Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
E wrote
>> I still wouldn't bet money on all the causes I propose at
>> my web site being behind the pulley bolt becoming so
>> tight. I would bet money that the very fine thread and
>> heat and high dynamic load cycling does have something to
>> do with it.
>
> good point about "all causes". i don't know all causes
> either, but i am however trained to observe carefully, and
> from that the following facts emerge:
>
> 1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's
> hard evidence of some rotation.
> 2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the
> bolt would tighten against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
> 3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120
> ft.lbs to ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>
> i also know from other research that bolts can tighten.
> now, the dots on this may not all be joined, but an
> outline appears to be there.

That's properly qualified and so reasonable, AFAIC. It's an
outline, but nothing certain as yet.

I am interested in point 3 above. I remember your mentioning
some months ago that you had generally evaluated the
tightness after torquing to spec and then driving briefly.
Did you redo this experiment a few times, estimating as best
you could the torque necessary to free the bolt each time?

I am still not willing to remove my Civic's pulley bolt more
than is necessary--too lazy and I don't like putting wear
and tear on such an expensive bolt with super fine threads,
and so more susceptible to stripping in my estimation, at
that. Admittedly that might be overworry on my part.

I will say that in 2004 when I first got some experience
with my 91 Civic's pulley bolt that the first time I broke
it free (some three years after it was last removed)
demanded, from memory, notably more force than the next few
times I freed it. (I spent a few weeks researching and
preparing to replace the front crankshaft seal blah blah,
and so ended up freeing the bolt I think maybe four times
algother during this period.) I did not try to estimate the
torque to free it after the first removal, since I was kinda
hurried.

Why is it again that you feel the abrasion beneath the bolt
head could not occur while torquing the bolt to spec with
the pulley fixed?

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> E wrote
>
>>>I still wouldn't bet money on all the causes I propose at
>>>my web site being behind the pulley bolt becoming so
>>>tight. I would bet money that the very fine thread and
>>>heat and high dynamic load cycling does have something to
>>>do with it.
>>
>>good point about "all causes". i don't know all causes
>>either, but i am however trained to observe carefully, and
>>from that the following facts emerge:
>>
>>1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's
>>hard evidence of some rotation.
>>2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the
>>bolt would tighten against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
>>3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120
>>ft.lbs to ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>>
>>i also know from other research that bolts can tighten.
>>now, the dots on this may not all be joined, but an
>>outline appears to be there.
>
>
> That's properly qualified and so reasonable, AFAIC. It's an
> outline, but nothing certain as yet.
>
> I am interested in point 3 above. I remember your mentioning
> some months ago that you had generally evaluated the
> tightness after torquing to spec and then driving briefly.
> Did you redo this experiment a few times, estimating as best
> you could the torque necessary to free the bolt each time?

yes, best estimate #'s. i've done it twice on the 91 crx and twice on
the 89 civic. pretty much the same tightening experience on both. i
will say though, second release was not /quite/ as high as first. full
body weight at 18" = 300ft.lbs for second release, near enough. first
release requires a little "bounce" of that weight, so what's that? 330?
not 400 though.

>
> I am still not willing to remove my Civic's pulley bolt more
> than is necessary--too lazy and I don't like putting wear
> and tear on such an expensive bolt with super fine threads,
> and so more susceptible to stripping in my estimation, at
> that. Admittedly that might be overworry on my part.

it's not delicate. pitch is 1.25mm, so not that fine.

>
> I will say that in 2004 when I first got some experience
> with my 91 Civic's pulley bolt that the first time I broke
> it free (some three years after it was last removed)
> demanded, from memory, notably more force than the next few
> times I freed it. (I spent a few weeks researching and
> preparing to replace the front crankshaft seal blah blah,
> and so ended up freeing the bolt I think maybe four times
> algother during this period.) I did not try to estimate the
> torque to free it after the first removal, since I was kinda
> hurried.

sure, but it sure is tighter than the torque-wrenched tightening that
precedes it!

>
> Why is it again that you feel the abrasion beneath the bolt
> head could not occur while torquing the bolt to spec with
> the pulley fixed?

there will be some abrasion on simple tightening, but that's usually
really superficial. comparison between two identical bolts, one from a
splined/loctited pulley wheel and one from a single woodruff/no loctite
show that the latter is abrading substantially and therefore lashing,
the former is not. this is consistent between junkyard hondas i've
inspected of the splined/unsplined eras. the type of galling is also
inconsistent with that seen from large angle rotation - it definitely
appears to be lashing within a limited range.

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> E wrote
>
>>>I still wouldn't bet money on all the causes I propose at
>>>my web site being behind the pulley bolt becoming so
>>>tight. I would bet money that the very fine thread and
>>>heat and high dynamic load cycling does have something to
>>>do with it.
>>
>>good point about "all causes". i don't know all causes
>>either, but i am however trained to observe carefully, and
>>from that the following facts emerge:
>>
>>1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's
>>hard evidence of some rotation.
>>2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the
>>bolt would tighten against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
>>3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120
>>ft.lbs to ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>>
>>i also know from other research that bolts can tighten.
>>now, the dots on this may not all be joined, but an
>>outline appears to be there.
>
>
> That's properly qualified and so reasonable, AFAIC. It's an
> outline, but nothing certain as yet.
>
> I am interested in point 3 above. I remember your mentioning
> some months ago that you had generally evaluated the
> tightness after torquing to spec and then driving briefly.
> Did you redo this experiment a few times, estimating as best
> you could the torque necessary to free the bolt each time?

yes, best estimate #'s. i've done it twice on the 91 crx and twice on
the 89 civic. pretty much the same tightening experience on both. i
will say though, second release was not /quite/ as high as first. full
body weight at 18" = 300ft.lbs for second release, near enough. first
release requires a little "bounce" of that weight, so what's that? 330?
not 400 though.

>
> I am still not willing to remove my Civic's pulley bolt more
> than is necessary--too lazy and I don't like putting wear
> and tear on such an expensive bolt with super fine threads,
> and so more susceptible to stripping in my estimation, at
> that. Admittedly that might be overworry on my part.

it's not delicate. pitch is 1.25mm, so not that fine.

>
> I will say that in 2004 when I first got some experience
> with my 91 Civic's pulley bolt that the first time I broke
> it free (some three years after it was last removed)
> demanded, from memory, notably more force than the next few
> times I freed it. (I spent a few weeks researching and
> preparing to replace the front crankshaft seal blah blah,
> and so ended up freeing the bolt I think maybe four times
> algother during this period.) I did not try to estimate the
> torque to free it after the first removal, since I was kinda
> hurried.

sure, but it sure is tighter than the torque-wrenched tightening that
precedes it!

>
> Why is it again that you feel the abrasion beneath the bolt
> head could not occur while torquing the bolt to spec with
> the pulley fixed?

there will be some abrasion on simple tightening, but that's usually
really superficial. comparison between two identical bolts, one from a
splined/loctited pulley wheel and one from a single woodruff/no loctite
show that the latter is abrading substantially and therefore lashing,
the former is not. this is consistent between junkyard hondas i've
inspected of the splined/unsplined eras. the type of galling is also
inconsistent with that seen from large angle rotation - it definitely
appears to be lashing within a limited range.

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> E wrote
>
>>>I still wouldn't bet money on all the causes I propose at
>>>my web site being behind the pulley bolt becoming so
>>>tight. I would bet money that the very fine thread and
>>>heat and high dynamic load cycling does have something to
>>>do with it.
>>
>>good point about "all causes". i don't know all causes
>>either, but i am however trained to observe carefully, and
>>from that the following facts emerge:
>>
>>1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's
>>hard evidence of some rotation.
>>2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the
>>bolt would tighten against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
>>3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120
>>ft.lbs to ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>>
>>i also know from other research that bolts can tighten.
>>now, the dots on this may not all be joined, but an
>>outline appears to be there.
>
>
> That's properly qualified and so reasonable, AFAIC. It's an
> outline, but nothing certain as yet.
>
> I am interested in point 3 above. I remember your mentioning
> some months ago that you had generally evaluated the
> tightness after torquing to spec and then driving briefly.
> Did you redo this experiment a few times, estimating as best
> you could the torque necessary to free the bolt each time?

yes, best estimate #'s. i've done it twice on the 91 crx and twice on
the 89 civic. pretty much the same tightening experience on both. i
will say though, second release was not /quite/ as high as first. full
body weight at 18" = 300ft.lbs for second release, near enough. first
release requires a little "bounce" of that weight, so what's that? 330?
not 400 though.

>
> I am still not willing to remove my Civic's pulley bolt more
> than is necessary--too lazy and I don't like putting wear
> and tear on such an expensive bolt with super fine threads,
> and so more susceptible to stripping in my estimation, at
> that. Admittedly that might be overworry on my part.

it's not delicate. pitch is 1.25mm, so not that fine.

>
> I will say that in 2004 when I first got some experience
> with my 91 Civic's pulley bolt that the first time I broke
> it free (some three years after it was last removed)
> demanded, from memory, notably more force than the next few
> times I freed it. (I spent a few weeks researching and
> preparing to replace the front crankshaft seal blah blah,
> and so ended up freeing the bolt I think maybe four times
> algother during this period.) I did not try to estimate the
> torque to free it after the first removal, since I was kinda
> hurried.

sure, but it sure is tighter than the torque-wrenched tightening that
precedes it!

>
> Why is it again that you feel the abrasion beneath the bolt
> head could not occur while torquing the bolt to spec with
> the pulley fixed?

there will be some abrasion on simple tightening, but that's usually
really superficial. comparison between two identical bolts, one from a
splined/loctited pulley wheel and one from a single woodruff/no loctite
show that the latter is abrading substantially and therefore lashing,
the former is not. this is consistent between junkyard hondas i've
inspected of the splined/unsplined eras. the type of galling is also
inconsistent with that seen from large angle rotation - it definitely
appears to be lashing within a limited range.

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> E wrote
>
>>>I still wouldn't bet money on all the causes I propose at
>>>my web site being behind the pulley bolt becoming so
>>>tight. I would bet money that the very fine thread and
>>>heat and high dynamic load cycling does have something to
>>>do with it.
>>
>>good point about "all causes". i don't know all causes
>>either, but i am however trained to observe carefully, and
>>from that the following facts emerge:
>>
>>1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's
>>hard evidence of some rotation.
>>2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the
>>bolt would tighten against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
>>3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120
>>ft.lbs to ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>>
>>i also know from other research that bolts can tighten.
>>now, the dots on this may not all be joined, but an
>>outline appears to be there.
>
>
> That's properly qualified and so reasonable, AFAIC. It's an
> outline, but nothing certain as yet.
>
> I am interested in point 3 above. I remember your mentioning
> some months ago that you had generally evaluated the
> tightness after torquing to spec and then driving briefly.
> Did you redo this experiment a few times, estimating as best
> you could the torque necessary to free the bolt each time?

yes, best estimate #'s. i've done it twice on the 91 crx and twice on
the 89 civic. pretty much the same tightening experience on both. i
will say though, second release was not /quite/ as high as first. full
body weight at 18" = 300ft.lbs for second release, near enough. first
release requires a little "bounce" of that weight, so what's that? 330?
not 400 though.

>
> I am still not willing to remove my Civic's pulley bolt more
> than is necessary--too lazy and I don't like putting wear
> and tear on such an expensive bolt with super fine threads,
> and so more susceptible to stripping in my estimation, at
> that. Admittedly that might be overworry on my part.

it's not delicate. pitch is 1.25mm, so not that fine.

>
> I will say that in 2004 when I first got some experience
> with my 91 Civic's pulley bolt that the first time I broke
> it free (some three years after it was last removed)
> demanded, from memory, notably more force than the next few
> times I freed it. (I spent a few weeks researching and
> preparing to replace the front crankshaft seal blah blah,
> and so ended up freeing the bolt I think maybe four times
> algother during this period.) I did not try to estimate the
> torque to free it after the first removal, since I was kinda
> hurried.

sure, but it sure is tighter than the torque-wrenched tightening that
precedes it!

>
> Why is it again that you feel the abrasion beneath the bolt
> head could not occur while torquing the bolt to spec with
> the pulley fixed?

there will be some abrasion on simple tightening, but that's usually
really superficial. comparison between two identical bolts, one from a
splined/loctited pulley wheel and one from a single woodruff/no loctite
show that the latter is abrading substantially and therefore lashing,
the former is not. this is consistent between junkyard hondas i've
inspected of the splined/unsplined eras. the type of galling is also
inconsistent with that seen from large angle rotation - it definitely
appears to be lashing within a limited range.

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:kIudnbjwvu7NjC7ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> 1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's hard evidence of
> some rotation.
> 2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the bolt would tighten
> against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
> 3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120 ft.lbs to
> ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>
> i also know from other research that bolts can tighten. now, the dots on
> this may not all be joined, but an outline appears to be there.
>
I have experienced the tightness with age in other cars with clockwise
rotating engines, also. Our Volvo took much more than the spec'd 190 ft-lbs
the first time I changed the timing belt. I had a floor jack under the 9
inch socket handle and the tires had started to come up off the ground
before the bolt moved. When the harmonic balancer failed a few months later
it took much less. With the second timing belt change it was back to its
wicked ways.

Mike

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:kIudnbjwvu7NjC7ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> 1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's hard evidence of
> some rotation.
> 2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the bolt would tighten
> against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
> 3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120 ft.lbs to
> ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>
> i also know from other research that bolts can tighten. now, the dots on
> this may not all be joined, but an outline appears to be there.
>
I have experienced the tightness with age in other cars with clockwise
rotating engines, also. Our Volvo took much more than the spec'd 190 ft-lbs
the first time I changed the timing belt. I had a floor jack under the 9
inch socket handle and the tires had started to come up off the ground
before the bolt moved. When the harmonic balancer failed a few months later
it took much less. With the second timing belt change it was back to its
wicked ways.

Mike

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:kIudnbjwvu7NjC7ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> 1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's hard evidence of
> some rotation.
> 2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the bolt would tighten
> against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
> 3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120 ft.lbs to
> ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>
> i also know from other research that bolts can tighten. now, the dots on
> this may not all be joined, but an outline appears to be there.
>
I have experienced the tightness with age in other cars with clockwise
rotating engines, also. Our Volvo took much more than the spec'd 190 ft-lbs
the first time I changed the timing belt. I had a floor jack under the 9
inch socket handle and the tires had started to come up off the ground
before the bolt moved. When the harmonic balancer failed a few months later
it took much less. With the second timing belt change it was back to its
wicked ways.

Mike

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:kIudnbjwvu7NjC7ZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> 1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's hard evidence of
> some rotation.
> 2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the bolt would tighten
> against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
> 3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120 ft.lbs to
> ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>
> i also know from other research that bolts can tighten. now, the dots on
> this may not all be joined, but an outline appears to be there.
>
I have experienced the tightness with age in other cars with clockwise
rotating engines, also. Our Volvo took much more than the spec'd 190 ft-lbs
the first time I changed the timing belt. I had a floor jack under the 9
inch socket handle and the tires had started to come up off the ground
before the bolt moved. When the harmonic balancer failed a few months later
it took much less. With the second timing belt change it was back to its
wicked ways.

Mike

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>> E wrote
>>
>>>>I still wouldn't bet money on all the causes I propose
>>>>at my web site being behind the pulley bolt becoming so
>>>>tight. I would bet money that the very fine thread and
>>>>heat and high dynamic load cycling does have something
>>>>to do with it.
>>>
>>>good point about "all causes". i don't know all causes
>>>either, but i am however trained to observe carefully,
>>>and from that the following facts emerge:
>>>
>>>1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's
>>>hard evidence of some rotation.
>>>2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the
>>>bolt would tighten against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
>>>3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120
>>>ft.lbs to ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>>>
>>>i also know from other research that bolts can tighten.
>>>now, the dots on this may not all be joined, but an
>>>outline appears to be there.
>>
>>
>> That's properly qualified and so reasonable, AFAIC. It's
>> an outline, but nothing certain as yet.
>>
>> I am interested in point 3 above. I remember your
>> mentioning some months ago that you had generally
>> evaluated the tightness after torquing to spec and then
>> driving briefly. Did you redo this experiment a few
>> times, estimating as best you could the torque necessary
>> to free the bolt each time?
>
> yes, best estimate #'s. i've done it twice on the 91 crx
> and twice on the 89 civic. pretty much the same
> tightening experience on both. i will say though, second
> release was not /quite/ as high as first. full body
> weight at 18" = 300ft.lbs for second release, near enough.
> first release requires a little "bounce" of that weight,
> so what's that? 330? not 400 though.

I think it's hard to estimate the effect of bounces. A
person jumps say six inches, s/he accelerates to a certain
velocity. Whatever s/he hits decelerates the person from
that velocity, producing the force that is higher than mere
body weight, as I trust you and others here are aware.
Surely your bouncing is less than around 550 ft-lbs., but I
base this number only on general reports of how much torque
is needed to free the bolt, not any rough physics
calculations involving body deceleration, and so force
applied, by the breaker bar.

I am not troubled by the second release being a bit easier.
Goes towards arguing that years of heat and load cycling do
contribute to the tightness.

>> I am still not willing to remove my Civic's pulley bolt
>> more than is necessary--too lazy and I don't like putting
>> wear and tear on such an expensive bolt with super fine
>> threads, and so more susceptible to stripping in my
>> estimation, at that. Admittedly that might be overworry
>> on my part.
>
> it's not delicate. pitch is 1.25mm, so not that fine.

It's delicate to me, though maybe not because of the fine
pitch. Maybe it's the fatigue it sees.

I have a vague recollection that the bolt is supposed to be
replaced every so often.

>> I will say that in 2004 when I first got some experience
>> with my 91 Civic's pulley bolt that the first time I
>> broke it free (some three years after it was last
>> removed) demanded, from memory, notably more force than
>> the next few times I freed it. (I spent a few weeks
>> researching and preparing to replace the front crankshaft
>> seal blah blah, and so ended up freeing the bolt I think
>> maybe four times algother during this period.) I did not
>> try to estimate the torque to free it after the first
>> removal, since I was kinda hurried.
>
> sure, but it sure is tighter than the torque-wrenched
> tightening that precedes it!

That might be something to expect. IIRC, one important point
(of many) Tegger has brought up on this subject is that the
torque to free can vary quite a lot from the torque to
tighten, even if it was just a few moments before that the
bolt was tightened. I believe plenty of sources back this
up.

It's a very inexact science, though, like many sciences,
with high reliability. Torque does not directly,
formulaically correlate to clamping strength. Or, rather,
formulae used to determine clamping strength from torque are
crude estimates. There is just so much at play: Dry surface
age and so condition, lubricants, torque wrench
inaccuracies, material differences from one bolt to the
next, temperature...

>> Why is it again that you feel the abrasion beneath the
>> bolt head could not occur while torquing the bolt to spec
>> with the pulley fixed?
>
> there will be some abrasion on simple tightening, but
> that's usually really superficial. comparison between two
> identical bolts, one from a splined/loctited pulley wheel
> and one from a single woodruff/no loctite show that the
> latter is abrading substantially and therefore lashing,
> the former is not. this is consistent between junkyard
> hondas i've inspected of the splined/unsplined eras. the
> type of galling is also inconsistent with that seen from
> large angle rotation - it definitely appears to be lashing
> within a limited range.

Your opinion is noted.

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>> E wrote
>>
>>>>I still wouldn't bet money on all the causes I propose
>>>>at my web site being behind the pulley bolt becoming so
>>>>tight. I would bet money that the very fine thread and
>>>>heat and high dynamic load cycling does have something
>>>>to do with it.
>>>
>>>good point about "all causes". i don't know all causes
>>>either, but i am however trained to observe carefully,
>>>and from that the following facts emerge:
>>>
>>>1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's
>>>hard evidence of some rotation.
>>>2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the
>>>bolt would tighten against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
>>>3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120
>>>ft.lbs to ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>>>
>>>i also know from other research that bolts can tighten.
>>>now, the dots on this may not all be joined, but an
>>>outline appears to be there.
>>
>>
>> That's properly qualified and so reasonable, AFAIC. It's
>> an outline, but nothing certain as yet.
>>
>> I am interested in point 3 above. I remember your
>> mentioning some months ago that you had generally
>> evaluated the tightness after torquing to spec and then
>> driving briefly. Did you redo this experiment a few
>> times, estimating as best you could the torque necessary
>> to free the bolt each time?
>
> yes, best estimate #'s. i've done it twice on the 91 crx
> and twice on the 89 civic. pretty much the same
> tightening experience on both. i will say though, second
> release was not /quite/ as high as first. full body
> weight at 18" = 300ft.lbs for second release, near enough.
> first release requires a little "bounce" of that weight,
> so what's that? 330? not 400 though.

I think it's hard to estimate the effect of bounces. A
person jumps say six inches, s/he accelerates to a certain
velocity. Whatever s/he hits decelerates the person from
that velocity, producing the force that is higher than mere
body weight, as I trust you and others here are aware.
Surely your bouncing is less than around 550 ft-lbs., but I
base this number only on general reports of how much torque
is needed to free the bolt, not any rough physics
calculations involving body deceleration, and so force
applied, by the breaker bar.

I am not troubled by the second release being a bit easier.
Goes towards arguing that years of heat and load cycling do
contribute to the tightness.

>> I am still not willing to remove my Civic's pulley bolt
>> more than is necessary--too lazy and I don't like putting
>> wear and tear on such an expensive bolt with super fine
>> threads, and so more susceptible to stripping in my
>> estimation, at that. Admittedly that might be overworry
>> on my part.
>
> it's not delicate. pitch is 1.25mm, so not that fine.

It's delicate to me, though maybe not because of the fine
pitch. Maybe it's the fatigue it sees.

I have a vague recollection that the bolt is supposed to be
replaced every so often.

>> I will say that in 2004 when I first got some experience
>> with my 91 Civic's pulley bolt that the first time I
>> broke it free (some three years after it was last
>> removed) demanded, from memory, notably more force than
>> the next few times I freed it. (I spent a few weeks
>> researching and preparing to replace the front crankshaft
>> seal blah blah, and so ended up freeing the bolt I think
>> maybe four times algother during this period.) I did not
>> try to estimate the torque to free it after the first
>> removal, since I was kinda hurried.
>
> sure, but it sure is tighter than the torque-wrenched
> tightening that precedes it!

That might be something to expect. IIRC, one important point
(of many) Tegger has brought up on this subject is that the
torque to free can vary quite a lot from the torque to
tighten, even if it was just a few moments before that the
bolt was tightened. I believe plenty of sources back this
up.

It's a very inexact science, though, like many sciences,
with high reliability. Torque does not directly,
formulaically correlate to clamping strength. Or, rather,
formulae used to determine clamping strength from torque are
crude estimates. There is just so much at play: Dry surface
age and so condition, lubricants, torque wrench
inaccuracies, material differences from one bolt to the
next, temperature...

>> Why is it again that you feel the abrasion beneath the
>> bolt head could not occur while torquing the bolt to spec
>> with the pulley fixed?
>
> there will be some abrasion on simple tightening, but
> that's usually really superficial. comparison between two
> identical bolts, one from a splined/loctited pulley wheel
> and one from a single woodruff/no loctite show that the
> latter is abrading substantially and therefore lashing,
> the former is not. this is consistent between junkyard
> hondas i've inspected of the splined/unsplined eras. the
> type of galling is also inconsistent with that seen from
> large angle rotation - it definitely appears to be lashing
> within a limited range.

Your opinion is noted.

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>> E wrote
>>
>>>>I still wouldn't bet money on all the causes I propose
>>>>at my web site being behind the pulley bolt becoming so
>>>>tight. I would bet money that the very fine thread and
>>>>heat and high dynamic load cycling does have something
>>>>to do with it.
>>>
>>>good point about "all causes". i don't know all causes
>>>either, but i am however trained to observe carefully,
>>>and from that the following facts emerge:
>>>
>>>1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's
>>>hard evidence of some rotation.
>>>2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the
>>>bolt would tighten against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
>>>3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120
>>>ft.lbs to ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>>>
>>>i also know from other research that bolts can tighten.
>>>now, the dots on this may not all be joined, but an
>>>outline appears to be there.
>>
>>
>> That's properly qualified and so reasonable, AFAIC. It's
>> an outline, but nothing certain as yet.
>>
>> I am interested in point 3 above. I remember your
>> mentioning some months ago that you had generally
>> evaluated the tightness after torquing to spec and then
>> driving briefly. Did you redo this experiment a few
>> times, estimating as best you could the torque necessary
>> to free the bolt each time?
>
> yes, best estimate #'s. i've done it twice on the 91 crx
> and twice on the 89 civic. pretty much the same
> tightening experience on both. i will say though, second
> release was not /quite/ as high as first. full body
> weight at 18" = 300ft.lbs for second release, near enough.
> first release requires a little "bounce" of that weight,
> so what's that? 330? not 400 though.

I think it's hard to estimate the effect of bounces. A
person jumps say six inches, s/he accelerates to a certain
velocity. Whatever s/he hits decelerates the person from
that velocity, producing the force that is higher than mere
body weight, as I trust you and others here are aware.
Surely your bouncing is less than around 550 ft-lbs., but I
base this number only on general reports of how much torque
is needed to free the bolt, not any rough physics
calculations involving body deceleration, and so force
applied, by the breaker bar.

I am not troubled by the second release being a bit easier.
Goes towards arguing that years of heat and load cycling do
contribute to the tightness.

>> I am still not willing to remove my Civic's pulley bolt
>> more than is necessary--too lazy and I don't like putting
>> wear and tear on such an expensive bolt with super fine
>> threads, and so more susceptible to stripping in my
>> estimation, at that. Admittedly that might be overworry
>> on my part.
>
> it's not delicate. pitch is 1.25mm, so not that fine.

It's delicate to me, though maybe not because of the fine
pitch. Maybe it's the fatigue it sees.

I have a vague recollection that the bolt is supposed to be
replaced every so often.

>> I will say that in 2004 when I first got some experience
>> with my 91 Civic's pulley bolt that the first time I
>> broke it free (some three years after it was last
>> removed) demanded, from memory, notably more force than
>> the next few times I freed it. (I spent a few weeks
>> researching and preparing to replace the front crankshaft
>> seal blah blah, and so ended up freeing the bolt I think
>> maybe four times algother during this period.) I did not
>> try to estimate the torque to free it after the first
>> removal, since I was kinda hurried.
>
> sure, but it sure is tighter than the torque-wrenched
> tightening that precedes it!

That might be something to expect. IIRC, one important point
(of many) Tegger has brought up on this subject is that the
torque to free can vary quite a lot from the torque to
tighten, even if it was just a few moments before that the
bolt was tightened. I believe plenty of sources back this
up.

It's a very inexact science, though, like many sciences,
with high reliability. Torque does not directly,
formulaically correlate to clamping strength. Or, rather,
formulae used to determine clamping strength from torque are
crude estimates. There is just so much at play: Dry surface
age and so condition, lubricants, torque wrench
inaccuracies, material differences from one bolt to the
next, temperature...

>> Why is it again that you feel the abrasion beneath the
>> bolt head could not occur while torquing the bolt to spec
>> with the pulley fixed?
>
> there will be some abrasion on simple tightening, but
> that's usually really superficial. comparison between two
> identical bolts, one from a splined/loctited pulley wheel
> and one from a single woodruff/no loctite show that the
> latter is abrading substantially and therefore lashing,
> the former is not. this is consistent between junkyard
> hondas i've inspected of the splined/unsplined eras. the
> type of galling is also inconsistent with that seen from
> large angle rotation - it definitely appears to be lashing
> within a limited range.

Your opinion is noted.

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>> E wrote
>>
>>>>I still wouldn't bet money on all the causes I propose
>>>>at my web site being behind the pulley bolt becoming so
>>>>tight. I would bet money that the very fine thread and
>>>>heat and high dynamic load cycling does have something
>>>>to do with it.
>>>
>>>good point about "all causes". i don't know all causes
>>>either, but i am however trained to observe carefully,
>>>and from that the following facts emerge:
>>>
>>>1. there is angular galling under the bolt head. that's
>>>hard evidence of some rotation.
>>>2. the rotation direction on the crank is such that the
>>>bolt would tighten against a "stationary" pulley wheel.
>>>3. the apparent pulley bolt torque increases from ~120
>>>ft.lbs to ~300ft.lbs in ~30 miles.
>>>
>>>i also know from other research that bolts can tighten.
>>>now, the dots on this may not all be joined, but an
>>>outline appears to be there.
>>
>>
>> That's properly qualified and so reasonable, AFAIC. It's
>> an outline, but nothing certain as yet.
>>
>> I am interested in point 3 above. I remember your
>> mentioning some months ago that you had generally
>> evaluated the tightness after torquing to spec and then
>> driving briefly. Did you redo this experiment a few
>> times, estimating as best you could the torque necessary
>> to free the bolt each time?
>
> yes, best estimate #'s. i've done it twice on the 91 crx
> and twice on the 89 civic. pretty much the same
> tightening experience on both. i will say though, second
> release was not /quite/ as high as first. full body
> weight at 18" = 300ft.lbs for second release, near enough.
> first release requires a little "bounce" of that weight,
> so what's that? 330? not 400 though.

I think it's hard to estimate the effect of bounces. A
person jumps say six inches, s/he accelerates to a certain
velocity. Whatever s/he hits decelerates the person from
that velocity, producing the force that is higher than mere
body weight, as I trust you and others here are aware.
Surely your bouncing is less than around 550 ft-lbs., but I
base this number only on general reports of how much torque
is needed to free the bolt, not any rough physics
calculations involving body deceleration, and so force
applied, by the breaker bar.

I am not troubled by the second release being a bit easier.
Goes towards arguing that years of heat and load cycling do
contribute to the tightness.

>> I am still not willing to remove my Civic's pulley bolt
>> more than is necessary--too lazy and I don't like putting
>> wear and tear on such an expensive bolt with super fine
>> threads, and so more susceptible to stripping in my
>> estimation, at that. Admittedly that might be overworry
>> on my part.
>
> it's not delicate. pitch is 1.25mm, so not that fine.

It's delicate to me, though maybe not because of the fine
pitch. Maybe it's the fatigue it sees.

I have a vague recollection that the bolt is supposed to be
replaced every so often.

>> I will say that in 2004 when I first got some experience
>> with my 91 Civic's pulley bolt that the first time I
>> broke it free (some three years after it was last
>> removed) demanded, from memory, notably more force than
>> the next few times I freed it. (I spent a few weeks
>> researching and preparing to replace the front crankshaft
>> seal blah blah, and so ended up freeing the bolt I think
>> maybe four times algother during this period.) I did not
>> try to estimate the torque to free it after the first
>> removal, since I was kinda hurried.
>
> sure, but it sure is tighter than the torque-wrenched
> tightening that precedes it!

That might be something to expect. IIRC, one important point
(of many) Tegger has brought up on this subject is that the
torque to free can vary quite a lot from the torque to
tighten, even if it was just a few moments before that the
bolt was tightened. I believe plenty of sources back this
up.

It's a very inexact science, though, like many sciences,
with high reliability. Torque does not directly,
formulaically correlate to clamping strength. Or, rather,
formulae used to determine clamping strength from torque are
crude estimates. There is just so much at play: Dry surface
age and so condition, lubricants, torque wrench
inaccuracies, material differences from one bolt to the
next, temperature...

>> Why is it again that you feel the abrasion beneath the
>> bolt head could not occur while torquing the bolt to spec
>> with the pulley fixed?
>
> there will be some abrasion on simple tightening, but
> that's usually really superficial. comparison between two
> identical bolts, one from a splined/loctited pulley wheel
> and one from a single woodruff/no loctite show that the
> latter is abrading substantially and therefore lashing,
> the former is not. this is consistent between junkyard
> hondas i've inspected of the splined/unsplined eras. the
> type of galling is also inconsistent with that seen from
> large angle rotation - it definitely appears to be lashing
> within a limited range.

Your opinion is noted.

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote

> I have experienced the tightness with age in other cars with clockwise
> rotating engines, also. Our Volvo took much more than the spec'd 190 ft-lbs
> the first time I changed the timing belt. I had a floor jack under the 9
> inch socket handle and the tires had started to come up off the ground
> before the bolt moved.

Your Volvo has a rock stiff engine mount. We have an 82 Volvo
and it still runs but drives like a tank.

>When the harmonic balancer failed a few months later
> it took much less. With the second timing belt change it was back to its
> wicked ways.

Re: crank bolt right or left hand thread?
 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote
>
> > I just recalled that you suggested a spot of nail polish
> > to match-mark the bolt head and pulley, and I'm fresh out
> > of nail polish.
>
> Oh right you are. I do a timing belt change next summer and
> might try this then.
>
> I figure that bolt is good for only so many cycles of
> tightening and loosening by hand.
>
> > All that aside, I agree that it is probably a cold-weld
> > process that makes the break-away torque so high. People
> > have also reported that working both in the loosen and
> > tighten directions with an impact gun helps, which
> > supports that theory.
>
> I'll think about that. Seems reasonable enough. :-)

I made a post back in Nov 2005 and said that I'd mark the bolt
(83-lbft on a 2.0L.) Lo and Behold! Today I went to check and
the bolt hasn't moved. I'm more inclined to believe that the
tightening is from a cold weld or by other mechanical means.

The markings I made are from a razor sharp carbon punch.
I believe the car was driven some 7-8 thousand miles.