140 vs. A rear wheel weights

[inairam]

Jim,

You have corrected my posts more times than I care to say. However, having just worked with both weights there is a noticeable difference in the two weights.

[indy61]

I have heard the Cub rear weights weigh more than the A/140 rear weights. Not by much but I don't know

[Indy4570]

I didn't put the A weights on the cub, I haven't inspected the bolts. but having a 140 with weights and several cubs I can say the biggest difference seems to be the center hole, it being larger in the A/140 weight

[Jim Becker]

. . . The 140 weights just aren't a very good fit on the Cub wheel disk. The poor fit makes it more difficult to get them centered and keep them in place while mounting. The bolt circle isn't even the same, just close enough to work. . . .

I measured some weights to try to add some clarity to these comments. I'm not sure how well this ASCII artwork will hold up on everyone's display, but here it is. If you measure the horizontal distance between A and B, you get about 2-1/2 inches on either the 140 or Cub weighs. But when you measure the vertical distance, the 140 weights are about 3-1/2 while the Cub weights are about 5-1/2. As a result, 140 weights bolted to a Cub wheel center will only touch the center at the outside circle of the weight. At the inner circle there will be a gap. The bolt circle of the 140 weight is about 13-1/4 while the Cub is about 13-3/4. The gap in fitting the shape of the center plus the fact 140 weights have holes for larger diameter bolts add enough slack to allow bolting things up with different bolt circles. The 140 weights are about 3-1/2 thick while the Cub's are about 3. The Cub weights make up for the reduced thickness with a smaller center hole.

___ <------- A
.....\
.......\
........\ <---- B
........|
........|
........|
........|
......./
....../
___/