# Ultra/Power Torque side to side play



## CheapSkate

Hi, an easy pair of questions and some background

1. does your UT or PT crankset have any side to side play? Specifically, can you see about 0.3 mm of motion towards the drive side if you push on the non drive side spindle with a couple of thumbs, or by squeezing the crank arm and the chain stay together?

2. did you get your BB shell measured before installation? If so what was the measurement?

Any answer from you like "no play, 68.0 mm BSA" would be wonderful.

Background

I've installed Centaur Power Torque on a BSA frame. I have about 0.3 mm sideways play towards the drive side which I can get by pressing two thumbs on the non drive side bolt, or by squeezing the crank arm against the chain stay.

My bike clunks when I'm out of the saddle. It sounds like the crankset, of course it might be bad facing, loose cups, pedals, cleats, etc even though I've done some the normal diagnostics & strip/rebuilds.

At the moment I'm just trying to understand the play issue. I have had long discussions with (very helpful) Campag techs. I've been told that 0.3 mm play ("float" is what Campag calls it) is normal. Which sounds odd.

I read up extensively on UT before purchasing. Most people out there in bike land say UT is rock solid side to side, and that doubters like Rogue Mechanic are mistaken. I had assumed that PT would be the same.

At the moment I don't want diagnostic advice (eg "your BB needs shimming", "grease your quick releases") or opinions on the merits of play vs no play, thanks. I just want to understand:- do you guys have rock solid UT/PT cranksets or any play.

Thanks very much, appreciate your help

CheapSkate


----------



## Kneedragon

I have installed Ultra Torque cranks on my two bikes. One is 68mm BSA, the other is 68mm BB30. Both do not have any sideways play at all.

Did you use the wavy washer?


----------



## CheapSkate

Kneedragon said:


> I have installed Ultra Torque cranks on my two bikes. One is 68mm BSA, the other is 68mm BB30. Both do not have any sideways play at all.


Did you measure the actual shell widths (I know BSA can be 67.2 to 68.8 mm)? Thanx


----------



## Kneedragon

CheapSkate said:


> Did you measure the actual shell widths (I know BSA can be 67.2 to 68.8 mm)? Thanx


Yes. The Madone with BSA was 68.15mm. The TeamMachine was 68.1mm.


----------



## CheapSkate

Kneedragon said:


> Yes. The Madone with BSA was 68.15mm. The TeamMachine was 68.1mm.


Cool. My shell is very close to 68.0 and dead flat, and it's all been assembled properly (famous last words!), but I have float. 

The PT wavy washer is much deeper than the UT one, it also seems quite weak, I can squash it flat between finger and thumb. So when it's assembled I can squash the spring inside the BB and get float/play without much effort (2 thumbs, not pressing as hard as I can)

I read somewhere preload should be 20-60 lbs. From the 2 thumb test I would say mine is 20, maybe less.

Food for thought. Thanks a lot.


----------



## MRBIGRING

RogueMechanic shim kit


----------



## CheapSkate

MRBIGRING said:


> RogueMechanic shim kit


Nah, swap the chainrings onto my Daytona square taper, chuck the rest in the bin. I've enough square taper stockpiled to last a decade. The new MPS chainrings are nice though. 
But I will keep talking to Campag guy for a bit, do some more diagnosis.
cheers


----------



## orange_julius

I don't have PT, but I have UT on two bikes. IIRC, both BB width measure 6.75 mm, they were measured using a caliper. No axial play.

Did the Campag tech guys say that 0.3 mm of axial play is typical for PT only, or does it also apply to UT?


----------



## CheapSkate

Thanks


orange_julius said:


> I don't have PT, but I have UT on two bikes. IIRC, both BB width measure 6.75 mm, they were measured using a caliper. No axial play.


You mean 67.5 mm, right?  On the low side then


orange_julius said:


> Did the Campag tech guys say that 0.3 mm of axial play is typical for PT only, or does it also apply to UT?


Both

I'd welcome any other stories about "rock solid" PT/UT setups!


----------



## raymonda

I have installed 10-12 UT cranksets with no problems and no play.


----------



## CheapSkate

Just to close this out...

I saw a PT bike in my LBS showroom, it also had similar side to side play/float under similar pressure. So I'm not the only one.

I've got a tick! tick! tick! while climbing. I moved the PT crank & cups to my winter bike, the tick! went to the winter bike. New pedals & cups didn't help, the shell widths and flatness seem OK. I even backed the non drive side cup out half a turn to simulate a wider shell, made no difference to float or tick.

I suspect a defective crankset. No idea if it's related to the play/float or not. Will talk to Campag on Monday.

Thanks for your help. I am still curious how UT installations are "rock solid' and PT have float. Maybe the UT wavy washer is stronger than the PT one? But the bearings are (presumably?) the same so I would expect broadly the same preload in the two systems. Also confused about how float with the "2 thumb test" is acceptable. Would welcome any comments from Campag experts.


----------



## bikerjulio

I have UT on three bikes - zero play. Nor should there be any regardless of BB width. There is a basic misunderstanding here as to how the UT/PT system functions. The right side bearing is essentially locked into position by the retaining spring. The wave washer is there to provide some minimal preload to the NDS bearing. If people are feeling float it can only be because the retaining spring has not been installed, or not properly installed.


----------



## C-40

*yes...*

It's the spring clip on the right side cup that absolutely limits the side play to a very small amount. Some people leave it off, which is a huge mistake. 

There is always the possibility of a defective crank or cup, fouling up the sideplay, but figuring that out requires some precision measuring. 

Sideplay checks should never involve pushing on the crankarm, except near it's center. Pushing toward the end is not a measurement of axial play.

I don't think the .3mm of side play is excessive, as long as it's not free play. Free play would mean that virtually no force is required to move the crank and might indicate that the wave washer is not being compressed at all. I've got no experience with the power torque wave washer, but the ultra torque wave washer is quite firm and should create a preload in the 20-60 pound range.

The proper place to shim the crank would be between the right side cup and bearing. If enough shim is used, eventually the spring clip will not slide in front of the bearing and retain it. That's too much shim. 

Ticking noises can come from many sources, including the chainring/spider interface. A little spray lube in those areas will stop that problem.


----------



## orange_julius

CheapSkate said:


> Thanks
> 
> You mean 67.5 mm, right?  On the low side then


Correct, thanks for fixing that . On the low side, but not off by an order of magnitude!!



> Both
> 
> I'd welcome any other stories about "rock solid" PT/UT setups!


That's interesting ... I don't own any UT bikes currently, from what I understand PT is similar to the many outboard bearing systems of other brands. For those, I had an FSA MegaExo years ago that had a bit of play, but it took quite a bit of force to get any axial play. And no lateral play that I could remember.


----------



## CheapSkate

Great, it was the chainring bolts, fingers crossed anyway. Thanks very much C-40. I had torqued them but not lubed them.

I had got hung up on the float issue, the local Campag guy was sure it was shell geometry problems, so I didn't rigorously follow the troubleshooting rules - there's a lesson for me. I've never had chainring bolt problems before.

I understand how the system works, I was just surprised I could overcome the preload with 2 thumbs on the axle. Not what I'd expected from reading UT posts. So it seems UT and PT are different in this respect.

If you leave out the retaining clip the float becomes much larger, of the order of 1 mm. The ~0.3 mm float is, as bikerjulio says, the movement of the DS bearing until it hits the retaining clip. Which is new to me, I'm used to non-floaty cranks.

Hopefully sorted now, thanks again.


----------



## C-40

*more...*

The wave washer pushes on the left end of the crank, which should pull the right side bearing against the cup. The only normal play occurs if you push on the left side and push the right side bearing against the spring clip. There should never be any movement seen by pushing on the right side of the crank, since the right side bearing is resting against a fixed surface. That seems to be just what you've described.

I haven't looked at the power torque design enough to see if the fixing bolt causes the left arm to bottom out against a shoulder. If not, then the fixing bolt torque and variations in the splines could cause variations in the left arm location and the amount of preload from the wave washer.


----------



## CheapSkate

C-40 said:


> The wave washer pushes on the left end of the crank, which should pull the right side bearing against the cup. The only normal play occurs if you push on the left side and push the right side bearing against the spring clip.


Understood, I was pressing on the left, non-drive-side, arm, moving the right, drive side, outwards until the right, drive side, bearing hits the retaining clip. Exactly as you described. Sorry for any confusion in my poor English.


C-40 said:


> I haven't looked at the power torque design enough to see if the fixing bolt causes the left arm to bottom out against a shoulder. If not, then the fixing bolt torque and variations in the splines could cause variations in the left arm location and the amount of preload from the wave washer.


It hits a shoulder, basically the splines on the left arm are completely plain and go right through the arm. The splines on the spindle pull through the arm until they bottom out on the crank bolt. If you back out the crank bolt you can see the spindle spline outboard ends flush with the recess the bolt fits in.

Thanks again


----------



## Monk

I have a similar "knock" when standing out of the saddle. It sounds like the bb/cranks are the issue as I've serviced everything else? Curious to know if your noise has subsided since you've done the maintenance?


----------



## CheapSkate

Monk said:


> I have a similar "knock" when standing out of the saddle. It sounds like the bb/cranks are the issue as I've serviced everything else? Curious to know if your noise has subsided since you've done the maintenance?


I think it's fixed, I've only got a couple of miles in since I did the fix, weather is foul here. Mine was a sharp high pitched "tick" like someone flicking the frame with a finger.

Ultra or Power Torque?

If it's a knock or clunk I would suspect pedals, the spline interface between left arm and spindle or maybe the internals of the BB.

Can you make it knock while standing still, bouncing on the pedals etc? Is the retaining spring clip still in place?

I got a clunk once when I hadn't properly torqued the Big Bolt that holds the left crank on, it had started to work loose. 

I would start with the pedals and then the Big Bolt. If that doesn't do it, strip the crank (ha! easier said than done!), re-grease everything, check the cup torques, inspect the splines. If that doesn't do it, maybe your bearings or cups are shot.

I'm sure there are experts out there who will pitch in as well

Let me know how it goes, I am curious as to the longevity of this design.


----------



## Monk

Yeah, UT 2011 SR. The "ticks" I did have were eliminated by cleaning, re-lubing, and torquing the pedals, freehub, hubs, chainring bolts and cassette. The "knock
"remains". 
The BB/crank has got to be it?! I've checked the retaining pin (okay there), but I'll have to take it to the shop for the rest of the service due to the specialty tools. Going to have them chase, face and measure the BB, check the bearings, etc...Guess we'll see? I'll post once I get the results...


----------



## CheapSkate

Maybe the central bolt in the Hirth joint has come loose? It's hard to reach, but I bet you could get an ordinary hex key in there and just check for play/tightness. 

Campag says don't fully tighten it using a hex key, it needs 42 Nm or something which a hex key won't do, you would need the special Campag extender and a BIG torque wrench to remedy it properly.

Edit: thinking about it, even the chance it's the central bolt loose would make me scared to ride the bike. It might result in "accident, personal injury or death". I haven't experienced UT in person, but it looks like if that bolt falls out you're in big trouble.


----------



## Monk

I have no side to side play, but as you mentioned, the torque is 42nm on that bolt and may the culprit? 

As I do not have the BB cup tool and the hex tool I'll have an inspection and rebuild done at my LBS to be thorough. Fingers crossed!


----------



## bikerjulio

Since this is such a misunderstood topic, and since I had nothing better to do (sad), I took this photo and captioned it for everyone's edification.

"Play" should be nothing to do with BB width, the wavy washer, or the time of the month.

Even without the NDS side installed, if the DS is installed correctly there will be no discernible play in a properly installed system. Why? Because the retaining spring holds the DS bearing fairly firmly in place. I have produced this annotated picture to explain:










where:

a = retaining clip projecting through the BB cup.

b = distance between pin and inner face of BB cup.

c = width of bearing.

and b and c are pretty damn close.

If people are experiencing any "play" I'd humbly suggest that their retaining pins are not fully protruding through the holes which were provided for them.


----------



## CheapSkate

Good picture!

"there will be no discernible play in a properly installed system". This is incorrect, and the Campag guy was keen to stamp it out. The Official Word from the Campag warranty guy in the UK is "0.5 to 1 mm float is normal". I guess it depends what you mean by "discernible".

I'm really not trying to be pedantic or rude, I just hope that the clarification will help someone else who installs PT for the first time, sees the small but non-zero float and goes "aaargh". Just like I did.

b and c in your diagram _are_ slightly different:- there is a small gap between the clip protrusions and the DS bearing, and the clip has a small amount of wiggle room in its hole. Add this up and the DS bearing CAN move outboard in its cup a fraction of a mm before it hits the pin, and then the pin can move outboard in its hole a tiny amount more. 

The total is about 0.3 mm in my case. 0.3 mm is easily discernible to me, especially as I was expecting zero, and I was in troubleshooting mode. If I push on the NDS axle, I can see, feel and hear the float. The DS seal clearly moves relative to the cup, the bearings make a tiny crunching noise.

Now I understand the Campag guy's comment. He said "0.5 to 1 mm float is normal". I suspect the 1 mm is somewhat large, but float of the order of 0.5 mm is quite possible.

PT seems to require a force of perhaps 10 kg on the NDS axle to engage the float. I guess that in UT the float is still there, but it is masked by a higher preload, more than you can easily apply by hand.

I got very ****ty with Campag about the float, because I had a clicking noise, combined with statements like "no discernable float" on the Web; other manufacturers' systems saying "tighten until no float"; and partly from my own experience with square taper. 

Now I understand the system better the float doesn't bother me.

I think it works like this:- with PT on the bench I can make it float with say 10 kg, but when I do this the bearings have no radial load. When I'm riding out of the saddle, I can probably put tens of kg of axial load on the crank, but I can only do this while putting a huge radial load on the bearings. The added friction of bearing to cup pushes up the required float side load to lots more than 10 kg.

Maybe you can look at it as a "float angle". I think that to engage the float I need to push the crank at a fairly small angle off axis. On the bench I can push with 10 kg at 0 degrees off axis. On the road I can push the crank with >100 kg, but only at 70-80 degrees off axis. To get float while riding I would have to lean the bike over some crazy angle to push along the axis without the bearings sticking in the cups.


----------



## Bill2

I started getting a clunk while climbing yesterday when drive side UT crank arm passes 9 o' clock position (minimal force applied on DS but max on NDS). It's probably amplified by the carbon frame but it's quite a loud clunk, like a marble hitting the down tube. It goes away intermittently, making troubleshooting a bear. Any easier ideas before I have to re-torque my hirth joint?


----------



## bikerjulio

Bill2 said:


> I started getting a clunk while climbing yesterday when drive side UT crank arm passes 9 o' clock position (minimal force applied on DS but max on NDS). It's probably amplified by the carbon frame but it's quite a loud clunk, like a marble hitting the down tube. It goes away intermittently, making troubleshooting a bear. Any easier ideas before I have to re-torque my hirth joint?


Based on my postings above, the very first thing you should check is the the retaining clip is completely installed, so that the pins are properly seated in the DS cup. Failure to do this will result in a clunk under load.

By all means check the joint - it's a 5 second job.

Then I'd be looking elsewhere - pedals being the #1 culprit.


----------



## CheapSkate

My mistake was to immediately assume it was the crankset. It wasn't. With me it's almost always the pedals, my first check now is to swap in new pedals

Check everything else first
- pedals & cleats
- lube chainring bolts & torque check
- chainring teeth bent/worn
- etc


----------



## Pirx

CheapSkate said:


> Campag says don't fully tighten it using a hex key, it needs 42 Nm or something which a hex key won't do, you would need the special Campag extender and a BIG torque wrench to remedy it properly.


As an aside, I have never understood how people come up with that idea (that you need a "secial Campag extender"). Any standard quarter-inch extender will work perfectly fine. If you don't have one, you can buy one for probably two bucks at Sears. If you have a half-inch drive, there's adapters that convert to a quarter-inch size, probably cost a buck or so.



CheapSkate said:


> I haven't experienced UT in person, but it looks like if that bolt falls out you're in big trouble.


Sure, but, first of all, why would it fall out? If it's been installed properly, it won't move, ever. Of course, it never hurts to check, once a year or so.

Second, if your central bolt, for whatever reason, becomes loose enough so that it might in fact be in any danger of falling out, and you are unable to realize that many, many miles before it gets to that point, then you really deserve an award for klutz of the century...


----------



## bikerjohn64

bikerjulio said:


> Based on my postings above, the very first thing you should check is the the retaining clip is completely installed, so that the pins are properly seated in the DS cup. Failure to do this will result in a clunk under load.
> 
> By all means check the joint - it's a 5 second job.
> 
> Then I'd be looking elsewhere - pedals being the #1 culprit.


^^This^^
If that retainer clip is not seated fully; one or either pins that protrude into the cups will not go deep enough to fall in between the bearing and the shaft/arm recess. 

The only other possible explanation for excessive lateral play would be if the bearing was not properly seated against the shaft/arm leaving an improper gap. But then that would mean that the circlip retainer for the bearing on the shaft is not in place or not in it's groove. 

In regards to the wavy washer; I don't think it really does anything. My first Record crankset did not have one. With the retainer in place properly; there should be no side to side play. Mine does not budge at all. 
I've even had my BB "faced" and is just under 68mm (more like 67.55) and like I said, the shaft does not move laterally.


----------



## bikerjulio

I forgot to say in my recommendation above that the retaining spring should be installed and seated* before* installing the NDS side. Therefore in doing the check, I'd suggest it's advisable to loosen the central bolt to take the spring tension off the system. I'm wondering if some of the problems here result in the spring clip being the last thought in the installation.


----------



## CheapSkate

Bah. My clunk came back. A different noise to the chainring tick. I hadn't touched the crankset for 300 miles. One ride in the rain, left the bike for a few days, jumped on it today and a big clunk while climbing, drive side at 6 o'clock. All normal swaps failed. The only thing that fixed it was to strip the crank, move the grease around and re-assemble. Now it's quiet. 

And yes, the clip was in properly, and the bolt was torqued properly.

Me and Power Torque are definitely not getting along.


----------



## bikerjohn64

CheapSkate said:


> Bah. My clunk came back. A different noise to the chainring tick. I hadn't touched the crankset for 300 miles. One ride in the rain, left the bike for a few days, jumped on it today and a big clunk while climbing, drive side at 6 o'clock. All normal swaps failed. The only thing that fixed it was to strip the crank, move the grease around and re-assemble. Now it's quiet.
> 
> And yes, the clip was in properly, and the bolt was torqued properly.
> 
> Me and Power Torque are definitely not getting along.


It could be the BB; bb bearings or have you checked your headset?

I had a similar sounds which I thought were my pedals going bad but turned out to be a dry junction between my carbon steerer tube and headset. Go figure!

Lastly, and not to scare you but check your frame for any visible signs of fatigue. I only say this because I rode my frame for about a month with what I thought was a dry BB but turned out to be a separation of the front triangle from the rear near the bb shell.


----------



## CheapSkate

bikerjohn64 said:


> It could be the BB; bb bearings or have you checked your headset?
> 
> I had a similar sounds which I thought were my pedals going bad but turned out to be a dry junction between my carbon steerer tube and headset. Go figure!
> 
> Lastly, and not to scare you but check your frame for any visible signs of fatigue. I only say this because I rode my frame for about a month with what I thought was a dry BB but turned out to be a separation of the front triangle from the rear near the bb shell.


Cheers for the suggestions, I do check my frame regularly & I checked the headset.
But I had the clunk; I removed lubed & replaced the crankset touching nothing else; the clunk was gone. So it's gotta be the crankset.... ?


----------



## bikerjohn64

CS; what parts did you end up removing and lubing? Just so we can all know. Thanks.


----------



## refund!?

I install UT/PT cranks on quality frames on a regular basis. I ensure the bottom bracket shells meet recommended spec's and follow Campy's instructions to the letter. No problems.


----------



## martinrjensen

I have 2 bikes with Ultra Torque on them and no issues with either. I measured the bottom bracket width on both of them and they were within Campagnolo's specs so I just went ahead with the default install proceedure.


----------



## CheapSkate

@refund?!
When you install PT cranks, do you get the "low preload" and "float" which is where I started this thread? The double wavy washer seems so weak, I can squash if flat between finger and thumb. When it's installed on the bike, I can float the crank across with relatively little force on the NDS bolt. But everyone talks about UT being "rock solid" I am still puzzled by this difference, and perhaps a little more skeptical than I was a few weeks ago.

My BSA shell is 68.1 mm and is so flat/parallel I can't measure the difference with vernier calipers. It's a quality frame - a Storck carbon. I spoke with Storck and they said the frames are faced before distribution, and that seems true. The build quality on other parts of the frame is fantastic.

@bikerjohn64
I pulled the retaining pin out, pulled the NDS crank arm off with my Special Puller (oh what joy), slid the crank right out. I then just re-smeared the existing grease on the DS cup, the NDS bearing centre, the fixed bearing on the DS crank and the axle including splines. Slid the crank back in, put in the clip, checked it was seated, refitted double wavy washer, dust cap and crank arm. Torqued up crank arm. Runs completely silently now. I had to do this once before, shortly after initial installation and again it silenced it.

Now I thought I felt a bit of grit in the DS cup. Not sure though. I had previously been for a ride and got caught in a light rain shower. Hmmm

Thanks all. It's driving me crazy. I thought a quality frame + a quality PT crank was going to be plug and play.


----------



## martinrjensen

.3mm is about 3 times the thickness of a human hair of your head (for us yanks its .011 or elevan thousands of an inch. There's no possible way that that amount of play should be of any consequence to anybody. I think wa are argueing semantics here.


CheapSkate said:


> Good picture!
> 
> "there will be no discernible play in a properly installed system". This is incorrect, and the Campag guy was keen to stamp it out. The Official Word from the Campag warranty guy in the UK is "0.5 to 1 mm float is normal". I guess it depends what you mean by "discernible".
> 
> I'm really not trying to be pedantic or rude, I just hope that the clarification will help someone else who installs PT for the first time, sees the small but non-zero float and goes "aaargh". Just like I did.
> 
> b and c in your diagram _are_ slightly different:- there is a small gap between the clip protrusions and the DS bearing, and the clip has a small amount of wiggle room in its hole. Add this up and the DS bearing CAN move outboard in its cup a fraction of a mm before it hits the pin, and then the pin can move outboard in its hole a tiny amount more.
> 
> The total is about 0.3 mm in my case. 0.3 mm is easily discernible to me, especially as I was expecting zero, and I was in troubleshooting mode. If I push on the NDS axle, I can see, feel and hear the float. The DS seal clearly moves relative to the cup, the bearings make a tiny crunching noise.
> 
> Now I understand the Campag guy's comment. He said "0.5 to 1 mm float is normal". I suspect the 1 mm is somewhat large, but float of the order of 0.5 mm is quite possible.
> 
> PT seems to require a force of perhaps 10 kg on the NDS axle to engage the float. I guess that in UT the float is still there, but it is masked by a higher preload, more than you can easily apply by hand.
> 
> I got very ****ty with Campag about the float, because I had a clicking noise, combined with statements like "no discernable float" on the Web; other manufacturers' systems saying "tighten until no float"; and partly from my own experience with square taper.
> 
> Now I understand the system better the float doesn't bother me.
> 
> I think it works like this:- with PT on the bench I can make it float with say 10 kg, but when I do this the bearings have no radial load. When I'm riding out of the saddle, I can probably put tens of kg of axial load on the crank, but I can only do this while putting a huge radial load on the bearings. The added friction of bearing to cup pushes up the required float side load to lots more than 10 kg.
> 
> Maybe you can look at it as a "float angle". I think that to engage the float I need to push the crank at a fairly small angle off axis. On the bench I can push with 10 kg at 0 degrees off axis. On the road I can push the crank with >100 kg, but only at 70-80 degrees off axis. To get float while riding I would have to lean the bike over some crazy angle to push along the axis without the bearings sticking in the cups.


----------



## bikerjohn64

CheapSkate said:


> @bikerjohn64
> I pulled the retaining pin out, pulled the NDS crank arm off with my Special Puller (oh what joy), slid the crank right out. I then just re-smeared the existing grease on the DS cup, the NDS bearing centre, the fixed bearing on the DS crank and the axle including splines. Slid the crank back in, put in the clip, checked it was seated, refitted double wavy washer, dust cap and crank arm. Torqued up crank arm. Runs completely silently now. I had to do this once before, shortly after initial installation and again it silenced it.


CS;
I just re-read this^^ and was wondering something about your NDS bearing and "dust cap" and was wondering, is the NDS bearing is loose on the shaft and comes off when you pull out the NDS arm/shaft?

What got my attention was the dust cap. There should be no loose components on the NDS assembly. 

The arm and shaft with the black bearing seal and bearing should be as one. The bearing should be seated against the NDS crank arm with a tight tolerance fit on the shaft with the bearing seal between the bearing and crank arm. A puller is supposed to be required to remove this bearing from the shaft. 

It is the same for the DS arm assembly with one addition of a retaining circlip that is on the shaft preventing any possible movement of the DS bearing. There is also another black bearing seal between the bearing and DS crank arm. Those seals are there to prevent stuff from getting into the BB cups. 

Please let me know if I mis-read this or if your bearing is actually loose on the NDS. 

Cheers!


----------



## C-40

*don't agree...*

The normal float is not in the .5-1mm range or anything close to it. Even .3mm would be on the high side. With the proper tools, the distance between the bearing cup face and retainer clip hole can be measured to compare with the bearing width.

As I noted, you can always make an aluminum shim of your own, to eliminate the play. Common aluminum flashing material is .010 inch thick and pop cans are .004. I'd be surprised if anything greater that .010 inch is required.


----------



## bikerjulio

bikerjohn64 said:


> CS;
> I just re-read this^^ and was wondering something about your NDS bearing and "dust cap" and was wondering, is the NDS bearing is loose on the shaft and comes off when you pull out the NDS arm/shaft?
> 
> What got my attention was the dust cap. There should be no loose components on the NDS assembly.
> 
> The arm and shaft with the black bearing seal and bearing should be as one. The bearing should be seated against the NDS crank arm with a tight tolerance fit on the shaft with the bearing seal between the bearing and crank arm. A puller is supposed to be required to remove this bearing from the shaft.
> 
> It is the same for the DS arm assembly with one addition of a retaining circlip that is on the shaft preventing any possible movement of the DS bearing. There is also another black bearing seal between the bearing and DS crank arm. Those seals are there to prevent stuff from getting into the BB cups.
> 
> Please let me know if I mis-read this or if your bearing is actually loose on the NDS.
> 
> Cheers!


BJ I think you are confusing PT and UT. In PT the bearing sits in the NDS cup. Whereas on UT it is pressed on to the shaft. The DS is the same on both UT and PT. And it's the DS that controls the lateral movement. People talking about the wavy washer as a problem don't understand the design.

I don't understand how most installations are OK, with a rock solid system, and some have problems, unless it's incorrect installation.


----------



## bikerjohn64

bikerjulio said:


> BJ I think you are confusing PT and UT. In PT the bearing sits in the NDS cup. Whereas on UT it is pressed on to the shaft. The DS is the same on both UT and PT. And it's the DS that controls the lateral movement. People talking about the wavy washer as a problem don't understand the design.
> 
> I don't understand how most installations are OK, with a rock solid system, and some have problems, unless it's incorrect installation.


Oops; maybe I was. I guess I was under the impression that CS has the UT setup. Thanks for bringing that to my attention Julio.


----------



## CheapSkate

Thanks for both of your comments



martinrjensen said:


> .3mm is about 3 times the thickness of a human hair of your head (for us yanks its .011 or elevan thousands of an inch. There's no possible way that that amount of play should be of any consequence to anybody. I think wa are argueing semantics here.


Whatever. Me, a qualified Campy service technician and my 75 year old dad can all easily see 0.3 mm movement and hear the crunching sound associated with it. The Campy tech described the float as "huge" (his experience is almost entirely with UT though). I emphasise that I still don't know if the float is causing my clunk.



C-40 said:


> The normal float is not in the .5-1mm range or anything close to it. Even .3mm would be on the high side. With the proper tools, the distance between the bearing cup face and retainer clip hole can be measured to compare with the bearing width.


Well that's the odd thing. That quote was verbatim from Graeme at Campag Warranty UK (Velotech Ltd). I assume the float is there in UT, but is masked by much higher preload. Basically, if you assembled your UT without the wavy washer, but with the retaining clip, I expect you would see around 0.3 mm of float.

I find it interesting we have a range of opinions. 0.3 mm float is...
- "too small to be of any consequence" (Martin)
- "normal" (Campy warranty UK)
- "on the high side" (C-40) 
- "huge" (Campy bike tech)
You see why I'm confused 

I have measured the PT "double wavy washer" and it takes about 5 kg (about 10 lb in old money) to compress it dead flat. In my 68.1 mm shell, it won't be quite be fully compressed, because there will be at least 0.9 mm "left over" to accommodate a minimum 67.2 mm shell. I bought a second spring and it's pretty much the same. So my spring preload is probably less than 5 kg/10 lb. In fact the preload is often so low that I can "float" the crank over to the DS and it sticks there, it doesn't spring back on its own. I have to pull it back by hand.



C-40 said:


> As I noted, you can always make an aluminum shim of your own, to eliminate the play. Common aluminum flashing material is .010 inch thick and pop cans are .004. I'd be surprised if anything greater that .010 inch is required.


I'm not so sure. The purpose of shimming would be to either (a) increase the preload by compressing the wavy washer more, or (b) eliminating the washer altogether. I'm not sure (a) will work, the preload is pretty low even with the washer dead flat and (b) would take a huge shim, the wavy washer is a couple of mm tall even when fully compressed. I think a shim that large would cause the NDS cup to hit the crank arm. I guess I could leave the wavy washer in, and shim to fully compress it, that would take around 1 mm I guess.

Again, not sure if the float is the cause of the clunk. In fact, I still don't understand whether I should have float or not!

Graeme at Velotech has been very helpful, and very patient with my rantings. We still have some avenues to explore.

I have swapped back to square taper, and it's bloody marvellous. Spins well, silent, easy to remove. Just obsolete


----------



## bikerjohn64

CS; 
With the UT system; there is no float. You can even remove the NDS crank/shaft assembly and it still will not float since the retainer clip is what keeps things tight. I can even remove the wavy washer and it still won't move. 

The retainer clip/pins that protrude into the BB shell falls in between the press fit bearing and crankarm side seal keeping the bearing up against the BB cup's inner face. 

When you installed your PT crankset; did it include the PT BB cups?

For others in the forum.... Is there any difference between the PT BB cups and the UT BB cups and if so, any chance that they might have gotten mixed up? I'm just throwing this out there.....


----------



## CheapSkate

bikerjohn64 said:


> CS;
> With the UT system; there is no float. You can even remove the NDS crank/shaft assembly and it still will not float since the retainer clip is what keeps things tight. I can even remove the wavy washer and it still won't move.
> 
> The retainer clip/pins that protrude into the BB shell falls in between the press fit bearing and crankarm side seal keeping the bearing up against the BB cup's inner face. .


Interesting
Not even a tiny bit of float?

I assembled by PT drive side on the bench, I slid the cup onto the axle and bearing and put the clip in, just like it would be on the bike. I can feel the float in this position if I wiggle the cup back and forth on the bearing. It's only small, again fractions of a mm. But it's not zero.

Yes they are PT cups, I have 2 sets. UT won't work, with PT one of the bearings is pressed into the NDS cup.

Again, still not sure if the float/low preload causes my clunk.


----------



## bikerjohn64

Sorry for the long delay in reply. I just did a complete overhaul on the Ultra Torque and did some measurements at the same time using a digital caliper. 

The only float laterally is a .1mm allowance between the retainer pin and the bb bearing. 

The wavy washer to my forgetful surprise does have quite a spring to it and cannot easily be compressed using my fingers and therefore does creat a good amount of preload in the shaft interface. 

With the NDS off; there is a slight rocking allowance since the bearing/cup interface has a little room, but not much. Once the NDS is installed, the rocking is completely gone. 

CS; any news on your "knocking"?


----------



## CheapSkate

bikerjohn64 said:


> Sorry for the long delay in reply. I just did a complete overhaul on the Ultra Torque and did some measurements at the same time using a digital caliper.
> 
> The only float laterally is a .1mm allowance between the retainer pin and the bb bearing.
> 
> The wavy washer to my forgetful surprise does have quite a spring to it and cannot easily be compressed using my fingers and therefore does creat a good amount of preload in the shaft interface.
> 
> With the NDS off; there is a slight rocking allowance since the bearing/cup interface has a little room, but not much. Once the NDS is installed, the rocking is completely gone.
> 
> CS; any news on your "knocking"?


Hey thanks, that's really useful & thanks for your interest.

Not really any news, I pulled the crank out and put it on my cheap alloy winter bike. The float is still there. So far I have only done about 30 miles, no clunk yet. But that's inconclusive, it typically took 50 miles to get clunking. It's just that riding my winter bike is pretty tedious, and I've had a cold!

I re-checked my 5 kg preload figure and confirmed it with the spring in situ, it's 4-5 kg. I had a long conversation with Graeme at Velotech, he is going to get the preload specification from Campag. He thought the preload sounded low, but wouldn't commit any further.

Thanks for the UT preload number, really useful. I found this on the web for Ultra Torque, which ties in with your note:- "I did my own test on the wave washer to see how much weight was required to compress it. 25 lbs will cause significant compression and 50 just about squashes the washer flat." Campagnolo Ultra Torque Problem Uncovered? [Archive] - Bike Forums

That's miles different from my PT preload which is more like 10 lb in situ.

I'm building up a new Storck frame from scratch, I'll put the PT in it and try to get some miles on it, but it will take a few weeks, I'm not in a rush.

My theory is the same:- the low preload means the bearing moves slightly in the cup, exacerbated by my awful pedal stroke. The bearing pushes the grease aside over a few tens of miles, then the clunk starts as the bearing moves. Do I have a faulty spring, or was PT not designed for bad riders like me? Or maybe my theory is completely wrong?

Thanks again for your really useful post


----------



## C-40

*shim?*

That .1mm of sideplay is quite small, but not all cranks will be that tight-fitting. Every part has a tolerance and how those stack up affects the play.

I'd try the shim, if for no other reason, to see how much can be put in before the retainer clip won't go into place.

Also, be sure to coat all surfaces with grease - the ID of the cups and the exterior of the bearing. 

The wave washer does play an important role, since it pushes the spindle to the left and holds the bearing tight against the face of the drive side bearing cup. Without it, there would be no preload on the bearings and definite side play. No wave washer would result in a short life for the bearings and the cups.


----------



## CheapSkate

C-40 said:


> ... The wave washer does play an important role ... Without it, there would be no preload on the bearings and definite side play.


Yeah. The question I keep going round is, "how much preload is enough?". Everything I can find on the web points to 25 - 50 lbs, for all systems that use a WW. Why then is my PT spring only 10 lbs?

Itching to get an answer from Campag, but I bet they are all crazy busy trying to make polka dot carbon fibre 

Thanks C-40


----------



## CheapSkate

*Power Torque redux*

I got a new frame. Another Storck Absolutist, half price - very CheapSkate (?)

Put the Power Torque in, same problem. 40 silent miles, then click! click! click! while climbing. Re-greasing the crank solves the problem for tens of miles. Sometimes pushing the crank through its float a few times buys me a few miles.

The BB shell is BSA, 68.3 mm, the faces are as parallel to the limits of a vernier caliper, the threads appear concentric as well as various measurements I can make say.

Oddly I put it on my alloy winter bike and got about 60 miles of silence. but then I ran out of patience, I hate my winter bike.

Meantime my other Storck frame has done 1500 miles on a Centaur square taper cartridge which spins smooth as silk and completely silent. No binding, creaking, squeaking, nothing.

So I either have a defective crank; I persistently install it wrong; or there is some fundamental incompatibility between PT and Storck frames.

Still no preload numbers from Campag, apparently they are on factory holiday.


----------



## C-40

It's also possible that the bearings need to be replaced. It would be worth a try. 

If the reataining clip allows more than .1mm of side play, then you need to install a shimbehind the right side bearing, as I've suggested before. It is the retaining clip that ultimately limits side play.

Some folks with ultra-torque problems, caused by improper installation, whine that their problem still exists after they've reinstalled the left-out retaining clip, wave washer or fixed some other mistake, but the problem then, is ruined bearings.

The times when I've had clicks, they turned out to be a need to lube the chainring bolts and mounting surfaces, with a bit of light oil. Other times, my rear skewer was not tight enough and I got a click on every downstroke, when pedaling out of the saddle.


----------



## roadworthy

Cheapskake,
I have read your thread and this is what I suggest to resolve your issue:
1. Order UT wave washer with higher spring rate and install it in your PT.

2. Shim the external threaded cup with shim stock as C40 suggested. Shim stock should be placed like a donut over the threaded cup male thread between BB and threaded cup mating shoulder. 

3. Sell your PT crank and purchase a UT crank which is a completely different design and generally more robust for noise because both bearings are pressed onto respective half shafts and wave washer spring rate is higher. Mine has been rock solid for 6K miles with original bearings.

As an aside, if you want to discern shim stock thickness, install crank with cup(s) less than torqued to spec and loosen one cup until there is no lateral lash in the crank. With calipers, measure the gap between threaded cup shoulder and BB. Don't shim line-to-line but rather with about .0005 -.001" clearance. If you struggle with creating shims, contact the Rogue Mechanic as refererence...as he can supply shims sized for plug and play. Btw, I strongly suggest you dismiss his general advice of shimming a Campy crank withOUT a wave washer. This is a bad idea. There is no such thing as zero lash and you always want a wave washer for a nominal axial pre load.

Hope that helps


----------



## C-40

*no...*

I did NOT suggest placing a shim between the cup and the BB shell. That is the WRONG approach to the problem. All that does is effectively change the BB shell width, so it would no longer be in the proper range. If you did that and used a UT wave washer, you could have far too much bearing preload.

The shim that would be used to eliminate free float would be placed behind the right side bearing, so there is little float between the bearing and the retaining clip.

I don't know why Campy chose to use a weaker wave washer for the PT crank, but you'd need to be certain that the UT model was similar in height to the PT model, or you'd put excessive prelaod on the bearings. The UT wave washer is about 3mm in height, in the free state and the thickness of the steel it's made from is .63mm.


----------



## roadworthy

C-40 said:


> I did NOT suggest placing a shim between the cup and the BB shell. That is the WRONG approach to the problem. All that does is effectively change the BB shell width, so it would no longer be in the proper range. If you did that and used a UT wave washer, you could have far too much bearing preload.
> 
> The shim that would be used to eliminate free float would be placed behind the right side bearing, so there is little float between the bearing and the retaining clip.
> 
> I don't know why Campy chose to use a weaker wave washer for the PT crank, but you'd need to be certain that the UT model was similar in height to the PT model, or you'd put excessive prelaod on the bearings. The UT wave washer is about 3mm in height, in the free state and the thickness of the steel it's made from is .63mm.


It is good you have articulated your position for the record.
First common ground:
Yes...be sure to measure the UT wave washer for suitabllity with PT cranks...in height in particular. Higher spring force will increase preload without question. The OP states that his issue is axilal clearace overcoming the preload of the PT wave washer. Without development, it is unknown what the long term consequences to bearing life and spindle drag are to increasing spring rate by substituting UT wave washer.

On area of possible disagreement:
I would of course have to study the PT issue with parts in hand, but my initial interpretation is...shimming the bearing inside the cup is a bad idea. The simple reason is the mating surface for the RH bearing. A shim does not have nearly the same surface integrity for a nesting/abutting surface as a machined cup shoulder. However, point taken that capturing the crank axially outboard maybe the best approach. But if you think about the design...the wave washer applies a preload to the outside of the bearing capturing the crank against the clip spring. Loosening/shimming the threaded cup accomplishes the same end by increasing effective BB shell width. It translates the spring clip outboard in space reducing clearance from the inboard edge of the RH bearing to the spring clip leaving the crank with no room to displace laterally.

A final comment. When it comes to the design of Campy parts, few stones are left unturned in product develpment. For the PT cranks not to work right IMO does not take reinvention of the wheel. My strong believe is the design is fine and there is something in the execution of this set up that is not right although CS seems to be capable based upon what has been written.


----------



## C-40

*still no...*

The wave washer does NOT "capture" the face of the outer bearing race against the spring clip. It does just the opposite. It pushes the spindle to the left, which moves the drive side bearing away from the spring clip, holding it tight against the right face of the cup. 

Placing shims as you've suggested only increases the amount of squash on the wave washer and does nothing to eliminate the small amount of play between the bearing and the retaining clip. 

The shim that I've suggested would be quite thin, since there is very little clearance between the bearing and the retaining clip. I suspect it would be in the .1-.2mm range. It could easily be made of steel or stainless steel, so there is no durability issue.


----------



## CheapSkate

OK here we go, I think I understand how it's supposed to work, and how it actually seems to work, and IMHO why it sucks.

I think it sucks for 2 reasons
1 - removing the crank is a nightmare
2 - it's incredibly sensitive to what frame it's in.

*How it should work in ideal circumstances*

The preload is remarkably low. The uncompressed wave washer is about 10 mm high. Fully compressing it takes about 5 kg, then it's about 2 mm high. In situ the gap it fills between the NDS bearing and the NDS crank is about 4 mm high, so it's mostly compressed, therefore the preload is about 3-4 kg. I have 2 springs now and they have the same preload. Now it's possible I have 2 defective springs, but unlikely, as they came from 2 different sources. Campag still hasn't told us the nominal preload value.

In a nominal installation you can float the crank across _with one thumb pressing on the NDS axle crank bolt_. The crank floats over until it hits the retaining clip, about 0.3 mm. When you lift off the thumb pressure it springs back. It makes tiny noises when the crank is newly installed and lubed. It gets a bit more scratchy after ~100 cycles on the bench.

*How it actually works on 3 out of 4 of my frames*

All 4 frames have English BBs. All range from 67.8 to 68.3 mm and have very parallel faces. All have run square taper cartridge for hundreds or thousands of miles with no binding, clicking or creaking.

On one of my frames (generic carbon, I paid £700) I installed the crank on the bench and it behaved as above. That frame doesn't fit me now, so I've not ridden it on the road.

On my other 3 frames (2 x Storck Absolutist with msrp £2000, 1 x Ribble aluminium audax, msrp £80) the behaviour is different. The Storcks have CNC'd BB shell inserts, the Ribble has a classic welded metal tube.

On these three frames the crank behaves differently. It takes slightly more pressure to float the crank across, 2 thumbs. Once the crank has floated, the spring pressure won't bring it back. The crank sticks until you pull it back, or turn the pedals. You get a clunk-click as you push then pull. On the road I believe this is what causes my click while climbing.

I have not chased these frames' threads. The Ribble has definitely not been chased or faced, there is paint on the faces. Storck claims they were chased at the factory, but who knows? They were made by Giant or somebody else Taiwanese. Indeed the cups go in very easily, perhaps a bit too easily, they really spin in now the thread locker has gone. (and no, the cups don't cause my click).

So. Maybe the problem is my threads aren't aligned. 3 different frames, 2 materials, 2 manufacturers, all have exactly the same problem? Hmmm. I am also highly skeptical that chasing will actually fix the threads.

*the overall problem*

I think Power Torque is designed to float as you pedal. The preload is so low, it has to. I think the low preload, my bad pedalling style, and the clicky, sticky problem, whatever it is, combine to cause my click.

I bet if I had UT with its much higher preload I wouldn't have this problem.

*fixes*

Velotech (aka Campag UK) suggest that chasing would be useful, though they are not sure, I get the impression my problem is unusual. My position is:- if it doesn't work properly on 3 out of 4 randomly chosen frames, then the design sucks. If it's that diva-ish, I want nothing to do with it. Stubborn perhaps, but I've spent a fortune on diagnosis already.

Various fixes are possible

- chase the threads. I might. Hmmm, but that would be a long drive, I am reluctant to let the local gorillas loose on my frame. It really shouldn't be necessary. I am really skeptical it materially alter thread alignment. Also more money down the drain.

- move to UT. Yeah, but 10s Ultra Torque is as obsolete as square taper. I don't want to be obsolete, and PT is the preferred 10s solution.

- go back to square taper. That's the way I'm going at the moment, I would have to drop the PT stuff in the trash, otherwise I will get sucked back in again.

Advantages of Power Torque over square taper
- lighter, a few tens of grams
- stiffer, whatever the hell that means. If you do the engineering math, it's not actually _much_ stiffer, to get the weight down the tube axle walls are paper thin. 
- you can look right through the axle to the other side of the bike 

Disadvantages of Power Torque (IMHO)
- super finicky about its frame
- a b***h to remove the crank arm
- poor weather seals & possibly shorter bearing life
- expensive & difficult to replace bearings, tedious trip to Campy expert or special tools.

*Why I can't shim*

Well first, because it should "just work", right? 

Second, the wave washer is very different to the UT one. It's much taller, and has a lower rate. It sits outboard of the NDS cup, and presses between the ID of the NDS bearing and the NDS crank arm. So if the aim is to shim to increase preload, you are SOL. Even if I shimmed either cup 1 or 2 mm I would only get 5 kg preload. Probably not enough. If the aim is to replace the wave washer, the shim would need to be inside the NDS cup, wrapped around the axle, so the crank arm bears directly on the NDS bearing ID. I tinkered with shimming until the spring is dead flat, then it would act like an infinite preload (if you see what I mean). But why should I shim - it should just plus & play, right?

Again, Velotech have been nothing but super helpful. Kudos to Graeme he has sat through my ranting, and given as good as he got.

This is mostly to instruct anyone else who has this problem, I think I'm finished with PT now (though I've said that before).


----------



## CheapSkate

C-40 said:


> It's also possible that the bearings need to be replaced. It would be worth a try.
> 
> If the reataining clip allows more than .1mm of side play, then you need to install a shimbehind the right side bearing, as I've suggested before. It is the retaining clip that ultimately limits side play.
> 
> Some folks with ultra-torque problems, caused by improper installation, whine that their problem still exists after they've reinstalled the left-out retaining clip, wave washer or fixed some other mistake, but the problem then, is ruined bearings.
> 
> The times when I've had clicks, they turned out to be a need to lube the chainring bolts and mounting surfaces, with a bit of light oil. Other times, my rear skewer was not tight enough and I got a click on every downstroke, when pedaling out of the saddle.


C-40, thanks again.

Your chainring bolt lube suggestion a while ago fixed one of my 2 problems, thanks a lot. 

The crank inc bearings is brand new, maybe 100 miles on it by now

It's not anything else on the bike, because (a) the click follows the crank from bike to bike and (b) stripping, lubing, reinstalling stops the creak for tens of miles

re shimming I might make another post

thanks!


----------



## CheapSkate

Re shimming

I think both solutions would work, it depends whether you want to prevent movement by bearing against the cup (by increasing the effective shell width), or against the spring clip (by increasing the effective DS bearing width).

For fun I installed with the cups loose, and wound out the NDS cup. Basically increasing the preload. Wind it out 2 mm or so and the spring is dead flat, acting like an internal shim aka "infinite spring rate". That DOES stop the float. Whether it fixes the click or not, who knows.

So it's plausible I could bodge (does any other nation use that word?) a shim fix with ~2 mm behind the NDS cup. I'm sure C-40's solution would work too, but I didn't have the parts to hand

But I've got a better idea:

Use square taper.

20k silent miles, no muss, no fuss. gain tens of grams, lose some "stiffness" (hem hem)

I would LOVE to try UT, but I'm d**ned if I'm going to get sucked into another outboard bearing system. One a year is my limit


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> OK here we go, I think I understand how it's supposed to work, and how it actually seems to work, and IMHO why it sucks.
> 
> I think it sucks for 2 reasons
> 1 - removing the crank is a nightmare
> 2 - it's incredibly sensitive to what frame it's in.
> 
> *How it should work in ideal circumstances*
> 
> The preload is remarkably low. The uncompressed wave washer is about 10 mm high. Fully compressing it takes about 5 kg, then it's about 2 mm high. In situ the gap it fills between the NDS bearing and the NDS crank is about 4 mm high, so it's mostly compressed, therefore the preload is about 3-4 kg. I have 2 springs now and they have the same preload. Now it's possible I have 2 defective springs, but unlikely, as they came from 2 different sources. Campag still hasn't told us the nominal preload value.
> 
> In a nominal installation you can float the crank across _with one thumb pressing on the NDS axle crank bolt_. The crank floats over until it hits the retaining clip, about 0.3 mm. When you lift off the thumb pressure it springs back. It makes tiny noises when the crank is newly installed and lubed. It gets a bit more scratchy after ~100 cycles on the bench.
> 
> *How it actually works on 3 out of 4 of my frames*
> 
> All 4 frames have English BBs. All range from 67.8 to 68.3 mm and have very parallel faces. All have run square taper cartridge for hundreds or thousands of miles with no binding, clicking or creaking.
> 
> On one of my frames (generic carbon, I paid £700) I installed the crank on the bench and it behaved as above. That frame doesn't fit me now, so I've not ridden it on the road.
> 
> On my other 3 frames (2 x Storck Absolutist with msrp £2000, 1 x Ribble aluminium audax, msrp £80) the behaviour is different. The Storcks have CNC'd BB shell inserts, the Ribble has a classic welded metal tube.
> 
> On these three frames the crank behaves differently. It takes slightly more pressure to float the crank across, 2 thumbs. Once the crank has floated, the spring pressure won't bring it back. The crank sticks until you pull it back, or turn the pedals. You get a clunk-click as you push then pull. On the road I believe this is what causes my click while climbing.
> 
> I have not chased these frames' threads. The Ribble has definitely not been chased or faced, there is paint on the faces. Storck claims they were chased at the factory, but who knows? They were made by Giant or somebody else Taiwanese. Indeed the cups go in very easily, perhaps a bit too easily, they really spin in now the thread locker has gone. (and no, the cups don't cause my click).
> 
> So. Maybe the problem is my threads aren't aligned. 3 different frames, 2 materials, 2 manufacturers, all have exactly the same problem? Hmmm. I am also highly skeptical that chasing will actually fix the threads.
> 
> *the overall problem*
> 
> I think Power Torque is designed to float as you pedal. The preload is so low, it has to. I think the low preload, my bad pedalling style, and the clicky, sticky problem, whatever it is, combine to cause my click.
> 
> I bet if I had UT with its much higher preload I wouldn't have this problem.
> 
> *fixes*
> 
> Velotech (aka Campag UK) suggest that chasing would be useful, though they are not sure, I get the impression my problem is unusual. My position is:- if it doesn't work properly on 3 out of 4 randomly chosen frames, then the design sucks. If it's that diva-ish, I want nothing to do with it. Stubborn perhaps, but I've spent a fortune on diagnosis already.
> 
> Various fixes are possible
> 
> - chase the threads. I might. Hmmm, but that would be a long drive, I am reluctant to let the local gorillas loose on my frame. It really shouldn't be necessary. I am really skeptical it materially alter thread alignment. Also more money down the drain.
> 
> - move to UT. Yeah, but 10s Ultra Torque is as obsolete as square taper. I don't want to be obsolete, and PT is the preferred 10s solution.
> 
> - go back to square taper. That's the way I'm going at the moment, I would have to drop the PT stuff in the trash, otherwise I will get sucked back in again.
> 
> Advantages of Power Torque over square taper
> - lighter, a few tens of grams
> - stiffer, whatever the hell that means. If you do the engineering math, it's not actually _much_ stiffer, to get the weight down the tube axle walls are paper thin.
> - you can look right through the axle to the other side of the bike
> 
> Disadvantages of Power Torque (IMHO)
> - super finicky about its frame
> - a b***h to remove the crank arm
> - poor weather seals & possibly shorter bearing life
> - expensive & difficult to replace bearings, tedious trip to Campy expert or special tools.
> 
> *Why I can't shim*
> 
> Well first, because it should "just work", right?
> 
> Second, the wave washer is very different to the UT one. It's much taller, and has a lower rate. It sits outboard of the NDS cup, and presses between the ID of the NDS bearing and the NDS crank arm. So if the aim is to shim to increase preload, you are SOL. Even if I shimmed either cup 1 or 2 mm I would only get 5 kg preload. Probably not enough. If the aim is to replace the wave washer, the shim would need to be inside the NDS cup, wrapped around the axle, so the crank arm bears directly on the NDS bearing ID. I tinkered with shimming until the spring is dead flat, then it would act like an infinite preload (if you see what I mean). But why should I shim - it should just plus & play, right?
> 
> Again, Velotech have been nothing but super helpful. Kudos to Graeme he has sat through my ranting, and given as good as he got.
> 
> This is mostly to instruct anyone else who has this problem, I think I'm finished with PT now (though I've said that before).


If you are in an instructional mood...pictures showing your PT cranks in a state of disasembly would be helpful to explain the PT and UT wave washer spring differences in geometry and position with the crankset. I would be happy to post my UT cranks disassembled to compare.

I would like you to entertain something. Explain to me why backing out the left hand side threaded Campy cup from the BB and shimming between the BB shell and interior shoulder of the cup is bad idea. Dave you can weigh in on this as well if you wish.
By shimming the left hand threaded cup outboard you in effective increase the BB shell width...until the spindle length is line to line such that there is no opportunity for lateral displacement and noise. This is what Rogue Mechanic does for UT cranks to mitigate rattles. The pitful with this procedure and why a wave washer exists is for expediency....manual preload takes precision. You have to get the preload right to mitigate noise...too tight and you bind the crank and shorten bearing life. Shimano cranks by contrast are preloaded manually and then left hand crank arm is tightened into position. Rotor cranks are also manually preloaded with a feature on their left crank arm.. You can accomplish the same end with shimming if you dont' want to discard PT cranks.
Your other option is a stouter wave washer that will fit. Again pictures would help to define the actual geometry and position contrast of the PT wave washer in contrast to the UT wave washer which resides in the non drive (LHS) cup.


----------



## CheapSkate

Roadworthy, see my "Re shimming" post above, I agree it's a possible way forward.

Might post some photos, not sure if I'm allowed yet.


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> Roadworthy, see my "Re shimming" post above, I agree it's a possible way forward.
> 
> Might post some photos, not sure if I'm allowed yet.


Well I can post pics. 
If you want no lash and take the wave washer out of the equation, then you need to make the effective BB shell width more line to line with spindle length. A 50 cent wave washer with adequate spring rate aka UT spring rate wouild have prevented this debacle in the first place. Campy has made design errors before...their 2009 shifters were an abomination and there have been other issues. I will tell you I love UT and hate sqaure taper...and have owned a lot of them...ST is extremely sensitive to installation torque...and even creaks. External bearing cranks are far superior in this engineer's opinion.
As C-40 stated, you don't want the bearing pushing on the outboard spring clip...no good. You want clearance to the spring clip. the outboard spring clip is 'precautionary'...keeps the drive side crank half shaft in place in the event of a left hand shaft pull out.. What you do want is to capture the crank laterally such that is won't displace laterally during your pedal stroke. There are two ways to accomplish this:

a. A wave washer with a high enough spring rate aka UT wave washer.

b. Shim the left hand side outer cup such that you increase the effective BB shell width. 
This captures the crank effectively between respective BB cup inner walls. The crank has no where to go. Keep the crappy PT wave washer with modest spring rate as a buffer and take up some of the stack up. Add a shim between LH cup and LH side BB shell.

Further note: Chasing the threads will do nothing. There is nothing wrong with your framesets. I am quite convinced you have installed things correctly. The issue as I see it quite simple. The spring rate is too low just as you suspect.

Good luck.


----------



## martinrjensen

I will say that I installed Ultra Torque cranksets on 2 bikes. I checked the bottom bracket width and both were within tolerance. I assembled as per spec and I have had no issues at all. Both work as advertized with no clunking, creaking or any noises at all.


----------



## CheapSkate

roadworthy said:


> A 50 cent wave washer with adequate spring rate aka UT spring rate wouild have prevented this debacle in the first place.


Yes, but see below


roadworthy said:


> Campy has made design errors before...their 2009 shifters were an abomination and there have been other issues.


Agree. But as Velotech says, usually they do a running change to fix the big issues. Maybe I am just on the tolerance edge.


roadworthy said:


> I will tell you I love UT and hate sqaure taper...and have owned a lot of them...ST is extremely sensitive to installation torque...and even creaks. External bearing cranks are far superior in this engineer's opinion.


I'm an engineer like you. I think we are slaves to what works. And I am hopelessly allergic to even the tiniest creak/click, and I detest spending valuable riding time tearing down greasy oily BBs. I love ST cartridge purely because I have had 50k silent miles out of it. Just plug it in, put 45 Nm on both sides, never touch it again. I hate PT because I haven't even had 40 silent miles. UT I am a bit skeptical of, but have never used it. After many, many years I am immune to the "millions of trouble free installations" argument. I have to try it for myself and see if it works for _me_. Often it doesn't. That's all I can do.

I also looked at the PT design on paper and thought "that sucks". I installed it anyway (foolishly?) and lo! it sucked. And I'm an electronic, not a mechanical, engineer.


roadworthy said:


> Further note: Chasing the threads will do nothing. There is nothing wrong with your framesets.


Thanks for that reassurance. IMHO thread chasing is voodoo on a modern shell. I can't imagine improving coaxiality materially.


roadworthy said:


> I am quite convinced you have installed things correctly. The issue as I see it quite simple. The spring rate is too low just as you suspect.


*This just in*. I told Campag/Velotech guy I could float _with one thumb on the axle_. And I'm a feeble weakling who spends all day typing vitriol about outboard bearing systems, I'm not a construction worker or weighlifter. He was _very_ surprised. I'm going to send the whole lot to him.

It _may_ be both my wave washers are defective, with too low a preload. Amazing if true, they are from two different sources, in two different package types (retail & workshop). But then, I already had 2 separate creaks from my crankset (chainrings, and the "40 mile click"). Perhaps it's cursed.


----------



## CheapSkate

*Photos*

The one with my hand shows the wave washer being squashed dead flat between my thumb and forefinger, showing the low spring rate. The drive side looks identical to Ultra Torque with the empty cup, the bearing pressed onto the axle, and the semi circular spring clip which drops into holes in the cup.

Enjoy


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> Yes, but see below
> 
> Agree. But as Velotech says, usually they do a running change to fix the big issues. Maybe I am just on the tolerance edge.
> 
> I'm an engineer like you. I think we are slaves to what works. And I am hopelessly allergic to even the tiniest creak/click, and I detest spending valuable riding time tearing down greasy oily BBs. I love ST cartridge purely because I have had 50k silent miles out of it. Just plug it in, put 45 Nm on both sides, never touch it again. I hate PT because I haven't even had 40 silent miles. UT I am a bit skeptical of, but have never used it. After many, many years I am immune to the "millions of trouble free installations" argument. I have to try it for myself and see if it works for _me_. Often it doesn't. That's all I can do.
> 
> I also looked at the PT design on paper and thought "that sucks". I installed it anyway (foolishly?) and lo! it sucked. And I'm an electronic, not a mechanical, engineer.
> 
> Thanks for that reassurance. IMHO thread chasing is voodoo on a modern shell. I can't imagine improving coaxiality materially.
> 
> 
> *This just in*. I told Campag/Velotech guy I could float _with one thumb on the axle_. And I'm a feeble weakling who spends all day typing vitriol about outboard bearing systems, I'm not a construction worker or weighlifter. He was _very_ surprised. I'm going to send the whole lot to him.
> 
> It _may_ be both my wave washers are defective, with too low a preload. Amazing if true, they are from two different sources, in two different package types (retail & workshop). But then, I already had 2 separate creaks from my crankset (chainrings, and the "40 mile click"). Perhaps it's cursed.


To me based upon everything you wrote which I follow and agree with as you have put in an exhaustive amount of time and effort...the spring rate of the wave washer is too low...plain and simple. Now getting two in a row with the same low spring rate is a real outliar and to me suggests a design flaw unless both spring washers are outliars to the spec...which is extremely rare as you know. The UT wave washer as discussed is quite stiff by contrast. When in place you can't move the crank laterally at all..even if you are a strong guy. So this issue is a bit surprising really as Campy doesn't miss much in their QC usually in my experience and a flagrant and simple design flaw such as this I would say is extremely rare.

I had a pretty long discussion with Rogue mechanic about shimming UT which are known to creak from time to time. I explained to him why abandoning the wave washer was a bad idea...and just shimming BB effective width to agree with UT spindle length line to line such that there is no opportunity for lateral movement. There is a reason why wave washers are used so prevalently in the industry...they account for tolerance variantion. BUT...a wave washer has to be approximately 1/4- 1/2 compressed or in about the middle range of travel to full compression to be effective. So low side BB shell widths with too much lateral clearance will make noise because there is insufficent preload. But your BB's are to spec.. In summary, if shimming, best to keep the wave washer because shimming line to line runs the risk of shimming too tight...and shimming in general is too tedious for the average bike wrench. By contrast, Shimano and Rotor's manual preload without wave washer works nicely.

Please let us know what you learn by having them review your parts.


----------



## C-40

*more...*

Great pics. Those help to explain how the system works. 

If lateral play is truly the problem then a thin shim behind the right side bearing is still the only solution. I'll bet that no more than .1-.2mm of shim will be enough to eliminate the play and much more would make it immpossible for the retaining clip to slip into place.

Campy requires the same 67.2-68.8mm BB shell width for both UT and PT cranks, so shimming behind the bearing cups is definitely not a solution. Also, since the wave washer is so weak, adding a little shim would do little to increase the preload.

One comment about facing and chasing. Chasing the threads will do nothing, since you can't change the alignment of the threads, after they're cut, but facing the BB shell might, if the faces are not square to the threads. You should never leave any paint on the faces of the BB shell. It should be carefully scraped off. I check for the need to face a BB shell by tightening the cups until they just contact a .010 inch feeler gage and then use .008-.012 feelers to check for high or low spots, around the BB shell face. If no areas exceed these limits, then facing would not improve anything.

The UT wave washer will apply preloads in the 20-60 pound range. I've tested that myself by placing weights on the wave washer and measuring the squash. That washer does not appear to be compatible with the PT system, unless the PT washer compresses to about 2.5mm. If it's 10mm in unrestrained height, then it probably compress to half that, at most. To use a UT washer, you'd need a thick spacer to take up the extra space and some precise measurements to figure out how thick the spacer needs to be. There is little room for error with the UT washer, since only .5mm of squash will produce over 20 pounds of preload and the total squash can be more more than 1.5mm.

What I still don't see is what stops movement of the left crankarm, once it's mounted onto the spindle, but obviously something does, since the fixing bolt is torqued to 42Nm. Are the splines tapered? If so, then that explains the tall washer, that would not be so sensitive to variations in the crankarm position. In contrast, the UT washer is extremely sensitive to small changes in the squash. 

http://www.campagnolo.com/repository/documenti/en/ATHENA_CRANKSET_UK_06_2012.pdf


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> The one with my hand shows the wave washer being squashed dead flat between my thumb and forefinger, showing the low spring rate. The drive side looks identical to Ultra Torque with the empty cup, the bearing pressed onto the axle, and the semi circular spring clip which drops into holes in the cup.
> 
> Enjoy


Cheapskate,
Before you pack up your crankset and send it off for review, a suggestion.
If you have both PT wave washers on hand, install them both in series and reassemble.
An explanation is a bit nuanced but it relates to spline ramp interference and true position of the left arm on the spindle and effective spindle length relative to BB length.

You mentioned you are a EE. If you are familar with Hooke's law of springs...there is a resistor analogy of springs in parallel versus series...springs in series are not additive in K,spring rates...but deflection under load is doubled. 
I can get into detail of why I believe the Power Torque spline/left arm location on the spindle design itself is flawed or sensitive to manufacturing tolerance, but will mark up your great pictures to aid in further explanation a bit later.
Let me know if you can place both wave washer springs on your PT crank, reassemble and test.


----------



## roadworthy

C-40 said:


> Great pics. Those help to explain how the system works.
> 
> If lateral play is truly the problem then a thin shim behind the right side bearing is still the only solution. I'll bet that no more than .1-.2mm of shim will be enough to eliminate the play and much more would make it immpossible for the retaining clip to slip into place.
> 
> Campy require the same 67.2-68.8mm BB shell width for both UT and PT cranks, so shimming behind the bearing cups is definitely not a solution. Also, since the wave washer is so weak, adding a little shim would do little to increase the preload.
> 
> One comment about facing and chasing. Chasing the threads will do nothing, since you can't change the alignment of the threads, after they're cut, but facing the BB shell might, if the faces are not square to the threads. You should never leave any paint on the faces of the BB shell. It should be carefully scraped off. I check for the need to face a BB shell by tightening the cups until they just contact a .010 inch feeler gage and then use .008-.012 feelers to check for high or low spots, around the BB shell face. If no areas exceed these limits, then facing would not improve anything.
> 
> The UT wave washer will apply preloads in the 20-60 pound range. I've tested that myself by placing weights on the wave washer and measuring the squash. That washer does not appear to be compatible with the PT system, unless the PT washer compresses to about 2.5mm. If it's 10mm in unrestrained height, then it probably compress to half that, at most. To use a UT washer, you'd need a thick spacer to take up the extra space and some precise measurements to figue out how thick the spacer needs to be. Thre is little room for error with the UT washer, since only .5mm of squash will produce over 20 pound of preload and the total squash can be more more than 1.5mm.
> 
> What I still don't see is what stops movement of the left crankarm, once it's mounted onto the spindle, but obviously something does, since the fixing bolt is torqued to 42Nm. *Are the splines tapered?* If so, then that explains the tall washer, that would not be so sensitive to variations in the crankarm position. In contrast, the UT washer is extremely sensitive to small changes in the squash.
> 
> http://www.campagnolo.com/repository/documenti/en/ATHENA_CRANKSET_UK_06_2012.pdf


The answer to your question is yes...the spline is tapered and really what contributes to the design flaw and variance in effective spindle length and hence need for taller wave washer as you noted.
At some point, I will post a mini design review of why I believe the PT interface design is flawed...much more so than the more robust line-to-line UT hirth joint with tighter lateral tolerance and companion shorter wave washer.

I would not buy a PT crank based on the design shown in CS's pictures...to me virtually all derivative splined long axle cranks...Shimano, Sram, Rotor...and even Specialized half shaft cranks are better.


----------



## orange_julius

CheapSkate said:


> - move to UT. Yeah, but 10s Ultra Torque is as obsolete as square taper. I don't want to be obsolete, and PT is the preferred 10s solution.


Well, plenty of people mix-and-match 10s and 11s cranksets, me included. By all indication, UT is here to stay for 11s. So how is this obsolete? :-D


----------



## orange_julius

roadworthy said:


> The answer to your question is yes...the spline is tapered and really what contributes to the design flaw and variance in effective spindle length and hence need for taller wave washer as you noted.
> At some point, I will post a mini design review of why I believe the PT interface design is flawed...much more so than the more robust line-to-line UT hirth joint with tighter lateral tolerance and companion shorter wave washer.
> 
> I would not buy a PT crank based on the design shown in CS's pictures...to me virtually all derivative splined long axle cranks...Shimano, Sram, Rotor...and even Specialized half shaft cranks are better.


Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. I've learned a lot. And I will never buy PT, I'll be more than happy to buy older UT systems. I understand more than before now that it's a flawed design. I can't believe the spline is tapered. What was Valentino Campagnolo thinking with PT?


----------



## roadworthy

orange_julius said:


> Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. I've learned a lot. And I will never buy PT, I'll be more than happy to buy older UT systems. I understand more than before now that it's a flawed design. I can't believe the spline is tapered. What was Valentino Campagnolo thinking with PT?


The ghost of square taper lives...lol...which was hugely sensitive to installation torque...but certainly no ill affect to lateral lash as in the case with PT...only affect to chain line. 

For PT, basically you have two surfaces competing for the 42 nm installation torque.
1. the interference of the spline itself
2. the inner shoulder of the securing bolt.

If the interference is the spline is on low side of tolerance relative to the female spline in the left crank arm, the crank arm will displace more laterally inboard as the bolt is tightened. This progression inboard if torque isn't achieved will continue until line-to-line between inside bolt shoulder and end of spindle. So in effect these two surface are competing for the 42mm torque spec. Not only does the PT crank require a puller to get it apart due to having a tapered spline but the lateral position of the left arm is subject to the spline press tolerance...before inner bolt shoulder bottoms to the spindle end.

A low side press could result in the bolt bottoming to the end of the spindle resulting in a creaky left crank arm.
Virtually all other external bearing cranks I have played with are better than this.


----------



## roadworthy

orange_julius said:


> Well, plenty of people mix-and-match 10s and 11s cranksets, me included. By all indication, UT is here to stay for 11s. So how is this obsolete? :-D


That's how I feel. My 2006 carbon Chorus UT crank has been perfect for 6K miles of riding. Not peep..rock solid...original bearings still perfect since spring tear down.
A solid design. If changing, I would likely go mid level 11s with UT anyway...but if replacing my UT crank, I would even consider running 11s cranks with 10s cassette...probably shifts fine as many run 10s cranks with 11s cassette as well.


----------



## CheapSkate

*The spline is NOT tapered*

The spline is not tapered. 
The arm-to-arm width is fixed.
Thought I'd knock that one on the head. More to follow.


----------



## CheapSkate

*Philosophical post*

2 posts here, the first is philosophical, the second answers some questions

Musings...

When Campy went to outboard bearings, it decided to keep its famously narrow stance (130 mm IIRC). 130 mm stance makes things very tight on the NDS, you've got to fit a ~10 mm cup and a big strong crank/axle interface into that space. A demountable crank/axle interface would need to be axially longer than a fixed one, so Ultra Torque was born:- move the demountable part into the frame (the Hirth joint) and you can have the 130 mm stance.

But Ultra Torque's Hirth joint is too expensive to play down at the low end. Campy needed a cheaper low end solution. I suspect also that Ultra Torque might be a bit too sensitive to BB shell width, maybe Campy wanted something more tolerant.

So for Power Torque the design drivers were:
- get rid of that Hirth joint, but
- _keep the 130 mm stance_

That last one was a pig to achieve, there's so little room left on the NDS once a cup/bearing, wave washer and crank arm are included. The only way Campy could meet the stance requirement was to ditch clamp bolts or self extractors (too axially long) and just put in a spline on the axle and the crank arm, and rely on a puller to get the crank off.

I guess they thought (perhaps rightly) that down at the low end, a huge proportion of bikes never get ridden, and if they do the crank never gets removed! Ie most buyers will never know that the crank removal solution is highly compromised.

Now I think I understand _evvvvverything_ and that's my next post. I don't think Power Torque is inherently compromised, apart from the crank extraction. I kinda wish Campy had sacrificed a couple of mm and grams to get a self extractor in there. I am now 100% convinced I have defective wave washers, and with a good wave washer PT would be as good as UT, apart from the extraction.


----------



## orange_julius

CheapSkate said:


> 2 posts here, the first is philosophical, the second answers some questions
> 
> Musings...
> 
> When Campy went to outboard bearings, it decided to keep its famously narrow stance (130 mm IIRC). 130 mm stance makes things very tight on the NDS, you've got to fit a ~10 mm cup and a big strong crank/axle interface into that space. A demountable crank/axle interface would need to be axially longer than a fixed one, so Ultra Torque was born:- move the demountable part into the frame (the Hirth joint) and you can have the 130 mm stance.
> 
> But Ultra Torque's Hirth joint is too expensive to play down at the low end. Campy needed a cheaper low end solution. I suspect also that Ultra Torque might be a bit too sensitive to BB shell width, maybe Campy wanted something more tolerant.
> 
> So for Power Torque the design drivers were:
> - get rid of that Hirth joint, but
> - _keep the 130 mm stance_
> 
> That last one was a pig to achieve, there's so little room left on the NDS once a cup/bearing, wave washer and crank arm are included. The only way Campy could meet the stance requirement was to ditch clamp bolts or self extractors (too axially long) and just put in a spline on the axle and the crank arm, and rely on a puller to get the crank off.
> 
> I guess they thought (perhaps rightly) that down at the low end, a huge proportion of bikes never get ridden, and if they do the crank never gets removed! Ie most buyers will never know that the crank removal solution is highly compromised.
> 
> Now I think I understand _evvvvverything_ and that's my next post. I don't think Power Torque is inherently compromised, apart from the crank extraction. I kinda wish Campy had sacrificed a couple of mm and grams to get a self extractor in there. I am now 100% convinced I have defective wave washers, and with a good wave washer PT would be as good as UT, apart from the extraction.


I agree with your (philosophical?) thought points, and here's another question: why didn't they just go back to square taper then? When I first went from square taper to outboard bearing (with FSA's terrible cranksets), one big draw was that I could maintain the new design with fewer tools. Plus, arguably it would be a little stiffer, and so on and so forth. 

Maybe Campagnolo just didn't want to appear to be paddling backwards if they were to go back to square taper.

But conversely, why did they rush the adoption of Ultra-Torque across the entire product range so early then? Did they underestimate the cost? 

Maybe these days they want to do further product differentiation, or in other words force people to buy more expensive cranksets. I think a great many enterprising home mechanics have been buying cheaper cranksets than their shifters/derailleurs for a while, myself included. By switching Athena to both PowerShift and Power Torque, those of us who got used to some luxuries have no choice but to stay at the Chorus level. 

So why is Athena 11 speed then, why didn't they just make it 10 speed? And so forth my faith is getting tested every time they introduce a new innovation. 

Anyway, if a better / more correct wave washer solves your problem that will be great. How will you celebrate? :^D


----------



## CheapSkate

*The spline is not tapered. The arm-to-arm distance is fixed*
Look at my second photo. The splines are plain and run right through the crank arm. The big crank bolt pulls the axle right through the arm until the splines but up against the inboard face of the bolt. So the crank goes in exactly the same every time. Tightening the crank bolt is a very easy linear pull, hardly any torque on a big torque wrench, until it stops dead. The 42 Nm is kind of irrelevant, any more torque won't pull the splines any further, they've hit the bolt.

*extraction is hard*
You buy a plug from Campy for some outrageous sum. It's just a turned piece of steel with two radii. The smaller radius drops into the hole where the crank bolt was, the bigger radius pushes on the axle without overlapping the crank arm.

Then you put on your 2 arm puller, with the arms under the "ears" of the crank arm. You wind your puller up, and the first thing that happens is it skates across the mirror surface of the plug, and scratches your crank. So you drill an indent in the plug and try again. Then you wind up the puller with a HELL of a pull, and the arms bite into your cranks, damaging the sexy black paint. I shudder to think what happens with carbon cranks. 

Then you attack your puller with a Dremel, round off all the corners, epoxy bits of soda bottle to the faces, then wrap the whole lot in layers and layers of duct tape to cushion it.

THEN you can pull. It takes a HELL of a pull the first time, but gets easier later.

* two wave washers probably won't fit, a UT washer won't work*
I understand about Hooke's Law, I thought about doing that. I am not sure if 2 washers will fit into the axial space between the bearing and the arm. It's about 4 mm high, and the fully compressed washer is about 2 mm. Maybe, but it would be marginal. Nice idea, maybe I should have tried it.

A UT washer has a larger diameter, because the UT washer is _inboard_ of the bearing and presses on the outer diameter of the bearing, pushing the cup and the bearing apart. At least that's how I understand it. The PT washer is _outboard_ of the bearing and presses on its inner diameter, pushing the crank and bearing apart.

Another way of looking at it:- the UT bearing is attached to the crank, the PT bearing is attached to the cup. You press on different bits.

*My "float and stick" vs "float and spring back"*
3 frames "float and stick". 1 frame "floats and springs back". The latter behaviour is "nominal". My "float and spring back" frame was the only one not to have a chain, a der and a cassette on it. ie the 3 "float and stick" frames had the chain pulling the chainrings backwards, I bet this was enough to slightly skew the line of the axle and cause "float and stick". Just the der spring tension! I bet if I'd built up the "float and spring back" frame into a bike it would have turned into "float and stick".

So I bet my springs are wrong. Anyway it's all going back to Velotech for them to look at.


----------



## CheapSkate

orange_julius said:


> Well, plenty of people mix-and-match 10s and 11s cranksets, me included. By all indication, UT is here to stay for 11s. So how is this obsolete? :-D


Sure, with 20/20 hindsight I should have done that. But Campy told me PT would "just work"! And the crank removal video on YouTube makes it look easy peasy. It's not.


----------



## CheapSkate

orange_julius said:


> Maybe Campagnolo just didn't want to appear to be paddling backwards if they were to go back to square taper.


This. Shimano's got outboard bearings way down the range, so Campy's gotta. Whether it's "better" or not, customers will look for it.



orange_julius said:


> But conversely, why did they rush the adoption of Ultra-Torque across the entire product range so early then? Did they underestimate the cost?


Maybe, or the cost pressure was the other way, they underestimated how low they would have to bid to get OEMs to install Campy. Particularly with SRAM joining the party...



orange_julius said:


> Maybe these days they want to do further product differentiation, or in other words force people to buy more expensive cranksets. I think a great many enterprising home mechanics have been buying cheaper cranksets than their shifters/derailleurs for a while, myself included. By switching Athena to both PowerShift and Power Torque, those of us who got used to some luxuries have no choice but to stay at the Chorus level.


Sure, like the car makers and Apple. Chorus is basically Athena with some carbon bling. If you want Ultra Shift you HAVE to take the bling and pay out another, what, $400? Great for margins. I am so PO'd at Campy for denying us Ultra Shift 10 speed, or even Ultra Shift Athena all metal at a reasonable price. That's a classic upsell



orange_julius said:


> So why is Athena 11 speed then, why didn't they just make it 10 speed?


It's entry level 11s. Campy's only real differentiator to the Great Unwashed is that 11th gear. So they pushed it as far down the range as they could, to try to sway some Ultegra (or whatever) buyers. "Hey instead of Ultegra, why not buy THIS, it goes to 11!". But then they had to cripple it, or those of us "in the know" would have bought it instead of Chorus. It needed to be "better" than Ultegra, but "worse" than Chorus. Hence, no Ultra Shift. Pah.



orange_julius said:


> And so forth my faith is getting tested every time they introduce a new innovation.


Ditto. I read about the bikes with pressfit bearings and shudder, that looks like a world of hurt.



orange_julius said:


> Anyway, if a better / more correct wave washer solves your problem that will be great. How will you celebrate? :^D


If it doesn't fix it, I shall cut it up with an angle grinder and jump on the bits. If it works, ooohh, I might spray Chateau Cheapskate champagne on it?


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> *The spline is not tapered. The arm-to-arm distance is fixed*
> Look at my second photo. *The splines are plain and run right through the crank arm. The big crank bolt pulls the axle right through the arm until the splines but up against the inboard face of the bolt*. So the crank goes in exactly the same every time. Tightening the crank bolt is a very easy linear pull, hardly any torque on a big torque wrench, until it stops dead. The 42 Nm is kind of irrelevant, any more torque won't pull the splines any further, they've hit the bolt.
> 
> *extraction is hard*
> You buy a plug from Campy for some outrageous sum. It's just a turned piece of steel with two radii. The smaller radius drops into the hole where the crank bolt was, the bigger radius pushes on the axle without overlapping the crank arm.
> 
> Then you put on your 2 arm puller, with the arms under the "ears" of the crank arm. You wind your puller up, and the first thing that happens is it skates across the mirror surface of the plug, and scratches your crank. So you drill an indent in the plug and try again. Then you wind up the puller with a HELL of a pull, and the arms bite into your cranks, damaging the sexy black paint. I shudder to think what happens with carbon cranks.
> 
> Then you attack your puller with a Dremel, round off all the corners, epoxy bits of soda bottle to the faces, then wrap the whole lot in layers and layers of duct tape to cushion it.
> 
> THEN you can pull. It takes a HELL of a pull the first time, but gets easier later.
> 
> * two wave washers probably won't fit, a UT washer won't work*
> I understand about Hooke's Law, I thought about doing that. I am not sure if 2 washers will fit into the axial space between the bearing and the arm. It's about 4 mm high, and the fully compressed washer is about 2 mm. Maybe, but it would be marginal. Nice idea, maybe I should have tried it.
> 
> A UT washer has a larger diameter, because the UT washer is _inboard_ of the bearing and presses on the outer diameter of the bearing, pushing the cup and the bearing apart. At least that's how I understand it. The PT washer is _outboard_ of the bearing and presses on its inner diameter, pushing the crank and bearing apart.
> 
> Another way of looking at it:- the UT bearing is attached to the crank, the PT bearing is attached to the cup. You press on different bits.
> 
> *My "float and stick" vs "float and spring back"*
> 3 frames "float and stick". 1 frame "floats and springs back". The latter behaviour is "nominal". My "float and spring back" frame was the only one not to have a chain, a der and a cassette on it. ie the 3 "float and stick" frames had the chain pulling the chainrings backwards, I bet this was enough to slightly skew the line of the axle and cause "float and stick". Just the der spring tension! I bet if I'd built up the "float and spring back" frame into a bike it would have turned into "float and stick".
> 
> So I bet my springs are wrong. Anyway it's all going back to Velotech for them to look at.


Know what the difference between a EE and ME when it comes to assessment of a design? A lot when is comes to mechanical parts. I wouldn't venture into your backyard for good reason. 
You glossed over the part above in bold but that is exactly the issue with PT. What you wrote is incorrect. Left arm retention isn't between two hard shoulders. It is between one hard wall that hits a finite stop...bolt shoulder hits end of spindle and other side is a 'soft shoulder' aka a taper spline. This is what results in the need to use a puller to get it apart..because there is press between the male spindle spline and female spline of the left crank arm. So as I stated in my other post which may have gone right over your head...if the length of spline...or min/max. diameter of spline stack up is low side, the bolt will hit the end of the spindle and you will ramp to 42 nm before the arm is adequately attached. The design basically sucks.
The guys where you are sending it likely won't have a clue what is going on.
If they did understand it, they wouldn't concede it....and trust me, the Campy engineers understand this is a bad design and released it anyway...likely due to cost/timing. If you get a replacment then you are at the whimsy of another lottery of tolerance stack up. This time, you may get lucky.
Good luck.


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> The spline is not tapered.
> The arm-to-arm width is fixed.
> Thought I'd knock that one on the head. More to follow.


The rear of the spline TAPERS up to the major diameter of the spindle. This results in not hitting the outboard stop aka spindle end with bolt shoulder if the tolerance of the taper begins too close to the spindle end. If the spline is undersized aka low side of tolerance and/or the spline taper to the spindle diameter tolerance is too far from spindle end i.e. tolerance stack up, the shoulder bolt will hit the spindle end without adequate retention of the crank arm due to NO inboard shoulder.


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> 2 posts here, the first is philosophical, the second answers some questions
> 
> Musings...
> 
> When Campy went to outboard bearings, it decided to keep its famously narrow stance (130 mm IIRC). 130 mm stance makes things very tight on the NDS, you've got to fit a ~10 mm cup and a big strong crank/axle interface into that space. A demountable crank/axle interface would need to be axially longer than a fixed one, so Ultra Torque was born:- move the demountable part into the frame (the Hirth joint) and you can have the 130 mm stance.
> 
> But Ultra Torque's Hirth joint is too expensive to play down at the low end. Campy needed a cheaper low end solution. I suspect also that Ultra Torque might be a bit too sensitive to BB shell width, maybe Campy wanted something more tolerant.
> 
> So for Power Torque the design drivers were:
> - get rid of that Hirth joint, but
> - _keep the 130 mm stance_
> 
> That last one was a pig to achieve, there's so little room left on the NDS once a cup/bearing, wave washer and crank arm are included. The only way Campy could meet the stance requirement was to ditch clamp bolts or self extractors (too axially long) and just put in a spline on the axle and the crank arm, and rely on a puller to get the crank off.
> 
> I guess they thought (perhaps rightly) that down at the low end, a huge proportion of bikes never get ridden, and if they do the crank never gets removed! Ie most buyers will never know that the crank removal solution is highly compromised.
> 
> Now I think I understand _evvvvverything_ and that's my next post. I don't think Power Torque is inherently compromised, apart from the crank extraction. I kinda wish Campy had sacrificed a couple of mm and grams to get a self extractor in there. I am now 100% convinced I have defective wave washers, and with a good wave washer PT would be as good as UT, apart from the extraction.


No. PT will never be as good as UT. Left arm attachment is too tolerance sensitive. You maybe correct however the PT wave washer is out of specification and if you can find a stouter one, this will resolve your issue but make no mistake...a hirth joint union in the center of a spindle is a MUCH more robust crank then one with left arm drawn onto a soft tapered shoulder spline. If Campy would have captured the left arm between two solid shoulders it would be as robust but they didn't. The ghost of square taper with a twist.


----------



## CheapSkate

Roadworthy, I really didn't want to get into an argument with you, this seems bizarrre I just wanted to post how it worked. Also please don't patronise me. Actually I have a Ph.D. in physics, EE just describes more accurately what I do now.

Have you *seen* Power Torque in the flesh? Closely inspected it? I guess not, or you would have been able to take your own photo rather than editing mine. I may "only" be a physicist, but I've had this on and off bikes probably 30 times now, calipered it, photoed it, dreamed about it, exchanged dozens of emails with Velotech.

What you call spline ramps are inside the cup. The arm does not pull up inside the cup, it stops about 3 mm short to leave a gap for the wave washer. So the arm does not go as far as the "ramps". I guess the "ramps" are left over from the machining process.

Check out these close ups. 

In the in situ shot you can see the ramps are inside the cup. The arm doesn't go inside the cup - if you look at my original photos you see the arm sits outside the cup by about 1 mm. This 1 mm + the 2 mm cup indent leaves about 3 mm for the wave washer to sit in

The shot of the splines was taken immediately after disassembly. You can see from the grease pile up where the arm stops. Short of the "spline ramps". If you look at the polishing on the axle from inboard out, you can see distinct areas: (1) where the bearing sits, from inboard of the splines until just overlapping the "spline ramps". Then (2) you see a distinct colour change to bronze where the WW has rubbed. The WW sits over the "ramps" and the grease piles. Then (3) another colour change to a darker colour on the splines, possibly the black paint of the arm itself.

Also the arm itself. Its inner face still has all the black paint on. Every bit. Right into the splines, in fact the splines themselves still have paint on! I think the inner face of the arm has never been exposed to the kind of pressures you'd see if it was pulled onto a ramp with 42 Nm.

I'll say again, I don't think PT is inherently "worse" than UT except for the extraction issue which is a PITA. I firmly believe I have a wave washer problem, if that was fixed I would be fine.


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> Roadworthy, I really didn't want to get into an argument with you, this seems bizarrre I just wanted to post how it worked. Also please don't patronise me. Actually I have a Ph.D. in physics, EE just describes more accurately what I do now.
> 
> Have you *seen* Power Torque in the flesh? Closely inspected it? I guess not, or you would have been able to take your own photo rather than editing mine. I may "only" be a physicist, but I've had this on and off bikes probably 30 times now, calipered it, photoed it, dreamed about it, exchanged dozens of emails with Velotech.
> 
> What you call spline ramps are inside the cup. The arm does not pull up inside the cup, it stops about 3 mm short to leave a gap for the wave washer. So the arm does not go as far as the "ramps". I guess the "ramps" are left over from the machining process.
> 
> Check out these close ups.
> 
> In the in situ shot you can see the ramps are inside the cup. The arm doesn't go inside the cup - if you look at my original photos you see the arm sits outside the cup by about 1 mm. This 1 mm + the 2 mm cup indent leaves about 3 mm for the wave washer to sit in
> 
> The shot of the splines was taken immediately after disassembly. You can see from the grease pile up where the arm stops. Short of the "spline ramps". If you look at the polishing on the axle from inboard out, you can see distinct areas: (1) where the bearing sits, from inboard of the splines until just overlapping the "spline ramps". Then (2) you see a distinct colour change to bronze where the WW has rubbed. The WW sits over the "ramps" and the grease piles. Then (3) another colour change to a darker colour on the splines, possibly the black paint of the arm itself.
> 
> Also the arm itself. Its inner face still has all the black paint on. Every bit. Right into the splines, in fact the splines themselves still have paint on! I think the inner face of the arm has never been exposed to the kind of pressures you'd see if it was pulled onto a ramp with 42 Nm.
> 
> I'll say again, I don't think PT is inherently "worse" than UT except for the extraction issue which is a PITA. I firmly believe I have a wave washer problem, if that was fixed I would be fine.


Let's take the discussion down a bit and thanks for your additional comments and also btw providing a clarification about your background. PhD in physics is indeed quite an accomplishment I will add. My brother has a masters in physics. ...but he is pretty mechanically clueless and you are not.

Here's the issue and again, please don't construe as an argument. What you write doesn't completely comport with fact. Fact?...the spline starts straight...flutes are not tapered on the spindle. Fact?...female spline flutes of the crank arm are completely straight without taper. Fact? A straight male spline inside a female straight designed without taper line to line takes NO press to get on or off. If the straight involuted splines are an interference fit then you will need PRESS to install the crank arm. We don't have that here. So what do we have? The only way to achieve press is with taper and allow the left crank arm to push on without press. Left arm spline is straight and spindle arm spline starts straight and spindle spline tapers to major diameter of spindle. Indeed the arm does NOT go to the end of the spline as you show in the pictures. If you measured the length of respective spline lengths the spindle spline is LONGER than the width of the crank arm spline as you correctly say. When you push the left arm onto the spindle there is no interference. You push the arm on by hand as far as it will go and then insert the bolt. You draw the arm onto the spindle with the bolt. As you tighten the bolt...by your comment about no paint removed showing line to line with the end of the splindle is not achieved, the arm is drawn into the taper in the rear of the spline. It has to be. No, not all the way at the end of the spline. What you could do if you still had the crank is perform a simple bench test to verify the crank arm splindle interface. Chuck the spindle in a soft chuck vise and install the left crank arm and torque the bolt to 42 nm. Inspect behind the left crank arm and indeed spline would be exposed. But...and here is the important point. The part of the male spindle spline under the back of the left crank arm is a press. This is how bolt torque is achieved. So the spindle taper begins outboard of where the left crank arm ends up laterally as you draw the two together with the bolt. The reason is quite simple. Per your comment about unmolested black paint showing any bottoming of the bolt, the ONLY way that bolt torque is achieved is by increasing spline interference toward the back of the spline. You may not believe the arm is into the taper of the spindle but 'it has to be' to achieve any press and why you must use a puller to remove it. Otherwise if you remove the bolt, you could pull the crank arm off with your hand..like you can with a Shimano crank arm...but you can't. By virtue of showing no paint removal under the bolt you expose another design element at play that adds more variation to the design. Arm location is a function of respective spline diameters and lateral position of the spindle inboard spline taper. The ramp angle of the taper at the inboard side of the spline is what determines the onset of bolt torque as you torque the bolt to 42 nm. This design therefore introduces much greater variation in inboard/outboard position of the left crank arm and why the PT crank has a much 'taller' waver washer....to account for this variation.

There's more. If Campy in their manufacturing process, missed the nominal position of the inboard spline ramp such that when you tighten the left crank arm bolt to 42nm, then the left arm would end up more outboard in space and 'possibilty' well to the low side of wave washer compression. Wave washer force/deflection is likely non linear and if axial clearance is to the high side, then amount of axial preload is reduced.

I will say again, in my technical opinion...a guy who has been designing parts like this for 20 years, UT is much more robust crank design than PT. PT has vestiges of square taper only with square taper bearing preload are unaffected because of sealed cartridge BB...but both arms and chainring were affected by taper tolerance, if lubricity was applied and assembly torque in terms of lateral position..


----------



## CheapSkate

Roadworthy

Have you seen, touched, felt, used Power Torque? Installed it on multiple bikes?

How can you possibly have an opinion on its merits and demerits unless you've seen & 
installed it?

I'm not going to discuss it further.


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> Roadworthy
> 
> Have you seen, touched, felt, used Power Torque? Installed it on multiple bikes?
> 
> How can you possibly have an opinion on its merits and demerits unless you've seen &
> installed it?
> 
> I'm not going to discuss it further.


OK, you are taking your PT aka ball home...lol.
An elementary question for you CS. If you can push the left crank arm by hand as you insert the bolt in assembly, when you remove the bolt, if there is no spline taper interference, why do you need a puller to pull the left crank arm off?


----------



## C-40

*thoughts...*



roadworthy said:


> The rear of the spline TAPERS up to the major diameter of the spindle. This results in not hitting the outboard stop aka spindle end with bolt shoulder if the tolerance of the taper begins too close to the spindle end. If the spline is undersized aka low side of tolerance and/or the spline taper to the spindle diameter tolerance is too far from spindle end i.e. tolerance stack up, the shoulder bolt will hit the spindle end without adequate retention of the crank arm due to NO inboard shoulder.


Your description of the taper would not be like any other tapered fit that I've ever seen. The most common taper is 1 degree. Square tapered spindles use it and so does the now defunct ISIS spindle.

To create the tapered spline, you machine the spindle with at tapered OD, which becomes larger, just like all other tapered spindles, then you cut the splines into the spindle, following the same 1 degree taper, so the spline depth is uniform. With the OD of the end of the spindle being smaller in diameter and the ID of the crank arm being larger, the crankarm easily slides on until an interference is achieved.

The arrows that you've placed on the picture of the splines are merely the nomal pull-out of the cutting tool and have nothing to do with positioning the crankarm. You should be able to take some calipers and measure the major diameter of the splines near both ends and verify a significant difference in the two diameters. You may have designed product for twenty years, but I've spend more years than that in a machine shop, process engineering (mostly nuclear weapons parts).

Of course all tapers spindles will have more variation in lateral position, but that's all that anyone used for many, many years and it was never that big a problem. Campy addresses the variation with a taller washer that can squash over a much larger range.


----------



## roadworthy

C-40 said:


> Your description of the taper would not be like any other tapered fit that I've ever seen. The most common taper is 1 degree. Square tapered spindles use it and so does the now defunct ISIS spindle.
> 
> To create the tapered spline, you machine the spindle with at tapered OD, which becomes larger, just like all other tapered spindles, then you cut the splines into the spindle, following the same 1 degree taper, so the spline depth is uniform. With the OD of the end of the spindle being smaller in diameter and the ID of the crank arm being larger, the crankarm easily slides on until an interference is achieved.
> 
> The arrows that you've placed on the picture of the splines are merely the nomal pull-out of the cutting tool and have nothing to do with positioning the crankarm. You should be able to take some calipers and measure the major diameter of the splines near both ends and verify a significant difference in the two diameters. You may have designed product for twenty years, but I've spend more years than that in a machine shop, process engineering (mostly nuclear weapons parts).
> 
> Of course all tapers spindles will have more variation in lateral position, but that's all that anyone used for many, many years and it was never that big a problem. Campy addresses the variation with a taller washer that can squash over a much larger range.


You are basically obfuscating the point of the discussion with your comments. You should know what is going on with your background but apparently not so let me help you out. The spline is TAPERED. Taper begins well away from spline runnout into the major diameter of spindle. I can see it. There is evidence aka witness marks where the spline major diamter starts to increase which creates interference to the inboard side of the female crank arm spline.. Yes ramp angle is very acute and much less pronounced than the runnout of the spline to the major diameter. This whole discussion is elementary for anybody with a ME design background and you should know better.
Perhaps you don't like conceding the truth.
See below:


----------



## CheapSkate

All I was trying to do was clarify my (naive?) impression that it's NOT like square taper, where only torque + taper define where the arm stops, so the arm can stop in different positions depending. 

In PT the arm stop point is defined by where the axle hits the bolt shoulder.

Apologies if I used the wrong terminology re spline tapers.

Roadworthy, you seem to be implying that there are circumstances where 42 Nm is not enough to pull the axle to the bolt shoulder. Well, I guess that's possible. I guess also that Campy considered that when tolerancing the system. I guess Campy would consider any crank to be defective where 42 Nm does not make the axle hit the bolt shoulder. All my guesses though, you are clearly more experienced than me.

But my experience is, significantly less than 42 Nm makes the bolt hit the shoulder on my crank. That's all I can say.


----------



## C-40

*well...*

Likewise, I'd think that you would understand how a normal tapered spindle is constructed, whether splined, like ISIS, or square. As I noted, the taper should start at the very end of the spindle, where the diameter would be the smallest and increase at the same rate, over the full length of the spline. Whether that is the case could easily be proven with calipers or a micrometer. Your arrows point to an area of no importance, IMO. Try having a discussion without getting pissy.

Also, looking at the posted pictures, it certainly looks like the end of the spindle is flush with the surface of the crankarm that the fixing bolt clamps against. This would never be the case with tapered spindles of the past. The end on the spindle usually has a significant gap between it and the fixing bolt. If the end of the spindle is truly being used as a lateral stop, then the idea of large variations in the lateral position of the crankarm is unfounded. The problem there is the fit between the splines could be on the loose side, even with the fixing bolt torqued down.

The other possibility is that the crank or spindle splines, are not properly sized and the crank is bottoming out on the end of the spindle, even though it's not supposed to.


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> All I was trying to do was clarify my (naive?) impression that it's NOT like square taper, where only torque + taper define where the arm stops, so the arm can stop in different positions depending.
> 
> In PT the arm stop point is defined by where the axle hits the bolt shoulder.
> 
> Apologies if I used the wrong terminology re spline tapers.
> 
> Roadworthy, you seem to be implying that there are circumstances where 42 Nm is not enough to pull the axle to the bolt shoulder. Well, I guess that's possible. I guess also that Campy considered that when tolerancing the system. I guess Campy would consider any crank to be defective where 42 Nm does not make the axle hit the bolt shoulder. All my guesses though, you are clearly more experienced than me.
> 
> But my experience is, significantly less than 42 Nm makes the bolt hit the shoulder on my crank. That's all I can say.


A good post and appreciate the concilliatory tone. Sorry for my indignation to your insistance the spline doesn't taper. It HAS to taper for precisely your last sentence.
If there was no taper, the straight female spline would wobble/wander on a straight male spindle spline because the crank arm would only be captured on the outboard bolt shoulder side. And yes, we do end up talking past one another on the internet. If we were all together it would be clear. We could take calipers and measure the amount of taper. But here is a good point...and the one you make in your last sentence. The level of interference between the female straight spline of fhe arm relative to the tapered spline of the spindle for the effective press depth...can be achieved with less than 42 N-m. What that means is the torque of the bolt is simply securing the hard shoulder of the bolt to the end of the spindle. In other words very little value added other than the bolt torqued that high likely won't back out. It does little to secure the crank arm...the crank arm still relying on the interference of the tapered spline of the spindle relative to the straight spline of the arm. Again, I believe this design is poor and frought with a probablility the crank arm could toggle aka creak on the spline if the spline is postured to low side of tolerance. That is my technical opinion. 

About your issue: In summary the whole discussion above while relevant is ancillary to your issue. This is due to the simple fact...that your crank arm achieved is most inboard conditioin with bolt shoulder kissing the end of the spindle before torque escalated. So the issue lay fully in the wave washer spring rate arena...with one exception. If the spline press is very low side and the arm can be pushed on easily at a low torque...then there is a possibility that the creak itself is occuring due to the crank arm moving relative to the spindle during the pedal stroke.


----------



## David Loving

orange_julius said:


> Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. I've learned a lot. And I will never buy PT, I'll be more than happy to buy older UT systems. I understand more than before now that it's a flawed design. I can't believe the spline is tapered. What was Valentino Campagnolo thinking with PT?


This thread has quashed any urge I may have had to ditch my beloved square taper Chorus 10/Phil bottom brackets. Thank y'all very much!


----------



## roadworthy

C-40 said:


> Likewise, I'd think that you would understand how a normal tapered spindle is constructed, whether splined, like ISIS, or square. As I noted, the taper should start at the very end of the spindle, where the diameter would be the smallest and increase at the same rate, over the full length of the spline. Whether that is the case could easily be proven with calipers or a micrometer. *Your arrows point to an area of no importance, IMO*. Try having a discussion without getting pissy.
> 
> Also, looking at the posted pictures, it certainly looks like the end of the spindle is flush with the surface of the crankarm that the fixing bolt clamps against. This would never be the case with tapered spindles of the past. The end on the spindle usually has a significant gap between it and the fixing bolt. If the end of the spindle is truly being used as a lateral stop, then the idea of large variations in the lateral position of the crankarm is unfounded. The problem there is the fit between the splines could be on the loose side, even with the fixing bolt torqued down.
> 
> The other possibility is that the crank or spindle splines, are not properly sized and the crank is bottoming out on the end of the spindle, even though it's not supposed to.


I find it hilarious you would not concede my point about the taper of the spindle spline.
Although the highest probability is the weakness of the wave washer in this application, an undersize spline aka taper could also be a root cause as the shoulder bolt is hitting the end of the spindle...my contention with the flaw of the design from beginning of discussion.


----------



## roadworthy

David Loving said:


> This thread has quashed any urge I may have had to ditch my beloved square taper Chorus 10/Phil bottom brackets. Thank y'all very much!


Actually, I put square taper and Power Torque in almost the same camp. I wouldn't own either personally...and rode Campy square taper for years.
Ultra Torque by contrast is excellent in my experience.
Cheers.


----------



## CheapSkate

roadworthy said:


> What that means is the torque of the bolt is simply securing the hard shoulder of the bolt to the end of the spindle. In other words very little value added other than the bolt torqued that high likely won't back out. It does little to secure the crank arm...the crank arm still relying on the interference of the tapered spline of the spindle relative to the straight spline of the arm.


Violent agreement. I think I could remove the crank bolt after torquing it and the arm would stay in place. So I think the splines hold it, not the bolt.



roadworthy said:


> If the spline press is very low side and the arm can be pushed on easily at a low torque...then there is a possibility that the creak itself is occuring due to the crank arm moving relative to the spindle during the pedal stroke.


Yes. Just like a loose square taper crank which makes a hell of a noise. But I don't think that was my problem, it takes a fair old effort to extract the crank, you need a good puller. It's not like you could do it with pliers or a rubber mallet. When the crank is on, it's ON and it's not coming off on its own. Maybe after 1000 extractions there'd be a wear problem.


----------



## CheapSkate

David Loving said:


> This thread has quashed any urge I may have had to ditch my beloved square taper Chorus 10/Phil bottom brackets. Thank y'all very much!


Damn straight, I wish I'd never got into this mess. Oh, and Power Torque didn't make me go any faster, that is absolutely for certain.


----------



## C-40

*And...*



roadworthy said:


> I find it hilarious you would not concede my point about the taper of the spindle spline.


Your idea tells me than you've never operated a machine tool in your life and don't understand machining practices. The end of the spline that you've pointed to would not be used as a lateral stop. If that was the desire, then a shoulder would be machined at the end, to provide a positive stop.

Tapered splines always have a uniform taper, from one end to the other.


----------



## roadworthy

C-40 said:


> Your idea tells me than you've never operated a machine tool in your life and don't understand machining practices. The end of the spline that you've pointed to would not be used as a lateral stop. If that was the desire, then a shoulder would be machined at the end, to provide a positive stop.
> 
> Tapered splines always have a uniform taper, from one end to the other.


You simply don't have a clue. 
To use your words...you are WRONG.
Difference between me and you aside from our height?  You are the guy in a machine shop that measured parts. I designed them for you to measure.
You should accept your role and defer to those better educated...lol.
You still don't know how that joint works. :thumbsup:


----------



## DrSmile

Something I noticed...

I got caught in a massive deluge on my long ride yesterday, the kind of downpour that demoralizes you because every inch of you is drenched and dripping. I took this as a sign to strip and clean/relube the bike (last time I didn't do this I had my cranks seize). When I removed the cranks, I found water in the shell as expected. What I didn't expect was the amount of dirt that had washed over and into the center splined joint of the UT cranks. After taking them apart, I noticed that the dirt did not allow full meshing of the splines, necessitating thorough cleaning. This contamination increases the distance between the cranks.

This doesn't address the problem specifically encountered in this thread, but my thought is that some less fastidious people may not clean the splines carefully enough and therefore wind up with increased play.


----------



## CheapSkate

DrSmile said:


> ...I got caught in a massive deluge on my long ride yesterday, the kind of downpour that demoralizes you because every inch of you is drenched and dripping. I took this as a sign to strip and clean/relube the bike (last time I didn't do this I had my cranks seize). When I removed the cranks, I found water in the shell as expected. What I didn't expect was the amount of dirt that had washed over and into the center splined joint of the UT cranks...


That's one of the things I'm worried about. I'm in the UK, "demoralizing downpours" are sometimes unavoidable. Assuming I _ever_ get a working PT system, will I have to flush it out after each rainstorm? I've never touched my square taper BBs, even on my winter bike.


----------



## DrSmile

You shouldn't have this problem with the PT system, as there are no splines in the center of the shell. BTW the cranks that seized on me were plain old square taper. The water gets in there and rusts the bearings.


----------



## roadworthy

My view is...the UT is sensitive to water ingression. Now you can pull the seat post and invert the bike to drain out water...or drill a relief hole in the bottom of the BB...or take it apart.
The good news is...a relube job on a UT is a 30 minute job...don't have to separate the chain or even remove the pedals. Square taper BB's can get spoiled over time why riding in poor weather conditions as well...but they are a bit more sealed.
DrSmile...you are referring I believe to the cleanliness of the hirth joint teeth. Yes, best to have them super clean or they will not mesh precisely...and can even cause cocking when tightening the center bolt.
Cheers.


----------



## CheapSkate

*Update*

Just an update on this thread

Velotech finally walked over to one of their PT bikes and pressed on the crank, they needed a hell of a lot of pressure to make it "float". So we are fairly confident it's the wave washer preload. (I first asked them to do this in June!)

I asked Velotech to send me a "known good" WW for me to try, but they couldn't/wouldn't do that. They don't get paid by Campag unless they do a full teardown on the crank. So I had to send them the whole crank at my expense. Three weeks ago now, not a peep out of them despite repeated email chasing. I guess I'm gonna have to phone Velotech up.

AFAIK Campag Italia still hasn't given the definitive answer on what the preload should be.

Really disappointed with this customer service. I have been asking about preload for 3 months now. No one at Velotech or Campag seemed prepared to actually measure a known good crank or WW, or look up the preload value in the CAD. When they finally get the crank, it all goes quiet for weeks.


----------



## orange_julius

CheapSkate said:


> Just an update on this thread
> 
> Velotech finally walked over to one of their PT bikes and pressed on the crank, they needed a hell of a lot of pressure to make it "float". So we are fairly confident it's the wave washer preload. (I first asked them to do this in June!)
> 
> I asked Velotech to send me a "known good" WW for me to try, but they couldn't/wouldn't do that. They don't get paid by Campag unless they do a full teardown on the crank. So I had to send them the whole crank at my expense. Three weeks ago now, not a peep out of them despite repeated email chasing. I guess I'm gonna have to phone Velotech up.
> 
> AFAIK Campag Italia still hasn't given the definitive answer on what the preload should be.
> 
> Really disappointed with this customer service. I have been asking about preload for 3 months now. No one at Velotech or Campag seemed prepared to actually measure a known good crank or WW, or look up the preload value in the CAD. When they finally get the crank, it all goes quiet for weeks.


That sucks, sorry to hear. Have you tried tweeting to Tom Kattus of Campy NA? @tkcampyna.


----------



## C-40

*thoughts...*

To check the preload tension properly, the spring clip on the right should really be removed, since there should be no more than .2mm of free travel left, with it in place, and of course you have to push on the left side.


----------



## CheapSkate

Deleted post - Campag supplied some figures, but I am suspicious of them. Won't post until I am sure of them.


----------



## orange_julius

CheapSkate said:


> Deleted post - Campag supplied some figures, but I am suspicious of them. Won't post until I am sure of them.


A thoughtful poster with restraint, awaiting for fact check before posting?? You must be an endangered species!

More seriously though, I read your post before you deleted it and I wish you the best in uncovering the fundamental problem with your PT cranks.


----------



## CheapSkate

Ha ha, this is getting farcical. I am mostly posting this for your entertainment and some moral support. But just to emphasise, I think Velotech is doing a good job, they are just middlemen between me, and some Campag engineers who seem all over the place.

To recap. My wave washers are both bronze coloured, about 10 mm high uncompressed, and have a rate of ~0.5 kg/mm. It takes ~5 kg to squash them flat. You can see 'em in my photos above.

We got the specifications from Campag. Initially just the prototype spec, then the production spec:- 
- prototype, 10 kg load gives 1.6 mm of compression, full compression 27 kg
- production, 5 kg load gives 3.9 mm tall & 17 kg gives 1.9 mm tall

To be clear, the latter is the actual specification "used by the factory".

So both prototype and production describe springs 5-6 mm tall with rates of about 6 kg/mm (Hooke's law). (That's a hell of a spring, I should barely be able to move it in my hand. In fact I can squash my bronzy springs flat between finger and thumb)

This is miles, light years, preposterous distances away from what I have. As I understand Hooke's law, it's impossible for _any_ 10 mm tall linear spring to meet the production specification's two data points, _regardless_ of its rate. So _any_ 10 mm tall linear spring must be out of specification. Add to that the hopelessly low rate, it's farcical.

And yet these tall bronzy springs crop up everywhere. I've got 2, the photos on sellers' websites seem to show the same damn thing. 

Interestingly the Campag installation video shows a different spring, much shorter (trust me, I've measured it off the screen). In fact, about 6 mm tall. See below.

Also I have found 2 other recent posts about the same symptoms as mine here, and here. Both in the last couple of months. One in the US (I am in the UK).

My suspicion:- there was a production change to the bronzy 10 mm tall WWs. No one checked. There are zillions of 10 mm tall bronzy WWs in the retail chain. The bronzy washers are all way out of specification.

I think this is a massive issue for Power Torque. I think by the end of this Campag should give me a freakin' medal.

I am bombarding Velotech with Hooke's law emails, so I'm sure the fun's not over.


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> Ha ha, this is getting farcical. I am mostly posting this for your entertainment and some moral support. But just to emphasise, I think Velotech is doing a good job, they are just middlemen between me, and some Campag engineers who seem all over the place.
> 
> To recap. My wave washers are both bronze coloured, about 10 mm high uncompressed, and have a rate of ~0.5 kg/mm. It takes ~5 kg to squash them flat. You can see 'em in my photos above.
> 
> We got the specifications from Campag. Initially just the prototype spec, then the production spec:-
> - prototype, 10 kg load gives 1.6 mm of compression, full compression 27 kg
> - production, 5 kg load gives 3.9 mm tall & 17 kg gives 1.9 mm tall
> 
> To be clear, the latter is the actual specification "used by the factory".
> 
> So both prototype and production describe springs 5-6 mm tall with rates of about 6 kg/mm (Hooke's law). (That's a hell of a spring, I should barely be able to move it in my hand. In fact I can squash my bronzy springs flat between finger and thumb)
> 
> This is miles, light years, preposterous distances away from what I have. As I understand Hooke's law, it's impossible for _any_ 10 mm tall linear spring to meet the production specification's two data points, _regardless_ of its rate. So _any_ 10 mm tall linear spring must be out of specification. Add to that the hopelessly low rate, it's farcical.
> 
> And yet these tall bronzy springs crop up everywhere. I've got 2, the photos on sellers' websites seem to show the same damn thing.
> 
> Interestingly the Campag installation video shows a different spring, much shorter (trust me, I've measured it off the screen). In fact, about 6 mm tall. See below.
> 
> Also I have found 2 other recent posts about the same symptoms as mine here, and here. Both in the last couple of months. One in the US (I am in the UK).
> 
> My suspicion:- there was a production change to the bronzy 10 mm tall WWs. No one checked. There are zillions of 10 mm tall bronzy WWs in the retail chain. The bronzy washers are all way out of specification.
> 
> I think this is a massive issue for Power Torque. I think by the end of this Campag should give me a freakin' medal.
> 
> I am bombarding Velotech with Hooke's law emails, so I'm sure the fun's not over.


Just a word to say you aren't speaking into a vaccum here. I am right with you and believe you are spot on with your analysis. There is really only one thing wrong with your Power Torque crank and it is the amount of preload of the wave washer. Onesy's in nature can occur and are not completely anomolous. But when you get two wave washers with a low preload from separates sources where you can displace the crank laterally with your thumb, then 'Campy' has a big problem. As you say, there are likely hundreds just like it in the field. Your problem isn't as much as discovery...you have figured it out...your challenge will be for Campagnolo to admit a mistake. That will be your challenge. The reason why companies don't admit mistakes publically is because of lost revenue. Recalls and silent campaigns to make things 'right' cost big bucks off the bottom line. So good luck in getting the 'correct' proprietary spring. All said, if your middle man doesn't have enough pull with Campy....start filling Campy's email with requests. Tell them all you want is a wave washer with the correct preload and you will go quietly. Hopefully they will abide.
Keep us posted.


----------



## orange_julius

CheapSkate said:


> My suspicion:- there was a production change to the bronzy 10 mm tall WWs. No one checked. There are zillions of 10 mm tall bronzy WWs in the retail chain. The bronzy washers are all way out of specification.
> 
> I think this is a massive issue for Power Torque. I think by the end of this Campag should give me a freakin' medal.
> 
> I am bombarding Velotech with Hooke's law emails, so I'm sure the fun's not over.


The plot thickens! Thanks for sharing with us, this has been a fascinating read. I hope you'll be able to get their confirmation finally, and they should name their next groupset after you, haha!


----------



## CheapSkate

Crank is going to Vicenza, I think Velotech has run out of resource. I'm trying to get the contact details of the guy it's gone to so I can chase. 

It's 3 months to the day since I first said to Velotech "My BB shell is within tolerance, I think it's just that the big spring ... is so weak, I can squash it flat between finger and thumb. I wasn't expecting that". 

"your challenge will be for Campagnolo to admit a mistake." Damn right, not a chance. I bet the original 6 mm WW was a special part, so they switched to the bronzy 10 mm one which was a standard part and saved 50 cents. They rode the bronzy one around for a while and figured it was OK, even though it didn't meet spec. And it is OK, for most riders. Only edge cases like me and my bikes cause problems. So I bet first they tell me my WW is fine. Then when pushed they'll rummage round in the parts bin and send me some 6 mm washers. And that's as far as it will go.

The Campagnolo CheapSkate. Hmmm, I like that. It would have only 5 gears, no front der, and no rear brake. You would get a wooden stick. For front shifts you would have to reach down and guide the chain onto the big ring using the stick. For emergency stops you could jam the stick into the rear wheel. $199 all in.

Ha ha ha, I feel like I'm going mad. More to follow I'm sure.


----------



## CheapSkate

*Velocipede Salon*

Can anyone post on Velocipede Salon? They denied my membership (how dare they!)

If so get this guy to come over here, I want to talk to him about his wave washers, sounds like his problem is like mine.

axial play in Campy Power-Torque

Thanks & more to follow later, grrrr


----------



## CheapSkate

*Email to Campag*

I am losing faith.... Velotech this morning decided the WWs were OK, based on comparing them with other WWs bought at retail. Not with the Campag spec. I told them that I thought all retail WWs fail the Campag spec, there was a supplier change. Now Velotech have told Vicenza the most likely culprit is my frames, with a hint that my wrenching might not be up to scratch. Pretty furious here.

Anyway my email to Vicenza.....

Hi Federico, 

I disagree with Graeme's diagnosis. Of course it is possible that both my frames are defective, or I am a poor mechanic, but I would like to talk about the wave washer first, I still believe that this is the most likely problem. (You may disagree!!)

The basic problem I have is very low preload. When the crank is mounted on the bike, I can "float" it by pressing two thumbs onto the crank bolt. I estimate the preload is about 5 kg. After 60 - 100 km of riding, I get a "click" noise once per pedal revolution when climbing. Removing the crank, inserting more grease, and replacing the crank, stops the click for a while. Nothing else does. Sometimes I can stop the click by just getting off the bike and pushing the crank bolt to "float" the crank to the drive side, then back & repeat a few times stops the click for a few km. I believe that the low preload means that my crank bearings move in the cups while I am climbing. After a 60 km the grease gets pushed out of the way and the click starts. I can add more grease in my workshop, or move the bearings about in the cups, to pull more grease in.

I believe the bronze coloured wave washers are the cause of my problem

Evidence for wave washer problems

1. My wave washers do not seem to meet Campag's production specification. Graeme told me your production specification is 5 kg @ 3.9 mm; 17 kg @ 1.9 mm. I assume a linear relationship between these two points. My wave washers are ~4 kg @ ~4 mm and ~5 kg @ ~2.2 mm. This is very different to your specification. Your specification requires a "strong and short" spring with rate ~6 kg/mm. My bronze wave washers are "weak and tall" springs with rate <1 kg/mm.

2. When the crank is mounted on a frame with, I can "float" the crank using the pressure of two thumbs on the crank bolt. NOTE: I do not squeeze the crank arm against the chain stay. I just press with my thumbs. That is, I can push it across to the drive side until it hits the retaining clip. Just two thumbs on the crank bolt. This preload seems very low, ~5 kg. I can provide video of this if you like. It is also much lower than what I expect from your production specification. My (English) BB shells are 68.2 & 68.3 mm so I would expect my preload to be ~12 kg according to your production specification.

3. My preload is much lower than other systems. Eg I am told Ultra Torque has preload of 10-30 kg. I found another system (Rotor or FSA I think) with a similar value. I understand all systems are different. But preload is about resisting the axial forces created by the rider, so I think the preload should be approximately the same for each system?

4. others seem to be experiencing the same problem. I have found two very recent threads of people with exactly the same problem as me. One at least was professionally installed. I did not find any threads a few months ago, so the problem seems new. I know Web forum stuff is not always very reliable, but perhaps it is an indication of something:-
axial play in Campy Power-Torque
Weight Weenies • View topic - Campag Power torque 'creak'
I am trying to contact the thread posters to learn more about their problems.

I am 85 kg and 194 cm. I am just a pleasure rider, not a racer. The two frames with problems are Storck Absolutist 2011 models, which have a one piece CNC'd aluminium bottom bracket shell. My shells are 68.2 and 68.3 mm and the faces are perfectly parallel. Storck tells me they are chased and faced at the factory, and that appears correct, but I have not chased them myself.

I do not understand how a preload of 5 kg can work. 

I look forward to hearing from you


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> I am losing faith.... Velotech this morning decided the WWs were OK, based on comparing them with other WWs bought at retail. Not with the Campag spec. I told them that I thought all retail WWs fail the Campag spec, there was a supplier change. Now Velotech have told Vicenza the most likely culprit is my frames, with a hint that my wrenching might not be up to scratch. Pretty furious here.
> 
> Anyway my email to Vicenza.....
> 
> Hi Federico,
> 
> I disagree with Graeme's diagnosis. Of course it is possible that both my frames are defective, or I am a poor mechanic, but I would like to talk about the wave washer first, I still believe that this is the most likely problem. (You may disagree!!)
> 
> The basic problem I have is very low preload. When the crank is mounted on the bike, I can "float" it by pressing two thumbs onto the crank bolt. I estimate the preload is about 5 kg. After 60 - 100 km of riding, I get a "click" noise once per pedal revolution when climbing. Removing the crank, inserting more grease, and replacing the crank, stops the click for a while. Nothing else does. Sometimes I can stop the click by just getting off the bike and pushing the crank bolt to "float" the crank to the drive side, then back & repeat a few times stops the click for a few km. I believe that the low preload means that my crank bearings move in the cups while I am climbing. After a 60 km the grease gets pushed out of the way and the click starts. I can add more grease in my workshop, or move the bearings about in the cups, to pull more grease in.
> 
> I believe the bronze coloured wave washers are the cause of my problem
> 
> Evidence for wave washer problems
> 
> 1. My wave washers do not seem to meet Campag's production specification. Graeme told me your production specification is 5 kg @ 3.9 mm; 17 kg @ 1.9 mm. I assume a linear relationship between these two points. My wave washers are ~4 kg @ ~4 mm and ~5 kg @ ~2.2 mm. This is very different to your specification. Your specification requires a "strong and short" spring with rate ~6 kg/mm. My bronze wave washers are "weak and tall" springs with rate <1 kg/mm.
> 
> 2. When the crank is mounted on a frame with, I can "float" the crank using the pressure of two thumbs on the crank bolt. NOTE: I do not squeeze the crank arm against the chain stay. I just press with my thumbs. That is, I can push it across to the drive side until it hits the retaining clip. Just two thumbs on the crank bolt. This preload seems very low, ~5 kg. I can provide video of this if you like. It is also much lower than what I expect from your production specification. My (English) BB shells are 68.2 & 68.3 mm so I would expect my preload to be ~12 kg according to your production specification.
> 
> 3. My preload is much lower than other systems. Eg I am told Ultra Torque has preload of 10-30 kg. I found another system (Rotor or FSA I think) with a similar value. I understand all systems are different. But preload is about resisting the axial forces created by the rider, so I think the preload should be approximately the same for each system?
> 
> 4. others seem to be experiencing the same problem. I have found two very recent threads of people with exactly the same problem as me. One at least was professionally installed. I did not find any threads a few months ago, so the problem seems new. I know Web forum stuff is not always very reliable, but perhaps it is an indication of something:-
> axial play in Campy Power-Torque
> Weight Weenies • View topic - Campag Power torque 'creak'
> I am trying to contact the thread posters to learn more about their problems.
> 
> I am 85 kg and 194 cm. I am just a pleasure rider, not a racer. The two frames with problems are Storck Absolutist 2011 models, which have a one piece CNC'd aluminium bottom bracket shell. My shells are 68.2 and 68.3 mm and the faces are perfectly parallel. Storck tells me they are chased and faced at the factory, and that appears correct, but I have not chased them myself.
> 
> I do not understand how a preload of 5 kg can work.
> 
> I look forward to hearing from you


Will see what Campy says. There is NO reason there should be ANY difference in axial preload between UT and PT. Blaming it on the frameset or inference your mechanical skills are in question is pretty insulting. I can't budge my UT crank with wave washer in place...it is very stout. This isn't rocket science. Sadly the only reason that they wouldn't agree with you is admission of putting defective material in the field...word spreading and loss of revenue. If me, I would only kick this dead horse a bit longer. Honestly, I will probably be building my next bike with Shimano anyway. My UT crank has been flawless and I always thought I had a lot of patience but you set the bar high. That PT crank would have been on ebay had it been mine. 
Good luck.


----------



## CheapSkate

Deleted - unnecessary


----------



## JaySat

So the UT saga continues... It's sad actually and frustrating to those who are having issues with their UT and there concerns are still falling on deaf ears at Campy HQ...

Three things...

1. I find it "rich" that C-40 recommends that you make your own shims out of common aluminum flashing or pop cans after everything that he attacked me with from behind his keyboard... (I wouldn't be surprised if that comment gets me banned for life again from this forum...).

2. One thing about wave washers... they will lose their "set" over time. This can explain the instance of noise/more noise developing as time/miles accumulate.

3. From my experience dealing with this UT issue, it's a knocking, not a creaking or clicking noise that develops.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.


----------



## C-40

*well...*

The suggestion to make a shim was made, only to allow a complaining user to prove to himself that the small .1-.2mm of available play is NOT the cause of the noise. I've used UT cranks since they first came out, on several frames and never had a problem.

It's easy to say that a wave washer loses it's tension after time, but I will assume that you have no documentation to support that claim. I've got the original wave washer and cups in my oldest crank and it still works fine. If it's really thought to be problem, it can be tested fairly easily. I've taken some of my exercise weights and placed them on the washer to see how much force it takes to compress it. Keep in mind, that the amount of compression is very small - less than 2mm, since the wave washer is only about 3mm tall, unrestrained,

If you really have a bad washer, new washers are readily available from Campy. IIRC, new cups also come with a new wave washer.


----------



## JaySat

C-40 said:


> The suggestion to make a shim was made, only to allow a complaining user to prove to himself that the small .1-.2mm of available play is NOT the cause of the noise. I've used UT cranks since they first came out, on several frames and never had a problem.
> 
> It's easy to say that a wave washer loses it's tension after time, but I will assume that you have no documentation to support that claim. I've got the original wave washer and cups in my oldest crank and it still works fine. If it's really thought to be problem, it can be tested fairly easily. I've taken some of my exercise weights and placed them on the washer to see how much force it takes to compress it. Keep in mind, that the amount of compression is very small - less than 2mm, since the wave washer is only about 3mm tall, unrestrained,
> 
> If you really have a bad washer, new washers are readily available from Campy. IIRC, new cups also come with a new wave washer.


I'm glad that you haven't had an issue with your UT. Never have I stated that all UT systems on all bikes will have or will develop the noise issue. The ones that do though have some amount of axial play (usually much more than .5mm) and usually movement will manifest into noise. It doesn't help the situation that a lot of the frames today resonate sound...

I'm not suggesting that the the fix is replacing the wave washer. As far as documentation goes, just ask any tool and die maker about the precision of wave washers... most that I talked to say that there is a legit use for them like in lawnmowers, driveshafts, etc., but not in a design that tolerance stack up is critical. I still stand by my claim that a wave washer has no place in a crankset/bottom bracket design...especially from Campy. It's doesn't surprise me when FSA and the like uses one, but it still pisses me off that they pass it off as being ok...


----------



## C-40

*more...*

Rogue or his buddy?

There should never be more than .1-.2mm of axial play, since the sping clip prevents that.

Excessive axial play would suggest a frame out of tolerance on BB width, totally wasted bearings, or a crank and/or cups that were manufactured out of tolerance. With the right measuring equipment, it isn't hard to figure out if the crank was made out of tolerance.

Excessive width between the bearings could be corrected, with a shim behind one of the cups, but if you can prove defective dimensions, it should be grounds for a replacement crank..

Cartidge bearings have some axial play, even when new. If they didn't then you couldn't adjust them. That play undoubtedly increases with wear on the bearing. 

The problem for most folks is they have no measuring equipment and they just take guesses at what the problem is. There's also a tendency to avoid replacing the potentially worn parts first, but the crank back together and see if the problem still exists. 

Shimming won't fix worn out bearings or worn cups.


----------



## CheapSkate

@JaySat

Just to be clear: we are talking about Power Torque here, not Ultra Torque. I can't speak authoritatively about the merits of wave washer systems, but I have no doubt that if I had the "correct" wave washer my system would behave "OK". 

Also my dealings so far have been with Campy's Authorised Service Centre in the UK which is a one-man-band company called Velotech. Not Campy themselves. The Velotech guy seems to have a blind spot about wave washers. I first asked him on 19th June "Should I be able to squash my washer flat between finger and thumb?" and we have been round, and round, and round for 3 months. He still has not answered that simple question. I thought it would take a couple of days for him to check with Campy and forward me the answer. Even when he had my wave washers and the Campy production specification on his desk next to each other (on 26th August), he did not compare my wave washers with the specification. Instead he installed my crank + wave washer on his bike, rode 60 km and reported "no fault found". Even yesterday (20th September) when he had bought a wave washer at retail, put a 5 kg weight on it, and measured the washer height as ~2 mm, not ~4 mm as per Campy specification, he still reported "no fault found" to Campy Italia. The wave washer is supposed to take *17 kg* to ~2 mm, not 5 kg!

I am baffled and furious about this. That's why I sent the flame mail I copied above.

"Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence".

I expect there is no great conspiracy over the Power Torque wave washers. Now my cranks are with Campy in Italy I bet they will identify the weak wave washers and send me some new ones. The problem is, in the intervening 3 months they have probably sold hundred or thousands of defective wave washers. I do not know whether they will admit to that, or just hope that the very low preload does not affect too many riders & deal with irate customers one at a time.

I have found 2 other users with the same symptoms as mine. One at least bought his wave washers from the same outlet (Ribble) at the same time as me (May/June 2012). So there are probably many others. I plan to start a new thread with a single post describing the problem, diagnosis and suggesting ways to fix. But I should probably wait to hear what Campy Italia says first.


----------



## roadworthy

JaySat said:


> I'm glad that you haven't had an issue with your UT. Never have I stated that all UT systems on all bikes will have or will develop the noise issue. The ones that do though have some amount of axial play (usually much more than .5mm) and usually movement will manifest into noise. It doesn't help the situation that a lot of the frames today resonate sound...
> 
> I'm not suggesting that the the fix is replacing the wave washer. As far as documentation goes, just ask any tool and die maker about the precision of wave washers... most that I talked to say that there is a legit use for them like in lawnmowers, driveshafts, etc., but not in a design that tolerance stack up is critical. I still stand by my claim that a wave washer has no place in a crankset/bottom bracket design...especially from Campy. It's doesn't surprise me when FSA and the like uses one, but it still pisses me off that they pass it off as being ok...


And you would be wrong. There is nothing wrong with wave washer cranks which for BB30 are the majority. Yes mechanically preloaded cranks like Shimano and Rotor preclude this issue but their downside is...as bearings bed and where there is no axial springload...so they require adjustment from time to time. What Cheapskate is going through is reprehensible really and a common dynamic when dealing with dumb tech reps protecting the mother company. Difference between Cheapskate and me, I would be long gone...strip the whole grouppo off the bike and ebay it. Screw Campy if they won't step up and help out their customer. Its obvious what is going on here. The spring rate of the wave washer is below spec. Your assertion about wave washers losing their springrate over time is bogus. Springs don't take a set any more than automobile coil or leaf springs provided the metallurgy is correct. The set they take over time is part of the stack up equation for maintaining preload. Wave washers allow for a broad tolerance with uniform load over a wide axial distance.
As C-40 stated...I have a 2006 Chorus CF UT crank on my bike with 10k miles with original bearings, cups and wave washer and it has been perfect from day one.


----------



## ericjacobsen3

Folks, keep a few things in mind:

-C40 is, let's say, self-assured. Isn't worth pushing back about any tone just to say "Hey honey, I just won an argument on the internet"
-Maybe Campy was seeing some other issue like excessive bearing wear, and changed the washer from the spec on purpose (recall the finger-tight BB torque instructions). Will admit my UT hasn't worn out.
-Good luck on resolution because my UT crank only occasionally creaks and I am too lazy to look at my washer.


----------



## CheapSkate

ericjacobsen3 said:


> Maybe Campy was seeing some other issue like excessive bearing wear, and changed the washer from the spec on purpose (recall the finger-tight BB torque instructions).


Yeah, that worries me. The WWs _look_ completely different. It's not like it's a manufacturing error, a missing weld or too thin material or something. It's a completely different washer, presumably from a different manufacturer. Maybe they did it _on purpose_


roadworthy said:


> Difference between Cheapskate and me, I would be long gone...strip the whole grouppo off the bike and ebay it. Screw Campy if they won't step up and help out their customer.


The only thing keeping me going now is proving the tech rep wrong. And, when Campag finds out it has been shipping defective cranks all summer, and the tech rep should or could have told them in late June.... I want to see the massive kicking he's gonna get.


----------



## bikerjulio

*Velocipede Salon*



> Can anyone post on Velocipede Salon? They denied my membership (how dare they!)
> 
> If so get this guy to come over here, I want to talk to him about his wave washers, sounds like his problem is like mine.
> 
> axial play in Campy Power-Torque
> 
> Thanks & more to follow later, grrrr


I have put up a note on that thread.

And although I've never installed a PT setup, (and never will), as soon as the design came out, I was critical of a couple of related practical points which Mr Roadworthy is free to add to his opus:

That the pressed on crank required a special puller,

and

That Campy had not included a self-extracting bolt to hold it on. ( a convenient feature that they used to include in the olden days).

To me. it was a poor imitation of the TruVativ GXP design which manages to function without any press fits, and with a self extracting bolt. Making it a delight to work on. Perhaps there were patent issues?


----------



## bikerjulio

why are the posts so out of sequence?? mine from a few minutes ago is buried above.


----------



## roadworthy

ericjacobsen3 said:


> Folks, keep a few things in mind:
> 
> -C40 is, let's say, self-assured. Isn't worth pushing back about any tone just to say "Hey honey, I just won an argument on the internet"
> -Maybe Campy was seeing some other issue like excessive bearing wear, and changed the washer from the spec on purpose (recall the finger-tight BB torque instructions). Will admit my UT hasn't worn out.
> -Good luck on resolution because my UT crank only occasionally creaks and I am too lazy to look at my washer.


No...don't think so. They would...and have shot themselves in the foot by lowering axial load. As discussed I have big miles on original bearing on my UT and no bearing wear...or indiscernible. Cartridge bearings can take quite a bit of lateral load.

UT has even been criticized for the issue that CS writes about...noise due to axial movement of the crank...but I have never experienced it and believe many that have either have a low tolerance BB shell width or low side of tolerance wave washer in terms of spring rate...or both aka interaction. The reason why the PT wave washer is different is due to the difference in crank design. Part of this thread talked about the location of the left crank arm...it pushes onto tapered spline which is more variable in terms of lateral location which affects the tolerance stack of the wave washer. For that reason, a different wave washer design is needed...one that can depress over a broader range of axial tolerance. A Campy UT hirth joint creates a much tighter tolerance for axial play....cranks are much more repeatable and tolerance stack is more dependent on BB shell width which is only part of the equation in the case of PT. To me the PT is a crappy design with or without a proper wave washer. I personally don't believe in pushing on a rope. CS, you give more credit to tech reps than I do. Of course they are incompetent by nature....I have worked with many...or at least they are technically lacking...but moreover, they tote the company line. You aren't gonna get the truth in other words, whether they know the truth or not.


----------



## CheapSkate

bikerjulio said:


> I have put up a note on that thread.


Thanks a lot, I found him through Google but email to him bounces, so that's really helpful of you.


bikerjulio said:


> That the pressed on crank required a special puller ...That Campy had not included a self-extracting bolt to hold it on.


Yeah, it really sucks. Much more than I expected. It's about the worst thing I have to do to my bike. But then, I've never messed with pressfit BBs . I've done it maybe 20 times on a metal crank but I would still be reluctant to do it on a carbon crank arm, I think there would be a reasonable chance of doing structural damage. Awful.


bikerjulio said:


> To me. it was a poor imitation of the TruVativ GXP design which manages to function without any press fits, and with a self extracting bolt. Making it a delight to work on. Perhaps there were patent issues?


I think it was just because there was no space left. Campy decided to stick with 130 mm stance (U factor? whatever) which was OK for Ultra Torque because the connector is buried in the BB. For Power Torque they needed all the space for the splined connector, they just ran out of room for a self extractor. I wish they had compromised the stance instead.

Re patents (my area, albeit in electronics not mechanics). I think the Lightning patent US6443033 looks quite strong. If it's true that Spesh took a licence, I bet they got an exclusive & right to sub-licence. So Spesh's lawyers beat up Campy over Ultra Torque, and now Campy has to pay a royalty (a few dollars?) each time it makes an Ultra Torque crank. Spesh and Lightning split the royalty. This makes Ultra Torque too expensive for low end gruppos. Power Torque I would say is more "obvious" so less likely to be any patents in the area, or if there are they have expired. Safer. So maybe Power Torque only exists to avoid the Lightning patent and maybe to avoid the (expensive?) Hirth joint.


----------



## CheapSkate

roadworthy said:


> No...don't think so. They would...and have shot themselves in the foot by lowering axial load. UT has even been criticized for the issue that CS writes about...noise due to axial movement of the crank... believe many that have either have a low tolerance BB shell width or low side of tolerance wave washer in terms of spring rate...or both aka interaction.


I was thinking about preload. The mythical "good" WW is ~5 kg to 17 kg across the range of BB shell widths. That's fine for me, my shell is at the high end of width so my preload with a "good" WW should be ~12 kg. But if you are on the lower end, 67.2 mm English, even a "good" WW will only give you ~5 kg, which sounds dubious? I estimate my "bad" WW gives me ~4 kg. That's not enough, and I am no Clyde. The prototype WW (Campy gave me these figures first) was ~15 kg to 27 kg across shell widths. More in line with Ultra Torque and much more beefy???

So even with the "good" WWs, if you have a 67.2 mm shell and weigh 220 lb, you might be SOL.

Edit: I meant to say, they dropped the preload from the prototype... from 27 kg (proto) to 17 kg (production). Why? Premature bearing wear as BikerJulio suggests? Maybe even 17 was to much, hence the drop to 5??? Wild guesses?


----------



## prolix21

it appears I've been missing quite the party over here. i'm the OP from vsalon having the same issue (at least it sounds like) with my campy athena setup. random and terrible creaking, some play in my cranks (can push them back and forth a hair between along the axel through the BB).

unfortunately I have no useful updates. i've been meaning to pull my cranks and BB apart and do some measurement checks on my BB. if that looks good I plan on re-assembling the whole thing and paying a lot more attention to what I torque stuff at. my guess is my BB shell is out of spec, but I cannot confirm that until I pull the entire mess apart and compare to campy specs. trying to do that soon


----------



## CheapSkate

Hi Prolix

Thanks for coming in here. Worth checking your BB shell, I would be really interested to hear the answer. IMHO the taller wave washer should make PT quite insensitive to BB shell width variations. If your BB is too wide, you will get binding as the WW crushes flat. If your BB is too narrow, you'll get low preload, but the WW preload varies so slowly with height I doubt it would be an issue. Flatness might be an issue of course, but as I understand it, the threads determine the alignment, not the faces.

If you can move the axle under 2-thumb pressure, then I would guess that the preload is too low, and more likely the source of your problems. But obviously check everything if you have the patience!

I've now found 5 people, maybe 6, with (tentatively) the same problem (including you & me). 3 in the UK, the rest in the US. Not all have been through the big diagnosis, some just eBayed their cranks.

When you pull the crank, be _careful_. It looks easy, but isn't. The first time you need a hell of a lot of force and it's easy for your puller to slip on the plug or for the arms to slip off the crank. I ground the corners off my puller jaws and bound them up like a mummy in duct tape to stop them gouging the inner side of the crank arm. The arms can also press against the edges of the crank if you have the kind of puller that squeezes as it pulls, marking it there. It all helped, but I still gouged my black paint. Crap.

You don't really need the Campy metal plug ($20?). You can pull against the crank bolt if you back it out 4 or 5 turns. You just need something to fill the hole in the bolt. I have successfully used the 11 mm hex socket, a big coin (UK £1) and a mushroom shaped bit of metal I had lying around.


----------



## flatlander_48

CheapSkate said:


> So maybe Power Torque only exists to avoid the Lightning patent and maybe to avoid the (expensive?) Hirth joint.


Yes, in relative terms, a Hirth joint is a bit expensive. It requires fairly tight tolerances to insure that it meshes and functions correctly.


----------



## CheapSkate

Campag came back and said "no fault found"....

"together with Bruno we installed the crankset on our reference BB shell (made in steel with correct measurements) and we checked that the measurement of the crankset, of the cups and of the springs are correct.

We measured in fact that fully installed, with spring and clip, pressing quite strongly from one side to push the spring, the play is 0,4 mm - that is the standard value (confirmed also from Testing Dept. and Technical Dept.)"

Still no explanation of why my preload is ~4 kg when the spring specification says ~12 kg, and if I was running Ultra Torque it would be ~15 kg. So I give up. Back to square taper, Power Torque in the bin. Thanks for all your comments.

I gathered this collection of comments on Power Torque. Wish I'd read them some months ago....

"The bolt doesn’t self-extract the crankarm. Who the hell designed this? Your typical home mechanic is just completely screwed."
"I agree. This is a ridiculous design. I paid over £20 for two central plugs and £7.99 for a piece of shaped cardboard that self destructed. It took me three attempts to remove the crank arm, including snapping one of the arms on my puller"
"on first attempt the arm bent on crank extractor and the plastic moulding split, crank movement zero. Then on the second attempt with the fibre boards for the carbon arms (would not recommend ever trying to remove a carbon arm with these tools) the whole thing fell to pieces and marked the alloy arm"
[re ticking/clicking]"Yep all properly done by a mechanic, On a Cervelo s1 frame. Chased, faced, all within spec. good luck on a resolution... I got so sick of it that I sold the chainset on ebay and got an Ultegra chainset. Easiest install ever - I love my Campag but there was no way I could stand the tick tick tick that infuriated me and cost a fortune"
"[a friend had the] same [ticking] issue, same noise, same shitty design. Focus frame, faced and chased to spec, measured width... Get a Shimano / Rotor chainset and move on mate"
"Carbon Power-Torque arm removal makes me wince"
"The PT system needs to die."


----------



## cq20

CheapSkate said:


> .... So I give up. Back to square taper, Power Torque in the bin. Thanks for all your comments. "


Don't blame you. My Wilier came with a Miche crankset which I didn't expect to last but a) it has and is still going strong and b) any plans to replace it with a Power Torque unit have been cancelled. Thanks for your documented trials with PT. I had my doubts about the design and these have been confirmed.

However.....

before you go to square taper, have a look at totalcycling.com. They are listing 2007 to 2010 Ultra Torque cranksets at discounted prices on Centaur and Athena units.


----------



## CheapSkate

Yeah, thanks for the tip, I thought about that. But I'm sick of fiddling with outboard bearing cranksets & am deeply skeptical of them all. From a practical point of view my square taper cartridge is brilliant. Plug it in, 45 Nm each side, and just ride. I have _never_ had to measure a frame, fiddle with it, replace bearings, relube it, let the water our, wonder about the springs, diagnose clicks. My last Centaur cartridge outlasted my alloy frame.

I'm gonna buy 2 x Centaur cartridges and add them to my stockpile. Then it will probably be 50,000 miles before I have to worry about all this newfangled outboard stuff.

I am now highly skeptical of UT as well (I know all you guys say it's great). If you read all the emails from Campag eg the one above they say the 0.4 mm float is normal and acceptable. That seems so weird and wrong to me, I want nothing to do with it. So next time I would go with a pinch bolt design, Shimano or Rotor. The float disturbs me so much.

Also I am pretty down on Campag. How could they release such an awful design?

Cheers all


----------



## CheapSkate

Chris-X said:


> ...The Record square taper bb and cranks have required no maintenance and are still buttery smooth.
> 
> I don't understand the dislike of square taper by many. Maybe someone could enlighten me?


I love ST too. I'm in the UK which is probably like S Florida for the rain, only about 30 degs cooler! ST has never let me down.

I've heard people say "ST is hard to remove the BB, UT is easier". True, but I say "what is this 'remove BB' of which you speak?". I plug it in, put 45 Nm on it, ride in UK crappy weather 4k miles a year, year in year out. The only time I remove them was to scrounge one off my old frame onto a new bike. 

Weight? I looked it up, carbon UT Record is about 25 g lighter than carbon ST Record.

Stiffness? Don't start me off.... 



Chris-X said:


> I too think it's odd that Campy tech's would say play axial play is acceptable....


It's the weirdest thing, it does my head in. But you can see the email from Federico up there and from Velotech earlier. It's designed to play/float. PT much more than UT, because of that very low preload. It must be floating all the time when I climb. Weird weird weird.

Thanks for that post, it's nice to have confirmation that others like bad old ST as well.


----------



## roadworthy

Chris-X said:


> I saw the postings relating to this on a Specialized thread. I thought Roadworthy provided a lot of helpful info there, and this is coming from someone who is sometimes annoyed by some of his posts....
> 
> Regarding U/T, I have a roubaix sl 2 s works which has Campy Record U/T 10 cranks installed, and a Look kg381 with Record S/T bottom bracket and Record crankset.. Each crank has about 30k miles on it and I've had to replace U/T bearings twice. I do ride that bike a lot in the rain, however, which I've been advised, shortens bearing life. The Record square taper bb and cranks have required no maintenance and are still buttery smooth.
> 
> *I don't understand the dislike of square taper by many. Maybe someone could enlighten me? * BTW, a Record bottom bracket is a very nice looking piece of equipment, especially for something hidden in the frame.
> 
> Sorry if this has been covered earlier.
> 
> To answer original question. My U/T crank is solid as a rock and has no play at all. When I did get play at about 10k mile intervals, the cartridge bearings were replaced and the play was gone.
> 
> Prior to replacing the bearings I did get the occasional "ticking" from the bb area which lead me to inspect the crank area and detect the play. I too think it's odd that Campy tech's would say play axial play is acceptable...
> 
> I was riding in the rain a lot in South Florida and apparently water did get into the bearings on occasion.


There is no such thing as a perfect design as you know. Each design is a tradeoff. The biggest shortcoming of ST is...bearing diameter with the BB cartridge...you mention you get big miles out of them...some don't. The more outboard bearing placement, the more stable the crank is. The limiting factor here is Q-factor. Outboard bearings provide a more stable crank and in theory less bearing wear not only because of bearing diameter but position. Further an outboard bearing crank is stiffer because of spindle diameter. Biggest limiting factor of ST? Small chainring spindle mounting surface area. Square draft that chainring and left arm press onto offers limited restraint...one that is sensitive to drafts wearing and rings running out of true. In fact, ST is limited like the new PT in that they both rely on tapered drafts for true position of mating parts. Torquing to specification is based upon a theoretical target of press aka interference and axial penetration (location) based upon part stack up. Drafted taper that isn't secure is prone to wear. When I used to torque ST Campy cranks to spec, I always found it curious how far either the chainring spider or left crank arm would press onto each side of the spindle. Amount of chainring press penetration would affect chainline. Also on the web there was copious debate about placing media on the spindle versus not. Those that placed anti seize compound or grease on the square taper interface noticed a much higher penetration of both chainring and left crank arm. Those that installed them dry, many times found ST's to creak. Oh yes....ST's have a long history of making noise as well. PT is equally flawed. Although the drafted taper is much more robust in terms of section modulus aka diameter, amount of draft, torque and penetration affects axial stack up and wave washer preload....a very poor design and as stated by another forum member, likely born as a patent work around to not pay royalties to Lightening for invention of the hirth joint.. Campy's UT is a far superior design and no question more expensive to produce.

Here's the overarching determinant. If you are an average smell the roses like of rider who never puts out more 400 watts...it doesn't matter what you ride. If you put out 1000 watts however or over 1 hp and can sprint to 38-40 mph, a ST crank will feel like a wet noodle. So one man's love for square taper isn't shared by all men...depends on the man.


----------



## orange_julius

Chris-X said:


> What did Campy riding sprinters do until 2006?


The same thing they did when they didn't have rear derailleurs, they put up with things until a better one becomes available?


----------



## Bantamben

Are you positive you installed correctly. I can't see the wave washer causing this clicking I mean there is only .3-4mm anyway as you've said even if shimmed to that spec with no preload I doubt when riding you would get clicking remember your outing power down on those bearings that crank isn't moving back and forth like when you push on it from the side. 

I too have the Athena silver 11 speed power torque group I purchased from ribble earlier this year I have the same wave washer, easily compressed Wich is good I think as too much pressure I would think might cause drag. I have been on a frame kick this year and have swapped that Athena crank onto 4 separate frames a steel bianchi pinella, a CF look 566 a steel seven axiom and my current frame a Merlin titanium. I've used the same cups I've never measured BB or refaced. Btw I bought a 10 dollar puller at autozone grinded it to fit perfect and have had no problem with removal. My question is do you torque it to spec each time. I had a friend with a SRAM red crank they have a wave washer too I believe, it clicked till I torqued it, he said he torqued it too, we tested his wrench against mine his was at like 20lbs to my 25 or so and that made the difference. If its not torqued properly the splines won't completely seat and could come slightly loose over time. If I was you I would torque it 10-20 lbs more then spec I bet your problem goes away.


----------



## CheapSkate

Bantamben said:


> Are you positive you installed correctly. I can't see the wave washer causing this clicking I mean there is only .3-4mm anyway as you've said even if shimmed to that spec with no preload I doubt when riding you would get clicking remember your outing power down on those bearings that crank isn't moving back and forth like when you push on it from the side.


Well that's what puzzles me. You can put a reasonable axial load on the crank. When you're climbing you lean the bike over, let's say at 10 degrees. Then you put your whole body weight on the crank, let's say 80 kg. So the axial force is 80*sin(10) = 14 kg. Quite a lot. It gets a bit more complicated when you consider tension in the chain etc. But it's a fair old force. Likely more than the preload.
Given the spring only has ~5 kg preload, I assume that every pedal stroke while climbing, the spindle and bearings move from side to side because the preload is a lot less than the axial pedalling force. I know it's only 0.3 - 0.4 mm. But if the bearings are sliding back and forth in the cups, surely that's a Bad Thing? Eventually the grease will get pressed out and I will get the bearings scraping on the cups? That's what I think is happening.
Contrast Ultra Torque where the preload is ~20 kg. Likely more than the axial pedalling force. I can believe that in Ultra Torque the bearings do not move in the cups.

I guess my big question is:- what is the purpose of the preload?
a - to keep the bearings stationary in the cups under all circumstances, ie regardless of pedalling force/style etc?
b - to keep the bearings stationary in the cups under _nearly all_ circumstances except in eg extreme climbing.
c - to let the bearings move from side to side under normal out-of-the-saddle pedalling?
d - something else?
Ultra Torque seems designed for a, or maybe b. The Power Torque prototype spec (27 kg) and production spec (17 kg) also seem to be a, or maybe b. So is the actual ~5 kg wave washer supplied with Power Torque c? or d? Why is it different from Ultra Torque?

Same question in a simpler way.... if ~5 kg preload is "enough", and too much preload causes drag or wear, then why does Ultra Torque have ~20 kg? As I understand it, in both cases the preload does the same thing - resists the rider's axial force. Why did Power Torque prototype have 27 kg? And a production specification of 17 kg?

I don't know the answers to these questions. Campagnolo never answered them for me. I'm not trying to start a crusade. I'm just trying to describe what I saw and what Campagnolo has said. And trying to understand how the preload is supposed to work.



Bantamben said:


> My question is do you torque it to spec each time. I had a friend with a SRAM red crank they have a wave washer too I believe, it clicked till I torqued it, he said he torqued it too, we tested his wrench against mine his was at like 20lbs to my 25 or so and that made the difference. If its not torqued properly the splines won't completely seat and could come slightly loose over time. If I was you I would torque it 10-20 lbs more then spec I bet your problem goes away.


Yep. Torqued to spec with a quality wrench. Also tried over-torquing it. Also tried under & over torquing the cups. And different cups. If you back the Big Bolt out you can see that the splines are hard up against the underside of the Big Bolt, which I believe is how it should be. Also the fact that I could stop the creaking for a few miles by pushing the crank back and forth through its play tells me the spline interface was OK.


----------



## C-40

*info...*

The wave washer does not keep the bearings in place. It pushes the spindle to the left and maintains a constant zero-play between the bearing balls and the races. It's the retaining clip that limits the axial play of the drive side outer bearing race. If the clearance between the clip and bearing is thought to be too large, only shimming between the cup and bearing will cure that. You could have a cup with the retaining clip holes drilled off-location. Most users blaming this situation for noises see to be unwilling to try the simplest solution - buy a new pair of cups to see if the problem goes away, or take the effort to install shims behind the drive side bearing to reduce the play to nearly zero. 

You could also have a defective crank arm or spindle spline that can't be fixed. In that case, you would also need replacement parts. The fact that the end of the crank arm hits the fixing bolt could indicate a defective spline, but without a design drawing for the splines, no one can say for sure. There are some tapered splines that do have a positive stop - like the ISIS spline that combines a tapered interference fit with a stop shoulder. If has been suggested that there is such a stop on the PT splines, but if that's really the case, the end of the splines should definitely not touch the fixing bolt. There should be a substantial clearance, like .5-1mm.

http://ebike.hu/download/016b02d6df2bb9a1.pdf/

If you've read about the rogue mechanic replacement for the UT wave washer, it's just a stack of shims. After multiple trial and error installations, the washer stack is increased in thickness until there's a small clearance between the bearing balls and races. That actually leaves the crank relatively loose, compared to having a wave washer. It's a lot like the old caged-ball cups and lockring setup used with old square taper cranks. A slight turn too much on the cup and the crank would lock up. A tiny fraction of a turn looser and the bearings would feel loose and sloppy, if you wiggle the crank arm, way out by the pedal. If you could ever get nearly zero clearance, it would usually loosen up after a few rides and return to a sloppy feel. The washer stack method can't do any better.


----------



## ultraman6970

Havent read any of the other comments but in UT to fix that just put a second wavy washer and end of the story you know. The newer cups have a stronger wavy washer and if the cups you have in there are old then there you have the problem.

Either way, thebearings were changed or something at some point? Some bearings are not exactly the same size as the campy ones eventohught are being sold as straight replacement of the campy bearings.

No clue about power torque. Doubt will use that crap ever.


----------



## CheapSkate

Hi C-40, I am really not trying to be shirty or obtuse. I guess I don't really understand this system (I'm not a mechanical engineer).

I don't understand whether my PT bearings are moving axially in the cups 
a - never;
b - very occasionally
c - quite often.

You seem to be saying the answer is "c" - the bearings will move axially in the cups under normal out-of-the-saddle pedalling, limited only by the spring clip (the 0.4 mm play I have has been confirmed by Campag Italy).

So would you say that in my PT crank the bearings are moving back and forth in their cups with every climbing pedal stroke?

Again, not clever or derogatory questions. Just a physicist trying to understand how it _should_ work


----------



## C-40

*answer...*



CheapSkate said:


> Hi C-40, I am really not trying to be shirty or obtuse. I guess I don't really understand this system (I'm not a mechanical engineer).
> 
> I don't understand whether my PT bearings are moving axially in the cups
> a - never;
> b - very occasionally
> c - quite often.
> 
> You seem to be saying the answer is "c" - the bearings will move axially in the cups under normal out-of-the-saddle pedalling, limited only by the spring clip (the 0.4 mm play I have has been confirmed by Campag Italy).
> 
> So would you say that in my PT crank the bearings are moving back and forth in their cups with every climbing pedal stroke?
> 
> Again, not clever or derogatory questions. Just a physicist trying to understand how it _should_ work


.4mm or .016 inch is more clearance the I'd suspect, but it is possible. I would NOT assume the the right bearing is moving back and forth by that amount. It's merely a possibility, that could be fixed. If that really is an issue, then the right side cup should show some signs of scuffing and wear. 

My main point is the noise could be a spline problem, totally unrelated to the wave washer issue that you've decided to be the problem, with no proof of it. I'd like to see a detailed drawing of the PT spline. Otherwise, it's pure conjecture to assume how it's supposed to work.


----------



## Bantamben

Ooh that might be it I don't think the splines should hit the big bolt the big bolt is supposed to pull the splined side through the NDS crank arm till it bottoms out on the inside of arm the torque just preloads the big bolt so is doesn't back out but even if it did I could probably ride mine without the bolt because the crank arm is pressed up really tight on splines till it bottoms out. Maybe your splines are too lOng and your big bolt is not tightening it till it bottoms.


----------



## CheapSkate

C-40, maybe you're right I was premature to blame the spring, I thought sufficient evidence was there, both technically (measured 5 kg preload) and anecdotally (people with a similar problem) to warrant a reasonably informative post. But perhaps I was wrong.

I really think my splines are OK. It takes a lot of pull for me to get the crank off, it is rock solid. We went through what the arm bottoms out on with Roadworthy, I don't think it bottoms out on the inboard side of the spindle, there is no distinct shoulder there (unlike eg ISIS). 

I've attached an email at the bottom, it's the report from Campag Italia on my crank. It states clearly that 0.4 mm is the standard value for the axial play. Also it reports my crank OK in other respects (presumably, splines).

*So I still don't understand. The right hand bearing has 0.4 mm play in its cup. The crank has 5 kgf preload. I can generate ~15 kgf axially while climbing. So when I am climbing, is the bearing moving back and forth 0.4 mm?

If I had Ultra Torque with ~20 kgf preload, would it be the same answer?*

I asked Campag a while ago, they declined to answer.

Again, I am not on some crusade here, the physics just seems to say that my right hand bearing is moving back and forth 0.4 mm in its cup. I still don't know if that's true or not.

As I said to Campag, sure there might be other things wrong with my crank or my frame. But I really want to understand how the preload & axial pedalling forces work first. And I still don't really understand, no-one has yet explained to me what happens with 5 kgf preload and 15 kgf axial load.



_From: Franco Finotello
To: Velotech Cycling Ltd - Velotech training , Campagnolo ASC <[email protected]>
Cc: Michele Giangreco
Sent: Thu, Sep 27, 2012 9:55 pm
Subject: R: Powertorque problem

Ciao Graeme,

together with Bruno we installed the crankset on our reference BB shell (made in steel with correct measurements) and we checked that the measurement of the crankset, of the cups and of the springs are correct.

We measured in fact that fully installed, with spring and clip, pressing quite strongly from one side to push the spring, *the play is 0,4 mm - that is the standard value (confirmed also from Testing Dept. and Technical Dept.)*

Tomorrow we’ll send you back all the components.

Best regards
Franco_


----------



## Bantamben

I just checked mine. I do have the weak sprink I remember from installing so many times on all the frames I've tried this crank on but when pressing on the crank with my hands I get no movement at all I can't budge it. Fyi


----------



## C-40

You're just assuming how much axial force you generate while pedaling. Once again, no proof of that value. You're also assuming that the right side bearing can move from side to side with little friction, even though it's a tight fit in the cup and there's a lot of downward force being applied.

I still say that you need to shim the right side bearing to eliminate nearly all of the play between the bearing and the spring clip and see if anything changes. My bet is that it won't, because it's not the problem. Even if the bearing moves, it should not make noise if all surfaces are greased.

Since Campy sees nothing wrong with the splines, that must mean that there is not a stop shoulder, as another poster rudely told me was so obvious. You can't have the end of the spindle tight against the fixing bolt, unless it's the end of the spindle acting as the stop. In that case, all the ranting about the left crankarm not being accurately positioned is also incorrect.

I can't remember, but did you ever try another crank on the bike? There are many reports of noises thought to be the crank that were something entirely different. Even some wheels have spoke movement that results in noise, when pedaling out of the saddle.


----------



## CheapSkate

Just to preface, really not trying to be a smart*** or wind you up, I am still genuinely puzzled. I hope we can continue in a philosophical vein. I doubt I will ever put the crank on my bike again, it's not worth the effort. But I'm still curious to understand how it _should_ work. I know you had run-ins with RogueMechanic. I hope I'm not like that, I'm not selling anything, I just don't understand how it should work. I came across enough people with the same or similar problems (and I still think there is some hard evidence) to make me think it was worth posting about what I perceive to be a problem. I thought it might help others. Maybe I was wrong.


C-40 said:


> You're just assuming how much axial force you generate while pedaling. Once again, no proof of that value.


True, but it seems like very straightforward mechanics/physics. I know I lean the bike over until sometimes my leg brushes the top tube. That's about 10 degrees. I know I weigh 83 kg and put all that weight on the pedal. I can't see any load path except through the crank into the BB shell. That's 83*sin(10) = 14 kg.


C-40 said:


> You're also assuming that the right side bearing can move from side to side with little friction, even though it's a tight fit in the cup and there's a lot of downward force being applied.


True, there is friction. But if we're just relying on friction to hold the bearing in place, don't we have the same as a Shimano or SRAM system where the crank is not nipped up and there is axial play? If those systems have play though incorrect installation, they are relying purely on friction between bearings and cups or spindle just like you say. And from reading these forums, axial play in Shimano/SRAM is a very common source of creaks and clicks.

And if friction alone was enough to hold the bearing in place silently, why does Ultra Torque use ~20 kg of preload?



C-40 said:


> Even if the bearing moves, it should not make noise if all surfaces are greased.


But in other systems (Hollowtech, SRAM GXP) isn't axial play (aka movement between bearings and cups/splines) a common source of creaking? And the BB30 guys spend their lives with Loctite trying to stop bearing movement & creaking. At that's the impression I get from these forums:- movement between the bearings and cups/spindle is a Bad Thing.



C-40 said:


> Since Campy sees nothing wrong with the splines, that must mean that there is not a stop shoulder, as another poster rudely told me was so obvious. You can't have the end of the spindle tight against the fixing bolt, unless it's the end of the spindle acting as the stop. In that case, all the ranting about the left crankarm not being accurately positioned is also incorrect.


Yes I never understood the stuff about bolt shoulders and accurate positioning. What I see is the splines bottoming out on the bolt (see photos above), and it takes a substantial torque to get the crank there. And substantial pull to get it off. So I guess it positions in the same place every time. We did get hung up on tapers (my fault). I'm sorry if you got flamed.



C-40 said:


> I can't remember, but did you ever try another crank on the bike?...


Yes. I had an identical problem on 2 quality carbon frames. I swapped both frames back to Centaur cartridges and had instant silence. I've now done about 1000 miles across both bikes without a sound.

In a nutshell. I'm a physicist, not a mechanical engineer. But I think I understand how all the other crank systems manage axial forces and play. It's simple and obvious. Most "nip up" the crank arm, or some kind of split collar (not sure of the technical term!) until there is no play. Axial forces then can't cause any movement between bearings and spindle or cups. Ultra Torque (& I believe FSA) has a wave washer with a substantial preload to hold the bearings stationary against all but the most extreme axial forces. 

But I still don't understand how PT manages axial forces and play. If axial force >> preload, doesn't it behave like Shimano or SRAM with the crank arm not nipped up?? And that creaks as I understand it?

Again, really not trying to be aggressive, all that stuff. Thanks for continuing the debate.


----------



## Wazgilbert

CheapSkate said:


> <snip>
> 
> But I still don't understand how PT manages axial forces and play. If axial force >> preload, doesn't it behave like Shimano or SRAM with the crank arm not nipped up?? And that creaks as I understand it?
> 
> Again, really not trying to be aggressive, all that stuff. Thanks for continuing the debate.


I'm intrigued by this very issue, I have just finished updating my drivetrain to Veloce 10sp from a mix of 8&9 sp components with of course square taper. Both UT & PT were new to me, so I fitted what was default for current gruppos, so it was PT.

I'm not convinced that the float on the axle was acceptable, so I started reading, and found this thread. 

As an exercise in investigation, I have bought another wave washer from the states, because it looks so different to what was supplied with the outboard cups. 
What I have on my bike, is a grey washer, with about a 10mm height, unloaded. From your descriptions and the pictures online, it looks like I'll get a brassy coloured one in the post, with at least 20mm height.

I'm hoping that the force needed to compress the new one will be higher that the installed one, so I can increase the preload and therefore remove some of the freedom of movement.

For even more fun, I have some noises in only 6th and 7th cog on the cassette, that appear to be chain/cog interface, but I will be taking off the cassette and checking the fit for any faults. It definitely causes a tick/creak, more than once per revolution of the cranks and I wondered if you guys have had that instead, or as well as the PT axle groans?

By the way, my bike hasn't seen the road since installing this gear, only about 30 miles on the turbo.


----------



## Bantamben

This thread makes me laugh, I had campy Athena power torque all year on 6 different frames I went through trying to find what I wanted a couple steel frames 2 carbon frames an AL frame and a titanium frame. Not once did I have any noises or problems with these cranks. They installed easy and came off easy. I had the same wave washer your talking about. I just don't see how pedaling would push the washer over so much it's clicking all the force from pedaling is down or at least at right angles to the spring. I took a puller from autozone that look like it would fit but didn't it was the bulky tie rod end type c puller non adjustable arms. I then chopped off the arms slightly so it just fit. I didn't use any tape or cardboard to avoid marring the arms and I didn't make any marks at all. I used the nut to push aging on the crank by backing it out half way the placing a wrench handle in between it and the puller center bolt then tightened the bolt and it popped off after a few good turns. 
I now have the chorus ultratorque it's Definately a more user friendly design one turn of the center bolt back it out and cranks come apart wave washer is same just different size but works great too best cranks I've ever head they just feel smooth.


----------



## CheapSkate

Wazgilbert said:


> What I have on my bike, is a grey washer, with about a 10mm height, unloaded. From your descriptions and the pictures online, it looks like I'll get a brassy coloured one in the post, with at least 20mm height.


You might want to re-read my (many) posts.... I think the "weak" washer is about 10 mm high, the "strong" washer is less tall. Can you squash your current washer flat between thumb and forefinger? Pls let me know how you get on.



Wazgilbert said:


> For even more fun, I have some noises in only 6th and 7th cog on the cassette, that appear to be chain/cog interface, but I will be taking off the cassette and checking the fit for any faults. It definitely causes a tick/creak, more than once per revolution of the cranks and I wondered if you guys have had that instead, or as well as the PT axle groans?


That's a classic unrelated click. It's the splines on the cassette digging into the freehub. some grease will fix it, or if not you may have to smooth out the dents in the freehub with some sandpaper. The steel sprocket spline bites into the alloy freehub and makes a small dent. As you pedal hard the tiny flexing of the sprocket moves the spline in the dent and makes the tick.


----------



## CheapSkate

Bantamben said:


> This thread makes me laugh, I had campy Athena power torque all year on 6 different frames I went through trying to find what I wanted a couple steel frames 2 carbon frames an AL frame and a titanium frame. Not once did I have any noises or problems with these cranks.


Good for you! I wonder why it affected me and some others, but not you.


Bantamben said:


> I just don't see how pedaling would push the washer over so much it's clicking all the force from pedaling is down or at least at right angles to the spring.


Well that's where I get confused. When you stand on the pedals out of the saddle you tend to lean the bike over away from vertical, but your pedalling force is still vertical (because it uses gravity). I reckon I lean my bike over about 10 degrees when I climb, and I weigh about 83 kg, so the axial force I generate on the crank spindle must be about 14 kg. Unless I completely misunderstand the physics. I still don't understand what happens in these circumstances.


----------



## Wazgilbert

Well, I took out the back wheel and checked the Lockring torque on the cassette and nipped it up some more, initial thoughts are that the unrelated click is done, now all I need is the washer in the post, and I'll borrow a bearing puller from work to get the arm off.

I'll let you know how it looks like.


----------



## Bantamben

CheapSkate said:


> Good for you! I wonder why it affected me and some others, but not you.
> 
> Well that's where I get confused. When you stand on the pedals out of the saddle you tend to lean the bike over away from vertical, but your pedalling force is still vertical (because it uses gravity). I reckon I lean my bike over about 10 degrees when I climb, and I weigh about 83 kg, so the axial force I generate on the crank spindle must be about 14 kg. Unless I completely misunderstand the physics. I still don't understand what happens in these circumstances.


Think about even when you lean way over and pedal all forces are still pushing vertical to the crank. I don't know I think something's screwy with yours you do have the rubber grease cover as well on top of the spring right


----------



## CheapSkate

Wazgilbert said:


> I'll borrow a bearing puller from work to get the arm off.


Take care, I know Bantamben found it easy, but I didn't, and I have highish wrenching skills.


----------



## Bantamben

I bough the large size idler arm pulley at autozone two armed kinda beefy looking non adjustable then cut down the arms (hacksaw) just enough I could slide it in. Maybe this design since its solid makes it easier.


----------



## CheapSkate

I think bigger is better. I bought a tiny one off eBay which exploded. Then went to a Draper 50590 which works OK. Like you I had to heavily modify the jaws to fit cleanly, then I wrapped it all in duct tape. 

If Wazgilbert is borrowing a puller from work, he might have some explaining to do if he returns it with hacksaw "modifications" 

Campag recommends Facom U.301 but it costs UK £70.00 - ouch.


----------



## cs1

*Park Tools*

Try this
Park Tool Co. » ParkTool Blog » CBP-5 Crank and Bearing Adaptor Set for Service of Campagnolo Power Torque Cranks


----------



## CheapSkate

The guy from Campag UK says "the Park tool does not work at all well". Verbatim quote, I don't know exactly what he meant, I've not tried it myself.


----------



## cs1

CheapSkate said:


> The guy from Campag UK says "the Park tool does not work at all well". Verbatim quote, I don't know exactly what he meant, I've not tried it myself.


Did he give you any idea what works? It's easy to say what doesn't.


----------



## CheapSkate

I had exactly this conversation with him, I found it a bit frustrating. The instructions with my crank (which I RTFM'd very carefully) said "use a suitable puller" to remove the crank. Ha ha, so what's a suitable puller? I found out my pullers were *un*suitable the hard way:- by exploding the first one, and scratching my crank arm with the second. 

He recommends the ones he sells. See the bottom of the page under "Tools".

Trouble is, these are £70 each. I only paid £84 for the crank. So we seem to have the situation Campag excels in:- design a product where the normal service toolset costs roughly the same as the product (or more, hello 11s chain tool).


----------



## Wazgilbert

so here we go;








which I used the small dome-head bolt as a plug to fill the 14mm hex bolt, because I wanted to just back that off and then apply pressure to the shaft from there, without the specialist tool.
I also used a card shim behind the crank arm, because while test-fitting, I felt I would probably move about too much an risk scratches.








removed, and I have the wave-washer on the table.








measured up - 6mm?








next - how do I compress this thing to test the weight/load? 
of course! it's a perfect fit for regular screw-lock dumbbell bars.
measured again for pleasure.








2kg load - not much different








4.25kg - now we're getting somewhere - but the measurement is a pain, so I figure I'll just flatten it and find a weight.








at 6kg it is now touching all the surfaces of the coils, so that's it - 6kg flattens my 'low-profile' washer.
as I said, I have a high-profile one coming from the states - I'll use the same rig to compare results and decide if it's worth fitting.









The rig








I used 2x2.5kg discs as a base, and used 0.5kg and 1.25kg discs to stack the washer.

completely subjective, I can flatten a portion of it in finger and thumb, but if I sandwich it between rigid surfaces, it's a lot harder to flatten by hand, but only 6kg harder of course!

Edit - after this fuss, I will be commissioning a tool from a local machinist shop, that i'm designing to be able to us the square taper tool as a press, I guess all it needs is an alloy block, the profile of the crank arm machined out, a hole in the centre with the thread of the square-taper tool, and a substitute plug for campy's £20-30 item. because everyone has one of those old tools the the shed - yes?


----------



## CheapSkate

Hi Wazgilbert, nice measurements and nice documentation

A few things strike me

1. I was wrong. I thought the "low profile" steel coloured wave washer was going to have a much higher compression force. Wrong. It's only 6 kg to ~2 mm just like my high profile bronze one. I bet you find your bronze coloured one is broadly the same.

2. Therefore I might also be wrong about the cause of my creak. I thought (still think) the low preload caused my creak, and I thought I had good evidence that this was caused by a bad batch of wave washers. But your measurements weaken my case quite a bit! I'lll post a clarification/retraction on my other thread. I hope I haven't wasted anyone's time or money, sorry if I have.

3. Both our wave washers are wildly different from the Campag factory spec: _"5 kg @ 3.9 mm high, 17 kg @ 1.9 mm high"_ *. And wildly different from Ultra Torque (around 20 kg from what I read).

4. The bottom line is, I don't understand how Power Torque works, why its preload is wildly different from its production spec & from Ultra Torque. The clip indicates that float/play occurs in some situations _"The clip on the DS cup will prevent a gross amount of float towards the DS"_ *. Given that both UT and PT have the clip, they both must experience float in some situations. The float will be affected by the wave washer strength. The weaker PT wave washer can only mean that PT floats more often and/or more violently than UT. In other systems (Shimano, SRAM) repeated float or play can lead to creaking. My symptoms were entirely consistent with this. No one yet seems to have been able to explain what's going on. But I could well be wrong. 

But my questions remain:
If UT needs ~20 kg preload, why doesn't PT?
If the factory spec is 17 kg @ 1.9 mm high, why are the springs in retail ~5 kg @ 1.9 mm high?
If axial force >> preload, doesn't it behave like Shimano or SRAM with the crank arm not nipped up (ie, creaks)??

* verbatim quotes from Campag emails

Re your widget to pull the crank, great idea. I had the same idea and mentioned it to Campag. Campag guy said they were trying to get out of the tool market. That seemed a bit odd to me, the margins on those £145 11s chain tools must be amazing, also on the UT-FC095, £9 for a piece of short piece of turned steel bar. Also I said if you want to stop making special tools, why not start making cranksets that don't need special tools? Your machinist could start selling those. I would have bought one if it was only say £15.


----------



## Wazgilbert

I must admit, I'm thinking about picking up an UT crankset and ebaying the PT one, on the basis that it's going to be easier to deal with and the spares for the high end sets will keep it going for years. 

OTOH, to replace bearings on UT, you need a puller, for 2 bearings. On PT, you need a puller for the DS. Once you have that puller, you can remove the NDS crank arm with the same thing. The only issue is the expense with say Parktools' solution, because it's a £50 add on to a £50 tool.

If I succeed with the conversion block for a square taper tool, all we need is a price worthy tool for the DS bearing.


----------



## CheapSkate

Wazgilbert said:


> I must admit, I'm thinking about picking up an UT crankset and ebaying the PT one, on the basis that it's going to be easier to deal with and the spares for the high end sets will keep it going for years.


Yeah. I know I seem very "down" on PT, but it is so bloody difficult to service compared to the competition & square taper. In particular bearings pressed onto the shafts, or the hybrid PT one on the shaft, one in the cup solution puts servicing IMHO beyond the reach of the home mechanic. I can kind of understand it in the fairly avant-garde UT used on posh bikes, but not on the bread and butter PT? 

Again I had this out with Campag. You can strip a Shimano crank "the approved way" using standard tools plus a £1.59 preload widget. That includes the bearings. To strip a PT crank "the Campag approved way" you need a £70 puller, a £9 plug, bits of cardboard, possibly a different longer puller for the bearings, and a slide hammer or similar to seat the new bearing. And skill levels which I think are beyond most home mechanics. Now you can whomp up a cheaper PT servicing solution, but that needs an even higher skill level, eg taking a hacksaw to your puller, or machining a special widget like you are talking about.

It baffles me. Pros are out there winning Grand Tours on Hollowtech II which you can more or less fully service by the roadside. And yet Campy's bargain basement crankset requires a toolset which costs about as much as the crank, and IMHO very very high skill levels. Really baffling.


----------



## ultimobici

CheapSkate said:


> Yeah. I know I seem very "down" on PT, but it is so bloody difficult to service compared to the competition & square taper. In particular bearings pressed onto the shafts, or the hybrid PT one on the shaft, one in the cup solution puts servicing IMHO beyond the reach of the home mechanic. I can kind of understand it in the fairly avant-garde UT used on posh bikes, but not on the bread and butter PT?
> 
> Again I had this out with Campag. You can strip a Shimano crank "the approved way" using standard tools plus a £1.59 preload widget. That includes the bearings. To strip a PT crank "the Campag approved way" you need a £70 puller, a £9 plug, bits of cardboard, possibly a different longer puller for the bearings, and a slide hammer or similar to seat the new bearing. And skill levels which I think are beyond most home mechanics. Now you can whomp up a cheaper PT servicing solution, but that needs an even higher skill level, eg taking a hacksaw to your puller, or machining a special widget like you are talking about.
> 
> It baffles me. Pros are out there winning Grand Tours on Hollowtech II which you can more or less fully service by the roadside. And yet Campy's bargain basement crankset requires a toolset which costs about as much as the crank, and IMHO very very high skill levels. Really baffling.


Powertorque is perfectly fine. We sell epic quantities of Veloce, Centaur & Athena with zero issue. No need to order special springs from the US, nor any other "solutions". The reason is suspect is in the installation. The shell is faced to the correct tolerances and the cups & cranks are installed to the correct torque. 9 times out of 10 the issue is not the parts but the fitting.

As for the tooling issue, that's a whole different matter. It is a bind to have to search around for appropriate tooling. The Park crank puller is a little delicate, perhaps too delicate, for workshop use. But to complain about this minor detail is like complaining about an Alfa Romeo not being as easy to get parts for as a Ford!


----------



## Wazgilbert

ultimobici said:


> Powertorque is perfectly fine. We sell epic quantities of Veloce, Centaur & Athena with zero issue. No need to order special springs from the US, nor any other "solutions". The reason is suspect is in the installation. The shell is faced to the correct tolerances and the cups & cranks are installed to the correct torque. 9 times out of 10 the issue is not the parts but the fitting.
> 
> As for the tooling issue, that's a whole different matter. It is a bind to have to search around for appropriate tooling. The Park crank puller is a little delicate, perhaps too delicate, for workshop use. But to complain about this minor detail is like complaining about an Alfa Romeo not being as easy to get parts for as a Ford!


I haven't developed any faults on my bike, I was just surprised to see float on the axle, and I found this thread whilst looking for cheaper tools than the current offers to add to my home workshop. The frame was correctly faced from the factory at a near nominal 68mm, so I was happy to fit everything straight from the box.

I've not ordered a special spring from the US, I've ordered a stock part with a campy part number, which is described as eliminating float from PT cranks, and reading cheapskate's comparison, I want to see the difference installed to give feedback on this topic, and I'd like to think a tenner all in from the US, is better than replacing everything prematurely, if it turns out that this system is prone to wear due to weaker springs in some batches.

Sounds like you're in the bike service trade, how many of these have you removed for service, or bearing replacement, and what kind of mileage do people get before issues creep in? I'm sure thousand of fittings can be made with any product, but the measure of success will be how they perform in use.


----------



## roadworthy

CheapSkate said:


> Hi Wazgilbert, nice measurements and nice documentation
> 
> A few things strike me
> 
> 1. I was wrong. I thought the "low profile" steel coloured wave washer was going to have a much higher compression force. Wrong. It's only 6 kg to ~2 mm just like my high profile bronze one. I bet you find your bronze coloured one is broadly the same.
> 
> 2. Therefore I might also be wrong about the cause of my creak. I thought (still think) the low preload caused my creak, and I thought I had good evidence that this was caused by a bad batch of wave washers. But your measurements weaken my case quite a bit! I'lll post a clarification/retraction on my other thread. I hope I haven't wasted anyone's time or money, sorry if I have.
> 
> 3. Both our wave washers are wildly different from the Campag factory spec: _"5 kg @ 3.9 mm high, 17 kg @ 1.9 mm high"_ *. And wildly different from Ultra Torque (around 20 kg from what I read).
> 
> 4. The bottom line is, I don't understand how Power Torque works, why its preload is wildly different from its production spec & from Ultra Torque. The clip indicates that float/play occurs in some situations _"The clip on the DS cup will prevent a gross amount of float towards the DS"_ *. Given that both UT and PT have the clip, they both must experience float in some situations. The float will be affected by the wave washer strength. The weaker PT wave washer can only mean that PT floats more often and/or more violently than UT. In other systems (Shimano, SRAM) repeated float or play can lead to creaking. My symptoms were entirely consistent with this. No one yet seems to have been able to explain what's going on. But I could well be wrong.
> 
> But my questions remain:
> If UT needs ~20 kg preload, why doesn't PT?
> If the factory spec is 17 kg @ 1.9 mm high, why are the springs in retail ~5 kg @ 1.9 mm high?
> If axial force >> preload, doesn't it behave like Shimano or SRAM with the crank arm not nipped up (ie, creaks)??
> 
> * verbatim quotes from Campag emails
> 
> Re your widget to pull the crank, great idea. I had the same idea and mentioned it to Campag. Campag guy said they were trying to get out of the tool market. That seemed a bit odd to me, the margins on those £145 11s chain tools must be amazing, also on the UT-FC095, £9 for a piece of short piece of turned steel bar. Also I said if you want to stop making special tools, why not start making cranksets that don't need special tools? Your machinist could start selling those. I would have bought one if it was only say £15.


Cheapskate,
Reading through your litany of posts on the subject, I believe you maybe winning the battle but losing the war.  I do share your analytic mind...have worked in product development my whole life. And...your posts resonate with me and agree largely with your deductions. Where we depart a bit...as has been previously thrashed...you are swimming upstream brother. I don't think you see the larger technical picture. The Powertorque crank is vastly flawed. Re-read that again if you would.  It is much more flawed that UT...more flawed than DuraAce and Ultegra...and Specialized and Cannondale and Rotor cranks...and even more lowly FSA cranks. Companies screw up. Even great companies....like BMW. I can site numerous technical screw ups and in excrutiating detail. And yet, even with your wisdom, you continue to kick this dead horse. The Campy UltraTorque crankset by contrast is a wonderful design. I would say among the very best. It is woefully intolerant of out of spec BB shell width...or trying to adapt it to BB30 or PF30...which is OK and what it wasn't designed for. But PowerTorque cranks SUCK. They suck because because they don't have a positive stop to the spindle largely...they rely on a tapered spline and a bolt torque. This affects the stack up of axial clearance. But that can be worked around with the proper wave washer. But guess what...after all your study and attempt to communicate, you think that Campy will admit they missed the mark on wave washer springrate? No. Anymore than BMW would admit they choose the wrong Aluminum alloy on their V8 engine blocks that cost consumers millions of dollars in replacement.
My advice to you has continued to be...you need to cut your losses. If you stick with Campy...go UT. Or pick one of many great crank alternatives. That Powertorque crank you struggled with should have been on ebay a long time ago or if you have a conscience, in the trash bin...lol.
Good luck.
PS: there is NO reason why the wave washer spring rate of PT should be less than UT. The wave washer of PT HAS to be taller to endure a large tolerance due to crappy tapered press engagement variation. One misinterpretation you stated is...the U shaped spring clip does not exist as a stop against float. Many can run withou the clip without issue. I know my cranks don't go near the clip during normal riding conditions. The clip exists as a safety measure to retain the drive side of the crank in the event of the center bolt coming loose and losing the left crank arm.

Lastly:
The creak you hear periodically maybe completely unrelated to the lateral displacement of the crank spindle due to inadequate wave washer spring rate. It may in fact be due to the tolerance stack up aka lack of profile agreement between male tapered spindle spline and netting female spline inside the left crank arm. The torque spec maybe inadequate to keep the left arm from displacing due to lack of physical agreement between splines due to how 'your particular crank' was manufactured. So it may not even be the amount of axial float in your crank...although I am sure axial float doesn't help.. Again the design sucks. A straight fluted spline in the case of Shimano is FAR superior. Two pinch bolts ensure no movement of left crank arm relative to spindle...plus the design is much more controlled in terms of axial freeplay. Shimano cranks are dead silent.


----------



## ultimobici

Wazgilbert said:


> I haven't developed any faults on my bike, I was just surprised to see float on the axle, and I found this thread whilst looking for cheaper tools than the current offers to add to my home workshop. The frame was correctly faced from the factory at a near nominal 68mm, so I was happy to fit everything straight from the box.
> 
> I've not ordered a special spring from the US, I've ordered a stock part with a campy part number, which is described as eliminating float from PT cranks, and reading cheapskate's comparison, I want to see the difference installed to give feedback on this topic, and I'd like to think a tenner all in from the US, is better than replacing everything prematurely, if it turns out that this system is prone to wear due to weaker springs in some batches.
> 
> Sounds like you're in the bike service trade, how many of these have you removed for service, or bearing replacement, and what kind of mileage do people get before issues creep in? I'm sure thousand of fittings can be made with any product, but the measure of success will be how they perform in use.


I work for a shop/manufacturer that sells upwards of 1000 complete bicycles per year. All are built by us, with a good third being Campagnolo equipped. By far the majority are Veloce/Centaur/Athena so that's a few hundred PT installations every year. Of those I cannot remember a single issue that has arisen. I wonder if many owners, due to the exposed nature of a drive train, "discover issues" that are not issues at all. I met a bloke who kept coming in to complain that his saddle clicked when he pulled it about. When asked if it manifested itself when he was riding the answer was no.


----------



## Wazgilbert

I've just got back from a 20mile Sunday afternoon ride, it's all working flawlessly, and the climbing sections were no fuss at all.

I guess my interest was piqued by the odd situation, that the UT was rolled out across the whole campy range, and then PT creeps in from the low end, slowly working up to Athena. If it's such progress, why not convert the entire range? Why are the best gruppos still running a potentially obsolete system?

I'm only worried because I had been buying up NOS to build a cheaper set of parts, and have gathered a Veloce set from mostly 2008/9; I've got skeleton brakes, ultra shift ergolevers, but the only thing I just bought current gear, was the crankset, hence PT, if I'd made a point of getting the same model year of kit as the rest, I'd have been on UT anyway.


----------



## roadworthy

Wazgilbert said:


> I've just got back from a 20mile Sunday afternoon ride, it's all working flawlessly, and the climbing sections were no fuss at all.
> 
> I guess my interest was piqued by the odd situation, that the UT was rolled out across the whole campy range, and then PT creeps in from the low end, slowly working up to Athena. *If it's such progress, why not convert the entire range? Why are the best gruppos still running a potentially obsolete system?
> *
> I'm only worried because I had been buying up NOS to build a cheaper set of parts, and have gathered a Veloce set from mostly 2008/9; I've got skeleton brakes, ultra shift ergolevers, but the only thing I just bought current gear, was the crankset, hence PT, if I'd made a point of getting the same model year of kit as the rest, I'd have been on UT anyway.


You may not have any problem with your PT is point one. Even though Cheapskate who is a smart guy is struggling with his...he maybe barking up the wrong tree. His creaking issue maybe due to mismatch in the splines of spindle and left arm and maybe specific to the particular mfg. tolerance of his crank only. Statistically onesies are rare...both in nature and in the mfg. world. Axial float due to poor wave washer spring rate and lateral retension does not have to be the root cause of his creak. 

As to your comments in bold above...this has been discussed before. First...obsoleting UT is a false premise. UT is a vastly superior design. Why PT? Cost. Likely Campy is paying a royalty for every UT crank made...to Lightening who developed the hirth joint. This is supposition. Even without paying a patent royalty, a hirth joint is more costly to make and reproduce to high tolerances compared to two splines on PT...especially if Campy isn't adhering to precise spline tolerances which may in fact be CS's issue.

Me? I will never own a PT crank. The design sucks. Virtually every crank sold in the industry is better in fact. Campy is a good if not great company. Most good companies have some poor product. Take Specialized bikes for example. To me, Specialized makes the best bikes in the world and their R&D is second to none. Any yet they have their proprietary version of PF30 which is an abomination..on their flagship bikes...the S-Works...many end up sleeving the carbon shell S-Works bikes with something like C-bear which basically regress the bike back to an English threaded BB...what it should have been in the first place.
Have fun.


----------



## Wazgilbert

Post's arrived!

And I had a little surprise in my packet from US postal.

Campagnolo Original Spare Parts...









5 pack!
















































































summary;

taller spring at 10mm.
took more weight to get to 3mm where the spring is looking like closing up nearly all the way at 7kg
at 8kg it's 2.5mm and 9.5kg it's damn near flat to 2mm. I found that lightly pressing on top of the stack and releasing, still gave movement so I've not got a sensitive enough way to test it, but it's quite a comparison.

I will later swap this spring into the bike, when my custom puller is finished. 

(the pack of 5 springs was <£10 including postage by the way)


----------



## kiekeboeboe

.....


----------



## kiekeboeboe

anyway, i'm also using PT Athena 11SP, and there is no float. It is rock solid.


----------



## Mr. Scary

ultimobici said:


> Powertorque is perfectly fine. We sell epic quantities of Veloce, Centaur & Athena with zero issue. No need to order special springs from the US, nor any other "solutions". The reason is suspect is in the installation. The shell is faced to the correct tolerances and the cups & cranks are installed to the correct torque. 9 times out of 10 the issue is not the parts but the fitting.
> 
> As for the tooling issue, that's a whole different matter. It is a bind to have to search around for appropriate tooling. The Park crank puller is a little delicate, perhaps too delicate, for workshop use. But to complain about this minor detail is like complaining about an Alfa Romeo not being as easy to get parts for as a Ford!


It's not a minor detail, the shop I had my bearings serviced at because I didn't feel like buying all of the tools (PT CX11 crankset), broke 3-4 Park Tool arms trying to pull the non-drive arm off. An automotive style bearing puller was then employed which gouged the back of the carbon arms even with the cardboard inserts (laughable). I'd love to hear the explanation as to why a self extracting crank bolt was not used. I've had SRAM, Shimano, FSA, and even Campy UT cranks and no issues. Now my bearings are toast after five rides on the CX bike (Yes I am using the CX bb with seals on both sides of the bearing). I like Campy but PT cranks are worthless. I'll be switching to FSA K Force Light cranks, I hope their CX rings work decently with 11 speed chains.


----------



## ultimobici

Sounds like sloppy wrenching, IMO. 

As for the self-extracting bolts, that would necessitate the width across the axle being increased. Campagnolo wanted both UT & PT to be the same measurement.


----------



## Mr. Scary

ultimobici said:


> Sounds like sloppy wrenching, IMO.
> 
> As for the self-extracting bolts, that would necessitate the width across the axle being increased. Campagnolo wanted both UT & PT to be the same measurement.


Yep, the shop I used is well versed in Campy and it's funny I build all my own bikes (usually build a couple new ones every year) but I can't boast to having worked in a shop for 20 years like yourself. Bottom line, I won't buy Campy PT cranks anymore, so if I was Campy I'd be more concerned about a customer with disposable income turning away then whether a bike shop guy thinks everybody else is at fault. Some of Campy's engineering that drives them to be different JUST to be different takes them in the wrong direction. SRAM and Shimano aren't have catastrophic issues with chains and cranks, but Campy seems to be working really hard to be different in those areas to the chagrin of the enthusiast. I can service/replace a bb on other brands much more quickly than a Campy bb, and when it's lasting 5 rides (and the bike isn't even into the really sloppy season yet), it turns into a waste of my time.


----------



## ultimobici

Mr. Scary said:


> Yep, the shop I used is well versed in Campy and it's funny I build all my own bikes (usually build a couple new ones every year) but I can't boast to having worked in a shop for 20 years like yourself. Bottom line, I won't buy Campy PT cranks anymore, so if I was Campy I'd be more concerned about a customer with disposable income turning away then whether a bike shop guy thinks everybody else is at fault. *Some of Campy's engineering that drives them to be different JUST to be different takes them in the wrong direction. SRAM and Shimano aren't have catastrophic issues with chains and cranks, but Campy seems to be working really hard to be different in those areas to the chagrin of the enthusiast.* I can service/replace a bb on other brands much more quickly than a Campy bb, and when it's lasting 5 rides (and the bike isn't even into the really sloppy season yet), it turns into a waste of my time.


I'm intrigued. What have they done "just to be different"? Granted the 10 & 11 speed chaintool is pricey, but it isn't overpriced for what it is and there are more economical alternatives available. Also I have seen proportionately more warranty chains from Sram & Shimano than Campagnolo on 10 and 11 speed. Come to think of it, try repairing a 2004 Dura Ace STI. You'd have struggled in 2004, let alone now. But with Campagnolo you have always been able to get the parts and they didn't empty your wallet for the privilege. If you're going through a set of bearings in 5 rides there is likely an underlying issue with the installation. Has the BB been faced correctly? Was the crankset installed with the bolts torqued accurately? Is their torque wrench returned to zero after use and when was it last calibrated. I've lost count of the number of "top wrenches" in high end shops who scoff at the need for torque wrenches or poorly maintain theirs.


----------



## Mr. Scary

ultimobici said:


> I'm intrigued. What have they done "just to be different"? Granted the 10 & 11 speed chaintool is pricey, but it isn't overpriced for what it is and there are more economical alternatives available. Also I have seen proportionately more warranty chains from Sram & Shimano than Campagnolo on 10 and 11 speed. Come to think of it, try repairing a 2004 Dura Ace STI. You'd have struggled in 2004, let alone now. But with Campagnolo you have always been able to get the parts and they didn't empty your wallet for the privilege. If you're going through a set of bearings in 5 rides there is likely an underlying issue with the installation. Has the BB been faced correctly? Was the crankset installed with the bolts torqued accurately? Is their torque wrench returned to zero after use and when was it last calibrated. I've lost count of the number of "top wrenches" in high end shops who scoff at the need for torque wrenches or poorly maintain theirs.


1. Chain tool.
2. Lack of a removable chain link, I've used Wippermann on 10 speed and KMC on 11 speed. Campy has a 4 link option should you want to break open a chain post the initial pressing.
3. Bearings pressed on spindle, I've heard the reasons but considering I got a year out of Dura Ace bb's, 6 mos from XTR (harsher conditions), several months from "most" SRAM bb's, and have a FSA ceramic bb that I used for over two years and is still fine the extra work to swap bearings on Campy cranks is not worth it.
4. Lack of self extracting bolt on powertorque, using a bearing puller to extract the arm... Really?
5. Campy bb cups-why eliminate the hard stop where the teeth are recessed? No good reason at all except to make it difficult to use the Shimano bb tool.
6. Different cable heads
7. Different spline on cassette lockring
8. Ever route shifter cables through the new 11 speed shifters? Not fun. 

The ability to rebuild shifters is nice, the hood ergonomics are the best, the made in Europe badge is the main reason I use the stuff, but where is Campy with disc brakes? And don't say you don't need them because nobody needs 11 speed or electronic shifting either but they are both nice. Eventually frames will be changed to 135mm rear spacing and the other two will be offering hydraulic disc or hydraulic cantilevers. Campy will be sitting there with that deer in the headlight look, they are much smaller and so they should be innovating where it makes sense and seeking to commonize standards where they have no technical advantage to encourage more people to adopt their components. Their crank offerings are not technically superior so make them user friendly and be done with it.


----------



## roadworthy

Mr. Scary said:


> 1. Chain tool.
> 2. Lack of a removable chain link, I've used Wippermann on 10 speed and KMC on 11 speed. Campy has a 4 link option should you want to break open a chain post the initial pressing.
> 3. Bearings pressed on spindle, I've heard the reasons but considering I got a year out of Dura Ace bb's, 6 mos from XTR (harsher conditions), several months from "most" SRAM bb's, and have a FSA ceramic bb that I used for over two years and is still fine the extra work to swap bearings on Campy cranks is not worth it.
> 4. Lack of self extracting bolt on powertorque, using a bearing puller to extract the arm... Really?
> 5. Campy bb cups-why eliminate the hard stop where the teeth are recessed? No good reason at all except to make it difficult to use the Shimano bb tool.
> 6. Different cable heads
> 7. Different spline on cassette lockring
> 8. Ever route shifter cables through the new 11 speed shifters? Not fun.
> 
> The ability to rebuild shifters is nice, the hood ergonomics are the best, the made in Europe badge is the main reason I use the stuff, but where is Campy with disc brakes? And don't say you don't need them because nobody needs 11 speed or electronic shifting either but they are both nice. Eventually frames will be changed to 135mm rear spacing and the other two will be offering hydraulic disc or hydraulic cantilevers. Campy will be sitting there with that deer in the headlight look, they are much smaller and so they should be innovating where it makes sense and seeking to commonize standards where they have no technical advantage to encourage more people to adopt their components. Their crank offerings are not technically superior so make them user friendly and be done with it.


Any company can be criticized. In fact, if taking a hard look there is a lot to complain about. So you have to take a companies products in totality really. Run down of what you wrote:
1. I run Campy on my road bikes and choose not to use a Campy chain. I run KMC chains with missing link because they are very good, cheaper and easier to remove.
2. Doesn't matter if you use another chain type...or you can use Campy's chain which works perfectly albeit with their more rigorous link. Btw, some use a KMC missing link on a Campy chain without issue.
3. Pressed on Campy bearings work flawlessly and outlast any BB out there in my experience. I have 10K miles on my current UT crank on original bearings and they are still flawless.
4. Powertorque. Now you are making a compelling case. But the issue with PT is much greater than an extracting mechanism. The design is deeply flawed due to lack of hard stop and tapered spline. I would never own one.
5. Please expand on what you wrote here. This makes no sense to me. Campy UT is among the very best cranks I have ever used...and my favorite crank of all.
6. Why should they make cable heads the same as the other two?
7. Same as 6. If there is fault here, it is with Shimano who is late to the 11 speed game. Shimano can't even use 11s cassettes on their existing freehub. In fact, they not only require a new freehub, but a different wheel dish. Not good.
8. You are right here. Routing cables through Campy shifters is a royal PITA and needless. DA and Ultegra has a copied routing since going under the bar tape but they slot the shifter housing which makes cable installation much easier.

To me Campy is still the best. No it isn't perfect. I have used the other groupsets. Newly redesigned mechanical DA and Red are closing ground however. All companies have flaws...some major. Look no further than one of the best bike makers on the planet...Specialized. Their narrow PF30 and BB30 continue to be problematic with them continuously morphing their installation practices because of bearings that won't stay in place with merely a press fit...especially when encapsulated in plastic as in the case with their carbon OSBB...which is a ridiculous design on their flagship Sworks bikes no less.


----------



## Mr. Scary

roadworthy said:


> Any company can be criticized. In fact, if taking a hard look there is a lot to complain about. So you have to take a companies products in totality really. Run down of what you wrote:
> 1. I run Campy on my road bikes and choose not to use a Campy chain. I run KMC chains with missing link because they are very good, cheaper and easier to remove.
> 2. Doesn't matter if you use another chain type...or you can use Campy's chain which works perfectly albeit with their more rigorous link. Btw, some use a KMC missing link on a Campy chain without issue.
> 3. Pressed on Campy bearings work flawlessly and outlast any BB out there in my experience. I have 10K miles on my current UT crank on original bearings and they are still flawless.
> 4. Powertorque. Now you are making a compelling case. But the issue with PT is much greater than an extracting mechanism. The design is deeply flawed due to lack of hard stop and tapered spline. I would never own one.
> 5. Please expand on what you wrote here. This makes no sense to me. Campy UT is among the very best cranks I have ever used...and my favorite crank of all.
> 6. Why should they make cable heads the same as the other two?
> 7. Same as 6. If there is fault here, it is with Shimano who is late to the 11 speed game. Shimano can't even use 11s cassettes on their existing freehub. In fact, they not only require a new freehub, but a different wheel dish. Not good.
> 8. You are right here. Routing cables through Campy shifters is a royal PITA and needless. DA and Ultegra has a copied routing since going under the bar tape but they slot the shifter housing which makes cable installation much easier.
> 
> To me Campy is still the best. No it isn't perfect. I have used the other groupsets. Newly redesigned mechanical DA and Red are closing ground however. All companies have flaws...some major. Look no further than one of the best bike makers on the planet...Specialized. Their narrow PF30 and BB30 continue to be problematic with them continuously morphing their installation practices because of bearings that won't stay in place with merely a press fit...especially when encapsulated in plastic as in the case with their carbon OSBB...which is a ridiculous design on their flagship Sworks bikes no less.


I'll cover #5 since I think you are missing what I am criticizing. No issue with UT cranks, I had one on my road bike until I sold it this past summer (I never really raced the road, prefer MTB and CX, so I decided to use my CX bike with multiple wheels instead). I am critical of the BB cups, the serrations are open. Obviously they have to be open on the front so the tool can be slid on, but there is no stop on the back. So when you are sliding the tool on it has to be held with one hand to keep it aligned as you torque the bb cups in the frame (steel tool, alloy cups if the tools slips we know how this is going to end). I know Campy sells a ratchet attachment which bottoms out on the front of the cup. It's clear their design is to make it difficult to use the standard Shimano bb tool. 

I agree with you Campy is the best, which is why I choose to run it despite the oddities and additonal tools I have to keep around. The CX11 carbon crankset has been an enormous letdown to me which is why I'm on here complaining. I think we can all agree that given their relatively small size Campagnolo cannot afford poor designs and failures. And PT cranks are just that. If they offered a fully sealed UT crank I would have boguht that, but they don't...


----------



## roadworthy

Mr. Scary said:


> I'll cover #5 since I think you are missing what I am criticizing. No issue with UT cranks, I had one on my road bike until I sold it this past summer (I never really raced the road, prefer MTB and CX, so I decided to use my CX bike with multiple wheels instead). I am critical of the BB cups, the serrations are open. Obviously they have to be open on the front so the tool can be slid on, but there is no stop on the back. So when you are sliding the tool on it has to be held with one hand to keep it aligned as you torque the bb cups in the frame (steel tool, alloy cups if the tools slips we know how this is going to end). I know Campy sells a ratchet attachment which bottoms out on the front of the cup. It's clear their design is to make it difficult to use the standard Shimano bb tool.
> 
> I agree with you Campy is the best, which is why I choose to run it despite the oddities and additonal tools I have to keep around. The CX11 carbon crankset has been an enormous letdown to me which is why I'm on here complaining. I think we can all agree that given their relatively small size Campagnolo cannot afford poor designs and failures. And PT cranks are just that. If they offered a fully sealed UT crank I would have boguht that, but they don't...


I missed your point, because I don't think its valid. Yes I have experienced what you write with a spanner. But a Park socket is not only more secure but allows using a torque wrench. 20 bucks...see below.
Best practice for torquing cups on a BB...or say removing the center bolt of an UT crank...is with wheels mounted on the frame and on the ground leaning over the top tube...using the tires for support....not on a bike stand hanging from a seat post Most of course likely due it on a bike stand which isn't secure and overly stresses attachment to the frame where mounted to the stand.
.
I also believe all companies make technical errors independent of size. Race to market to beat competition and artificially create market diversity to extract more money from consumers is generally the root cause. Marketing and Product managers under pressure to release products rarely understand product as well as the engineers that develop them. That is the reality of all companies. So expecting any company not to make a mistake is unrealistic. Mistakes are made daily...thousands. In fact many fortune 100 companies have departments with sole purpose to understand liability of shipping product not to print...or with known technical issues and performance deficits based upon in house durability testing. 

At the end of the day, it is encumbent on the customer to discern good product from bad...buyer beware. The internet is an incredible aid in this regard. I rarely buy any product the first year it is released...my background being product development.


----------



## C-40

*well...*

The only complaint in that long list that's accurate is the need for a special crankarm puller. It's hard to disagree with that one. The rest are trivial. 

I got my first ultrashift lever in November of '08. I found the cable routing a little challenging, but not a big deal. All you need is a 2mm hex wrench to push on the cable end, to guide it into the hole.

The only BB cup tool that I have is the Park cup-type that roadworthy has mentioned. It works perfectly and allows me to use a torque wrench.

I like to use have master link on my chain too. You can use an IRD or KMC link, or just use a KMC chain. I did buy the 11 speed chain tool, back in '08 ($140 from the UK), because is was the only sure option. I did manage to use some Wipperman ultra-narrow 10 speed connex links (no longer made) to join the chains, in the first couple of years.

It's always amazing when something like a cable end or lockring spline is different between brands, people think that Campy should conform to Shimano standards. Shimano is the brand that has lagged (four years) in both the introduction of 10 and 11 speed drivetrains. They are not always the leader. It's really good that Campy made a better hub, back in 1998, that works with 9-10-11 speed.


----------



## roadworthy

C-40 said:


> The only complaint in that long list that's accurate is the need for a special crankarm puller. It's hard to disagree with that one. The rest are trivial.
> 
> I got my first ultrashift lever in November of '08. I found the cable routing a little challenging, but not a big deal. All you need is a 2mm hex wrench to push on the cable end, to guide it into the hole.
> 
> The only BB cup tool that I have is the Park cup-type that roadworthy has mentioned. It works perfectly and allows me to use a torque wrench.
> 
> I like to use have master link on my chain too. You can use an IRD or KMC link, or just use a KMC chain. I did buy the 11 speed chain tool, back in '08 ($140 from the UK), because is was the only sure option. I did manage to use some Wipperman ultra-narrow 10 speed connex links (no longer made) to join the chains, in the first couple of years.
> 
> It's always amazing when something like a cable end or lockring spline is different between brands, people think that Campy should conform to Shimano standards. Shimano is the brand that has lagged (four years) in both the introduction of 10 and 11 speed drivetrains. They are not always the leader. It's really good that Campy made a better hub, back in 1998, that works with 9-10-11 speed.


Agree. Btw, today I rerouted my Campy derailleur cables in front of the handlebar. You are quite right about pushing the cables thru the small guides on the top of the shifter bodies. What I do is place a 20 degree bend in the cable...about 7mm from the end and use a jeweler's screw driver to push it thru the hole. Once through I straighten the slight bend. Not even a problem with a used cable...pehaps a bit easier with a fresh cable with soldered end...but either works.


----------



## Mr. Scary

C-40 said:


> The only complaint in that long list that's accurate is the need for a special crankarm puller. It's hard to disagree with that one. The rest are trivial.
> 
> I got my first ultrashift lever in November of '08. I found the cable routing a little challenging, but not a big deal. All you need is a 2mm hex wrench to push on the cable end, to guide it into the hole.
> 
> The only BB cup tool that I have is the Park cup-type that roadworthy has mentioned. It works perfectly and allows me to use a torque wrench.
> 
> I like to use have master link on my chain too. You can use an IRD or KMC link, or just use a KMC chain. I did buy the 11 speed chain tool, back in '08 ($140 from the UK), because is was the only sure option. I did manage to use some Wipperman ultra-narrow 10 speed connex links (no longer made) to join the chains, in the first couple of years.
> 
> It's always amazing when something like a cable end or lockring spline is different between brands, people think that Campy should conform to Shimano standards. Shimano is the brand that has lagged (four years) in both the introduction of 10 and 11 speed drivetrains. They are not always the leader. It's really good that Campy made a better hub, back in 1998, that works with 9-10-11 speed.


Sorry, I'd prefer to push the company to improve rather than make excuses. I said commonize where there is no technical improvement, differently shaped cable ends and cassette lockring splines offer nothing besides being different to be different. I can live with that though, I can't live with a poor crank design. Bottom line, they've lost my crankset purchases in the future.


----------



## roadworthy

Mr. Scary said:


> Sorry, I'd prefer to push the company to improve rather than make excuses. I said commonize where there is no technical improvement, differently shaped cable ends and cassette lockring splines offer nothing besides being different to be different. I can live with that though, I can't live with a poor crank design. Bottom line, they've lost my crankset purchases in the future.


This is funny. Push a company to improve? Who you? Yes, you are Scary...lol.
Excuses? What for? You have no say in who commonizes. It isn't your call. Sram basically glomed onto Shimano because they are the volume leader. There is no other reason. Commonization is about convention. No company has dominion over convention...perhaps this escapes you. Shimano is the loser where it matters for example when it comes to commonization and convention. They have left the fold with their 11 speed which now requires a proprietary wheelset with dedicated dish and freehub length. 
You say you can't live with poor crank design. Me either. Yes we agree the Campy PT crank sucks with tapered spline left arm attachment requiring a puller to remove. But...Campy's UT crank is one of the best in the world...perhaps thee best although DuraAce would likely be given the nod and deservedly so for a number of reasons...and it isn't BB30 either...another convention. Nobody has dominion on convention...keep that in mind. Proprietary designs and hence profit are the antithesis of conventional designs and $$ and many times 'perception' of improved performance and therefore a market niche is why all products aren't more convention-al.


----------



## Mr. Scary

roadworthy said:


> This is funny. Push a company to improve? Who you? Yes, you are Scary...lol.
> Excuses? What for? You have no say in who commonizes. It isn't your call. Sram basically glomed onto Shimano because they are the volume leader. There is no other reason. Commonization is about convention. No company has dominion over convention...perhaps this escapes you. Shimano is the loser where it matters for example when it comes to commonization and convention. They have left the fold with their 11 speed which now requires a proprietary wheelset with dedicated dish and freehub length.
> You say you can't live with poor crank design. Me either. Yes we agree the Campy PT crank sucks with tapered spline left arm attachment requiring a puller to remove. But...Campy's UT crank is one of the best in the world...perhaps thee best although DuraAce would likely be given the nod and deservedly so for a number of reasons...and it isn't BB30 either...another convention. Nobody has dominion on convention...keep that in mind. Proprietary designs and hence profit are the antithesis of conventional designs and $$ and many times 'perception' of improved performance and therefore a market niche is why all products aren't more convention-al.


Average age of Campy's aftermarket consumer?


----------



## ultraman6970

"""Average age of Campy's aftermarket consumer? ???""""

Hahaha good question, probably is people that started racing like mid 70's mid 80;s.... and now are (we) over 40 years old. 

Interesting how people makes a case of this thing but look, one was talking about a shitty spanner to take the cups out, the next day I got the UT cranks like 5 years ago I went to buy the real tool, not the spanner... shimano and sram users are pretty much screwed in forums like this ones were old users of any brand of equipment are posting because we have way more experience in practically everything. Starting by understanding campagnolo and the other brands aswell, Big S's users cant understand campagnolo, campagnolo users IMO are mature enough to understand the two big S's and dont complain about them at all, for example the last FD incarnation from sram looks sick nice and could help people with campy low end to be able to adjust better their chainline. An extra gift from campagnolo, will shift with any FD... 

Somebody was complaining about the cables?? ok... is that hard for a store; because looks like LBS owners aren't that SMART YET to figure it out that to deal with both (all) brands they have to just order jagwire campagnolo cables (if somebody ask why please shoot yourself!!!), but no, the morons just buy the shimano ones then when a campagnolo user shows up they flip out and start figuring out crap to order the cables. Buy campagnolo cables, you can use those in any brand DUH!... personally i been dremeling jagwire and clark cables for a while now, in a matter of fact i rather use jagwire casing because is thinner than campagnolo and fits better in the 11 brifters, but no... store guys cant figure it out, like if it was rocket science.

As for the cable entry point yes i agree is kind'a a PITA but well it depends too because nobody that I know is moving shifters every 2 weeks, in a matter of fact what I do with new builts is to pass the cables before mounting the brifters in the handlebars... and done with the problem.

UT problems? never... i think i got a creak once, put a ton of grease and problem solved, my centaur cranks are like 5 years old now and the bearings are still intact. The Record ones have like 3 years and nothing either, I dont ride that much but my friends each year have to swap bearings in their shimano compatible stuff because the bearings are shot, maybe mechanic problem? who knows.. cant tell because i never worked in a system like that, like if it was that hard to figure it out anyways.

Chains... that was a low hit but was stopped right away, i believe all these years using campagnolo (+30) i have used their chains twice. Never had their chain cutter, i use kmc chains and their links, it works what else do you want me to tell you? it just works. Put any crankset in a campagnolo drivetrain, will work too.

Shimano and sram arent that bad brands at all, have used shimano stuff and is not bad at all the problem is that the marketing work campagnolo have done is just bad as s...t! They are relying in old users thats all.

To finish, shimano guys are getting 11 now, well... many of them gonna have to get new wheels because that crap doesnt work with all the wheels and that wont be funny at all... I have wheels that are maybe 10 years old and i can run whatever i want. And another detail, i never had to swap the freehub body because is shot after 5 or 10 years as happens with shimano ones, the asians screwed up designing the spinelines so thin, after a few years are all f..ed! I was even thingking that the wise asses were going to change the spineline again to congratulate their followers with a nice smile... yes,you may need new wheels now (japanese accent please), thing they did anyways.

Campagnolo 11 cant be rebuilt because campy did not put the parts in the market so if a shifter dies you have to get a new core lever, those cost like 100 bucks, you move the brake lever and the hood and ready to go. Easier than repairing but after taking the levers appart last year the new 11 mechanism just rock, that thing has almost no parts to wear out as the old 10 mechanism. So dont see levers just failing out the blue, no carriers and springs to fail. Either way, if i crack a lever will cost me like 100 bucks to get ready to go, shimano have no parts no nothing, so hitting the deck for a dura ace user will be maybe 500 bucks?? that hurts!!!

Good luck dudes...


----------

