The Infamous Bb86 Ultra Torque Click



alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
ColnagoC60 said:
^ ^ ^ ^ ^

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.
Huh?

Do tell ...

What weird statements?

What weird statements have I denied stating?

If YOU or CAMPYBOB truly understood what I was writing, then you would not argue that any-and-all shims should probably be eliminated because they do not allow the Hirth Coupling to be properly joined.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote by DHK2:
"CB, just poke the sharp stick in your eye now, it will be less painful."

Agreed. A 35 MPH slide down a freshly chip & sealed road would 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."

No foolin'!

I would tearing my hair out in clumps. Alf sounds surprisingly like a Laurel & Hardy 'Who's On First?' routine the cluster ****ed a Three Stooges feature length film.

Who's on first?
Wave Washer!

Who's on second?
Air Gap!

Who's on third?
The Chinese catcher, Q Factor!


Quote by C60:
"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"

This is all YOUR fault!

You put a wavy silicone milk jug in the middle of your Hirth joint! Thereby completely ruining the pre-set Q-factor! How dare you and your inability to understand utter gibberish ride with an air gap in your spindle! Those tooth forms are very intolerant of 1 MM air gaps and your wobbly 10 MM bolt is clicking away even as I type these words!

And to think...I even defended you! May your ceramic CULT bearings be infiltrated by shimaNO extra heavy axle grease!

Seriously, do we just throw our arms up, shrug and walk away with a smirk now...or...can we come up with a new theory of a wavy polymer washer (cut from the engine shroud of a 1976 Lawnboy 'F'-Series engine) inserted in the Hirth's air gap. The INCREASE in the length of the spindle will add even more endplay to quiet the clicking noise AND correct your Q-Factor.

Yes.

I'm a genius! :lol:​
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote by Alf:
"What weird statements?"

All of them.


"What weird statements have I denied stating?"

All of the ones I've quoted, re-quoted and/or didn't bother quoting.

Like I said, please have someone that's got their feet on planet Earth re-read this thread to you. Slowly. It all makes perfect sense. Except for those parts that start with the word "alfeng".


Alf, I have repeated asked you for detailed explanations of your whacked out statements and you have ignored them. Repeatedly.

It is obvious that you have zero clues as to what we are discussing and, if it were possible, even less of an idea as to what is causing the noise or how to cure it.

C60 has offered the most detailed pictures and attempts at eliminating the noise I've seen since Rogue Mechanic's blog first started in on the subject. He's answered every question I asked of him, backing up his claims with pictures and admitting his miss-steps and partial failures as well as his successes.

For God's sake, Alf. He and I have been down this road. Me...more than a couple of times. All you have done to his technical thread is add confusion, obfuscation, miss-information and you have certainly put out some absolutely bizarre details that have no relationship to either the problem or its fix.
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
CAMPYBOB said:
Quote by Alf:
"What weird statements?"

All of them.


"What weird statements have I denied stating?"

All of the ones I've quoted, re-quoted and/or didn't bother quoting.

Like I said, please have someone that's got their feet on planet Earth re-read this thread to you. Slowly. It all makes perfect sense. Except for those parts that start with the word "alfeng".


Alf, I have repeated asked you for detailed explanations of your whacked out statements and you have ignored them. Repeatedly.

It is obvious that you have zero clues as to what we are discussing and, if it were possible, even less of an idea as to what is causing the noise or how to cure it.

C60 has offered the most detailed pictures and attempts at eliminating the noise I've seen since Rogue Mechanic's blog first started in on the subject. He's answered every question I asked of him, backing up his claims with pictures and admitting his miss-steps and partial failures as well as his successes.

For God's sake, Alf. He and I have been down this road. Me...more than a couple of times. All you have done to his technical thread is add confusion, obfuscation, miss-information and you have certainly put out some absolutely bizarre details that have no relationship to either the problem or its fix.
Well ...

If you truly think that I haven't replied to something, specifically, then ask me again ... and, don't bury it in the verbiage ...

Of course, IMO, it is the two of you who either truly don't have a clue as to what I am saying OR you are feigning to choose not to understand because it amuses you ...

BECAUSE, AFAIK, while you agree that the dimensions cannot be changed for a properly fitted Hirth Coupling, you both nonetheless change it while denying changing it!

AND, what you don't want to agree on is that changing the dimension may be the underlying cause of the clicking.

What should anyone think when you are both too recalcitrant to make the simple measurement which an assembled Ultra Torque crankset will have when it is not installed in a frame?

After all, assembling the Ultra Torque crankset, alone, will show you the "ideal" dimensions of the crankset when the Hirth Coupling is properly joined and not encumbered by the frame, BB cups or washers.

After all, since you agree that the dimensions of a properly joined Hirth Coupling cannot be changed, you should want to know what the dimensions of the crankset are when the two halves are joined together BECAUSE it will tell you what the dimensions should be when it is assembled in a bike.

Again, try to think about it when your head is clearer than it has been.

 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote by Alf:
"If you truly think that I haven't replied to something, specifically, then ask me again ... and, don't bury it in the verbiage ..."

No thanks, Alf. I've read more than enough from you.



"Of course, IMO, it is the two of you who either truly don't have a clue as to what I am saying OR you are feigning to choose not to understand because it amuses you ..."

I would be VERY concerned if what you said made any 'sense' to me. At all.



"BECAUSE, AFAIK, while you agree that the dimensions cannot be changed for a properly fitted Hirth Coupling, you both nonetheless change it while denying changing it!"

That is because neither C60 nor myself have EVER changed the dimension of the Hirth Joint or the spindle. Or the mythical Q-Factor. We simply eliminated an existing clearance between the BB shell and the crankset assembly with shims.

This was explained to your retarded brain any number of times. You're either an idiot or being purposely dense in order to somehow inflate your ego as C60 has suggested. In the beginning of you off-point diatribes I was under the impression you simply misunderstood the design of the crankset or the solutions Rogue Mechanic, C60 and myself had come up with, but it has become clear that you have some major issues going on inside your head.



"AND, what you don't want to agree on is that changing the dimension may be the underlying cause of the clicking."

One last time...you're an idiot. No one is changing the length of the spindle or the engagement depth of the Hirth Joint. Not that you will ever have a clue about that point. Again, THIS has been communicated to you multiple times.



"What should anyone think when you are both too recalcitrant to make the simple measurement which an assembled Ultra Torque crankset will have when it is not installed in a frame?"

I take that back. You're not an idiot. You're an obfuscating dumbass. When the fixing bolt is tight, the length is set. The crank will be locked up tight in the BB shell or the drag so significant the bike is incapable of being ridden if clearance is insufficient and noisy if the clearance is too great. No measurement is necessary.



"After all, assembling the Ultra Torque crankset, alone, will show you the "ideal" dimensions of the crankset when the Hirth Coupling is properly joined and not encumbered by the frame, BB cups or washers."

You really are beyond all hope...



"After all, since you agree that the dimensions of a properly joined Hirth Coupling cannot be changed, you should want to know what the dimensions of the crankset are when the two halves are joined together BECAUSE it will tell you what the dimensions should be when it is assembled in a bike."

Listen up: That dimension is UNCHANGED and it is UNCHANGABLE.

On or off the bike.

If the fixing bolt is at the same torque spec in any place on the planet the length of the assembly is going to be within a couple thousandths of an inch every damned time. Probably much less than that if the torque wrench is within its ±4% calibration standard. Do you understand THAT?

Adding shims simply takes up the EXISTING freeplay space in the bike/crankset assembly. They control excess endplay. Got it?

I've never met anyone so incapable of comprehending such a simple mechanical construct. As C60 stated, the crankset is a very basic design. The Hirth Joint is very simple and effective despite being expensive to machine. The BB and outboard or PF cups are also simple.

If your tiny mind can't wrap itself around the age old precept that endplay can exist in shaft/bearing assemblies and that it can be controlled by strategically placing shim washers in the assembly to reduce or remove that endplay perhaps you would be better off taking up walking as a sport.

I only had time for a short 26-mile ride yesterday afternoon, but they were 26 QUIET miles that I did not have to list to any clicking or some dipshit trying to convince me that I had to measure the non-existent change in a dimension that did NOT change.

In closing, allow me to suggest you cruise on over to Rogue Mechanic's blog and try wrecking his page as nicely as you've blown C60's thread into the realm of fantasy literature. I'm sure your theories will be welcomed with open arms over there.
 

ColnagoC60

New Member
Jul 13, 2015
51
4
8
CB, Post #62 was hilarious!!! :)

Alf, thanks for screwing up this whole thread, some folks might have found a little value here, should you have stayed away.

My UT is still going silent and strong, I will open it up in another 1,000 miles or so for a few drops of oil and take pics and post up on a new thread, as this one has gone to the dogs.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
C60,

I'll be looking forward to your pictures.

Please be sure to get some sharp macros of your air gap. Rotate one crank arm 180° and display digital calipers (NO Mitutoyo's, please! Only Swiss, Starrett or B&S calipers are suitable in the same pic as a Campy crankset!) measuring your Q-Factor to four decimal places. Also, a nuetron X-Ray shot, with on-screen metric scale, showing the assembly through the BB shell would be appreciated just so Alf can finally figure out the wizard's magic you used to eliminate endplay from such a complicated mechanical device.

Regards,
CampyBob
 

ColnagoC60

New Member
Jul 13, 2015
51
4
8
CAMPYBOB said:
C60,

I'll be looking forward to your pictures.

Please be sure to get some sharp macros of your air gap. Rotate one crank arm 180° and display digital calipers (NO Mitutoyo's, please! Only Swiss, Starrett or B&S calipers are suitable in the same pic as a Campy crankset!) measuring your Q-Factor to four decimal places. Also, a nuetron X-Ray shot, with on-screen metric scale, showing the assembly through the BB shell would be appreciated just so Alf can finally figure out the wizard's magic you used to eliminate endplay from such a complicated mechanical device.

Regards,
CampyBob
LOL, see you at the Carolina Cup, Greensboro, Sunday 13th?

For this event only, I'll remove my silicone job and give you a lead out on click number 40. :ph34r:
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Masters 45+? Oh Hells yeah! 40 clicks and I'll bury myself coming out of Last Chance Corner!

Greensboro is where all our local Mennonites and Amish run off to when they owe too much money to the English and can't or won't pay up. Debt-free in a better climate! Win-Win!

That reminds me...the Mennonite that framed my first barn still owes me money and he's somewhere in the Greensboro area. Maybe I can kill two birds with one stone...
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
CAMPYBOB said:
Quote by Alf:
"If you truly think that I haven't replied to something, specifically, then ask me again ... and, don't bury it in the verbiage ..."

No thanks, Alf. I've read more than enough from you.



"Of course, IMO, it is the two of you who either truly don't have a clue as to what I am saying OR you are feigning to choose not to understand because it amuses you ..."

I would be VERY concerned if what you said made any 'sense' to me. At all.



"BECAUSE, AFAIK, while you agree that the dimensions cannot be changed for a properly fitted Hirth Coupling, you both nonetheless change it while denying changing it!"

That is because neither C60 nor myself have EVER changed the dimension of the Hirth Joint or the spindle. Or the mythical Q-Factor. We simply eliminated an existing clearance between the BB shell and the crankset assembly with shims.

This was explained to your retarded brain any number of times. You're either an idiot or being purposely dense in order to somehow inflate your ego as C60 has suggested. In the beginning of you off-point diatribes I was under the impression you simply misunderstood the design of the crankset or the solutions Rogue Mechanic, C60 and myself had come up with, but it has become clear that you have some major issues going on inside your head.



"AND, what you don't want to agree on is that changing the dimension may be the underlying cause of the clicking."

One last time...you're an idiot. No one is changing the length of the spindle or the engagement depth of the Hirth Joint. Not that you will ever have a clue about that point. Again, THIS has been communicated to you multiple times.



"What should anyone think when you are both too recalcitrant to make the simple measurement which an assembled Ultra Torque crankset will have when it is not installed in a frame?"

I take that back. You're not an idiot. You're an obfuscating dumbass. When the fixing bolt is tight, the length is set. The crank will be locked up tight in the BB shell or the drag so significant the bike is incapable of being ridden if clearance is insufficient and noisy if the clearance is too great. No measurement is necessary.



"After all, assembling the Ultra Torque crankset, alone, will show you the "ideal" dimensions of the crankset when the Hirth Coupling is properly joined and not encumbered by the frame, BB cups or washers."

You really are beyond all hope...



"After all, since you agree that the dimensions of a properly joined Hirth Coupling cannot be changed, you should want to know what the dimensions of the crankset are when the two halves are joined together BECAUSE it will tell you what the dimensions should be when it is assembled in a bike."

Listen up: That dimension is UNCHANGED and it is UNCHANGABLE.

On or off the bike.

If the fixing bolt is at the same torque spec in any place on the planet the length of the assembly is going to be within a couple thousandths of an inch every damned time. Probably much less than that if the torque wrench is within its ±4% calibration standard. Do you understand THAT?

Adding shims simply takes up the EXISTING freeplay space in the bike/crankset assembly. They control excess endplay. Got it?

I've never met anyone so incapable of comprehending such a simple mechanical construct. As C60 stated, the crankset is a very basic design. The Hirth Joint is very simple and effective despite being expensive to machine. The BB and outboard or PF cups are also simple.

If your tiny mind can't wrap itself around the age old precept that endplay can exist in shaft/bearing assemblies and that it can be controlled by strategically placing shim washers in the assembly to reduce or remove that endplay perhaps you would be better off taking up walking as a sport.

I only had time for a short 26-mile ride yesterday afternoon, but they were 26 QUIET miles that I did not have to list to any clicking or some dipshit trying to convince me that I had to measure the non-existent change in a dimension that did NOT change.

In closing, allow me to suggest you cruise on over to Rogue Mechanic's blog and try wrecking his page as nicely as you've blown C60's thread into the realm of fantasy literature. I'm sure your theories will be welcomed with open arms over there.
WOW ...

Or, should I say "Ow ..."?!?

I guess this should be the last time I state this ...

I have actually measured the dimensions of multiple Ultra Torque cranksets ...

Which neither of you has apparently bothered to do!

As you have stated, "That dimension (of the UT's Hirth Coupling) is UNCHANGED and it/(proper installation) is UNCHANGABLE."

AND, I am not changing the theoretical dimensions of the Hirth Coupling ...

Believe-it-or-not (and, clearly you don't), it is YOU (the two of you!) who have changed the dimensions!

Think about it ...

Think about it again until you can wrap YOUR head around the fact that the external shims are pulling the Hirth Coupling apart ...

THAT probably wouldn't be a problem if the UT's "teeth" were cut at 90º, BUT they are tapered & not fully engaged AND the "teeth" experience only partial contact when the 1.0mm separation exists -- a separation which you apparently, naively believe doesn't exist because you have shimmed the side play out of the assembly AND APPARENTLY because you can't see it!!

And so, when you do THAT, you have been changing the effective dimension of the Hirth Coupling as is measurable by the "ideal" Q-FACTOR vs. the rendered-in-assembly Q-FACTOR.

FYI. I thought that using the Q-FACTOR was the easiest dimension to use since there is the easily determinable "ideal" (144.5mm) when the Hirth Coupling is fully (properly!) engaged and the apparent installation dimension (145.5mm-or-more) is generally knowable; but, apparently it was too confusing for the two of you ...

If you want to use your feeler gauge to compare some other part of the crank with-and-without the superfluous shims, then THAT is certainly fine ...

FYI. WITHOUT shims would be when the crankset is not installed in a frame.

Would you have preferred that I said "I measure the width of the crank to be ____mm at this-or-that arbitrarily chosen point on the outside of the crank when the Hirth Coupling is fully engaged AND it is ____mm at the arbitrarily fore mentioned point on the outside of the crank when installed with the Wavy Washer & Wire Clip."?!?

WHY NOT use a known dimension (145.5mm) as a working given and compare it with the "ideal" dimension?

AND THEN, determine if the "ideal" an be achieved without using shims?!?

Was it really that confusing for you??

Apparently it was AND is.

If you truly cannot comprehend how measuring the external dimension reflects changes internally (i.e., a created "gap" in the Hirth Coupling) then you have to stop smoking-or-drinking whatever you have been using recreationally.

If you truly believe that the tightened connecting bolt suffices to engage the UT's Hirth Coupling, then you apparently don't understand THIS particular mechanical system & its Hirth Coupling as well as you think you actually do.

Regardless, I'm glad the various jury rigged kluges work for you/others, but it just makes more sense that if one can blueprint (I am presuming that you understand the concept of blueprinting) the frame's BB shell to spec, then the kluges (aka "shims") won't be necessary ... AND, that has been the point which I have been unsuccessfully trying to make.

Believe me, I understand the use of shims ...

I have used shims ...

While shims are often an "easy" solution, that hardly means they are a-better-or-the best solution.

As a machinist/engineer, YOU should know that shims are a half-assed "fix" which are employed to expedite assembly rather than addressing the underlying situation (which, of course, may not be always possible) ...

BUT, the underlying situation is addressable in the case of a UT crank installation ...

THAT IS, if a person can blueprint the BB shell + eliminate the Wavy Washer & Wire Clip when installing a UT crankset then (by my reckoning) they won't need shims because there won't be any side play ...

AND, I further reckon that if the BB shell is blueprinted, then the likelihood of fracturing a spindle will be greatly diminished because there won't be any gnashing of the two halves.

Do YOU really not understand that?

Certainly, at this point it may probably seem better for the two of you to leave-well-enough-alone with your shims ...

But, do you really believe that there are no micro-movements which are possible when the "teeth" of the UT's spindle halves are not fully engaged AS IS THE CASE when you don't ensure that the external measurement (e.g., Q-FACTOR) is idealized?

AGAIN, try to think about it when your head is clearer than it has been ...

Because, if you are going to tell me that you have been thinking about this situation with a clear head AND if you truly believe that I have been obfuscating by suggesting that you actually take the time to make a real world measurement to determine the crankset's "ideal" dimension AND SO the ideal installation dimensions, then I have to begin to think that you (that can be a collective "you" want to include your new BFF) are actually/surprisingly/sadly "an idiot."
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
I can't believe I'm replying to this batshit crazy old fart...again.



"I have actually measured the dimensions of multiple Ultra Torque cranksets ... "

We don't care. It's irrelevant.



"it is YOU (the two of you!) who have changed the dimensions!"

No. No we have NOT.

Just a few thousands too tight on the shims and you get excessive and easily noticeable drag or you lock the ****ing crank up. Are you actually retarded or just pretending to be retarded?



"Think about it ..."

No. I do NOT need to 'think' about it. I already fixed the sonnovabitch THREE bicycles and EIGHT years ago and on every subsequent bike I've owned since that first UT crank. In all those tens of thousands of miles on multiple bikes there was ZERO problems. None. Nada. Zip. Go stuff yourself in a trash can along with your moronic ideas.



"Think about it again until you can wrap YOUR head around the fact that the external shims are pulling the Hirth Coupling apart ..."

No. No they are NOT. You're on drugs.

All the shims are doing is taking up the CLEARANCE in the assembly that causes the noise and never should have been there in the first place you moonbat. Now, go away before we continue laughing at you idiotic ideas about the fixing bolt or flexing Hirth Joint causing the noise or your dumbass 'air gap' comments.

Good grief, Alf! With every post you add to this thread you exude more ignorance than I though humanly possible.
 

ColnagoC60

New Member
Jul 13, 2015
51
4
8
LOL

Quote:
Think about it ...

Think about it again until you can wrap YOUR head around the fact that the external shims are pulling the Hirth Coupling apart ...

Unquote
Man, this dude must have the poorest technical aptitude I have ever seen.

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

George Carlin
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Here's another one for your dumb ass to dodge...

"AND, I further reckon that if the BB shell is blueprinted"

How the **** does one "blueprint" a BB shell you dipshit. It is what is, in terms of width. Re-face it, line bore it or do whatever you want to it, but you be eliminating material and it is a known that UT cranksets can and do click with a BB that is on high limit.

Eliminating the wave washer ADDS more clearance, the source of the noise. You can cure the noise with or without the wave washer in place as long as your shim(s) remove the excess endplay/axial clearance that causes the noise. Eliminating the drive side wire bearing retainer does exactly **** ****. All my bikes are quiet with the retainer in place or removed. The ONLY thing the retainer wire does is to hold the right side crank in place.

And guess what, moonbat? What C60 and I both accomplished was through "blueprinting" the assembly, not the BB shell...which is pretty much an impossibility as far as resolving the noise issue.

"Blueprinting" the requires the addition of material to remove the endplay. We call that material...SHIMS you douche nozzle. SHIMS. You damned right it's expedient and is the method that has been used by mechanics, machinists, engineers and...bicycle repairmen since the first loose bearing assembly was detected.


OK, Alf...tell us all exactly how you "blueprinted" your BB shell and eliminated parts​
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote by C60:
"Man, this dude must have the poorest technical aptitude I have ever seen."

But...but...he can BLUEPRINT a BB shell!!!11!!ONE! OMFGWBBQ, the dude is on fire with gospel advice!

The sad fact is that all he had to do was to read and comprehend what you posted and what I posted and he would have saved himself from looking like a moron.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
C'mon, Alf. Let's see your blueprint. What is it you do to your BB that no one else does that builds a bike from the fame up...aside from verifying the Q-Factor. Frankly, I've never know a pro wrench or garage shop amateur to measure his Q-Factor.

In the mean time...even the Park Tool website agrees that shims/spacers may be needed in the Camptastic UT design...

http://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/external-bearing-crank-systems-hollowtech-ii-megaexo-giga-x-pipe-x-type-campagnolo-ultra-torque

"There is a "wavy washer" in the left side cup (Figure 4). This washer is used to account for variations in frame shell widths. For the common "English" or BSC shell the width acceptable width is from 67.2 to 68.8mm. The wavy washer is in effect the "bearing adjustment." If a bottom bracket shell measures too wide, it will need to be machined until it is with the tolerance range. If the shell is too narrow, spacers may be added."

Amazing...the Rogue Mechanic pictured sticking a boat load of shims under the off-drive side cup. Just like I did several years before him!
http://roguemechanic.typepad.com/roguemechanic/2009/10/wavywasherectomy-the-ultratorque-fix.html

Well, I'll be the light in the darkness and report that even the widest 'in spec' BB shell width can still click and tick. Frankly, using only the wave washer as a pre-load control is insanity.

Alf, you best get your ass over to RM's blog and tell him his 'air gap' in the Hirth Joint is all ****ed up and ****. I'm sure you'll soon have him measuring Q-Factors and throwing away retainer clips.
 

dhk2

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2006
2,214
74
48
75
I suddenly have an intense desire to go adjust the preload on my 1975 Stronglight 93 BB....is that wrong?
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
As long as you lubricate that old 93 with a 1972 vintage red from Bordeaux it will never wear out! Cracking the arms into two pieces? No guarantees!

Be sure and check your Q-Factor every 6,000 KM's or every P-B-P you complete...whichever comes first.

And please! Keep the air gap at either 1 MM or 0.1 MM...depending on which post of Alf's you happen to be reading.

66 miles this afternoon with a silent Campagnolo UltraTorque smoothly spinning through the hills of Ohio. I would have stretched it to 80 miles, but while I managed to skirt the first light rain front that came through, the next cell to roll through was one of those dark blue gray skies that brings nothing good. Heavy rains and high winds followed shortly.
 

dhk2

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2006
2,214
74
48
75
Nah, good old axle grease is all it ever got, and can't remember when I did that last. The old Raleigh GS just sits mostly now, gets maybe two rides a year. It's all original, so don't take it too far from home. Plus the gearing isn't really enough for my home hill.

Did 45 mostly flat miles here, riding out on the Arsenal where the traffic is almost non-existent on weekends.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Those were good bikes. White & Blue-Green paint?

I have a 1975 Competition Gran Sport...Black with White trim. Campy Gran Sport group and Weinmann brakes and rims. I think it was a model below the Gran Sport. Still sits on the original (dry rotted) tires.

I agree, they are both too classy and too obsolete to ride.

Glad you got a good ride in! Mine had way too many passing cars. Every road I tried seemed to be full of vehicles. I might as well have ridden the main state routes...it couldn't have been much more busy. I did get a cool road find...a HBO car sun visor organizer thing with a bunch of zippered pockets! It had an HBO pen and HBO sticky note pad inside, but no money! Just my luck.
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,098
428
83
CAMPYBOB said:
More weirdness from Swami:
"I see Nibali got booted out of the Vuelta for holding onto the team car because he thought he was going to get the infamous 'click click' from his Campag cranks...."

Good. Maybe Nibs can use his down time to fix the creaky shitmaNO BB in my Emonda.​

Of course, I'm sure you're aware Nibali uses Spesh cranks....that use the same creaky Hirth joint construction as Campy. The same design Lightning also borrowed from Campy. The one that unless properly shimmed up...clicks just like the original.

63756_00_d.jpg


Campy has moved away from the expensive to machine Hirth joint to a hard point setup with OverTorque. Although specialty tools are required and setup is more complex than with UltraTorque the noise issue is resolved.

I'll gladly buy the Campagnolo tools when I move to OverTorque cranks...which fit every BB design and BB shell width known to the industry.

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/campagnolo-over-torque-crank-fitting-removing-tool/



Now, please instruct the class as to which other crank manufacturers besides Campagnolo also utilize wave washers as pre-load devices?
I put that jibe about Nibiliballs in there as a long running quip about him not running a Campag groupset.

The only other cranks I care about that use preload from wave washers are Cannondales BB30 SLSi's - light, stiff and never creek. The Rotor 3D+ that I also use have a threaded colar for preload. They too don't creek.

Overtorque is exactly the same as the Rotor configuration. BB30 with a collar that's not really needed and added for complexity. Campag also saw fit to add more tools, that are undoubtedly expensive, than are really needed.