# The Campagnolo Ultra-Torque "non-issue"...



## RogueMechanic

Hello again,

Well, I'm excited to be back here. It's been a while... For those of you that have experienced or are still experiencing noise and other issues related to their Campy Ultra-Torque bottom bracket/crankset (by the sheer volume of emails and comments that I have received over the past 12+ months, there's quite a few folks that are dealing with this...), I finally had the chance to publish a permanent fix/solution on my site. Additionally, I have a parts kit now available. Here's the link:

"Wavewasherectomy: The Ultra-Torque Fix"

Check it out if you are inclined and let me know if you have any questions.... and yes... that includes even you, C-40


----------



## smokva

RogueMechanic said:


> Hello again,
> 
> Well, I'm excited to be back here. It's been a while... For those of you that have experienced or are still experiencing noise and other issues related to their Campy Ultra-Torque bottom bracket/crankset (by the sheer volume of emails and comments that I have received over the past 12+ months, there's quite a few folks that are dealing with this...), I finally had the chance to publish a permanent fix/solution on my site. Additionally, I have a parts kit now available. Here's the link:
> 
> "Wavewasherectomy: The Ultra-Torque Fix"
> 
> Check it out if you are inclined and let me know if you have any questions.... and yes... that includes even you, C-40


Please explain how can there be side play in Ultra-Torque design if the retaining spring is properly installed.
My 2c...adding shims (untill bearing race touches BB cup) you only increase side load of the bearings which will have premature bearing failure as a result and risk poor hirth joint assembly.
Also...did you check BB facing on any of the frames you say are infected with the problem?


----------



## natedg200202

I have a few questions for RogueMechanic: 

How many people have you encountered that have this knocking problem? Just an order of magnitude; 5, 50, 500 people?

How many of bikes with the knocking sound problem have been cured using your shim product?

What is the most miles you have put on a bike with your shims to test it out? 

What drove the pricing of your shim kit? $40 for a few simple shims seems excessive.

Since you have posted this in two other locations that I know of, feel free to address these questions in the other threads (general RBR and WW). 

Thanks.


----------



## ti-triodes

I'm not sure, is this the only subject the OP concerns himself with around here, or is he the only one around here with this problem?



Isn't he the same guy C-40 pwned last year on this topic?


----------



## cs1

natedg200202 said:


> What drove the pricing of your shim kit? $40 for a few simple shims seems excessive.


Having been in the metal forming business years ago it's easy to see the cost. Typically washers are mass produced on a punch press. A die, depending on the press it's used on, can cost upwards of $50K. The washers are made by the millions at a cost of less than a penny. But they're not very precision or an exact thickness. I just don't think the demand for a Campy specific washer justifies spending that kind of money on tooling. So, you basically make them in small batches and have them precision ground to an exact thickness. He's listing 8 washers at $40 or $5 per washer. Figure out a profit margin and he's really not asking that much. You'd be surprised at how much they cost to make.


----------



## Pirx

ti-triodes said:


> I'm not sure, is this the only subject the OP concerns himself with around here, or is he the only one around here with this problem?


I don't know the answer to these questions, but the complete lack of any response by the OP, in any of his threads, does leave a bad taste.  Despite the OPs allegations, I cannot see any widespread reports of issues with Campy's UT cranksets which, after all, have been out for quite a few years. So, I fully agree with the OP's subject line, that this is a non-issue, without any quotes.


----------



## RogueMechanic

*Still here folks....*



Pirx said:


> I don't know the answer to these questions, but the complete lack of any response by the OP, in any of his threads, does leave a bad taste.  Despite the OPs allegations, I cannot see any widespread reports of issues with Campy's UT cranksets which, after all, have been out for quite a few years. So, I fully agree with the OP's subject line, that this is a non-issue, without any quotes.



Hello Pirx,
Apparently you have more time to spend here on this forum that I do. You will see my response soon enough.

Best regards,

John
www.roguemechanic.com


----------



## Pirx

RogueMechanic said:


> Hello Pirx,
> Apparently you have more time to spend here on this forum that I do.


That may be because I don't have to cruise up and down the internet to post my latest revelations of flaws in certain products... :devil: 



> You will see my response soon enough.


Looking forward to it.


----------



## Guest

cs1 said:


> Having been in the metal forming business years ago it's easy to see the cost. Typically washers are mass produced on a punch press. A die, depending on the press it's used on, can cost upwards of $50K. The washers are made by the millions at a cost of less than a penny. But they're not very precision or an exact thickness. I just don't think the demand for a Campy specific washer justifies spending that kind of money on tooling. So, you basically make them in small batches and have them precision ground to an exact thickness. He's listing 8 washers at $40 or $5 per washer. Figure out a profit margin and he's really not asking that much. You'd be surprised at how much they cost to make.


Natedg is correct, if you need BB spacers they can already be purchased at low cost, not that I'm agreeing with the use here in any way. If you "need" $40 worth of BB spacers you've got a problem and its not your crank.


----------



## sneyer

*Not taking any sides here...*

I haven't had any issues with my UT cranks, but for the heck of it read RM's instructions on his site. Pushing out the cup really reminded me of the way you had to install the old Magic Motorcycle cranks (bought by Cannondale/predecessor of the BB30), except the shims went behind the bearing where the wave washer on the UT cranks is. There is no reason this wouldn't work, but I would be careful b/c of the hearth joint. Installing the MM cranks was a total pain, but when installed properly the bearing felt ultra smooth.


----------



## tom_h

I vaguely recall last year's post by RogueMechanic; that was _before_ I had purchased any Campy stuff. Since then, I assembled my own Chorus 11 equipped bike, in April 2009.

I don't see what the fuss is about -- the Campy crankset works perfectly fine -- no play, no creaking, simply smooth reliable operation. I just followed the instructions and the various tips here at RBR.

I installed the BB cups using grease (not loctite method) and torqued cups to 35 N-m. I left intact, the Campy threadlock compound on the cup's threads.

I measured the width of the english BB shell at 4 locations, it was within spec :
Average 67.61 mm
Range 0.16 mm

Again, this seems much ado about nothing.


----------



## jpick915

I am truly curious about this issue.

The LBS that I frequent is the only Campy shop in the area and has probably installed hundreds of UT cranks since they were introduced and I am not aware of anyone who has experienced issues with this product, of course the shop does employ 2 of the best mechanics in the area, so that may be the reason that it is a non-issue at this given shop. (I ride or drink with both of the mechanics and the shop owner at minimum once a week, so if there was an issue, I am pretty sure that I would have heard about it.) 

I actually installed my own UT crankset, and I am by my own admission at best a novice wrench and I found the whole process quite simple and have been enjoying my UT crank problem free for 2 seasons now. 

Also, I do not recall anyone posting on this board concerning this issue, and considering some of the non-issue b**ch posts that I have seen on these forums born from sheer mechanical ignorance, I find that a bit telling. I mean, SRAM sift levers or brake calipers break you get a host of folks posting about that, R-SYS wheels self destruct it gets its own thread, someone posts about a click in their Time RXS pedals there are 20 additional posts with suggested remedies, etc., etc. It just seems like when there is an inherent or even a perceived problem with any component someone mentions it here and it is followed by a series of replies from folks who have experienced similar problems, but no one (other than RM) seems to have noticed this UT issue. It just seems wierd to me.


----------



## ericjacobsen3

Question for Rogue or anyone else: I understand the whole process described and don't contest the potential wear in some cases, but why do all the extra work of putting washers behind the cups and shell instead of a slightly smaller washer stack replacing the wavy washer? Is it just that at the cups you get a head start by being able to test the stack thickness in the gap created by the loosened cup? I would guess that extra time of cup removal using the last fine tuning with RM's process removing the cups would erase the head start of testing different stacks in the gap. Am I missing something (aside from wasting my time on a non-issue)?


----------



## C-40

*here are my thoughts...*

In the last year, I've read very few complaints about UT cranks on the five bike forums I look at daily. The number of e-mails you received merely shows how many inept mechanics are working on bikes. Campy's poor instructions for installing the BB cups are partly to blame, but so are poor practices, like not verifying the width and parallelism of the BB faces, or perhaps not even removing the paint from the faces. Users who have the UT cranks installed by a local shop are at the mercy of a mechanic who may not install the crank properly, so they have no idea how well the installation was performed. All they know is that a few months later they have problems.

There is a better solution for those who really believe that lateral movement is a problem. The lateral movement is limited by the space between the right side bearing and the spring clip in the right cup - it should be .5mm or less. Place enough shim into the right cup, behind the right side bearing outer race, to eliminate what little play there is between the retaining clip and right side bearing. Then the wavy washer can be installed as intended, there will be zero end play and the proper bearing preload. All that would be needed is a few .1mm shims. The process would also be much easier, since it would only require the right side of the crank to be placed into the cup a few times until there is too much shim to allow the clip to go into place. When that point is reached, remove one shim to insure a maximum .1mm of movement. The BB shell width range would have to include this additional shim material to insure that the bearing preload is not too great. 

Another solution would be to drill new holes for the retaining clip wires, but this would require a special drill jig or a precisely controlled drill/mill to perform this operation. Apparently Campy engineers think that the small gap they've left between the bearing and clip wire to be appropriate. 

Your solution is a very time consuming process to solve a problem that very few people have. I switched to the UT crank on all three of my bikes (now all 11 speed) and I've had no problems at all in the last 2 seasons. My bikes all work perfectly with no creaks or bearing problems.

With the thinnest shim at .1mm or .004 inch, the chances of achieving a proper bearing clearance are not very good. Campy intends for the bearing to have ZERO play with a constant preload, somewhere in the 20-60 pound range. If you're lucky, you might get the play down to .05mm, but it might be as large as .1mm, which is really sloppy. As a comparison, consider a typical wheel with cartridge bearings, like Mavics. The bearing play needs to be adjusted down to nearly zero, or perhaps zero with a small preload. If the bearing adjustment ring is loosened to produce even .05mm of clearance there will be a large amount of sideplay at the rim and the bearings will rattle. Riding the wheel with than much clearance will shorten the bearing life.

A well equipped mechanic would have a dial indicator setup to measure the end play and eliminate most of the repetitious work involved. In the end, you still have a crude adjustment process that would also need rechecking. The clearance would likely increase a bit with initial seating of the bearings and another shim might need to be added later.

I suspect that a lot of the knocking complaints come from ruined bearings caused by an initial improper installation, so installing new bearings and new cups is where most people with this problem should start, followed by a proper cup installation. The BB shell must be the proper width and the faces parallel. Grease the cup threads, torque to 35Nm and there should be no problems with the cups. Grease the cup ID and bearings ODs before installing the crank arms.

Campy's instructions for using loctite 222 are full of errors and undoubtedly led some people into the problems that they are having. Using loctite 222 as a substitute for proper cup facing is a bad idea.

The BB shell threads can also be misaligned, but there really is no cure for that problem, if it's severe enough to shorten bearing life.


----------



## wvucyclist

C-40,
I recently started getting "the knock" in my Ultra-torque Veloce crank. The frame was faced and chased before installation (I even own the tool). I did not measure the bb width, but I've put 1500 miles on it before this problem began. 
If I understand what you're saying, I still need shims, just on the right side, not left like RougeMechanic says? Are there any other sources for these shims besides from Rouge?


----------



## wvucyclist

Ok, back from measuring, my BB is at 67.43, measured at 2 different places, and it was faced, so I'm thinking its the same all around. There is 0.4mm of play in the crank. So, I should just need 0.4mm worth of shim in the right side, between the cup and the bearing?


----------



## C-40

*info...*



wvucyclist said:


> Ok, back from measuring, my BB is at 67.43, measured at 2 different places, and it was faced, so I'm thinking its the same all around. There is 0.4mm of play in the crank. So, I should just need 0.4mm worth of shim in the right side, between the cup and the bearing?



The specs call for a shell width of 67.2-68.8mm, to you're actually in spec, but on the low side. If you measurements are correct, then you could add a .5mm spacer under one of the bearing cups and be almost nominal, or a 1mm and be at the high side. Since you're already in spec, there really should be a light load on the wave washer and no freeplay. 

How did you measure this play that you are referring to? If it was done without the wave washer in place, all you were doing is measuring the clearance between the spring clip and right side bearing. That's got nothing to do with shell width. If you can find or make your own shim, a .4mm would be too thick. There has to be a little room to allow the spring clip to drop in. A .25-.3mm or .010 - .012 inch might work.

If you're having some sort of problem, I also advise people to check the cups of wear and replace them if more than minor interior scuffing is seen. If you have a proper internal bore gage, the ID could be check for size and wear. You need a dial indicator type with small tips that can measure variations in that short bore. For most folks, it would be easier to just replace the cups.

Don't so something stupid like Rogue did and try to make fixes when the bearings are shot to start with. I'd spend the money to replace the bearings before trying other futile fixes.


----------



## wvucyclist

The play was measured with the wavy washer in place. I'm really hoping that the cups/bearings aren't shot, as there are only about 1500 miles on the set. If that is the case, I might just give up on UT, I'm fairly light, and very gentle on my bikes. The bearings roll smooth, it just makes odd noises when pedaling.


----------



## cs1

kytyree said:


> Natedg is correct, if you need BB spacers they can already be purchased at low cost, not that I'm agreeing with the use here in any way. If you "need" $40 worth of BB spacers you've got a problem and its not your crank.


Natedg can't be correct. He didn't answer anything. All he did was ask questions. TBH most of the questions he asked were valid questions. But questions aren't answers last time I checked. Unless they're rhetorical questions. 

All I did was answer his question as to why custom made washers are expensive. I didn't say Rogue Mechanic was right or wrong.


----------



## wvucyclist

Since spacers/shims of that size appear to be hard to come by, stock, I was up late last night thinking of solutions. The fact that the play is quite lateral, with no detectable angular movement says to me that nothing is worn out, the problem lies with the excessive tolerance between the cup, bearing, and clip. Being how exact I would need a shim to be, and being too cheap to have one custom manufactured, I settled for an O ring. All is installed, and it appears to be an acceptable solution. So far, (no long ride yet) no noise, no play. Can anybody find fault with this solution? The O ring is between the cup and the bearing, the clip fits in just fine.


----------



## C-40

*thoughts...*

Something is wrong is there is any freeplay with the wave washer in place. You didn't provide enough info to convice me that you measured axial freeplay correctly. That requires a precision dial indicator setup, with the spindle pushed gently from left to right.

What size o-ring did you use? I would guess a 1/32 inch? It won't hurt a thing, but the o-ring must be of a diameter that insures contact only with the bearing's outer race. In other words, the ring must only be slightly smaller than the cup ID. If you have problems down the road, just start over with new bearings, new cups and at least a .5mm spacer under one of the cups.

I've had no problems at all with the UT crank. There are other sources of minor noise, like needing some lube around the chainring bolt areas, or just a shot of light oil at the cup and BB shell interface.


----------



## Fantino

wvucyclist said:


> The play was measured with the wavy washer in place. I'm really hoping that the cups/bearings aren't shot, as there are only about 1500 miles on the set. If that is the case, I might just give up on UT, I'm fairly light, and very gentle on my bikes. The bearings roll smooth, it just makes odd noises when pedaling.


If the crank bearings roll smooth but your getting an odd noise. . .make sure you rule out other possibilities like pedal bearings, seat rail noise, etc. Noise while pedaling can fool you. Would be a shame to tear into the UT if it's coming from somewhere else,


----------



## wvucyclist

Obviously something was wrong that there was freeplay. I am pretty sure I installed everything correctly. I did not use a dial indicator, as my vernier caliper is accurate to .01 mm. I measured between the crank and the downtube, then pulled the crank arm through the play, and measured again. It is a 1/32 o ring, and it fits around the perimeter of the cup, so I'm pretty sure it'll only contact the outer race. If I have problems down the road, I'm likely to ditch UT, as I expect to have at least 5x the number of miles trouble free out of a BB. I'm not wanting to replace my bb bearings more often than my chain.
Ideally, you will have seen/experienced this trouble to best be able to help people correct it. A .5mm spacer under one of the cups (between the cup and bb shell) will only help preload the wavy washer more, might work, if the O ring doesn't work I might try it.
A little background on myself, hopefully demonstrating I'm not a noob. I've worked at a shop for 8 years, throughout high school and college, and have a BSME, though it's a desk job, so no hands on experience from that. I work on my bikes enough to own some major frame tools like a bb face/chase, and head tube ream/facer. So, with this, though it's always possible, I'm pretty sure I did not install the crank incorrectly. I ran through the standard checklist for noise, including all interfaces, pedals, chainrings, rear wheel, ect.


----------



## ericjacobsen3

Was RogueMechanic reallly banned as it says under his name? I hope it wasn't for this Ultratorque issue. You might not agree with the guy but everyone has a right to an opinion.


----------



## C-40

*more...*

I've got my BSME too, back in 1981, when I was 28. I worked most of my career in manufacturing and precision measurement.

One thing the everyone overlooks is the possibility of a defective crank or cups. If the distance between the bearings is too large or a cup too thin, then excessive side play could be created.

Mechanics who don't understand precision measurement wouldn't even think if assembling the crank off the bike to measure the bearing spacing, or try to check the distance between the cup faces. If that sort of problem exists, that would be the cause of the premature bearing failure. That problem is not inherent to the design, it's the result of a manufacturing error. If all of the parts are made properly, the system works.

In one of my lengthy posts on this subject, I noted that I had measured the wavy washer and found it to be 3mm tall in it's free state and made of material that's .63mm thick. The wave washer must have some amount of compression and operate over a range of 1.6mm. The wave washer should also never be fully compressed. I'd say that the minimum space for the washer would be about .9mm and the maximum 2.5mm. If the free space
exceeds 2.5mm, then there would be little or no compression of the wave washer and the bearings would have no preload. I would put 1mm of shim behind the cups and try that.


----------



## wvucyclist

Well, I tried the O-ring thing, rode it pretty hard the other day, then again easy a couple days later, totaling about 100 miles. So far, so good, no noise. Effectively, it adds around 1mm, I say around because it's an O ring, and won't have a precise width as it's squishy. As I've said before, if it was defective parts, I'd be likely to ditch UT. The deal with replacing the bearings doesn't seem quite right, it's fixing the symptoms, not the problem.


----------



## lonefrontranger

C-40 said:


> There are other sources of minor noise, like needing some lube around the chainring bolt areas, or just a shot of light oil at the cup and BB shell interface.


this plus one billion. actually every single "bb noise" complaint I've investigated on my teammates' bikes and my own (being multiple renditions / combinations of Campag, SRAM and Shimano) has been caused by either chainring bolts or saddle rails.

Assuming the system is tight and there's no play in the bearings, most actual BB noises I've ever encountered (short of the famous mid 90's "shimano creak") are more grinding type noises related to grit / crap that's infiltrated the shell / bearing assembly from either riding in epic weather or pressure washing. 

New chainring bolts squeak like the dickens when they're dry / fresh from the factory and it can drive you nuts.


----------



## C-40

*backwards...*



wvucyclist said:


> Well, I tried the O-ring thing, rode it pretty hard the other day, then again easy a couple days later, totaling about 100 miles. So far, so good, no noise. Effectively, it adds around 1mm, I say around because it's an O ring, and won't have a precise width as it's squishy. As I've said before, if it was defective parts, I'd be likely to ditch UT. The deal with replacing the bearings doesn't seem quite right, it's fixing the symptoms, not the problem.


If a person has a defective crank with slop that ruins the bearings, then replacing them and correcting the slop are both necessary. The defective crank is not inherent to the UT design and no reason to abandon it. If that's the case, you were one of the unlucky few. The vast majority work just fine. You need to take the time to verify what the problem is rather than taking stabs at correcting it. That's what an engineer would do.


----------



## BenR

Noises can travel in mysterious ways on moving bikes. Check:

Saddle rails, bolts, post
Chainring bolts
pedals, cleats, pedal axles
rear hub/freehub, cassette
Creaking cables, stem, handlebars
Headset
One guy complained about a cold-temperature-only bb squeak, only during seated pedaling...after much frustration it turned out to be his tights brushing against the top tube (huge legs and slightly knock kneed).


----------

