# Ultra Torque Problem Uncovered?



## RogueMechanic (Mar 6, 2007)

Hello All,

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

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

Check it out and let me know what you think and if you have any questions. 

Thanks!

John

www.roguemechanic.com


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

very interesting. i tried pulling on the crank in both directions as pictured in your blog and i didn't seem to get any play. perhaps i'm one of the lucky ones in that my BB shell seems to be within the campy parameters. 

have you found a bb width that's ideal for the UT system? 

i'm surprised that more complaints haven't risen. the UT system has been around for a few years now.


----------



## brujenn (Nov 26, 2007)

Did the op hit post twice, or has this thread been moderated to near extinction?


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*posted many places...*

The info has been posted on numerous websites. Now the only thing left is the retraction and damage control for all that misinformation. The whole thing is wrong and so is the attempt at a solution.


----------



## RogueMechanic (Mar 6, 2007)

C-40,
I'm obviously not going to be able to remove you from the theoretical world. I have come to realize that it's nearly impossible to have a rational conversation with you. It's not my style to walk away from this issue which I am experiencing, unlike you C-40, first hand. But I understand that It's your prerogative to not want to believe that this might be an issue. I will not, on the other hand, submit to your absurd request for me to make a retraction because that would be short-sighted and naive. Nor will I admit to promoting any misinformation until this is thoroughly investigated. Part of troubleshooting is brainstorming, testing theories and possible solutions. You should know that being a mechanical engineer with all of that experience. But, maybe when you have a chance, you can give me some suggestions that I can pass on to the 50+ people who have emailed in the last few days to tell me that they have a loud knocking coming from their UT system? 

Best regards,

John


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

I know of around 30 UT BBs on Mirage to Record sets used by racers who are doing around 400 - 500 miles per week on all sorts of frames from alu to high end carbon and so far not a single problem. I have however seen guys try to fit the bolt from the wrong way (opposite) which of course leaves a lot of play but they won't get even one turn of cranks that way!


----------



## Hackney (Jan 22, 2002)

I've had knocking problems with my Chorus and it was down to the bearings.

Living in the UK, and riding throughout winter, the poorly sealed Campag bearings took a caning. They had to be regreased regularly to prevent knocking.

The eventual solution was to replace them with some yellow seal Boca ceramic bearings. Haven't subsequently needed to touch them in over a year.

I used a bearing puller as per the roues artisanales website instructions. 30 minute job.


----------



## ddesmonts (Nov 17, 2004)

*roues artisanales*

"I used a bearing puller as per the roues artisanales website instructions. 30 minute job."

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-6862530.html
I cannot see the images in this URL. Does it work for anyone? I plan on doing this procedure soon.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*works for me...*

The images show for me.


----------



## ddesmonts (Nov 17, 2004)

I'm on a Mac and have tried Explorer, Safari and Firefox w/no luck. Care to PDF the page and send it? Not imperative, I know this is not a browser tech forum. I think I'll manage .


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

I don't see any sense in the Campy Ultra Torque setup. Campy is severely missing the basic single row ball bearing setup issue of the need to have lateral adjustment and/or support of the internal bearing races. Selective shims in small increments are needed for their current configuration and I have seen none. 

I am interested to see what the Dura-Ace (can I say that here?) carbon setup is going to look like!.......... (are they all going insane!)

I haven't seen any BB30 yet, I am suspicious of that one too!


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*don't agree...*

You're working under with the idea that there is some practical way to include a shim pack that would allow the bearing play to be adjusted and still allow the BB width to vary by up to 1.6mm. Not only would this be slow and cumbersome, requiring either a precision dial indicator to verify the amount of play, it would not preload the bearings to eliminate all freeplay.

The wavy washer applies a preload force in the range of 25-60 pounds to the bearings and always insures ZERO freeplay. The idea of installing mutiple washers or shims on the left side is will only cause more problems with excessive preload tension.

While if may be that some people's pedaling action can cause enough side force to overcome the force of the wavy washer, it should not be common. If eliminating all movement is desired, the place to shim is between the right bearing the spring retainer clip, not the left side. Rogue went about a cure from the wrong side of the preceived problem.

A lot of the problems people are experiencing are from misinstallation, due to misunderstanding or not following the installation instructions. Misaligned BB threads can't be fixed and may cause repeated early bearing failure. Some people are just too lazy to have their BB faced and others may have problems caused by incorrect use of loctite.

The half spindle concept certainly eliminates the Shimano and FSA problem of the left crank arm loosening. A similar design is used by Specialized and Zipp for their latest cranks.


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

Thanks for the additional information "C-40", although I believe there is an inherent problem in relying on the "wavy" washer. That amount of side loading is enough to wipe out bearing after bearing. I hadn't looked at what "Rogue" had done........ I guess I'll take a look.

The Shimano / FSA system with an adjuster and pinch bolts is the only one I depend on, although they are not "fool" proof either. 



C-40 said:


> You're working under with the idea that there is some practical way to include a shim pack that would allow the bearing play to be adjusted and still allow the BB width to vary by up to 1.6mm. Not only would this be slow and cumbersome, requiring either a precision dial indicator to verify the amount of play, it would not preload the bearings to eliminate all freeplay.
> 
> The wavy washer applies a preload force in the range of 25-60 pounds to the bearings and always insures ZERO freeplay. The idea of installing mutiple washers or shims on the left side is will only cause more problems with excessive preload tension.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nacracer (Oct 27, 2005)

I have four different bikes all have had the bb threads chased and faced within Campy specs. All bolts have been installed to Campy torque specs. All four cranks have lateral play in them. All make a click sound when sprinting or going hard up a hill. I have taken apart, re-greased re-installed making sure everything is torque to spec...no solution. The play is still there and still all make a click sound due to the movement. Zipp and FSA do use a wavy washer just like Campy and they have lateral movement to. The difference is their movement is the whole shaft moving on the bearing. With Campy it is the bearing moving within the bb cup. I hate to say this but Campy's design is flawed....and this is coming from a long time Campy fan.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*???*



kneejerk said:


> Thanks for the additional information "C-40", although I believe there is an inherent problem in relying on the "wavy" washer. That amount of side loading is enough to wipe out bearing after bearing. I hadn't looked at what "Rogue" had done........ I guess I'll take a look.
> 
> The Shimano / FSA system with an adjuster and pinch bolts is the only one I depend on, although they are not "fool" proof either.


How is it that a measly side load of 25-60 lbs is enough to "wipe out" a bearing than can support many times that amount of radial load? You should go to a bearing manufacturer's website where they list appropriate loads for various bearings. I think you'll find that you're wrong. You can design a bearing to withstand substantial radial and axial loads.


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

C-40 said:


> How is it that a measly side load of 25-60 lbs is enough to "wipe out" a bearing than can support many times that amount of radial load? You should go to a bearing manufacturer's website where they list appropriate loads for various bearings. I think you'll find that you're wrong. You can design a bearing to withstand substantial radial and axial loads.


You have a good point there. I believe I may have been calling the kettle too black. Although, I have seen in other applications when single row ball bearings are side loaded and not supported they tend to come apart (get rough, prematurely). It may have to do with the balls and races contact points being compromised in the side loading.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*thoughts..*

There should never be any axial movement, unless a force is applied that exceeds that which is imposed by the wavy washer. That is true whether the bearings are press fit onto the spindle, like Campy's or whether they are press fit into the cup and allowed to slip over the spindle. If the bearings are press fit into the cups, any fretting wear from axial movement will damage the expensive and nonreplaceable spindle, instead of a cheap bearing cup. If there is any real freeplay, then the wavy washer is shot or the BB is too short.

The amount if movement that is allowed in the UT system is limited by the spring clip on the right side. It should be only about .5mm. If you really think that is a source of a problem, shims could be installed between the spring clip and right bearing.

If you have worn bearing cups or damaged bearings, cleaning and regreasing won't fix that. Worn bearing cups can only be identified by measuring the ID, or at least looking for obvious signs of wear. The nickel plated cups might have the plating worn through, for example. In that case, spend $20 and get new cups. 

Clicks could also come from simple problems like needing to lube the contact areas between the chainrings and crankarm spider and retighten the chainring mounting bolts.

Clicks and cup wear can also be the result of improper cup installation. The Campy instructions are not very good and may lead to problems. With new cups, I would always insure that the BB faces are square to the threads first, then grease the BB shell threads and torque the cups to spec rather than use loctite.

Misusing loctite is another potential problem. If the cups are new, they have a large amount of thread locking material on the threads. You can't leave that stuff in the threads and apply loctite over it. For one thing, it should be impossible to hand tighten the cups with the facotry thread locker in place. To use the loctite method, the factory apllied material should be remove completely before any loctite is applied. The loctite instructions clearly state that all threads must be clean, dry and free of foreign material before applying loctite.


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

You are really reaching now "C-40"....... some more good points......... but, I think I'll just keep riding my Shimano crank set............ this is sounding more and more like a 1970's Fiat car!



C-40 said:


> There should never be any axial movement, unless a force is applied that exceeds that which is imposed by the wavy washer. That is true whether the bearings are press fit onto the spindle, like Campy's or whether they are press fit into the cup and allowed to slip over the spindle. If the bearings are press fit into the cups, any fretting wear from axial movement will damage the expensive and nonreplaceable spindle, instead of a cheap bearing cup. If there is any real freeplay, then the wavy washer is shot or the BB is too short.
> 
> The amount if movement that is allowed in the UT system is limited by the spring clip on the right side. It should be only about .5mm. If you really think that is a source of a problem, shims could be installed between the spring clip and right bearing.
> 
> ...


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

kneejerk said:


> You are really reaching now "C-40"....... some more good points......... but, I think I'll just keep riding my Shimano crank set............ this is sounding more and more like a 1970's Fiat car!


A lot of the perceived problems are nothing but people's imagination and conjecture at work. They've got no real evidence of what their problem is, and spent hours disassembling and regreasing rather than spend $25-55 and just install some new bearings. If I had an actual knocking sound, that would be my first attempt at a cure, but I'd also not guess about whether the cups were installed correctly or whether they were worn. I'd measure for wear to be sure or just spend another $20 and get new cups, then be sure they are installed properly. 

Just about every crank I've ever owned had a small creak at some point and it's almost always been the chainring mounting area that was at fault. A few drops of lube once a year and the problem usually never returns.

Folks using Shimano BBs probably just grease the threads and torque the cups into place, exactly the same as I've done with my Campy UT cups. I did absolutely nothing special when I installed mine, other than check the BB shell faces for squareness with feeler gages - about a 5 minute task. That was a lot cheaper and easier than facing a BB shell that didn't need it.

I've logged 4500 miles on my Chorus UT cranks this year and have had no problems at all. No creaks, no knocks and the cranks spin freely when spun without the chain.


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2008)

I have installed several UT cranks into a variety of frames without even as much care as C-40 takes and I have never had any trouble with them.

Previously I have used the loctite and hand tighten method for the cups, but I do have one bike now that I greased and torqued to spec. Since others have had good luck with it I thought I would try it and save the curing time.

I think one important upgrade in the 11-speed group is the hard anodized cups. The one part of my 10 speed group that showed age and wear was the cups that were corroding a bit on the outside.


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

C-40 said:


> I've logged 4500 miles on my Chorus UT cranks this year and have had no problems at all. No creaks, no knocks and the cranks spin freely when spun without the chain.


If you haven't done it yet,....... remove your crank and inspect the bearings for roughness with your fingers....... if they are not getting rough yet, you may be right in that your setup is good, and you are living with the slight lateral motion issue rather well,


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*later...*



kneejerk said:


> If you haven't done it yet,....... remove your crank and inspect the bearings for roughness with your fingers....... if they are not getting rough yet, you may be right in that your setup is good, and you are living with the slight lateral motion issue rather well,


Whenever I get my new Record 11 speed cranks, the Chorus crank will come off and I'll check and service the bearings then. Campy did make some changes to the bearings. The early models had metal cages and the newer ones have plastic cages. Don't know what else was changed.


----------



## toonraid (Sep 19, 2006)

I have to review my earlier assessment as I have seen a few problems. 1st was from a guy who has put around 6000 miles complaining about a knocking sound - a not so close inspection revealed a missing lock-ring he blamed a team mechanic who had taken it apart for transport to a race, after a new ring was fitted there was still a very slight play in the side to side movement and a new BB cup was fitted - play still there? I then had a look at a new look bike I had built up - same amount of play there then checked another one I built up for a friend a few months ago and that one also had some play. Admitedly none had been torqued so will be doing that over the weekend and keep you guys posted.


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2008)

In each one I have installed, regardless of the method used for the cups the bolt has been torqued joining the two sides. Even with a relatively long torque wrench it is always surprising to me just how tight that bolt is supposed to be, but I have yet to feel any play in a set.


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

i've installed 2 UT cranks- both centaur. one centaur aluminum, the other carbon. both times i had BB faced by my trusty LBS, and using a torque wrench, i tightened the bolts to the correct torque as specified by campy, used no loctite, and did not take off the thread locker pre-installed. 

thus far, i have not had any play in the cranks.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*thoughts...*

There should never be any axial freeplay, unless the BB it too narrow (under 67.2mm), the wavy washer is shot, or the crank was made out of tolerance, with the spacing between the bearings too wide. With the spring clip in place, it should take at least 25 lbs of force, applied at the center of the crank, to produce any movement. If the crank moves axially with little force, something is wrong.

Prying sideways on the end of the crankarms, like Rogue did, is not the way to check for axial play.


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

That lock ring is only incase the fixing bolt comes loose, it keeps the drive side crank from coming out. Likely to keep you safe from the chain rings (safer)......... yes, another flaw!?



toonraid said:


> I have to review my earlier assessment as I have seen a few problems. 1st was from a guy who has put around 6000 miles complaining about a knocking sound - a not so close inspection revealed a missing lock-ring he blamed a team mechanic who had taken it apart for transport to a race, after a new ring was fitted there was still a very slight play in the side to side movement and a new BB cup was fitted - play still there? I then had a look at a new look bike I had built up - same amount of play there then checked another one I built up for a friend a few months ago and that one also had some play. Admitedly none had been torqued so will be doing that over the weekend and keep you guys posted.


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

There is no good way to check for lateral movement, unless it is way loose. Otherwise it would take some pretty technical measuring of the bearing seated points. That is what the range of BB shell width is supposed to be for. These Fiats are hard to take care of! It really is a nice light weight design. Did I say that I don't care for any of the carbon fiber crank mounting designs I have seen.



C-40 said:


> There should never be any axial freeplay, unless the BB it too narrow (under 67.2mm), the wavy washer is shot, or the crank was made out of tolerance, with the spacing between the bearings too wide. With the spring clip in place, it should take at least 25 lbs of force, applied at the center of the crank, to produce any movement. If the crank moves axially with little force, something is wrong.
> 
> Prying sideways on the end of the crankarms, like Rogue did, is not the way to check for axial play.


----------



## T-Dog (Mar 21, 2008)

C 40 you are a legend, you know everything mate. I love reading what you post.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*not so..*



kneejerk said:


> That lock ring is only incase the fixing bolt comes loose, it keeps the drive side crank from coming out. Likely to keep you safe from the chain rings (safer)......... yes, another flaw!?


The only direction that the crank can move is to the right, if enough pressure is applied from the left side to exceed the force of the wavy washer. What the spring clip does is restrict the movment to only about .5mm. It's not a safety device and not a flaw. Some dummies install this crank without the aid of a torque wrench. If the center bolt loosens due to inadequate torque, it should be noticed before the Hirth joint comes apart. If the Hirth joint separates while riding, both crankarms will go straight down and the rider will probably be on his face. A spring clip won't be of much value. I've never read of this happening, but have read of the bolt loosening, probably due to misinstallation.

I've read of plenty of Shimano and FSA left crank arms coming loose or falling off. Now there is a flaw.


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

C-40 said:


> The only direction that the crank can move is to the right, if enough pressure is applied from the left side to exceed the force of the wavy washer. What the spring clip does is restrict the movment to only about .5mm. It's not a safety device and not a flaw. Some dummies install this crank without the aid of a torque wrench. If the center bolt loosens due to inadequate torque, it should be noticed before the Hirth joint comes apart. If the Hirth joint separates while riding, both crankarms will go straight down and the rider will probably be on his face. A spring clip won't be of much value. I've never read of this happening, but have read of the bolt loosening, probably due to misinstallation.
> 
> I've read of plenty of Shimano and FSA left crank arms coming loose or falling off. Now there is a flaw.


Yes, there are problems with the Shimano left arm coming loose if installed improperly. There are problems with anything assembled improperly. 

After I have now further reviewed the Ultra Torque setup, I feel it is a viable setup. A little cumbersome, but pretty well thought out by Campagnolo. The Ultra Torque setup could be the most serviceable of the carbon fiber crank designs, although with added complication of assembly that is not "fool" proof. The problem that I have seen with bearing failure (roughness developing), could also be attributed to water contamination. Which brings me to a further problem with outboard bearing BB's....... they don't seal out water aswell as the previous cartridge designs (so, it seems). Again, some worse than others.


----------



## Bob Dopolina (Nov 1, 2008)

I've seen this OP in another forum. The people there also correctly concluded that it was a bunch of poop.


----------



## dead flag blues (Aug 26, 2004)

You're right about the flooding problem, none of my Phil Wood BBs get full of water like my UT..



kneejerk said:


> Yes, there are problems with the Shimano left arm coming loose if installed improperly. There are problems with anything assembled improperly.
> 
> After I have now further reviewed the Ultra Torque setup, I feel it is a viable setup. A little cumbersome, but pretty well thought out by Campagnolo. The Ultra Torque setup could be the most serviceable of the carbon fiber crank designs, although with added complication of assembly that is not "fool" proof. The problem that I have seen with bearing failure (roughness developing), could also be attributed to water contamination. Which brings me to a further problem with outboard bearing BB's....... they don't seal out water aswell as the previous cartridge designs (so, it seems). Again, some worse than others.


----------

