text:
I have purchased a set of floating safety hubs for my 1926 Tudor (wooden wheels). I am getting ready to drill the holes into the axle housing that are for the retainer nut and bolt. The instructions call for a 3/8 - 24 bolt. The bolt hole is to be positioned in the center of the retaining groove.
Using a caliper, I can get the position where the hole should be,
My question is, the retaining grove is more than 3/4" wide. A 3/8 bolt will allow the hub to move nearly 3/8", and the wheel could also move that amount. The instructions say that the retaining bolt must not be tightened against the hub because the hub must be allowed to find it's alignment position.
Am I missing something?
The wheel is still held in position by the taper on the axle.
OK, Brain fart.
Thanks, Mike
Like Steve says, the wheel/hub is held in place by the nut on the axle, and allowing the spud to float is a good thing. I've always called this piece a spud, not a hub, to reduce confusion with the existing wheel hub.
When the axle breaks, usually near the inboard end of the taper, it may shear at an angle. If the spud is held tight in place, the wheel will still be driven by the axle, until something else breaks from the angular force and you can lose the wheel.
With the spud floating, the wheel can move outboard enough clear the axle break, and no further damage is done.
I have always made my own floating hubs, and make a slot for the bolt. What you have pictured takes a little more lathe time, but less overall labor.
BTW, I have an axle that was broken in just the way I described above, and the wheel was lost.
Something isn't right there.
In my opinion, the locking system is not right, as there is none
We have never put in floating hubs that weren't locked by a bolt, and we normally use two, that will push the length of the shaft evenly, that have a recess dimple drilled so the two bolts lock into them.
Yes, the wheel locks on the axle, but there would be nothing to keep the hub from moving back, and forth in the housing the distance of the thrust washer wear, as the hubs can take off some of that pressure.
So.... when you install the spud You have two retaining bolts the pinch the spud to the axle tube?
Remember that this is a Model T and is using parts that are over 80 years old. The safety hub has two O rings to seal it and is not an interference fit into the axle housing. There is space around the hub. If you use the retaining bolt as a jam bolt you will not allow the hub to find it's own sweet spot in the housing. Bringing the retaining bolt into the machined slot and using loc-tite and or a jam nut on the bolt keeps the hub captive in the housing. Also don't forget that the weight of the car is now resting on the hub and no longer on the axle. The weight of the car will hold the hub in place also. I recommend that you call John Stoltz who makes the hub that you have and ask him any questions that you might have, he is very helpful and eager to answer installation questions.
I thought Spuds were in Potato soup!
In my Opinion, Leaving them loose in the housing, is not good.
Every time you corner the car, the bearing shaft would move in the housing, and would wear.
With the Bearing shaft locked to the housing, the thrust washers would not wear much, as the axle is held between the axle gear thrust face, and the bearing bearing locked on the wheel end.
Also, I don't know what the bearing shaft to housing clearance is on yours, but they should just slide, or tap in with out the "O" rings, for the best fit.
The pressure on the bearing shaft is on the top side of the housing, so I put the two lock bolts, on the bottom, to push the excess clearance in the direction that it is forced in running position.
There should never be axle breakage, as all the axle does is turn the wheel, with out side pressure.
We always use dan McEachern's Hubs, the best I have seen, and always perfect.
I will put on pictures of his hubs, and an original drawing, out of the Speed & Sport Book.
Well..... it just goes to show that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I thought that spuds were mashed potatoes.
Humble Howard broke an axle on his Centerdoor with safety hubs.
Of course, if one locks or jams the assembly in place with bolts, it's not floating anymore, so I would call them just safety hubs. I've got the floating hubs with the retaining bolt in the slot, but not pressing against the assembly. With the bolt in the slot, the wheel cannot leave the axle tube should anything untoward happen, and that is the point. Everything else, like the thrust washers, do the jobs that they were intended to do. The floating safety hubs don't help with the lateral thrust, but they're not really engineered to do that.
Eric, you better study Floating Hubs a little longer. Leaving the lock bolts out, doesn't make them safety hubs, that makes the installation incomplete!
What I have seen on here, Their's some that don't under stand the installation process, or how they work.
I'am thinking Humble Howards axle was also not a new one. Floating Hubs do not put any stress on an axle, it can't.
I have made my own of this design and installed them. I NEVER lock them into the axle housing. Consider that it takes a fair amount of force just to slide the O-ring in and after it sits in place for awhile it takes considerably more force to get it to come out. Also consider that the ONLY time that the axle is not holding the whole thing in is if it breaks. You no longer have the axle in-board of the bearing carrying any significant weight. So really all the load on the axle is from torque. With the great 22 HP (or lets say 60 HP in a good speedster) you will not generate enough torque to ever twist off the axle.
Now lets get to the really important part and revist Bearing Installation Practice 101;
Basic rules for all ball bearings;
1. In any installation you only ever install ONE bearing to control thrust load!!! As the thrust load is controlled by gear carrier in the T rear end the outboard bearing should never be installed so that it does not float. If you have enough "slop" where the axle gears fit into the crown gear carrier you will probably "get away with it" but it is still bad practice and could easily "bite you" if you don't "get lucky" and have the clearances work out in your favour.
So to comment on the original question; The instructions provided absolutely correct and keep with good design practice
Herm, one of the advantages of floating hubs is to be able to use old axles that shouldn't be used without floating hubs. It's a matter of $10 vs. $150, using known FORD parts not subject to vagaries of reproduction.
Ya Ricks, that sounds right. Spending 500.00 for hubs, to save spending 150.00 on new axles, the right size, new tapers, new key ways, new bearing surfaces ect.
So to comment on the original question; The instructions provided absolutely correct and keep with good design practice. "END QUOTE"
Doesn't that depend who you ask Les?
Silliness, Herm. I made safety hubs - for safety, and they didn't cost as much as new axles, which are $150 EACH when you include tax and freight. With safety hubs all you need are halfway decent tapers, keyways and threads on the outboard end, where most of the wear and damage occurs. There were charges of defective repro axles on the O - O tour a few years ago.
Well said, Les. Good design practice is just that.
With my 26 Ute i actually made up bolts that had a head that looked exactly like the original grease cap and secured the safety hubs via the existing original grease cap tapped hole. At a quick glance they look 100% original but greasing would be a problem!!!
Additionally i drilled a hole in the "spud" larger than the end of the bolt. Now the bolt goes just through the spud. I have what i feel is the best. ie No chance the spud will rotate in service, has freedom to self locate and find the "sweet spot",retain it in the event the axle breaks and allows the spider / axle gears freedom to rock around a bit.I agree that John Stolz is very helpful and has just sent me some clear instructions via email within hours of requesting them.
Alan in Western Australia
You should brush up on your reading skills. As I stated before, my hubs are installed with the retaining bolts in the slot without pressing against the hub assembly. They're done as designed, doing exactly what I want them to do.
I would suggest that you might want to "study Floating Hubs a little longer". Apparently, you don't understand the effective designs available that differ from your personal design. But sometimes, things can work well, even if you didn't design them.
I read very well thank you.
I also under stand design, and in this case the lack of it, in my opinion.
That shaft will slide in and out with every corner, and all you need is a thousandths clearance up, and down to get wear started.
I have never seen a set of hubs that you didn't lock down, its just common sense.
There are all kinds of references to explaining the way they should be built.
Show me any one way in the racing days that they didn't lock the hubs from moving.
I await your Historical Document!!!
I ran mine in three Greatraces of 4,000 miles each... And I am a first person account.
Fellows, I make my own too. I don't use the big thick O rings around the 'spud' [which I call a spiggot] Instead I use a liberal coating of Loktite red flange sealant, which doesn't harden and allows easy withdrawall of the spiggot if needed. When installed, they are held in place with a 1/4" grub screw threaded into a modified T grease cup.
The set screw is tightened once the wheel is tight on the axle, so that it sets the spiggot in the correct place as the assembly is installed.
Allan from down under.
I'm missing something here! The idea is to have the axle housing carry the weight of the car, so it's not on the axle. When I make mind I press the "spud/spiggot" in the housing so there is no play and all the weight is transmitted to housing. I've had no trouble doing it this way.
Whether the "spud/spigot" is allowed to slip, or it's locked in place, the housing will still support all the weight, and not the axle shaft.
The term "floating" refers to the axle shaft itself and has no connection with whether or not the spuds, spigots, or as I call them, stub ends, are locked in place or not. So, Herm's method and your method are both "floating hubs".
Actually, they're more akin to a semi-floating hub but we won't split hairs.
More to the topic, why can't you put the retaining bolt through the grease cup hole? That's where mine are. I hate adding extra holes. When the manufacturer says to locate in the center of the groove I don't believe he means for that to be overly precise. If the grease hole outer edge is still maybe a 1/4" away from the groove edge I think you'd be fine. If the hub moves enough to clash with a 1/4" clearance you've got other troubles.
If I get what you are saying right; you press the "spud/spigot" in and then I assume that the bearing is a slip fit onto the "spud"? Is the outside race a close/tight fit to the outer ring that bolts to the hub?
Those look like single row ball bearings. Has there been a problem with wear allowing wobble on those? I use double row ball bearings.
Jerry, I stepped out of the thread once it became a lot more than the question I had. My intention was not to stir the pot.
I suppose I'd could have used the grease hole, but with the hub installed all the way into the tube, the edge of the retaining slot is exactly at the edge of the bolt hole. With the bolt installed in the grease hole the threads of the bolt would hit the edge of the hub. The only movement for the hub would be out. Maybe that is OK, because the hub can not move in more, because of the rivet ring. I drilled a new hole so that i could have better access to the bolt/jambnut, should I want to remove the wheel for service. And I can still use the grease hole to lube the small needle bearing in the hub.
I understand opinions, I have my own, but......
I use standard bearing tolerances on both I.D. and O.D. of the bearing, so yes they can move in and out as the axle moves in or out, this is controlled by the thrust washers. But the way I see it if the "spud" is not pressed in there will fritting which will lead to failure.
Fretting generally only presents as a problem with the rotating race. So on this design the only area of concern is the outer race as it is the one that rotates. The inner race of course is stationary and fretting would never be a problem there.
To further make the point; on the front hubs the cup races must be a press or tight fit in the hub or problems will develop. The "cones" simply slide onto the spindle and unless you have a bearing failure where the cone is forced to turn will not cause any problems.
Anyway I have never had a problem with any fretting of the spud into thee axle tube in 40 years.
All the best
Herm I don't like to be a pedant but having everything locked down is not always the way.
I'm not questioning your ability to read, but your opinion seems quite fixed and your language is quite aggressive toward those who question it. I recall a sh!tstorm created when you quite helpfully posted about the quality of new lifters (a good thing I agree) and your opinion that "they must be butt" A good part of the controversy stemmed just from the term "butt" and that "faced" was actually a better word.
I think what you fail to observe is that a proper full floating design has a tapered roller wheel bearing at both the inside edge and the outside edge of the wheel hub. The diff housing actually extends all the way through the wheel. These bearings carry the load of the vehicle in a simple weight bearing fashion as well as the thrust load imposed by turning a corner.
The diff center has it's own thrust bearings to manage it's own internal loads, the axle literally floats in the middle doing nothing but transmitting torque.
In a model T saftey hub, the bearing is incapable of carrying a significant thrust load because it's simply too narrow. Expecting it to do so is folly, you wouldn't press a ball bearing in the front hub, cut the spindle off and delete the outer bearing.
The model T axle is still an integral part of strength of the design. It keeps the wheel from wobbling and in so doing is subject to bending loads. Saying that it will never break just because they have taken much of the cars weight off the axle makes no sense, especially if you have original axles with some unknown fatigue life. Part of the attraction of using these hubs is indeed the fact you can use otherwise worn out axles.
Expecting the axle bearing to carry thrust and thus extend the life of the carrier thrust bearings is patently wrong. It's bad design and given some heat to expand different components at different rates, the load placed on the bearings by each other, may well exceed their capacity. You don't have more than one thrust bearing on a crankshaft.
I've seen a number of these designs and used a few of them quite sucessfully. Some don't even retain the wheel in the event of a breakage... the bearings are allowed to slide on the spigot because it is fixed into the housing and there needs to be some give in the system, aside from serviceability.
I have also measured about .007" variation in axle housing diameter so making a one size fit's all spigot is out of the question. If they're to be fitted tightly they need to be custom machined.
Anyway that's my 5c
cheers ;)
Anothny, I know there is a difference in the size of the housings, the early, and the late, as Dan always asks which one I had, so what. You would know that before the job was started!
Next thing, weather you like it or not, when you true lifter's on both ends, you are butting them.
On valves you face the head, but you Butt the stem!
All you have to do is read the trade Magazines, and that is the only term that is and has always been used when referring to that machining operation, maybe not by grease monkeys.
Your ignorance of the terms, won't change it!
Your whole understanding of locking the Ball bearing conversion, is lacking.
So, I will show the ones that are always left behind one more time, as I don't care if you personally get it right or not, but don't say it is wrong, because your experience was graded on a curve!
Read The Text., may be it will help you, or Not!
This is the picture of the way they should be built, and why. Lock bolts can very, but the KEY WORD here is LOCK BOLT!
I marked the paragraph, as why the the sleeves should be locked.
And incase you miss it, it says.
"Ball-bearing hubs should be fitted in the following manner, for the reason that this will place the ball bearings at their proper location and take all of the thrust off the differential gears."END QUOTE" Out of the Speed and Sport Book.
That is what I have already said on these posts, as some have missed it, or don't under stand it. Like I said, common sense!
This has been an interesting thread.
It seems to me that the major difference of opinion stems from where the thrust load is to be handled � differential or hub.
If one intends to use the hub for thrust of course it would have to be locked solid to the tube.
Conversely, using the diff for thrust would indicate that the hubs should be allowed to float slightly in the axle tubes so they can find their sweet spot (which can change slightly from temperature variations, differential wear, etc.).
That's just not right Chris.
If you do not lock the sleeves in place, what ever clearance you have on your thrust washers, is what ever will slop back, and forth between the axle gear, and the bearing unit.
Besides safety, locking the sleeves, took the stress of the carriage.
As far as side thrust, there would be way more stress from side thrust on a bearing slamming back and fourth between bearing housing, and the surface on the axle gear. and forth, from not being locked down.
Safety-wise it would appear to me that whether a modern hub is located in place with two bolts-into-dimples or one bolt-into-groove it will stay in the tube if an axle is broken.
As for your other comments I apologize I can't follow exactly what you are saying and picture precisely which components are slopping and slamming around. Could you perhaps rephrase?
After looking at Mike Zahorik's photos in the first post, it appears to me that hub design could well handle a little bit of axial movement in the tube (what's end play on the axles, a handfull of thou?) with no trauma.
Notice that your copied text also insists on SKF bearings due to an extra deep bearing groove. Your locked stubs will force the bearings to take all the thrust load. If you don't use heavy bearings, with extra deep grooves, (SKF or other similar brand with deep grooves), the bearing will not last. I'm skeptical as to whether or not such bearings are supplied by floating hub manufacturers. If not, I would not lock the stubs as the bearings would not be sized for the task.
I think what you're saying about "a bearing slamming back and fourth between bearing housing, and the surface on the axle gear" is a comment about the original Ford design, is that correct?
I have measures a .007" variation in production tolerance between housings of the same age. A proper fit will always require custom machining, unless you take the fit out of the equasion by using a lock bolt or a welder. Or you realise that it doesn't actually matter on a spigot of some 3 or 4 inches of engagement.
Do you install thrust bearings at both ends of a crankshaft?
If you'd care to read this instruction from Sunnen they talk about grinding the valve butt... surfacing or facing it with a valve surfacing machine. I would hardly refer to Sunnen as a bunch of grease monkeys and I take umbrage to your implication that I am of lower than average intelligence or workmanship.
Butting the butt makes no sense, grammatical or otherwise. In fact it doesn't make a mention in the dictionary.
yours cordially
Notice that your copied text also insists on SKF bearings due to an extra deep bearing groove."END QUOTE"
Jerry, that article was written most likely in the late 1920's, when ball bearings were relatively a new thing. A good ball bearing today wouldn't be any different then what they are talking about.
By not locking the sleeves, movement at each end of the slop would make it even harder on the bearing, and the thrust in the rear end.
These were made to go in the Ford rear ends to be used in race cars. The constant cornering would be hard on the thrust, and the axle breakage, that is also why they locked them down so there wasn't a back and fourth slam on the carriage thrust.
Never had any trouble with the ball bearings in the ball bearing hubs.
"...A good ball bearing today wouldn't be any different then what they are talking about. "
I checked out some bearing catalogs and this does appear to be the case.
Still can't agree with your practice of locking though. Since you won't care however, I know that you'll take no offense at my saying so.
As for your other comments I apologize I can't follow exactly what you are saying and picture precisely which components are slopping and slamming around. Could you perhaps rephrase? "END QUOTE"
What I am talking about is, if you don't anchor the ball bearing unit down, it would move in, and out, defeating it's whole purpose.
1. protect thrust in the rear end,and slamming axle gears into the spider gears, as the more movement you get, the more wear you get.
2. Take weight off rear end axle, and lessen axle strains, and to keep from loosing a wheel, if there is breakage.
3. To get rid of a lot of drag.
I recall a sh!tstorm created when you quite helpfully posted about the quality of new lifters (a good thing I agree) and your opinion that "they must be butt" A good part of the controversy stemmed just from the term "butt" and that "faced" was actually a better word. "END QUOTE"
Anthony, her are just two references to butting valves. This is the only references I have ever heard for valve stems, and the ends on lifter's.
http://books.google.com/books?id=JAUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=How+to+butt+grin d+valve+lifters&source=bl&ots=QIQxoekvth&sig=4mSQXvSTVHBVjQP23n3qsWU4Gpw&hl=en&s a=X&ei=znv_UKz4LMPD2QWBp4CACw&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=How%20to%20butt%20grin d%20valve%20lifters&f=false
no reason for offense Jerry, Herm.
Herm, please clarify
1. Are you saying the anchored aftermarket hub *replaces* the differential as the assembly that takes the thrust load?
2. Seems you are also stating that if the hub spigot is not anchored down that one could loose a wheel. Is that correct?
3. What drag is reduced by an anchored hub vs one that can float a bit axially?
The way I see it something has to move to take up of expansion. In this case it's the bearing. And yes the wheel will come off if given enough time, but not at the time of an axle braking.
By Stan Howe Helena, Montana on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 03:27 pm:
If the differential is set up correctly the movement from side to side should be .005 or less. We are not talking about the floating hub moving in or out a quarter of an inch, we are talking about them moving in or out a few thousandths. I don't see that it makes a lot of difference whether the ball bearing in the hub is taking that .005 of thrust or the hub is moving .005 to allow the thrust washers in the differential to take the thrust. As far as "slamming" the axle gears into the spider gears, they've been doing that for over 100 years and seem to take the abuse pretty well.
No. 1. "NO" It keeps the end play thrust in the rear end stable, as the axle is not going to move in, and out, so you eliminate all thrust created by the wheel to the axle, to the thrust washers. So the only stress the thrust washers will have is from the carriage movement from the ring, and pinion. It takes a lot of drag and wear out of the carriage.
No. 2. I assume the word spigot doesn't mean faucet. No. the only way you could loose a wheel, is if there wasn't any thing to keep the unit from coming out. The top picture would do that, but with out being anchored solid, it is only doing 2/3's of it's job they were designed for.
No. 3. Not anchoring the shaft has nothing to do with the word floating hub. If you left your wheel bolts loose, would that make it a floating wheel, maybe in a little while!
So just be just because they published some bad engineering in a '20s era speed book doesn't mean we should continue to use it today. What is published CAN be made to work, but it is unforgiving to any repair work or parts replacement and is totally unnecessary for any of the ordinary road use most of us drive. If you change any one part after those locking bolts are put in you WILL have a problem unless you are incredibly lucky.
For the application the article was published for (sliding around a dirt track) the deep groove ball bearing does have reasonable thrust ability but really no better than Ford's thrust washers. Skillfully set up in a racing application it was OK and consider that these high dollar race cars were maintained we hope by skilled and knowledgeable people. And hey they were race cars and really weren't expected to have a truely long life
Your average T today has a high probability of being serviced by a subsequent owner and if that person does not understand the critical aspects of assembling a device with thrust control in two separate locations the probability of future problems is huge and is well worth avoiding with a properly designed approach
Les, the only thing I can say, is you have no clue, which leaves me in Awe!
I will take that as a complement coming from you!
I had a ball race wheel bearing conversion kit on one of my T's that had been fitted before I bought it, over a period of a few years the wheels ended up with, one side 1/2" camber and the other 3/8" camber and oil leaking out. So a rebuild back to the way Henry had it + new seals all is sweet again.
I know Les Schubert and I can tell you that he has a clue. I think ad hominem attacks serve no useful purpose in a debate.
So I take it you don't under stand it either!
I am sure Dan could explain it to you, but I am thinking he thinks it would be futile to try!
Tom, Thanks for your comments, You are very right and I agree with you.
I didn't know these floating hubs were so difficult to install. Mine went in without any problems.
I will say that I secured them using the hidden method inside the grease cup. Of course some might now disagree with that.
Herm, whether I understand or not is not the point. Whether Les understands or not is not the point. The point is that ad hominem attacks serve no useful purpose in a debate. Do you understand this?
I think this is more about the MAGNIFICENT !
Hey Herm,
Both your references are for the same brand of valve facing machine. If one machine manual is the full extent of your trade experience then so be it however in both cases they talk about "butt end" and "butt grinder" which is fair enough, because if they said "lifters must be butt" it wouldn't make any sense.
The English language is a wonderful thing, if I were to say "Let's eat, Grandpa" then you'll notice that with just an apostrophe I have saved grandpa from being cannibalized. So to if I refer to butt facing, butt grinding, butt finishing then then I have made a complete and coherent statement. This is the sort of semantics that mean all the difference when you get a technical manual out of china that has been poorly translated into "engrish"
I'm still intrigued to know if you install crankshafts with a thrust bearing at each end to stop them slamming back and forth?
Excellent comparison, Anthony.
Herm has done the classic English trick of "verbing" a noun or adjective. The word "butt" in the phrase "butt grinding" is an adjective, Herm was using "butt" as a verb. That is one reason for the confusion. I personally don't like to "verb" words, it weirds the language in my opinion.
I still haven't figured out who Dan is or what "I think this is more about the MAGNIFICENT !" means.
Bennett, I am not going to do any more of your home work for you. There are all kinds reference in all machines, even lathes , butting, Butt machining, ect. Just because any of you guys haven't had the experience with that,doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Bennett, where you come from it seems like you have a different word for everything any way.
Both your references are for the same brand of valve facing machine. If one machine manual is the full extent of your trade experience then so be it however in both cases they talk about "butt end" and "butt grinder" which is fair enough, because if they said "lifters must be butt" it wouldn't make any sense."END QUOTE"
Bennett that wasn't a very bright statement!
Ricks, your irrelevant.
Carnegie, I'am in awe, for the wrong reasons!
I bet I have more miles driving on my own safety hubs than you have on yours, Kohnke. Who's irrelevant?
How many crankshaft thrust bearings do you put in the engines you overhaul? That was what I was complimenting Anthony on.
Time for me to butt out...
Wow! This has gotten way OT!
As far as the original question, that is indeed the way they were designed to be installed. This arrangement does allow the hub to "float" a little bit, but allows for the imprecision of the installation method.
First, although these are referred to as "floating hubs" and the installation method does allow them to "float" a little bit, what they really do is convert the original "T" design to a "floating axle" or more correctly, a "semi floating axle" design.
Look at a heavy duty truck rear axle assembly, even down to some heavy duty 3/4 ton pickups, and you will find a "semi floating axle" where the wheel and hub assembly is riding on a hollow spindle that the axle shaft passes through. The inner end of the axle shaft is splined to fit in the spider gear, and the outer end of the axle shaft has a flange that is bolted to the hub which allows the axle to drive the wheel. A "full floating axle is splined on both ends and is retained by a separate cover or cap.
Most modern rear-wheel drive passenger cars and light trucks use an axle arrangement very much like the original Model T setup in that the axle is retained by a "C" clip behind the spider gear, the axle is allowed to move in and out several thousandths of an inch (end play), the bearing rides directly on the axle shaft, and the wheel bolts directly to the axle, so that the weight of the vehicle is supported by the axle shaft. Should this axle break anywhere along it's length or the "C" clip come off, the wheel will depart the vehicle.
As Jerry said,these hubs convert a "T" axle assembly to a "semi floating" arrangement by bolting the wheel to a "stub" or "spud" that fits into the axle housing so that the weight of the car is transferred directly from the wheel to the axle housing instead of from the wheel to the axle and then from the axle to the housing.
Owing to the fact that the end of the housing needs to be cut off to install these hubs, and the fact that this is not a precise cut, the stub is supplied with a wide groove and allowed to "find it's own center" when it is installed. The "T" axle shaft still holds the assembly together, and it is not going to move or "slam" back and forth any more than it ever did (end play again). If you do not cut enough of the housing off, then the stub will bottom out and when the axle nut is tightened it will pull the spider outward and bind it against the case. If too much is cut off, and the stub is bottomed against the housing and locked firmly in place, then the spider gear will be pushed inwards and bind in the other gears. You also may not be able to fully tighten the wheel against the new hub/stub flange.
By cutting per instructions, and installing the bolt in the center of the groove but not tight against the stub, the stub is allowed to find it's own location. The original axle/hub/nut assembly holds everything together, everything still "floats" in and out as it did originally (end play), but the weight is off of the axle, and the wheel is firmly attached to the car. If the axle should break, the wheel will not depart. The stub may move a quarter of an inch or so, but the bolt in the groove will not allow it to come out of the housing. Note that although upon initial installation the stub may move "up to 3/8 inch" once everything is assembled and tightened, the assembly can only move the amount of the end play.
The only down side I see is that these bearings were most likely designed to have the load centered over them, and in this arrangement, the load is several inches off-center which could lead to wear and looseness causing negative camber as mentioned by Kerry above. Too much negative camber can lead to broken axles again.
I bet I have more miles driving on my own safety hubs than you have on yours, Kohnke. "END QUOTE"
You probably have, but I bet I have installed more hubs in rear ends then you have!
I'm still intrigued to know if you install crankshafts with a thrust bearing at each end to stop them slamming back and forth? "Bennett" "END QUOTE"
I have no idea what the "H" you are talking about Bennett, and I don't think you do either Bennett, you will have to give me proof where I said anything like that!!!!! Put your Du-be down, and go find it. Oh, and a Du-be is what you have, before you end up with a Butt!
Ricks, How many crankshaft thrust bearings do you put in the engines you overhaul? "END QUOTE"
Have no idea of what you are talking about either!
In my life, I have only overhauled two engines. The same one a year apart, and it was mine when I was 19, Model T, that is. When you overhaul, you think you are going to get by not spending money, so you try to use, used crap parts, so you end up spending 3 times the money, to get it right. After the third time, I rebuilt the engine, and was done with it. I never will try to overhaul an engine again.
How many crankshaft thrust bearings do you put in the engines you overhaul?"END QUOTE"
Seeing how there in only one crank, would the right answer, and I will take a wild guess here, maybe one!!!!!!
Time for me to butt out..."END QUOTE"
Thank's for taking the biggest part.
Jeff, I agree with what you said, except the last part.
If you lock the units down, the advantage of, and reason for, is, as the article says, that nobody read, or don't under stand, that it will place the ball bearings at their proper location and take all of the end thrust off the differential gears.
Why would anybody be against taking the pressure off the thrust washers, spiders Gears and, Ring and Pinion for wear?
You just can't have that happen with the sleeves loose!
If I may, Herman, I will rephrase the question raised by Anthony and Ralph, as I think it deserves a serious answer...
Given that you advocate the use of a fixed-in-position aftermarket hub that controls sideways thrust of the wheel, and also are still using the Ford differential and thrust washers, etc., that begs two questions:
1. Does your setup essentially have two thrust surfaces on each axles, one at each end;
2. And if so, would the same two-thrust-surface principle apply to any other components that typically have only one thrust surface, such as a crankshaft?
Herm, if you lock the stubs in place with holes as shown in the book, you prevent any movement whatsoever. If you happen to have the setup centered in the range of the end play that is probably OK, but if you are all the way in or out, then you are actually causing friction or pressure. Also, if any work is performed or parts replaced in the differential in the future, the holes could possibly be in the wrong place and not allow for proper adjustment of the differential assembly. Also there is no allowance for any expansion or contraction.
The book refers to making a speed car, and maybe in a racing situation, especially a circle or fairground track, where there would be constant side thrust this setup might be desirable, but for an average car, I don't see any advantage to locking the stub when the thrust is only temporary as in cornering. The axle needs to be able to move or expand and there needs to be some end play.
First Chris, you will have to tell me where the thrust surface on the wheel end of the axle is, I don't think I have ever noticed one there?
No. 2 Question, I don't know how to answer your second Question, because I don't see any relationship between a crankshaft, and an axle, except their both steel. Please enlighten me.
And if so, would the same two-thrust-surface principle apply to any other components that typically have only one thrust surface, such as a crankshaft? "END QUOTE"
Chris, You may want to recount the thrust surfaces on a crank, as the cranks we use, there are two, not one.
Herman, regarding thrust control at the wheel end of the axle, I am only paraphrasing what you stated on January 23, 2013 - 03:30 pm: "...the axle is not going to move in, and out, so you eliminate all thrust created by the wheel to the axle, to the thrust washers." If your aftermarket hub keeps the axle from moving in or out surely it must be absorbing thrust, no?
My second question is perhaps better phrased as:
2. Given that the axles are apparently running with thrust control at each end (if indeed, your hubs provide thrust control at the wheel end), why wouldn't one want the same setup on, say, a crankshaft?
The bearings are going to be loaded properly because the axle is controlling any potential angular load. It is perfectly permisable to have both bearings on a shaft on one side of the weight load.
The original Ford T rear axle had both bearings on one side of the wheel (one out by the wheel and one in by the differential).
Of course if you break a axle then you will have some angular loading but certainly I kind of doubt you are then going to proceed very many miles in that condition.
The condition Kerry describes I would be very surprised to see if it is installed properly. I can see it coming to pass if somebody has repaired one of Herm's installations as now you could easily cause a pre-mature bearing failure by causing excessive thrust load on one of the parts. I am sure Herm probably gets him right when he does them. It is the potential repair process that concerns me as Jeff has also stated
The bearing has to move or you can not remove the wheel
You are so right for a wooden wheel. On the various wire wheels of course it is another case.
Jeff, I seen a long time ago you Guys don't under stand the way its made. There is no way to improve on the design.
Herm, if you lock the stubs in place with holes as shown in the book, you prevent any movement whatsoever."END QUOTE"
That is the whole idea! When it is all put together, before you drill for the lock bolts, there is no bind anywhere, the only clearance by pulling in or out on the wheel will show how much clearance you have in the thrust washers, and the end of the thrust on the axle gear, I do pull the assembly lightly to the out side with my finger tips on the wheel. Should be only be about 10 thousandths. So with the rear wheels off the ground, that's when to drill the holes for the lock bolts. I put my lock bolts on the bottom, as if you have any slop from sleeve to housing, the pressure is up, so I make the bolt pressure go up.
If you happen to have the setup centered in the range of the end play that is probably OK, but if you are all the way in or out, then you are actually causing friction or pressure. "END QUOTE"
Ok, on a new rebuilt rear end, starting inside to out, in between the two axles, that controls the thrust inward. As there were soft disks installed, and did not last very long in a heavy side thrust car. We normally use S. Steel. I have taken rear ends down that had Brass in, but they also showed signs of mushing, from the inward thrust.
Also, if any work is performed or parts replaced in the differential in the future, the holes could possibly be in the wrong place and not allow for proper adjustment of the differential assembly. "END QUOTE"
If the holes did change, all you would have to do is rotate the sleeve 1/2 inch, and drill the sleeve again, and if you have those used up, drill two more holes in the housing, and plug the others. You maybe have 10 rear end rebuilds out of the bearing units, but if you have to build your a rear axle once a year, you may should ask for a little help.
Also there is no allowance for any expansion or contraction. "END QUOTE"
This would not be of any concern, when the wheels are put on the hubs, and the hub sleeves are put in the housing, and with the wheel tightened on the taper of the axle, and as long as there is clearance between the sleeve, where it can be pushed in with OUT touching the axle housing, there is NO stress inside in the carriage. So where ever you lock the sleeve at, the axle can not move in, or out and put pressure on the thrust washers on the wheel side, or the thrust washers on the other side, or the S. Steel disk between the axle ends at the spider gears.
The book refers to making a speed car, and maybe in a racing situation, especially a circle or fairground track, where there would be constant side thrust this setup might be desirable, but for an average car, I don't see any advantage to locking the stub when the thrust is only temporary as in cornering. The axle needs to be able to move or expand and there needs to be some end play. "END QUOTE"
Chris, The installation that you are talking about is the same, minus, lock bolts, which is leaving the installation undone, but some guy thinks it is better to leave all the thrust pressure, and all the parts loose! Normally, when you have to rebuild a rear end, it is because the thrust washers are wore out, and that will take out the rest of the parts that are in there. In short, what locks the sleeves down does, it eliminates any thrust in the rear end coming from the axles, which is the Greatest cause of wear, and is the hardest thrust, and all then you have left is what ever the ring, and pinion applies. Any expanding, and contracting would not change at all, but would be way less then what was factory, by a long shot.
The bearing has to move or you can not remove the wheel. "END QUOTE"
Nicholas, you are not removing the bearing to get a wheel off, you are pulling out the sleeve out of the rear end housing. In the first post, your remove one bolt, that is screwed in with no end pressure.
In the original types, you have to take out two bolts, about a minute's difference.
Les, there in no difference if it is wire, or wood, same thing.
Les, I see that you were only talking about removing the wheel, and you are right.
"I have no idea what the "H" you are talking about Bennett, and I don't think you do either Bennett, you will have to give me proof where I said anything like that!!!!! Put your Du-be down, and go find it. Oh, and a Du-be is what you have, before you end up with a Butt!"
Seriously Kohnke, would you tell that face to face to somebody?
To All: I'm sorry to stir the pot but I've simply had enough of this Kohnke telling smart people off.
Herman Kohnke I don't care how good you rebuild engines, you got no right to bully people on this forum.
Well Doucet, I dish out what is put on my plate, always have, always will. So in your opinion, if you talk back, your a bully. If you go along with something that isn't true, your doing all a favor, right? It isn't a question of another way of doing something, it is just plain wrong.
As far as that first sentence, what he is getting at is a lie! I will bet Doucet, you don't know what he is talking about either. I also don't see any more information from him either, as he probably went back to the post, and seen it wasn't me that wrote it!
Go peen some Babbitt Kohnke
Tomorrow, Doucet.
Cool. You have a good one Herm.
Same to you Dex.
I appreciate Herm acknowledging the deficiency in his design,
Good on you Herm.
I missed that one Les, what was that?
I understand the design of John Stoltz's setup, and I think I also understand herm's setup and point of view, but don't agree that it is necessary since the original design and nearly all rear-drive axles since do not have the axle locked in place eliminating any end play or thrust. I also think that there is way more thrust created by the ring and pinion than by the axle against the spider gear.
If you are using John Stoltz hubs, follow John's instructions. If you are using Herm's, follow his instructions. Warranties always stipulate proper installation according to manufacturers instructions.
Jeff, they are not my hubs, they are made by Dan McEachern.
Then follow Dan's instructions.
I do
Fellows, I am a little mystified by the two types of floating bearing hubs shown in the thread. There has been serious work done to stop oil leaking between the spiggots and the axle housing, using oil rings. On some of the roughly machined housings they may be problematical.
The bearings shown are sealed bearings, so oil cannot run down the axle shaft and find its way through the bearing and then onto the brake linings.
Do the fitting instructions advocate a sealant between the brake drum and the bearing carrier? Otherwise there is a path for oil to leak between these two components and foul the linings. Am I missing something here?
Allan from down under.
You admitted that on subsequent repairs it is quite possible (in fact probable) that new holes will have to be drilled in the spigot. If the subsequent person doing the repairs knows this then fine. Most people would not assume this would be necessary and a good design would not require this.
All the ones I have done and seen have a seal running on the axle shaft by the outboard end of the spigot so sealant is not required where you are describing it. If Herm has religiously followed the old drawings then his may require sealant. I would hope they have added a seal in that location in violation of the original drawings
Les, I see what you mean about the bearings on the shaft. I wasn't considering the inner bearing.
I looked again at the pictures of Herm's axle housing, and of the stubs he is using which he says are Dan McEachern's. The installation is a little different form what is shown in the picture in the book and I was getting confused. That said, by drilling dimples into the stub and locking it in, there is still a possibility for future error as I see it. However he says that he is following Dan's instructions.
I have never seen one of Dan's hubs until now, but I like the additional o-ring on John's as well as the forgiveness of the movement allowed by the groove.
Dan's hubs fit very well. I just put the RTV on the sleeve, push the sleeve in and set the two bolts, that have already been fit, and your done. Dan's does have a seal in the end of the sleeve so the oil will not go down the axle.
Both hubs we are talking about are the same, except one is locked, and one is not.
As far as having to change holes in the sleeve, it could be done very easy, if need be, but other then a rear end shell out, I couldn't think of a reason why. Even with rear ends rebuilt, every thing go back in the same relationship as when it came from the factory.
I think Dan's lock bolt instructions use just one, I think. I haven't put a set of hubs in for a couple of years now, as I don't have time to build rear ends any more.
Having to drill new dimples in the sleeve because of different placement in the future, I see no reason to do, or maybe in another 80 years, but I think it would be trying to create a problem where there would be none.
I have never had a problem with any of them, even the ones I used to get from Fl. before Dan made them, or I knew he made them.
You admitted that on subsequent repairs it is quite possible (in fact probable) that new holes will have to be drilled in the spigot. "END QUOTE"
Les, that is a scenario brought up by Jeff, Jan. 27, 6:13 PM. I just don't see it happing, because what I have already outlined.
Also, I think the large "O" rings are over kill. With not being locked down, I see them wearing flat to the sleeve height from back, and forth movement, just like the "O" rings put on peddle shafts that grooves have been put in to stop the oil, what ever pressure is on the "O" ring out side, will wear away, and oil will go past it.
This is a good subject, I have a set I bought a few years ago that I'm not sure how to install either. I'm looking forward to this summer when I get back up north to putting them in.I sure Im going to need the advice of the forum to get the job done.
I brought it up this scenario originally on my January 23 posting at 8:37 pm. Jeff of course did restate it in his posting on Jan 27.
I will give you a quite likely scenario where your design could easily create serious problems; A person decides to change rear wheels or just the hub. All of a sudden nothing fits right. They could be doing this by the side of the road in a wheel repair situation. They don't realize that it doesn't fit right anymore and and assume, as any reasonable person would, that it should be able to be reassembled without drilling new holes.
The advantage of the large O-rings is they are much more forgiving as the bore tolerance inside the Ford axle tube. It would also take a large amount of side to side movement before the O-ring would actually slide in the axle tube. The O-ring will take up the small amount of movement within it's flexibility that could occur with any rear axle that is reasonably well rebuilt.
I will give you credit for giving me a laugh though. As soon as the deficiencies are pointed out you start distancing yourself and put it all on Dan M.
Les, the ones I make for myself have a seal on the inner end of the spiggot, so that it runs on a part of the axle shaft which is not worn by previous use of the standard roller bearing. Consequently, the spiggot, with seal fitted, has to be slid into place before the wheel is fitted, with masking tape over the axle keyway to prevent damage to the seal.
I cannot see how a spiggot with a seal, fitted [not fit!] to the wheel, can be installed on the axle with the axle key in place. Is the key somehow held in place in the wheel keyway?
Mine have no O ring around the outside of the spiggot. When I fit them they are coated with a thin smear of Loktite non hardening flange sealant and slid into place, leaving them with about 1/2" left to go in. At this point I tighten a 1/4" grub screw, fitted through a modified original greaser, to hold it in place while the axle key and then the wheel are fitted. Once the wheel is home on the bearing spiggot, the grub screw is backed off and the axle nut pulls the assembly into the housing to the position demanded by that particular axle/wheel hub combination. Then the grub screw is tightened to hold it in that position. This procedure can be repeated as many times as required without any more drilling, measuring etc.
Assembling them this way means it is not a safety hub. The wheel can come off the spiggot if an axle was to break.
Yours for interest.
Allan from down under.
Putting the seal inboard is reasonable but consider you now have to slide it further along the axle shaft and perhaps increase the risk of damage (but probably not significantly). If the seal is at the outboard end then a option is to install it after the "spigot" is slid in place. That way you can carefully slide just the seal along the axle shaft and then knock it in place. Probably not a big difference but something to think about. I sure have no argument with your procedure as you are only tightening a grub screw down and so it has no specific location to fool someone down the road
On my latest version that I have made for myself I have gone to a smaller bearing (inside race smaller than the spigot). This allows the bearing to be bolted to the hub and then slipped over the axle and onto the spigot and the axle nut tightened up as usual. It satisfies the requirement of having the outer race to be a close non moving fit as required by good bearing installation practice. The inner race, being non rotating, has no need for other than a close slip fit (no press fit needed here).
I am considering adding a O ring on the spigot where the bearing goes to provide some increased level of bearing retention in the very unlikely event of a axle breakage. It would only take a few minutes on the lathe and cost little for the O ring. Anyone who has had to remove something from a static O ring will realize the amount of retention something this simple can provide. I am not promoting this idea for others, just telling what I am trying on my own car.
I will give you credit for giving me a laugh though. As soon as the deficiencies are pointed out you start distancing yourself and put it all on Dan M.
I am not sure what Deficiencies you are talking about Les, as far as I know there isn't any .
You are so right for a wooden wheel. On the various wire wheels of course it is another case."END QUOTE"
When you posted this, I thought you were talking about that you could take off a wire wheel with it having Lug Nuts, the hubs still fit the same.
I will give you credit for giving me a laugh though. As soon as the deficiencies are pointed out you start distancing yourself and put it all on Dan M."END QUOTE"
Now Les, that is not true. I stated they were Dan's Hubs when I took pictures of them, and posted them on my second post with the pictures. I sure would like to take credit for them, but no matter what you think, that is not me. Besides, I bet Dan's watching!
This is what I said::::
We always use dan McEachern's Hubs, the best I have seen, and always perfect."END QUOTE" On JAN, 18, at 3:18 PM.
Well, I am going to town and get a POP. Later, Herm.
Les, when I made my floating hubs to go with Hayes wire wheels, the spiggot was stepped down to take a smaller rear wheel bearing from a modern car. This was needed because the diameter of the circle of rivets holding the brake drum to the Hayes wheel was smaller than the bolt circle on the T wooden wheels.
On all my sets the bearing is bolted to the wheel hub in its carrier first. Then the inner race is a slide on fit on the spiggot as the wheel is fitted to the axle.
I made a blue when making the first Hayes set. I bored the inside of the spiggot without enough clearance on the axle, and came to a grinding halt after a mile or two. No damage done, but I had to open it up a bit!
For your interest.
Allan from down under.
I enjoy writing to this forum because I like to offer people help, and in return I like to ask questions of those who might know or recall more than I do on a particular subject.
I'm glad you also like to share your knowledge and are willing to spend time doing it. However the way you go about it is at best abrasive, which means many aren't brave enough to share their own experience for fear of being shot down by an opinion held up as gospel by it's author.
In my opinion, free for all it's worth you suffer from narcissisim & hubris.
*Pretending to be more important than they really are
*Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
*Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
*Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
*Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
*Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults
Hubris (pron.: /ˈhjuːbrɪs/), also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις, means extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.
I'll ask the forum do you recognise any of these traits in Herm's posts?? Here's some examples...
"When ever you true an end of something, you are Butting it! Ok Boys, try to prove me wrong, that is the only chance some of you will have to learn." end quote
"Les, the only thing I can say, is you have no clue, which leaves me in Awe!" end quote
"Mr. A.J., now for you and your Machinist clueless Want-A-Be's." end quote
"So, I will show the ones that are always left behind one more time, as I don't care if you personally get it right or not, but don't say it is wrong, because your experience was graded on a curve! Read The Text., may be it will help you, or Not!" end quote
"All you have to do is read the trade Magazines, and that is the only term that is and has always been used when referring to that machining operation, maybe not by grease monkeys." end quote
That brings me to the whole "butt" issue.
"Pictures of why "ALL" lifters have to be Butt, New, or Used!" end quote
You entitled a thread with a poorly worded statement, a grammatical error, one which created confusion for the first 8 responders, who then asked you to clarify. For having the temerity to ask what you actually meant, you attacked them generally.
I know exactly what you mean when you refer to the butt end of something and I'm not questioning that the term is used in machining shops everywhere. What I'm trying to point out is that there are better, less ambiguous, more widely known words for describing the operation that you espouse. If you're trying to help people then you should try to use language the layman can understand. Conversely, if you're trying to big note yourself at other peoples expense, just keep doing what you're doing.
I know Herm that you have a decent command of the language and this is evident in your careful interpretation of words.
In your very first post on this subject you said this...
"Yes, the wheel locks on the axle, but there would be nothing to keep the hub from moving back, and forth in the housing the distance of the thrust washer wear, as the hubs can take off some of that pressure." end quote
This means you understand that the end float in a model T rear axle is controlled by the thrust washers on the diff center. You then go on to mention that the safety bearing design alleviates the thrust load.
SO from that statement you would have acknowledge that there are now TWO thrust bearings controlling ONE axle shaft, but you try assiduously to avoid that admission, because it then leads to the logical conclusion that different parts of the assembly will expand at different rates and could in turn overload the thrust bearings. I wasn't the only one to try and point this out to you but you carried on...
"As far as side thrust, there would be way more stress from side thrust on a bearing slamming back and fourth between bearing housing, and the surface on the axle gear. and forth, from not being locked down." end quote
What you're trying to do (with this little pearl of poor sentence structure) is justify your own position by attacking the original design of the Ford axle. Along with a few others I have noted this and asked a pointed question about thrust bearings, using a crankshaft as an example of something similar.
In fact Chris Bamford asked the same question and with your excellent understanding of the language you very carefully used his wording about "thrust faces" to poke fun at him saying there wasn't a thrust "face" on the wheel end of an axle. Then you continued on about a crankshaft, saying there are always two thrust "faces". That is correct no doubt. However when he rephrased the question you didn't answer because it would be inconvenient to your arguement.
"2. Given that the axles are apparently running with thrust control at each end (if indeed, your hubs provide thrust control at the wheel end), why wouldn't one want the same setup on, say, a crankshaft?" end quote
Again I took up the challenge and asked if you install two thrust bearings on a crankshaft, and I used your own colourful description of "slamming back and forth" to illustrate my point. For my trouble you again ignored the question and instead called me a liar and said I was on drugs. Another case of ad hominem attack in place of logical arguement. I still want an answer to that question Chris put so eloquently.
Ricks asked the same question and instead of answer it, you took off an a rant about yourself, and semantics of the words overhaul and rebuild, the point of which was to show how good you are?
Humorously you say that "overhauling" is bad practice and you only ever "rebuild" things properly. If you take those words apart, and refer to the root, definition and synonyms they're associated with, I'd say that "rebuilding" involves just putting something back together with little change, while an "overhaul" is a more complete and comprehensive process, akin to recondition or renew.
We all have opinions, as they say here, they're as common as arseholes, but unless you want to be known as one it pays to keep yours from public view.
I can see you do fine work Herm, you have a good understanding but if you'll only listen then you'll learn a lot too. You'll find that treating people with some respect will go a long way toward disarming the notion that you're an arguementative prat. All I want to say is that unless you have something kind to say, something positive to contribute, then please be quiet. Belittling people on the internet is something less that human. There are a lot of good people here who offer their considerable time and expertise, attacking them because you don't agree is pointless and reflects badly on the rest of us who are trying to be fordial.
HIP HIP HOORAY Anthony!
It's been awhile back that I posted concerning doing an in car recharge. I offered to the initial poster that the task is much easier if you point the car east/west. Of course I didn't clear it with Herm first and he basically stated I was an idiot to believe that. I then produced the page in the Ford bulletin that said point it east/west and why. His response was something like his compass wasn't a cracker jack compass. His way was best and he knew more than the folks writing instructions 90 years ago.
I would like someone to start a new thread that details each time Herm respectfully helped someone else. I'm guessing it would be a short string (if it were to even start).
All right everyone, Lets pull in the talons some. Sometimes things can get a bit heated but lets all try and remember that everybody is entitled to there own option no mater what the view may be. I have got some good information from everybody over the years. Lets not scar the forums good nature by having a bashing party. Anyone that enjoys the Model T hobby is more than welcome here good or bad. As far as Herm goes, He has over the years made very good references as to the running gear of the Model T and I have learned from him as I have everyone here. Lets all shack hands and grab your favorite cold one and enjoy it. I for one still have a lot to learn and Id rather not lose a teacher.
Well thanks Bennett for my biography this morning, we must have Tea, and Crumpets some time.
SO from that statement you would have acknowledge that there are now TWO thrust bearings controlling ONE axle shaft, but you try assiduously to avoid that admission, because it then leads to the logical conclusion that different parts of the assembly will expand at different rates and could in turn overload the thrust bearings. I wasn't the only one to try and point this out to you but you carried on..."END QUOTE"
That statement is wrong. When you lock the sleeve on the bearing down, the axle is no longer using either thrust side, as the axle is held in the center of carriage thrust, or that the axles no longer are bearing,in, and out pressure on thrust washers, or the carriage. I can only think of so many ways I can say that. The picture on the first post go's contrary to any that were ever designed, and to the ones that have been made all these years, and the only thing different is weather you lock the unit down the way it should be. If you can't see, or don't under that, there is nothing I can do to help you, because from all your words, it is clear you don't understand!
What you're trying to do (with this little pearl of poor sentence structure) is justify your own position by attacking the original design of the Ford axle. Along with a few others I have noted this and asked a pointed question about thrust bearings, using a crankshaft as an example of something similar."END QUOTE"
What do you mean attacking original design? What does outer ball bearings have to do with original. Original design is out the window when you first cut off the axle housing!
In fact Chris Bamford asked the same question and with your excellent understanding of the language you very carefully used his wording about "thrust faces" to poke fun at him saying there wasn't a thrust "face" on the wheel end of an axle."END QUOTE"
By your misunderstanding, I was not making fun of Chris,or any body else, when he asked about saying there wasn't a thrust FACE on the wheel end of the axle. I said there wasn't a thrust face, BECAUSE THERE ISN"T A THRUST FACE ON THE END OF THE AXLE, ON THE WHEEL END, BECAUSE THE SLEEVE IN LOCKED DOWN! THERE WAS NEVER A THRUST FACE ON THE END OF THE AXLE EVEN WHEN STOCK!
And when the sleeve is locked down, with no pressure in, or out, the axle no longer is thrusting on the washers in the housing, only the ring, and pinion, at most.
In fact Chris Bamford asked the same question and with your excellent understanding of the language you very carefully used his wording about "thrust faces" to poke fun at him saying there wasn't a thrust "face" on the wheel end of an axle. Then you continued on about a crankshaft, saying there are always two thrust "faces". That is correct no doubt. However when he rephrased the question you didn't answer because it would be inconvenient to your arguement."END QUOTE"
Again you misinterpreted what I said, I told him there wasn't a thrust face on the wheel end, "WHY" because there isn't any thrust face on the wheel end!
Then you continued on about a crankshaft, saying there are always two thrust "faces". That is correct no doubt. However when he rephrased the question you didn't answer because it would be inconvenient to your arguement."END QUOTE"
Again not true, and misinterpreted, The axle thrust, unlike a crankshaft, is NOT held between the Axle gear, and the wheel. It is held" on a stock rear end" by the axle gear pushing against the left thrust washer, when turning Left, and when the car turns right the axle thrusts right, the end of the axle pushes on the axle stubs, and gears to the right, and pushes the right axle into the thrust washers on the right side, so there is NO thrust on the wheel side ever, on a stock, or ball bearing conversion.
Again I took up the challenge and asked if you install two thrust bearings on a crankshaft, and I used your own colourful description of "slamming back and forth" to illustrate my point. For my trouble you again ignored the question and instead called me a liar and said I was on drugs. Another case of ad hominem attack in place of logical arguement. I still want an answer to that question Chris put so eloquently."END QUOTE"
I still don't get your whole idea, or thought, meaning of your Questing? Reword it. I called you a liar because you said that I said that I said something about using a thrust bearing on each end of a crank, and I did NOT. Somebody did though, It wasn't me.
Humorously you say that "overhauling" is bad practice and you only ever "rebuild" things properly. If you take those words apart, and refer to the root, definition and synonyms they're associated with, I'd say that "rebuilding" involves just putting something back together with little change, while an "overhaul" is a more complete and comprehensive process, akin to recondition or renew."END QUOTE"
Well, where You come from maybe that's the way the understanding would be. If you go to any machine shop I know of and ask for an over haul, you get new bearings, some times, or rings, valves ground Ect. But a rebuild is every thing machined, and new parts, like a new engine!
We all have opinions, as they say here, they're as common as arseholes, but unless you want to be known as one it pays to keep yours from public view."END QUOTE"
Just depends who you ask?
You entitled a thread with a poorly worded statement, a grammatical error, one which created confusion for the first 8 responders, who then asked you to clarify. For having the temerity to ask what you actually meant, you attacked them generally."END QUOTE"
That is not true either, what it turned into was trying to take the word Butt, and turn it in to something else, because those unfamiliar with machine shop term. There is a lot of terms used in say computers that I am not familiar with, but I would'n tell somebody there calling it by the wrong name, if that is what it was. How would that be enlightenment? I call a spade, a spade. If you call a spade a shovel, which one is going to be brought from the tool shed?
I don't know if I missed any or not.
Oh, you better check your "SPELLING" for the word Argument. How am I ever going to learn all the grammar lessons your trying to teach me, with your miss spelled words like me!
Herm, please clarify:
When a car equipped with the locked-in-place aftermarket hubs goes around a corner, where is the thrust load transferred from the wheel and axle? Hub bearings, differential, both, neither...?
When the Hubs are locked, so the axle does not move in or out, as it can't because the thrust is held by the sleeve lock bolts, so the axle gears that used the thrust on a stock rear end, will not now, because the axle gear is being held center of the clearance of what ever end play that you have.
The axle thrust is what makes the worst wear on the thrust washers, and needing repair.
Look at it this way, the wheel is put on the axle taper, and tightened, the wheel bolts to the bearing hub, and the bearing hub is pressed on the housing sleeve, and rolled or what ever you use to keep it tight. The sleeve is put in the housing with a close fit, so you don't have to pound it out if need be. Then the Sleeve is bolted to the housing. So Now, there is NO axle thrust, except what ever end play the carriage has, that would touch it.
Gary, I am sorry for that post, because it doesn't make any difference which way you point the car, if it works,for you, or anybody else. I never should have said that, Sorry.
OK I think I get it...
Wheel thrust transfers from the wheel hub to the aftermarket hub to the hub bearings to the hub sleeve to the lock bolts to the axle tube.
The Ford thrust surfaces at the differential are basically floating within their clearance and are only under thrust if the differential carrier tries to move one way or the other.
Is that right?
Herm is right, it makes no difference to the magnets which way the car is pointed. You will get the same charge.
It does make a difference to the compass though. If there were no magnets in the car at all, and it was parked pointing north, the compass needle would naturally point to true north or straight ahead. If you parked the same car east / west, the needle would still point to true north, or to the side of the car. Now if the east / west car had any magnets with even a little charge, then when the compass was placed on the hogshead the needle would point to the front or rear of the car, depending on which pole of the magnet was near. You could still do it parked north / south, but you are dealing with two forces acting on the compass.
Parking the car east / west just makes it easier to find the magnet poles without interference from true north.
Fellows, am I missing something, again??? With the floating hub bearing mounted in its carrier on the wheel and the inner race of that bearing pressed onto the spiggot, you have a solid assembly, the only movement being within the bearing, right?
When that wheel /hub assembly is fitted to the axle and bolted tight in the housing, the only movement is still within the bearing, right?
When the car corners, there is a thrust load applied which the wheel transfers to the axle assembly, right?
Then that thrust load must be taken up by the movement in the bearing. If the movement in the bearing is less than the clearance usually found in the diff centre between the thrust washers, then no thrust is exerted on the diff centre,right?
Please help me understand. I make my hubs differently, so I might need to change my ways.
Allan from down under.
I am not sure WHY you would make a press fit of the inner race onto the "spigot". The outer (rotating) race needs to be a "retained" fit (press or loktited). The inner (non rotating) race does not require this. In fact press fitting both races is the root cause of a lot of bearing failures. Unless you are very careful to not make them too tight you can easily remove the necessary clearance inside a ball bearing and cause premature failure. Much better to shoot for about a .001" loose fit on the non rotating race in this application.
The manufacturers bearing manuals have detailed information if you are designing for the upper limit of the bearing rating. In this application we are way below it's rating and critical fitting is a waste of time and potentially risky if not done right.
Herm's comment about the side load of the wheels causing all the wear in the differential thrust washers defies the observed real world. In the old differentials I have taken apart, it is always the thrust washer behind the crown gear that is worn. The other side has no wear.
Right on Chris!!!!!!!!!!!
I have found that when you press a bearing into something, or press something into a bearing, if you want it to stay, and are not looking for a slip fit, we fit to a .001-50 thousandths fit with lock-tite.
If you go over .002, say .002-50, to .003, you start to get the drag Les talked about, which I agree is No good.
The sleeve in pressed into the bearing, for two reasons.
1. If the axle breaks, the wheel won't come off.
2. If it is not a press fit, the pressure of the operation of the wheel would make it start to wear, because it would have room to start to work.
Herm's comment about the side load of the wheels causing all the wear in the differential thrust washers defies the observed real world. In the old differentials I have taken apart, it is always the thrust washer behind the crown gear that is worn. The other side has no wear. "END QUOTE"
I can't go along with that one Les, but it is not important enough to debate.
Sorry folks, but science and engineering will never overcome ignorance and superstition.
I think the side load of the crown merits further consideration.
Consider the Ruckstell axle. The big ball bearing MUST be the angular contact EXPENSIVE version with a good thrust rating to stand up. People over the years have tried to use the cheaper standard deep groove ball bearing, which is similar to what is used with ball bearing rear hubs. It will NOT stand up to the thrust load on the crown gear. Both bearings have similar radial load rating, but the expensive one has a big thrust rating (only in one direction).
Herm, No debate needed.
and your point would be?
Les, I have missled you. From the photos posted, I presumed the spiggot was a press fit in the bearing and as such the whole assembly is as one except for whatever clearance/play is within the bearing.
On the ones I make for myself, the outer race is a press fit in the carrier and the inner race is a slide/bearing fit on the spiggot, so it can move if it wants to. Thus thrust from the wheel is not transfered to the axle.
Herm's post of 10.05 suggests that the spiggot is pressed into the inner race, so thrust is absorbed by the bearing? Doing it this was may mean the wheel will not depart the vehicle if an axle breaks, but it may well compromise the bearing.
Hope this is clear.
Allan from down under.
Hey you're not that bad Herm,
and being a student of the queens english I do tend to overspell things compared to you blokes over there. Whoever decided that colour and tyre was too hard to figure out...?
Chris I think you have it by the short and curly ones now. By locking the spigot/bearing/wheel assembly to the axle tube, the only sideways movement the axle is subject to, is governed by the clearance inside the saftey hub ball bearing.
Provided that clearance is less than the slop in the differential assembly, then the thrust load is borne by the ball bearing and not by the original Ford thrust assembly.
The concern some of us have, is twofold. The ball bearing may not be suitably rated for the thrust load applied by the weight of the car. More concerning though is if the tolerance between the new safety hub bearing and the original Ford thrust isn't correct, then you could end up with enormous thrust loads applied by one bearing, to the other.
Imagine overtightening a front wheel bearing, then as it runs down the road, the heat created causes parts to expand further amplifying the overload of the bearing.
Hypothetically, you assemble a newly restored rear axle in the middle of winter. The center is nice and tight, the housings have been outside in the snow and the axles/diff assembly have been sitting next to the shed heater all day. Slide it all together, put the wheel on, tighten the nut up and drill your dimples for locking the bearing spigot in place.
Now imagine the housings heat up and expand a bit, taking some slop out of the assembly, then you pull the nut up really tight after driving a few miles on your new restoration, further pulling the axle into the wheel. In so doing you load up the back of the axle gear/thrust washer against the safety bearing.
Now drive a long hot rally in Arizona, your axles are still nice and warm like they were when you put it all together. The housings are 4 times as hot as they were back in winter however, so they're now longer than the axle is and because there's no movement in the safety hub, the wheel is trying to pop the nut off.
It might be unlikely, but humor me for a minute because I'm trying to explain why you don't have a thrust bearing at BOTH ends of the same shaft.
It's the same principal that means a car alternator has a drive end bearing "locked down" in the front housing, while the rear bearing is allowed to slide in it's bore. The alternator has a steel shaft, and alloy housings that expand a lot more, especially as the heat from the electrical windings is concentrated in the outside of the unit. If you loctite the rear bearing in place, it'll soon be destroyed by thrust loading.
The bearing conversion pictured at the very start of this thread doesn't allow the wheel to apply thrust to the safety ball bearing, but with a retaining bolt in place it will prevent the wheel from leaving the car if the axle breaks. Thrust in this design is controlled just as Henry intended, by the axles applying the side load to the original Ford thrust washers in the middle of the diff.
I hope that makes sense...
My point is that the ball hub bearings are not good for the thrust of the crown gear and if you instal them so they are taking the thrust of the crown gear instead of the thrust washers you will wipe out the ball bearing prematurely. You have said otherwise on this thread and I don't want you misleading others.
Allan and Anthony
We are in agreement
I'll put 50 denarius on the chariot with the blades on the wheels!
I wonder if Nuclear Physicists go on as much about Dark Matter?
Les, there is no thrust on the ball bearing that has to be taken into consideration. The units we installed have never went out. The ones I have had in my cars never went out. You are trying to create a problem where there in none for the ball bearing.
Do ball bearings go out, yes, a ball bearing will not last indefinitely in any application.
My point is that the ball, hub bearings are not good for the thrust of the crown gear and if you instal them so they are taking the thrust of the crown gear instead of the thrust washers you will wipe out the ball bearing prematurely."END QUOTE"
Now I under stand what you were trying to say! You still don't understand how the hub unit works yet. The Hub bearing has no effect on the thrust of the carriage at all, as Chris now understands.
Think of it as the axle gear is now, and always will be in the center of what ever the carriage has for thrust. When you corner, it neither can " if locked down" push the carriage right, or left for thrust. Now only the ring, and pinion will create thrust taking the heavy thrust load off the thrust washers, or in my case, roller bearing thrust.
What you have misunderstood is with the hubs locked down, there is NO axle movement in or out.
Anthony, if a guy has that much end play in the carriage, the rear end should be fixed first. I would never think the hubs would solve a wear problem. I know that is not what you said, I am just saying. Also if you are working with out heat in the winter time, don't try to set clearances in your motor either.
When centering the axle before lock down, they normally center them selves, as one of the posts, maybe Les's, that there should be about .010 thousandths clearance, which is right. Ours normally come out .007, to 008 thousandths. A dial will tell you what you have.
I have said this before, but the only thing that will prevent you from getting the axle gear in the right place is, you have got to take enough axle housing pipe off so when you are ready to lock the sleeve down, the sleeve does not bottom out from the sleeve to the housing pipe.
If that happens, you can't get the axle gear to ride where it should be.
Surely you have watched "Big Bang Theory" !!!!


text:
|© 2013
Justin Masterson: All kids matter04/12/2013 11:09 AM ET
I can see the progress from year to year in the little village of Bonagua near Moca in the Dominican Republic, where One Child Matters established the Mission Valiente project. Not just in the development of the facilities, but in the way the community is growing along with it. As the facility has grown, the local people have taken ownership of it. A bond is developing with the community.
I take a very simple viewpoint of my involvement with the Mission Valiente project: I'm there to spread the love of Jesus Christ and help take care of the kids.
One Child Matters is a worldwide organization, but Garret Anderson and Aaron Myette, both former players, were the first people to support the Mission Valiente project, and for the last five years or so I've had the opportunity to be involved in this great program too. I was there again in December with my agent, Randy Rowley, and Kyle Gibson, a pitcher in the Twins organization.
It's in a rural area, so there was room to build a baseball field out of what was essentially a cow pasture. We've seen that come along. There's also a basketball court, a library and a kitchen with staff people to assist the kids and parents who visit. In recent months we've added a generator, a big well and a filtration system to make that well water drinkable for the people in the village.
Each year, more and more children and parents see what is happening there and realize that it's a good, safe place. Now close to 200 kids are served at Mission Valiente. Some of their parents come by, too, and help take care of the field.
It's just amazing to be around the kids and to watch their self-esteem grow by the day. It's gratifying and it makes me feel good to be part of it, but that's not why we put our time and energy into a project like Mission Valiente. It's about giving to people who are less fortunate. I want everyone to have the best lives they can.
It's like the Bible passage in Luke 12:48: "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required."
Justin Masterson, a right-handed pitcher for the Indians, was born in Kingston, Jamaica, and went to high school in Ohio. Through two starts this season, he is 2-0 with a 0.69 ERA.
This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
WAYNESBORO — It took all of four and a half innings to justify presumptions.
Considered by many as a squad capable of playing well into the warmer months of summer, the Waynesboro varsity baseball team made a convincing first impression on a blustery evening in March.
Unveiling a lineup complete with experience, speed and power, the Indians put on an offensive clinic in Friday's season opener, piling up 12 hits and scoring 11 runs in the bottom of the fourth en route to a 16-4 trouncing of visiting Chambersburg.
"We hit the ball really well during our scrimmages and fortunately it carried over into the start of the season," Waynesboro head coach Greg Chandler said. "Our guys were patient at the plate, working into a hitter's count and then capitalizing when they got their pitch. All-in-all, I thought we did a nice job the whole way around, especially with the conditions."
Seemingly unfazed by the near freezing temperature, second baseman Cole Warrenfeltz wasted little time setting the tone for his final campaign with the Indians, headlining an attack that featured seven players with at least one hit.
After drawing a walk in the first inning, Warrenfeltz launched a towering shot to the base of the fence in right-center for an RBI triple in the third before connecting on a pair of doubles as part of Waynesboro's 11-run fourth, driving in three more runs in the process.
Warrenfeltz' 3-for-3, 4 RBI performance was complemented by multi-hit afternoons from Alex Cline, John Barr and Ben Weber, each of whom added two base knocks to the Tribe's impressive total.
Contrary to the final score, the complexity of the contest was dramatically different prior to the home half of the fourth, with the Trojans scoring four runs in the second to grab an early 4-1 lead.
Following an RBI single by Barr to break the ice in the bottom of the first, singles from Colby Dice and Matt Stonesifer along with a walk to Jesse Helman loaded the bases to lead off Chambersburg's half of the second.
Another free pass issued by Waynesboro starter Dylan Bryan walked in the Trojans' first run prior to Andrew Shreiner lining a bases-clearing double into the gap in left-center, granting Chambersburg the initial advantage.
After holding the Indians scoreless, the Trojans were in position to add to their lead in the top of the third, drawing two more walks before Bryan settled in to strand both runners on base, keeping the deficit at 4-1.
From here, the momentum began to shift, with Waynesboro's hitters adjusting to Chambersburg's Ty Bowers on their second trip through the order.
Cline singled to lead off the inning followed by Warrenfeltz' blast that nearly cleared the fence in right, cutting the margin to two. Consecutive RBI singles from Barr and Weber ensued, knotting the score at 4-4, with Weber later coming home on a wild pitch for a 5-4 Indians' advantage.
Now back in front, Barr entered in relief of Bryan to begin the fourth, retiring the side in order after catcher Tim Ingram threw out Shreiner on a steal attempt for the second out of the inning.
Barr's quick work apparently didn't allow enough time for the Waynesboro bats to cool off, with the Indians officially blowing things open in the home half of the frame.
"I thought the sequence between the bottom of the third and top of the fourth was big," Chandler said. "We came back and took the lead and then John went out and shut them down. I felt like that really set up our big inning."
A walk to Seth Hoffman followed by a run-scoring single from Brandon Yurek and Warrenfeltz' first of two doubles in the inning got the Tribe's parade rolling. After the next batter flied out, Weber sparked the two-out rally by singling home Warrenfeltz before back-to-back free passes loaded the bases for Ingram.
The junior delivered, roping an opposite-field shot to the gap in left, resulting in a three-run double and an 11-4 lead.
Having batted around the order, Hoffman drew another walk prior to an RBI single from Cline and a Chambersburg error further extending Waynesboro's margin. Warrenfeltz then brought the 10-run rule into effect, pounding his second double past the centerfielder to drive in a pair before eventually scoring on another Trojans' defensive miscue.
When the inning finally came to an end three batters later, the Indians had scored 11 runs on six hits, five walks and three errors, with nine of the 11 runs coming with two outs.
Ahead by 12, Barr added the exclamation point by working a one, two, three top of the fifth, sealing the Tribe's first victory of 2013.
"This was a good way for us to start," Chandler said. "We're going to be playing a pretty tough schedule at the beginning of the year, so it's definitely nice to get this one."
For the game, Chambersburg (0-1) was held to just three hits, all during the second inning, with both Bryan and Barr striking out four.
Waynesboro (1-0) returns to action on Tuesday when the Indians open Mid-Penn Colonial Division play at Shippensburg.


text:
GREENSBORO, N.C. - The Blue Devil women kicked off the 2013 Atlantic Coast Conference Swimming & Diving Championships in exciting fashion Wednesday, breaking two program records on the first night of competition at the Greensboro Aquatic Center.
In the opening event of the four-day meet, the 200-yard medley relay team of sophomore Megan McCarroll, junior Christine Wixted, junior Lauren Weaver and freshman Kathryn Eckhart raced to a fifth-place finish. Their time of 1:39.80 surpassed the program record set at last year's ACC Championships by over .7 of a second and was just .66 seconds off the NCAA provisional qualifying standard in the event.
Duke also saw a program record fall in the 800 freestyle relay, as freshman Chelsea Ye, freshman Kiera Molloy, junior Kelly Hagerty and sophomore Ali Horn combined for a time of 7:22.12 in a seventh-place showing. In addition, Ye clocked a personal-best 1:49.22 on the leadoff leg of the relay, which was just .03 seconds off of 2011 graduate Ashley Twichell's school record in the 200 freestyle.
Following the first two events of the ACC Championships, the Blue Devils are currently tied for fifth place out of nine squads with a total of 52 points. Five-time reigning ACC champions Virginia leads the field after day one with 70 points, followed by Virginia Tech (66) and Miami (64).
"We started the meet with two school records and had some great splits in the leadoffs on the 800 free and 200 medley relays," said head coach Dan Colella. "Any time you're breaking school records you know you're moving forward. This sets us up well for tomorrow's events. We've got some great opportunities tomorrow and we'll keep building momentum the rest of the meet."
The action continues in Greensboro Thursday, Feb. 21 at 11 a.m. with the preliminaries of the 500 freestyle, 200 IM and the 50 freestyle. The preliminaries of the men's 1-meter and women's 3-meter springboard diving events will be held Thursday afternoon, followed by the finals of all five individual swimming and diving events, as well as the 200 freestyle relay at 7 p.m.
The ACC Digital Network and ESPN3 will both have live streaming of Thursday's finals session. Live results will also be available for Thursday's preliminaries and finals.


text:
Belding alum, CMU ready for 'Big Dance' opener
A former Belding basketball standout will be part of what college basketball players, coaches and fans know as March Madness.
Central Michigan University women's basketball junior and 2010 Belding graduate Taylor Johnson will get her first taste of the NCAA Tournament, along with most of her teammates, on Saturday when the Chippewas take on Oklahoma in their regional opener.
CMU is the No. 11 seed in the Oklahoma City Region while the Sooners (22-10, 11-7 Big 12) are the No. 6 seed.
The Chippewas punched their ticket to the tournament by winning the Mid-American Conference Tournament last weekend, defeating Akron 86-68 in the title game. Johnson finished with 13 points and pulled down seven rebounds in the title game.
For the 2012-13 season, Johnson is averaging 8.6 points per game and has earned 5.4 rebounds per game.
Johnson said after falling in the last seconds to Eastern Michigan in the 2012 conference title game, she and her teammates were motivated to get back and win it this year.
"That loss last year fueled our fire," she said. "I still get mad about it, but we knew we had to come into the MAC Tournament and leave everything on the floor."
Although CMU is making their first appearance in the NCAA Tournament since 1984, the roster is not totally void of "Big Dance" experience.
Johnson said the players have been looking to senior Jessica Schroll to get an idea of what to expect this weekend. The Midland native transferred to CMU in 2013 from Iowa State, where she got to play in the NCAA Tournament.
CMU (21-11, 12-4 in MAC) started the season by going 6-7. However, the front end of the schedule was loaded with power conference teams like Saint Joseph's, Green Bay, Notre Dame, Purdue, Northwestern, Marquette, Florida and Texas. The Chippewas earned wins over St. Joe's and the then-No. 20 ranked Longhorns during that stretch.
During league play, CMU only dropped four games, and won their first seven against MAC opponents.
Johnson said CMU Coach Sue Guevara set up the team's schedule to be tough to help them come tournament time.
"Coach put together a tough schedule for us to be ready for the MAC Championship," she said.
That strategy paid off as the regular season came to an end.
In its MAC Tournament opener, CMU forced Bowling Green into committing 32 turnovers in an 81-48 win, then topped regular season conference champion Toledo 66-61 in the semifinals.
CMU led 39-35 at the break in the MAC Championship game, then outscored the Zips 47-33 in the second half.
The Sooners are favored to advance to the second round on Saturday, but Johnson said her team embraces being the underdog.
"We take pride in it," she said. "We haven't gotten a lot of respect in the past. We earned a little this year, but we want people to know who we are and that we are a good team."
Although she spends most of her time in Mt. Pleasant, Johnson is still very connected with her hometown. Throughout her college career, she still visits Belding quite a bit and has many friends who support her there.
"Belding is my home and every time I come home I have a lot of people that will come up and ask me how I am doing," she said. "Even when I am at school, my dad (Jim Johnson) always tells me somebody asks how i'm doing."
CMU and Oklahoma will tip off the NCAA Women's Basketball Tournament on Saturday at 11:10 a.m. The game will be televised on ESPN 2.