# Hey RougeMechanic....



## BlueMasi1 (Oct 9, 2002)

Regarding the UT problem and to quote you: 

"You will see my response soon enough."

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=189836

OK, it's been a month are willing to defend your claims...


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

what? don't know what u're referring to, but campy UT is nothing special. it has its issues.. it's pretty obvious campy rushed into an external bracket standard against its own will.

i've worked as a paid wrench too, and that is my opinion being a steadfast campy man, i've moved away from campy cranks (and brakes). too expensive for an imperfect system when better for less is out there (brakes)...

maybe JMO, but campy chorus/rec sq taper was a superior design to UT.

quality and spec wise, record carbon sq taper + record BB or phil wood is the best internal BB design hands down. probably the best BSA design of all time. 

the prime reason why we were told to go external was for bigger longer life bearings.

20k kms+ on my chorus sq taper still going strong vs 3-4k km on my smashed UT DS.

UT bearings from new were never as smooth as sq taper, and that is a widely recognised fact. So what did we gain in the change exactly?


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2009)

BlueMasi1 said:


> Regarding the UT problem and to quote you:
> 
> "You will see my response soon enough."
> 
> OK, it's been a month are willing to defend your claims...



I'd like to hear it as well, he'll probably be back around in a few months banging the same drum.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

I may consider UT when my phil wood wears out - wait, they recondition them for about $35.00. That will be after phil wood stops rebuilding their bottom brackets. I have 2 sq taper bikes that work just fine. UT answers a question I never asked. JMO, though.


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

kytyree said:


> I'd like to hear it as well, he'll probably be back around in a few months banging the same drum.


And selling his overpriced shims!


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

wankski said:


> So what did we gain in the change exactly?


*Ultra Torque looks sexy* - and that's a good enough reason for me. Mine have worked great for the 4 months I have had them - will have to wait and see how the bearings hold up over time. From what I have read, problems result from water being captured in the BB, having a BB width that isn't in Campy's tolerances, and/or a BB that isn't faced square. Without these frame related issues, UT works great for most people.


----------



## ericjacobsen3 (Apr 27, 2007)

Does anyone here have a high mileage like 5-10000 miles on Ultratourque bearings without wearing out? Just curious.

On why to Ultratorque may be better - is lighter and stiffer. I agree though that the square taper Campy had worked forever and the carbon cranks had huge ankle clearance. Carbon square taper cranks also have great resale value, as I learned as I went to Ultratorque.


----------



## crj (Jul 31, 2006)

ericjacobsen3 said:


> Does anyone here have a high mileage like 5-10000 miles on Ultratourque bearings without wearing out? Just curious.


Yep, mine and two others that I ride with. 10K plus on the original bearings, we ride in good and bad weather year round.


----------



## mriddle (Nov 16, 2005)

I purchased one of the original UT Record cranks back in 07. I actually have over 10K miles on it and never had any issues what so ever, the bearings are still smooth. I disassemble once or twice a year and clean/lube.

I have a total of 3 bikes with UT, all of them have been 100% perfect. Prior to the initial install I have always faced the BB and chase the threads. I never used the Loctite method, I simply torque the cups and fixing bolt.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

natedg200202 said:


> *Ultra Torque looks sexy* - and that's a good enough reason for me.


haha, that's very true, especially the new record 11. tho @ $740 at competitive cyclist, there are better options if you can wing it. BB30 hollowgram Si SL comes to mind.

game over.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2009)

wankski said:


> haha, that's very true, especially the new record 11. tho @ $740 at competitive cyclist, there are better options if you can wing it. BB30 hollowgram Si SL comes to mind.
> 
> game over.



No one who could type "google' would pay $740 for it though.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

true, but even at ribble its more than $500, and record isn't even campy's top of the range.

check out the price of super record!! $750 is list price at any cannondale dealer for the top of the range (arguably best crankset on the market) Si SL.

can get that a lil' cheaper too, and is one of the few items that I would actually buy second hand (and I generally never do that!)


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

The UT bearings seem straightforward to service or replace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ7VlQkCT9M&NR=1
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-6862530.html

With the "lower end" sealed staniless bearings as used on Chorus, I suspect it's more cost effective to simply replace the bearings , especially if an equivalent non-Campy bearing is used.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2009)

wankski said:


> true, but even at ribble its more than $500, and record isn't even campy's top of the range.
> 
> check out the price of super record!! $750 is list price at any cannondale dealer for the top of the range (arguably best crankset on the market) Si SL.
> 
> can get that a lil' cheaper too, and is one of the few items that I would actually buy second hand (and I generally never do that!)



But does that include ceramic bearings which SR already comes with? The 'Dale is a great crank but let's not let on like price is one of its virtues.


----------



## mriddle (Nov 16, 2005)

Arguably not...
BB30? No thanks.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

kytyree said:


> But does that include ceramic bearings which SR already comes with? The 'Dale is a great crank but let's not let on like price is one of its virtues.


haha, price as a virtue?? hardly... i think the prices on all of them is nuts... i was trying to say campy UT is too expensive for what it is...

no does not include bearing or axle... can't remember what ceramic was, but don;t get it, it's crap.

Steel BB incl spindle and everything you need is another $110 or so, not bad...



tom_h said:


> The UT bearings seem straightforward to service or replace:
> 
> With the "lower end" sealed staniless bearings as used on Chorus, I suspect it's more cost effective to simply replace the bearings , especially if an equivalent non-Campy bearing is used.


compare to the other major 2 external BB system out there SRAM and Shimano. The bearing is in the cups, 7900 cups are only $35 @ ribble. We pay around $25-30 for a gawd damn hollow cup. 

yes you can fake the campy tools (which are mad expensive), but that means grinding down a 2 arm puller, and some how f'ing around to find suitable polymer tubing in the right diameter. Simple tasks for machinists, but for the time crunched cyclist, a total cluster fark.

sram and shimano? use the same BB tool all three manufacturers use to remove and install cups... that's it. Mine cost $10. if you wanna get exhorbitant use the $25 tool so that you can use a torque wrench!

dunno why campy chose to press them on the axle halves.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

mriddle said:


> Arguably not...
> BB30? No thanks.


bad experience? or arm chair review?


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

I always thought the new external BB's were due to the smaller bearings in the (older) internal ISIS style BB's wearing out quicker. It's really just so lunkheads like us will buy new stuff! Anyone around here *really* need 11 speed?


In any case, I have 1000's of miles on both the old square taper and UT. I never felt much flex in the old square so the UT never felt much different. The square BB definitely has a silky smoothness in the bearings that the UT lacks. Other than that, I honestly think it's a toss up.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

ti-triodes said:


> I always thought the new external BB's were due to the smaller bearings in the (older) internal ISIS style BB's wearing out quicker. It's really just so lunkheads like us will buy new stuff!


u're right. i'm not positing BB30 as the be all standard, but for modern frames and cranks it is an improvemnt over BSA threaded BBs... the reason why modern internal bearings were too small is that axle diameters got a lot bigger to be lighter and stiffer. The axle size was constrained by a standard BB that got its ISO digits in 1989, and was used extensively long before that. The issue is it was designed for 12-14mm cromo axles, in lugged steel frames. It is INSANE to try to fit modern large alloy axles in there, there isn't enough room, thus tiny headset size bearings and thus higher resistence and shorter life.

the solution: stick a 24mm axle in there, and move the bearings outboard - think about it... we have a 68mm BB designed to house the bearings and none of the major 3 use it for that purpose. You also have other issues like poorer sealing, wide q factors in many cases, small heel clearance.. So why have it? With modern carbon we can build any size and shape BB we want, so that is what cannondale did with the bb30. They ended up with enough room for a 30mm alloy axle. The system allows for one of the lightest and stiffest
cranksets on the market, and puts the bearings back where they ought to be.


ti-triodes said:


> Anyone around here *really* need 11 speed? In any case, I have 1000's of miles on both the old square taper and UT. I never felt much flex in the old square so the UT never felt much different. The square BB definitely has a silky smoothness in the bearings that the UT lacks. Other than that, I honestly think it's a toss up.


me too, and while i agree with you, i don't see the same thing. UT came out for the sake of being external to match the others. I have chorus 11 now, and everything about it is a clear progression and advance in campy drivetrain. Of the big 3, maybe JMO, but it has the best rear and front shifting of the lot. Plenty of things that irk me with the shifting of da7900 and sram rival - there is nothing i would change about chorus 11... functionally and ergonomically excellent, and the shifters are a fraction of the price of sram and shimano alternatives... 

same being said, in design and execution, nothing i would change about Si SL. The combination makes a killer gruppo.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

wankski said:


> haha, that's very true, especially the new record 11. tho @ $740 at competitive cyclist, there are better options if you can wing it. BB30 hollowgram Si SL comes to mind.


Uhmm, certainly not if you're interested in "sexy"; those C'dale things are so ugly it boggles the mind...


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

wankski said:


> check out the price of super record!! $750 is list price at any cannondale dealer for the top of the range (arguably best crankset on the market) Si SL.


Yep, you can have an argument about that alright...  
Otherwise, they're pretty much even, with respect to weight and stiffness, with other high-end cranksets. But, like I said, they do have a clear edge in ugliness.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

oopsie


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

Pirx said:


> Uhmm, certainly not if you're interested in "sexy"; those C'dale things are so ugly it boggles the mind...


hahah... eye of the beholder i guess... i think they match the cannondale frames quite well.... don't say it!! 

weight?

not really - SR11 st = ~640g, but add to that 50g in the cups.

Si SL is 580g firm, for everything.

same can be said for stiffness... altho most credible tests that rank 7800 with record give the edge to DA, importantly tho, those tests only tested crank arm deflection. The test by fairwheel IIRC bypassed the axle.. 

30mm vs ~24mm... game over.

ok stuff stiffness and weight...

practical? say you're racing a tour with a mountain stage... for those of us who gotta pay for our equipment, its far more awesome to take your si sl's remove the 130mm bcd spider and replace with a 110 complete with ct gearing... well more awesome than buying another $600+ campy crank.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

wankski said:


> hahah... eye of the beholder i guess... i think they match the cannondale frames quite well.... don't say it!!


I won't  



wankski said:


> not really - SR11 st = ~640g, but add to that 50g in the cups.


35, I think...



wankski said:


> Si SL is 580g firm, for everything.


Except for the "integrated cup" that's now part of the frame, eh? But, yes, the C'Dale crankset is a bit lighter, but in the grand scheme of things it's not much. We're certainly talking less than 100g here. Same for stiffness, which matters even less than weight. All half-decent cranksets these days, starting with Shimano 105 and equivalent, are plenty stiff. Any additional stiffness has exactly zero effect on performance.



wankski said:


> 30mm vs ~24mm... game over.


Yep, game over if you happen to have or like one of those few remaining frames that are not BB30  



wankski said:


> practical? say you're racing a tour with a mountain stage... for those of us who gotta pay for our equipment, its far more awesome to take your si sl's remove the 130mm bcd spider and replace with a 110 complete with ct gearing... well more awesome than buying another $600+ campy crank.


Bah, compact cranksets are for wimps. Besides, I have 11 gears, so I don't need a compact set


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

Pirx said:


> 35, I think...


i dunno what sr cups are, but WW lists the record cups @ 57g even.


Pirx said:


> Except for the "integrated cup" that's now part of the frame, eh? But, yes, the C'Dale crankset is a bit lighter, but in the grand scheme of things it's not much. We're certainly talking less than 100g here.


*BB30:* Ahh, see there are no cups of the bb30 design... I knew such detractors hadn't actually used it!! it's better!
the bb shell is completely bare - no cups. It is even thinner IIRC than an alloy BSA BB, no threads. It simply has two grooves (so even less material!) where two circlips go into to act as backstops for the standard cartridge bearings. Install is possible with a chunk of wood and a mallet. (removal with a punch or drift if you are very careful - or grab the proper tools from fsa or cannondale on ebay for ~$40 usually incl. crank extractor). Next the spindle is inserted, and apart from a wave washer and some dust caps that's it to the BB. Simple, over size and effective.
*weight:* come now, you don't really believe what you wrote do you? 100g outta 600 is a difference of around 17%... doesn't matter? well why SR, why RED? apart from the bling inherent in having the most expensive gruppos, its all about weight. Indeed why doesn't everyone run athena or chorus cranks if 100g doesn't matter? in fact, chorus is only 680g, so only around 50g heavier than SR11 and even less difference than record, but far cheaper. 
Point is you can combine chorus 11, with hollowgram and say feather brakes and have a gruppo far lighter than SR11 for less money. (and more bling IMO)


Pirx said:


> Bah, compact cranksets are for wimps. Besides, I have 11 gears, so I don't need a compact set


it's a freakin' mountain!  (35km climb with parts >20%). word tho, 11 is sweet, i always loved the 10sp 12-23, and finally i have a 25 for the tough stuff. :thumbsup:


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

wankski said:


> the bb shell is completely bare - no cups. It is even thinner IIRC than an alloy BSA BB, no threads.


I thought there's an aluminum shell inside the BB shell. Wrong?



wankski said:


> *weight:* come now, you don't really believe what you wrote do you? 100g outta 600 is a difference of around 17%... doesn't matter?


Yep. Reason being, it's not 100 grams out of 600, it's a hundred grams out of about 200 pounds (bike, rider & gear). We're talking about a tenth of a percent here. That really doesn't matter. I'm sure even you won't try to tell me that you can feel the difference in weight due to the 100 grams you saved on your crankset. I hope.  



wankski said:


> well why SR, why RED? apart from the bling inherent in having the most expensive gruppos, its all about weight.


No, it's _all_ about the bling  



wankski said:


> Point is you can combine chorus 11, with hollowgram and say feather brakes and have a gruppo far lighter than SR11 for less money. (and more bling IMO)


Ahh, but did I tell you that those C'dale cranks are ugly? Serious reduction in bling there. At that point, see above


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

Pirx said:


> I thought there's an aluminum shell inside the BB shell. Wrong?


well, i guess there is in carbon frames - as in any other frameset - u can't use carbon as the shell (AFAIK at least, someone may have done it...)

but i have a systemsix framset, alu rear, and no, there is no insert of any kind, it's just the bare alu BB shell with two grooves. that's it.

If you have seen an insert in bb30 frames, that'll be the BSA adatpor to run inferior threaded cranks.  


Pirx said:


> Yep. Reason being, it's not 100 grams out of 600, it's a hundred grams out of about 200 pounds (bike, rider & gear). We're talking about a tenth of a percent here. That really doesn't matter. I'm sure even you won't try to tell me that you can feel the difference in weight due to the 100 grams you saved on your crankset. I hope.


no, i don't care.. other wise i would build meself some 900g wheels and i wouldn't run chorus. (i'm also looking for hollow si, not the sl on account of second hand price on ebay, and i don't even do second hand, that's how much i like it!) But seriously, in the crankset game everyone emphasizes weight and stiffness - u might not like it, but cannondale won that war *a long time ago...* 
As I also said, the benefits exist beyond those two metrics - well designed, large smooth bearings, easily to service, standard industrial bearing size - (cf campy odd size), removable spider (which at least _I_ will use being a soft unit and all...) 

comon, in every functional metric its got campy UT beat (if you think campy is just too sexy then that is fine). to say weight, larger bearings, more clearance, bigger axle etc don't matter... it's a cop out... they are all incremental improvements, but in this case several adding up to alot in my book.

You and I ostensibly like 11sp... now how many people will say "the 11th is useless?" IMO, the advance was more than just that, altho it was a great bonus... it shifted and felt a lot better and mechanically is superior with less maintenance... that is how i feel about hollowgram. it's a better design, that is a clear advance over what went before in 1989. U ought to try it, it feels great and very solid... it compliments the feeling of stability in cannondale's frames really well. 


Pirx
No said:


> all[/I] about the bling
> 
> Ahh, but did I tell you that those C'dale cranks are ugly? Serious reduction in bling there. At that point, see above


ahh, give it a rest  *pats cannondale* "you're pretty... you're pretty..." :cryin:


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

wankski said:


> comon, in every functional metric its got campy UT beat (if you think campy is just too sexy then that is fine). to say weight, larger bearings, more clearance, bigger axle etc don't matter... it's a cop out... they are all incremental improvements, but in this case several adding up to alot in my book.


No, seriously now, I'm not a zealot, and you are correct about the advantages of C'dale's cranksets, including the potentially smoother bearings (well, I got SR ceramic bearings, but you could argue that a ceramic BB30 could be smoother still). And yes, if it's cranksets you're comparing, even the weight differences are significant.



wankski said:


> You and I ostensibly like 11sp... now how many people will say "the 11th is useless?" IMO, the advance was more than just that, altho it was a great bonus... it shifted and felt a lot better and mechanically is superior with less maintenance... that is how i feel about hollowgram. it's a better design, that is a clear advance over what went before in 1989.


You know, I actually agree. The only trouble is that it requires different frames. I'm sure that if it were not for that, we'd all ride BB30 by now. Unfortunately there's nothing that can be done about that. But, yeah, as soon as Campy starts selling BB30 cranksets, and my favorite frame, whatever that may be at that time, is available with a BB30 bracket, I may seriously consider switching.


----------



## mriddle (Nov 16, 2005)

Neither, none of the frame makers I would consider use BB30.
It does seem to be gaining a bit, De Rosa now has options in BB30 for 2010.
Maybe a good excuse to buy a new De Rosa?
No Cannondale's for me, but you make some good points about the crank.
Still, what about long term durability vs. Campy? Campy is about the long haul, not the here and now.


----------



## RogueMechanic (Mar 6, 2007)

*I'm back. Ultra-Torque recap*

Don't take it personal by me not living on cycling forums... I by all means am not avoiding them, there's just not enough time to do what I need to do day in and day out. That being said, here's my latest post with a video regarding Ultra-Torque. Enjoy.

http://roguemechanic.typepad.com/roguemechanic/2009/11/response-to-cycling-forum-posts.html

-John


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

RogueMechanic, 

I posted some simple questions about the UT Knocking issue and your solution on this thread almost 2 months ago. I never saw a response to my post, other than a very short post exclaiming you are busy and you will address all my questions in the future. 

When you get a chance, can you provide some more insight for the following? Forgive me if they are located on the blog post you mentioned - I never saw these specific questions addressed:

For all Campy UT cranks you have installed, what percentage have developed a "knocking" problem? I'm assuming you have installed some UT cranks that have worked properly, or are 100% of the UT cranks you have installed have the knock?

What is the total number of people you have encountered that have this knocking problem? (either direct clients or just through correspondence.) Just an order of magnitude; 5, 50, 500 people?

How many bikes with the knocking sound problem have been cured using your shim product? Has your shim solution ever failed to fix the problem?

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

Thanks.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

from John's website:

*Facts about the Campagnolo Ultra-Torque System*​
_The design uses the wave washer placed between the non-drive side (NDS) cup and NDS bearing to allow for variances in bottom bracket shell widths. _
_It is the only system that has axial movement when the non-drive side crankarm is compressed or pushed towards the frame when the bottom bracket shell width is 68mm (English) and 70mm (Italian). _
_It is the only system that uses the Hirth joint in a standard threaded bottom bracket._
My comments are ,

1) You make it seem a "wave washer" is somehow a "defect" -- but a bearing intended for _radial_ loads often has to pre-load and restrict axial movement. Different schemes exist, a wave-washer is one of many.

2)  If the drive-side spring clip is properly inserted, there can't be any axial movement in the crank assembly.

3) so what if a Hirth joint is used  That is an incredibly rigid system.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

It's a feature, not a defect!


----------



## de.abeja (Aug 27, 2006)

I don't think you spelled his name wrong on purpose but Rouge Mechanic is really funny.

Rogue









Rouge


----------

