Campy Ultra Torque Help Please

[rplace13]

Sorry for what I know will be a long winded post, but this is really racking my brain.

A little back history: I worked in a couple of bike shops for several years, did a lot of work on high end and low end bikes. I have never shied away from maintenance and have what I think to be a pretty good mechanical mind and can typically figure out how things work.

I purchased a new, never built, 2006 Kestrel Evoke frame about 2 months ago. A few weeks later I bit the bullet and purchased a 2008 Campy Record group. The group obviously comes with the newer style Ultra Torque Crank (39/53 if that matters) that has the outboard cups and integrated bottom bracket.

Since I don't have access to a shop and the bigger tools anymore my plan was to have a local shop install the head set, cut the fork's steerer tube and install the crank. I was going to put the rest of the bike together myself. So far so good right?

I drop off frame and parts and the next day get a call saying there is something wrong with my frame. They tell me inner chain ring is too close to the chain stay. I go and take a look and sure enough the 39 tooth wheel is almost touching the chain stay. I don't think you could have gotten two playing cards between the chain stay and the crank. Every other bike in the shop has about 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch clearance. Mine is obviously not right.

The shop talks to a Campy rep and the Kestrel people. They have some back and forth and determine the best thing is to send the frame back to Kestrel to have a look. The shop removes all my parts and returns them to me. I ship the frame back to Kestrel.

A few days later Kestrel tells me they have put both a Record and Dura Ace crank on the bike and all is fine. So I send them my Record UT crank and a few days later they tell me it looks good, sort of close but no issues. They talk directly with Campy and say it is within specs.

The frame is shipping back to me today with my crank installed by Kestrel and I am told all is fine.

So my question is do any of you out there have any experience with the new style Record cranks??? I just can't see how it can be put together in more then one way. If the BB width is correct you put the cups in first then put the two halves of the crank together - Done! There is no adjustable cup or lock ring. Nothing really to play with one way or another that I can think of.

I know what I saw that day at the shop the clearance was paper thin. The slightest of flex would have put the crank's teeth right in the chain stay. My thinking was one of the following had to be a problem.

-Crank BB halves are too narrow - Unlikely
-Shop put the crank together wrong - how else can you do it?
-Bottom bracket was too narrow - that would cause slop side to side
-Frame was built wrong with BB shifted to the left causing crank to be close to the right chain stay

Any thoughts or ideas on how it can now be right with the same frame/crank?

 

[CAMPYBOB]

The frame is shipping back to me today with my crank installed by Kestrel and I am told all is fine.

You could try riding it (since you have Kestrel's blessing and installation) and pray their chainstays are really, really stiff. If it starts sawing thru, you're due a new frame to my way of thinking. Chainrings should not touch anything at anytime. Period. I wonder what would Kestrel have said if you had shipped then a 42-tooth inner?

Any thoughts or ideas on how it can now be right with the same frame/crank?

Since Kestrel are so confident of this shakey setup, you might try contacting Campagnolo technical support to see if shims are available to buy you a bit more clearance.

How's the chainline look 'as is'?

 

[sogood]

Weird. Can't see how it can happen unless the shop forgot to put in the spring washer clip in the Rt bearing cup.

 

[rplace13]

Any thoughts or ideas on how it can now be right with the same frame/crank?

Since Kestrel are so confident of this shakey setup, you might try contacting Campagnolo technical support to see if shims are available to buy you a bit more clearance.

How's the chainline look 'as is'?

I am not sure I would say the setup is shaky; Kestrel has been very open and had great communication so far. I don't believe they could possibly say it is good to go if it at all looks close to the original install. Seriously it was so close I don't think the inner plate from the chain would have fit between the chainwheel/stay.

While I have not seen the frame/crank yet I can only assume there is a lot more clearance with their install over what I saw at my local shop.

That really is the crux of my confusion. Knowing what little I do about the UT crank I don't see how you can get two different results. I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on how the install could differ between the LBS and Kestrel.

As for the chainline, I cannot comment. I don't have the bike yet and it is not built up.

Thanks for the quick reply, Rich

 

[rplace13]

Weird. Can't see how it can happen unless the shop forgot to put in the spring washer clip in the Rt bearing cup.

You are talking about the wire thingy that goes 1/2 way around one cup after install, right? If so I asked the LBS about that before I drove out AND saw that it was in place when I got there.

I truly hope the spacing is correct and that there was something wrong the first time around...however, I cannot possibly think of what could have been wrong.

Anxiously waiting for the frame/crank to get back to me.

 

[John M]

You are talking about the wire thingy that goes 1/2 way around one cup after install, right? If so I asked the LBS about that before I drove out AND saw that it was in place when I got there.

I truly hope the spacing is correct and that there was something wrong the first time around...however, I cannot possibly think of what could have been wrong.

Anxiously waiting for the frame/crank to get back to me.

I think you will just have to see it. As already suggested, you have official blessings of all suppliers, so if something goes wrong, you should be covered by warranties.

 

[michaeltop]

Weird. Can't see how it can happen unless the shop forgot to put in the spring washer clip in the Rt bearing cup.

Actually if you read the instructions on the campagnolo website under ultra drive crank installation it spells out in part 3 to put the spring washer in the LEFT cup.

 

[sogood]

Actually if you read the instructions on the campagnolo website under ultra drive crank installation it spells out in part 3 to put the spring washer in the LEFT cup.

I remembered both cups are identical ie. Both contained a spring. Can't physically check right now but have a pair arriving after Christmas.

 

[rplace13]

Cycling News says it is the right side:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=/photos/2006/tech/news/06-02/UTSystem_16

See all the parts here (scroll all the way down):
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2006/news/06-02

I can't remember which side it is on, as the parts have been out of my hands for a while now. It really is a moot point as to if or which side; as we are talking less then 1mm of clearance between the chain wheel and the stay, on the original install. Check out just about any bike and you will see 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch clearance.

That spring clip keeps the crank from making a clicking noise, by limiting side to side play ever so slightly...it does not have anything to do with such a large clearance needed between the crank/stay.

More info from Kestrel. They say a DAce crank has a bit more room, but still close. They put my crank on a 2008 Evoke and it is still close.

I am starting to think the two are just not meant to be.

Who wants a 54cm Evoke as I think I like the 2008 Record group more

 

[michaeltop]

Cycling News says it is the right side:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=/photos/2006/tech/news/06-02/UTSystem_16

See all the parts here (scroll all the way down):
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2006/news/06-02

I can't remember which side it is on, as the parts have been out of my hands for a while now. It really is a moot point as to if or which side; as we are talking less then 1mm of clearance between the chain wheel and the stay, on the original install. Check out just about any bike and you will see 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch clearance.

That spring clip keeps the crank from making a clicking noise, by limiting side to side play ever so slightly...it does not have anything to do with such a large clearance needed between the crank/stay.

More info from Kestrel. They say a DAce crank has a bit more room, but still close. They put my crank on a 2008 Evoke and it is still close.

I am starting to think the two are just not meant to be.

Who wants a 54cm Evoke as I think I like the 2008 Record group more

Retainer clip on the right, compression washer inside on the left, look close at the photo. I recall a post somewhere else where compact's caused a problem on the chain stay.Not sure what kind of bike but the guy was most unhappy about grinding his new bike. Most likely poor design on the frame , that's my 2 pennies.

 

[cyclepsycho]

rplace13,

just wondering what the final result of this problem was. I am running into the same issue with my 1994 Trek 2200 (see below).

also some pics here:
Picasa Web Albums - Martin - Trek 2200

----
I love my 1994 Trek 2200 so when the components (Campy Chorus) started to go I was planning to upgrade.

So i got Campy UT for 68mm BB with English. But I ran into trouble. After installing the BB cups and the UT crank, I realized that there is not enough clearance between the lower chainring and the drive-side chainstay tube. It's actually the crank bolts that hold the chainrings in place that just rub the chainstay tube -erghhh

I would say I need about another 5mm of clearance.

I guess I am up the creek with out a paddle on this one?

Has anyone had this problem?

any thoughts?

Thanks Much!

 

[alfeng]

i got Campy UT for 68mm BB with English. But I ran into trouble. After installing the BB cups and the UT crank, I realized that there is not enough clearance between the lower chainring and the drive-side chainstay tube. It's actually the crank bolts that hold the chainrings in place that just rub the chainstay tube -erghhh

I would say I need about another 5mm of clearance.

I don't know about your frame lacking 5mm of clearance, but I can't see the WAVE WASHER on driveside cup ... my understanding is that it is generally mandatory for proper installation.

BTW. It doesn't look as though you have significant clearance issues with the chainrings ...

The chainring bolts should NEST in the chainring bolt holes & only stand about 1mm "proud" of the chainring face ...

Including the "male" half of the chainring bolt that nests behind the crankarm.

Do the crank arms pass by their respective chainstays with the same clearance?

Regardless, remount the non-driveside arm so that it shadows the driveside arm & measure the Q-factor ... report back.

 

[rplace13]

Mine never actually hit. I have rode the bike for many many miles and never a single issue. The BB is just so stiff it never rubs. I was skeptical it would work, but the techs at Kestrel said it would be fine and it was. Sorry to hear about your problems. The chain stay in that area does look a lot bigger then mine.

 

[tafi]

Retainer clip on the right, compression washer inside on the left.

This is correct. The clip on the right/drive side. The wavy washer in the left/non-drive side.
Adding spacers is a dubious plan. If the BB is not the correct length (Campagnolo specifies +/- 0.8mm) then it is extremely doubtful the cranks would go on at all. It is hard enough lining the half shafts up on a correct length BB....

 

[cyclepsycho]

I don't know about your frame lacking 5mm of clearance, but I can't see the WAVE WASHER on driveside cup ... my understanding is that it is generally mandatory for proper installation.

BTW. It doesn't look as though you have significant clearance issues with the chainrings ...

The chainring bolts should NEST in the chainring bolt holes & only stand about 1mm "proud" of the chainring face ...

Including the "male" half of the chainring bolt that nests behind the crankarm.

Do the crank arms pass by their respective chainstays with the same clearance?

Regardless, remount the non-driveside arm so that it shadows the driveside arm & measure the Q-factor ... report back.

All,

First, thank you all for providing useful comments in trying to get to the bottom of this issue (this forum rocks). Secondly, my apologies for responding so late to address some of the questions; I only had a chance now to review comments and revisit the bike.

To set some questions to rest:
1. this is not a compact crankset - it's 135mm BCD with 53/39 rings
2. all chainring bolts hit the chainstay and not only the one opposite of crankarm
3. the smaller chainring is installed correctly because a) the set came in a sealed campy box, b) the campy logo on the smaller ring are facing outward, and c) flipping the small ring did not recess the bolts

Additional info:
The q-factor on the crankset is 145.5mm and a measured q-factor is 146.2mm (without really tightening to suggested torque).

Conclusion:
Some older frames have a minimum limit on the q-factor and/or spindle length and may not fit the Campy UT cranksets. These frames have a wider chainstay tube diameter at the BB tapering off towards the back dropouts.

My Options:
1. I could play the shimmy game to shift to the driveside
2. get a new frame

Decision:
get a new frame; the shimmy will work but i will need to readjust chainline and also maybe compromise integrity of frame; i love this frame too much to do that.

Next Steps:
1. prepare the Trek2200 frame for its original components (i see i can still get some vintage stuff on ebay)
2. get a new frame for the Campy UT set

This begs a question:
is there a list of frames that will not fit the UT crank? i was actually thinking of getting the Kestrel Evoke but after reading this thread, I don't think I want to come so close to the chainstay again. I guess I should be safe with a slim-line strong Ti frame like the Motobecane (BikeIsland.com).

Thank You again for you input.
-m

 

[swampy1970]

All,
Decision:
..... and also maybe compromise integrity of frame

Hogwash...

 

[cyclepsycho]

Hogwash...

Sorry? I don't quite understand your reply.

Regards,
-m

 

[rplace13]

Sorry to hear your old frame won't work out for you. However, don't give up on the possible Kestrel Evoke purchase just yet. My all Record Evoke is a great ride. I have really enjoyed it the last couple of seasons. I keep trying to convice the wife to let me buy a used Pinarello or Colnago frame...but I really can't justify it with the Kestrel more then meeting all my needs.

Here is a picture of my crank/frame. Keep in mind where the chain wheel comes close to the chain stay is at the 9 o'clock position. The chain is wrapped around from the 12 to 6 o'clock position. If the BB was to flex which it does on for me at all that I can notice. It would in essence deflect up or down not front to back. I have looked at a few other evokes since getting this frame and they are all close with all cranks. I guess it is just the way they built them.

 

[Peter@vecchios]

All,

First, thank you all for providing useful comments in trying to get to the bottom of this issue (this forum rocks). Secondly, my apologies for responding so late to address some of the questions; I only had a chance now to review comments and revisit the bike.

To set some questions to rest:
1. this is not a compact crankset - it's 135mm BCD with 53/39 rings
2. all chainring bolts hit the chainstay and not only the one opposite of crankarm
3. the smaller chainring is installed correctly because a) the set came in a sealed campy box, b) the campy logo on the smaller ring are facing outward, and c) flipping the small ring did not recess the bolts

Additional info:
The q-factor on the crankset is 145.5mm and a measured q-factor is 146.2mm (without really tightening to suggested torque).

Conclusion:
Some older frames have a minimum limit on the q-factor and/or spindle length and may not fit the Campy UT cranksets. These frames have a wider chainstay tube diameter at the BB tapering off towards the back dropouts.

My Options:
1. I could play the shimmy game to shift to the driveside
2. get a new frame

Decision:
get a new frame; the shimmy will work but i will need to readjust chainline and also maybe compromise integrity of frame; i love this frame too much to do that.

Next Steps:
1. prepare the Trek2200 frame for its original components (i see i can still get some vintage stuff on ebay)
2. get a new frame for the Campy UT set

This begs a question:
is there a list of frames that will not fit the UT crank? i was actually thinking of getting the Kestrel Evoke but after reading this thread, I don't think I want to come so close to the chainstay again. I guess I should be safe with a slim-line strong Ti frame like the Motobecane (BikeIsland.com).

Thank You again for you input.
-m

That big bulge is obviously the issue. The frame was made decades before the crank and there are probably other frames out there where a UT(and perhaps other outside bearing cranks) won't work on. I'd say sell the crank and look for a carbon or otherwise square taper crank where, if necessary, you can space the RH arm out a wee bit.

 

[alfeng]

The q-factor on the crankset is 145.5mm and a measured q-factor is 146.2mm (without really tightening to suggested torque).

Well, the Q-factor may be the apparent problem ...

I don't know if ALL Ultra Torque cranks have a Q-factor which is that narrow OR if it is a fabrication flaw on your particular crankset or a particular production run ... OR if Campagnolo has decided to go rogue & establish a new standard.

FWIW. The Q-factor on my non-UT Campagnolo cranks is 150mm (EITHER an alloy OR a 2004 carbon fiber Record crank with the specified 102mm BB) ... same for the Shimano cranks that I have with their respective BBs which I bothered to measure ... so, 'I' would presume that 150mm +/- seems to have become the de facto standard Q-factor (and, subsequent chainring offset) for Road "doubles" in the past couple of decades to which MOST framebuilders have been fabricating their framesets ...