Hyatt Bearings? Why no new manufacture?

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2009: Hyatt Bearings? Why no new manufacture?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Shelton on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 10:55 am:

I've read for some time that the new bearings don't cut it and that you have to buy old ones at swap meets. Why is nobody making a reproduction of the original? Is the cost such that it makes more sense to just buy the new sealed bearings?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave_Sosnoski on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 12:04 pm:

I looked into manufacturing these bearings to the Ford print. The only company I could find to do it was in England. I sent them the specs and a sample bearing. We talked about it and while I didn't get any real quote numbers, the pricing was going to be very expensive. There is tooling involved etc. I didn't want to outlay a huge amount of cash to tool up to manufacture them. I also didn't want to take the risk of there being a problem with them and I end up with hundreds of very expensive bearings that nobody wants to buy. That's the reason I'm not doing them.

Dave S.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Shelton on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 12:13 pm:

Dave that's what I figured. Do you have the specs? I have a sample bearing. I'd like to look into it so I can say I did. I am sure I will have much the same result.

Steve


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 12:35 pm:

Wonder if a spring winding company could do the rollers? If so, the rest of it could be done with little hassle. I just don't know if they could hold the tolerances. The ends could be laser/plasma/waterjet cut in small runs. The riveting of the rods could be done in someone's garage.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Shelton on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 12:43 pm:

Do they have to be spring wound? Could you not machine the grooves?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Seth Harbuck, Shreveport, LA on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 01:21 pm:

Steve,

The Hyatt bearings are indeed springs - not just steel tubes with spiral grooves in them.

That's why they work and the replacements don't - they deal with the misalignment of the rather flexible parts they keep separated.

Seth


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Shelton on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 01:27 pm:

Seth,

thanks for the explanation. That make a great deal of sense.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dewey on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 01:48 pm:

Doesn't Hyatt still have tooling to make this style bearing? I wonder what kind of quantities would have to be ordered to interest them in a production run. Probably enough to last the usual vendors for at least a decade.
OTOH, in today's economy, Hyatt might welcome such an order, and at a cut rate. . .
T'
DAvid D.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 02:06 pm:

Tooling up to make new parts is very expensive and those that complain about new parts never understand that. I do agree that if you are going to make a part you should make it right and maby even better than the original part. My son Mark had to lay out about $40,000.00 in tooling and patterns to start his Rajo Head project. But I propose that the problem discussed above is really not a problem. While I agree that it would be nice to have a new roller bearing with grooves I do not think that they are needed today. Think about it. The outer axle bearings are the only ones that show excessive wear. That is because the full load of the car is on the outer bearings and their lubrication was questionable at best. The original rear axle bearings were not sealed bearings. Ford used a poor inner felt seal on the outer bearing until 1926-27 when he recognised the problem and added a leather seal to keep in the bearing grease. This in effect made the bearing a sealed bearing. Prior to that change the grooves were needed to displace and move around what ever lubricant that was there. Most of the lubricant came from the differential oil that ran out the axles to the outer bearing and then squeezed thru the outer felt seals onto the parking brakes. The grooves helped move this oil around the bearing. When the outer bearing was sealed in 1926-27 The bearing grease was trapped in the sealed bearing and the differential oil was kept out. When you have a sealed bearing the lubricant has no place to go and the solid roller bearings will displace the grease just as well as a grooved roller. If you build your axle using the new leather or neoprene inner seals for the outer bearings you will have no problems no matter which bearing you use. It should also be noted that Ford used solid roller bearings for the Front Wheel Bearings with no problems as long as they were properly lubricated. The secret is keeping the lubricant in the bearing. We have built over 100 rear axles using the solid roller bearings with no reported problems. So use original Ford bearings if you can find good ones but don't be afraid to use the new bearings if you use good inner seals with them. We do not recommend using a lip type neoprene seal. As the axle and sleeve wear the axle moves off center. A lip seal will not follow the axle very far before it starts to leak on the opposite side. We manufacture and use the boot type neoprene seal that will maintain the seal no matter how far the axle moves.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Neil Kaminar on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 02:12 pm:

Glen,

Can you further discribe the "boot type" seal. A picture would be the best.

Neil


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Shelton on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 02:27 pm:

I have neoprene seals behind my outers which are in fact the solid ones. But don't remember which type I put in and not sure I would even know the difference. Yes a picture would be nice.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 02:32 pm:

The neoprene lip seal is a thin lip of neoprene encased in a metal ring. This is press into a metal seal cup similar to the original Ford cup. The neoprene is so thin that it has little room for any movement of the axle. Sorry I do not have a picture readilly available but the boot type seal is like a complete cone of neoprene with a metal washer attached to the bearing side for the bearing to thrust against. The neoprene cone provides a seal at the axle which is totally flexable and a seal around the outer parimiter against the metal stop ring in the axle housing. So it seals at both points.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 03:05 pm:

Glenn - There are those that claim that the spiral grooves are not just grooves to help distribute the lubricant, but that the rollers are actually a wound spring that can flex to a very minute degree. To me this makes sense. In your post above, you said, "as the axle and sleeve wear the axle moves off center." To me, this would suggest a very slight degree of "misalignment" and it would seem that the original type rollers, being a wound spring that can flex to a slight degree, and thus be able to compensate for the slight "misalignment". However, you only mention that the grooves serve to distribute the lubricant. Are you saying that the original type "wound" rollers, being able to flex to a minute degree, is NOT important? Just wondering how you feel about this "flexing" characteristic of the original wound type rollers as opposed to the solid rollers that you speak of. (???)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan Treace on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 04:04 pm:

I have tried the solid rollers and they wore fast, got loose at the cage as the solid rollers aren't designed for any flex. The wear in the sleeve was too much too, so I had to replace the sleeve.

Look closely at the construction of the solid rollers and a Hyatt. The Hyatt can flex as stated, the solid ones can't. The main difference is the solid roller has a turned protrustion end that makes a bearing in the cage ring, the load is put on that little 'peg' that sticks into the ring.

Note the solid on the right, the rollers are have to turn on the little peg in the cage ring. The Hyatt on the far left has its rollers running in a 'dimpled' area into the ring for flex and to not have a little bearing surface at the end cages, but a broad surface for the rollers to turn on.


This is a D.S. Hyatt that broke, but you can see the spiral twist wrap, not a grooved one piece rod, but a flexible bearing surface.

I prefer to use only good used Hyatt with new sleeves and new axles and neoprene 'boot' inner and neoprene alum cap outer grease seals.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Shelton on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 04:19 pm:

Begs the question as to why the new sealed bearing are ok. Would seem to be they flex even less? Maybe I'm all wet.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 05:10 pm:

Harold, The bearings and sleeves are only four inches long. There is no need for the bearing to be flexable. Any force placed on a four inch bearing would be from further down the axle shaft due to a bent axle or bent axle housing. If you put your axle together whith out checking these two factors you deserve to have a screwed up axle. No, the bearings do not and were not designed to flex. If you are injecting a flex force into the bearing something is drastically wrong.

When the axle moves off center it is due to wear in the axle and sleeve so that the axle is no longer held on center by the bearing. When this occurs after much use the axle goes off center in the upward direction causing a gap in contact of the lip type seal on the lower side of the seal. Hope this explains your question.

Dan, If you used solid roller bearings and they wore fast something was wrong. The bearings are hard and should wear much slower than the sleeves and axles which are softer.

All of the bearings have cage problems including Ford. I have many Ford bearings with sloppy cages. If the rollers are good the bearings can be easily fixed by repeaning the ends of the support bars being careful not to bend or distort the bars.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 05:18 pm:

Steve Tomaso (Stever's "T" Works) - Are you following this thread? You and I just had this discussion ref. my '27 depot hack having a solid roller bearing on one side of my Ruckstell and the worn out old style spiral roller bearing on the other side which you replaced. At that time, you mentioned that I should consider replacing the solid roller bearing with a good used original spiral type roller bearing. Just wondering if Glenn Chaffin's and Seth Harbuck's posts above might have any effect on your opinion,....(???)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 05:22 pm:

Glenn - You were typing at the same time I was. By the way, my depot hack that I spoke of is the one I just purchased from Pete Cosner's family; I think you might have had some involvement with the Ruckstell that Pete had installed in the depot hack some time ago.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 05:27 pm:

Glenn - You were typing at the same time I was. By the way, my depot hack that I spoke of is the one I just purchased from Pete Cosner's family; I think you might have had some involvement with the Ruckstell that Pete had installed in the depot hack some time ago.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 05:28 pm:

Oops - Sorry for the double post; was distracted by the darn telephone!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By William Harper on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 05:31 pm:

I have long wondered why the modern bearings use only 6 solid rollers and the Hyatt bearings use 8 rollers. I ask this question seperate from the "flex" issue. I concur about the "flex". Maybe 8 smaller diameter solid rollers could/would work better than 6 larger ones??? Might there then be even a bit of flex? Bill


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 05:47 pm:

The primary advantage of the original style spiral grooved spring roller bearings is they will take compression and adjust for minor misalignments. The gease retaining capability is secondary. I thought this was well accepted.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 06:41 pm:

Hyatt is out of business. Has anyone tried to track down their old machines?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Scherzer on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 06:42 pm:

To keep the rollers from breaking they were spiral wound so the could flex. Most old roller cages get loose and would allow one end of the rollers to get ahead of the other end as they moved around the axle shaft. If this happens with solid rollers they will break and bind up the axles. Just ask Bud Scudder and his wife what happens next. Bob

bearing

bearing


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David_Cockey on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 07:38 pm:

I don't understand how the spiral grooves in the rollers move grease back and forth. They are not running in a closed tube.

By the way, I know a little bit about how fluids behave.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David_Cockey on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 07:42 pm:

The sealed axle bearings which I know of use several individual, short bearings in a cartrige, not a single long bearing.

I think Bob is onto something with his observation that if the roller isn't quite parallel to the axle it will tend to be bent.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David_Cockey on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 07:45 pm:

My assumption is the rollers were wound from red hot flat stock into the tight spiral. I don't think this would be easy to duplicate without the specialized equipment designed for the purpose. Since such bearings haven't been made for quite a while the equipment has probably been scrapped.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 08:30 pm:

Hyatt is out of business. Has anyone tried to track down their old machines?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By George on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 08:31 pm:

From a stiffness standpoint, the originals are like having 10 rollers side to side with a full flex coupling in between each. The photo above definately illustrates how they work to an exaggerated degree.

From a vertical stress standpoint, a 'slice' with a 'cut line' versus a 'slice' on a solid ring, in those sizes is perhaps only an 8% differance.

If originally sized for load at say 92% efficiency, then it carries all of the load needed, and still acts like 10 individual rollers when it comes to flex. And those axles do flex!

I have always questioned a near 4" long solid roller in that application. Yeah the 6 vs 8 gives it some additional breathing room for flexure and that may be the very reason that they do seem to work.

What is the OD of a roller? the ID? Surely no one is going to hot roll them anymore. If the OD would happen to be a good size of something else available at that hardness and OD, they probably could be EDM'd to replicate, but wouldn't be all that cheap.

Dunno about something like these, but for the longest time NDH [new departure hyatt] would replicate the old obsolete designs provided you bought a whole production lot that was like only 1000. Price was typically 3x what the last production versions were, but for machinery designed using hyatts and new departures, machinery that had a near forever life, the economy of the 3x price worked for all involved.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 08:40 pm:

Bob and David are right, If the cage comes apart or is severely loose or bent the rollers can get wrapped around the axle and become bent. But this is a severe failure anyway and could not happin to a solid roller because it would break before it bends. But who cares? If things are that bad you are going to have a major failure anyway. It is true that the modern solid roller bearings differ from the Ford in that they have six rollers rather than eight. But the diameter of all the rollers is 0.500. The solid roller bearings have six supporting rods where the Ford only has Four. The solid rollers are evenly spaced between the supports where the Ford rollers are grouped with two rollers side by side between supports. So both designs have pros and cons. As long as the cage stays together you have no problems with either bearing.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Shelton on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 09:35 pm:

Wow remind me to just roll a grenade in the room next time. I had no idea there were such differing views on this, nor did I understand how these things were originally made. As always I have learned alot.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Noel Denis Chicoine, MD on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 09:58 pm:

Steve, these are just the kind of discussions that make this forum great. I also have learned a lot.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By George on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 10:01 pm:

Steve....

No grenade needed pal.

There just seems to be a few certain topic keywords that will constantly always take on a mind of their own.

But you are right, you will learn alot each time that keyword comes up as a topic. :-)

The fun of it is that unlike certain other cultures...we all refuse to agree to agree 100% of the time on quite a few topics.

But also be aware that it all always boils down to a good user track history over time to settle any of the 'well I think' comments that we all offer.

T's are extremely forgiving if not immune to pure technology...so strong in some areas, so weak in others, no rhyme or reason as to why such differences exist. But hey, they managed to sell 15 million of them :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Shelton on Thursday, May 28, 2009 - 10:21 pm:

Well I have access to a machine shop and had this silly notion of exploring making these things. but it appears more difficult that I thought, and perhaps not necessary.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce Peterson on Friday, May 29, 2009 - 07:59 am:

Solid pinion bearing failure autopsy of the drive shaft in Bud's sedan. Looks like the bearing ate the sleeve, then the cage came apart. When the cage came apart it turned the bearing into a locking device, at which point the driveshaft snapped.

bud1
Bud2
bud3
bud4
bud5


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Friday, May 29, 2009 - 11:06 am:

Or it could be the sleeve failed initially and caused the problem. It would be interesting to know if it was an original sleeeve or a reproduction.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steven Thum on Friday, May 29, 2009 - 12:31 pm:

Royce
That's the exact same failure I had while driving to the T party. I got to spend the first day there repairing the drive shaft and rear end. This was caused by a failure of the repro Hyatt pinion bearing. I now have a modern pinion bearing set from John Reagan. I have been looking for a good used bearing to replace the repro Hyatt bearing I now have on the inside of my right axle. I do not feel safe with it.

Steven


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Hal Davis on Friday, May 29, 2009 - 12:52 pm:

Grenade? This is nothing. No one came unglued or got out of line on this one. This is an example of how differing opinions should be discussed among adults. I'm glad it remained civil this time.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By johnd on Friday, May 29, 2009 - 02:49 pm:

Of coarse then Buds failure let him run BACKWARDS down the mountain and eventually ROLLED his T and totally wiped out the upper portion of the body, and hospitalized both occupants, for the new comers.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Friday, May 29, 2009 - 06:01 pm:

The Drive Shaft Pinion Bearing failure is a common failure. These failures are usually caused by one of two problems. Either the Drive Shaft Sleeve is installed loose on the driveshaft or the sleeve is installed with the keyway of the sleeve improperly alligned with the keyway of the Drive Shaft. The Drive Shaft sleeve is very hard and must be a press fit on the Drive Shaft. If the sleeve can move on the shaft or the keyways are improperly aligned before installing the key an undue force will be applied to the keyway of the sleeve causing it to fracture creating very hard debrie that will do damage to the other parts. When assembled correctly you seldom experience any problems. However if the sleeve is a loose fit or the keyways are misaligned you are asking for trouble. The new roller bearing spool assemblies alleviate these problems. However you must insure that the bearing preload is maintained, otherwise you will have problems with these also. We recommend that you not rely only on the clamp ring to hold the bearing preload but also set up the u-joint clearance with the u-joint pin just likt the normal way of setting end play. This will guarantee that the bearing preload is maintained even if the clamp ring comes loose.

The broken Drive Shaft problem is not as common but is usually caused by damage to the Drive Shaft caused by the Thrust bearing. As you can see the break occurred right where the Thrust Bearing sits.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Walker, NW AR. on Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 12:04 pm:

Speaking of D/S bearings, I took apart a D/S and found a "different" setup in there. Someone had rebuilt this rear end assembly (20 years ago, but with no miles since) and used several new parts. It appears to me that he was trying to do a good job, as the ring gear, D/S bearing and its sleeves, and other parts are new. He also used new solid roller axle bearings on the inner positions, but I have good used Hyatts for that. Here is a pic showing the components which were in the D/S, plus a used Hyatt for comparison:

D/S

The aftermarket thrust bearing is scary to me, but I have a couple of good used ones. I pressed the sleeve off and replaced the thrust bearing, then pressed the sleeve back on.

The pinion bearing is the cause of my post, though. The solid one fits perfectly with the new inner sleeve and spool in place. The best Hyatt bearing I have has 3 thou of wear, and I can feel some play when I rock the spool from side to side. What do you guys think about using the solid bearing for this application? It's not carrying the load of the car, like an outer axle bearing, but it does spin 3.64 times as fast.

Another question I have is about the solid washer which was at the pinion end of the bearing, shown in the pic. I don't remember seeing one of those before. The thrust bearing and new roller bearing are the same thicknesses as the originals, so I'm wondering what is the purpose of using this washer? There is enough space for it, but I'm wondering why it's there. Actually, the way it was set up, there was a space between the pinion bearing and sleeve, into which the washer could have slipped. It seems to me that that might have let the washer wear on the D/S at that point. Any thoughts?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Larry Smith on Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 02:50 pm:

Mike: Your D.S. Distance Plate concerns me. It goes on BEFORE the sleeve. I can't remember if it will slide over the sleeve or not. I think it does. I have a bunch of NOS ones out in the garage somewhere that I could try. Let us all know.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 03:14 pm:

Thr early Drive Shaft Thrust Bearing has a snap ring which locks the bearing components together. The 2588 spacer washer is installed over the 2596 Sleeve and provides a thrust surface for the 2587 Roller Bearing so that it does not ride against the snap ring of the Thrust Bearing. It appears that who ever rebuilt this Drive shaft put a thrust washer at the other end of the bearing so that it would not ride against the Pinion Gear which was not necesary. Interesting modification I can't tell from the picture if the thrust bearing has a snap ring. If so, the thrust waqsher should have been installed there instead of the other end.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 03:31 pm:

Larry, The Drive Shaft Thrust bearing goes on before the Drive Shaft Sleeve, but the 2588 Spacer Washer slides on over the Sleeve and rests against the Thrust Bearing and rides on the Sleeve.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Walker, NW AR. on Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 07:37 pm:

The spacer washer does go over the sleeve and fits into the space inside the snap ring on the thrust washer. That makes more sense as to the proper placement of the washer. (But I still don't have as much faith in this aftermarket design as I do Ford's.) :-)

Something Glen mentioned in his post before mine got me to thinking about the hardness of the sleeve. When I pressed the sleeve onto the driveshaft (it is a very tight fit) the notch was not perfectly aligned with the keyway. I tried using a bar to pry it over into alignment and a tiny corner of the sleeve chipped off, like a piece of glass! Are they supposed to be so hard that they are that brittle? Seems to me that they could be too hard, sacrificing toughness for what turns out to be brittleness.

A while back I posted some pics of a different rear end and D/S that I took apart, and its sleeve had "blown up" sending pieces through the R & P gears and chipping the corners off some of the ring gear teeth. The pinion bearing (Hyatt) also had come apart, so it's difficult to say which came first, the chicken or the egg. For some reason I assumed it was the fault of the sleeve, but I don't know for sure. Same with Bud's deal, we don't know what caused what, but the sleeve definitely failed at some point. And now, since Glen says the failure of the sleeves is a common occurence, I'm wondering whether these repro sleeves are too hard (brittle) to give reliable service. With the axle sleeves, we have an alternative in the less-hardened ones. Does anyone know of any less-hard pinion bearing sleeves?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 11:51 pm:

The design of thrust bearing you refer to as aftermarket is Fords early style thrust bearing.

If you are uncomfortable using the early cup and ball style, you can use the later double washer and ball style in an early spool by cutting a piece of outer sleeve to fill the gap normally taken up by the cup. The critical measurements are the same. I have done it a couple times because the early style is hard to find.

If you have .003" wear on each of the Hyatt rollers, that's too much wear. Look for a better used one.

Next time you press the sleeve on the driveshaft and find yourself misaligned a bit, use a dremel tool to grind the notch to where the key fits.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 03:56 am:

The original Ford sleeves were very hard like the reproduction sleeves. It is imperative that the keyways not be misaligned. The key is a snug fit in the keyway of both the Drive Shaft and Sleeve to prevent any possible movement of the sleeve on the Shaft. I would not grind away any material from the keyway to make the key fit. This will defeat the purpose of the key. If I don't get the keyways lined up the first time I always remove the sleeve and try again until I get it right. The sleeve must be installed in the right position and not be loose on the Drive Shaft, otherwise you put undue force on the key which leads to a fractured sleeve.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Walker, NW AR. on Monday, June 01, 2009 - 08:04 am:

Thanks for the info, Guys -- I was unaware (obviously) that the cup-and-ball type of thrust washer was used by Ford. However, the one I have is a repop, and I know nothing of its origin, so I'm less confident in its use than an original Ford script one of the later type.

Three thou per roller results in 6 thou total, and it feels like too much play. I'll try to come up with a better Hyatt bearing.

My sleeve is such a tight fit on the shaft that it will not be moving at all. I think I might grind just a taste off one ear of the sleeve slot so it won't have any pressure on it and break. (It is scary how brittle those are!) I won't take any off the keyway in the D/S, so it should have a good grasp of the key, which is a snug fit in the keyway.

Thanks to all for your suggestions.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan Treace on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 12:10 pm:

Been looking for the article with exploded view of the Hyatt bearings, and found it. Technical data by M. Fahnestock.

Interesting his take on these reliable bearings.
And the importance of the cage, to have at least 1/32" clearance. I've seen some worn ones that had been hammered at the rivets of the spacing bars so much that the some of the rollers couldn't turn.


April 1923 Ford Owner and Dealer


Note the cage has 'cone-like' retainers for the rollers. The Hyatt rollers are free to 'wobble' on these retainers.

The reproduction solid rollers don't have this feature, the ends of the solid rollers are actually mini pins or axles rotating in the cage, and can't flex or move like this Hyatt design.

The worn solid rollers I removed were worn at these axles, and some of the rollers came out of the cage when I pulled out the solid roller bearing from the rear end housing.

Fahnestock goes on the say that... "owning to the number of rollers among which the load and wear is distributed" .... "very little wear occurs with the hardened Hyatt rollers, and wear on the sleeves is considerably less than on the axles. The axle shaft is 1 1/16" dia, while the two rollers (1/2" dia each) give an inside dia of over 2" for the sleeve,so that there is only about half as much rubbing on the sleeve."

" Most of the wear is usually concentrated on the axle shaft and where there is any groove or nick cut along the outer edge of the shaft, it is necessary to replace the axle shaft to ensure against breakage--even before looseness, due to wear, makes such replacement necessary."

So I just follow that advise, always use a new axle, new sleeves, and a set of good used Hyatts for the rear axle rebuild. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Vince M on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 12:25 pm:

Great article Dan. That answers a lot of questions.

Vince m


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John Gelfer on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 02:38 pm:

I just got a new solid roller bearing and notice it is longer than the original. When you stand them side by side, the new one is taller by the same thickness as the end plate, which is more than 1/16". It's too long for the sleeve. Did anyone else have this problem?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Shelton on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 03:35 pm:

I'm still (I am sure with a great deal of ignorance) fascinated by the notion of making these things. Does anyone have specs? Drawings?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave_Sosnoski on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 04:02 pm:

You can get all the specs for these bearings from the Benson Research Center at The Henry Ford.

http://www.hfmgv.org/research/index.aspx

You will need to pull the drawings for the bearing assembly, the cage ends, the rods that hold the cage together, the left roller and the right roller. For research these are $20 each, for commercial applications they are $50 each. You should also pull the change notice for each of these parts. When you order the documents, you need to specify the Factory Number, not the Part Number. The parts book lists the part by the part number, but also provides the factory number.

Dave S.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Steve Shelton on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 04:07 pm:

Thanks Dave.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration