# Campagnolo Ultra Torque Problem Uncovered?



## RogueMechanic (Mar 6, 2007)

Hello All,

I hope that this message finds everyone well.
To all who have a Campy Ultra Torque crankset/bottom bracket system, you might find this interesting...

http://roguemechanic.typepad.com/roguemechanic/2008/09/campagnolo-ul-1.html

Let me know what you think and if you have any questions. 

Thanks!

John

www.roguemechanic.com


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Let the flames begin.....

You better have an asbestos suit.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*thoughts...*

You're missing a lot, John.

I'm a mechanical engineer with over 30 years in the business of precision measurement, so I'll give you my explanation of how the system is supposed to work. I'll first say however, that I installed my first UT crank this spring. After 3500 miles, I've got no sideplay or creaking issues. My crank has worked perfectly all year, on two different frames.

Yes, there is a fixed distance between the bearings, but forget about the Hirth joint. It has nothing to do with the situation. No manufactured product is perfect and there is a chance that a crank could have been produced with a mistake in the overall bearing spacing. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this means that any, all or many cranks suffer from such a problem. There also two bearing cups in the system and either one of those could have a dimensional error. Unless you have the factory drawings to know what each component should measure, you're not going to be able to say where the problem lies. The toughest thing to measure would be the distance between the bearings, to verify a problem, but a long internal micrometer would do the job. Measuring the cup thickness between the shell and bearing contact surfaces, is one simple check than anyone with a micrometer could do. If you have several cups around, you could at least compare them for deviations.

Campy specifies that the BB shell width must be 68mm +or - .8mm. If I read correctly, you measured a nearly perfect 68.1mm BB shell width. Did you also verify that the shell faces were square with the threads? Since I don't own expensive BB facing tools, I screw both cups in until they contact a .010 inch feeler gage, then use .008-.012 inch feeler gages to search for high or low spots. Neither of my LOOK 585 frames needed facing to square the faces to the threads.

Another BB shell problem that can occur, but is nearly impossible to fix is misaligned threads. If the threads on each side are not in alignment with each other, no amount of thread chasing or shell facing will fix the problem. Thread chasers merely follow the path of the orginal threads and usually do little but remove burrs, unless the original thread was cut under low limit on the pitch diameter.

One of the confusing issues with the BB cups is the use of Loctite 222 (or not). I've bought two sets of cups this year, for two different frames. Both sets came with a large amount of a yellow thread locker applied to the threads, from the factory. I personally decided to grease the threads of the BB shell and torque the cups in place, rather than use loctite 222. Loctite should only be used on threads that are free of foreign material, so using it without removing the yellow thread locker would not make sense. Also, the yellow thread locker produces so much intereference that it is impossible to hand tighten the cups. Mine required a substantial amount of torque, just to get the cup faces in contact with the BB shell. I would not use Loctite 222 unless I knew the BB faces were not square and also had no way to correct the problem. The loctite is intended to keep the cup faces aligned with the threads, even if faces are out of square, but it won't help if the threads are misaligned. I also think a BB installed with the loctite would be far more prone to creaking, particularly if little or no torque is applied. If the loctite doesn't hold adequately, any small movement of the cup will result in a creak.


The purpose of the wavy washer is simple. It's nothing but a spring to apply a preload force on the bearings and eliminate all freeplay. If the BB width is not within the specified dimensions, then the washer would not produce the desired minimum pressure, or it would produce too much, resulting in binding and/or premature bearing failure. Of course, if there are errors in the dimensions of the crank or the bearing cups, then there could be a problem even with the proper BB shell width. There should never be any actual "freeplay" in the system. When you pushed on the crankarm and got movement, all you were doing is overcoming the spring force of the wavy washer - that's how it's supposed to work! You also mentioned a system that can't compensate for variations in the BB shell width. That's precisely what the wavy washer does. If all other dimensions are correct, then any BB shell in the specified range should produce an acceptable preload on the bearings. The reason that one spindle length can also accomodate a 70mm Italian BB is a no-brainer. The thickness of the cups is just made 1mm thinner on each side, so the nominal distance between the cups faces is the same. Get out your micrometer and compare the two types.

It seems to me that installing any amount of shims merely defeats the intended function of the wavy washer, immediately increasing the preload tension. I'd start with trying a new wavy washer, or better yet a new pair of bearing cups, that includes the washer. Install those and see if it works any better. Of course, if the crank is dimensionally incorrect, the problem will remain.

Be sure that all surfaces of the bearings that contact the cup are greased to prevent creaks. Also don't overlook another common source of creaks, the chainring and bolt area. If I think I've got a creak, the first thing I do is apply some thin lube, like Slick 50 1-lube to eliminate that area as the source. 

Now that I've read even further into your posting on the subject, the more I realize you really don't understand the system and just guessed at a fix (adding shims). If you really supected a wear problem with the bearing cups or bearing OD, you should have taken some precision measurements rather than take the shade tree mechanic approach of guessing. Your fix really defeats the system and is likely to ruin the bearings, if they aren't ruined already. 

There have been some reports of bearing failures on early model cranks, but changes were made at some point before '08 cranks came out. The latest bearings have plastic rather than metal cages around the balls.

Also, since you're dealing remotely with a customer, be sure the problem is not something totally unrelated like creaky cleats or a creaky saddle. I just put a new saddle on with no lube in the rail area and it's amazing how a creaky saddle clamp can sound just like the BB.

Last, I'll say that you final conclusions are totally wrong, regarding both the Hirth joint and the loctite. Perhaps you should just post your problem details and spare yourself the public display of ignorance (sorry, couldn't resist).


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Linky no worky?


----------



## awiner (Aug 28, 2007)

Awesome analysis as always C-40. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and professional experiences with us.


----------



## RogueMechanic (Mar 6, 2007)

Hello C-40,
Thanks for your comments to my post and your experience is very impressive and valuable. Ok... be patient with me as I reply to some of your points. 

If you recall, I never made a statement that all bikes with the UT system have this problem, but I am basing my theory on the fact that the majority of the bikes with the UT system do exhibit this issue. And an overwhelming majority of those are composite frames.

Your comment that no component that is manufactured is perfect. I agree, but neither are frames, specifically bottom bracket shell widths. But in this one case, the shell width was pretty darn close to industry standard 68mm. This has to be accounted for in the bottom bracket/crankset design. Additionally, it's been my opinion that Campy does not lack in the QC department when it comes to precision.

Yep... I checked the squareness of the threads... but if it was the rare case of misaligned threads in a high-end frame, binding would be apparent... I didn't observe any binding.

I'm with you regarding the use of Loctite... But I follow instructions to a T so eliminate that variable...

I guess that I'm confused about the use of the wave washer in the UT system... I agree that one of the typical uses of a wave washer is to preload the bearings... but in this application, maybe they need to supply different wave washers based on specific shell widths... I pushed on the NDS crankarm to replicate the knocking that my clients were experiencing... Again, I'm going to mention that this movement, even when compressing the NDS arm like I did, is not typical for any other system on the market.
With all due respect, I did look into the issue with the retaining clip. When the spring/clip is installed, the bearing is by no means locked into place. After measuring, I found that the drive-side bearing width is~5.88mm and the dimension of the depth of the cup to the inboard surface of the pins is ~6.42mm. That theoretically leaves us with a difference of ~.54mm. Additionally, the ability of the two pins to lock the bearing is also deficient. I have found this similar situation with every UT system, so I am not sold that it's a failure of the retaining spring/clip. I am leaning towards the chance that it's one of the factors.

I did everything short of beating me head against the wall trying to come up with a solution, and constantly came back to spacers. I have to think about the influence the wave washed would have on the bearing because it's dimensions allow for it to press on cartridge bearing "shell" or externals and not the ball bearings or retainer...
Regarding your final thought, this isn't a one time occurrence that I'm basing this on... I'm having a hard time accepting such a large percentage... well over 50%. This is not typical of Campagnolo. 

Thanks again C-40 for your comments! Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments.

_Edit: C-40, I just noticed your opening statement. Ouch. With all due respect, I guess that I need to have your experience to troubleshoot this issue and my 25+ years experience doesn't account for much. I'm just offering a theory and a possible solution to a repeating pattern... That's all. I didn't mean to disrespect anyone. If you took the time to read a little deeper into my posts, you will find that I take the stand more of an advocate for the cyclist than anything else. Thanks again for your insight and comments. -John_


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*well...*

John, you may have 25 years of experience, but doing what? Manufacturing and measuring precision machined components, like I have, or just fixing bikes? Your postings are not those of anyone with a background in evaluating a problem with precision fits and clearances, or you wouldn't be so confused about how the wavy washer works and how simple it is to accomodate both 68 and 70mm BB shell widths. I took a rough measurement of an uncompressed wavy washer and got about 3mm. The washer material is only .63mm thick. I can easily see this washer having the ability to cover the specified 1.6mm range of BB shell width.

To really evaluate the possibility of an dimensional error, you'd measure the inside to inside distance between the bearings, with the Hirth joint tightened. Then you mic the distance between the bearing faces on the bike. That dimension will be a lot less than the distance between the bearings, because the wavy washer takes up any extra space and applies a preload force. If you measured the stack height of the uncompressed washer and found it was not significantly greater than the gap between the bearing cup and left side bearing, then there is an obvious problem. The washer must be compressed by some mimimum amount or there will be undesired axial play and no preload.

You also made some pretty strange comments about the loctite process affecting the width between the bearing cups? If the cups contact the BB shell firmly, you'll get the same width as when they are torqued in place, at least within a couple of thousandths of an inch. Totally insignifcant with a large 1.6mm width tolerance.

FWIW, my carbon frames are both within a few thousandths of an inch of the nominal 68mm width, so mine is not a tight setup in the range specified for this crank. I have absolutely NO lateral play in my crankarms after 3500 miles of use, since the wavy washer is doing its job to eliminate all lateral play. 

It makes no sense for some large percentage of frames to work properly and another large percentage to have problems, unless you can relate those problems to specific cases, where BB shell widths over a certain value work properly and those below a certain value don't. If the shell width was the problem, your spacer cure would have fixed it. Since the problem wasn't fixed, your guess was wrong.

Carbon frames certainly don't contribute to the problem, unless the real problem is just one of transmitting a normal sound. Aluminum frames can act like a sounding drum too.

You mentioned possible wear on the bearing OD or cup ID. The bearing race is extremely hard and unlikely to wear, so the nickel plating on the cup would be the first place to look for signs of wear. That type of wear would allow some movement at the ends of the crankarms, but that is radial play, not axial play (measured along the spindle centerline). 

If the wavy washer is doing it's job, then both of the bearings should be held firmly in place against the inner faces of the bearing cups and the retainer clip will not be in contact with the bearing. The clearance between the clip and bearing won't change anything. It doesn't matter if the clearance is .5mm. If you push sideways on the left crankarm at the center (not leveraging the end) and manage to exert enough force to overcome the wavy washer, you might indeed get the arm to move .5mm to the right, until limited by the retainer clip. Once again, that's how it's supposed to work. My initial post gave the impression that the clip to bearing clearance might be a problem, but after thinking again about how the wavy washer pushes the drive side bearing to the inside of the cup, it would only come into play if a force was applied that was larger than the wavy washer's force.

When you talk about adding all these spacer and then checking for "play", were you (incorrectly) applying a force to the ends of the crank arms. If so, you were fixing one thing and checking something else.

If you apply leverage to the right or left, at the ends of the crankarms and get a lot of movement, you may indeed have worn bearings and/or worn cups. With a problem like this that's burning up a lot of shop time and producing no cure, most mechanics would just replace both bearings and cups and see if that fixes the problems. I'd upgrade to an aftermarket replacement bearing. What I really suspect is your last attempt at a fix has greatly increased the bearing preload and if the bearings weren't already cooked, they are now!

The last time I read Campy's instructions, I thought they were poor, since they did NOT (to my recollection) say anything about removing the factory applied thread locker. As I stated before, if this material is not completely removed, the cups could never be screwed in by hand and the loctite would not work properly. Perhaps Campy assumed that users would notice the loctite instructions saying that both internal and external threads must be clean and dry for the product to work.

I would leave the factory thread locker in place, grease the threads and torque new cups in place and skip the loctite.


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

Almost 3000 hard miles on a UT crankset. Absolutely flawless so far.


----------



## interested (Sep 21, 2005)

C-40 said:


> The last time I read Campy's instructions, I thought they were poor, since they did NOT (to my recollection) say anything about removing the factory applied thread locker. As I stated before, if this material is not completely removed, the cups could never be screwed in by hand and the loctite would not work properly. Perhaps Campy assumed that users would notice the loctite instructions saying that both internal and external threads must be clean and dry for the product to work.
> 
> I would leave the factory thread locker in place, grease the threads and torque new cups in place and skip the loctite.


I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the material found on Campagnolo parts was aerobic "dry" thread locker that is supposed to be used together with anaerobic liquid thread lockers like Loctite 222.

http://www.parktool.com/repair/readhowto.asp?id=89

That could explain why Campagnolo doesn't say anything about removing the factory thread locker before applying Loctite.

-- 
Regards


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

I just checked my garmin files and figured out that I have roughly 10,000 miles on my Centaur alloy UT crankset. I have been as heavy as 235 and am currently 215. No noise, no creak, nice and quiet.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

I have two bikes with UT Chorus. One has 10,000 miles and no problem the other 1,000. The second bike, Jamis, I use the wavey washer and clip. The 10,000 mile Litespeed, I don't. All is firm and stable without them.

I have always thought of the clip and wavey washer as instruments to take up space when the tolerences are beyond exact. I believe my Litespeed falls into exact, since there is absolutely no movement but the Jamis doesn't. Thus the need for the clip and the wavey washer, which worked perfectly and as specified.


----------



## RogueMechanic (Mar 6, 2007)

C-40...
Your condescending comments are a smacking reminder of why I don't visit/read cycling forums. I will try to answer a few of your questions, but remember that I have 25+ ONLY fixing bikes... so I don't nearly have the expertise and experience that you obviously have...

First a few points and some comments, then I'll be on my way...

1. I introduced this as a theory as to why this is happening to some bikes with the UT system. Never did I state that all bikes with UT have this issue. I tried to introduce this idea in a somewhat professional manner, not by saying "this sucks or that sucks...".

2. I posted this on this and another forum with the hope that I might shine some light on the situation. Do a google search, I'm not the only one who experienced this.

3. Do you have a solution to this problem? I'd be open to suggestions. Or maybe you can talk to my clients that have had this issue that is now resolved and you can tell them that it's normal for their Record or Chorus UT crankset to knock and click like it's nobody's business...

I think that you're having a hard time distancing yourself from the precision machining world and that of the cycling industry. The tolerances that you deal with are significantly more precise than those of the cycling industry.

If you go back and read what I said about the use of loctite on the cup threads, I did say that it was kinda far-fetched... 

_*"If the shell width was the problem, your spacer cure would have fixed it. Since the problem wasn't fixed, your guess was wrong."*_ ... Or was it? Again, go back and read what I wrote. After adding the single spacer between the cup and the shell, I added additional spacers between the wave washer and the cup internally. I suppose that I could have added those spacers to the cup frame area.... The way I see it is that's another way of doing the same thing...

Never did I say that carbon frames contribute to the problem. I stated that based on my experience the noise issue was more prevalent with carbon frames.

_"If t*he wavy washer is doing it's job, then both of the bearings should be held firmly in place against the inner faces of the bearing cups and the retainer clip will not be in contact with the bearing. The clearance between the clip and bearing won't change anything."*_ - C-40, you're a little confused... The wave washer sits between the NDS bearing and NDS cup seat... Please review.

_*"If you apply leverage to the right or left, at the ends of the crankarms and get a lot of movement, you may indeed have worn bearings and/or worn cups. With a problem like this that's burning up a lot of shop time and producing no cure, most mechanics would just replace both bearings and cups and see if that fixes the problems. I'd upgrade to an aftermarket replacement bearing. What I really suspect is your last attempt at a fix has greatly increased the bearing preload and if the bearings weren't already cooked, they are now!"*_ I have a hard time believing that Record and Chorus bearings are wearing to this degree at 1-3k miles.... And if the aftermarket bearings have the same dimensions, what difference it that going to make in this situation? And in regards to bearing preload, the OD of the wave washer is pretty darn close to the OD of the bearings. I would think that the "preload" force is applied to the externals of the cartridge bearing and not the bearings or retainer.

Oh God, I love this one....

_*"Now that I've read even further into your posting on the subject, the more I realize you really don't understand the system and just guessed at a fix (adding shims). If you really supected a wear problem with the bearing cups or bearing OD, you should have taken some precision measurements rather than take the shade tree mechanic approach of guessing. Your fix really defeats the system and is likely to ruin the bearings, if they aren't ruined already."*_ ... I seem to understand the order of assembly better than you in regards to where the wave washer is located. Again... this was my THEORY for the reasons contributing to the movement. Please explain to me how my fix defeats the system... I am all ears... or eyes in this forum. And I LOVE the shade tree mechanic comment... 

_*"Last, I'll say that you final conclusions are totally wrong, regarding both the Hirth joint and the loctite. Perhaps you should just post your problem details and spare yourself the public display of ignorance (sorry, couldn't resist)."*_ Maybe they are C-40, but at this point they haven't been proven to be wrong. I'll give you my weak argument regarding the loctite. But if I would have posted the problem details as you suggested, I would have more than likely received opinions and back-handed comments such as yours. Instead, I chose to research the issue and base my theory on first hand experience... But hey... what do I know, I'm just a bike mechanic but you are a mechanical engineer with over 30 years in the business of precision measurement...

_Note: My intention of this post was to possibly help with this issue that some are experiencing. If you take the time to delve just a little deeper into my blog, you will see that I take the position more of an advocate for cyclists than anything. I do my best to bring some issues to light and maybe along the way, solve a few problems. But let it be known, that I have learned my lesson about cycling forums such as this one. Thanks for your time. -John_


----------



## Squidward (Dec 18, 2005)

Rogue, just a bit of constructive criticism: fix the formatting of your website. On my work computer (IE6), where I read your article, and at home (IE7), verifying what I saw at work, the text is only taking up about 1/6th the width of the page, making it very difficult to read. I ended up copying and pasting the text into Notepad to read it, which was very annoying.

With regards to Ultra Torq cranks, you are not taking into account the wear and tear on the bearings themselves. Yes, I have this knocking sound coming from somewhere on my bike but I have not had a chance to trouble-shoot it, yet. As C-40 has stated, there were reports of premature failure of some of the early ones, which I happen to have (2006).


----------



## winstonc (Nov 18, 2002)

RogueMechanic said:


> C-40...
> Your condescending comments are a smacking reminder of why I don't visit/read cycling forums.


I have to agree with you here. C-40's insulting tone and gratuitous personal attacks were uncalled for.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

Gee... why don't we argue headsets with Chris King for a change?


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

*your website*

It seems to work fine with Firefox. It doesn't format well with Internet Explorer. Unfortunately most people use I.E.


----------



## Rubber Lizard (May 10, 2007)

It's never a good idea to pull the I have 'all these qualifications and do this, so therefore I'm better than you card'. Regardless of if you are right or not it makes you look like very arrogant in the argument. 
The ultra-torque system does seem to be prone to more odd clicks and other problems, usually disassembly and regreasing solves the problem. Rouge mechanic seems to have a pretty good theory on the cause. 
I've always thought the Ultra-Torque system was way too complicated. Time will tell on long term durability.


----------



## Ken (Feb 7, 2004)

*Shimano Road Cranks are Better Designed Than Campy's*

RogueMechanic, 

Thanks for taking the time in sharing your thoughts with us on this forum and for putting in all that work in regards to your web site. In reference to the Hirth joint, I helped a friend install a Shimano 105 crankset about 2 months ago. The 105 doesn't have to be joined in the middle like what your diagram showed about the UT cranks. I don't know of any mechanical advantage that the Campy UT cranks might have due to having a Hirth joint over Shimano ones, but with the Shimano design I don't see how you could get lateral play as represented by your videos of the Campy UT cranks. My own conclusion is that Shimano has a better designed crank system that is easier to install, better thought out, has more adaptability to BB shells that are a little off of 68mm in width and probably in the long run last longer than the Campy designed UT cranks.

My 2¢,
Ken
Ride: Campy Record with PW stainless steel BB.:blush2:


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*polite response...*

I apologize for the condescending tone, but the tone of your posts was pretty arrogant too. First you state that you don't understand how the Campy UT system is supposed to work, and then you come to all sorts of conclusions that culminate in the basic premise that the system is flawed and doesn't work on 50% of bikes. Thus, the engineers at Campagnolo don't know what they are doing. That's a pretty arrogant argument, when it contains not one single dimensional explanation for the problem that you claim to have uncovered. You're not doing fellow cyclists any favors if you post statements about a product that make readers believe that it's flawed and unlikely to work when a great many users have the exact opposite experience.

A valid explanation for the problem would be a simple dimensional report, stating the crank bearing spacing is X, the combined length of the BB shell and two bearing cups is Y, leaving a difference of Z that is larger than the minimum compressed thickness of the wavy washer. With this simple statement, you would have proven that ONE crank was made that will not work properly (assuming the bearing cup thicknesses were not to blame). In this case, a shim of the proper thickness would restore the normal function.

This crank design is now in its third year of production. If the design was basically faulty, it would surely have been changed by now. It has worked flawlessly for me on two frames with nominal BB shell widths, like the one you're dealing with. 

I do know where the wavy washer is placed, since I've got two frames with the UT cups in my possession, but only one crank. One of the frames is sitting near my desk with the cups, spring clip and wavy washer in place. I goofed when I said that BOTH bearings bear against the face of the cups. Obviously, the NDS bearing has the wavy washer between it and the inner face of the cup. The wavy washer, in the NDS cup, does push to the left on the NDS bearing, forcing the DS bearing against the inner face of the DS cup. It serves two purposes. It take up ALL of the space between the NDS bearing and the cup, leaving ZERO axial freeplay and produces a preload force on the bearings. If you suspect that the washer is not performing this function, you should apply pressure to the left side, near the center of the crankarm to feel for axial freeplay. There should never be ANY freeplay if the washer is working. Note that I say freeplay, which would only require a light pressure to move the crank spindle axially. Pushing against the ends of the crankarms is NOT a check for axial freeplay. Pushing hard at the center of the left side of the crank could indeed compress the wavy washer and cause axial movement, but that is a normal function of the washer. If it's 3mm thick uncompressed and made of .63mm thick material, you've easily got the 1.6m range of adjustable compression, as described in the Campagnolo instructions. Roughly, the gap between the left side bearing and cup would be 2.4mm, compressing the washer by a minimum .6mm and a maximum of 2.2mm, so the washer is NEVER fully compressed, nor fully relaxed. The addition of shims should never be required is all of the components are dimensionally correct. A standard 1mm cup shim behind the left bearing cup would be appropriate if the BB shell width was less than the minimum 67.2mm.

I hope that explanation is more helpful, more concise and no longer condescending. I really do like to help people on this forum.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*thoughts...*

There are certainly differences in the systems, but the Shimano system has it's problems too. One of those problems is the left crankarm failing to stay properly tightened. Left unnoticed, a few crankarms have fallen off while being ridden. Another potential problem is installer error, leaving the bearings either too tight or too loose. Either condition will shorten the bearing life. From a longevity standpoint, the slip fit of the bearings on the Shimano crank spindle can result in fretting damage to the spindle, trashing an expensive part of the crank - the drive side crankarm and spindle, which are not separable. 

Campy takes the opposite approach, pressing the bearings onto the spindle and using a slip fit in the bearing cups, where there is more surface area and if damage does occur to the cups, you've only trashed a $25 item. As long as the instructions are followed, the bearing adjustment is automatically done by the wavy washer - total no brainer. Joining the crank at the center makes the installation exceptionally simple. You've only got one bolt to torque.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*no...*

The instructions for the use of loctite say to hand tighten or gently tighten the cups (not torque them) if loctite is used. The two set of cups that I bought this year both had such a huge amount of the yellow thread locker on the right side cup it took 10-15 ft-lbs of torque just to get the cup screwed in enough to touch the face of the BB shell.

Loctite will never work properly if other substances are on the threads. There is very little space between the internal and external threads to start with and the idea with loctite is to completely fill the space and act as a mild adhesive.

http://tds.loctite.com/tds5/docs/222-EN.PDF


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*don't agree...*



winstonc said:


> I have to agree with you here. C-40's insulting tone and gratuitous personal attacks were uncalled for.


The website's posting was both ignorant and arrogant. Folks who write as though they know more about a product than the designers deserve a smack down. Once they return to reality, an earnest discussion can follow.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

My experiece has shown the UT system to be simple and easy. It takes around 10 minutes or less to install and is clean looking. I can't see how threading cups, inserting cranks and tightening the joint is complicated. So, on this point I'm in agreement with C40.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*rarely...*

Rarely do I add my background to my comments, except when it involves problems like this. If I don't then someone asks me what makes me so sure of my opinion? A person with little knowledge on the subject will read rogue's information and assume it's valid, since he's a long time bike mechanic, he must know what he's talking about. I read it and immediately see the conclusions to be totally unfounded, the testing improper to diagnose the real problem and the failed solution predictable.


----------



## brujenn (Nov 26, 2007)

*to locktite or not to locktite*

I thought about starting a new thread for this, but since my topic is already a sub-topic of this thread I decided to throw it out here.

I am preparing to install a new '08 record ut on a CF frame. ('07 Spec Roubaix sl, nttatwwt)

I've read the instructions and believe that the recommended "plan A" is to just screw in the cups as they are packaged from the factory, with beige-ish thread gunk in place. It appears, as Bill has stated, that the locktite method ("plan B") is definetly NOT the preffered method, and that the cups are threaded only finger tight into the frame and then alignment is forced by the immediate insertion and full torqueing of the crank assembly. A key component of Plan B is that the assembly must then be undisturbed for 48 hours to allow the locktite to set up. Maybe violations of the 48 hour rule are causing the problems that roguemechanic is seeing. It's interesting to note that without qualification, campy says that plan B will result in shorter lifespan of the crankset, and more problems during that shorter life.

In Plan B, the instructions are to fully coat all threads with locktite, except that the part that is started 1/4 turn into the BB cage won't be coated, of course.

My question: as I have read (not in Campy's literature) that the full coating of locktite is also helpful in preventing corrosion, is about using locktite with the plan A method. After reading this thread, it seems that combining locktite with Campy's goo would be an absolute no-no. Is that right? Is it best to just take the cups out of the sealed plastic pouch and screw them into the cleaned and degreased BB cage? I'll re-read here, I think I read son=mething about greaseing the threads...

Comments? Thanks in advance, Bill.


----------



## unit (Jun 11, 2008)

*Trash talk 101*



C-40 said:


> Rarely do I add my background to my comments, except when it involves problems like this. If I don't then someone asks me what makes me so sure of my opinion? A person with little knowledge on the subject will read rogue's information and assume it's valid, since he's a long time bike mechanic, he must know what he's talking about. I read it and immediately see the conclusions to be totally unfounded, the testing improper to diagnose the real problem and the failed solution predictable.



C-40, your credentials here go without saying. You stating your background is un-necessary. The person with little knowledge on the subject should hold the burden of determining who is more qualified. 

No offense intended...if anything this is a compliment to your credentials that you have demonstrated over a long period of time on this forum. Just do not cheapen those credentials by posting them for those too lazy to figure it out for themselves.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*info...*

I first cleaned off all of the paint from the BB faces (a must), checked the faces for squareness with feeler gages, greased the threads and torqued the cups.

If loctite is used, then all of the factory thread locker should be removed.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

C-40: Save your breath. There's two reasons not to argue with one less knowledgeable than yourself: First, they are by definition not smart enough to recognize you are correct, so it's a wasted effort. Second, making the attempt only convinces them that you see them as worthy of your attention, helping to ensure that problem #1 never is corrected.

Rogue: 25 years of experience is worth less than nothing if it's based on incorrect perceptions and inadequate understanding. Just ask Sherm, since you are so fond of slagging him at every opportunity. 

Irony is vastly underappreciated these days.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

for what it's worth, i'm gonna have to go w/ c-40 on this one, as usual he's thought thru the issue thoroughly and has a great understanding of how the system is supposed to work. the OP reminds me of the guy that ordered the red parts on the internet and couldn't get the cassette onto his hub, so he just removed the offending bit and went on his way.


----------



## brujenn (Nov 26, 2007)

I'ld be interested to know what percentage UT cranks with problem were installed using some variation of Campy's 2nd choice "Alternate" installation method - using loctite 222. In my 2008 instructions, which I followed to a "T" last night, they were emphatic that if you use the loctite method, you must let the assembly cure for 48 hours and be prepared for poor results. The instructions actually say that life of the crank will be shorter, and that more problems and noise will result.

*BUT!!!* I just looked at the '09 Record UT installation instructions, and the locktite installation is now the PREFFERED METHOD. The '09 docs are not as clearly worded, but there is a definite shift in philosophy. "08 explains that the loctite is for when you really should face and tap the BB shell but can't. Campy describes the locktite 222 as something like wet mortar, and the cups are set in the wet locktite like bricks. Immediately installing the crank arms and torqueing the special fixing bolt align the cups/bricks in the wet mortar/locktite, and holds them in perfect position while the mortar/locktite cures for 48 hours.

The '09 is much more casual about the steps and urgency. For example, rather than "Do not use the bicycle for 48 hours to allow the loctite to dry" They say "locktite should dry 24-48 hours".

They also advise that applying locktite to the special fixing bolt can help prevent corrosion. Damn. I wish they had suggested that in the '08 instructions. I read and reread wondering about locktite on the sfb but decided against it because they didn't say to, and because I"VE BEEN A LITTLE FREAKED-OUT BY THIS THREAD!!!


----------



## unit (Jun 11, 2008)

brujenn said:


> I"VE BEEN A LITTLE FREAKED-OUT BY THIS THREAD!!!


If I may suggest...

I learned a long time ago to take everything I read on forums/web with a grain of salt substitute (Web BS does not even deserve *real* salt).

There are all sorts of subjects like this where scads of people are having problems with something, and a seemingly equal number of people are not having problems and wonder what all the fuss is about.

IDK why this is, but until *I* have a problem, I will assume that there is not too much to worry about. Sure, I will take note and check these reported conditions, but so far I am not observing any with my set up.


----------



## brujenn (Nov 26, 2007)

Thanks Unit. I may have overstated my freaked out-ness. I have confidence in Campy and my wrenching ability. I should know to trust the faithfulness of a 35 year relationship.

In a euphoric follow up, I took the new steed out for her maiden ride this a.m., and am thrilled to report that I had about a 6 mile orgasm. OMG. Between all the shiny new new new Record bits and the Roubaix SL frame, I've definitely decided that the S-Works Tarmac frame is going up on ebay, and the Chorus group is going on the rain bike.

I was a little worried when I had the new bike on the stand last night at 1:30, and couldn't tune out or down what seemed like excessive drive train noise. On the road today - stone dead silent. Eerily quiet. ahhhhh


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*method?*

Which method of cup installation did you choose? I went with the old fashioned grease and torque with no loctite, because both sets of cups that I bought had a large amount of factory applied yellow thread locker, not the little dab of blue stuff that was used with the square taper BBs.

If the loctite is used, all of the factory thread locker should be removed and that could be a source of problems. If users don't also read the loctite instructions that clearly state that the threads must be clean, dry and free of foreign material, then I suspect those folks will have problems.

The idea with loctite is to avoid misalignment of the cups from BB faces that are not square to the threads. That's easily checked, after removing any paint from the faces of the BB shell. If the frames needs facing, I'd get it done, but emphasis the need for minimum material removal, otherwise you may need a 1mm shim to bring the width back into spec.


----------



## Lance#8in09 (Sep 13, 2008)

Both the Shimano or Campagnolo systems are easily installed properly and neither is markedly better than the other. There are loads of teenage wrenches who install and remove these 2 systems successfully every day in shops accross america. It's a pretty simple process requiring little mechanical skill or knowledge.


----------



## brujenn (Nov 26, 2007)

I used the '08 preffered method: Clean the BB, install cups straight out of the package with beige-ish compound in place. I didn't use grease - I felt that the cleaning instructions were suggesting that there shouldn't be grease.

My primitive measureing and some faith in the S-Works division helped me decide that my BB didn't need facing, and that the width was pretty much on spec.

I agree Lance - I was one of those teens once, doing all manor of wrenching, building wheels and terrorizing Seattle with Italian alloy and Reynolds 531.


----------



## qwer (Jul 27, 2007)

RogueMechanic said:


> First a few points and some comments, then I'll be on my way...
> 
> 1. I introduced this as a theory as to why this is happening to some bikes with the UT system. Never did I state that all bikes with UT have this issue. I tried to introduce this idea in a somewhat professional manner, not by saying "this sucks or that sucks...".
> 
> 2. I posted this on this and another forum with the hope that I might shine some light on the situation. Do a google search, I'm not the only one who experienced this.



If you make a big fuss on forums, on your website - including posting wobbly amateur vids as "proof" on YouTube - with titles like "Campagnolo Ultra Torque Problem Uncovered", and then the bottom line is that you "have a theory", that "you believe" and that "you think".......then, simply put, it's not professional and - for my taste - you really ain't doing yourself a big favour in terms of your competence.

If you really were serious - and fair - about this topic, before making such a fuss you'd either call and or mail the facts to the engineers at Campy Italy (and not some desk guy at some Campy US Distributor) and wait their response, or have the repeatable evidence and proof and the cause of the problem, or you just leave it.

I ride Shimano cranks, by the way....;-)


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

The more I have thought about this the more I have concluded that the poster needs to better determine what is happening between the mile it was working and the mile it was not working. IMO, either sonething is wearing out, thus causing play or coming loose and causing play.

Nothing can work properly for 500 miles and then not work properly without something changing either gradually or catastrophically. This is the variable that needs to be explored in this specific case.


----------



## Squidward (Dec 18, 2005)

Squidward said:


> Yes, I have this knocking sound coming from somewhere on my bike but I have not had a chance to trouble-shoot it, yet.


Just an update: I fixed the knocking sound. Actually, it was more of a clicking. It turned out to be a slightly loose front wheel quick release! Tightened it an additional 1/8 of a turn and now the bike is virtually silent while riding. I guess my pedaling isn't as butter smooth as I thought it was. My Ultra Torque bearings are still the original bearings from 2006 and I don't think they're going to be replaced any time soon.


----------



## Val_Garou (Apr 30, 2002)

I've read this whole thread. As a result, even though I have a stack of Octalink BBs in my closet, I'm going to buy some more.


----------



## RogueMechanic (Mar 6, 2007)

*Reply to qwer*

_"If you make a big fuss on forums, on your website - including posting wobbly amateur vids as "proof" on YouTube..."_... I never professed that I was a professional blogger or a competent videographer... In fact, I'm probably one of the worst.

_"If you really were serious - and fair - about this topic, before making such a fuss you'd either call and or mail the facts to the engineers at Campy Italy..."_... Funny that you bring this up. Just two days ago and Interbike, I had a local IBD ask the Campy folks at the tech seminar about a knocking or clunking noise that seems to emanate from the bottom bracket area on bikes with UT, his response was... "Check this headset." BTW... Have you ever tried to call or contact Campy in Italy? I'm still waiting...

_"...or have the repeatable evidence and proof and the cause of the problem, or you just leave it."_ ... How many is enough? What kind of proof do you need? What I'm trying to do is figure out the cause of the problem. I'm certainly not doing this for my health. My clients pay me to figure out their bike problems, like this one... not just leave it.... And what about the 50+ emails that I have received in the last 2+ days from people having the similar load knocking problem? Thanks anyway for writing. -John


----------



## qwer (Jul 27, 2007)

RogueMechanic said:


> _"If you make a big fuss on forums, on your website - including posting wobbly amateur vids as "proof" on YouTube..."_... I never professed that I was a professional blogger or a competent videographer... In fact, I'm probably one of the worst.
> 
> _"If you really were serious - and fair - about this topic, before making such a fuss you'd either call and or mail the facts to the engineers at Campy Italy..."_... Funny that you bring this up. Just two days ago and Interbike, I had a local IBD ask the Campy folks at the tech seminar about a knocking or clunking noise that seems to emanate from the bottom bracket area on bikes with UT, his response was... "Check this headset." BTW... Have you ever tried to call or contact Campy in Italy? I'm still waiting...
> 
> _"...or have the repeatable evidence and proof and the cause of the problem, or you just leave it."_ ... How many is enough? What kind of proof do you need? What I'm trying to do is figure out the cause of the problem. I'm certainly not doing this for my health. My clients pay me to figure out their bike problems, like this one... not just leave it.... And what about the 50+ emails that I have received in the last 2+ days from people having the similar load knocking problem? Thanks anyway for writing. -John


I'm no tech, but by looking at this vid

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383807261389850787&ei=ZzLgSKXAKaKy2gKK2LydCw&q=ultra+torque


and if the BB shell width is within specs, I can't see how the Hirth joint, if not damaged or not thightened to spec etc. would have anything to do with the symptoms.

For me, the only logical sources for the play would be:

frame related:
an issue with the BB shell itself / BB not tapped and faced / an issue with the threads

Campy related:
BB cups/wave washer/bearings - defective/worn/out of specs or whatever

Everything else doesn't make sense to me.

Just my opinion


----------



## srosonina (Sep 2, 2008)

C-40,

When you use slick 50 on the chainring bolts, are you applying it to the threads or simply spraying over the bolt? Thanks in advance!


----------



## srosonina (Sep 2, 2008)

C-40,

When you use slick 50 on the chainring bolts, are you applying it to the threads or simply spraying over the bolt? Thanks in advance!

Sorry if I posted this twice.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*drip...*



srosonina said:


> C-40,
> 
> When you use slick 50 on the chainring bolts, are you applying it to the threads or simply spraying over the bolt? Thanks in advance!


Slick 50 can be dripped from it's aerosal can. The idea is get it in between the chainrings and the mounting faces of the crankarm, where I expect most creaking occurs.


----------



## srosonina (Sep 2, 2008)

C-40,

Thanks for the great tip. 400 miles and no more creaks. Just wonderful silence! Thanks again!


----------



## drewmcg (Sep 19, 2005)

Val_Garou said:


> I've read this whole thread. As a result, even though I have a stack of Octalink BBs in my closet, I'm going to buy some more.


Yeah, but those Octalinks--now THOSE are tricky to instal properly . . . .


----------



## GirchyGirchy (Feb 12, 2004)

Squidward said:


> Just an update: I fixed the knocking sound. Actually, it was more of a clicking. It turned out to be a slightly loose front wheel quick release! Tightened it an additional 1/8 of a turn and now the bike is virtually silent while riding. I guess my pedaling isn't as butter smooth as I thought it was. My Ultra Torque bearings are still the original bearings from 2006 and I don't think they're going to be replaced any time soon.


Sorry to bring this thread back up, but this worries me...you say you tightened your front QR an additional 1/8 _of a turn_....I hope you mean you released the cam, turned in the QR nut a bit, and pushed the cam lever back in, right? And not that you just rotated the cam lever while it was pressed in?


----------



## Squidward (Dec 18, 2005)

C'mon, you don't think I'm an idiot, do you? I know how a QR works: you spin it on until it tightens then you ride away, right?  Just kidding. Flip the lever, tighten the adjusting nut side 1/8 turn, flip the lever back into the closed position, ride away.


----------



## brujenn (Nov 26, 2007)

GirchyGirchy said:


> Sorry to bring this thread back up, but this worries me...you say you tightened your front QR an additional 1/8 _of a turn_....I hope you mean you released the cam, turned in the QR nut a bit, and pushed the cam lever back in, right? And not that you just rotated the cam lever while it was pressed in?


I just found out that tubes can be patched, and now you're telling me that quick release skewers have something called a "cam" action?! I just carry pliers in my seat oack to cinch 'em down real good.


----------



## OffRoadRoadie (May 15, 2006)

I'm not a bike mechanic with 25+ years of experience or a mechanical engineer with over 30 years in the business of precision measurement......I'm just a cyclist with 33+ years of riding and maintaining my own bikes (I let the pros handle major repairs thou). 

I'm experiencing the same knock (it's a knock, my Cannondale creaks but this is a knock coming from my professionally built 08 Look 595 with 09 Campy Record 11 Speed) during all-out sprints up short rollers or straight line sprints. The knock sound started after 1500 miles and is getting louder after another 600 miles (3 weeks). My driveside crank moves if I squeeze the NDS arms towards the downtube, just like the RogueMechanic pics.

I'm 180Ibs and sprinting is my main strength. I'm I over-coming the wave washer's tension during my sprints? Would a stronger wave washer help? Do I give up on sprinting because my UT BB/Crank will make a knocking sound every time I do a race speed sprint? If I'm compressing the wave washer during my sprints is it causing any pre-mature wear on the bearings?


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*info...*

Do you know for sure that the BB width is correct, the BB faces are square and the spring clip in properly in place? Also be sure that the cups are proerly torqued and not installed using loctite with little or no torque on the cups. I never use the loctite method.

It is the spring clip in the right cup that limits the movement of the crank to a small fraction of a millimeter. If it's not in place or there is too much clearance between it and the right side bearing, that will allow significant movement to the right, if you push on the left side.

Also, if you push on the crankarm, push on it near the center, not at the end near the pedal. Pushing near the pedal mixes radial and axial clearances into a non specific mismash that means nothing.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

C-40 said:


> Do you know for sure that the BB width is correct, the BB faces are square and the spring clip in properly in place? Also be sure that the cups are proerly torqued and not installed using loctite with little or no torque on the cups. I never use the loctite method.
> 
> It is the spring clip in the right cup that limits the movement of the crank to a small fraction of a millimeter. If it's not in place or there is too much clearance between it and the right side bearing, that will allow significant movement to the right, if you push on the left side.
> 
> Also, if you push on the crankarm, push on it near the center, not at the end near the pedal. Pushing near the pedal mixes radial and axial clearances into a non specific mismash that means nothing.


Also, make sure the wavey washer is in place. Most mechanics don't read direction and don't understand that this part is imparative.


----------



## OffRoadRoadie (May 15, 2006)

Raymonda, Yeah the wave washer is in place. 

C40, Pushing on the NDS crank at the BB center point still shows movement on the driveside. I haven't measured the BB width, the BB faces are square and the spring clip is properly in place after visual inspection but my mechanic is going to pull it next week. The cups are properly torqued and installed using 222 loctite per 09 instructions. 

Does Campy offer a stiffer wave washer for us 180Ib sprinters?


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*more...*



OffRoadRoadie said:


> Raymonda, Yeah the wave washer is in place.
> 
> C40, Pushing on the NDS crank at the BB center point still shows movement on the driveside. I haven't measured the BB width, the BB faces are square and the spring clip is properly in place after visual inspection but my mechanic is going to pull it next week. The cups are properly torqued and installed using 222 loctite per 09 instructions.
> 
> Does Campy offer a stiffer wave washer for us 180Ib sprinters?


Just for kicks, apply some light penetrating lube (even WD-40) to the chainring bolt areas and the areas where the chainrings mate with the crank spider. Also lube your quick releases and the areas where they contact the frame. I had more of a creak, not a knock, and it was my rear quick release that needed attention, not the crank.

One of the frustrations that Rogue probably encountered, in addition to a completely wrong approach to the problem, was cranks with shot bearings. It might be wise to just replace the bearing as a precaustion, then reinstall from scratch, as I describe below. All the shimming in the world won't fix ruined bearings. The alternative is to reinstall the cups as I have described below and see if the knock returns. 

The BB width MUST be in the range of 67.2- 68.8mm. When instaling this crank, that is the first thing to do, before the cups are installed. Grease the BB shell and cup threads. Next install, the cups, but only screw them in until they contact a .010 inch feeler gage. Then use .008-.012 inch gages to prove that the BB faces are square to the cups. If not, the BB shell needs facing and you start all over with the width measurement. If the BB is too narrow, place a shim under the left cup. Finally, tighten both cups to 35Nm. Do NOT use the loctite method with little torque on the cups.

First grease the OD of the bearing and the ID of the cup - all metal to metal contact areas. Install the right crankarm first and then the spring clip. If the right crankarm can be moved more than a small fraction of a millimeter, the holes for the clip might be out of location and the cup needs replaced. I can't stress enough that it is the spring clip that inhibits side movement NOT the wavy washer. The wavy washer only applies a 20-60 pound preload to the bearings, and actually forces the right bearing against the side of the right cup, by pushing against left bearing. If you shim the wavy washer area or use two washers you will increase the side load, increase friction, and probably wear out the bearings prematurely.

If you are so obsessed with limiting side movement, place a shim between the right bearing and the cup. You could make your own .1mm (.004 inch) shims from soda can aluminum. Aluminum flashing material from home depot is about .25mm thick. I'd be surprised if you could get more than .3mm of shim under the bearing and still get the clip to slip into place. Any additional shimming counts toward the total BB shell width, so don't start with a 68.8mm wide BB shell and then add to that.

Since you are not doing you own work, print this and take it to your mechanic. It might help explain some of the potential problems. Personally, I've been using the UT crank on three bikes - one all last season and two more this season. All are working perfectly.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

OffRoadRoadie said:


> The cups are properly torqued and installed using 222 loctite per 09 instructions. Does Campy offer a stiffer wave washer for us 180Ib sprinters?


Can't hurt to check the central fixing bolt for proper torque. I think Campy specifies 42 Nm, but 50 Nm or even a bit more are not a problem. You might also want to give some thought to your pedaling style. Lots of pedal force with the crank at bottom dead center ('pedaling squares') results in significant bending moment to both crank, bottom bracket and frame.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*yes...*



wim said:


> Can't hurt to check the central fixing bolt for proper torque. I think Campy specifies 42 Nm, but 50 Nm or even a bit more are not a problem. You might also want to give some thought to your pedaling style. Lots of pedal force with the crank at bottom dead center ('pedaling squares') results in significant bending moment to both crank, bottom bracket and frame.


If that bolt were to work loose, it would allow the two halves of the spindle to come apart, which would create a lot of slop. If the bolt is loose for very long, the left crank arm might fall off.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Interesting thread. I drive 40 year old Italian cars so I'm well familiar with creaks and squeaks and knocks. My solution for them is the same one I use on my bicycles: turn up the music!


----------



## OffRoadRoadie (May 15, 2006)

Yeah, I thought about that. I've been riding a roadbike fixer for the last 7-8 years during the winter months and can hit 200+ RPM pretty easy but during an all-out sprint on the Look coaster bike I'm using more power than spin so the old spin does get a bit ragged. Zero knocking during standing climbs.


----------



## OffRoadRoadie (May 15, 2006)

My mechanic re-greased the BB shell and cup threads, re-install the cups, measured with a feeler gage to verify BB face is squared (BB is 68.22), tighten both cups to 35Nm (No loctite 222 this time). He checked DS spring chip, chain ring bolts, H. Link and verified that bearings look brand new (1500 miles). I test rode the 595 and I still got the same knock sound while sprinting as well as the same NDS crank movement while pushing against the DT or from the BB area of the crank arm. Made numerous calls to Campy dealers and shops (Campy USA is closed for the month of August), a couple of shops that sell Look also discovered the same problem and recommended adding a second wave washer. Knock and NDS movement goes away with second wave washer installed....checking for premature wear of the bearing.


----------



## jberenyi (Oct 1, 2005)

*Me too.*

I have the same knock sound issue as well on my UT 2007 vintage. Did a huge charity ride this weekend and for the whole 100 miles it had the same knock sound as others. In the past I have done what others have done...tear down, clean, grease and assemble. It goes away for me for a while but eventually returns usually the next season. I wish Campy would at least come out with a retrofit of some kind to address the issue but its probably not going to happen.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

jberenyi said:


> I wish Campy would at least come out with a retrofit of some kind to address the issue but its probably not going to happen.


God almighty, what prompted you to pull out this old sh!t again? The guy who started this thread has been thoroughly debunked for years now, and the fix he peddles does nothing useful at all, but is almost certain to damage your crankset bearings. 

Other than that, there is no "issue" that Campy would need to address.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Wow I needed that blast from the past! Amazingly enough 4 years later my UT cranks are still working flawlessly... on the original bearings no less!


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

ive got a story....not the one i was looking forward to telling...but alas this is it...i was hoping, sort of praying that i would not be looking at or posting on a thread like this but here it is....il keep it as tight and concise as i can.....but im attempting to wrap up 1.5months and +20hrs of time, dialogue and effort in a short(ish) read/post.


1.5 months ago i had my favorite bike shop and mech build me a brand spankin new 2015 pinarello F8 decked out in full campy 2015 super record groupo and campy shamal wheels. 

ive been dreaming for the day that i could build and own a bike of this caliber.

in late feb i took possession of this beautiful machine.......my first test laps were in the safety of the rose bowl.....free of distractions. get familiar with the new systems, when less than 10mins into the ride the front derailleur drops the chain to the inside....shifting from the small ring to the big, drops the chain. no problem, its a simple adj issue....back to the bike shop i go.....simple....or so i thought.....

the next month (month of march) the bike has been in the shop more time than out on the road....a total of 4 times....same thing, drop the chain to the inside....take to shop, adj.....drop chain.....take to shop, adj, drop chain....wash, rinse, repeat. heck, they even rebuilt the whole thing at my request. love those guys at velo pasadena.

after all that back n forth, its still dropping the chain on the small to big chainring upshift. two weeks ago out of frustration and a willingness to find a solution, i call campagnolo usa in socal and i dan picks up the phone. i tell dan my problem. i ask dan, "can i bring it to you? im in LA". dan tells me hes out of town and to take it to the best man in LA who knows campy, "my guy in LA, he KNOWS campy ... eric at east west bikes."

the next day i take the bike to eric (who is 1hr and 15min drive one way in LA traffic) in fullerton/LA. we work on that front derailleur for 5hrs on sat. adj, ride, drop chain, adj, ride, drop chain....wash, rinse repeat. we even changed the bottom bracket out. eric is dumb founded. still no joy. eric asked to keep it another week so he can review with dan at campy usa. a week goes by, im calling eric who says no response from dan. near the end of that week, i call eric and say, "im coming to pick up the bike tomorrow and take it back to hrach to have them work on it", the next day dan from campagnolo usa calls and asks to keep it one more day to work on it, he wanted to put a gopro on it. still ever hopeful of a successful outcome as i really love the look and mystique of the product, i say no problem. that was two days ago.


yesterday i picked up the bike from eric at east west. i asked eric if he and dan got all the gopro vids and data they needed. eric said "we could not duplicate the problem" 

wait....eric and i spent 5hrs the previous sat working on it, he saw for himself as i rode past him repeatedly in the parking lot, the chain slipping and dropping on the upshift....

"yeah, i see it, i got it" he says

so yesterday i go down to eric at east west bike to pick up the F8. i went to check the play in the UT bottom bracket.....a full 2+mm!!! i called eric over and showed him the play, no SLOP in the bottom bracket ultra torque setup....thats 2-3mm of lateral slop!!!!! he hands me his bike, same only not as much. (he has similar setup on a different bike)

you know when you get those "AAAAH HHHA!!! moments? that was it....and by the look on erics face he was either saying "oh sheet" or "holy sheet!!". whatever he saw, whatever he said to himself it was not good.


right, so the secret slop is now out of the bottom bracket bag "out of the box"......lets just say that eric and i didnt see eye to eye on the slop in the campy ultra torque bottom bracket. 

i took the position that this the result of bad design and this or ANY slop is totally unacceptable, esp in a $3K world class group set....and it would not be to big of a suggestion so say that this slop is probably what is causing the front derailleur issues, for as the bottom bracket moves, so do the chain rings!!!!...and this all happens with NO cross chain. the chain is pretty much straight in line on the cassette in back, with the small chain ring in front.

eric didnt see any issue with this design, nor with the slop. he actually said "thats the way its designed" (which may be true) and went on to say "you are getting all worked up because i wont agree with you".....my jaw drops to the floor. this guy really believes that this amount of slop is acceptable, a sloppy bottom bracket is ok? its cool? thats amazing. actually what is getting me worked up is that this guy actually believes this, and is telling me this BS and has been working on my bike!! 

hey, if someone walked in off the street and said:

"my chain keeps coming off the front and its getting stuck", the mech sees 2mm of slop in the bottom bracket, is he going to service it or say? "ah, its ok, i could not get it to drop....just ride it....heres a rubber glove to keep your fingers clean". (that last bit is an inside joke, as i kept coming back with greasy fingers, so he gave me a blue rubber glove to take on test rides with me. when i would come back i would show him my clean fingers and say "all clean!!!" and then whip out the greasy glove from my jersey pocket. we would chuckle) 



ever feel like yer being swindled?


so, yesterday picking up the F8, we discover the bottom bracket slop. ensues a little more banter back and forth after which that "AAAHHH HAAA!!" moments hits again....i realize that im swimming in a pool of blind faith without a flotation device, and im sinking. the campy koolaid, folks here are smokin campy crack, whatever you wanna call it....its in full effect and im not getting the benefit of a contact high. right then i knew it was game over and what was coming up ahead of me. take the campy hardware off my bike, too much nonsense, too much risk.

after about 5mins of back and forth on the matter, i walk the F8 out, laughing to myself, shaking my head in utter disbelief at the conversation i just had with a campagnolo referred "proshop" mechanic, campys best trouble shooting man in LA. 
im simply dumbfounded. "we cannot duplicate to problem"....even though the week before this guy said "i see it, i got it" as i rode back and forth in the parking lot in front of him.
"we couldnt duplicate"....thats something id expect that from a GM mechanic but not what i would expect from a mechanic who represents the best mfg of high end road bike components in the world. 

smells like BS to me. little tie fighters protecting the death star. feel the force luke.....keep walking towards the door and dont be seduced by the sexy campy koolaid. keep walking. 

actually im disillusioned and saddened....i really wanted to be part of THAT club, THAT cult of campy....but the admission price is simply too high for me. i didnt spend $3K for a product that doenst work. i didnt spend $3K to troubleshoot, R&D the best components in the world. not my job man. i have not cultivated the blind loving faith of history with the company. not my job. not my problem. not my turn to hit the pipe. just say no. 

ever feel like yer being swindled?



yesterday on the way home i called hrach owner of the bike shop velo pasadena who built the F8 for me. i give him the lowdown on whats going on....hrach says "bring it in and we will take care of you buddy" (i love hrach)

ever feel like yer being listen to and being taken care of?

today i swung by velo. hrach and i chat about the system, i show him the slop in the bottom bracket. we put the F8 on the stand to have a closer look......we fiddle with the slop and as it turns out eric from east west bikes in fullerton broke the front ergo lever shifter!!!! it will not shift!!! unbelievable. just simply amazing. hrach is visibly frustrated and asks me what i would like to do...by this point my disappointment has moved to anger, and i say....

"dump it. take all this crap off my bike......i dont want any of it on the F8 (including wheels) ..... hrach this is not my job, nor is it your job to design around, and hack a fix for something that doesnt work correctly from the factory. i cant and dont trust any of their products or service. take it off and put on shimano di2"......"ok buddy, we will do that, we will take care of you" 

ever feel like yer being listen to and being taken care of?

so, what does this have to do with this thread/post? 

john and i have talked. i think that he is on to something with his shims system and not use this compressible "washer" fix as supplied from the factory to hack a design flaw. 

so why dont i get his shims and ride away into the sunset?

you know what.....if i spend $3K on a product i want it to work. and i want it to work as good, if not better than the maker of that product sells it to me as such. i dont want to have to purchase a off market hack fix and test to see if that does fix it (with all due respect, john is providing me with better service than campagnolo is and i didnt even buy anything from him) all in an effort to TRY and make a brand new product work, to work around a blatant design flaw....a fix from a guy that the mfg disregards? no. im not doing that. good on john for being in the solution mindset....me? im in the "i just wanna ride my bike and not fiddle with this BS" mindset. 

so gents, thats my story. im sad that i will not be part of the cult, i was excitedly looking forward to having a machine that really stood out on club rides and the like.....but that campy koolaid is just to much for me to swallow, and now i have a different story to tell.

today im looking forward to a smooth di2 shifting and shimano consistency setup.

this has been very therapeutic, cathartic, and good for me, i hope if was good for you too.....carryon, live long, prosper and may the force be with yall. 


ps....forgot to mention.....the chainstay behind the small chain ring is totally chewed up as a result of this little bit of nonsense. the paint is hacked out all the way to the carbon stay. thats a total bummer. who pays for that fix?


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

If there is side to side play in a UT or PT crank it's indicative of the DS retaining clip either not installed at all or improperly installed.

A properly installed clip holds the crank firmly in place.

The function of the clip is widely misunderstood, even among "experts".


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

Lol. Great post. Made my day. Enjoy di2.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

I was involved in a thread on WW recently that discussed this issue. It was mentioned by one contributor that even a Campy USA rep did not understand the function of the DS clip.

Campy UK have this to say


> From Campag UK - Graeme Firestone King:
> 
> "I'd avoid riding without as it will allow the chainset to float left and right against the preload of the wavy washer, affecting the FD shifting."


Since BB shells can vary in width a little, it's possible to get away without the clip on shells that are on the high side of tolerances. On shells that are on the low side, then without the clip there will be play and an affect on front shifting.

The thread is here for anyone interested Campagnolo Ultra Torque Removal Help - Weight Weenies


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

Never ceases to amaze me what so called "pro mechanics" and high end lbs's get away with in terms of keeping up to date and knowledgeable of their products. 
Once again this proves that as long as you have some level of technical skill, you are your own best mechanic. A rider who works on and cares for their own bike is usually way ahead of these shops and experts. Who else would you trust to take care of 14 lbs of carbon, alloy and rubber that are the only thing between you and the road at 60 km/hr?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

bikerjulio said:


> I was involved in a thread on WW recently that discussed this issue. It was mentioned by one contributor that even a Campy USA rep did not understand the function of the DS clip.
> 
> Campy UK have this to say
> 
> ...


Agreed. If the clip is installed there is no way there can be any play.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

I believe the original UT installation instructions caused the misunderstanding because of a poor translation job (surprise!), which referred to the clip as a "safety clip".

Looking at the Campy site now it appears that the original instruction sheet has been withdrawn, and the current sheet is much clearer in calling it a "retaining spring".


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

goodboyr said:


> Lol. Great post. Made my day. Enjoy di2.


thank you goodboyr, im disappointed that the campy setup didnt work out, but alas im looking forward to some good times with Grande Rosso (my big red F8) and the di2 setup!


----------



## jberenyi (Oct 1, 2005)

Rokh Hard said:


> thank you goodboyr, im disappointed that the campy setup didnt work out, but alas im looking forward to some good times with Grande Rosso (my big red F8) and the di2 setup!


I wish you good times on your new setup. I have a post in this thread as well dealing with a knocking sound that would come back every so often years ago. I solved that problem two-fold. I bought a newer version bottom bracket from Campy which was release about 2 years after the first version and I now use a very special grease which I use on everything I own and it is amazing. This high EP additive grease is like no other I have used. Since using this grease in the new bottom bracket years ago I have not had any issues of sound or wear on the BB. If interested the grease is called IXL grease. I did my Campy wheel bearings with this stuff and my downhill speed even increased. Anyhow take care.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

As goodboyr posted, I'm glad I'm my own mechanic. I have 4 UT setups and none of these issues.

@OP I suggest you add a chain retainer/catcher to the system.


----------



## Donn12 (Apr 10, 2012)

Sorry to hear that Rock....there is nothing like getting something that you have always wanted and having it fall far short of your expectations. I think you will be happy with the Dura ace and electric shifting will be a bonus! it is a shame they couldn't make the campy work but enough is enough


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

Donn12 said:


> it is a shame they couldn't make the campy work but enough is enough



exactly!


----------



## 1Butcher (Mar 15, 2011)

Maybe it's me, but as simple as a bicycle is, I find it difficult that even an average mechanic cannot fix a basic problem.

I cannot believe that the original person [not a real mechanic] could not put together a bike and give it to the customer like that. A QC road test should have prevented any bad experiences with the customer. 

How every groupset will fit every bike frame is another thing that is just difficult to understand too. 

That said, it took too many weeks/months to find a 2mm play in the BB. Having someone to tell you that is OK just proves you are talking to the wrong person, no matter what their title is.

It is sad to bad mouth a good company like Campagnolo because of the idiots putting together their parts and having a company employee indicate that the parts were properly installed. It's not your fault.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Couple of remarks:


The original poster in this thread (RogueMechanic) is an illiterate hack and complete fool. There is no fundamental design flaw in Campy's UltraTorque system (a system, by the way, that has been sold, unchanged, for many, many years now, and that has performed flawlessly for what must be millions of miles of cumulative use in the most demanding scenarios). Moreover, the "fix" suggested by this guy borders on criminal idiocy, and is guaranteed to ruin your BB in short order. Please, anybody stumbling over this thread, whatever you do, _do not_ ruin your Campy BB system as recommended by RogueMechanic.
I am very sorry, Rokh, for the experience you have had, and I fully understand your frustration. If I was in your situation, with a dysfunctional shifting system and no help in sight, I would probably give up, too. Having said that, and I am sure you won't believe me (and I won't blame you for not believing me), when properly installed, Campy's UltraTorque system, and their deraiileurs, are indeed among the very best products money can buy, bar none. Too bad that the experience has been ruined so badly for you.
Good luck with your Di2 setup! I'm sure it will work perfectly fine for what it is.
Do you happen to have the videos they have done with the GoPro? It would be fascinating to see what is happening here. Like others have said, to me it sounds like the retaining spring was not properly installed, or not installed at all. It's impossible to have the "slop" you describe otherwise.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

goodboyr said:


> Lol. Great post. Made my day. Enjoy di2.


Out of pure and idle curiosity, one must wonder why it is that this post "made your day"? Feel free to explain yourself if you like, or not if you don't. As for me, hearing about the trials and tribulations a fellow cyclist had to go through is not something that I would feel would "make my day", regardless of the brand of equipment that caused his problems. But perhaps that's just me.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

Nope. Didn't mean I enjoy other peoples misfortunes. I meant that it was a nice read from a descriptive story point of view. Typically the stories here are not as literary and descriptive. That's all.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Sorry if I misunderstood.:thumbsup:


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

No prob


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

Well....to be totally honest, there has been the odd time I've been amused by others troubles, but certainly not this case. It involved a particular former rbr poster who has since been banned. I'm sure you can guess who......


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Heh, yes, I think I have a good guess on this one. :idea:


----------



## 1Butcher (Mar 15, 2011)

Highdraw? Banned by more than one site, I say.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

Everybody's a winner!


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

goodboyr said:


> Nope. Didn't mean I enjoy other peoples misfortunes. I meant that it was a nice read from a descriptive story point of view. Typically the stories here are not as literary and descriptive. That's all.


im glad you enjoyed the literary account of the campagnolo drama.....i do enjoy telling a story, esp when there is bit of juicy story to tell!

personally i never thought you did (get off on others drama) ..... if anyone has issue with someone getting off on someone else drama .... there is a program for you ..... its called ...... wait for it ....
















...and if one gets off on others misfortune....not to worry there is a diagnosis for you....














and the treatment is....


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

That's why we are on these forums!


----------



## 1Butcher (Mar 15, 2011)

So that is what happened to RW. I thought he was a guy. I learned something knew today.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Is the Campy group for sale?


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

1Butcher said:


> So that is what happened to RW. I thought he was a guy. I learned something knew today.


Just blew coffee through my nose all over the keyboard.


----------



## Rokh Hard (Nov 25, 2013)

Camilo said:


> Is the Campy group for sale?



i have no idea. it isnt mine.


----------

