Balance knock off wheels

[MackMan]

I have a Snap-On WB260 wheel balancer that I haven't really used for anything other than a few trailer tires.

I now have 3 vehicles with spline drive wheels (2 Jags and an MG) and since I already have the balancer, I thought it would be nice to learn to do these at home. Obviously the wire wheels add a dimension of complexity for tuning that I need to learn in addition, but that's another matter.

For the MG one set of wheels are the alloys "minilite" type with a hub adapter so no tuning spokes.

I bought a knock off hub adapter, and was intending to balance the wheels for the MG recently, but ran into 3 issues

Wire Wheel Balancing Kit - Fosseway Performance

wire wheel balancing kit, wire wheel balancing cones, balancing equipment for wire wheels, center lock wheel balancing, wire wheel cones,

www.fossewayperformance.co.uk

1) The adapter is made for a 40mm shaft, but my machine has a 28mm shaft... I 3d printed some sleeves to solve this, and they work OK as far as I can tell, but I'm not sure yet, because of the other issues..

2) The spindle is too short... I assume because the spline hub is wider than a normal bolt on wheel, there's only a couple of exposed threads.

3) The nut I have has a large protrusion that's designed to go inside the pressure cones, which exacerbates problem 2. I tried putting the nut on backwards which makes it "work"

But, if spin up the wheel and get an answer, then loosen wiggle and re-tighten the wheel I get a different answer. I did go ahead and put weights on a wheel to "zero" verified zero on re-spin, then loosen/wiggle/ re-spin and it was different again. I'm not sure if this is *primarily* because my 3d printed sleeves aren't perfect, or because the nut isn't properly engaging the outer seat for the balance adapter... It seems as though the kit is designed for a nut with no protrusion.



So my basic question is, is there a way to convert this to a longer 40mm shaft, or can I just not do this with this balancer?

 

[rlitman]

I think I see what you're getting at. In that spot between the inside of the hub and the balancer's flange face where the diagram says "Clearance here Essential", how much space do you have? If it's a lot, that could be where your missing spindle space went, and that should be a problem we fix by tossing your adapter and going back to the factory inner cones. But instead of using the spring, add a spacer that leaves the inner cone proud of the flange by the necessary distance.

What's the diameter of the part of the locknut that fits in the forcing cones? I think it's still under 40mm, right. If so, you probably want to adapt that side to fit into the outer cone, instead of having the outer cone ride directly on the threads. My guess is the locknut will be better at centering on the acme threads than a sliding fit part.

 

[DG930]

I have the WB240 but I think it is close enough for the following to apply. Do you have the manual? I have attached a copy. It took me some trial and error to become proficient on this machine. One thing you might be experiencing is the rotational error (see page 6). Couldn't understand why I could balance a wheel, take it off then rebalance it and get different results. It seems normal on this machine. Also, the fine balance setting was way overkill and trying to chase .1 OZ accuracy was a losing battle. Finally, get creative with the mounting. So long as the wheel is centered it doesn't matter where the cone is. With my Tundra wheels I don't even use an inner cone or the drum. Just the outer cone with the wheel against the back mount

 

[rlitman]

I have the WB240 but I think it is close enough for the following to apply. Do you have the manual? I have attached a copy. It took me some trial and error to become proficient on this machine. One thing you might be experiencing is the rotational error (see page 6). Couldn't understand why I could balance a wheel, take it off then rebalance it and get different results. It seems normal on this machine. Also, the fine balance setting was way overkill and trying to chase .1 OZ accuracy was a losing battle. Finally, get creative with the mounting. So long as the wheel is centered it doesn't matter where the cone is. With my Tundra wheels I don't even use an inner cone or the drum. Just the outer cone with the wheel against the back mount

You should be getting pretty close to 0-0 when you re-balance a freshly balanced wheel. 0.25oz off is acceptable, but 0.5oz is too much. If you're getting half ounce or more variance, then you're not getting the wheel centered right one of the attempts.

For hub centric rims that use a single centering cone (not the OP's issue), you need the rim to be both centered, and fully flat on the face flange. With most passenger car tires, I find that simply tightening the nut takes care of this just fine, but for LT tires, I find I need to support and guide the tire, keeping it near vertical during the tightening process to get it well centered. Rust flakes that came off the car's hub and stay stuck to the inner surface of the rim can prevent proper seating on the balancer and lead to similar errors.

I agree that fine balancing is a waste of time.

As for the OP, I also agree that setting reasonable expectations up front is healthy. I doubt anyone would bother dynamic balancing spoked rims for that matter. Static should be fine. But in that case, the only advantage of a spin balancer is that it recommends a weight in a single try. So if it really comes to the spindle being too short, I'd recommend finding a nice bubble balancer before going nuts trying to adapt this spin balancer.

 

[Beerhippie]

Why balance wheels for British Leyland vehicles? It's not like they'll run, anyway

 

[MackMan]

I think I see what you're getting at. In that spot between the inside of the hub and the balancer's flange face where the diagram says "Clearance here Essential", how much space do you have? If it's a lot, that could be where your missing spindle space went, and that should be a problem we fix by tossing your adapter and going back to the factory inner cones. But instead of using the spring, add a spacer that leaves the inner cone proud of the flange by the necessary distance.

That distance measurement doesn't really make sense on my machine as the flange is much smaller than the ID of the wheel, so the only thing for the wheel to interfere with is the body of the machine itself. The Adapter is pretty thin, but it does basically sit flush to the flange while the cone/spring method might allow it to go back a bit further. That's an interesting idea I might look at.

What's the diameter of the part of the locknut that fits in the forcing cones? I think it's still under 40mm, right. If so, you probably want to adapt that side to fit into the outer cone, instead of having the outer cone ride directly on the threads. My guess is the locknut will be better at centering on the acme threads than a sliding fit part.

I haven't measured it, but it does not go through the adapter, so it is larger than 40mm, though not by much.

I have the WB240 but I think it is close enough for the following to apply. Do you have the manual? I have attached a copy. It took me some trial and error to become proficient on this machine. One thing you might be experiencing is the rotational error (see page 6). Couldn't understand why I could balance a wheel, take it off then rebalance it and get different results. It seems normal on this machine. Also, the fine balance setting was way overkill and trying to chase .1 OZ accuracy was a losing battle. Finally, get creative with the mounting. So long as the wheel is centered it doesn't matter where the cone is. With my Tundra wheels I don't even use an inner cone or the drum. Just the outer cone with the wheel against the back mount

My variation was much more than .5oz, and I wasn't rotating the wheel by 180, just loosen & re-tighten the nut.

As for the OP, I also agree that setting reasonable expectations up front is healthy. I doubt anyone would bother dynamic balancing spoked rims for that matter. Static should be fine. But in that case, the only advantage of a spin balancer is that it recommends a weight in a single try. So if it really comes to the spindle being too short, I'd recommend finding a nice bubble balancer before going nuts trying to adapt this spin balancer.

I'm not sure why you think nobody would bother doing a dynamic balance on spoked wheels; There is actually a semi-local specialist that does this (which is where my wheels are now, since I couldn't do it in time at home), and they will take care of everything on the wire wheels, adjusting spokes/truing balance, shave tires etc. It's great to have them but it can get expensive, and everyone that works in the shop is old enough that I doubt they'll be around forever. They definitely dynamic balance.

In any event, just wondering why dynamic wouldn't be better..

Why balance wheels for British Leyland vehicles? It's not like they'll run, anyway

Hey! All 3 are much older than BL. Though the coupe is awaiting a full restoration, it hasn't really run in 20+ years

 

[rlitman]

That distance measurement doesn't really make sense on my machine as the flange is much smaller than the ID of the wheel, so the only thing for the wheel to interfere with is the body of the machine itself. The Adapter is pretty thin, but it does basically sit flush to the flange while the cone/spring method might allow it to go back a bit further. That's an interesting idea I might look at.

Ok, so maybe you can get a little space back using the original cones. At least with the original cones, you'll know they center well on the spindle.

I haven't measured it, but it does not go through the adapter, so it is larger than 40mm, though not by much.

Not sure when I can find time to measure mine... I'm just trying to think through the options.

My variation was much more than .5oz, and I wasn't rotating the wheel by 180, just loosen & re-tighten the nut.

Yeah, that's a sure sign that things aren't fitting right.

I'm not sure why you think nobody would bother doing a dynamic balance on spoked wheels; There is actually a semi-local specialist that does this (which is where my wheels are now, since I couldn't do it in time at home), and they will take care of everything on the wire wheels, adjusting spokes/truing balance, shave tires etc. It's great to have them but it can get expensive, and everyone that works in the shop is old enough that I doubt they'll be around forever. They definitely dynamic balance.

In any event, just wondering why dynamic wouldn't be better..

Dynamic balance becomes a bigger component of balance as tires get wider. The tires on antique spoked rims just aren't that wide.

Hey! All 3 are much older than BL. Though the coupe is awaiting a full restoration, it hasn't really run in 20+ years

Wow!

 

[DG930]

My variation was much more than .5oz, and I wasn't rotating the wheel by 180, just loosen & re-tighten the nut.

My point is that in my experience you can't change the initial setup at all and expect an identical result. Along the same lines, I was trying to "chase" the weight location to get lower weight results on subsequent spins. Not sure the exact algorithm the computer uses but that was a big mistake. My best results came from setting the wheel once and following the exact placement of weight until I got to 0.0 .

 

[rlitman]

My point is that in my experience you can't change the initial setup at all and expect an identical result. Along the same lines, I was trying to "chase" the weight location to get lower weight results on subsequent spins. Not sure the exact algorithm the computer uses but that was a big mistake. My best results came from setting the wheel once and following the exact placement of weight until I got to 0.0 .

Ok, that's different. If you're chasing the weight down in subsequent spins, you either have a calibration or measurement issue.
If you've gotten the balance down to 0-0 and then get big numbers after re-tightening the nut, then that's a centering issue.