Happijac lubrication

jjinatx wrote:

I'm also questioning the accuracy of setting them by the torque on the nut. It's a lock nut, so the torque will be greatly affected by the drag of the plastic locking material, not just how tight the nut is against the spring plate. The drag of the plastic would be pretty specific to who made the nut, or even across lots, I would guess. Not sure what kind of SAE standards there are for lock nuts, and how tightly controlled they can be. It would seem that a nut that has been re-used would probably have less drag than a brand new one. A better solution for repeatable torque settings would be to torque a plain nut and then use a jamb nut to secure it.-jj

You know, I think you are right. Something that I hadn't given much thought to - the friction differences that may arise between a new, relatively new, or very used plastic shake proof locking nut. This issue may be more pronounced with the small amount of torque applied to these relatively small nuts. The HJ tech guy said that 9-10 inch-pounds is what they use. So, I'd guess that means that with a new plastic lock nut... maybe. But, that still could lead to considerable differences in torque depending on the accuracy of the location and sizing of the plastic in the nut itself. And, making this even more curious is the apparent difference you used on your torque (30 -35 i-p) compared to what I used. I wouldn't think that difference would be attributed to simply the plastic design difference. From a repeatable design view, I think you are correct that two plain jamb nuts set with a torque wrench would be a better option. But... what is the correct torque then?

Now you've got really scratching my head on this clutch design. I'm going to go back and check the number of balls on my 4500 clutch - hopefully I took pictures of a 4500 . I'm not sure I did photograph them since they all looked the same.

Can you confirm how many balls your 4100 clutch has?