I have a theory that I want to share about the Campagnolo Ultra Torque crankset and bottom bracket system. I'm going to systematically lay out, in detail, what I believe is a design flaw, or at least, a short coming that has lead to and can cause issues. I've spent a considerable amount of time thinking this out and I have even consulted with a mechanical engineer... WARNING: This is going to be a long post and has the potential to be REALLY boring if you have zero interest in this topic.
But first, a brief overview of the design. Here's a CAD drawing.
Here's my extremely simplified description of the Ultra Torque design:
This system is designed around the Hirth joint, which joins the two semi-axles. These semi-axles are held together by a special fixing bolt. The bearings are pressed onto both of the semi-axles. Installation includes inserting the drive side of the crank into the driveside cup. It is then secured by a retaining spring. The non-drive side is then installed into the non-drive side cup with a wave washer placed on the semi-axle between cup and the bearing. The cups are supposed to be installed free of grease, with Loctite 222, hand tight. Install the fixing bolt, torque to spec, wait 24hrs (for the Loctite to cure), then off you go... Ok.. Here's the rub.
Well... not so fast. First some history.
When Campy first introduced this new system and I had the chance to install one, right off the bat, a red flag went up. What I didn't like or didn't understand is why would they design a system like that has a fixed distance between the bearings that doesn't much allow for the discrepancies in bottom bracket shell width??? I thought that I must OBVIOUSLY be missing something... But like a good little bike mechanic, I followed the installation instructions provided and completed the installation as specified ( I have to admit that I really struggled with myself when it came to the installation of the cups...). More on this later...
Fast forward sixish months and approximately 3k miles later I get a text...
John, I have a creak/knock and I think that the bb might be loose can you take a look?
It didn't take long for me to find the cause of the noise... actually in his driveway. And after a few more questions, I was heading back to my shop. What I found was to say the least, suprising.
Here's the rub.
Here's what I found. When compressing or squeezing the non-drive side crankarm laterally towards the drive side, I was able to make the whole crankset move laterally to the drive side of the bike. I could see the drive side of the crankset move out or away from the bottom bracket!! I was able to do this by squeezing the non-drive side crankarm towards the down tube or seat tube, like this (the poorly drawn red arrow vaguely shows where I was able to see the lateral movement)...
And here's a video: (Look at the area near the "center" of the crankarm and the bottom bracket cup..)
This generally is not good. This specifically, really is piss poor (not a technical term, but works well with this application).
I then repeated the same procedure on the drive-side, like this...
No movement. Rock solid.
I immediately had a really good theory about what was happening...
Ok, here goes... My theory is that because of the use of the Hirth joint, which when joined, has a fixed distance between the bearings. This doesn't allow for any discrepancy in the bottom bracket shell width. In fact, I believe that Campagnolo built in some "wiggle room" (another technical term...) to account for a certain range of shell widths. It states in the installation instructions that:
The Campagnolo Ultra Torque crankset is compatible with bottom bracket shells having the following widths:
...that's a 1.6mm range or +/- .8mm each side of standard widths.
First, a few of my observations...
After 1-3k miles, the chances for lateral or horizontal movement increases due to the minute increases in the ID of the cups and/or the OD of the cartridge bearings. This lateral or horizontal movement towards the drive side in related to the compression of the wave or spring washer and the inability of the retaining spring to stop the movement of the system (see video 2). This occurance is probably more evident in composite frames because of the amplification of the sound or the resonating qualities of these frames. This is not to say that it’s not possible with frames made of other materials. I have just observed this issue with multiple composite frames. I found that this happens with both English and Italian bottom bracket shell designs. Two of the frames, one with English and the other Italian bottom brackets, had bottom bracket widths of 68.1 and 70.03 respectively. These measurements are pretty darn close to industry standards. So I believe that this can happen on bikes with shell widths well within normal.
Please allow me to go off on another related tangent...
Hello? Campy tech support...
Before I dove head-first into this little puzzle, I called and spoke with a kind gentleman at a large US distributor of Campagnolo the ask if he has heard of this issue. To make a long story short, he verified if I installed everything as per the instructions including the wave washer. I said that I did. He then recommended that I might add another wave washer because it is “wafer thin”…I asked if “wafer thin” is a technical term… I knew that I wasn't going to get very far info-wise, so I ordered a few to have on hand and when on my way…
While you're here, check out video 2:
The meat and potatoes
After taking accurate measurements of everything related to the bottom bracket and crankset, the only solution to this problem was to add spacers to the equation to take up the space that was allowing the movement. This had to be done to the point that there wouldn’t be any binding or side-loading of the bearings. started systematically adding spacers, starting with a .36mm spacer between the non-drive side cup and shell…
I assembled, checked for play…. Still there.
Added a .30mm spacer inside the cup between the wave washer and inside face of the non-drive side cup, reassembled, checked for play… better, but still there. Now, I thought that I was getting somewhere…
I added yet another .30mm spacer in the same location as the prior one. I then assembled again, checked for play, this time no play, or pretty darn close to no play. I was satisfied, so at this point, I disassembled it again, but this time I applied the Loctite 222 to the NDS cup threads and lubricated all of the spacers that I added.
Now, let's look at the numbers...
Bottom bracket shell width: 68.1mm
Spacer placed between NDS cup and frame: .36mm
First spacer added: .30mm
Second spacer added: .30mm
Total amount of spacers added: .96mm
This essentially adds up to the effect shell + cups width of 69.06mm. So theoretically, if you have a bike with a bottom bracket shell width of 69.6mm and you install an English Ultra Torque crankset/bottom bracket system, you won’t have the problem of lateral crankset movement.
So, the day after I deliver the bike back, I receive this text…
Perfect… 40 miles so far and no noise.
I thought, great! Problem solved… Not that I was happy about the need for the fix, but was still relieved. But wait! Not so fast… About two weeks later… another text…
My bottom bracket click has returned…
Damn… I thought, but I wasn't totally surprised. After a brief phone call, I am told that it’s not the knocking now, but a click. Back to the drawing board, but I knew that I was getting somewhere…
Round Two...
After the first fix, the knocking noise went away, but a clicking/ticking developed after < 1k miles. This mainly occured at the 6 o’clock non-drive side crankarm position when riding the bike. I was also able to produce the sound while bike was on stand. I think that this happened at the 6 o’clock position while on the bike because that is the lowest point of the power curve and most of the input force was removed from the system allowing the slight movement of the crankset to produce the click…. After closely looking at everything closely for anything that might cause a click, the only thing that was somewhat concerning was that some of the silver coating on the wave washer was rubbed off (See photo below).
I added a third .30mm spacer…Too tight. To cut to the chase, I removed a .30mm spacer and added a .34mm spacer in its place. This added .04mm to the total amount of spacers. And if my math is good, that’s a sum of 1mm. I assembled…again, and took it for a test ride…. No click. Tried to replicate the noise in the stand. Nadda. Good news.
My opinions...
1. I can’t accept this as being normal if this is the only crankset/bottom bracket design on the market that has this lateral movement... 2. I believe that the constraints of the Hirth joint and the inability to account for the normal discrepancies of bottom bracket shell widths lead to the use of both the wave washer and the retaining spring. 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. 4. I think, albeit kinda far fetched, that one of the reasons why the instruction say to only tighten the cups hand tight and to use Loctite 222 is to not decrease the overall width of the shell and cups any more than it already is… We’re not talking much but as you will see, we’re not talking much anyway.
In Conclusion:
I believe that Campagnolo pigeonholed itself into this problem by incorporating the Hirth joint into the design of their Ultra Torque system. The inability of the Hirth joint to adjust for variances in shell width dimensions forced the use of the wave washer and the retention spring. Because of this limitation, they somehow agreed upon a spindle length (actually the distance between the bearings…) that was greater than the standard widths and added the washer and retention spring to make up for the range of shell widths. This is obvious because I observed this situation on a bike with a 68.1mm English bottom bracket shell as well as a bike with an Italian shell measuring 70.3mm. All of this being said, is this just me or am I missing something? I welcome any and all comments and questions. And please, correct me if I'm way off base. Thanks for checking in. -John
Very interesting. I've got a 2008 Chorus UT on my 2006 Look 565. After ~1000 mi. I developed a click associated with the drive side power stroke. Pulled the crank apart, liberally greased the bearings and cups on both sides, reassembled (I did not use Loctite when reinstalling the cups, just torqued to spec, I think ~40nM). 1500 miles later all is good, smooth & quiet. However, both Campy and FSA have very little tolerance for variability in BB shell widths. To my thinking, only a design that uses a pinch bolt on the non-drive arm can easily accomodate different BB shell widths and the associated effects on the crank system. Nevertheless, I really like my UT crankset and the engineering behind it, but I recognize the minute tolerances required for everything to work right. Life was much simpler back in the days of internal BB bearings and square taper spindle/crank interface!
Posted by: Mark | September 23, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Hello Mark,
Thanks for your comment. I'm just sharing my theory based on my hands-on experience. On one hand, I do not intend to disparage Campagnolo by doing this, but on the other hand, if this is indeed true, there needs to be a fix. I never made a statement that all bikes with this system have the issue, but a strong majority that I have seen do. Before looking deeper into this, I searched and found that others were experiencing it too. I agree that times were simpler with the square taper interface! Thanks again! -John
Posted by: RogueMechanic | September 23, 2008 at 02:27 PM
John,
I'm seeing the exact same problem with my UT crank in my Trek 2007 Madone that you describe. Why did it fit together when new, but now after ~4000 miles this gap shows up? Do you think its wear on the cups and/or bearings?
Thanks for all the info.
Bob
Posted by: Bob | September 24, 2008 at 02:48 AM
hey John,
Thanks for the post. And all the good stuff on the website. keep up the good work. Don't fret too much about all the cycling forums or spend too much time arguing with someone who names himself after a bike model. cheers.
Posted by: tim | September 24, 2008 at 08:33 AM
I had a Stronglight crankset with their Activ-link system which also allows for no independent preload of the crank axle. Terrible design and nothing but problems. It's currently on eBay. I may end up just going back to the old three piece setup. Record cranks, PW BB.
Posted by: JohnS | September 24, 2008 at 09:55 AM
I had a Stronglight crankset with their Activ-link system which also allows for no independent preload of the crank axle. Terrible design and nothing but problems. It's currently on eBay. I may end up just going back to the old three piece setup. Record cranks, PW BB.
Posted by: JohnS | September 24, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Hello Bob, Tim, and JohnS,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Bob, At this time, based on what I have seen first hand, I'm leaning towards the cups "wearing" or becoming "polished". What I'm seeing is not bearing failure or wear... I am still working on a solution, and I don't like to jump to conclusions before thoroughly thinking it through. The fix that I have shown was what I came up with during my troubleshooting process and may not be my final decision for a solution for this issue. Based on the volume of emails that I have received, I have accepted that this seems not to be as isolated as some folks on the forums believe. Hang tight, I'm going to see what I can do. I will certainly post any developments. Thanks for checking in and for your kind words. -John
Posted by: RogueMechanic | September 27, 2008 at 09:50 AM
You're experimental analysis is fundamentally flawed and needs to be revised. The first thing you need to do when using said analysis is to not use physically unrealistic scenarios. Pushing on one side of a crank is one of those scenarios. Elsewhere, someone made a post stating that with a 40-60lb load (I don't remember the exact figure), the wave washer did not visibily compress. The washer was loaded by itself, outside of the BB. Couple that with the minimal axial load put on any BB bearing by a rider or any riding condition, and you have to conclude that there is no real potential for axial slop in the system: the wave washer won't allow it. Certainly, pedaling won't cause it.
It's also incorrect to say that the "fixed distance" of the Hirth joint/Campy BB is a potential cause. That "fixing" doesn't exist, except in the extreme limits of BB width, i.e. where the BB is too wide or when the BB is so narrow that load is not applied properly to the wave washer. The Hirth joint, FWIW, has been proven reliable and hardy in applications much more demanding than a BB. The limits on BB width that Campy gives are generous in that anyone producing a BB shell with any competence at all will produce a BB that fits inside those limits. Those BB width limits do not put any stress on BB shell machining.
Approaching your observations or theory from a purely theoretical view, it would seem the only apparent reason for the slop to occur would be bearing wear. It's possible that bearing sealing used by Campy, specifically the bearing seal placed on the BB axle on one side of each bearing, allows more contaminant to enter the bearing. However, this is easily addressed by being liberal with grease on that side of the bearing during inspection/overhaul. The wear rate for the bearings is orders of magnitude, i.e. 100x, 1000x, and etc, greater than that for the Hirth joint or any other component in the crankset. Also, there is no reason for the wave washer to degrade. As long as a spring material operates in its elastic region, it's spring constant--a measure of the amount of force needed to compress or elongate a spring a given length--will not change measureably.
There are, however, issues that come to mind that might be the root cause of what you're seeing. It's not documented what your customers did or didn't do to or with the cranksets. I mean this just from an objective, documentation point of view. That is one large, unknown variable. Likewise, your experimental method and method of analysis are also not well documented or executed. This isn't a slam, but just a statement of fact in the context of accepted experimental method, i.e. Scientific Method. I know that such experimentation is not in your experience, so that you didn't use Scientific Method isn't a surprise, and it's certainly not a statement about you. People not experienced in science usually don't understand the efforts to which scientists and engineers have to go in order to properly test something or prove/disprove a theory. Hell, we spend a lot of time revising our own experiments to account for things we previously forgot to include. No matter, to truly analyze or test something requires fixing all the variables except the one in question and doing the experiment or test in an absolutely repeatable fashion with the details painstakingly recorded. Again, we spend a lot of time doing error analysis on our experiments and experimental data so that we can say how good our data is or determine when the experiment needs more refinement.
From an observational point of view, this issue doesn't seem that widespread. There has been almost no comment about it in internet forums nor in bicycle media. While you feel you've seen a significant number of cases in your shop or reported in email to you, those cases have to be viewed in the context of the total number of Ultra Torque cranksets out there. I don't know what that number is, but it is reasonable to assume that it is in the tens of thousands.
Now, the only real bothersome thing I read in your story, here, is the title. It suggests, without any verifiable data, a serious problem with Campy UT. Moreover, it's been suggest, by you, in more than one internet forum. While on the surface this may not seem to be wrong, a deeper view shows the potential problem. This example proves just that: it was rumored, in the SE USA, that gas was running out, that supplies were limited. The rumor was in fact wrong. However, since the rumor spread, people began to worry, worry begat panic, and lo and behold, there arose a gas supply problem. That was caused solely by runaway rumor.
Obviously you believe what you're saying to be true. However, on the internet, where anyone can post anything as fact or true to their beliefs, people SHOULD be more critical of what they read or choose to be believe. Unfortunately, that's not what people do, and that is the problem with the way you've chosen to highlight this alleged "issue."
Posted by: Robin Seibel | September 27, 2008 at 10:00 PM
John,
Thanks for posting this info. I have the same issue in my Van Dessel Rivet equipped with a Record UT crank. The BB play showed up after 2,000m of riding. No abuse or rain riding on this bike. It was assembled by the VD folks for me. They've built up many Campy UT equipped bikes, so I highly doubt that it's an issue with them.
I'm going to try using some spacers to take out the play as you did. While I have some BB/Cassette spacers that will work on the NDS cup, where does one obtain the spacers that are used alongside the wave washer?
When I disassemble the UT BB, I'll check for bearing wear, but I suspect I may not find any. I have another new Record UT system that can be used to test the bike's BB shell as well. I'll digital mic it anyway just for curiosity.
Thanks again for the info...I've been wondering about this since I developed some increasing play for the last 600m.
Posted by: Dave | September 28, 2008 at 11:52 AM
The instructions I have for my UT crankset has 2 methods for installation. A prefered method and the 2nd choice if not able to use the prefered method. The prefered method did not use loctite and the cups are torqued. When I had called Campagnolo to check about the installation they recommend also to check and tighten the torque screw occassionaly too. I'm not sure if this would have anything to do with the problem you are writing about but maybe if it gets loose it will cause the whole system to wear faster and lead to this potential problem sooner.
Posted by: Jim S. | September 28, 2008 at 02:40 PM
John,
Good article. I put together a bike for the first time in ten years this past July using a Campy Chorus group set. I followed the assembly instructions including liberally applying Loctite 222 to the bearing cups. My click from hell started three weeks after assembly. I don't recall what my BB width is other than it is within Campy spec as measured using a caliper.
The UT click issue has been documented in several places on the Internet. In fact, I found your article through a link from one of the forums discussing the issue. The problem is usually characterized as "click" or "knock" noise when the drive side crank arm is in the 1-2 o'clock position. A Rep from Campy commented on the problem last year in a posting in Lennard Zinn's area on Velonews. He suggested letting the Loctite dry for 48 hours and torquing up to 70 Nm. which 10 Nm above Campy spec. I increased the torque on mine from 50 Nm to 60 Nm and the problem went away for a while and came back.
I briefly spoke to a mechanic at my local bike shop about the problem a month ago. He has come across the same problem. This shops solution is to install a new wave washer. My guess this will work for a while.
A BB width on the low side of spec sounds like it may the root cause of my "clicking" issue. Where can I get BB spacers? I will try spacing out the BB cups and replacing the wave washer on the next go around.
Posted by: JoeR | September 28, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Hey Robin, Dave, Jim S, and JoeR,
Thanks for all of your comments. Just wanted to let all of you know that I haven't walked away from this... I've just been swamped with work. Stay tuned... -John
Posted by: RogueMechanic | October 01, 2008 at 09:49 AM
Hello , Great postings on Campy Ultra Torque Creaking and tcking. Mine have done that as soon as I installed them ,I recently removed them and am gong back to isis bottom bracket cranks. I have three sets of mega exo type bottom brackets and they all creak so Isis stronglights I'm looking for now or I'll try the spacers next to the spring washer for one last go on the Ultra Torque's. I guss I owe it to my bike to try one last time, but after so many atempts to quiet it down with thread tape, loctite and anti seize grease till it comes out the sides I'm just ready to move on, but If I can find the .30 mm washers with very little work I'll try it...Its great to here the plain ad simple logic to why the creaking happens.Thanks , I'm glad I came accross this site, lots of insight and great photo's to go along with the info....
Posted by: Rod Igo | October 03, 2008 at 04:00 PM
Hi I just built a 2007 Look 555 with 2008 Chorus group.When I first built the bike I noticed the side to side play and asked a Campagnolo Pro shop if this was normal the mechanic/owner said yes, that the wavy washer was designed to take up the play in bottom bracket. Well needless to say at about a 1000miles I noticed a click from the non drive side but it is only noticeable when I first start riding after about 10 minutes the noise goes away. I haven't taken the bb assembly apart yet to verify the cause but I am glad I found your posting this sounds logical and also answers a lot of questions. At least now I have a direction to go in to possibly solve this issue thanks.
Posted by: Brendan McDonnell | October 04, 2008 at 02:47 PM
HI there I had the same issue on my Torelli Countach OS, the click started fairly quickly and only went away after adding another washer to the bottom bracket. I went through all the steps measured the bottom bracket width, checked the wave washer etc. I believe thi design is the issue and something will come down from Campagnolo to fix it.
Posted by: mark fischer | October 09, 2008 at 08:13 PM
RM --
I had the problem you described.
Turns out I'd inserted the bolt from the left hand side (it was in the left-hand crankarm in the box, duh).
Inserting it from the right-hand side (as you are specifically told the do in the instructions), the problem went away.
I don't know if this is the cause of *your* particular problem, but the external manifestation of my problem was exactly as shown in your video.
Posted by: Tim Danaher | October 11, 2008 at 09:02 AM
When I first saw this design I looked up the variations in width allowed by the bottom bracket shells. I was a bit concerned, but the wave washer appeared to take up the play possible.
Some other things to consider, the tolerances of the crank system, in other words, does Campagnolo grind the bearing lands while the parts are assembled or individual? Think of the tolerance stack.
Second, and probably bigger issue is the alignment to centerline of the opposing sides of the BB shell and the parallelism of the faces with relation to the virtual centerline of the shell. The old cup and spindle system was very tolerant of errors.
What I find surprising here is that a number of bikes were carbon, therefore bonded, and the chance of heat distortion of the shell after processing is assumed to be much less.
I can imagine it now, "after proper CMM (co-ordinate measuring) of your bike frame and the tolerance spec sheet of the crankset, select one that is an acceptable fit..."
Posted by: jorgensen | October 18, 2008 at 02:23 PM
Man. What a cluster! (get it?) I think that you will find that if you assemble the crank per instructions and keep it extreamly clean on the hirth joint, creaking, popping clicking etc. will go away. The wave washer is designed to keep a uniform preload on the bearings and use the drive side as a datum point (not rocket science). The crank is designed to not play if you are riding your bike properly and is a vast improvement on bearing wear as opposed to "hard preloading" with shims or concentric thread systems. If you rock your bike so much that you overcome the preload of the wave washer (the numbers are much simpler than you think). then you may get the crank to move - work on your style. One thing that has been consistant on Italian mechanical engineering from Ferarris to Super Record for decades is if you ain't using the hardware right the engineering who designed it doesn't care about your lack of skill - it's an Italian thing; part of the art. That's why so many doctor types with too much money and not enough skill have their Ferarris in the shop more than on the road. Shims no! The Campy guys know what they are doing. Moral: assemble it clean, don't think you know more than the mechanical engineers who designed and extensively tested it and ride it correctly.
Posted by: Edward Westbrook | November 30, 2008 at 02:19 PM
I'm glad a lot of other people figured out the minsconceptions in your ideas about how the Campy system works.
The right side bearing is basically fixed, with only a very small amount of movement possible, once the spring clip is in place (probably .010 inch or less). If you really want to stop all movement, a very thin washer could be placed in the right side cup, before the spring clip is installed, although it should not be necessary. Too much washer would not allow the spring clip to extend into the cup properly and render it useless -riding on top of the bearing OD. The clip must extend past the outer bearing race and keep it from moving.
The wavy washer has nothing to do with the crank's ability to move side to side. It produces a preload tension in the 20-60 pound range, that pushes against the left side bearing, transferring the force through the spindle to hold the right bearing against the inner face of the cup. Shimming the left side just fouls up the preload and is sure to result in premature bearing failure. That is a very bad suggestion, sure to cause more problems.
I could see how someone could put the spring clip on, but neglect to verify that the ends of the clip went far enough into the hole to keep the right side bearing from moving. If the clip is hitting the bearing OD, that could result in a large amount of side play, on the order of 2mm. This is a simple case of failing to verify a correct installation. All you have to do is put the right side on the crank in first, push the clip fully into place, then try to move it side to side. If the crank arm can be pulled out, the spring clip in not in place.
FWIW, I just took my crank off for servicing after 5,000 miles and everything looks great. There is no evidence of any wear on the cups and I've never had a problem with clicks or creaks. I cleaned out the old grease, packed in new grease and I'm set for another year.
My recommendation for anyone haveing problems is to start over, perhaps with new cups and bearings. Be sure the BB faces are square to the threads, grease the threads and torque the cups to 35Nm. Forget about the loctite method. To check the BB faces for squareness, screw the cups in until they contact a .010 inch feeler gage, then use .008-.012 feelers to check for tight or loose areas. If no area exceeds that range, you should be OK. Of course, there should never be any paint on the faces of the BB shell.
Posted by: David Shepherd | December 04, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Wow it's taken a long time for someone to mention having your bottom bracket's outer shell faced off properly. Whenever I've encountered bikes - be they old school tapered set ups or newer outboard bearing types (like ultra torque) with clicks and creaks the root cause has almost always been a frame's bracket that hasn't been prepped right. Tap clean the threads and face off the outers square and 9 times out of ten the clicky demon will go away.
Posted by: Davern White | December 25, 2008 at 05:23 AM
I have had a problem with the hirth bolt working loose. I put locktite 222 on the threads and this seemed to fix it. I may have screwed up when I installed my cups ,put the locktite 222 on the threads and hand tighten , then not feeling so great about just leaving it hand tighten, I put recommended torque on it. do you think I'll ever get them off again? cervelo carbon soloist
Posted by: Danny G | February 02, 2009 at 02:13 PM
I had the same problem, with craking crank. I will do the same with your instructions, down here in brazil, I'll let you know if work, I hope so. - Colnago C50 - Campy record
Posted by: yuri siqueira | February 25, 2009 at 07:44 PM
Probably a dumb question, but: That clicking noise is NOT the drive-side crankarm rubbing on the front derailleur, is it? (I didn't see it mentioned as being ruled out). The only reason I ask is that at one point the noise was noticed as being at 6 o'clock on the non drive-side which would roughly correspond to 12 o'clock on the drive side where the front derailleur would meet up w/ the crankarm.
Posted by: Jeff Parnell | February 27, 2009 at 09:45 PM
Hello Danny, Yuri, and Jeff:
I hope that this message finds you well and thank you for your comments.
Danny, I really don't think that you will have a problem getting the cups off. Just use the right tool and go slowly.
Yuri, If that doesn't work, I have a better solution in the works. Stay tuned!
Jeff, Hey, you know what they say.... there's never a dumb question. Nope, it's definitely not the crankarm hitting the front derailleur.
To all others: Thanks for your comments and for checking in.
Best regards,
John
Posted by: RogueMechanic | February 27, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Seems this is much to do about a bb shell that is too narrow, presume there is a chain line alignment issue as well. So why not measure shell to make sure correct width and face to spec. for UT rather than build up with internal spacer and extra wavey washer?
Posted by: chris | March 08, 2009 at 06:42 PM