# Campagnolo Over Torque Comp Ultra



## primov8

I finally installed the new Comp Ultra crankset on my Ridley and it was as easy as it can get... with the use of their proprietary installation/removal tools. 

The best thing about the OT cranksets is that they will work on range of different bottom bracket applications. PF30/BB30, done. BBright, of course. 386BB, BB86, why not. BSA, just as easy. OSBB, bolts right on with no pending lawsuits. In other words, whatever bb shell Rotor, THM, Lightning, FSA 386EVO cranksets can fit, the OT cranksets follow suit. 
The reason is because the OT cranksets are NOT native BB30 cranksets. Although the spindle diameter are 30mm, the length of the spindle makes the OT cranksets a "universal" BB30 crankset.

Here is a pic of the spacers from FSA 386EVO, Campagnolo OT, Rotor 3D+:









I didn't have my digital caliper on hand, but knowing the Rotor spacer was already 11.5mm, I laid down a 2mm hex key on top of the FSA and Campagnolo spacers and it sat flushed with the Rotor spacer. 

_Here are the spindle lengths_:

*Campagnolo Comp Ultra*









*Rotor 3D+*









*FSA 386EVO*









_A side by side of the *OT PF30 bb* vs. a *Sram PF30 bb*_:










Now you can see why the OT cranksets will work on just about any bb shell out on the market. Another plus is Campagnolo has kept the Q-factor at 145mm, just like their popular UT counterpart. 

Regarding installation on my Ridley, I did install the Comp Ultra WITHOUT the adjustment ring and opted the use of (2)-1mm washers/shims + wave washer. When i went to install the Comp Ultra with the adjustment ring and torquing it to spec, the crankset barely spun an inch. I already knew beforehand I would run into this scenario because the Rotor 3D+ was installed in a similar fashion. 
Last summer, I installed a Wheels Mfg-AC Enduro PF30 bb. This particular bb seems to have a slightly wider bearing design and thicker bearing seals. In other words, when I installed the Rotor 3D+ with the adjustment ring, it was binding down too tight against the new PF30 bb and could hardly move. I ended up removing the adjustment ring on the NDS and replaced it with a 1mm washer + wave washer and it worked perfectly. I got to put around 800+ miles on this setup and didn't run into any issues.

_Rotor 3D+ w/o adj. ring_:









_Comp Ultra w/o ad. ring_:


----------



## roadworthy

Very creative and well done. Thanks for sharing your findings Primo.
Best Regards
PS: which wave washer brand did you use?


----------



## primov8

Its most likely FSA. I have a box of misc. small parts (you can see it in the background on the Rotor install pic) that I've collected these past couple of years. The only time I can recall getting any wave washers was usually from the FSA cranksets.


----------



## mannymerc

I love this crank super easy to install and light, super light, I love my campy bike even more now that I got this new crank.


----------



## roadworthy

Primo,
If you use a wave washer for the new Campy OT crank, does this negate the need for the special Campy installation tool to install the crank? Will the crank arm pull right off upon removal without a puller if the preload adjuster isn't present? I was wondering if the preload adjuster was used to help remove the crank arm and without it if the left arm can be pulled straight off without a puller?
Thanks


----------



## bikerjulio

Just one of my silly observations.

But didn't we all pile on to the Power Torque design last year and agree it was terrible? And a lot of that was to do with the NDS crank attachment onto those splines.

And now everyone is gushing over OT, which just looks like a fatter version of PT with the splines we so hated. What am I missing?


----------



## primov8

Unfortunately the proprietary tools are still needed. The preload ring plays no part in removal of the NDS crank arm. 
All I did was eliminate lateral play with the use of washers/wave washer.


----------



## primov8

bikerjulio said:


> Just one of my silly observations.
> 
> But didn't we all pile on to the Power Torque design last year and agree it was terrible? And a lot of that was to do with the NDS crank attachment onto those splines.
> 
> And now everyone is gushing over OT, which just looks like a fatter version of PT with the splines we so hated. What am I missing?


Besides the obvious 30mm spindle, what Campagnolo did right IMO was not create another crankset where the bearings are pressed onto the spindle. 

I certainly would've prefer a similar design as to how Rotor's 3D+/F cranksets are installed and removed but I believe Rotor owns that patent.


----------



## roadworthy

primov8 said:


> Unfortunately the proprietary tools are still needed. The preload ring plays no part in removal of the NDS crank arm.
> All I did was eliminate lateral play with the use of washers/wave washer.


Can you explain why the proprietary tool is still required if the preload lockring is taken out of the mix? Trying to understand why that tool would be required. Do you need to use the tool to get the left crank arm off?
Thanks


----------



## roadworthy

bikerjulio said:


> Just one of my silly observations.
> 
> But didn't we all pile on to the Power Torque design last year and agree it was terrible? And a lot of that was to do with the NDS crank attachment onto those splines.
> 
> And now everyone is gushing over OT, which just looks like a fatter version of PT with the splines we so hated. What am I missing?


To my eye, the designs look quite different. I believe PowerTorque is a tapered soft shoulder spline. Primo, is the OT crank a tapered spline with soft inboard shoulder...or is it a hard shoulder where bolt torque builds quickly?
Thanks

Edit: To illustrate the fundamental difference which to me is substantial, have a look at the spline comparison below:


----------



## primov8

roadworthy said:


> Can you explain why the proprietary tool is still required if the preload lockring is taken out of the mix? Trying to understand why that tool would be required. Do you need to use the tool to get the left crank arm off?
> Thanks


The 2 piece threaded preload ring, once the NDS crank arm is torqued to spec is then adjusted to remove lateral play. Functionally the same concept as Rotor's preload ring where its also adjusted only after the crankset has been torqued down. 
The removal tool is needed because the NDS crank arm is "pressed" onto the spindle via the installation tool and torqued to 40nm. 




roadworthy said:


> ...Primo, is the OT crank a tapered spline with soft inboard shoulder...or is it a hard shoulder where bolt torque builds quickly?
> Thanks


The splines are definitely not tapered, only the threaded end of the spindle and the torque (40nm) does build up quickly.


----------



## roadworthy

primov8 said:


> The 2 piece threaded preload ring, once the NDS crank arm is torqued to spec is then adjusted to remove lateral play. Functionally the same concept as Rotor's preload ring where its also adjusted only after the crankset has been torqued down.
> *The removal tool is needed because the NDS crank arm is "pressed" onto the spindle via the installation tool and torqued to 40nm.
> 
> *
> 
> The splines are definitely not tapered, only the threaded end of the spindle and the torque (40nm) does build up quickly.


Sounds like a light press for OverTorque, aka a light interference fit.
Can you post a picture of the tool(s) necessary to service OT?

As to comparison with PT, if the spline is straight and not tapered with a ramped shoulder like PT, then the crank arm registers to the hard outboard shoulder of the spindle end. This to me is far superior to PT which depends on bolt torque to arrive at a given amount of press which can affect lateral position of the crank arm. Why I have coined PT the ghost of square taper...exact same design dynamic which I believe is poor and no excuse for. By contrast, pressing to a hard shoulder is much better if not more repeatable and also more secure. I guess the question mark about the design is, why is a press even required if bolting to a hard shoulder? Of course a light press is quite secure when in conjunction with a hard shoulder, but other similar cranks don't need a puller to get the crank arm off. To me, using the preload adjuster to remove the crank arm seems the most elegant. 

By way of design, I still believe DA has the best crank design with dual pinch bolts and mechanical preload with a simple 10 cent plastic wheel. Will be interesting to see what Shimano does and if they spawn an identical crank to their 24mm design only simply grow the spindle to 30mm. Seems like a no brainer to me. Keep the existing crank design and only grow the spindle diameter. I admit to being surprised they haven't done this frankly...it would make the venerable DA crank much more versatile like OT, Rotor 3D+, FSA Evo etc.


----------



## bikerjulio

here you go










Campagnolo UT FC220 Over Torque Crankset Tool, TOOLS


----------



## roadworthy

Thank you bikerjulio.
For those interested in how these tools are used for installation/disassembly of OT, nosing around the web a bit, here is the OverTorque service manual PDF document which really explains the design by what the procedure is:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...LZUtsqGXmF0JKxHpB-v1_oQ&bvm=bv.62286460,d.eW0

No question that OT is pressed to a hard shoulder and what makes it such a robust design. But will say, abandonment of a wave washer aka UltraTorque has really added a layer of complexity to installation/crank removal compared to UT which doesn't require any special tools for service other than bearing replacement.



bikerjulio said:


> here you go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campagnolo UT FC220 Over Torque Crankset Tool, TOOLS


----------



## primov8

A couple more pics of the proprietary tools:


----------



## primov8

@roadworthy. I removed the AC-Enduro PF30 bb and installed the OT PF30 bb.
You can see how the adjustment ring is used to eliminate lateral play after the NDS is torqued down.


----------



## bikerjulio

roadworthy said:


> Can you explain why the proprietary tool is still required if the preload lockring is taken out of the mix? Trying to understand why that tool would be required. Do you need to use the tool to get the left crank arm off?
> Thanks


It's not a preload *lockring*.

Its just an inner and outer threaded ring that effectively changes width - an adjustable spacer with a little lockscrew that locks the 2 elements together.

The special tool is needed to:

Install the special lockring that holds the crank on,

and

pull off the pressed on NDS crank.

I like the overall idea of BB386EVO, but as usual lately with Campy, their solution to attaching a crank to a spindle seems unnecessarily complicated.


----------



## roadworthy

You are deemed the champion of semantics!
Oh and btw my friend who should know better, since you want to delve in pedantic syntax, the ring 'does not change width'...it changes position but only if the installer chooses to do so...lol.



bikerjulio said:


> *It's not a preload lockring.
> 
> *Its just an inner and outer threaded ring that effectively changes width - an adjustable spacer with a little lockscrew that locks the 2 elements together.
> 
> The special tool is needed to:
> 
> Install the special lockring that holds the crank on,
> 
> and
> 
> pull off the pressed on NDS crank.
> 
> I like the overall idea of BB386EVO, but as usual lately with Campy, their solution to attaching a crank to a spindle seems unnecessarily complicated.


----------



## bikerjulio

> the ring 'does not change width'.


If you look at the picture of the adjusting ring that Primov posted, you will see that's exactly what it does do.

It's an adjustable width spacer.


----------



## goodboyr

Hold on guys....I've got to get some popcorn......


----------



## primov8

bikerjulio said:


> If you look at the picture of the adjusting ring that Primov posted, you will see that's exactly what it does do.
> It's an adjustable width spacer.


In a sense, yes. Its functionally the same as Rotor, Sram, or any crankset that uses a preload nut, ring, etc.. to eliminate lateral play on the NDS.


----------



## headloss

bikerjulio said:


> If you look at the picture of the adjusting ring that Primov posted, you will see that's exactly what it does do.
> 
> It's an adjustable width spacer.


I think you missed an attempt at humor.


----------



## bikerjulio

headloss said:


> I think you missed an attempt at humor.


Don't think so.


----------



## headloss

bikerjulio said:


> Don't think so.


but, he wrote "lol"


----------



## bikerjulio

headloss said:


> but, he wrote "lol"


Oh, that's what makes it humorous.

Thanks for pointing that out


----------



## roadworthy

primov8 said:


> In a sense, yes. Its functionally the same as Rotor, Sram, or any crankset that uses a preload nut, ring, etc.. to eliminate lateral play on the NDS.


hehehe. Yeah. Who would of thunk there would be quibbling about a preload nut, ring etc....but oh...don't call it that. Its special. Heresy I tell you. Speaking of nuts.  
Thanks again for the informative thread.


----------



## headloss

bikerjulio said:


> Oh, that's what makes it humorous.
> 
> Thanks for pointing that out


Well, whatever the case, I agree with you that it is not a "lock ring." It's clearly meant to adjust width (and then lock it in place with a set-screw). 

It is a good thread, thanks, primo!


----------



## roadworthy

primov8 said:


> @roadworthy. I removed the AC-Enduro PF30 bb and installed the OT PF30 bb.
> You can see how the adjustment ring is used to eliminate lateral play after the NDS is torqued down.


I have to tell you Primo, I am a bit on the fence about the design. I don't love it. No doubt functionally its terrifc, but life would have been so much simplier if they would have taken the hirth joint 25mm OD spindle UT crank, removed the bearings and grew half shaft spindles to 30mm and retained the wave washer. 

Although the new OT crank appears more robust than PT...in particular because the crank arm position registers to a hard outboard spindle shoulder that is secured laterally with outboard lockring, it still relies heavily on a press fit for NDS crank arm to spindle spline...and no reason why the crank arm couldn't walk more inboard except for press. This design is unlike virtually all others out there which I believe are more sound and easier to service.  The OT spline has to have more interference than just about any crank out there short of PT because the arm is only registered to a hard shoulder laterally outboard and not compressed between two hard shoulders as with other cranks. I honestly prefer Rotor, FSA and even Sram crank arm attachment...self extracting...but moreover...less reliant on press and more reliant on two hard shoulders for attachment with a higher torque bolt versus an outboard lockring to lower torque and dependent on press for NDS arm stability. So the OT design becomes more tolerance sensitive. I am just not a fan all said. No doubt is is functionally excellent but that is where I sit on the design.
Cheers
PS: at the end of the day, I would love to know how much of Campy's crank designs are driven by patent infringement. I know the hirth joint is challenging to manufacture to close tolerance and have low axial 'cylindricity' tolerance. Possible Campy even pays a royality to Lightening for this design. Specialized uses it too only more properly in my opinion with 30mm spindle, wave washer and no bearings pressed onto an odd size spindle diameter aka 25mm.


----------



## bikerjulio

roadworthy said:


> I have to tell you Primo, I am a bit on the fence about the design. I don't love it. ................... So the OT design becomes more tolerance sensitive. I am just not a fan all said. No doubt is is functionally excellent but that is where I sit on the design.


Glad to see you agree with me 

Still like GXP. Simple. Self-aligning. No fancy tools. Self-extracting NDS bolt.

Needing a new tool set every time a crank comes out is one of the things that drives people away from Campy.


----------



## primov8

roadworthy said:


> I have to tell you Primo, I am a bit on the fence about the design. I don't love it. No doubt functionally its terrifc, but life would have been so much simplier if they would have taken the hirth joint 25mm OD spindle UT crank, removed the bearings and grew half shaft spindles to 30mm and retained the wave washer.





roadworthy said:


> Although the new OT crank appears more robust than PT...in particular because the crank arm position registers to a hard outboard spindle shoulder that is secured laterally with outboard lockring, it still relies heavily on a press fit for NDS crank arm to spindle spline...and no reason why the crank arm couldn't walk more inboard except for press. This design is unlike virtually all others out there which I believe are more sound and easier to service. The OT spline has to have more interference than just about any crank out there short of PT because the arm is only registered to a hard shoulder laterally outboard and not compressed between two hard shoulders as with other cranks. I honestly prefer Rotor, FSA and even Sram crank arm attachment...self extracting...but moreover...less reliant on press and more reliant on two hard shoulders for attachment with a higher torque bolt versus an outboard lockring to lower torque and dependent on press for NDS arm stability. So the OT design becomes more tolerance sensitive. I am just not a fan all said. No doubt is is functionally excellent but that is where I sit on the design.
> Cheers
> PS: at the end of the day, I would love to know how much of Campy's crank designs are driven by patent infringement. I know the hirth joint is challenging to manufacture to close tolerance and have low axial 'cylindricity' tolerance. Possible Campy even pays a royality to Lightening for this design. Specialized uses it too only more properly in my opinion with 30mm spindle, wave washer and no bearings pressed onto an odd size spindle diameter aka 25mm.




I agree. We both acknowledged on another thread Campagnolo could have designed the interface much simpler, without the use of proprietary tools. 

The way I see it, its a more complicated design with the same function as the Rotor 3D+/F crankset. But it is Campagnolo after all; you either hate it or don't even think about what it all cost at the end. Lol.


----------



## roadworthy

bikerjulio said:


> Glad to see you agree with me
> 
> Still like GXP. Simple. Self-aligning. No fancy tools. Self-extracting NDS bolt.
> 
> Needing a new tool set every time a crank comes out is one of the things that drives people away from Campy.


Maybe the tools do drive people away from Campy. But whether its KMC missing link replacing a Campy chain pin which requires a special tool or crank puller for PT crank including tools shown for the new OT crank, if I saw a design advantage which would require a special tool...like for example UltraTorque cranks which require a long bearing extractor....I am OK with it. But many times I don't see the design benefit requiring a special tool. Life would be a lot simplier if Campy just tweaked UT to make it 30mm and removed the smaller bearings...basically what Specialized did for their in house crank. Simple on and off and rock solid because there is no press.


----------



## roadworthy

bikerjulio said:


> Glad to see you agree with me
> 
> *Still like GXP*. Simple. Self-aligning. No fancy tools. Self-extracting NDS bolt.
> 
> Needing a new tool set every time a crank comes out is one of the things that drives people away from Campy.


Yes, I have seen you hit the GXP drum before, but nothing is simpler than BB30. Design purity isn't about GXP versus BB30, but rather how simple the crank design is for either design. Sram and FSA both make a super simple and effective crank that will work in either application. Campy...not so much.

Anyway, good news is...we have a lot of options now....way more than before. Even for those UT lovers like me, Praxis is developing an external cup BB which will be plug and play on PF/BB30 framesets and utilizes same Campy pressed on bearings that come with UT. So will take a lot for me to go deep in my pocket for OT.


----------



## primov8

roadworthy said:


> Anyway, good news is...we have a lot of options now....way more than before. Even for those UT lovers like me, Praxis is developing an external cup BB which will be plug and play on PF/BB30 framesets and utilizes same Campy pressed on bearings that come with UT. _*So will take a lot for me to go deep in my pocket for OT*_.


I'm a fan of Praxis Works and with them finally releasing a UT conversion bb is definitely worth the wait.

Since switching to Campagnolo back in '12, I've purchased 99.9% of my Campagnolo related parts from UK based vendors. Ribble of course has been my go to online retailer as they usually have some type of sale or discount code. Plus, their an authorized Campagnolo Pro-Shop.

We all know Campagnolo is usually priced much higher than their competition but I do my best to keep my eyes open for whatever savings I can find.
Regarding the OT cranksets, I lucked out on that weekend before Christmas. Friday evening, I received an email from Ribble about their 12% discount code so I went on the website to see what was available. That evening, I noticed the british £ was "weaker" than normal. Long story short, I spent $997.xx, shipped to NYC for:
- Comp Ultra 175mm 53/39
- Comp One 175mm 50/34
- PF30 and BB30 bottom brackets
- Proprietary tools

I didn't even think twice and hit the confirm order tab right then and there.


----------



## roadworthy

primov8 said:


> I'm a fan of Praxis Works and with them finally releasing a UT conversion bb is definitely worth the wait.
> 
> Since switching to Campagnolo back in '12, I've purchased 99.9% of my Campagnolo related parts from UK based vendors. Ribble of course has been my go to online retailer as they usually have some type of sale or discount code. Plus, their an authorized Campagnolo Pro-Shop.
> 
> We all know Campagnolo is usually priced much higher than their competition but I do my best to keep my eyes open for whatever savings I can find.
> Regarding the OT cranksets, I lucked out on that weekend before Christmas. Friday evening, I received an email from Ribble about their 12% discount code so I went on the website to see what was available. That evening, I noticed the british £ was "weaker" than normal. Long story short, I spent $997.xx, shipped to NYC for:
> - Comp Ultra 175mm 53/39
> - Comp One 175mm 50/34
> - PF30 and BB30 bottom brackets
> - Proprietary tools
> 
> I didn't even think twice and hit the confirm order tab right then and there.


Yup. A bit unfair to blast Campy from a cost standpoint....at least with judicious shopping. I too have bought a lot of Campy stuff from the UK...including wheelsets and shipped to US and will add, haven't had a single issue. I suppose with chains and cranks you pay a bit more although you got yours for a pretty good price...but you don't have to run a Campy 11s chain...KMC runs good....many good 11s cranksets out there now as discussed and also worth mentioning and big boost to Campy enthusiasts if so inclined, you don't have to pay Record or even Chorus prices for a 11s cassette now...Ultegra 11s cassette with Shimano 11s freehub wheels work great with Campy 11s groupsets...virtually interchangeable cog spacing now for 11s between brands.
All said, my next groupset will be Shimano because I like the ergos of their new shifters...at least in the store and brief rides. Not sure how they will be longer term however. Am considering building a new bike and will be with Shimano freehub and Ultegra 11s 28-11 cassette and if I don't like the Shimano groupset, will ebay it and pick up Chorus or Record shifters and front and rear derailleurs. Not sure yet on the crank.


----------



## edjy

Guys, I am just an engineer and don't have an English degree: would this post be a good place to use the word "pedantic"? Don't take me too seriously but I had to ask (not going to Google it and ruin the fun).

On a related topic aside from the crank puller insanity, am I the only one that sees this new comp crank as a step back in the esthetics dept? The original ultratorque with cups is almost flush and is nice in not showing some smaller diameter looking axle (even if 30mm). On my trek UT looks even better since there is no cup and the Madone frame blends right into the crank end diameter. I would not want to look at the shaft diameter valley next to the cup just to save 50g or whatever.


----------



## CaseLawZ28

primov8 said:


> The removal tool is needed because the NDS crank arm is "pressed" onto the spindle via the installation tool and torqued to 40nm.


Sounds like Cannondale's Hollowgram crank.


----------



## primov8

CaseLawZ28 said:


> Sounds like Cannondale's Hollowgram crank.


Exactly, as it works the same way.


----------



## bourquek

Hi, does anyone know how to get rid of the lateral play in the PF30 overtorque crankset? I just got mine installed from my frame builder and there is lateral play when I tug on the crank arm. Does the nondrive side arm need to be removed in order to use the adjustment ring? As I understand it the adjustment ring is used to eliminate lateral play. My LBS does not have the new proprietary Campy overtorque tools.


----------



## bikerjulio

bourquek said:


> Hi, does anyone know how to get rid of the lateral play in the PF30 overtorque crankset? I just got mine installed from my frame builder and there is lateral play when I tug on the crank arm. Does the nondrive side arm need to be removed in order to use the adjustment ring? As I understand it the adjustment ring is used to eliminate lateral play. My LBS does not have the new proprietary Campy overtorque tools.


Like some other person here who didn't understand this, neither did your frame builder by the sound of it.

No need to take anything off. No special tools.

The adjusting ring is just a fancy way of doing an adjustable spacer. It consists of two rings which thread together and when unscrewed get wider to take up play. There is a nice picture on this thread. Loosen the little allen head lockscrew, hold the inner ring in place and unscrew the outer ring until the play is just eliminated but everything still spins nicely. Tighten lockscrew. You are done.


----------



## bourquek

Julio, thank you!! That worked beautifully! I followed your instructions and once I understood how the adjustment ring worked. Bam the play in the crankset is gone!


----------



## ultimobici

Just one small point on the OP's comments re compatability.

BB30, PF30, BSA & BB386 are the only set ups that Overtorque is supposed to be compatible with.

I'd be interested in how BB86 can be made to work with the system though.


----------



## primov8

ultimobici said:


> Just one small point on the OP's comments re compatability.
> 
> BB30, PF30, BSA & BB386 are the only set ups that Overtorque is supposed to be compatible with.
> 
> I'd be interested in how BB86 can be made to work with the system though.


There are pressfit BB86 bearings available from Rotor, Lightning that work with 30mm spindled "universal" cranksets. 
Since the OT cranksets have the longer spindle unlike native(68mm) BB30 cranksets, it'll work fine even on BB86. 
The obvious downside would the duration of these particular bearings. They have thinner bearing inner and outer races, along with smaller bearings in order to fit the 30mm spindle.


----------



## headloss

(nevermind)


----------



## roadworthy

primov8 said:


> There are pressfit BB86 bearings available from Rotor, Lightning that work with 30mm spindled "universal" cranksets.
> Since the OT cranksets have the longer spindle unlike native(68mm) BB30 cranksets, it'll work fine even on BB86.
> The obvious downside would the duration of these particular bearings. They have thinner bearing inner and outer races, along with smaller bearings in order to fit the 30mm spindle.


Nice explanation Primo. Must be either the reduced durability of the smaller diameter bearings...or Campy just not tooling the parts up...or rather lining up their supplier base...to preclude them from marketing OverTorque as BB86 compatible...like Rotor does.


----------



## ultimobici

Thanks. I'll look into that option.


----------



## gfk_velo

A few comments that could slot in almost anywhere in this thread but this seems as appropriate a spot as any, because roadworthy raises the question as to Campagnolo design motivations, both specifically to OT and in general ...

OT has an advantage over any pre-load washer design in a press-fit bearing scenario, because the clearance recovery ring "fixes" the overall position of the bearings along the axle and relative to the BB shell ... on the basis that the circlip or the floor of the press fit cup constitutes the fixed location in the BB shell, the drive-side offset it fixed by the machining & (if present) spacer at the back of the crank, the NDS by the spacer (if present) and the fact that the cranks are limited from side-to-side movement by the "solid" clearance recovery system (CRS) - by doing this, a lot of the opportunity of the bearing or the bearing cup to try and "walk" is removed as if the CRS is correctly adjusted, the bearings will struggle to adopt a non-perpendicular-to-the-axle-axis position. 

OK, I know I may be seen as an unreliable witness, given my role in Campagnolo-world, but I can say that I have had the opportunity to ride an OT BB30 set up in my own road bike (Bianchi Oltre with Record EPS) since several months before OT was released to the market - my crank set was number 17 off the production line (!) - and it has not creaked at all - which is more than can be said for it's predecessor ...

To address a couple of points around design philosophy specifically - 

A very large part of Campagnolo's crank set design is driven by wishing to maintain stance width at the pedal and ankle clearance - two factors that are noticeably wider in virtually every other design on the market.

In the case of PT, it got a hard time from the trade and users because in general it was badly understood and many users and shops did not take the time to think through how the removal system *actually works* ... the puller that Campagnolo recommended virtually from day 1 - the Facom U.301 (an analogue of which was also marketed by Beta) is of a type that holds the claws tight against the back of the crank and tightens the grip as the pressure on the central "jack" increases - many shops bought cheap pullers that did not have this feature and damaged cranks as a result - we saw a lot of them (in fact, continue to see them) at the SC. Many end users failed to remove the washer under the head of the 14 mm a.k. bolt and were trying to extract the crank "through" it, with predictable results - and many OEs were not greasing the splines, resulting in corrosion and binding. 

In a sense, Campagnolo were unfortunate in that they wanted a design that had the same ankle clearance as their cranksets had enjoyed since the introduction of the 102 mm axle, the same stance width and a removal method that placed minimum dependance on proprietary tooling, whilst saving costs on the manufacture of the Hirth interface and simplifying assembly in a production line environment - they were foiled by the inability of many to "RTFM" when it came to removal ... and by faults in assembly.

As for the reliance on press fitting an axle to a spindle of gradually increasing dimension, well, the same is true of the many hundreds of thousands of square taper BBs out there and there has never been a real mechanical issue with square taper as a fitting method - in fact it is superior to any splined design in many bicycle applications, being far less prone to backlash. The problem with holding an axle in compression between a hard shoulder and the head of a bolt (as in Octalink originally and many other designs since) is that it resists backlash very poorly ... a combination of spline plus interference fit should provide (and here I am off-piste as far as Campagnolo are concerned and just applying a bit of general engineering knowledge for myself) a good compromise between a high surface area interface, the ability to conveniently make a large diameter, hollow spindle from relatively soft material and a compact (width-wise) construction of light weight.

HTH
Graeme
Velotech Cycling Ltd, Campagnolo ASC, UK


----------



## 1Butcher

One thing for certain, many people that say they are engineers, forget to ask themselves, 'Why would an engineer design it that way?'. These 'internet' engineers should remember when they were designing something at work, they had parameters what the big boys/gals wanted above them. 

We as users do not know what those parameters are. So we bash the engineers for such a crappy design, I have to buy more tools, they should have done it this way [or that way]. When I run into a design that I think is weird, I try to think, 'Why did they do it that way?' 

Thanks for sharing some of the design parameters that they were faced with. I do believe they're better ways, but to armchair engineer, is just crazy. But that's what some people do best.

I have always read your comments with interest on this website and others [WW]. Thanks again.


----------



## roadworthy

gfk_velo said:


> A few comments that could slot in almost anywhere in this thread but this seems as appropriate a spot as any, because roadworthy raises the question as to Campagnolo design motivations, both specifically to OT and in general ...
> 
> OT has an advantage over any pre-load washer design in a press-fit bearing scenario, because the clearance recovery ring "fixes" the overall position of the bearings along the axle and relative to the BB shell ... on the basis that the circlip or the floor of the press fit cup constitutes the fixed location in the BB shell, the drive-side offset it fixed by the machining & (if present) spacer at the back of the crank, the NDS by the spacer (if present) and the fact that the cranks are limited from side-to-side movement by the "solid" clearance recovery system (CRS) - by doing this, a lot of the opportunity of the bearing or the bearing cup to try and "walk" is removed as if the CRS is correctly adjusted, the bearings will struggle to adopt a non-perpendicular-to-the-axle-axis position.
> 
> OK, I know I may be seen as an unreliable witness, given my role in Campagnolo-world, but I can say that I have had the opportunity to ride an OT BB30 set up in my own road bike (Bianchi Oltre with Record EPS) since several months before OT was released to the market - my crank set was number 17 off the production line (!) - and it has not creaked at all - which is more than can be said for it's predecessor ...
> 
> To address a couple of points around design philosophy specifically -
> 
> A very large part of Campagnolo's crank set design is driven by wishing to maintain stance width at the pedal and ankle clearance - two factors that are noticeably wider in virtually every other design on the market.
> 
> In the case of PT, it got a hard time from the trade and users because in general it was badly understood and many users and shops did not take the time to think through how the removal system *actually works* ... the puller that Campagnolo recommended virtually from day 1 - the Facom U.301 (an analogue of which was also marketed by Beta) is of a type that holds the claws tight against the back of the crank and tightens the grip as the pressure on the central "jack" increases - many shops bought cheap pullers that did not have this feature and damaged cranks as a result - we saw a lot of them (in fact, continue to see them) at the SC. Many end users failed to remove the washer under the head of the 14 mm a.k. bolt and were trying to extract the crank "through" it, with predictable results - and many OEs were not greasing the splines, resulting in corrosion and binding.
> 
> In a sense, Campagnolo were unfortunate in that they wanted a design that had the same ankle clearance as their cranksets had enjoyed since the introduction of the 102 mm axle, the same stance width and a removal method that placed minimum dependance on proprietary tooling, whilst saving costs on the manufacture of the Hirth interface and simplifying assembly in a production line environment - they were foiled by the inability of many to "RTFM" when it came to removal ... and by faults in assembly.
> 
> As for the reliance on press fitting an axle to a spindle of gradually increasing dimension, well, the same is true of the many hundreds of thousands of square taper BBs out there and there has never been a real mechanical issue with square taper as a fitting method - in fact it is superior to any splined design in many bicycle applications, being far less prone to backlash. The problem with holding an axle in compression between a hard shoulder and the head of a bolt (as in Octalink originally and many other designs since) is that it resists backlash very poorly ... a combination of spline plus interference fit should provide (and here I am off-piste as far as Campagnolo are concerned and just applying a bit of general engineering knowledge for myself) a good compromise between a high surface area interface, the ability to conveniently make a large diameter, hollow spindle from relatively soft material and a compact (width-wise) construction of light weight.
> 
> HTH
> Graeme
> Velotech Cycling Ltd, Campagnolo ASC, UK


Hi Graeme.
Can you explain your role with Velotech Cycling as it relates to Campagnolo ASC?

- Your point about keeping bearings seated with 'hard spacing' versus wave washer cranks is taken, but it is a moot point if bearings are loctited in place which is the spec for virtually all BB/PF30 bearings...they can't walk laterally and lose their seating and orthogonal position to the BB and offer no advantage to wave washer cranks which are simplier and very effective.

- Can you speculate why a Rotor crank design also with hard shoulder lash ring is not as good a design as the latest Campy OT design? A Rotor crank as you may know does not require the same tools to disassemble and yet works on the same number of different BB types.

A last point of your defense of Power Torque with 'soft' shoulder and taper spline. Your comparison with square taper Campy cranks is spot on. For the record both are awful and square taper was abandoned for several reasons and rightly so.

Thanks for any further commentary.


----------



## 1Butcher

Google searched and found this.

Velotech Cycling Ltd - Velotech Industry standard training and Campagnolo Approved Service Centre (UK)

and this,

Campagnolo - Velotech Cycling Ltd - Weldtech Industry standard training and Campagnolo Approved Service Centre (UK)


----------



## ultimobici

roadworthy said:


> Hi Graeme.
> Can you explain your role with Velotech Cycling as it relates to Campagnolo ASC?
> 
> - Your point about keeping bearings seated with 'hard spacing' versus wave washer cranks is taken, but it is a moot point if bearings are loctited in place which is the spec for virtually all BB/PF30 bearings...they can't walk laterally and lose their seating and orthogonal position to the BB and offer no advantage to wave washer cranks which are simplier and very effective.
> 
> - Can you speculate why a Rotor crank design also with hard shoulder lash ring is not as good a design as the latest Campy OT design? A Rotor crank as you may know does not require the same tools to disassemble and yet works on the same number of different BB types.
> 
> A last point of your defense of Power Torque with 'soft' shoulder and taper spline. Your comparison with square taper Campy cranks is spot on. For the record both are awful and square taper was abandoned for several reasons and rightly so.
> 
> Thanks for any further commentary.


Where do you get the idea square taper cranks, Campag or not, were awful?

As for the Rotor system being as versatile in its ability to be fitted to most BB systems, that is not in doubt. However it has a much wider measurement across the axle than any of Campagnolo's offerings, which if you need ankle clearance is a distinct disadvantage. 

As for the tool requirement, please! If you had a system that used just an allen key or two you would have to trade the ankle clearance and low q-factor. It's not that pricey at just under £60. If you think otherwise, perhaps you should try Sram or Shimano!


----------



## roadworthy

ultimobici said:


> Where do you get the idea square taper cranks, Campag or not, were awful?
> 
> As for the Rotor system being as versatile in its ability to be fitted to most BB systems, that is not in doubt. However it has a much wider measurement across the axle than any of Campagnolo's offerings, which if you need ankle clearance is a distinct disadvantage.
> 
> As for the tool requirement, please! If you had a system that used just an allen key or two you would have to trade the ankle clearance and low q-factor. It's not that pricey at just under £60. If you think otherwise, perhaps you should try Sram or Shimano!


Fair counterpoints. So you are say that all top riders in the world that ride Rotor cranks...the crank of choice for Cervelo compromises ankle clearance?
Aside from your qualitative contribution...how about comparing some dimensions? You made your statement...now back it up with dimensions to see just how much ankle clearance is liberated with the new OverTorque crank. Would love to see this comparison....Rotor 3D+ versus OT.

As to square taper versus PT. I have been working and riding Campy for 30 years. I have worked on countless square taper and a few Power Torque. I always thought square taper was crap because of no hard stop and tolerance sensitivity of male and female taper fit which affected not only chain line but retention. In the contest of square taper, it was also low surface area that increased stress on the joint. The point is there is absolutely no reason for a press fit in spite of what Graeme wrote about increased backlash only with axial compression. Octalink is an unfair comparison. Reality is Campy's UT is a pure axial compression joint with their hirth joint. Not to completely bash Campy cranks...I own UltraTorque and it is one of the best cranks I have ever owned but I will not own own PT or OT moving forward. Most of the new BB/PF30 cranks in the industry rely on axial joint retention and they don't suffer an iota of backlash sensititivity.
And to Sram and Shimano, I personally believe new Force 22 is the best value crank on the market. I will further say, I believe new DA is the best crank on the planet period with the best NDS crankarm retention method plus mechanical preload. Yes Shimano does have to step up and address the pleathora of different BB's out and they are starting to and will more I believe and most are adaptable just fine with current DA...in fact much more so than UT ever was.

If/when Graeme wishes to participate it will be a good discussion I believe. At the end of the day the consumer has to decide what works best for them and the cost/benefit ratio of any product they purchase. Make no mistake why Campy has stepped away from the excellent hirth joint which both Lightening and Specialized use in their cranks..cost avoidance and profit. Substituting a tool-less Ultra Torque compression hirth joint with a tool required interference fit joint like PT or OT is in my judgement is a poor tradeoff and a step backward. You will have to decide how you feel about it. Funtionally the OT design in particular with hard shoulder I am sure is fine...just has needless complexity and cost including specialty tools required. I believe there is a precise metaphor between the Campy OT crank and their 11s chain which requires a specific chain tool. Most I know that ride 10 and 11s Campy run KMC chains with Missing Link (masterlink) or even Campy or DA chains with Missing link made by KMC to avoid this unnecessary cost and trouble. To me having a dedicated tool to service a Campy chain is poor judgement and needless cost and KMC created a better mousetrap. Again, you will have decide for yourself.


----------



## ultimobici

Overtorque doesn't free up ankle clearance, rather it preserves the clearance on what I find is one of the only external cup designs I can ride. I have pins & plates in my right ankle which catch on all Shimano & SRAM designs. Dura Ace 7410 & 7700 were the last Shimano design I could ride without placing my cleats so far apart I looked like I'd messed myself! SRAM GXP is even worse! 

As for ST systems, in almost 25 years in the business, pretty much every problem with the interface has been done to poor installation, zero maintenance or mismatched parts. If it is such a poor system why has it hung on for so long? It works, well. I'm not in any hurry to replace the Pmp ti axled set up I have on one bike. I keep toying with the idea of completing the Campag group but end up recognising it ain't broke!


----------



## ultimobici

Going back to the use of Rotor's BB 4130 with Overtorque, what suggestions are there to accommodate electronic wiring?


----------



## roadworthy

ultimobici said:


> Going back to the use of Rotor's BB 4130 with Overtorque, what suggestions are there to accommodate electronic wiring?


Why do you believe that Rotor's BB + OT is different than other BB/cranks in the context of electronic wire routing?


----------



## roadworthy

ultimobici said:


> Overtorque doesn't free up ankle clearance, rather it preserves the clearance on what I find is one of the only external cup designs I can ride. I have pins & plates in my right ankle which catch on all Shimano & SRAM designs. Dura Ace 7410 & 7700 were the last Shimano design I could ride without placing my cleats so far apart I looked like I'd messed myself! SRAM GXP is even worse!
> 
> As for ST systems, in almost 25 years in the business, pretty much every problem with the interface has been done to poor installation, zero maintenance or mismatched parts. If it is such a poor system why has it hung on for so long? It works, well. I'm not in any hurry to replace the Pmp ti axled set up I have on one bike. I keep toying with the idea of completing the Campag group but end up recognising it ain't broke!


You maybe riding the wrong frame + crank if an optimized Q-factor is your top priority.
It isn't realistic to expect ANY longer spindle crank be it DA, UltraTorque External threaded or Campy OT or even Rotor 3D+ to rival BB30 specific cranks with more narrow 68mm shell width and related low Q-factors. Pretty safe to say you are a bit of an outliar with your medical condition.


----------



## ultimobici

roadworthy said:


> Why do you believe that Rotor's BB + OT is different than other BB/cranks in the context of electronic wire routing?


Campagnolo provide a slotted sleeve that protects the cables from the axle. Rotor don't mention one on their instructions. As I have a frame that has a bb86 shell I have to be creative.


----------



## roadworthy

ultimobici said:


> Campagnolo provide a slotted sleeve that protects the cables from the axle. Rotor don't mention one on their instructions. As I have a frame that has a bb86 shell I have to be creative.


You didn't mention what frameset you have. I will tell you what I would do personally.
Many manufacturers have community forums for their specific framesets like this forum. For example RBR has one for Specialized bikes. I in fact started a thread on Di2 wiring schemes for Specialized bikes which revealed an abundance of wiring options around the BB. I would start by seeking a forum for your bike and postithere.
Second thing I would do is email Rotor and ask them if they have a sleeve to prevent wire interference with that specific BB. They may have something to act as a shield. You could probably fashion your own shield as well but that would be a fall back to finding something off the shelf designed for the task.

Good luck.


----------



## ultimobici

Frame is a Deanima, so no forum! I'll speak to the builder to see if anything can be incorporated to hold the cabling in place thus obviating the need for a sleeve. 

As for my ankle it's not that bad. UT is perfect as are the Pmp cranks. Their designs allow a more natural cleat position which most external cup systems don't. Funnily one of the worst is Cannondale's Hollowgram as it has almost straight arms.


----------



## bikerjulio

roadworthy said:


> You maybe riding the wrong frame + crank if an optimized Q-factor is your top priority.
> It isn't realistic to expect ANY longer spindle crank be it DA, UltraTorque External threaded or Campy OT or even Rotor 3D+ to rival BB30 specific cranks with more narrow 68mm shell width and related low Q-factors. Pretty safe to say you are a bit of an outliar with your medical condition.


It's a common mistake to think that BB width is related to Q factor. It isn't. 

Q factors are pretty constant across the range of BB types. Check SRAM as an example where their BB30 and GXP cranks have identical Q factors. Campy has held a consistent Q factor since the days of C Record.

Q factor is limited by requiring clearance from the crank to the chainstay, and also by requiring heel clearance at the back of the stroke.

What @Ulti is referring to is heel clearance to the crank at the front of the stroke, which *IS* affected by BB width and crank design.


----------



## ultimobici

Exactly


----------



## roadworthy

bikerjulio said:


> It's a common mistake to think that BB width is related to Q factor. It isn't.
> 
> Q factors are pretty constant across the range of BB types. Check SRAM as an example where their BB30 and GXP cranks have identical Q factors. Campy has held a consistent Q factor since the days of C Record.
> 
> Q factor is limited by requiring clearance from the crank to the chainstay, and also by requiring heel clearance at the back of the stroke.
> 
> What @Ulti is referring to is heel clearance to the crank at the front of the stroke, which *IS* affected by BB width and crank design.


Good points. Thinking about this thread while out on my morning ride on bike with UltraTorque crank, I was looking down and watching my shoe clearance for 360 degrees of crank rotation and without question as you write, ankle clearance is affected by crank spindle length...has to be. To be clear, Ultimobic would be better served with a BB30 specific frame, short spindle crank and bearings inside a 68mm shell as I wrote earlier. Not an issue with me on my long spindle UT crank but I suppose for some it maybe like ultimobic.

Also Ultimobic...since you are no doubt trying to balance the two issues...Q-factor and clearance to the center of your crank with ankle as discussed, Speedplay (what I ride) offers longer than stock length pedal spindles which will space the foot farther from the crank arm including farther away from the crank center as well independent of spindle length. This may not comport with your desire to minimize Q-factor however but would address your ankle clearance issue to the center of crank spider.


----------



## ultimobici

Thanks, but neither Q-factor nor ankle clearance are an issue with UT. My point was that other cranks like Sram GXP and Shimano HT2 are. While I was on Sram I got round it by using Extralite QRC cranks which are heavily profiled like older Dura Ace 7410 and Record alloy cranks.

I keep meaning to measure the OT setup but never seem to have the time to do so when we build a bike with them at work. Mind you, it's becoming more and more common to fit them to the bb30 frames we sell so I'll get round to it soon enough.

Speedplays aren't for me though. Tried them many years ago and absolutely hated the way they deliver float. Time/Mavic all the way for me for the last 10 years with zero issues. Plus they're waaaaaay lighter than Speedplay!


----------



## roadworthy

ultimobici said:


> Thanks, but neither Q-factor nor ankle clearance are an issue with UT. My point was that other cranks like Sram GXP and Shimano HT2 are. While I was on Sram I got round it by using Extralite QRC cranks which are heavily profiled like older Dura Ace 7410 and Record alloy cranks.
> 
> I keep meaning to measure the OT setup but never seem to have the time to do so when we build a bike with them at work. Mind you, it's becoming more and more common to fit them to the bb30 frames we sell so I'll get round to it soon enough.
> 
> Speedplays aren't for me though. Tried them many years ago and absolutely hated the way they deliver float. Time/Mavic all the way for me for the last 10 years with zero issues. Plus they're waaaaaay lighter than Speedplay!


More and more common to fit UT to BB30 frames? Is that what you are saying?


----------



## ultimobici

roadworthy said:


> More and more common to fit UT to BB30 frames? Is that what you are saying?


No, more common to fit OT cranks to BB30 frames.


----------



## roadworthy

ultimobici said:


> No, more common to fit OT cranks to BB30 frames.


Makes more sense.
My opinion is..UT is very viable with the proposed BB from Praxis if they release it. I would consider keeping my UT crank versus switching to OT for BB30 if Praxis releases their new BB style to support UT.
It will be interesting to see how long Campy keep UT with hirth joint around since the new OT crank is a 'jack of all trades' crank with approx. same spindle length as UT. My personal view is...its a shame that the hirth joint wasn't retained for OT because it averts any need...or perception there is a need by Campy that a press fit is best for either PT or OT. Two words...cost avoidance....maybe a patent cost in there as well. Hirth joint >> press fit spline.


----------



## gfk_velo

1Butcher said:


> Google searched and found this.
> 
> Velotech Cycling Ltd - Velotech Industry standard training and Campagnolo Approved Service Centre (UK)
> 
> and this,
> 
> Campagnolo - Velotech Cycling Ltd - Weldtech Industry standard training and Campagnolo Approved Service Centre (UK)


Thanks 1Butcher - saved me a post (sort of ...)

I have Google Alerts set up for Campagnolo and Campag and so am a member of hordes of fora and can never remember which ones have a sig strip & which don't, and if I have created a sig strip in those that do 

To expand just a wee bit - I am not a trained engineer (my degree is in Life Sciences) but I have spent over 35 years in the company of mechanics and engineers and quite a lot of information has rubbed off - in addition, I am a typical Virgo (with a passion for detail and accuracy in all things) so always want to know "why" ...

At Velotech, we are fortunate to be sufficiently highly regarded by Campagnolo to be viewed as members of the Campagnolo "family" of Service Centres and are senior in that role in the UK. 

I have been working with Campagnolo & have been known to the factory, since 1984 so have seen a lot of change, not all of it good, in their offerings to the market & for sure they often take a slightly left-field approach ... but, with notable exceptions, it's true ... when the "why" question comes up, they have a good answer - it may not be one that every manufacturer agrees with, but they have a response which is generally reasoned and considered ...

Always up for a good techie discussion, so long as I can find (make) time to post


----------



## gfk_velo

Just for a little more (belated) detail, I am head tech and owner at Velotech Cycling Ltd, refs as above in 1Butcher's post (thanks!), I have worked with Campag since spannering for my first pro team in 1980 (Falcon Campagnolo) although I have worked and continue to work on all of the "oppositions" product as well.

Velotech are one of only two independent companies worldwide that are fully supported by the Campagnolo factory and able to offer factory-accredited training - the other one is ICC in the Benelux. All dealer training in Campagnolo's other main markets is done by the regional branches of Campagnolo.

We are in this fortunate position because we have *history*, they know that we have worked closely with them for a long time, they know that if come up against a problem, we don't guess but go to the factory in order to get first hand information and in the course of always wanting to know not just the "how" but also, where they can tell us, the "why", we have maintained a very close relationship with the technical guys at the factory, visiting on average 6 times a year to update ourselves face-to-face with the technical staff there and try and offer what insight we can from the UK market experience at a technical level (we don't have any involvement with the commercial side).

On Press fit BBs, you have to be careful on the issue of Loctite - some frame brands specifically recommend against it and you then have the tension between what the BB makers recommend and what the frame brand recommends. Campagnolo recommended Loctite for their PF BB cups and we have had instances at the SC where the frame manufacturers told us we were wrong ...

Rotor use a self extractor in the RH crank, if I recall correctly - Campag don't have enough depth & can't get enough depth whilst maintaining ankle clearance and Q-factor the same as all the other Campag cranks, in addition to hitting their weight parameters. The tooling is seen as a justifiable cost at this level of product.

I think I actually came down in favour of square taper BTW - it is a better proposition in some applications like track and trials because of it's built in resistance to backlash. The downside is that the crank can migrate "up" the taper with repeated removals and re-fittings and tolerances in manufacture to get consistent placement of the crank relative to the frame have to be kept very, very tight. This is bad news at OE, as to do this is relatively expensive and if you can't do it accurately, it means that FDs can't be supplied pre-adjusted for assembly-line production..This becomes possible with Octalink and other related designs where the chainline is fixed to all intent and purpose.

If we look at how we got to where we are now in terms of crank and BB design, passing through square taper (ignoring cottered designs and oddball designs that cropped up on the way to the adoption of square taper), Octalink & related, HollowTech 2, then BB30 and relate that back to where we'd be with 20/20 hindsight, I think as an industry we might have engineered a multi-lobe crank to BB axle interface like Hollowgram, on an alloy BB30 style axle with threaded cups in a bigger diameter threaded BB assembly, with cartridge bearings running in alloy cups - that would still in some ways be *my* ideal solution as it would also work well for track & trials. 

The downside with such a solution is it means a threaded insert in a carbon frame which is a costly interface to make well. The current systems such as BB30 PF and BB386 that dispose of the need for threads and an alloy shell into which to press fit the bearings has gained a lot of traction largely because it is pretty cheap to make and reduces the headline weight of the frame (although not necessarily the weight of the complete frame / crankset assemby).


----------



## CheapSkate

Graeme, very interesting posts, thanks. You touch on something which we users rarely mention:- cost to the frame manufacturer and the assembly line. The pre-adjusted FD thing had never occurred to me before, but it makes sense it probably takes a few minutes off the line.

And the BB shell insert thing is vital, reliably bonding that Al insert into a CFRP frame I bet is a substantial part of the whole frame manufacture cost. And it adds 50 g or whatever. 

Like it or not, the frame manufacturers are chasing $ and grams and we suckers have to make the best we can of it (and so does Campag I guess).

CheapSkate [still riding square taper and loving it... ]


----------



## roadworthy

gfk_velo said:


> Just for a little more (belated) detail, I am head tech and owner at Velotech Cycling Ltd, refs as above in 1Butcher's post (thanks!), I have worked with Campag since spannering for my first pro team in 1980 (Falcon Campagnolo) although I have worked and continue to work on all of the "oppositions" product as well.
> 
> Velotech are one of only two independent companies worldwide that are fully supported by the Campagnolo factory and able to offer factory-accredited training - the other one is ICC in the Benelux. All dealer training in Campagnolo's other main markets is done by the regional branches of Campagnolo.
> 
> We are in this fortunate position because we have *history*, they know that we have worked closely with them for a long time, they know that if come up against a problem, we don't guess but go to the factory in order to get first hand information and in the course of always wanting to know not just the "how" but also, where they can tell us, the "why", we have maintained a very close relationship with the technical guys at the factory, visiting on average 6 times a year to update ourselves face-to-face with the technical staff there and try and offer what insight we can from the UK market experience at a technical level (we don't have any involvement with the commercial side).
> 
> On Press fit BBs, you have to be careful on the issue of Loctite - some frame brands specifically recommend against it and you then have the tension between what the BB makers recommend and what the frame brand recommends. Campagnolo recommended Loctite for their PF BB cups and we have had instances at the SC where the frame manufacturers told us we were wrong ...
> 
> Rotor use a self extractor in the RH crank, if I recall correctly - Campag don't have enough depth & can't get enough depth whilst maintaining ankle clearance and Q-factor the same as all the other Campag cranks, in addition to hitting their weight parameters. The tooling is seen as a justifiable cost at this level of product.
> 
> I think I actually came down in favour of square taper BTW - it is a better proposition in some applications like track and trials because of it's built in resistance to backlash. The downside is that the crank can migrate "up" the taper with repeated removals and re-fittings and tolerances in manufacture to get consistent placement of the crank relative to the frame have to be kept very, very tight. This is bad news at OE, as to do this is relatively expensive and if you can't do it accurately, it means that FDs can't be supplied pre-adjusted for assembly-line production..This becomes possible with Octalink and other related designs where the chainline is fixed to all intent and purpose.
> 
> If we look at how we got to where we are now in terms of crank and BB design, passing through square taper (ignoring cottered designs and oddball designs that cropped up on the way to the adoption of square taper), Octalink & related, HollowTech 2, then BB30 and relate that back to where we'd be with 20/20 hindsight, I think as an industry we might have engineered a multi-lobe crank to BB axle interface like Hollowgram, on an alloy BB30 style axle with threaded cups in a bigger diameter threaded BB assembly, with cartridge bearings running in alloy cups - that would still in some ways be *my* ideal solution as it would also work well for track & trials.
> 
> The downside with such a solution is it means a threaded insert in a carbon frame which is a costly interface to make well. The current systems such as BB30 PF and BB386 that dispose of the need for threads and an alloy shell into which to press fit the bearings has gained a lot of traction largely because it is pretty cheap to make and reduces the headline weight of the frame (although not necessarily the weight of the complete frame / crankset assemby).


Funny really when I read your take Graeme. Unlike you, I have a design viewpoint. I am the guy who designs stuff like this. Honestly, I couldn't disagree with you more...just about everything you write. 

I will give you an example. In the universe of crank designs, if you compared say current Campy Record UltraTorque to OverTorque and then back to 2015 Campy 4 arm crank with hirth joint aka UltraTorque, you couldn't have a more divergent crank design...radically different. This isn't a case of being just different, one is better than the other for a number of reasons. So first you have to separate the crank from the BB for discussion purposes. To me, like PowerTorque, new OverTorque sucks. You may like a press fit at a left crank arm requiring a special tool and press but I sure don't because its needless. Enter Campy's hirth joint. Unclear who invented it first...perhaps Campy bought the patent rights from Lightening...unclear...and even Specialized adapted the hirth joint with their housebrand crank, but short of Shimano's excellent straight spline dual bolt design with mechanical preload, the hirth joint is the best design on the market. What's the worst? PowerTorque and OverTorque. Same company. Fortunately, Campy had the vision to keep their hirth joint in 2015 and not go to a stupid press fit NDS crank arm to spindle.

As to BB's, they continue to evolve. You need to be more specific about your general comment about Loctite as it is much more nuanced. There is both alloy cup a la BB30 and then Acytel bushing PF30 style designs out there. Acytel doesn't have the same compatibility with Loctite as BB30 does or similar wider shell alloy cupped integrated frames. In fact, Specialized who just abandoned their narrow version of PF30 in 2015 on their flagship S-works bikes continually morphed installation practice...latest being to use Epoxy between hard carbon shell and Delrin bushings....not Loctite.
After all their effort, they decided PF30 was more trouble than it was worth and most of their road bikes now are BB30.

So with all of this, the devil is in the details and some companies like Praxis really get it. They figured out how solve the riddle of BB30 which is...how can we develop a BB that connects both bearings across the BB to fortify the stability of the bearings however to not be invasive i.e. have simple serviceability?
Best product of the year? Praxis BB developed for Campy UT that makes BB30 plug and play. Here-to-fore because of Campy's UT design with pressed on bearings, no crank in the industry adapted more poorly to BB30 than Campy UT with press in cups with bearings outside the press trying to pry them loose from the BB shell. This has completely changed with the Praxis new BB. No Loctite and Campy UT bearings can be used and rock solid. Kudos to Praxis for solving this riddle and for Campy for maintaining a hirth joint for their new 2015 Record/Chorus crank in spite of the OT and PT sideshow.


----------



## 1Butcher

The hirth joint was invented by a man named Albert Hirth. So that leaves Campy and Lightning out of the question of who invented it.

As for Specialized and Lightning Cranks, I'm certain [but could be wrong] that Specialized bought the license from Lightning. From the pictures on Lightning's website, it appears that they do not use Hirth joint anyway. Something similar, but not the same. Specialized does use a hirth joint.

As for who came first, Lightning. Campy second

I do not think that Graeme should have to expand on when it is ok to use Loctite. If a frame manufacturer says not to and the crank manufacturer says it is ok to use, I would say you go the wrong crank for your frame. Try consulting with the manufacturer so not to have a warranty issue later in life.

One thing for certain, the less you add to your frame the less it will weigh. I'm certain this and the cost of making the frame has the most to do about the BB30/PF30 design. Marketing comes up with the way we all feel special about the design.

The cost of making a hirth joint is a lot, much more than other designs. Maybe because Campy would like to tap into the OEM side of the bike market, that is why the other designs. The cost of the hirth joint is just too much money push the OEM path and most likely that is why the cheaper PT version. 

Campy is a company that has a different business practice, much more different that most. I like that they want to keep things in house and that it is not the amount of what they make, but the quality. Like a lot of companies, not every product they make is a home run. Most new products attempt to solve a problem, maybe a problem you do not think is a problem and maybe an answer that you think is off the mark. We do not have the privy of all the reasons why and the technical hurdles they have to jump through. One thing for certain, I think the amount of engineers they have on staff and the think tank at their disposal, is slightly greater than the amount of engineers that post on this thread. 

I really honestly feel that if you choose not to by a product because you do not want to buy a tool is a weird reason. But, as a mechanic by trade, there is nothing wrong with buying a tool. Especially when it allows me to work on my own stuff.


----------



## roadworthy

1Butcher said:


> The hirth joint was invented by a man named Albert Hirth. So that leaves Campy and Lightning out of the question of who invented it.
> 
> As for Specialized and Lightning Cranks, I'm certain [but could be wrong] that Specialized bought the license from Lightning. From the pictures on Lightning's website, it appears that they do not use Hirth joint anyway. Something similar, but not the same. Specialized does use a hirth joint.
> 
> As for who came first, Lightning. Campy second
> 
> I do not think that Graeme should have to expand on when it is ok to use Loctite. If a frame manufacturer says not to and the crank manufacturer says it is ok to use, I would say you go the wrong crank for your frame. Try consulting with the manufacturer so not to have a warranty issue later in life.
> 
> One thing for certain, the less you add to your frame the less it will weigh. I'm certain this and the cost of making the frame has the most to do about the BB30/PF30 design. Marketing comes up with the way we all feel special about the design.
> 
> The cost of making a hirth joint is a lot, much more than other designs. Maybe because Campy would like to tap into the OEM side of the bike market, that is why the other designs. The cost of the hirth joint is just too much money push the OEM path and most likely that is why the cheaper PT version.
> 
> Campy is a company that has a different business practice, much more different that most. I like that they want to keep things in house and that it is not the amount of what they make, but the quality. Like a lot of companies, not every product they make is a home run. Most new products attempt to solve a problem, maybe a problem you do not think is a problem and maybe an answer that you think is off the mark. We do not have the privy of all the reasons why and the technical hurdles they have to jump through. One thing for certain, I think the amount of engineers they have on staff and the think tank at their disposal, is slightly greater than the amount of engineers that post on this thread.
> 
> I really honestly feel that if you choose not to by a product because you do not want to buy a tool is a weird reason. But, as a mechanic by trade, there is nothing wrong with buying a tool. Especially when it allows me to work on my own stuff.


Actually the Hirth joint was invented by Tullio Hirth Campagnolo...not Albert Hirth. Really Butcher? Campy didn't invent the Hirth joint? That is quite a revelation. Tullio didn't invent the bicycle either I understand but maybe history needs to be rewritten on RBR.

As to Campy having more engineers on staff versus those available here to critique their designs..more comedy. You meant Campy doesn't have 1/2 an engineer on staff? Maybe that is the cost savings offset against the Hirth joint invented by Campy to contain costs and explains the gross disparity in design among Campy's crank product line...and yes PT and OT are designed mostly for cost avoidance compared to UT.

Your last comment is the crown jewel....as follows: "Marketing comes up with the way we all feel special about the design." 
Maybe how you feel about a given design...or the masses that don't have critical thinking skills...but not guys who can look at the design and understand the considerations of not only choices but manufacturing options.


----------



## 1Butcher

Hey, I was just correcting the statement made by you... 'Enter Campy's hirth joint. Unclear who invented it first...perhaps Campy bought the patent rights from Lightening'.
And to make it clear that Lightning does not use a Hirth Joint [also indicated by you]. 

Just clarifying that is all.

The reason for marketing is to get people to buy their product. Yes, there are many that can read between the lines. Yes, I believe you have the ability to read between the lines too. I also believe you know a good design and a bad one. The thing I believe you forget about, is the design goals they have to accomplish. I believe the only ones that know the design goals are sitting at the board table. That leaves both of us out. Not knowing those parameters, it is hard for me to criticize their answer to a problem. You on the other side seem to criticize most designs base on strictly the design and not the cost, cost of manufacturing, market, etc. Maybe I'm wrong [cause I usually am].

It just seems like you give little credit to those that are doing their job. It seems like you can always to it better than the other 99% of the engineers. You could be one of those extremely gifted individuals and if you are, it has been a pleasure reading your ramblings. I just believe you are gifted in engineering but lack in showing appreciation to other peoples talents. It's a shame. But on the other hand, I have read your recent comments and they are less combative. I and I'm certain others appreciate that, since many of us believe you have a lot of good thought provoking comments.


----------



## roadworthy

1Butcher said:


> Hey, I was just correcting the statement made by you... 'Enter Campy's hirth joint. Unclear who invented it first...perhaps Campy bought the patent rights from Lightening'.
> And to make it clear that Lightning does not use a Hirth Joint [also indicated by you].
> 
> Just clarifying that is all.
> 
> The reason for marketing is to get people to buy their product. Yes, there are many that can read between the lines. Yes, I believe you have the ability to read between the lines too. I also believe you know a good design and a bad one. The thing I believe you forget about, is the design goals they have to accomplish.* I believe the only ones that know the design goals are sitting at the board table*. That leaves both of us out. Not knowing those parameters, it is hard for me to criticize their answer to a problem. You on the other side seem to criticize most designs base on strictly the design and not the cost, cost of manufacturing, market, etc. Maybe I'm wrong [cause I usually am].
> 
> It just seems like you give little credit to those that are doing their job. It seems like you can always to it better than the other 99% of the engineers. You could be one of those extremely gifted individuals and if you are, it has been a pleasure reading your ramblings. I just believe you are gifted in engineering but lack in showing appreciation to other peoples talents. It's a shame. But on the other hand, I have read your recent comments and they are less combative. I and I'm certain others appreciate that, since many of us believe you have a lot of good thought provoking comments.


You don't know my background because I have been a bit guarded about it. But in bold...I have sat in the board room for 30 years. There isn't much I haven't seen from an engineering standpoint. Actually, bike stuff which I am interested in is in many ways quite elementary....especially cranks and BB's that so many struggle with. Will give you an example. Let's say Campy has 300 engineers on staff. If you brought them all into a conference room and took a vote of whether PowerTorque after reviewing its value analysis and white paper should ever be released for production, 200 out of 300 would say no way. No engineers are not the same, nor do they always agree, in fact rarely. So yes, based upon my background, I am a bit arrogant in what I know. I can tell by looking at a given design what the tradeoffs are. I don't need to be told what the boundary conditions are. Remember...I am the guy who makes the DVP&R and DFMEA and creates the boundary conditions for a given design. Cynical? Look no further than Specialized, likely the most talented bike company in the world who had their version of PF30 on the market for several years and yet finally gave up on it. Why? Because it wasn't reliable. Case in point is they constantly changed their installation service manual to reflect a different procedure. They performed their design verification testing on their customers is the bottom line.

If you have never lived in this world and my sense is you haven't, you won't appreciate it. You also mentioned you many times for example you see design flaws and bring this to the attention of engineers. Absolutely. Guess what? Some of your suggestions may have even been considered at design inception but discarded because of cost. Serviceability is always the lowest priority in design in favor of cost effectiveness. That is the case with PowerTorque for example. So where do give the least credit? You alluded to it...when cost supersedes an effective design. This is the case with PowerTorque versus UltraTorque when PowerTorque turns out to be a false economy for the consumer and also in the name of marketing.


----------



## 1Butcher

Mercedes in the past seemed to have a cost as a low priority and they found if they did not raise it higher on the priority list, they would go out of business. The 92 S-Class is a perfect example. Due to the high cost of making that product they really took a hit on the bottom line. They had to change their way of thinking or go out of business. A couple of years later, they made the same S-Class and it was about $10k cheaper. How did they do this? Cost.

It is sad to say but maybe the best designs do not make it into the market because of the cost factor. But in order to stay in business, you must make cost a priority. Obviously you have to know your market, Ferrari is not going to make a $20k vehicle any time soon. Obviously Campy is loosing market share and maybe, just maybe, they will lower the cost of producing of a part to make it more appealing to the OEM market. If that is what they need to do in order for them to stay in business, then so be it. I would rather that they stay in business than go out or be sold on the stock market.

Yes, sometimes cost is a little to high on the list and a poor product comes out. That is where greed comes into play. It is a tough balance that all successful companies ponder about. Sometimes, you really do not know till it is out in the market. By the time you make a perfect product, it might be too late.

And yes, I have not lived in your shoes and if I have, I would probably be as arrogant as you are [mind you, those are your words describing yourself, not mine].


----------



## headloss

1Butcher said:


> It just seems like you give little credit to those that are doing their job. It seems like you can always to it better than the other 99% of the engineers. You could be one of those extremely gifted individuals and if you are, it has been a pleasure reading your ramblings. I just believe you are gifted in engineering but lack in showing appreciation to other peoples talents. It's a shame. But on the other hand, I have read your recent comments and they are less combative. I and I'm certain others appreciate that, since many of us believe you have a lot of good thought provoking comments.


You are clearly not an engineer... or else, you'd know that engineers (all engineers, regardless of employer) are angry and disgruntle towards the executives and marketing dweebs that always make the wrong decisions in the end. The life of an engineer is a lonely one.

Don't mistake roadworthy's rants as being directed against the designers over at Campy... we all think that they most likely know what they are doing. The problem comes with the executives and marketing team that makes the dumb decisions on what to release to the public for purchase... that has nothing to do with design or engineering skills... it has everything to do with bean-counting and a (flawed) attempt at predicting what the consumers will demand. 

I'm sure the engineers have better designs, that they aren't allowed to pursue... the criticism is directed at the company, not the engineers.


----------



## goodboyr

A company that prioritizes marketing and bean counting over engineering and true technical advances is not such a great company, is it? I feel the same way about trek. At one time when they came out with the original all carbon oclv frame they had the right "soul". Nowadays they are claiming lightest bike " line" merely by equipping a frame with ultra light components not of their own design or brand. They claims aero advances by putting out data that had their bike with aero wheels and all the competitors with standard wheels. I guess thats what happens in a competitive market and an uninformed consumer.


----------



## gfk_velo

headloss said:


> You are clearly not an engineer... or else, you'd know that engineers (all engineers, regardless of employer) are angry and disgruntle towards the executives and marketing dweebs that always make the wrong decisions in the end. The life of an engineer is a lonely one.
> 
> Don't mistake roadworthy's rants as being directed against the designers over at Campy... we all think that they most likely know what they are doing. The problem comes with the executives and marketing team that makes the dumb decisions on what to release to the public for purchase... that has nothing to do with design or engineering skills... it has everything to do with bean-counting and a (flawed) attempt at predicting what the consumers will demand.
> 
> I'm sure the engineers have better designs, that they aren't allowed to pursue... the criticism is directed at the company, not the engineers.


There is an old saw that it might be handy to interject at this point - Arguing with an engineer is a bit like wrestling a pig in mud - after a couple of hours or so, you give up, because you finally realise that the pig *likes* it ...

Production engineering is ALL about the cost related to the quality and the functionality - any company with a good engineering staff could produce products that function perfectly within their design parameters, have a less than 1ppm fail rate and would satisfy the most demanding engineer ... but they'd never bring them to market and if they did, no-one would be able to afford them.

So we have to look at the design parameters, decide what we want, decide what the market will stand in terms of cost, decide what sort of obsolescence period we want and then see how the engineering argument (if any) can be presented in a way that the majority of customers can understand or will buy into.

The Hirth joint, I can tell you quite categorically, has not been abandoned by Campagnolo - it is used on all the new 2015 cranks - some of which are at a lower price point that OT - so negating the pure "Cost over functionality" argument.

Could Campagnolo have built the OT design with a Hirth joint? Undoubtedly. Is the Hirth joint a suitable technology? Clearly. Why not use it? Because to fulfil all of the design parameters, the splined design was a better overall solution in Campagnolo's eyes.

On the subject of square taper and backlash, I'll take the evidence of my own eyes and the opinion of engineers of the quality of Jobst Brandt any day - I don't always agree with Jobst but on backlash and square taper he is spot on - if you want to try a wee experiemnt in "real" engineering, take a splined crank, put it on a track bike and subject it to alternating directional loads. Try the same thing on a trials bike if track isn't your thing. Then take a splined joint with side-loaded splines (like HT2) and do the same thing. Then do that with an average consumer of even the average bike shop mechanic looking after it. Then see which one develops play on the axle first. I leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

I'm a bit unusual - I am a life sciences graduate that has spent 35 years with grease under my fingernails looking at engineers solutions to problems and thinking "well, you never had to work with this practically, did you" ... I can sit in a meeting with production engineers and yes, I am arrogant enough about my skills and opinions to state that I don't say much in those meetings but when I do, people listen. I do that at Campagnolo and at other companies in the cycle industry as Velotech has a wider purview than only the work that we do with Campagnolo. I am not a trained engineer (whatever that is) but I am someone who can read a book, listen to an opinion or two, think things through and develop a robust position based in experience as well as theory.

Practically every item made is flawed in some way or another. In the context of the current conversation, OT, UT, PT, HT2, GPX and so on all have upsides and downsides, all have good and bad design features - that is in the nature of design and engineering.

Do I think that given the parameters that Campagnolo designed OT to suit, they did a good job? Yes I do. Could they have done a better job, hit thos parameters and made it at the same overall cost? No I don't think so. They wanted to hit:

A specified weight.
A specified rigidity in resistance to torque.
A specified Q factor (eventually the cycle trade will realise this is a misuse of the term, but that's a whole other thread ...)
A specific ankle clearance.
A robust solution for a fairly awful way of fixing a bearing into a frame.
A specific appearance.
A cost base in R and D, production and marketing that would allow them to bring a solution to the market and sell enough of it to make it worth the effort.

This they did.

But of course, as another engineer once said: "TIAMTOWTDI" ... I'll leave the mud wrestlers out there to figure out the acronym ...

All the best, all - and remember - it's only a bicycle ... 
G


----------



## roadworthy

gfk_velo said:


> There is an old saw that it might be handy to interject at this point - *Arguing with an engineer is a bit like wrestling a pig in mud *- after a couple of hours or so, you give up, because you finally realise that the pig *likes* it ...
> 
> Production engineering is ALL about the cost related to the quality and the functionality - any company with a good engineering staff could produce products that function perfectly within their design parameters, have a less than 1ppm fail rate and would satisfy the most demanding engineer ... but they'd never bring them to market and if they did, no-one would be able to afford them.
> 
> So we have to look at the design parameters, decide what we want, decide what the market will stand in terms of cost, decide what sort of obsolescence period we want and then see how the engineering argument (if any) can be presented in a way that the majority of customers can understand or will buy into.
> 
> The Hirth joint, I can tell you quite categorically, has not been abandoned by Campagnolo - it is used on all the new 2015 cranks - some of which are at a lower price point that OT - so negating the pure "Cost over functionality" argument.
> 
> *Could Campagnolo have built the OT design with a Hirth joint? Undoubtedly. Is the Hirth joint a suitable technology? Clearly. Why not use it? Because to fulfil all of the design parameters, the splined design was a better overall solution in Campagnolo's eyes.
> 
> *On the subject of square taper and backlash, I'll take the evidence of my own eyes and the opinion of engineers of the quality of Jobst Brandt any day - I don't always agree with Jobst but on backlash and square taper he is spot on - if you want to try a wee experiemnt in "real" engineering, take a splined crank, put it on a track bike and subject it to alternating directional loads. Try the same thing on a trials bike if track isn't your thing. Then take a splined joint with side-loaded splines (like HT2) and do the same thing. Then do that with an average consumer of even the average bike shop mechanic looking after it. Then see which one develops play on the axle first. I leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.
> 
> I'm a bit unusual - I am a life sciences graduate that has spent 35 years with grease under my fingernails looking at engineers solutions to problems and thinking "well, you never had to work with this practically, did you" ... I can sit in a meeting with production engineers and yes, I am arrogant enough about my skills and opinions to state that I don't say much in those meetings but when I do, people listen. I do that at Campagnolo and at other companies in the cycle industry as Velotech has a wider purview than only the work that we do with Campagnolo. I am not a trained engineer (whatever that is) but I am someone who can read a book, listen to an opinion or two, think things through and develop a robust position based in experience as well as theory.
> 
> Practically every item made is flawed in some way or another. In the context of the current conversation, OT, UT, PT, HT2, GPX and so on all have upsides and downsides, all have good and bad design features - that is in the nature of design and engineering.
> 
> Do I think that given the parameters that Campagnolo designed OT to suit, they did a good job? Yes I do. Could they have done a better job, hit thos parameters and made it at the same overall cost? No I don't think so. They wanted to hit:
> 
> A specified weight.
> A specified rigidity in resistance to torque.
> A specified Q factor (eventually the cycle trade will realise this is a misuse of the term, but that's a whole other thread ...)
> A specific ankle clearance.
> A robust solution for a fairly awful way of fixing a bearing into a frame.
> A specific appearance.
> A cost base in R and D, production and marketing that would allow them to bring a solution to the market and sell enough of it to make it worth the effort.
> 
> This they did.
> 
> But of course, as another engineer once said: "TIAMTOWTDI" ... I'll leave the mud wrestlers out there to figure out the acronym ...
> 
> All the best, all - and remember - it's only a bicycle ...
> G


You must be referring to yourself as the pig...lol. Or rather, you shouldn't be so self loathing...or maybe you should. 
Life sciences degree? Is that like a degree in botany or creative writing? 

But let's get the crux here...since based upon all your obvious blather, you finally stumbed on the crux of discussion, Hirth joint versus OverTorque crank arm to splined spindle interface.

Tell me why the Hirth joint couldn't have been executed for OverTorque with all the design/geometry boundary conditions you defined and why you believe the OverTorque NDS crankarm attachment is better than a hirth joint in the middle of the spindle as with UT for OverTorque specifically.


----------



## bikerjulio

roadworthy said:


> But let's get the crux here...since based upon all your obvious blather, you finally stumbed on the crux of discussion, Hirth joint versus OverTorque crank arm to splined spindle interface.
> 
> Tell me why the Hirth joint couldn't have been executed for OverTorque with all the design/geometry boundary conditions you defined and why you believe the OverTorque NDS crankarm attachment is better than a hirth joint in the middle of the spindle as with UT for OverTorque specifically.


Thinking from a cost perspective, I'm willing to bet that the extra cost of making a Hirth joint for OT (ie if OT had just been made as a fatter version of UT), would have been offset by not having to make that really complicated, 2-part adjustable spacer thingy, AND develop special tooling to install and remove things.

Perhaps Campy should run focus groups whenever a new idea strikes their engineers. I'll volunteer.


----------



## roadworthy

bikerjulio said:


> Thinking from a cost perspective, I'm willing to bet that the extra cost of making a Hirth joint for OT (ie if OT had just been made as a fatter version of UT), would have been offset by not having to make that really complicated, 2-part adjustable spacer thingy, AND develop special tooling to install and remove things.
> 
> Perhaps Campy should run focus groups whenever a new idea strikes their engineers. I'll volunteer.


Yeah. Design choices are 'interesting' aren't they? Whether comparing dramatically different OverTorque with all is complexity to the unparalleled simplicity and elegance of UT which Campy decided to maintain for their 2015 Record and Chorus in a fleeting moment of clarity. Wavewasher versus 2 part adjustable spacer...press fit spline versus rock solid simple hirth joint.

These decisions permeate all industries of course and look no further than Specialized. If you aren't a bike guy but have a technical background and compare Specialized version of narrow PF30 to BB30, it is pretty hard to reconcile the existence of both on Specialized highest level road bikes...for the simple reason that the designs couldn't be more divergent and therefore its obvious, one is functionally better than the other. And yet they co-existed until recently and now PF30 is gone for Speciailized. A decision was made that this market diversity was not worth the warranty cost of struggling to tame PF30. Any yet for other bike manufacturers, PF30 is alive and not so well. Decisions and many times this stuff is too nuanced for the consumer to understand until after he/she buys the product and has to live with the consequences.
This happens in every industry from BMW to Microsoft releasing product before its fully developed in a rush to market to carve out a technical niche in an effort to create market diversity and sell more product.


----------



## AMG_Roadster

I wanted to revisit this thread and see what new thoughts or insights people had on Over Torque vs. Ultra Torque setup. I am looking at a Wilier Zero.7 frame with the BB386.


----------



## teocl

I ran through 2 sets of 'USB' BB in 2.5yrs since installing Over Torque crankset on my Moots RSL. In both cases, the bearing ceased up. There's rust on the inner side of the bearing so water might have entered from inside the frame.

I decided to try Wheels Manufacturing PF30 Threaded Zero Ceramic BB. It has a threaded inner sleeve which will stop water from inside. And ceramic is more corrosion resistant. Big thank-you to Primo for sharing the work. Though the wave-washer approach works, I still prefer the concept of using the adjustable-ring to remove free play. So I sand down the curved washers (that came with the crank) by ~1mm each side. Everything fits well, and the adjustable-ring turns about 2 full rounds (probably about 1mm....) to take up the free play. Just got them installed, time will tell if this is a good approach.


----------

