Creaking Chorus UT Chainset

rowlers

This is driving me insane...
So its installed as per Campy manual.
I've tried, loctite and handtight, loctite and torqued to 35Nm. Grease on threads and torqued to 35nm.
Centre bolt is tight as tight can be. 55Nm (max of 60Nm)
Frame is faced.
Every pedal stroke when under power, it groans and whines. I have all the issues as described here:
http://roguemechanic.typepad.com/roguem ... -ul-1.html

So are shims really the answer? Is UT really this sh|t?


I very tempted to chuck the italian crap in the trash and go with Shimano as I have zero issues with HTII.

Anyone had this issue and succesfully sorted it, preferably without $40 shim kit or dumping it for Shimano?

Cheers

ugo.santalucia

Check the chainring bolts... I had the same and it took me two weeks to find out it was not the BB... :evil:

halfround

Check the seatpost is done up tight and the saddle to the seatpost. This can cause a creak under power that sounds like the bb.

rowlers

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Check the chainring bolts... I had the same and it took me two weeks to find out it was not the BB... :evil:

Something to check... ta..

I've got the lateral play on the NDS, that is described on the rogue mechanic site. What about using a HTII style plastic spacer? probably too big though and would overload the bearings when I torque the bolt up....

halfround wrote:

Check the seatpost is done up tight and the saddle to the seatpost. This can cause a creak under power that sounds like the bb.

Its mainly when I'm out of the saddle anyway, so I know its not this..

cycleclinic

There is nothing wrong with U-T it works fine. Creaking is caused by something specific. What is the condition of the BB bearings? Also that is width of the BB shell. If it is to narrow then this will case a problem.

The last craky ultra-torque I had in was solved by checking the usual suspects as detailed above. Not too sure which one it was as attend to all of them at once - i.e the case was not the cranks or the BB bearings. It was Q/R skewers, chainring bolt or something else I attended to.

U-T is not crap, there is a cause you just have fond the casue yet.

rowlers

thecycleclinic wrote:

There is nothing wrong with U-T it works fine. Creaking is caused by something specific. What is the condition of the BB bearings? Also that is width of the BB shell. If it is to narrow then this will case a problem.

The last craky ultra-torque I had in was solved by checking the usual suspects as detailed above. Not too sure which one it was as attend to all of them at once - i.e the case was not the cranks or the BB bearings. It was Q/R skewers, chainring bolt or something else I attended to.

U-T is not crap, there is a cause you just have fond the casue yet.

Its maybe not crap, but it (IMO) has a flaw in that you can't preload the bearings like you can on HTII for example.
I'm taking it apart again today see of I can come up with some else.

rowlers

I'm officially an idiot!
I guess I got so carried away believing there was a fundamental flaw in the UT design (i.e. rogue mechanic..) I completley missed the fact that my read QR could have been a little tighter
:oops: :oops: :oops:

So after taking my B apart a dozen times, a quick nip up of the rear QR and the creaking has stopped!
Lesson learned, check the simple stuff first!

Monty Dog

Rogue Mechanic is on a one-man ego-trip to trap unsuspecting victims - the fact that there's hundreds of thousands of people happily riding around on UT cranks seems to have passed him by. If you want a real abomination of a BB design, look at BB30.

cycleclinic

In fact the best BB design is the cartridge sqare taper BB. BB evolution since then has not added much. Octalink was fine I suppose. I will never have a frame that uses BB30.

proto

I looked at a Cervelo recently, an S5, with a view to buying, but was but off by the BBright design of the bottom bracket assembly. Large diameter bearing might be a good idea, but the relatively narrow bearings and press fit into a fairly thin wall section of carbon looked like a recipe for trouble to me. To get a light interference fit into a moulded 'plastic' surface is not good engineering principle. There is plenty of talk of creaking and Loctite being a solution, but this doesn't sound right to me. Steel bearings into something more substantial please. (I bought an S2 instead, conventional BSA BB)

And I agree, square taper worked fine, and Campag ones lasted forever. Campag Ultratorque works well enough, but I'm disappointed by bearing life. Progress eh?

hugo15

proto wrote:

And I agree, square taper worked fine, and Campag ones lasted forever. Campag Ultratorque works well enough, but I'm disappointed by bearing life. Progress eh?

+1

I've got square tapper bottom brackets that have done thousands and thousands of miles. On the other hand I'm only getting around 2500 miles out of the bearing on my Campag UT chainset.

rolf_f

hugo15 wrote:

proto wrote:

And I agree, square taper worked fine, and Campag ones lasted forever. Campag Ultratorque works well enough, but I'm disappointed by bearing life. Progress eh?

+1

I've got square tapper bottom brackets that have done thousands and thousands of miles. On the other hand I'm only getting around 2500 miles out of the bearing on my Campag UT chainset.

I recently replaced my UT BB bearings after about 7000 miles in all weathers. I do have Cruds on though.

mercia_man

proto wrote:

And I agree, square taper worked fine, and Campag ones lasted forever. Campag Ultratorque works well enough, but I'm disappointed by bearing life. Progress eh?

I fitted an original Athena square taper cartridge bottom bracket to my touring bike in the 1990s and it's still going strong after many thousands of miles of holidays in France and UK, often in torrential rain. Bearings still very smooth and no play. I like the way it has adjustable cups each side so you can get enough room on right hand side to fit a triple and also cope with different chainsets - in my case Victory and Veloce, which have a very different fit from each other. Only maintenance is to remove it each year and grease the threads.

pliptrot

Monty Dog wrote:

Rogue Mechanic is on a one-man ego-trip to trap unsuspecting victims - the fact that there's hundreds of thousands of people happily riding around on UT cranks seems to have passed him by

That's a bit harsh. UT is a poor design, and subject to a variety of installation problems. Only Campag with their if-it's-got-Campag-written-on-it-it-must-be-good reputation and their ability to polish dog turds (though not the backs of the Campag cranks I have) could get away with it.

ugo.santalucia

Mercia Man wrote:

proto wrote:

And I agree, square taper worked fine, and Campag ones lasted forever. Campag Ultratorque works well enough, but I'm disappointed by bearing life. Progress eh?

I fitted an original Athena square taper cartridge bottom bracket to my touring bike in the 1990s and it's still going strong after many thousands of miles of holidays in France and UK, often in torrential rain. Bearings still very smooth and no play. I like the way it has adjustable cups each side so you can get enough room on right hand side to fit a triple and also cope with different chainsets - in my case Victory and Veloce, which have a very different fit from each other. Only maintenance is to remove it each year and grease the threads.

I am debating whether to keep my Campagnolo 1979 bottom bracket or upgrade to a Phil Wood square taper sealed cartrdige one... problem is my cranks are Campagnolo old standard, which is not ISO and is not JIS.. apparently they fit both, but...

mercia_man

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I am debating whether to keep my Campagnolo 1979 bottom bracket or upgrade to a Phil Wood square taper sealed cartrdige one... problem is my cranks are Campagnolo old standard, which is not ISO and is not JIS.. apparently they fit both, but...

Much as I like the old really high quality Campag stuff, I'd go for a cartridge BB. I originally fitted my 1991 Alves touring frame with a 1980s traditional Campag asymmetric triple BB with nicely polished bearing surfaces and spiral threads on the centre hole in the cups designed to ensure bits of dirt were expelled as you pedalled. It had a hollow axle and I think it was widened in the centre but I don't know what groupset it was from. But it needed regular re-greasing after wet rides and eventually got too badly pitted.

My 80s Victory cranks fit both old Campag standard and ISO axles so I guess your old Campag cranks would fit a Phil Wood.

Ben6899

pliptrot wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

Rogue Mechanic is on a one-man ego-trip to trap unsuspecting victims - the fact that there's hundreds of thousands of people happily riding around on UT cranks seems to have passed him by

That's a bit harsh. UT is a poor design, and subject to a variety of installation problems. Only Campag with their if-it's-got-Campag-written-on-it-it-must-be-good reputation and their ability to polish dog turds (though not the backs of the Campag cranks I have) could get away with it.

That's also a bit harsh.

g00se

pliptrot wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

Rogue Mechanic is on a one-man ego-trip to trap unsuspecting victims - the fact that there's hundreds of thousands of people happily riding around on UT cranks seems to have passed him by

That's a bit harsh. UT is a poor design, and subject to a variety of installation problems. Only Campag with their if-it's-got-Campag-written-on-it-it-must-be-good reputation and their ability to polish dog turds (though not the backs of the Campag cranks I have) could get away with it.

To be honest - Rogue Mechanic does come across as having the teensiest-weensiest bit of a chip on his shoulder... and shims to sell.

hugo15

I've just had my bike in the LBS and they have said the bearings were fine, just needed the UT joint tightening up a bit. Will check it out more when I pick it up on Saturday.

cycleclinic

It known that sqare taper BB's last longer than all modern BB designs. However that does not make U-T a bad design, it is light and stiff and that was the design paramter not long bearing life. However sqare taper BB's were light and stiff enough as well for most. In fact a Campag Daytona crankset is only 650g and with a Phill wood Ti BB you have something that weighs 800g in total, not exactly heavy.

I also use old campag super record cranks and a cup and cone Camag BB but that is on the TT bike. Also my P-T bearings gave me about 6000 miles of life and they had more life in them since the bike was coming to pieces for painting it was the time to change them. U-T bearing are pretty much the same so they have decent bearing life.

The 2500 miles bearing life tyhat hugo15 reported could be down to the frame not being faced. This is why I insist the distributor send the bikes I sell as a box of parts, that way I know the BB shell get faced properly as I do it. I cannot assume it gets done if someelse builds it. So Hugo 15 get the BB shell checked it should do alot more than that unless you have been jet washing the bike.

hugo15

hugo15 wrote:

I've just had my bike in the LBS and they have said the bearings were fine, just needed the UT joint tightening up a bit. Will check it out more when I pick it up on Saturday.

Oh well, one ride out and the play is back. Booked the bike to go back into the LBS next week

thecycleclinic wrote:

The 2500 miles bearing life tyhat hugo15 reported could be down to the frame not being faced. This is why I insist the distributor send the bikes I sell as a box of parts, that way I know the BB shell get faced properly as I do it. I cannot assume it gets done if someelse builds it. So Hugo 15 get the BB shell checked it should do alot more than that unless you have been jet washing the bike.

No jet washing. Going to get the LBS check the frame and see if it needs facing.

itboffin

Personally so far the only problems i've had with UT was using super record cups on a 2010 centaur UT crankset in the Alps riding a few damp cols then leaving the bike inside for 6 months and the BB cups ceased solid, seems the SR cups have no bearing covers which when left fail.

anyway I switch to a set of record cups with covers and alls good, I also make sure the bike is fully dry and clean now.

Campag its the only way to go 8)

neeb

I must admit that having used plenty of square taper BBs in the past and having been on ultratorque for about 6 years now I much prefer the latter. I had far more problems with square taper cranks gradually coming loose, and they can also be a nightmare to remove sometimes. Never had any significant problems with ultratorque and they are so easy to remove and install with the proper tools as well as being much lighter. And when the bearings need replacing you just buy the bearings, not a whole cartridge unit...

Incidentally OP, I had exactly the same problem as you a few years ago and it was also the rear quick release! Amazing how any creaking sound that is coordinated with pedal revolutions always sounds like it is coming from the BB..

mididoctors

Mercia Man wrote:

proto wrote:

And I agree, square taper worked fine, and Campag ones lasted forever. Campag Ultratorque works well enough, but I'm disappointed by bearing life. Progress eh?

I fitted an original Athena square taper cartridge bottom bracket to my touring bike in the 1990s and it's still going strong after many thousands of miles of holidays in France and UK, often in torrential rain. Bearings still very smooth and no play. I like the way it has adjustable cups each side so you can get enough room on right hand side to fit a triple and also cope with different chainsets - in my case Victory and Veloce, which have a very different fit from each other. Only maintenance is to remove it each year and grease the threads.

I have a bike with a 1994 athena BB still going strong