The Infamous Bb86 Ultra Torque Click
- Thread starter ColnagoC60
- Start date
"
OOooo!ColnagoC60 said:
Look at the douchebag ...
So, this is a moment when I am supposed to respond to the douchebag's & doofus's retarded belief that a change in an external measurement apparently has zero effect on a possible internal measurement.
ONE connecting bolt from one of my UT cranks that I bothered to look at indicates only 42Nm, BTW.
So, it is 50Nm and a left hand threaded bolt for a Super Record crankset ...
Interesting ...
Why don't all the other UT cranks have the same bolt threading & spec?
Really DUMB.
FYI. I will say it again so you can foolishly deride the following answer because you are too stupid to do simple arithmetic ...
In real life, the UT Hirth Coupling is NOT properly joined when the Q-FACTOR is 145.5mm ...
THAT's simple arithmetic.
AND, until you can wrap your head around THAT, then NONE of your obfuscating BSing matters.
BTW. Hey douchebag, WHY don't you ask the doofus why he thinks it is so difficult to install-and/or-remove an Over Torque crankset?
OR, has the doofus been able to change his mind since reading my explanation for that process?
Alf, I have obviously failed dismally in trying to educate an absolute idiot.
So I will no longer try, but to your question I will give you a clue.
Titanium has a higher tensile strength, to make sure this joint remains both safe and solid, why do you think Campy made sure you cannot fit a Titanium bolt in a steel crank, or a steel bolt in a titanium crank?
If you grasped that, perhaps it would lead you to sanity.
So I will no longer try, but to your question I will give you a clue.
Titanium has a higher tensile strength, to make sure this joint remains both safe and solid, why do you think Campy made sure you cannot fit a Titanium bolt in a steel crank, or a steel bolt in a titanium crank?
If you grasped that, perhaps it would lead you to sanity.
STILL ... ?ColnagoC60 said:
So, are YOU a douchbag who chooses to either continue to read without comprehension or is it simply that you cannot read?
I said it was "interesting" that the connecting bolt was different ...
But, thanks for clarifying why.
IF the measurable outer dimension of a Campagnolo Super Record crankset when the two halves is 145.5mm when the halves of a Super Record crankset are joined without a frame AND when the fore mentioned outside is measured at the pedal mounting holes, THEN we have been talking past one another about two different sets of dimensions; BUT, if you still have not measured the combined halves when they are not installed in the bike then YOU may want to consider that YOU may be the "absolute idiot" if you eventually determine that the outer crankset dimension is only the 144.5mm which the steel spindled Ultra Torque cranksets have.
IF YOU eventually investigate EITHER a steel spindled Ultra Torque crankset OR find out that your Super Record crankset may also have an outer dimension at the pedal holes of 144.5mm when the two halves are properly joined when NOT mounted in a frame & without any added "shimmage" (which would not be effective when the crankset is not installed, but you should know that) THEN YOU may achieve "sanity"!!!
Holy ****ing ****! Alf's STILL spewing the same moronic idiocy that he dreamed up 8 pages ago!
Alf, you're beyond reaching.
You have zero common sense, but you do have an ego the size of Montana. Just admit it...you're either insane or wrong.
Which is it?
There's nothing to measure. There is no reason to measure ANYTHING. NOT the BB width...NOT the Q-Factor...NOT the wave washer...NOTHING. The ****ing crankset either works without noise or it works with noise.
C60...did you notice, ALF STILL has not addressed the drawings, your pictures or our questions. In other words, all he is...is an egotistical liar. He's intellectually bankrupt and technically nothing more than a joke. Every time I think it's impossible for Alf to make an even bigger ass out of himself he exceeds all expectations of lunacy.
Alf, you're beyond reaching.
You have zero common sense, but you do have an ego the size of Montana. Just admit it...you're either insane or wrong.
Which is it?
There's nothing to measure. There is no reason to measure ANYTHING. NOT the BB width...NOT the Q-Factor...NOT the wave washer...NOTHING. The ****ing crankset either works without noise or it works with noise.
C60...did you notice, ALF STILL has not addressed the drawings, your pictures or our questions. In other words, all he is...is an egotistical liar. He's intellectually bankrupt and technically nothing more than a joke. Every time I think it's impossible for Alf to make an even bigger ass out of himself he exceeds all expectations of lunacy.
Ditch the roof rack and I'll let you in on a few suspension hints that'll not only make the ride better but will enable you to be in the running for an SCCA Regional title...CAMPYBOB said:
... Worked for me.
Hi ... !
I'm doofusbob ...
"I have had the Ultra Torque 'click-tick' on three different bikes. All had outboard threaded bearing cups ...
"I was willing to pony up for the Rogue Mechanic's shims because I'm too stupid to figure out what Campagnolo's engineers intended, so if you tell me that I didn't need to buy them, then I'm going to say that you are a moron & stupid and call you all sorts of names because that reinforces the denial that I am embracing."
I'm doofusbob ...
"I have had the Ultra Torque 'click-tick' on three different bikes. All had outboard threaded bearing cups ...
"I was willing to pony up for the Rogue Mechanic's shims because I'm too stupid to figure out what Campagnolo's engineers intended, so if you tell me that I didn't need to buy them, then I'm going to say that you are a moron & stupid and call you all sorts of names because that reinforces the denial that I am embracing."
^ ^ ^ ^
Holy **** Alf!!!
WTF did you have for breakfast this morning, a bottle of Russian Vodka, or was it something else?
Careful now, we don't want you to OD, just think of all the entertainment this forum will miss!!!!
Holy **** Alf!!!
WTF did you have for breakfast this morning, a bottle of Russian Vodka, or was it something else?
Careful now, we don't want you to OD, just think of all the entertainment this forum will miss!!!!
Quote by Alf:
"Being absurd is, well, absurd ..."
We know. You've mastered that almost as well as posting the same picture five times in one reply. Bravo.
If the Ultra Torque crank was naively designed for a 68.00mm BB shell + precisely machined cups sans "shimmage" ..."
And yet another incorrect assumption on your part. All Campy UT cranksets are designed to work in 68 and 70 MM shells WITH the included factory shim...the wave washer. The wave washer is there to compensate for the ALLOWABLE tolerance spread of BB shells. Campy UT cranksets are designed to work with minimum length, nominal length and maximum length BB shells.
UT cranksets also can make noise with minimum length, nominal length and maximum length BB shells.
Every component of the crankset and BB assembly has an allowable build tolerance. The bearings...the seals...the spindle halves...the cups...the BB shell...the crank arms...of for ****'s sake! Why bother. It's all been said. Alf, you're a ****ing jerk.
The ****ing noise has NOTHING to do with the length of the in-tolerance shell width. In other words, your ****ing 68.00000 dimension is as ****ing retarded as you are.
"then ensuring the BB shell is 68.00mm (and, not to some fanciful precision which you continually try to pretend that I have suggested) seems more logical AND expedient to this moron/idiot than implementing the Rogue Mechanic's trial-and-error (by most individuals) installation."
At least the Rogue Mechanic knows the source of the noise problem and how to cure it...instead of blathering on the internet like the ****ing retard you've made yourself out to be.
And no, you ****ing retard, it is NOT more logical. Nothing you have said in thread is 'logical'.
"then ensuring the BB shell is 68.00mm (and, not to some fanciful precision which you continually try to pretend that I have suggested) seems more logical..."
NO! You ****ing retard, it is NOT more logical. Nothing you have said in thread is 'logical'.
"AND expedient to this moron/idiot than implementing the Rogue Mechanic's trial-and-error (by most individuals) installation."
Rogue Mechanic at least knows the source of the noise and how to cure it. You...are clueless.
Quote by Alf:
"Being absurd is, well, absurd ..."
We know. You've mastered that almost as well as posting the same picture five times in one reply. Bravo.
If the Ultra Torque crank was naively designed for a 68.00mm BB shell + precisely machined cups sans "shimmage" ..."
And yet another incorrect assumption on your part. All Campy UT cranksets are designed to work in 68 and 70 MM shells WITH the included factory shim...the wave washer. The wave washer is there to compensate for the ALLOWABLE tolerance spread of BB shells. Campy UT cranksets are designed to work with minimum length, nominal length and maximum length BB shells.
UT cranksets also can make noise with minimum length, nominal length and maximum length BB shells.
Every component of the crankset and BB assembly has an allowable build tolerance. The bearings...the seals...the spindle halves...the cups...the BB shell...the crank arms...of for ****'s sake! Why bother. It's all been said. Alf, you're a ****ing jerk.
The ****ing noise has NOTHING to do with the length of the in-tolerance shell width. In other words, your ****ing 68.00000 dimension is as ****ing retarded as you are.
"then ensuring the BB shell is 68.00mm (and, not to some fanciful precision which you continually try to pretend that I have suggested) seems more logical AND expedient to this moron/idiot than implementing the Rogue Mechanic's trial-and-error (by most individuals) installation."
At least the Rogue Mechanic knows the source of the noise problem and how to cure it...instead of blathering on the internet like the ****ing retard you've made yourself out to be.
And no, you ****ing retard, it is NOT more logical. Nothing you have said in thread is 'logical'.
"then ensuring the BB shell is 68.00mm (and, not to some fanciful precision which you continually try to pretend that I have suggested) seems more logical..."
NO! You ****ing retard, it is NOT more logical. Nothing you have said in thread is 'logical'.
"AND expedient to this moron/idiot than implementing the Rogue Mechanic's trial-and-error (by most individuals) installation."
Rogue Mechanic at least knows the source of the noise and how to cure it. You...are clueless.
IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE ...CAMPYBOB said:
It's hard to believe that YOU (you can make that the plural, if you want to include your douchebag buddy) EITHER enjoy sounding stupid OR that you are as stupid as your remarks suggest ...
AND, it's hard to believe that just because EITHER you OR the people whom you know are apparently ham fisted that you presume other people are, too.
On the other hand, it's not hard to believe that you are complaining about my replying while asking me to reply to an earlier post ...
Tell me what about the douchebag's pictures warranted comments ...
Did you want me to comment on how he/someone did not set up his front derailleur properly so that the outer plate of the front derailleur rubbed on the inside of the driveside crank arm?!?
BTW. If you REALLY want me to discuss the galling shown in another of the douchbag's pictures, then I will in subsequent post.
Now, since you are so sure of the Rogue Mechanic, perhaps you should re-read his early commentary on the Ultra Torque crankset design.
There is NO reason for me to contact him since I know what works; but, since YOU don't believe me, then you may want to contact him with a query and ask whether it could be possible to install the UT crank arms without the Wavy Washer & Clip IF the BB shell were properly sized.
Now, if YOU can comprehend the following (clipped from the Rogue Mechanic's site) then you will see that it strongly suggests that I may be right ...
3. If all frames with English bottom bracket shells had exactly 68mm shell widths and if all frames with Italian bottom bracket shell widths had exactly 70mm widths and Campagnolo produced the Ultra Torque systems for those respective widths WITHOUT needing to use the wave washer and the retaining spring, there wouldn’t be this issue.
Of course, what he doesn't say is that the inside seat of the BB cups will need to be precisely sized, accordingly.
And, it appears that they are.
All the drawing (which is not that different from an exploded image of an Over Torque crankset) indicates is that YOU are the one who doesn't know what he is looking at.CAMPYBOB said:C60...did you notice, ALF STILL has not addressed the drawings, your pictures or our questions. In other words, all he is...is an egotistical liar. He's intellectually bankrupt and technically nothing more than a joke. Every time I think it's impossible for Alf to make an even bigger ass out of himself he exceeds all expectations of lunacy.
Hey ****stick,
Explain to the unwashed masses exactly how throwing away the wave washer (adds clearance), throwing away the bearing retaining clip AND narrowing the BB shell to precisely 86.000000000 MM (adds clearance) fixes the clicking noise which is caused by...too much clearance in the assembly?
Explain how you face mill your 'blueprinted' BB shell to ±.0002 tolerances and which tools, exactly, do you use to achieve those results and how do you measure it?
But, for kicks ...
Do you realized that the Bottom Bracket cups are held in place by the frame's Bottom Bracket shell?
Do you realize that the Hirth Coupling/Joint, itself, theoretically does not allow for discrepancies in Bottom Bracket shell width?
Do you realize that while the schematic of the Ultra Torque crank appears to suggest an apparent distance of 115mm between the (presumably, SR ... AND, presumably when the Q-FACTOR is the labeled 145.5mm) crank arms when measured at the pedal holes, the actual measurement when the Hirth Coupling is joined sans frame is 117mm on a UT Record crankset and 120mm on an alloy UT crankset?
No, of course you wouldn't since you apparently don't have the more plebeian UT crank arms.
But, since you don't think that measurements matter, you also wouldn't bother to make any measurement ...
Regardless, THAT is why the outer dimension was cited ...
And, the so-called Q-FACTOR is a known measurement.
BUT, on non-SR UT cranks, when the two halves are joined outside a frame, the measurable Q-FACTOR is only 144.5mm.
Now, since you are so sure of the Rogue Mechanic, perhaps you should re-read his early commentary on the Ultra Torque crankset design.
There is NO reason for me to contact him since I know what works; but, since YOU don't believe me, then you may want to contact him with a query and ask whether it could be possible to install the UT crank arms without the Wavy Washer & Clip IF the BB shell were properly sized.
I'm still not sure why you insist on tolerances to Four places when I have suggested only Two.
ANYONE who is not blind-or-retarded can detect/perceive/read/estimate tolerances to two places if they know what they are doing with the simplest measuring tools.
YOU need to explain why you think that the same course tool which might be used for shaping would be used for finer work.
Here's an example which you probably won't understand, but here goes ...
You don't use a rasp to polish a table top.
Get it, yet?
The connecting bolt connects the two halves together ...CAMPYBOB said:
The connecting bolt is as-OR-no-more stable as/than the vertical, connecting cables used on a suspension bridge.
Get it?
But, simple math indicates that the Hirth Coupling is separated by 1.0mm when the measurable Q-FACTOR is 145.5mm instead of 144.5mm ...
Maybe MY cranks & bolts are so old that 42Nm was all that was believed to be needed before any of the suggested crashes occurred BUT the increased suggested range to 60Nm suggests that some failure (e.g., bolt loosening) occurred at the lower part of the range.
Get it, yet?
Your question is proof that YOU don't know what YOU are looking at when you look at the exploded view of an Ultra Torque crankset AND SO it is little wonder why you may have had trouble deciphering the similar depiction of an Over Torque crankset ...CAMPYBOB said:
BECAUSE, the proposed "milk jug washer" is NOT in a position which would affect the separation of the two halves of a UT crankset.
It's function would simply be to dampen the contact between the bolt & the driveside's spindle ...
And so, a "milk jug washer" can be as thin as gold foil.
COMPRENDEZ-VOUS?
Oh ...CAMPYBOB said:
All I can say on the matter is that regardless of how "damned retarded" I may-or-may-not be, I am apparently NOT as retarded as you are!!!
Allowing that you might have been smarter at one time, I don't know if your having become retarded led you to purchase a Shimano-equipped bike ...
OR, if your acting-or-being retarded is an in-/direct consequence of your recently having bought a Shimano-equipped bike and the adverse repeated contact with the bike's Shimano shifters has had on your brain.
"Quote by ****stick:
"I was willing to pony up for the Rogue Mechanic's shims..."
Listen up, moron. I bought shims from Chain Reaction, Wiggle and/or Jenson. Years BEFORE Rogue Mechanic was on the scene. You ****ing dumbass.
"because I'm too stupid to figure out what Campagnolo's engineers intended, so if you tell me that I didn't need to buy them, then I'm going to say that you are a moron & stupid and call you all sorts of names because that reinforces the denial that I am embracing."
Well, we already know you're a dumbass.
We know what Campy intended.
It didn't work.
It didn't work at low limit. It didn't work at nominal. And it didn't work at high limit. You ****ing retard. Go **** yourself. Moron.
"I was willing to pony up for the Rogue Mechanic's shims..."
Listen up, moron. I bought shims from Chain Reaction, Wiggle and/or Jenson. Years BEFORE Rogue Mechanic was on the scene. You ****ing dumbass.
"because I'm too stupid to figure out what Campagnolo's engineers intended, so if you tell me that I didn't need to buy them, then I'm going to say that you are a moron & stupid and call you all sorts of names because that reinforces the denial that I am embracing."
Well, we already know you're a dumbass.
We know what Campy intended.
It didn't work.
It didn't work at low limit. It didn't work at nominal. And it didn't work at high limit. You ****ing retard. Go **** yourself. Moron.
Quote by C60:
"Holy **** Alf!!!
WTF did you have for breakfast this morning, a bottle of Russian Vodka, or was it something else?
Careful now, we don't want you to OD, just think of all the entertainment this forum will miss!!!!"
Booze...a lifetime of it...would explain away his idiocy.
Should you explain to ****stick 'why' your SR model has a 60 Nm spec and his has a 42 spec? Nah...let him continue making an ass out of himself.
This is precious!
"It's function would simply be to dampen the contact between the bolt & the driveside's spindle ..."
Dampen WHAT? You ****ing retard.
"And so, a "milk jug washer" can be as thin as gold foil."
Er...yeah. Gold foil should hold up even better than a milk jug when the torque is applied! LMFAO! Alf, is it booze? Drugs? Or just the most notorious case of Rectal-Cranial Inversion known to modern medicine?
"Holy **** Alf!!!
WTF did you have for breakfast this morning, a bottle of Russian Vodka, or was it something else?
Careful now, we don't want you to OD, just think of all the entertainment this forum will miss!!!!"
Booze...a lifetime of it...would explain away his idiocy.
Should you explain to ****stick 'why' your SR model has a 60 Nm spec and his has a 42 spec? Nah...let him continue making an ass out of himself.
This is precious!
"It's function would simply be to dampen the contact between the bolt & the driveside's spindle ..."
Dampen WHAT? You ****ing retard.
"And so, a "milk jug washer" can be as thin as gold foil."
Er...yeah. Gold foil should hold up even better than a milk jug when the torque is applied! LMFAO! Alf, is it booze? Drugs? Or just the most notorious case of Rectal-Cranial Inversion known to modern medicine?
C60...can you believe he's still saying this:
"But, simple math indicates that the Hirth Coupling is separated by 1.0mm when the measurable Q-FACTOR is 145.5mm instead of 144.5mm ..."
I'm thinking he's got a 1 MM gap between neurons.
Alf, you're ****ing retarded. No one is failing to comprehend anything you've said and trust us on this...not a damned word of it makes sense.
"But, simple math indicates that the Hirth Coupling is separated by 1.0mm when the measurable Q-FACTOR is 145.5mm instead of 144.5mm ..."
I'm thinking he's got a 1 MM gap between neurons.
Alf, you're ****ing retarded. No one is failing to comprehend anything you've said and trust us on this...not a damned word of it makes sense.
UMMmmmm ....CAMPYBOB said:
Not surprisingly, YOU got that backwards ...
The connecting bolts on MY plebiean Ultra Torque cranks indicate 42Nm
BTW. Regardless of its ability to dampen any "clicking" noise, YOUR fixation with the "milk jug washer" (which was long ago discounted) is very peculiar.
Alfie, glad to see you edited that screwed up post where you posted the same picture three times sequentially, including some of your text.
You must be feeling better now, did the stuff you consumed wear off a litte?
BTW, there are absolutely no galling marks on my crank, the top coat is still 100% in tact without any marks or scratches.
What you are seeing in the picture is a reflection of the camera light showing the carbon layup underneath the clear coat. You almost had me there, I had to go look see, but can't see it with the naked eye.
Now you probably won't believe me, neither understand the above, but I am willing to post another picture, provided we wager a little bet about who is right about this. Some Dollars on the bet.
Are you in?
You must be feeling better now, did the stuff you consumed wear off a litte?
BTW, there are absolutely no galling marks on my crank, the top coat is still 100% in tact without any marks or scratches.
What you are seeing in the picture is a reflection of the camera light showing the carbon layup underneath the clear coat. You almost had me there, I had to go look see, but can't see it with the naked eye.
Now you probably won't believe me, neither understand the above, but I am willing to post another picture, provided we wager a little bet about who is right about this. Some Dollars on the bet.
Are you in?
Thanks ...ColnagoC60 said:
But, it's not necessary to post another picture of the inside of your crank arm ...
I would hope that your prior-(or-current) inability to understand what I wrote would not mean you would lie about something so trivial ...
I just couldn't quite see what CAMPYBOB wanted me to comment on in the pictures you had posted other than those "marks" ...
Quote by Alf:
"Not surprisingly, YOU got that backwards ...
The connecting bolts on MY plebiean Ultra Torque cranks indicate 42Nm"
No, you dumbass ****stick. I did not screw anything up. Your typical inability to do anything correctly, includes reading. Moron.
I was addressing C60 when I stated:
"Should you explain to ****stick 'why' your SR model has a 60 Nm spec and his has a 42 spec?"
You...are ****stick. C60 has the 60 Nm Super Record model with Ti bolt. You, ****stick, have the common steel bolt and not a single functioning brain cell between your ears.
Still, it's been a riot kicking your moronic ass from one end of the internet to the other. Dumbfuck.
"Not surprisingly, YOU got that backwards ...
The connecting bolts on MY plebiean Ultra Torque cranks indicate 42Nm"
No, you dumbass ****stick. I did not screw anything up. Your typical inability to do anything correctly, includes reading. Moron.
I was addressing C60 when I stated:
"Should you explain to ****stick 'why' your SR model has a 60 Nm spec and his has a 42 spec?"
You...are ****stick. C60 has the 60 Nm Super Record model with Ti bolt. You, ****stick, have the common steel bolt and not a single functioning brain cell between your ears.
Still, it's been a riot kicking your moronic ass from one end of the internet to the other. Dumbfuck.
So Alfie, educate me a bit further.alfeng said:
What is a "Q Factor" and what does the "Q" stand for?
I was taught it was measuring band width of a resonant system?
Some people use it as a bad slang English word to describe the width, between where a bicycle's pedals attach to the cranks, but how would you relate that to anything to do with the dimensions inside the bottom bracket between the bearing outer race cups, or between screwed in frame cups, or between pressed in cups? I am confused, how would that have anything to do with an air gap in the hirth joint, or causing the click sound? I just read each and every of your posts again and don't understand why you did not rather just copy and paste, as they all say exactly the same thing. I still don't get it, it makes no sense to me?
Could you try and describe it a little different, please?
