Campag Ultra torque spring clip?

on-yer-bike

What does the spring clip on the drive side ultra torque cup actually do? Is it necessary?

bondurant

It stops excess lateral movement in your crank.

964cup

I think he means the clip that fits to the outside of the cup, not the wavy washer.

Its actual purpose is to be properly f**king annoying as you try to fit the blasted thing after torquing up the main bolt, with the chainrings in the way. The trick is to leave it on, but just sort of resting in the holes, then breathe on it with your fingers, as it were, to ease it in without it springing off to get lost under the sofa instead.

Its theoretical purpose is to retain your DS crank in case you failed to torque the main bolt properly. This might make sense if there was some reason why the NDS crank wouldn't fall out in those circumstances. Ultra-torque is less sh*t than Power-torque, but that's not saying a great deal.

bondurant

Had me doubting what I wrote...but have a look here. It is to stop lateral movement.

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=131795

Not that this is all about the merits or otherwise of UT but I think that it is a very easy system. PT sounds horrible though, I'd certainly agree with that.

pinno

964Cup wrote:

The trick is to leave it on, but just sort of resting in the holes, then breathe on it with your fingers, as it were, to ease it in without it springing off to get lost under the fridge instead.

FTFY - each to their own I guess.

I have a nice collection of clips. One has a semi circle loop in the middle. Don't know why. It tempts you into thinking you use it to remove the bloody thing.
I did attach a chainset having forgotten to put it in once and the chainset didn't spin very well. So it does (inexplicably) work. Despite only torquing the thing up to the lower limit of 46nm, which I have always done.

964cup

Learn a new thing every day. I've always installed the blasted thing, because I'm anally retentive, but had always assumed it served no real purpose. If my absurdly expensive SR-Ti crankset with overpriced and stupidly-acronymed sort-of-ceramic bearings relies on a 1p piece of bent mild steel wire to manage side load, my opinion of UT has just gone down even further. Presumably the combined FSA/Shimano/SRAM/Rotor/every-other-crankset-manufacturer-not-using-square-taper patent library somehow prevents Campagnolo doing something more sensible; or is this just more Italian cussedness?

Pinno - do you build bikes in the kitchen just for easier access to beer, or is there a less obvious reason?

pinno

Kitchens are clean (well, theoretically). Bathrooms are best for spray paint.

All in all, look at the problems people have with squeaky/loose BB30 type set ups. Once installed, UT and PT cranks are IME, trouble free. I have a 2nd hand SR on my Wilier with faultless, interminable bearings despite the glaring "they're mounted on the outside" - you'd think it's exposure to water etc would compromise them.
Just bought a compact from fleabay. The CS bearing was 'crunchy'. Initially I thought 'bollox, been sold a lemon' but decided that a. I wanted to keep it and b. if I couldn't fix the bearing, I would buy some new over priced one's so bit the bullet and decided to prize the seal out with a pointy thing. I didn't realise that it is also a bearing race, i'll get to that in a bit.
I cleaned the bearing with degreaser and copious amounts of very hot water, re lubricated it and re-assembled it. Well... after umpteen attempts where I had to manually space the bearings out around for the seal/race to fit.
However, it is smooth as silk and I can only presume that there was a shifting of dirt and debris the other end when the seller removed it.

rolf_f

964Cup wrote:

I think he means the clip that fits to the outside of the cup, not the wavy washer.

Its actual purpose is to be properly f**king annoying as you try to fit the blasted thing after torquing up the main bolt, with the chainrings in the way. The trick is to leave it on, but just sort of resting in the holes, then breathe on it with your fingers, as it were, to ease it in without it springing off to get lost under the sofa instead.

I've never found the spring clip to be remotely annoying! Insert one end into one hole (which is marginally tricky but the sort of thing that if you can't manage really suggests you should be paying someone else to maintain your bikes!), rest the other end in the groove and just push the clip until the second end slots into its hole. With one end in to start with, it isn't going to ping anywhere and there's no finesse required to finish the job!

on-yer-bike

Never had any problems with UT seems like a good design to me. Sometimes it can be tricky to remove that clip. A friend never uses the clip says its unnecessary so I wanted to make sure.

ugo.santalucia

The purpose of that clip is to warn amateur mechanics: if they struggle to remove it, they shouldn't attempt any other job on the crankset... it's part of a basic flowchart to establish whether you are a muppet-mechanic :-)

on-yer-bike

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The purpose of that clip is to warn amateur mechanics: if they struggle to remove it, they shouldn't attempt any other job on the crankset... it's part of a basic flowchart to establish whether you are a muppet-mechanic :-)

Haha

cycleclinic

So true ugo. The one reason why I use campagnolo chainset myself both power torque and ultre torque is there reliability. I murder shimano external BB's in 3000 miles. Now wait for all those who say face your BB shell (I did), tap the BB threads (i did) preload the cranks properly I did, use a better BB (I did ultegra or it dura ace) and I ran that bike in the dry mostly at the time. Campagnolo PT and UT BB's just work nicely for a lot longer.

So dont hate campagnolo BB's too much they may be fiddley but they work very well if installed properly. I like kit that last me.

on-yer-bike

I have built and dismantled over 10 bikes with UT chainsets external and internal plus servicing my own bikes. The Record bearings on one of my bikes are still good after six years. Ive never had to replace a BB bearing on my bikes.Non of them make any noise.

ugo.santalucia

on-yer-bike wrote:

I have built and dismantled over 10 bikes with UT chainsets external and internal plus servicing my own bikes. The Record bearings on one of my bikes are still good after six years. Ive never had to replace a BB bearing on my bikes.Non of them make any noise.

And that would not change if you remove the spring clip...

thegreatdivide

Rolf F wrote:

964Cup wrote:

I think he means the clip that fits to the outside of the cup, not the wavy washer.

Its actual purpose is to be properly f**king annoying as you try to fit the blasted thing after torquing up the main bolt, with the chainrings in the way. The trick is to leave it on, but just sort of resting in the holes, then breathe on it with your fingers, as it were, to ease it in without it springing off to get lost under the sofa instead.

I've never found the spring clip to be remotely annoying! Insert one end into one hole (which is marginally tricky but the sort of thing that if you can't manage really suggests you should be paying someone else to maintain your bikes!), rest the other end in the groove and just push the clip until the second end slots into its hole. With one end in to start with, it isn't going to ping anywhere and there's no finesse required to finish the job!

What Rolf said.

joe2008

Never bothered with that clip, using Ultra Torque since it was introduced on multiple bikes, never had a problem

on-yer-bike

The last service I carried out on a friends UT external BB the wrong cups had been fitted without the clip; black SR ones on a Chorus chainset. The bearings had only lasted lasted less than a year and the NDS bearing had moved down the spindle away from the crank by a few mm. The lack of cup seals probably accounts for the bearing failure. I had to buy a long breaker bar to remove the cups and needed another person to hold the frame on the floor.

pinno

on-yer-bike wrote:

The last service I carried out on a friends UT external BB the wrong cups had been fitted without the clip; black SR ones on a Chorus chainset. The bearings had only lasted lasted less than a year and the NDS bearing had moved down the spindle away from the crank by a few mm. The lack of cup seals probably accounts for the bearing failure. I had to buy a long breaker bar to remove the cups and needed another person to hold the frame on the floor.

Then that is a user fault not a part defect.

on-yer-bike

Pinno wrote:

on-yer-bike wrote:

The last service I carried out on a friends UT external BB the wrong cups had been fitted without the clip; black SR ones on a Chorus chainset. The bearings had only lasted lasted less than a year and the NDS bearing had moved down the spindle away from the crank by a few mm. The lack of cup seals probably accounts for the bearing failure. I had to buy a long breaker bar to remove the cups and needed another person to hold the frame on the floor.

Then that is a user fault not a part defect.

No not a part defect at all. The original fitter used the wrong cups, did them up too tight and no spring clip (which could be why the bearing had moved). So dont be tempted to use black bearing cups unless you have ceramic bearings, use the spring clip and dont do the cups up too tight. It all seems to work great if fitted properly in my experience.

964cup

I think some people are experiencing a sense of humour failure...

I agree that my UT bikes have been trouble-free (so was my PT bike, before I moved 'up' to UT. I have to say, though, that out of my (too many) road & cx bikes, the only bearings I've ever had a problem with are the BB30 in my Condor Super Acciaio. Weird, since you'd think a steel BB shell was the one opportunity to get the machining properly inside tolerances. Even that one was easily fixed with retaining compound. That's across FSA MegaExo, Shimano Hollowtech, BB30, BBRight direct-fit, BBRight PF30, regular PF30. Riding in all weathers, but doing timely maintenance and keeping the bikes clean. The trick with the press-fit standards, ISTM, is scrupulous cleanliness during installation, the right prep & retention compounds, and careful installation to ensure proper alignment and correct seating.

I don't see how a Shimano external BB can be any worse than UT. It's essentially the same design, but with the bearing pressed into the cup rather than onto the spindle. So I guess there's a small opportunity for movement of the spindle in the inner face, offset by the closer tolerance between the outer face and the cup. I can't believe there's any meaningful quality difference in bearings, seals or races (CULT aside). I do wish Campagnolo would stop referring to CULT as ceramic when they're hybrid, though. I suppose that's endemic in the industry.

on-yer-bike

964Cup wrote:

I think some people are experiencing a sense of humour failure...

I agree that my UT bikes have been trouble-free (so was my PT bike, before I moved 'up' to UT. I have to say, though, that out of my (too many) road & cx bikes, the only bearings I've ever had a problem with are the BB30 in my Condor Super Acciaio. Weird, since you'd think a steel BB shell was the one opportunity to get the machining properly inside tolerances. Even that one was easily fixed with retaining compound. That's across FSA MegaExo, Shimano Hollowtech, BB30, BBRight direct-fit, BBRight PF30, regular PF30. Riding in all weathers, but doing timely maintenance and keeping the bikes clean. The trick with the press-fit standards, ISTM, is scrupulous cleanliness during installation, the right prep & retention compounds, and careful installation to ensure proper alignment and correct seating.

I don't see how a Shimano external BB can be any worse than UT. It's essentially the same design, but with the bearing pressed into the cup rather than onto the spindle. So I guess there's a small opportunity for movement of the spindle in the inner face, offset by the closer tolerance between the outer face and the cup. I can't believe there's any meaningful quality difference in bearings, seals or races (CULT aside). I do wish Campagnolo would stop referring to CULT as ceramic when they're hybrid, though. I suppose that's endemic in the industry.

What retention compounds do you recommend?

drlodge

I don't think the spring clip serves any useful purpose, it is a bit annoying to remove/attached though.

I have read and suffered some UT bearing issues, some while ago I bought the RogueMechanic Waveywasherectomy shim kit http://roguemechanic.bigcartel.com/prod ... e-shim-kit but have not yet fitted it. May be now is the time to fit it and see if its helps prevent the creaks and clicks.

bondurant

Have a look at the weight weenies thread I posted earlier in the thread with a contribution from a campag service centre rep and then see if you still think it is useless.

I'd be avoiding any rogue mechanic advice as I would my brother-in-law's opinions on football.

pinno

drlodge wrote:

I don't think the spring clip serves any useful purpose, it is a bit annoying to remove/attached though.

I have read and suffered some UT bearing issues, some while ago I bought the RogueMechanic Waveywasherectomy shim kit http://roguemechanic.bigcartel.com/prod ... e-shim-kit but have not yet fitted it. May be now is the time to fit it and see if its helps prevent the creaks and clicks.

Using the clip, re-assemble the crankset tightened to 46nm. I have never had clicks and creakings from any UT chainset. If you are wearing the bearings out, are you over tightening the chainset and not using the clip properly?
Are you sure it's not chainring bolt? I have had that from Campag c'sets and cleat screws and pedal bearings.

Have you measured the BB cup width just to see of the chainset can actually be accommodated within the max/min widths?

964cup

on-yer-bike wrote:

What retention compounds do you recommend?

*Thorough* cleaning of BB shell and pressfit cups (or, carefully, the outside face of the bearing for BB30 direct fit) with Loctite 7063, then Loctite 603 for retention. It's a medium-strength adhesive; I've had no trouble removing bearings I've fitted using it.

pinno

964Cup wrote:

on-yer-bike wrote:

What retention compounds do you recommend?

*Thorough* cleaning of BB shell and pressfit cups (or, carefully, the outside face of the bearing for BB30 direct fit) with Loctite 7063, then Loctite 603 for retention. It's a medium-strength adhesive; I've had no trouble removing bearings I've fitted using it.

But you are referring to the 'Over torque' BB's as opposed to the UT BB?

That set up is far more complex than the UT system - so many bits to it to get right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xc36RywVFo

itboffin

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The purpose of that clip is to warn amateur mechanics: if they struggle to remove it, they shouldn't attempt any other job on the crankset... it's part of a basic flowchart to establish whether you are a muppet-mechanic :-)

lol

drlodge

Pinno wrote:

drlodge wrote:

I don't think the spring clip serves any useful purpose, it is a bit annoying to remove/attached though.

I have read and suffered some UT bearing issues, some while ago I bought the RogueMechanic Waveywasherectomy shim kit http://roguemechanic.bigcartel.com/prod ... e-shim-kit but have not yet fitted it. May be now is the time to fit it and see if its helps prevent the creaks and clicks.

Using the clip, re-assemble the crankset tightened to 46nm. I have never had clicks and creakings from any UT chainset. If you are wearing the bearings out, are you over tightening the chainset and not using the clip properly?
Are you sure it's not chainring bolt? I have had that from Campag c'sets and cleat screws and pedal bearings.

Have you measured the BB cup width just to see of the chainset can actually be accommodated within the max/min widths?

This fills me with no confidence in the Campag design if the spring clip is there to prevent the DS bearing moving, I can't believe such a clip has the necessary tolerance to be effective. I don't see how overtightening the chainset has anything to do with this clip either, since the clip (if what you say is true) only prevents the bearing from moving outwards not inwards.

The Rogue Mechanic shim setup is a good design from what I can see, if assembled properly then there is the right amount of preload and the whole assembly simply can't move.

bondurant

I promise I'll leave the Rogue Mechanic thing after this but please read the first comment after this article, maybe you haven't had a look at the WW thread I linked to earlier in the thread. Graeme is from the Campag UK service centre or whatever it is called. If it was me I'd be trusting his opinion, based as it is on fact.

http://bikeretrogrouch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/modern-bike-problems-campagnolo-ultra.html

On the question of shims - the thinnest shim that RBM makes is 0.1 mm which is a huge distance in bearing assembly terms and the use of his shim technique is not necessary - in our testing, we have seen it cause accelerated bearing wear in some cases and Hirth Joint failure in at least two others.

But it's your bike I suppose.

drlodge

Bit of a long post this...carrying on this discussion having fettled with my bike at the weekend, this topic is more aligned to my post "Campag BB bearings Ceramic vs Steel", but since we're talking about bearings and fitting UT cranks, perhaps its more suitable here.

So my Massive Attack had a creaking crank after only 400 miles, its the new Chorus crank with metal (non CULT) bearings. I thought the DS bearing had started to go prematurely.

Upon removal, the bearings seemed fine, nice and smooth and plenty of white grease. I had intended to replace the bearings with hybrid ceramic ones but on seeing the condition of these thought I would reassemble carefully instead.

I cleaned the insides of the cups and bearing outers, and liberally applied some of the Campag LB-100 grease to both surfaces. I had used white lightening crystal clear before, but thought I would try a different grease due to a theory about the creaking that had sprung up in my mind...

I tightened the chainring bolts as some were a tad loose, I don't think this was the cause of the creaking since I had identical sounds irrespective of which chainring I was in. DS crank inserted and I dropped the spring clip in place. I attempted to see how much play there was with the clip in place - hardly any. I could move the crank a bit with the bearing "pivoting" on the clip but at 90 degrees it was solid. I concluded this spring is actually doing a very good job holding the bearing in place. May be the bearing can move a smidge outwards but hardly at all. NDS crank fitted and bolt tightened, all seemed smooth.

Well I did 76 miles yesterday and not a creak or click at all. Whatever was causing the problem it can't be the bearings! My theory is this creaking/clicking is caused by the bearings moving against the cups. While initially there is/should be some grease there, any movement will caused the grease to displace and once the grease is so thin and there's metal/metal contact, the creaking starts.

Looking at the 3 designs (Campag UT, RogueMechanic fix, Shimano) I would assess these solutions thus:
- Campag UT: there's an inherent design flaw since the bearings are attached to the crank spindles and these can move in the cups. The wavy washer provides a pre-load however the load is dependent on the BB width. A narrow BB means less preload. The spring clip does a good job of preventing the DS bearing moving much, but it doesn't prevent very small movements, and this is all that's required to displace the grease. Hence the combination of the wavy washer and spring clip doesn't totally prevent the bearings moving in the cups.
- Rogue Mechanic fix. *If* done well I can see how this cures the problem, since the spindle/bearings can no longer move. The issue though is that the effectiveness of the solution it is very dependent on the expertise of the fitter and the width of the shims used. As noted above, 0.1mm is actually quite a lot to get the ideal pre-load with no binding. Too tight and you risk premature bearing wear, to little and there'll be some movement.
- Shimano: This system has two advantages (a) the bearings are attached to the cups not the spindle (b) the pre-load is set differently, by screwing in a plastic knob until the correct pre-load is applied and once in position nothing can move (unlike with the wavy washer setup).

The Campag UT setup might be improved by retaining the wavy washer and applying shims to bring the cups effectively <= 68.8mm apart, then the wavy washer is applying the maximum pre-load within Campag's specs.

I tried different grease to see if it lasts longer, only time will tell.

ugo.santalucia

Loose chainring bolts do just that... I suspect that was the problem... the bolt keeps together both rings, so I don't understand your comment...