The Infamous Bb86 Ultra Torque Click



CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Alf, instead of responding to 'insults' that are not insults by insulting someone...why don't you explain this statement:

"I install my Ultra Torque cranks so there is zero gap in the Hirth Coupling..."

How do you do that?

When the joint is tight...it's tight. It is axially as short as it is going to get and it is radially aligned. No user that tightens his 10 MM fixing bolt has any 'gap' in his Hirth joint.

The mesh length can not be adjusted.


"Apparently, someone in Vicenza decided that a torque of 60Nm will hold everything together without completely flattening the Wavy Washer.Apparently, someone in Vicenza decided that a torque of 60Nm will hold everything together without completely flattening the Wavy Washer."

The assembly is designed to with clearance for the largest possible combination of bottom bracket shells and individual part tolerances. THAT is what is causing the noise.

Let me re-type that:

The clearance of the properly assembled crankset per factory instructions in any bike frame is what is causing the noise. It's a poor design. Due to end play in the assembly. It has nothing to do with the Hirth joint. Other manufactures have run into the same issue.

There is nothing you can do to the Hirth joint short of using a 5-axis CNCmilling machine to re-cut the female tooth form deeper to remove that clearance. Do you understand that? It is...what it is. You can torque the bejeezus out of that joint and linearally it will only move tenths of a thousands as you overload the fastener and the draw surface/thread...resulting in pictures on the web C60 and I are familiar with.

The clearance can only be removed by shimming a cup (or both cups) outboard if you have external cups or by moving the PF cups outboard or by shimming between the cups and the bearings.

No one cares about the Q-factor. We do not set our cranksets up going by a pedal spacing spec. Especially if it's off by 0.1 MM / four thousandth of an inch!!! Or even forty thousandths of an inch. Where you're getting this...we have no clue. Honestly.

Is the 'gap' in your Hirth joint the air space at the root of the tooth form? The space between the tip of the male tooth form and the base of the female tooth form? If it is, I would really like to know exactly how you eliminated it. Otherwise, there is no gap in the installed Hirth joint.

I hope you take none of this as an insult because none of it was intended to be insulting. It's just that neither C60 nor myself...both of which are obviously engineers in real life...can not understand what you are getting at.

BTW, the last 34-1/2 years I've spent on drawing boards and CAD screens after getting my Journeyman's card as a Tool & Die maker. I have just a little experience with this sort of stuff and after these few brief discussions with C60, here in this thread, it is obvious to me that he is also very much familiar with metrology and tribology and the design elements of his crankset.
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
CAMPYBOB said:
Alf,

No one is riding around on a loose Hirth joint. No one. As C60 stated...it has NO bearing on this discussion. A washer on the Hirth joint fixing bolt? Why? It's plenty tight at the torque spec. The joint is fully engaged and is not going to move. A Hirth joint is expensive to machine and overly complicated for the simple job a bike crankset performs, but...it is a very solid coupling.

Secondly, a 1 MM gap in the Hirth joint is NOT miniscule. You could park a semi truck in there. A 1 MM gap in the Hirth joint is a DESTROYED crank assembly in very short order and I would not volunteer to be on that bike when the crank halves separated. I already have been through one broken crank arm about 30 years ago an I was damned near a hood ornament due to the instant and complete loss of control of the bike. No thanks.

And the as advertised Q-Factor being off by .0394"? That's irrelevant. The manufacturing tolerance stackup on the carbon arms' forms, the alignment of the arm bonded on the spindle halves, the spindle lengths, Hirth joint tolerance AND the mating length of the Hirth joint (Do the math. Thin the tooth form or thicken it by just a couple thousandths on each half and calculate the mating length changes) could easily account for that and more.

The Rogue Mechanic's price is just capitalism at its finest. Those same shims can be sourced from almost any mail order house for 25% of the RM price. Price is a red herring and I'm guessing the man that can afford the price of a Campy carbon crankset can swing the few more dollars to get a couple of shims from Hope Racing. That might set him back a ten spot. Pop cans? Milk jugs? Mama mia!

AFAIC, the shims offers the most accurately adjustable fit, the most solid fit up and the best solution 'to me'. C60 went another route and it appears to be working for him. I got a metric **** ton of miles on my first fix. I've performed the fix on three bikes I own and one a friend was being driven batshit crazy by. The current Record crankset on the Wilier has maybe 15K on it. If C60's solution holds up half as well, I think we can call it good. If it doesn't or if he just wants to try the cup or spindle shimming method, I hope he tries it next. I got no dog in his fight. His riding mates will let him know even if he starts wearing ear plugs on his rides.

The real here issue is the variability of BB shell widths and a dumbass design from Campy that will, for all the noise it may cause, at least be a GO condition in all the frames manufactured to spec. and cause noise in some of the ones that are on high limit. Personally, I still think their engineers were on crack.
YOU ALMOST GOT IT!!!

The difference is that I have actually done the math!

The math (really, just public school arithmetic!!) dictates that If ANYONE has an Ultra Torque crankset which has been set up with the Q-FACTOR at the committee-ordained 145.5mm-or-more then the Hirth Coupling is necessarily "loose" even if you can't see that it is so!

If anyone thinks that an improperly meshed is Hirth Coupling is a good thing, then they probably need to rethink what a correct installation or a "loose" installation is-or-isn't.

Regardless, if you re-read what I wrote & think about it, when I wrote "seeming minuscule" I was being facetious because I indicated that I presumed that there was no such gap when Helicopter shafts which are joined with Hirth couplings are combined AND SO I was indicating by inference that I believe that having the 1.0mm separation between the two halves of a Ultra Torque's spindle is a negative which should be eliminated during the assembly ...

TO REPEAT MYSELF ...

"2. imparting a seeming minuscule 1mm gap in the Hirth Joint removes the stability of the joint

* I don't now how sloppy a Hirth Coupling is on a Helicopter's shaft, but I
doubt it is has any play if properly fitted & adjusted
* because as soon as there is a gap between the halves of a Hirth Coupling then
the two, interfacing halves become gears

* obviously, not advisable.
* and theoretically, any pair of gears can strip"

Yes, THAT means the BB shell really should be blueprinted ...

And, that is where the shims should be used if some ham fisted Wrench reduced the shell too much when facing it ...

OR, if a press fit frame needs to be adjusted to spec ...

If the spec is not immediately available, it can be ascertained (that's "reverse engineered" for you more-techie types) by fitting a UT crankset in the PF cups without the Wavy Washer & Wire Clip and then adjusting the Q-FACTOR to 144.5mm.

Yes, I suppose that means that the CF frame's BB may need a thin shim OR it may need to be milled out by this-or-that amount.

So, I find it hard to believe that YOU are serious if you think that the Ultra Torque's Hirth Coupling is properly joined because it seems/(you have made it seem) stable if the installed Q-FACTOR is 145.5mm-or-more ...

BECAUSE, in MY world, it is NOT stable if you can wiggle the crank arms at all ...

As is apparently the case for Colnago60's & your cranksets before your respective makeshift remedies.

AND SO, I contend the instability is measurable AND it is due to the ~1.0mm separation between the two halves of the Ultra Torque spindle if-and-when the two halves yield a 145.5mm-or-greater Q-FACTOR when the crank is installed in a frame ...

To put it another way, tell me how WHEN the two halves of the Ultra Torque spindle are enmeshed together that the resultant 144.5mm does not reveal the ideal Q-FACTOR vs. the 145.5mm kluge measurement which the committee pretends is the correct?

What fills that 1.0mm if the installed crank has a Q-FACTOR of 145.5mm-or-more?!?

The full faith and trust of Campagnolo's engineers?

No. It's just a 1.0mm air gap ...

And, only the connecting bolt holding the two halves together at 60Nm creates a faux semi-stability which is partially aided by the comparatively narrow (6805-6) cartridge bearings which are floating in their respective BB cups.
Again, if an Ultra Torque crankset has a 145.5mm Q-FACTOR then it means that there is a massive 1.0mm gap exists between the two halves vs. the specious 0.0394mm (!!!) number which you tossed out ...

So, again, I will declare that a probable key to the ideal assembly of an installed UT crankset will result in the Q-FACTOR being 144.5mm instead of the prescribed-by-committee 145.5mm-or-more by simply ensuring the BB shell is blueprinted AND the Wavy Washer & Wire Clip are eliminated,

So it is said, so it is written! :)



 

ColnagoC60

New Member
Jul 13, 2015
51
4
8
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Sigh, you find these folks in every forum nowadays. No point in feeding the troll any further.

Quote:
".Apparently, someone in Vicenza decided that a torque of 60Nm will hold everything together without completely flattening the Wavy Washer."
Unquote:
Nuff said, no point in arguing with someone who thinks a steel or titanium shaft behaves like sponge an has no idea whatsoever.
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
CAMPYBOB said:
Alf, instead of responding to 'insults' that are not insults by insulting someone...why don't you explain this statement:

"I install my Ultra Torque cranks so there is zero gap in the Hirth Coupling..."

How do you do that?

When the joint is tight...it's tight. It is axially as short as it is going to get and it is radially aligned. No user that tightens his 10 MM fixing bolt has any 'gap' in his Hirth joint.

The mesh length can not be adjusted.


"Apparently, someone in Vicenza decided that a torque of 60Nm will hold everything together without completely flattening the Wavy Washer.Apparently, someone in Vicenza decided that a torque of 60Nm will hold everything together without completely flattening the Wavy Washer."

The assembly is designed to with clearance for the largest possible combination of bottom bracket shells and individual part tolerances. THAT is what is causing the noise.

Let me re-type that:

The clearance of the properly assembled crankset per factory instructions in any bike frame is what is causing the noise. It's a poor design. Due to end play in the assembly. It has nothing to do with the Hirth joint. Other manufactures have run into the same issue.

There is nothing you can do to the Hirth joint short of using a 5-axis CNCmilling machine to re-cut the female tooth form deeper to remove that clearance. Do you understand that? It is...what it is. You can torque the bejeezus out of that joint and linearally it will only move tenths of a thousands as you overload the fastener and the draw surface/thread...resulting in pictures on the web C60 and I are familiar with.

The clearance can only be removed by shimming a cup (or both cups) outboard if you have external cups or by moving the PF cups outboard or by shimming between the cups and the bearings.

No one cares about the Q-factor. We do not set our cranksets up going by a pedal spacing spec. Especially if it's off by 0.1 MM / four thousandth of an inch!!! Or even forty thousandths of an inch. Where you're getting this...we have no clue. Honestly.

Is the 'gap' in your Hirth joint the air space at the root of the tooth form? The space between the tip of the male tooth form and the base of the female tooth form? If it is, I would really like to know exactly how you eliminated it. Otherwise, there is no gap in the installed Hirth joint.

I hope you take none of this as an insult because none of it was intended to be insulting. It's just that neither C60 nor myself...both of which are obviously engineers in real life...can not understand what you are getting at.

BTW, the last 34-1/2 years I've spent on drawing boards and CAD screens after getting my Journeyman's card as a Tool & Die maker. I have just a little experience with this sort of stuff and after these few brief discussions with C60, here in this thread, it is obvious to me that he is also very much familiar with metrology and tribology and the design elements of his crankset.
DARN ...

I believe that we agree that a properly mated Hirth Coupling has ZERO PLAY.

Is that right?

I believe that we can agree that there is no assurance of precision in either a threaded or Press Fit BB shell on this-or-that bicycle frame ...

Is that right?

Of course, you say so, above.

I believe that it can be deduced that someone originally spec'd the Hirth Coupling with the belief that frames were properly spec'd.

Is that right?

It seems that YOU (both) feel that factory kluge of a Wavy Washer + connecting bolt snugged to 60Nm is Campagnolo's remedy which can be remedied with shims.

Is that right?

Regardless, FWIW, in my world it is better to blueprint the BB to spec rather than to jury rig the spindle assembly which will yield a Q-FACTOR which is NOT the measurable ideal of 144.5mm ....

Incredibly, for reasons which I cannot fathom, you (both) seem to think that I came up with the 144.5mm measurement ex nihilo.

THINK about what you, yourself, have written in response to my statement that "I install my Ultra Torque cranks so there is zero gap in the Hirth Coupling..."

How do you do that?

I ensure that the installed Q-FACTOR is ONLY the measured "ideal" of 144.5mm.

When the joint is tight...it's tight. It is axially as short as it is going to get and it is radially aligned. No user that tightens his 10 MM fixing bolt has any 'gap' in his Hirth joint.

That's right. "It is axially as short as it is going to get" and that value is 144.5mm and NOT 145.5mm ...

So, when the assembled Q-FACTOR is not 144.5mm then it necessarily NOT snug.

The arithmetic dictates that if:

A = non-driveside length
B = driveside length

And, if A + B = 144.5mm when NOT installed

Then if A + B = 145.5mm-or-more when installed that there is a phantom 1.0mm ... a gap of 1.0mm ...

It cannot, therefore be stated that the Hirth Joint has been properly meshed together if the installed crankset's Q-FACTOR is 145.5mm-or-more which will apparently be the case in a majority of the UT installations.

The mesh length can not be adjusted.

Again, correct.

Incredibly, the two of you act as if I came up with that number ex nihilo ...

Again, the 144.5mm was a direct measurement of more than one UT crankset when it was not installed in a frame & when the Hirth Coupling was firmly meshed together.

Really. Think about it.

If your UT crank's Q-Factor is greater than 144.5mm, then there is necessarily a gap between the two halves of the UT cranks' spindle -- the two halves are not snugly enmeshed together.

Alternatively, IF you can wiggle your UT crankset, then it is because the Hirth coupling is not snugly connected.

It's that simple ...

If the Hirth Coupling is not snugly connected, then it can wobble -- on a UT crankset, if the Q-Factor is greater than 144.5mm then it is not snug -- if the Hirth Coupling can wobble, then the spindle can wobble off axis and the bearings (or, connecting bolt!) can click.
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
ColnagoC60 said:
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Sigh, you find these folks in every forum nowadays. No point in feeding the troll any further.

Quote:
".Apparently, someone in Vicenza decided that a torque of 60Nm will hold everything together without completely flattening the Wavy Washer."
Unquote:
Nuff said, no point in arguing with someone who thinks a steel or titanium shaft behaves like sponge an has no idea whatsoever.
YES ...

Incredibly, if you were to think about it, YOU are one of those people whom you apparently pretend to disdain ...

WHEN did I say that I thought "a steel or titanium shaft behaves like a sponge"?!?

While adding a "plastic" washer to lessen the knocking which the connecting bolt probably experiences may not be the best solution, do you really think jury rigging a "washer" with silicon compound will be a satisfactory solution?

Why wouldn't you make the shim from a more stable material?

Just who is it that is introducing a "sponge" to his crankset assembly?!?

Despite CAMPYBOB's effort to defend you, if you don't understand how a Hirth Coupling is supposed to function, do you really want to preface your remarks by suggesting that you had a background as an engineer while implementing a bound-to-fail, DIY solution?
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
CAMPYBOB said:
Yeah...I give up.
I expect YOU to have better comprehension ...

I honestly don't understand why neither of you can comprehend where the 144.5mm measurement came from OR why it is significant.

I care NOT what the Q-FACTOR is on any other type of BB-and-crank assembly on the bikes which I have ...

I think the typical Shimano Road Double's Q-FACTOR is 150mm ...

And, I was using an 112.5mm XTR BB instead of a 109.5mm BB on my "test" bike, so its Q-Factor was probably 153mm ...

AND, I recall measuring my MTB (XT) cranks to have a Q-Factor which was closer to 160mm.

But, how is the measurement not critical for a properly assembled Ultra Torque's Hirth Coupling?

Why would you knowingly want to assemble the two halves of a UT spindle with a 1.0mm gap between the two halves?

The UT's coupling is NOT as stable as you think when the two halves a 1.0mm apart ...

THAT should be apparent BECAUSE it is possible to wiggle your crank arms.

THAT means that the spindle can wobble ... teeter-totter ... however you want to describe it if you don't have a perfectly smooth pedaling motion which replicates an engine or electric motor.

Unintended motion is a common source of unwanted noise.

How much more explicitly can I suggest that you measure YOUR Ultra Torque crankset to determine what the "ideal" measurement if you don't want to accept my measurement?

Again, I measure the UT crankset's which I have to have a Q-FACTOR of 144.5mm when it is not installed in a frame ...

So, logically, 144.5mm is the Q-FACTOR for the UT cranks which I have instead of the suggested 145.5mm when the crank is installed if the Hirth Coupling is going to be properly meshed together.

If the UT crank's Wavy Washer is understood-or-believe-to-be a bit dodgy because it allows for imprecision from frame to frame, then doesn't it make more sense to figure out what the ideal is & adjust the frame accordingly?!?

Tell me why that isn't the case!

Do you really not see how assembling the UT crank with the arms 1.0mm further apart (i.e., 145.5mm-or-more) ALSO means the spindle halves are necessarily 1.0mm further apart?!?

AND, that is why the Q-FACTOR is important.
 

ColnagoC60

New Member
Jul 13, 2015
51
4
8
^ ^ ^ ^ This is my last attempt, as I do not appreciate you trolling my thread.

Your quote:
"Apparently, someone in Vicenza decided that a torque of 60Nm will hold everything together without completely flattening the Wavy Washer."

Go to Campy's web site, look at the parts drawings and explain to us how a torquing the crank bolt to 60Nm will flatten or not flatten the wave washer, or how there is any relevance to the wave washer should it be torqued at 5Nm or 60Nm. If you can't get that right, the best advice I can give you, is please do not wrench on your own bike, take it to the dealer.

If you can explain the impossible to us, let's patent your idea, I will even sign and seal your drawings for you, as I am authorized to do that in the state of North Carolina.

Over and out.
 

dhk2

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2006
2,214
74
48
75
CAMPYBOB said:
Yeah...I give up.
Join the club, I gave up at least a year ago. After all this wonderful Campy design discussion, I'm just glad my bike uses the FSA Megatech BB. It's a precision-machined BB with tight tolerances for the pressed-in bearings and ISIS spindles, no wave washers or shims needed. The only small problem is that the bearings aren't available anymore....
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote by Alf:
"It seems that YOU (both) feel that factory kluge of a Wavy Washer + connecting bolt snugged to 60Nm is Campagnolo's remedy which can be remedied with shims.

Is that right?"

I'm probably going to better off driving nails into my eyeballs...but, here goes.

NO!!!! That is NOT right!

Once the bolt is tight...it's tight. 55Nm...47.135869Nm...it does NOT matter! The joint is set at that point and it is NOT adjustable. There is NO way to make it adjustable! It does NOT and can NOT affect the end play or lack of end play. NO amount of shimming of the bolt or the mythical 'gap' in the Hirth joint is going to do squat to affect the free play, end play or fore play.


"Incredibly, the two of you act as if I came up with that number ex nihilo ..."

For the last damned time...the less than meaningless Q-factor number is fixed...WHATEVER it may be and it has NO bearing on the installed endplay of the crankset in the BB shell.

Alf, for the love of God...the crank spindle length AND the Q-factor number are FIXED. Neither are adjustable. It's just that simple.

The problem of the noise ORIGINATES from the fact that even with the WIDEST damned BB shell possible there is still too much end play in the assembly and there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to dial it out by dicking around with your irrelevant Q-factor number or shimming the 10MM Hirth joint fixing bolt with 2 gallons worth of milk jug washers OR by removing this fictional 'air gap' in the Hirth joint.

Please...just stop this. What you have stated makes absolutely zero sense mechanically or logically speaking.

And please describe in detail how you removed that 'gap' in the Hirth joint. Or how 1mm became 0.1MM in the space of two posts. Or how well milk jug washers hold up to just one use at 60Nm under a bolt head.

C60...please, just shoot me. I know I just wasted 5 minutes of my life.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote by Alf:
"I expect YOU to have better comprehension ..."

My comprehension...as is C690's and everyone else reading this thread...is just fine.


"I honestly don't understand why neither of you can comprehend where the 144.5mm measurement came from OR why it is significant."

Because it is INSIGNIFICANT. Do you have severe ADHD or are completely unfamiliar with the UltraTorque design? Serious question.



"But, how is the measurement not critical for a properly assembled Ultra Torque's Hirth Coupling?"

Because that dimension...WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE...is not adjustable in ANY way. Comprende? Free play can NOT be adjusted by attempting to change a dimension that...can NOT be changed.

How hard is THAT to wrap your mind around???



"Why would you knowingly want to assemble the two halves of a UT spindle with a 1.0mm gap between the two halves?"

You can NOT do that! For God's sake, Alf! The crank spindle would NOT last an hour if assembled with the bolt loose. The self-destruct would be epic.


"The UT's coupling is NOT as stable as you think when the two halves a 1.0mm apart ..."

NO ONE...and I mean NO ONE assembles their crank with a gap between the spindle halves. Where are you getting this idiocy?



"THAT should be apparent BECAUSE it is possible to wiggle your crank arms."

It would also be possible to DIE trying to ride the bike in that condition.



"THAT means that the spindle can wobble ... teeter-totter ... however you want to describe it if you don't have a perfectly smooth pedaling motion which replicates an engine or electric motor."

Erm...yeah. It might also mean that the rider is a moron.


"Unintended motion is a common source of unwanted noise."

In this case, Alf, you're so far out in left field that Sammy Sosa couldn't put one over your head.



"How much more explicitly can I suggest that you measure YOUR Ultra Torque crankset to determine what the "ideal" measurement if you don't want to accept my measurement?"

Your measurement has absolutely NO bearing on...well...ANYTHING related to the discussion of the problem and its solutions. I apologize for being...explicit. But that's the simple truth of the matter.


Just as slight return to reality here and leaving fantasy air gaps and weirdness behind...I am glad Campy incorporates an adjustable endplay pre-loading feature into its new OverTorque design. If I can manage to follow the complicated installation directions and apply the specialty tools correctly (and I have every confidence that I can) they may have come up with a winner. On-the-road service will, however, be an impossibility.
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
CAMPYBOB said:
Quote by Alf:
"I expect YOU to have better comprehension ..."

My comprehension...as is C690's and everyone else reading this thread...is just fine.


"I honestly don't understand why neither of you can comprehend where the 144.5mm measurement came from OR why it is significant."

Because it is INSIGNIFICANT. Do you have severe ADHD or are completely unfamiliar with the UltraTorque design? Serious question.



"But, how is the measurement not critical for a properly assembled Ultra Torque's Hirth Coupling?"

Because that dimension...WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE...is not adjustable in ANY way. Comprende? Free play can NOT be adjusted by attempting to change a dimension that...can NOT be changed.

How hard is THAT to wrap your mind around???

BTW. THAT's exactly MY POINT ... the "ideal" dimension a Hirth Coupling "is not adjustable ..." and yet, it has been made so by separating the two halves by the addition of the Wavy Washer, or the Rogue Mechanic's shims, or a DIY silicon compound bushing, or whatever other kluge has been tried which seems to make sense at the time!

"Why would you knowingly want to assemble the two halves of a UT spindle with a 1.0mm gap between the two halves?"

You can NOT do that! For God's sake, Alf! The crank spindle would NOT last an hour if assembled with the bolt loose. The self-destruct would be epic.


WHO said anything about the bolt being loose?!?

Clearly, you are not following what I have written ... I will accept that to be the flaw of the writer (i.e., me).


"The UT's coupling is NOT as stable as you think when the two halves a 1.0mm apart ..."

NO ONE...and I mean NO ONE assembles their crank with a gap between the spindle halves. Where are you getting this idiocy?

And yet, they are doing so if the Q-FACTOR is greater than 144.5mm!

"THAT should be apparent BECAUSE it is possible to wiggle your crank arms."

It would also be possible to DIE trying to ride the bike in that condition.



"THAT means that the spindle can wobble ... teeter-totter ... however you want to describe it if you don't have a perfectly smooth pedaling motion which replicates an engine or electric motor."

Erm...yeah. It might also mean that the rider is a moron.


"Unintended motion is a common source of unwanted noise."

In this case, Alf, you're so far out in left field that Sammy Sosa couldn't put one over your head.



"How much more explicitly can I suggest that you measure YOUR Ultra Torque crankset to determine what the "ideal" measurement if you don't want to accept my measurement?"

Your measurement has absolutely NO bearing on...well...ANYTHING related to the discussion of the problem and its solutions. I apologize for being...explicit. But that's the simple truth of the matter.


Just as slight return to reality here and leaving fantasy air gaps and weirdness behind...I am glad Campy incorporates an adjustable endplay pre-loading feature into its new OverTorque design. If I can manage to follow the complicated installation directions and apply the specialty tools correctly (and I have every confidence that I can) they may have come up with a winner. On-the-road service will, however, be an impossibility.
Well ...

I guess "Thanks for taking the time to reply" ...

I'm truly sorry you really are not following what I am saying ...

Because, my Ultra Torque cranks don't click (Again, at least, not yet!! Who knows what the next ride will bring.)

But, so be it.

Some day, perhaps before you pony up for an Over Torque crankset, but probably after, you may wake up in the middle of the night and say "Oh, yeah ... now, I get what alf was trying to communicate."

BTW. Regarding the OverTorque spindle & BB ... since you are apparently a candidate to purchase one in the future ...

I've previously thought about it, and while it would probably be nice to have Campagnolo's specialty installation tools to install-and-remove the crank, they should not be necessary if you are NOT using the crankset with a Press Fit bottom bracket ...

If it doesn't offend a person's sensibilities then if they don't have a 14mm Allen Wrench (who does?), what seems like an obvious work around which no one else seems to have suggested would be to simply take a 14mm crank bolt, insert the head into the OT non-driveside bolt, and tighten-or-loosen .

File flats in the bolt's threads if necessary.

Kind of obvious, huh?

Obviously, removing the crank arm is probably a greater issue and would therefore seem to be THE reason to buy Campagnolo's dedicated tool ...

BUT (based on past necessity! :eek:), I reckon that if the OT installation is with an English-or-Italian threaded BB, then simply loosening EITHER threaded BB cup will push the non-driveside crankarm off the OT spindle ...

Of course, if a person insists on an OT installation in a frame with PF cups, then they'll also have to pony up for the tool OR bring the bike to a shop which works on Campy equipped bikes.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote by Alf:
"...and yet, it has been made so by separating the two halves by the addition of the Wavy Washer, or the Rogue Mechanic's shims, or a DIY silicon compound bushing, or whatever other kluge has been tried which seems to make sense at the time!

You can not possibly be serious.

The wave washer and Rogue Mechanic's shims and my shims and C60's shims to NOT install between the two halves of the Hirth Joint. Are you on crack? Suffer from OCD? Fixation disorder?

This has been detailed and explained to you multiple times.

I guess it's time for someone to break out the crayons...
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
dhk2 said:
Join the club, I gave up at least a year ago. After all this wonderful Campy design discussion, I'm just glad my bike uses the FSA Megatech BB. It's a precision-machined BB with tight tolerances for the pressed-in bearings and ISIS spindles, no wave washers or shims needed. The only small problem is that the bearings aren't available anymore....
DARN!?!

How did I miss your remark, earlier?

The "dwell" denier who believes that his individual experience trumped the information which was on the Park Tool website stops lurking for a moment to make a snide remark ...

Well, if you can figure out the bearing designation, you should be able to find a source if you look hard enough ...

FYI. Regardless, while I don't know whether-or-not the bearings your are looking for are actually available, or not, and although there is certainly a limited life to any bearing, you can flush & re-lube any cartridge bearing in an attempt to rejuvenate your bearings OR to extend their useful life ...
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
CAMPYBOB said:
Quote by Alf:
"...and yet, it has been made so by separating the two halves by the addition of the Wavy Washer, or the Rogue Mechanic's shims, or a DIY silicon compound bushing, or whatever other kluge has been tried which seems to make sense at the time!

You can not possibly be serious.

The wave washer and Rogue Mechanic's shims and my shims and C60's shims to NOT install between the two halves of the Hirth Joint. Are you on crack? Suffer from OCD? Fixation disorder?

This has been detailed and explained to you multiple times.

I guess it's time for someone to break out the crayons...
WHAT?!?


Where-or-when did I say ANYTHING about putting any shim between the two halves of the Hirth Coupling?!?


LET ME TRY THIS AGAIN ...

The Q-FACTOR's measurement of a Campagnolo Ultra Torque crankset is the sum of ALL the parts ... [yes? no? maybe so?]

In this case, THAT means the two halves of the crankset + connecting bolt.

The sum of the two halves when a UT crank is assembled sans frame measures ONLY 144.5mm.

It is NOT 145.5mm ...

It is NOT 145.5394mm ...

AND, it is NOT any other measurement which is signficantly greater than 144.5mm.

By MY measurements, THAT is true of my UT Record crankset, my UT Chorus crankset, my UT Centaur crankset + undoubtedly every other UT crankset made before 2015. The newest UT cranks probably have the same length spindles.

While it may not be the case, It's seems that you EITHER did not install YOUR Ultra Torque crankset, yourself, OR it has been so long that you really don't remember how the "teeth" of the Hirth Coupling are machined ...

While I have explained a majority of the following to YOU several times, here goes again ....

The "teeth" on the UT spindle are more triangular than not ...

This should not have been necessary to state, but you apparently do not recall how a Campagnolo UT spindle's Hirth Coupling looks.

As soon as the halves of a Hirth Coupling are not enmeshed together as closely as they can be, they essentially become gears ...

When the Ultra Torque crankset is not installed in a bicycle frame & the two spindle halves are as snugly assembled as possible, the Q-FACTOR is only 144.5mm ...

NOT 145.5mm ...

NOT 145.5394mm

As YOU have noted, the Q-FACTOR is "fixed" ...

AND YET, you have chosen not to make a measurement ...

BECAUSE, if you had, then your only option would be to corroborate the 144.5mm measurement which I have stated numerous times.

It can't take more than 5-to-15 minutes to remove the connecting bolt & slide the two halves out of your bike's BB shell ...

PLUS, a few minutes to put it all back in place.

Unfortunately, it is clear that you have simply been shooting-from-hip when you propose its value is 145.5mm-or-more!!!!!

Again, installing a UT crankset with a Q-FACTOR greater than 144.5mm necessarily (this is simple arithmetic) means that the "teeth" are not completely enmeshed ...

AND SO, the two halves will NOT be truly joined togther!

If the teeth of the Hirth Coupling are not snugly pieced together, the two halves of the spindle are not a solid unit AND that defeats the purpose of the Hirth Coupling.

So, if a UT crankset is installed with any shims added in the vicinity of the BB shells, then there is necessarily a gap (just because the Hirth Coupling is inside the BB shell doesn't mean the gap isn't there) between the two halves of the spindle ...

Additionally, if the Q-FACTOR is 145.5mm, then that means there is a 1.0mm gap which COULD (but, may not) allow the the two halves to gnash back-and-forth as one pedals AND COULD certainly jeopardize the axial integrity ...

If the "teeth" are not properly enmeshed, then the spindle can wobble ... and, the cartridges can try to walk left-to-right in their respective BB cups ...

AGAIN, the two halves are NOT truly joined together WHEN the Q-FACTOR exceeds 144.5mm!

Try to think about it when you have a clear head.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Alf, you're on dope.

"Where-or-when did I say ANYTHING about putting any shim between the two halves of the Hirth Coupling?!?"

Right here.
"and yet, it has been made so by separating the two halves by the addition of the Wavy Washer, or the Rogue Mechanic's shims, or a DIY silicon compound bushing,"


Apparently, reading comprehension and memory loss issues are responsible for some of your problems.

There is something going on inside your head, but I'm not exactly certain what it is.

There is no one on this forum dumb enough to attempt to ride with the Hirth Joint separated. That, too, has been explained to you several times. Have someone coherent re-read this thread to you. Very slowly. Using puppets may also be of some benefit.
 

dhk2

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2006
2,214
74
48
75
CB, just poke the sharp stick in your eye now, it will be less painful. I have to laugh trying to imagine this conversation taking place in real life, with the crankset right in front of both of you. Suspect that would be truly bizarre.

I once heard our chief engineer introduce a speaker by saying "he knows a lot about aviation, but so do many in this room. What's really impressive is that everything he knows turns out to be right".
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
CAMPYBOB said:
Alf, you're on dope.

"Where-or-when did I say ANYTHING about putting any shim between the two halves of the Hirth Coupling?!?"

Right here.
"and yet, it has been made so by separating the two halves by the addition of the Wavy Washer, or the Rogue Mechanic's shims, or a DIY silicon compound bushing,"


Apparently, reading comprehension and memory loss issues are responsible for some of your problems.

There is something going on inside your head, but I'm not exactly certain what it is.

There is no one on this forum dumb enough to attempt to ride with the Hirth Joint separated. That, too, has been explained to you several times. Have someone coherent re-read this thread to you. Very slowly. Using puppets may also be of some benefit.
INCREDIBLE!

Considering it is known where the Wavy Washer AND Rogue Mechanic's shims AND ColnagoC60's DIY silicon shim were applied ...

AND CONSIDERING, the inner diameter of those shims is in excess of 25mm (the diameter of the spindle) ...

The inner diameter of a Wavy Washer is easily 27mm, BTW ...

The other two are undoubtedly comparable.

YOU apparently want me-and-everyone-else to believe that I was somehow suggesting that those shims be allowed to jangle like bangles in proximity to the Hirth Coupling as the solution to the UT's infamous clicking ...

ARE YOU KIDDING?

What are YOU smoking?

Is it legal?!?

PUH-LEEZ ...

The next time you service your Ultra Torque BB (or, this weekend!), could you humor ME and fit your UT crankset together OUTSIDE of the frame in which it is currently installed?

Bolt the two halves together AS YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE CONNECTED ...

Measure the Q-FACTOR.

Write that number down.

Of course, I continue to contend that the measurement will be ~144.5mm.

BUT, maybe I am not reading my ruler properly!

Compare the number to what is stenciled on the ends of the crank arms.

Measure the Q-FACTOR, again, if necessary.

Look at the Hirth Coupling when the two halves are securely joined together, again ...

Then, explain to YOURSELF how there won't be a gap between the "teeth" of the Hirth Coupling if-or-when the Q-FACTOR of the assembled crankset in-the-frame is ~145.5mm, or more!!

Loosen the connecting bolt if-you-dare ...

Of course, you're going to need to take the bolt out to separate the two halves so you can re-install it in your bike's BB ... just loosen your Allen Wrench by one 360º rotation rather than unthreading it completely, at first ...

THAT, my friend, is approximately how loose the spindle will be when the crank's Q-FACTOR is allowed to be 145.5mm.

Ist das nichts rechts?

And then, consider how stable the spindle is-or-isn't when the bolt isn't tight enough to have the Q-FACTOR equal to ~144.5mm ...

Verstehen Sie?!?

 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
dhk2 said:
CB, just poke the sharp stick in your eye now, it will be less painful. I have to laugh trying to imagine this conversation taking place in real life, with the crankset right in front of both of you. Suspect that would be truly bizarre.

I once heard our chief engineer introduce a speaker by saying "he knows a lot about aviation, but so do many in this room. What's really impressive is that everything he knows turns out to be right".
Oh ...

YOU can think you are oh-so clever & mocking me must make you feel so much better, but I am apparently the only person in this Thread and/or Forum who has actually made measurements of their UT crankset(s) ...

AND, everyone else is making presumptions ...

AND THEN, errantly shooting-from-the-lip.

Think about it.



 

ColnagoC60

New Member
Jul 13, 2015
51
4
8
^ ^ ^ ^ ^

This design is as simple as it gets, the concept is even simpler. You keep repeating yourself by trying to write stuff we all already know and understand, but then you come up with these weird statements that make absolutely no sense. And when we quote them, you still deny and when we ask questions to validate your weird statements you don't answer them.

It is clear that the only issue which you are trying to contribute to this thread is your ego, nothing else.