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."