Re: cylinder studs: torque or length?

[Ben Barkow <dr.ben@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2006 Apr  4 , at 4:47 AM, oilheads-digest wrote:

>
>> While under controlled conditions, brand new parts, and known amounts
>> of oil on the threads (none, I suppose), The Factory is right to use
>> the plus degrees approach. But I found that there is so much
>> variability in setting the initial low torque that it is really risky
>> to blindly go a fixed number of degrees more. Oiled threads and a
>
> And how is blindly setting the torque to some larger number any 
> different?
> If you don't trust your torque wrench at the low torque, why should you
> trust it at the higher torque?
>
> And this has nothing to do with the original question which was about
> how tight the *studs* should be.  Is there a spec on stud torque?
>
> // marc
>
I trust my torque wrench a whole lot since the local Airhead club did a 
shadetree group inter-calibration (one X-ray machine technician just 
got his clicker back from the lab). BTW, we found beam wrenches (which 
I much prefer for human factors reasons) to be accurate and to be every 
bit as accurate as clickers. And yes, I have a couple of different 
torque wrench ranges.

But my experience is that the low force primary setting is smeared all 
over the place due to the various draggy light forces which influence 
light torque settings. However, the variability of setting to say, 35 
ft-lbs is far smaller. True, you can turn the wrench until it just 
hits, say 20 ft-lbs and stop right there and go for a beer. But it you 
did it a second time or if you did it as the fourth stud instead of the 
the first, you might be in a quite different location. THEN you crank a 
substantial amount more.

Marc is quite right to point out the original query had to do with 
studs. But the thread discussion seemed to veer off into the more 
challenging, divisive, and potentially very expensive issue of proper 
head torquing and so I took the liberty, perhaps wrongly, of proceeding 
there instead of starting a new thread.


>
> I will not even touch Ben's bait on  torque versus angle.
>

I think the term "bait" is very pejorative and is not merited by 
anything said or implied in my post. If anything, my intention was to 
present my views but to be clear that I knew that Tom - a person of far 
higher authority - didn't share my view of this very critical issue. 
Opinion differ on this one.

------------------------------