The Infamous Bb86 Ultra Torque Click



CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
More third world whining from Swami:
"Campag also saw fit to add more tools, that are undoubtedly expensive, than are really needed."

$77.14 Of course, you cheapskate shitmaNO buyers could cheap out even more and buy a craptastic Park Tool CBP-5 version for $54.36 or less. Probably still more than a Dura-Ass group sells for...I know...

And more than you earn in week, but still inexpensive for anyone that can afford Campagnolo.

Say, you could earn some extra money by shining my barn boots.
 

alfeng

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

THAT advice means I don't have to reply to YOU in the future!
 

ColnagoC60

New Member
Jul 13, 2015
51
4
8
alfeng said:
EXCELLENT ...

THAT advice means I don't have to reply to YOU in the future!
Well, since you totally screwed up my thread, I really hope you keep your promise.
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
CAMPYBOB said:
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 said:
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.
OMG, OMG, OMG!!!

It IS sad that MY error is BOTH not realizing that your self-imposed ignorance means that you do not understand how the term blueprinting has been used for decades outside of your apparently parochial environment AND possibly my thinking that you were smarter than you are ...

BECAUSE, it is very sad to see YOU, in particular, wallowing in your ignorance ...

FYI. In addition to the simplistic interpretation which you are apparently conflating with the alternate denotation, the term blueprinting has been used for decades (probably, more than a century!) to refer to bringing an internal combustion engine EITHER up to spec OR to within a preferred parameter ...

BUT, one can certainly use the term blueprinting to suggest ensuring the physical execution of a design is at spec ...

Regardless, EITHER the draftsman OR the "mechanic" can render the engineer's design & values.

So, to blueprint a BB shell is to ensure that it is not only properly faced (if a threaded BB shell), but that it's width is AS SPECIFIED (spec'd, if you will allow) ...

So, an English threaded BB shell is 68.00mm wide.

NOT 68.10mm ...

NOT 67.90mm ...

NOT EVEN "slightly over" at 68.01mm ...

OR 67.98mm.

A blueprinted English threaded BB shell is just 68.00mm because THAT is the specification!

Similarly, a blueprinted Italian threaded BB shell is just 70.00mm.

A Press Fit BB shell's specs can be reverse-engineered (if necessary) by installing the UT spindles (with bearings) without the superfluous Wavy Washer, etc. BECAUSE (thanks to SIMPLE ARITHMETIC), the "ideal" width of the assembly when the Hirth Coupling's halves are snugly joined to one another is known.

Is it possible to measure the width of an Ultra Torque crankset when the two halves are properly joined?

Why, yes it is!!

Do you want to guess what that measurement is at various points along the two crankarms?

WHERE do you think the easiest place would be to make a measurement?

Let's see ...

Oh, you could measure the overall width at the spindle ...

THAT measurement would need to be done two times ...

1. installed with the miscellaneous Wavy Washer/etc.
2. with the crankset outside the frame so that a "raw" measurement
can be taken when the Hirth Coupling is properly joined together

Or, you could certainly measure the overall width at an arbitrary distance from the spindle ...

Or, if a person wanted to, they could simply measure it at the pedal holes and then not need to measure the installed width. THAT figure is a known ... a given ... in some cases, it exceeds the prescribed numerical value emblazoned near the end of every Campagnolo Ultra Torque crank arm when it leaves the factory.

The use of the Q-FACTOR as a measurement is-and-was a simple expedient label which was-and-may-still-be too complicated for you to wrap your head around.

Are you still with me, or is that too complicated for you?!

So, to blueprint a BB shell is NOT to render a drawing but to ensure that it is as close to 68.00mm by whatever means possible ...

Got it?

AGAIN, it does NOT just mean rendering a design on paper ...

OR, do YOU insist on continuing to wallow in your ignorance in what the term blueprinting means outside of your parochial experience?!?


BTW. Regarding the Troll's opening post in this Thread wherein he tried to ensure that we understood he was a serious cyclist (after all, he has a Colnago C60 which is outfitted with Campagnolo Super Record components) and he supposedly worked as an engineer at "Mercedes" & therefore he should be considered to be a serious commentator on the topic, if he was as smart as he wants us to think that he is, then would he have bought an Ultra Torque crankset [due to the known "clicking" problem and NOT knowing about the "Rouge (sic) Mechanic's" kluge to "fix" the "clicking" problem] OR once he, himself, experienced the "clicking" problem then he probably would have come up with a better solution than using the comparatively unstable silicon compound to dampen the "clicking" sound.


Of course, I was critical of the UT design almost as soon as I became aware of it (mostly because of the Wavy Washer & what it implied); but, I had-and-have fallback cranksets & BBs which I am more than willing to mix-and-match with my various Campagnolo shifters/derailleurs ...


Regardless, wouldn't it have been wrong for ME to continue to heckle the UT design if I did not try to better ascertain the underlying design & its subsequent production implementation?

A few minutes taking the single measurement when the Hirth Coupling is actually connected properly & comparing it with the "standard" installation + known kluges AND the fact that the original specs were apparently maintained in the manufacturing of the spindle & BB cups were all it took to appreciate the probable, original design + the problems of possible lateral play + the supplied solution + the correct installation if everything is as it was on the original plans.


BTW. The connecting bolt on all of MY Ultra Torque cranksets have right hand threads. MY observation is that it has the same threading as the "crank" bolt which can be used to secure an Octalink-or-ISIS crank arm to its BB respective spindle.

Makes one wonder what else YOU might have gotten wrong!!!

I won't do the arithmetic for you, again, since that seems to confuse the you (the "collective" you); but, I will if you want me to do it for you.

Anyone-and-everyone else can complicate the installation of their UT cranksets as they choose; but, knowing what I know AND while things may change in the future, for the time being I prefer not to complicate the installation & maintenance of my UT cranksets because I think that it easier (for me!) to ensure that the BB shell's dimensions are properly spec'd. :)


FWIW. Here is a UT crankset sans the unnecessary Wavy Washer or superfluous Wire Clip which I installed in an English threaded BB shell which has been physically blueprinted which you can compare (visually) with your installations ...


FUJI_S10-S_BB.jpg
I'll let YOU guess what the Q-FACTOR is!!! :D
 

CAMPYBOB

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

Moonbat.
Crazoid.

Alf, you're nucking futz.

As long as the damned piece of **** BB shell is within tolerance (Per Campy spec sheet ±0.2 MM or ±0.5 MM non-threaded or 67.2 MM to 68.8 MM for English and 69.2 MM to 70.8 MM for threaded BB's) depending on cup and application) and faced. That's ±.031" or 1/16" total tolerance on length. A football field! ...oh...**** this ****. Alf, you're a moron. Period.

If the bike has a BB shell sitting on high limit and it is still clicking or if it is sitting at nominal width and it is still clicking or if it's below nominal and it is still clicking...you're an idiot. And I've run into all three conditions. Guess what that makes YOU?

Clearance...is clearance. And all the blueprining on the planet will not restore material to clearance conditions. Regardless of the shell width the crank WILL walk left and it WILL walk right and it WILL make noise. Removing the wave washer and/or the retainer wire will NOT reduce the clearance condition nor will it prevent the bearings from moving in the cups and slapping the bejeezus out of them.

We realize you're brain dead by now, so I fully expect you to conjur up another 400-word essay on why we are wrong and you are correct...



"The connecting bolt on all of MY Ultra Torque cranksets have right hand threads."

That's because you don't have a Super Record model with the Ti bolt and LEFT hand threads, you moron. But, go ahead and make fun of the OP for having something better than you own. And it's not for what he owns that makes him correct and you out in left field with your thumb up your ass...it's common sense. Something you do not possess an ounce of.

Go away and stay away from this thread. The Hirth Joint...the fixing bolt...the fixing bolt's thread hand/direction...the Q-Factor...the Wave Washer...the Retainer Clip...where a person measures 'something'...all have absolutely LESS than zero to do with ANYTHING.

And calling the OP a troll? REALLY?! Alf, you're a piece of work.

We're engineers. And we've known what blueprinting a piece is long before you ever plugged your first computer into the wall socket. In four pages of your mindless ******** and drivel you've informed us of NOTHING that relates to the ticking problem or offered anything that will cure it.
 

alfeng

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

Moonbat.
Crazoid.

Alf, you're nucking futz.

As long as the damned piece of **** BB shell is within tolerance (Per Campy spec sheet ±0.2 MM or ±0.5 MM non-threaded or 67.2 MM to 68.8 MM for English and 69.2 MM to 70.8 MM for threaded BB's) depending on cup and application) and faced. That's ±.031" or 1/16" total tolerance on length. A football field! ...oh...**** this ****. Alf, you're a moron. Period.

If the bike has a BB shell sitting on high limit and it is still clicking or if it is sitting at nominal width and it is still clicking or if it's below nominal and it is still clicking...you're an idiot. And I've run into all three conditions. Guess what that makes YOU?

Clearance...is clearance. And all the blueprining on the planet will not restore material to clearance conditions. Regardless of the shell width the crank WILL walk left and it WILL walk right and it WILL make noise. Removing the wave washer and/or the retainer wire will NOT reduce the clearance condition nor will it prevent the bearings from moving in the cups and slapping the bejeezus out of them.

We realize you're brain dead by now, so I fully expect you to conjur up another 400-word essay on why we are wrong and you are correct...



"The connecting bolt on all of MY Ultra Torque cranksets have right hand threads."

That's because you don't have a Super Record model with the Ti bolt and LEFT hand threads, you moron. But, go ahead and make fun of the OP for having something better than you own. And it's not for what he owns that makes him correct and you out in left field with your thumb up your ass...it's common sense. Something you do not possess an ounce of.

Go away and stay away from this thread. The Hirth Joint...the fixing bolt...the fixing bolt's thread hand/direction...the Q-Factor...the Wave Washer...the Retainer Clip...where a person measures 'something'...all have absolutely LESS than zero to do with ANYTHING.

And calling the OP a troll? REALLY?! Alf, you're a piece of work.

We're engineers. And we've known what blueprinting a piece is long before you ever plugged your first computer into the wall socket. In four pages of your mindless ******** and drivel you've informed us of NOTHING that relates to the ticking problem or offered anything that will cure it.
IT'S SAD ...

THAT you are too lazy to measure the actual width of your crankset when it is not installed in a frame ...

AND, that you are incapable of processing the ideal vs. the half-assed allowable specs when all the kluges are employed ...

AND, that you can't wrap your head around the fact that YOU are separating the two halves of the Hirth Coupling by an amount which someone at Campagnolo deemed to fall within acceptable paramenters when you install the crank with all the kluges.

AND SO, that you feel it is easier mock me as the alternative because you cannot-or-won't apparently ensure that the BB shell of your bikes meet their ideal specification SIMPLY BECAUSE you are in apparent denial that if the BB shell meets its ideal measurement that the imprecision which is allowed by the kluges are compensated for by the unnecessary add-ons.

THAT if the two of your are representative of the caliber of engineers which have been produced by American Colleges & Universities that it is little wonder why America has been in decline over the past few decades.

AGAIN. Anyone-and-everyone else can complicate the installation of their UT cranksets as they choose; but, knowing what I know AND while things may change in the future, for the time being I prefer not to complicate the installation & maintenance of my UT cranksets because I think that it easier (for me!) to ensure that the BB shell's dimensions are properly spec'd.

As far as the LEFT HAND THREAD of the Super Record spindle, well if its true, then I stand corrected.

All I can add to that is "Why would someone buy THAT level of component if it is supposedly known to have a flaw?"

Is conspicuous consumption THAT important?

If conspicuous consumption is important for the OP or for you or for anyone else, well, that's more than okay-by-me; but, IMO, the individual shouldn't subsequently complain about it after-the-fact if there is a KNOWN quirk in the item(s) in question UNLESS he is trolling for replies which he wants to dispute.
 

ColnagoC60

New Member
Jul 13, 2015
51
4
8
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
C'mon Alf, you promised that you will no longer address me. Disappointing to see you continue. Let me go see if they have an ignore button here somewhere.

Once you told us that you wanted to put a Polyethylene washer under a bolt that has a torque spec up to 60Nm, I stopped reading, because all the credibility was gone. That means no Engineering education, no apprenticeship, no technical aptitude.
 

dhk2

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2006
2,214
74
48
75
Alf, as a proud recipient of engineering degrees from a couple of the US finest public schools, I agree with you that thestandards have declined disastrously over the last couple of decades. Back in my day, 40+ years ago, we all carried sliderules and I assure you we weren't afraid to use them. I blame the advent of the transistor....leading to calculators, computers and now all sorts of crutches for students.

And truth be told, as an EE, I never thought much of ME's either. Sure, they were a step above Petroleum Engrs, IE's, andof course the lowly Engr Mgt grads, but that's not saying much now is it?
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote by Alf:
"As far as the LEFT HAND THREAD of the Super Record spindle, well if its true, then I stand corrected."

Of course it's ****ing true, dipshit.

Stand corrected? STAND CORRECTED?!?!?! Every damned moronic comment you made in this threads stands corrected.



"All I can add to that is "Why would someone buy THAT level of component if it is supposedly known to have a flaw?"

Alf, EVERY damned model in the ****ing line of UT cranks has the same damned flaw. Not just Super Record. ALL of them, you retard.

Now c'mon. I REALLY want to hear how a dumbass, such as yourself, 'blueprints' a BB shell with a ±1/32" tolerance with CLEARANCE between it and the crankset assembly by REMOVING material and INCREASING the clearance that causes the noise.

Well, dumbass...we're waiting. Do tell.

Or continue on with your ****ing retarded socialist **** about "conspicuous consumption" because someone has nicer stuff than you.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote by dhk2:
"And truth be told, as an EE..."

An E.E.? You just lost all credibility! Unless there's a static charge/discharge causing pitting in C60's bearing balls and races we have no need for an E.E. and their constant quoting of resistor values!

Go back to breaking Ohm's law! I was trained on a slide rule, but fortunately desktop calculators with neon tube displays replaced them before my first M.E. job.

You E.E.'s are lower than Civil Engineers. Those guys design the targets my weapon delivery systems turn to rubble.

And my old H-P 10C can take your calculator on any day!
 

ColnagoC60

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

LOL, this thread is getting hilarious.

I graduated overseas, where the curriculum difference between an Electrical Engineer and Mechanical Engineer was a difference of two credits, if I can remember. And Civil, probably around four credits difference. So we did not really distinguish between the disciplines, an Engineer is an Engineer where I come from. When you run multiple large manufacturing operations, including building new plants, you pretty much need to know all the disciplines.

That said, I had to take the PE exam over here, as they would not accept my PE from overseas and I think it was a good exam with reasonable standards, although a lot more towards one discipline only.

The dude still stuck on a slide rule, man he must be one of those Amish fellars Campy Bob was referring to earlier. I can also remember the slide rule, but fortunately life forced me to stay up to date with latest technology and practices.

And then we have AlfEng (Engineer???) who blue prints using soda cans and milk jugs.
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,098
428
83
CAMPYBOB said:
More third world whining from Swami:
"Campag also saw fit to add more tools, that are undoubtedly expensive, than are really needed."

$77.14 Of course, you cheapskate shitmaNO buyers could cheap out even more and buy a craptastic Park Tool CBP-5 version for $54.36 or less. Probably still more than a Dura-Ass group sells for...I know...

And more than you earn in week, but still inexpensive for anyone that can afford Campagnolo.

Say, you could earn some extra money by shining my barn boots.
I didn't think you wore barn boots at the same time as those Blue Oyster Bar leather chaps...

Rotor managed the same setup as Campag but only require an 8mm allen wrench, a shimano cassette lockring removal tool and a 2.5mm allen wrench for the locking collar.

Cannondale launched their Si cranks with the very simple two bolts and a couple of wave washers 15 years ago. It's very simple and works like a charm. A simple crank removal tool is required (similar to the old school cranks that fit on tapered bottom bracket spindles) to get the cranks off. While I'm surprised that Campag didn't do something as simple, upon reflection it really doesn't surprise me - when does Campag ever do anything simple?

As you probably figured out by now, I don't have any Shimano cranks. ;)

Money is something that should be spent on "the good stuff." Alas, I don't put Campag into that category anymore. I did when I started racing but I saw the light with Dura Ace 7400. Money, the little Mesa Boogie Mark 5:25 I recently bought, worth every penny... A quality bit of kit.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote by Swami:
"a shimano...tool..."
There are already too many tools in this thread.



"I don't have any Shimano cranks."
Sounds like you're slowly starting to see the light. Either that or you contracted a venereal disease. And Cannonwhale sucks Dorel donkey ballz.
If life got any fuglier than this we would all be driving nails in our eyes...and not just due to Alf's nonsensical rantings.
2013-Cannondale-SiSL2-Hollowgram-lightweight-crankset03-600x450.jpg




"the little Mesa Boogie Mark 5:25 I recently bought, worth every penny..."
Pfffft! I've got transistor radios from the 1960's with more Watts RMS, cleaner power and a Dynaco that clips at 255 per side. But, if busking down at the Greyhound station to earn quarters to pay for your shitmaNO **** is your gig, who are we to judge?
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
CAMPYBOB said:
Quote by Alf:
"As far as the LEFT HAND THREAD of the Super Record spindle, well if its true, then I stand corrected."

Of course it's ****ing true, dipshit.

Stand corrected? STAND CORRECTED?!?!?! Every damned moronic comment you made in this threads stands corrected.



"All I can add to that is "Why would someone buy THAT level of component if it is supposedly known to have a flaw?"

Alf, EVERY damned model in the ****ing line of UT cranks has the same damned flaw. Not just Super Record. ALL of them, you retard.

Now c'mon. I REALLY want to hear how a dumbass, such as yourself, 'blueprints' a BB shell with a ±1/32" tolerance with CLEARANCE between it and the crankset assembly by REMOVING material and INCREASING the clearance that causes the noise.

Well, dumbass...we're waiting. Do tell.

Or continue on with your ****ing retarded socialist **** about "conspicuous consumption" because someone has nicer stuff than you.
SAD, VERY SAD ...

Although you previously suggested that you understand what the term blueprinting means, you continue to say things which suggests otherwise ...

Blueprinting "a BB shell with a ±1/32" tolerance with CLEARANCE between it and the crankset assembly by REMOVING material and INCREASING the clearance that causes the noise" is a specious suggestion of what I have been saying AND the image of the installed crankset which I provided wherein it should have been visually evident that the arms-and-bearings are nesting snugly in their BB cups AND SO should have been a clue for you that you have been barking up the wrong tree with the sloppy tolerances which are fixed in your mind ...

Let me simplify it for you BECAUSE, as you noted, "EVERY damned model in the ****ing line of UT cranks has the same damned flaw" ...

BUT, rather than be like the two of you (specifically, in this thread) who think you are smarter than the Campagnolo engineering team, I decided to actually investigate the design to see if there was a rationale for the addenda which results in what seems to be a rubegoldberg contraption ...

AND, by my reckoning (which you can continue to dismiss as long as you want because it doesn't change reality), the dimensions of the Ultra Torque's spindle & Hirth Coupling suggests that the crank was-and-still-is intended to be capable of being installed without the Wavy Washer and Wire Clip IF the BB shell is blueprinted ...

YES, it turns out that the possible, underlying design & intention of the Campagnolo design team was determinable if one isn't closed minded with the beginning presumption that they were "fresh out of college, with no practical experience and let them loose on AutoCad."

The following are three examples of what happens to a UT crankset when it is installed WITHOUT the Wavy Washer or any other add-on. The numerical value is the width in millimeters for an English threaded BB shell ... TWO are by direct observation ...

67.95 -- bearings will probably begin to prematurely wear the cartridge's races due to the lateral micro-movement which is inevitable from pedaling; and, will subsequently "click" ...

NO, I did not try this undersized BB shell dimension by intentionally ruining a BB shell ... the consequence of an undersized shell is an extrapolation (you do know what that is, don't you?) based on what often happens when the Wavy Washer is included in the assembly.

68.00 -- NO add-ons needed ... no "click" ... no lateral movement of the crank ... the crank spins freely.

68.01 -- crank arms will probably bind ... it did for me ... yes, the tolerance is THAT tight.

QED, it appears that the original Ultra Torque design naively presumed a perfect BB shell ... NOT one with a ±1/32" tolerance which the "shimmage" compensates for [You do know what compensation is, don't you? Have you been confused because you did not understand that kluge is a term which Bell Labs came up with to describe how they dealt with (i.e., remedied/fixed) one of the devices which they bought from a Danish company named "Kluge"?] which you seem to want to insist was in the original design.

Get it?

It's repeatable by ANYONE.

If you think that the suggested installation isn't possible AND that I am "nucking futz"/etc. then I must be either the-luckiest-or-the-best person wrenching on his bikes who populates this Forum because I can set up a UT crankset so that it doesn't "click" simply by ensuring the BB shell is blueprinted & eliminating the dross ...

Nay, since I haven't won the Lottery, yet, I must certainly be the best Wrench in North America ...

The Western Hemisphere ...

The World!!!!

Well, hardly.

I'm just not such a big douchebag that I think that I'm smarter than Campagnolo's engineering team ...

AND, I was willing to spend a few minutes to reverse-engineer their design.

Yes, my investigation might have come to naught, but it didn't.

Or, do you still want to stand by your recalcitrance to actually blueprint your BB shells rather than using the sloppy tolerances which are allowed when using various "shimmage" to compensate?

BTW. Yes, by my reckoning it means that however much you ponied up for a set (or, more for multiple sets!!!) of the Rogue Mechanic's shims was possibly money which did not need to be spent other than as an expedient between-then-and-now when the "free" alternate resolution has been made available.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Alf, you moron, the damned crankset bearings do NOT bind despite the BB shell width being on HIGH LIMIT AND a 0.5 MM shim behind the left side outboard cup AND the wave washer in place AND a .005" shim washer backing it.

You're just nuts.

BTW, 0.01 MM is four TEN-THOUSANDTH's of an inch. Tell me how a bike shop wrench manages to hit that tolerance with a face mill? FOUR TENTH's, Alf. How?

Even hitting your theoretical 0.05 MM (.002") is tough in addition to being absolutely unnecessary because...oh...it's a ****ing bicycle! A simple device that for over 100 years has never required a BB shell width be held to ±.001" in width or 'blueprinted. Not then. Not now.

You're on ****ing drugs. Or you need to be. One or the other.

OK...let me get this straight...

You whine about the $50 Rogue Mechanic gets for shims as being too expensive DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE SOLVES THE PROBLEM.

Then...

You want folks to use a face mill to blueprint their BB's with a rig that just the cutters sell for $150-$300. EACH! Plus, use dial calipers, micrometers (Hey, we're measuring tenth's on a bike frame! Oy vey!) and toss out components that are there to take up...clearance. All for a procedure that does nothing except ADD clearance in an assembly. Clearance that has obviously caused the clicking noise since it is equally obvious it goes away after REMOVING the clearance.

And **** no, my Campy bearings are NOT binding, you dipshit. And **** no they have not worn out prematurely as they are still going strong after years of noiseless use.

And NO, NO one is going to 'blueprint' ANYTHING. Not when tossing in a few shims for $10-$15 and 10 or 15 minutes FIXES the noise problem and you are advocating material REMOVAL.

In short, you're ****ing looney tunes.
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
254
63
CAMPYBOB said:
Alf, you moron, the damned crankset bearings do NOT bind despite the BB shell width being on HIGH LIMIT AND a 0.5 MM shim behind the left side outboard cup AND the wave washer in place AND a .005" shim washer backing it.

You're just nuts.

BTW, 0.01 MM is four TEN-THOUSANDTH's of an inch. Tell me how a bike shop wrench manages to hit that tolerance with a face mill? FOUR TENTH's, Alf. How?

Even hitting your theoretical 0.05 MM (.002") is tough in addition to being absolutely unnecessary because...oh...it's a ****ing bicycle! A simple device that for over 100 years has never required a BB shell width be held to ±.001" in width or 'blueprinted. Not then. Not now.

You're on ****ing drugs. Or you need to be. One or the other.

OK...let me get this straight...

You whine about the $50 Rogue Mechanic gets for shims as being too expensive DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE SOLVES THE PROBLEM.

Then...

You want folks to use a face mill to blueprint their BB's with a rig that just the cutters sell for $150-$300. EACH! Plus, use dial calipers, micrometers (Hey, we're measuring tenth's on a bike frame! Oy vey!) and toss out components that are there to take up...clearance. All for a procedure that does nothing except ADD clearance in an assembly. Clearance that has obviously caused the clicking noise since it is equally obvious it goes away after REMOVING the clearance.

And **** no, my Campy bearings are NOT binding, you dipshit. And **** no they have not worn out prematurely as they are still going strong after years of noiseless use.

And NO, NO one is going to 'blueprint' ANYTHING. Not when tossing in a few shims for $10-$15 and 10 or 15 minutes FIXES the noise problem and you are advocating material REMOVAL.

In short, you're ****ing looney tunes.
Man-oh-man ...

EITHER I must be really good at wrenching because I have been able to install my UT cranks so they don't "click" without resorting to the Rogue Mechanic's shims ...

BTW. I wasn't whining about anyone ponying up for the Rogue Mechanic's shims ... I was simply saying that a person has another option, now, which just happens to be "free."

OR, I guess it's a good thing that I am "just nuts" & "****ing looney tunes" (and whatever other description comes to your mind!) because it apparently meant that I was not precluded from rendering the BB shells to their ideal spec! :)

FYI. It wasn't the bearings which were binding, it was the crank arm(s) ...

Re-read the statement, again-and-again-and-again, if you need to.
 

dhk2

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2006
2,214
74
48
75
FYI, here's a blueprint for my Megatech BB, circa 2003. I recall my builder showed me the special cutter set he got from FSA in order to final machine the OD bore after welding and artificial-aging of the 7005 shell.

Just for fun, I measured some of the spare bearings and spindles I have hoarded away, using my high-precision Harbor Freight digital calipers. The bearings measured 42.99 or 43.00. The spindle width to the collar stops measured exactly 48.23 on three Ti spindles which I checked.

I was surprised by this width measurement, as this implies that when installed the bearing outer races either aren't fully seated in the BB, or that the preload is taking up the extra .0045 inches in each bearing. Regardless, I've never had an issues with endplay, wobbly bearings or noise from the BB (until the bearings wear out).
 

Attachments

  • MegaTechSpecs.pdf
    369.9 KB · Views: 12

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Quote by Alf:
"BTW. I wasn't whining about anyone ponying up for the Rogue Mechanic's shims ..."

Your memory is as shitty as your mechanical abilities and comprehension of the English language.


"I was simply saying that a person has another option, now, which just happens to be "free."

********! Among other moronic rantings you stated n bold type:
"First, a seemingly obvious reason not to use the Rogue Mechanics solution is because of the PT Barnum cost..."

C'mon, Alf...you can't even remember what you typed yesterday and you expect us to follow your oh-so-learned 'blueprinting' mad skillz...bitching about $45 worth of shims when you require a $300 tool to perform a 'fix' that makes the source of the noise...worse.

****ing BRILLIANT!

Sure, you could pay me or some dumb as you ****stick at a bike shop that, like you, doesn't have a ****ing clue what the difference between 4 thousandths or 4 ten-thousandths of an is finger **** your clicking Colnago or Wilier...AND THEN have to stick MORE shims into the clearance that was OPENED UP by the douche nozzle that milled away MORE MATERIAL from your BB shell!

****ING BRILIIANT!

Keep it up, dumbfuck. With every post you make yourself look even more retarded and pollute the thread with more craptastic bad advice that NO ONE with an ounce of common sense is going to follow.


"It wasn't the bearings which were binding, it was the crank arm(s) ..."

I have no clue how you managed that trick, but a quick swipe with an .005" feeler gage would have told you that you managed to **** something else up that nobody else has managed to **** up.

From your first moronic reply to the last piece of worthless **** you posted, all you've accomplished is to prove an adult really can be dumber than a fifth grader.


C60 was correct. You haven't got a clue.
 

ColnagoC60

New Member
Jul 13, 2015
51
4
8
My silicone ****, apologies I mean BB job, has now just passed 1,000km. The cranks spin forever on the ceramic bearings if I lift the chain and there is still silence. The whole experiment must have taken me at most 15 minutes, while Alf has now spent probably two full days typing the same information over and over and trying to cover up his totally impractical statements that slipped out earlier.

BTW, look at that BB picture he posted carefully. Looks like a Fuji S10-S, painted with no prime coat and no deraillure guide. The frame is probably worth $50, why would anyone want to put Super Record on a POS like that?
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
"My silicone ****, apologies I mean BB job, has now just passed 1,000km. The cranks spin forever on the ceramic bearings if I lift the chain and there is still silence.

You lie!

I'll bet you never even measured your Q-Factor! The only way to cure the ticking noise is to 'blueprint' your BB shell! And I KNOW your Hirth Joint has an air gap and is wobbly because you wee too lazy to cut a milk jug washer for your defective left-hand thread fixing bolt!

BTW, that Fuji's BB shell looks like it was 'blueprinted' all right...with a ball pein hammer. And why the alloy crank arms with SR cups?



"...why would anyone want to put Super Record on a POS like that?"

No clue, but he was all over your case for your "conspicuous consumption" for using the same Super Record level stuff. I will say that Campy makes even a craptastic Fuji a better bike, but I think I would have at least painted the thing (with a primer coat or three) before upgrading it to Campagnolo.

You called it, C60. I don't think either of us has seen anyone so technically inept when it comes to what is the source of the noise (excessive endplay in the installed crankset assembly) and how to cure it (Let's see...should we focus on removing clearance or adding clearance by 'blueprinting' things???).

I think I'll be sticking with my method of 'blueprinting'...carefully adding shims like Goldilocks And The Three Shims. Not too loose...not too tight...just right!

Congrats on the 1K Km mark. I would ask you do a 'How To' thread with pictures and measurements, but for God's sake, do it on another forum and PM me a link to it! You don't stand an ice cube's chance in Hades of getting technical information across on this one.
 

Similar threads