reason for lingering effects from a bit of e-verbal sparring. I'd be perfectly happy to shake hands for the cameras and race you to the corner, . . loser buys the beer!!
Oh, and for the record, I only repack my bearings for the therapeutic value in the task. (no, really!!)
-kevin
I don't think we ever got even remotely close to flame stage, (this is still one of the most civil sites around, thank goodness) and I seen no reason for lingering effects from a bit of e-verbal sparring. I'd be perfectly happy to shake hands for the cameras and race you to the corner, . . loser buys the beer!!
Oh, and for the record, I only repack my bearings for the therapeutic value in the task. (no, really!!)
-kevin
Miniac
Member
Y'know, I really don't know about that one.
However, my daughters assure me that "anal-retentive" does have a hyphen. That's not fair, though, . . . their mother coaches them to say things like that. <HA>
Something I learned early-on, along with the absolute necessity to keep things reasonably civil in a public forum, is the value of taking the occasional break. Oftentimes, discussions are varying proportions information and recreational hair-splitting. It just doesn't always seem so until you return a day later and reread the thread. I didn't think the discussion had jumped the shark, but then I prefer to err on the conservative side.
As for why you repack bearings, that is the best reason - bar none.
Tell you what...you bring the beer, I'll bring a bottle of MrDaniel's finest single barrel and we can plan the next discussion of how best to save the world.
:34:
Note to our winged wonder: "overkill" is, indeed, one word.:4:
