![ffag moto racer 3 ffag moto racer 3](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lkbH4-lI3H4/maxresdefault.jpg)
![ffag moto racer 3 ffag moto racer 3](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-acSwyTQLERg/UCrBHDLQdbI/AAAAAAAAAgM/fN6n5nZCbdQ/s1600/PES+2011.jpg)
I have owned a Commando for 30 years and worked for 20 years for a Bearing manufacturer, our salesmen expanded the truth to its furthest boundries too if it meant getting a sale. As Andover Norton supply only E type bearing now and have done for many years with no reports of bearing failures even in Combats I am sure they are equal and more likely better than the orginal R&M Superblends.
Ffag moto racer 3 iso#
The barrel shape also in normal applications increases the load capacity of roller bearings, the center of the roller takes the load and flattens slightly but does not cause the roller edges to dig into the bearing track, the ISO std has been updated and the E identifies the high capacity Roller bearings. The other solution would have to introduce a central bearing but the engineering required would have been to expensive and took too long. Superblend is just marketing speak for barrelled rollers and seems only to be used within Norton circles, in Norton twins it means a crank can go like a skipping rope and the rollers do not dig into the bearing surface. The R&M 6/MRJA30 had barrel shaped rollers and was a development of the std roller bearing, I do not know if it was especially developed for Norton but as it was copied by other bearing makers very quickly it was probably just a normal development that by chance was available in time for Norton. The problem was there before the Combat but the Combat made it much worse due to the power and its free reving nature. Murray, the roller bearing that was orginally fitted was a std for the time roller bearing, the problem was with the straight rollers running in flat bearing surfaces combined with a whippy crank unsurpported in the middle the ends of the rollers dug into the bearing surfaces and destroyed them.