RogueMechanic

Chain Links: My quick take.

I was recently asked by @justinbrennan on @twitter what my opinions are regarding the different designs or techniques for connecting chains that are currently out there and if I had any preferences.  Well, as you can imagine, I do have some opinions as well as preferences. 

I think that it's best to first preface this with saying that no matter how good the design is, if you do not do the installation properly, you are more than likely going to experience some sort of failure, so do it right.

Let's break this down into brands...

Shimano HG & IG Pins:

I have no issues with this design.  It works for the useful life of the chain... unlike their Quick-Link design issue that I noted here.  I like this simple, low cost design.

Campagnolo C-10 HD Link:

Besides the fact that it's the most costly (approx $30US for just the Link Kit) and the big $'s for the Campy chain tool, it's also the most time/labor intensive design... Hey, you have to pay to play especially when it comes to Campy....  I think that because of this, folks are more likely to do a half-ass chain cleaning job with the chain on the bike instead of the more thorough approach associated with removing the chain.  I'm ok with this, but I have a hard time looking folks in the eye and telling them the cost...

Campagnolo 11s:

See above but more $$$.

SRAM Powerlink:

Simple, cost effective, and it just plain works.  I like it.

SRAM PowerLock:

This connector link for SRAM 10spd chain differs, besides dimensions, from the 9spd Powerlink in the fact that it is not reusable.  I don't have a problem with that.  It works and I like the design.

Wippermann ConneX 9&10:

I just cold to this product...  As long as there are other options out there.

KMC Missing Link:

See previous comment.

So there you have it.  I hope that this helps, and remember, this is my opinion that is based on first-hand experience.  Thanks for checking in.  -John

Wavewasherectomy - The Ultra-Torque Fix

Before I get started, I want to let you know that some of the steps that I'm

going to recommend you to do contradicts some of  those found in the installation

instructions that is provided by Campagnolo.  It's up to you to decide what you

want to do.  But everything that I recommend doing regarding this procedure, 

 I have tried myself on multiple bikes.  I extensively researched, tested, and re-inspected 

bikes that I did this "wavewasherectomy" on and found zero issues.  I didn't want 

to throw anything out there without being absolutely sure that it works.  Because

that's how I roll...  Anyway, that being said, you can rest assured that if you take the

time to do this right, you will have the Ultra-Torque crankset/bottom bracket

system that is up to Campagnolo standards, without the wave washer.

Disclaimer:  You can have the best bike components in the world, but if they are not

installed and adjusted properly,  they're not going to perform up to the level that

they were designed to work.  For this to procedure to be successful, it's imperative

that this is done correctly.  I will try to be as concise as possible.  If you have any 

questions, do not hesitate to email me.

Ok... Let's get started.

Since this evolves around eliminating the wave washer, there needs to be something

added to the equation to make up for it and the variations in bottom bracket shell

width.  This is is achieved by adding a combination of spacers between the non-drive 

side cup and the frame.  In fact, every bike that I did this to required unique combinations of spacers. 

This takes a lot of time and effort.  Take your time to get it right.

Assuming that you already have the crankset installed on your bike, you are going to have

to remove it along with the bottom bracket.  Obviously, you are going to

need the right tools.  You can get the .pdf installation file from Campagnolo here.  Just reverse 

the procedure to remove it.  

Once you have the crankset and bottom bracket cups removed from the frame, you want to take the time to clean and inspect the cups and the bearings.  If one or both of the bearings and/or cups look like this (see photos below), then it's time ti replace those items.

   

Strong Suggestion:  Take the time to properly face the bottom bracket shell.  If you do not have to cutting tool, take it to the LBS that you feel is the most competent to do this task and say a prayer that they don't screw it up...

Now you want to go ahead and install the drive side cup as per the instruction manual.  For what it's worth, I have installed numerous UT cups following both the loctite 222 method noted in the instructions and the more traditional grease-the-heck-out-of-it method.  For the record, I prefer using grease (or anti-seize) and torquing to 35-40Nm.  Partially install the retaining spring onto the cup and then after liberally applying a high quality grease to the bearing and internal surfaces of the cup, install the drive-side crankarm fully into the shell.  Now you want to push the retaining spring ends into the corresponding holes.

This is where I abruptly veer from the SOP described in the official Campy instructions....

 Step 1

Install the non-drive side cup dry (i.e. without any grease). Thread cup into the shell just to the point where it comes into contact with the face of the bottom bracket shell. DO NOT TIGHTEN.

 Step 2

Fully insert the left side crank arm, without the wave washer, making sure that the crankarms are properly aligned.  (It's easier/cleaner to not apply grease to the bearing and cup at this point, so don't bother.)  Insert the fixing bolt into right side (drive-side) semi-axle and torque to 42Nm. At this point, the NDS or left bottom bracket cup and crankarm should look like this (See Fig. 1):

Step 3

Now you want to unscrew the NDS/left cup to the point where it contacts the crankarm (See Fig. 2). This is possible because of the dimension/thickness of wave washer is no longer part of the equation.

Step 4

I have found that instead of using feeler gauges to determine the amount of gap that's between the cup and the shell, it's better to find the size of the gap by using different combinations of shims contained in the kit.  Keep in mind that at this point, we are only getting our first estimate of the amount of space that has to be made up. So grab the shims and find the combination that best fits (See Fig. 3).  Set this combination of shims aside and write the thickness of the shims down so that you have your starting point.  Note:  I recommend using at least one of the 1.0mm shims and then add one .5mm shim, etc., going from thickest to thinest. If you try to add one .5mm shim to the 1.0mm shim and it doesn't quite fit, replace the .5mm shim with two .2mm shims... I think that you get the idea.

Step 5

Now you want to remove the fixing bolt (from the drive-side/right semi-spindle), the left crankarm, and the left bottom bracket cup from the frame.

Step 6

Insert the combination of shims that you determined in step 4 (and steps 9 and     10) onto the left bottom bracket cup, and thread back into frame (still without grease/antiseize, etc.). With the bottom bracket tool, tighten cup to 35Nm-40Nm. If you do not have access to a torque wrench, just snug it up without going crazy...

Step 7

Reinstall the left crankarm as described in step 2 or in the Campagnolo    installation instructions.

Step 8

Now this is where we need to get picky... We want this to be balls-on, or as close to balls-on that we can get.  This is when we determine if we have to add more thickness to the equation, or remove some.  Usually with the first attempt, I find that I have to add... If the crankset spins freely (move the chain out of the way), then you know that you have not added too much thickness in spacers.  So either you have nailed it the first time, or you need to add more because of axial play...

Step 9

The way that you determine if you have any play or side-to-side movement is by grabbing onto the left crankarm and either the seattube or downtube and moving the crankarm towards and away from the frame, or perpendicular to the frame. Sensitivity to movement is key here...If you feel just some movement or play, you will need to add to the thickness of the shims.  Add in small increments because it's easier to add thickness and decrease the play than it is to add too much.  Important:  It is crucial that you do not add too many shims.  Adding too much thickness could lead to damage to the bearings and not allow the Hirth joint to completely come together as designed which in turn could lead to failure. It's not difficult to get this right.  For example: If you started with one 1.0mm and two 0.2mm shims for a total of 1.4mm of shim thickness, and you still have some play/movement, I would replace the two 0.2mm shims with one 0.5mm shim giving you 1.5mm of shim thickness...and so forth.  So, if you feel some movement, you need to go back to step 5, make the shim adjustments while doing step 6 and then complete step 7. 

Step 10

Check for axial movement as described in step 9 above.  If there still is some movement (which should be less than before), then add to the thickness, and repeat steps, 5,6, and 7.  (Chances are that you will get to the point when the crank is too tight and/or binds against the left cup.  If this occurs, just subtract the smallest amount of shim thickness that you can.)  If you do not have any side movement.... You're done!!! Well... not really, but almost... Proceed to step 11.

Step 11

Now that you have determined the correct amount of shims, go back one last time the step 5. While completing step 6, apply grease/anti-seize to left cup and bottom bracket shell threads and then tighten left cup to torque spec mentioned above.  Finally, when you are doing step 7, apply a good amount of high quality grease to the internal cup surfaces and the bearing.  Make sure that you insert the fixing bolt into the right side semi-axle and tighten to 42Nm. (See Fig. 4)

    Congrats!  You are done!  Now all that you have to do is clean up.  

Click on photos for larger images.

   

The RogueMechanic Wavewasherectomy Shim kit is available here.  

 The kit contains the following:

• 2 - 1.0mm Stainless Steel Shims
• 2 - 0.5mm Stainless Steel Shims
  
• 2 - 0.2mm Stainless Steel Shims
  
• 2 - 0.1mm Stainless Steel Shims
  

Available now for English Bottom Brackets.

Coming Soon... Wavewasherectomy Shim Kits for Italian Bottom Brackets!

Made in U.S.A.

I hope that this helps.  Based on the volume of emails and comments that I received about this issue, I believe that there are more people experiencing Campagnolo Ultra-Torque problems than those few folks on some of the cycling forums would like for you to believe.  I really appreciate your patience and all of the kind comments that I have received here and via email.  If you have questions, just let me know.

Campagnolo Ultra-Torque Solution - Pt. 1 Review

Way back in September of 2008, I published my initial post about what I thought was a problem with the Ultra-Torque design. Now going on a year later, I am even more confident with my initial theory. But now I have a solid solution to the problem that some who have a Campagnolo Ultra-Torque crankset/bottom bracket may have experienced. 

First, I want to make a couple points...

1. I will not deny that for the most part, Ultra-Torque is a good design.  Where it fails is in its capability to allow for shell width variances.  This may seem like a a minor flaw, but it has major consequences.  
2. For the life of me, in this day and age, and with all of the current technology, why can't frame manufactures make their 68mm bottom bracket shells 68mm and their 70mm shells 70mm?!?! If this was the case, there wouldn't be a need for the wavy washer in the Ultra-Torque design.
3. The wavy washer is a legit component in certain applications in many industries. But in this instance, it's a band-aid.
4. If it's OK to have axial or lateral movement to the non-drive side, why is the Ultra-Torque design the ONLY design out there that has this movement?  If any of the other systems exhibit this movement, it means that either the bearings are shot, or you didn't install the proper bottom bracket and/or spacers.

Based of the volume of emails and comments I have been receiving about this "non-issue", I believe that it's fairly common.  Over the last few months, I have applied my "fix" to several bikes.  All with success.  The end result has been a very smooth, very stiff, axial-movement free Ultra-Torque system.  Just now I believe Campagnolo wanted to be. Next up, step by step details.  Thanks for checking in.  -John

RogueMechanic at 2009 Leadville 100

I was able to make a quick trip out to Leadville this year to crew for two buddies and to prep bikes for other riders that where there.  It was the first time for me being there at the race without racing... wow... what a completely different perspective!  Anyway, I kinda threw this video together in minimal time and effort.  I set up "camp" just outside the pipeline checkpoint (outbound) and was able to catch Lance both outbound and inbound.  Check out the video at approx 4:34 and see what I was able to come away with (photo below)... Very cool!  Anyway, bottom line is that both Chris and Marcus was able to come back to Leadville this year to finally claim the Silver Buckle that has been just out of reach in past attempts.  Did I miss not racing this time around?  Maybe just a little.  Did being there put a spark back in me to do this event for the 6th time? Maybe... Finally, check out the "guest" appearance at the end of the video.  Enjoy!!!

Here's what Lance didn't need to bring home the win in record time...

Campagnolo Ultra Torque Problem?

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:

English: 67.2mm - 68.8mm Italian: 69.2mm - 70.8mm
...that's a 1.6mm range or +/- .8mm each side of standard widths. Click here for official Campagnolo installation instructions

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

Trek 5900 Headset Issue

Here's an ongoing issue that I've seen more than once. I recently revisited an issue with a 2003 Trek 5900 headset. Now, this is a nice bike ( I think that I owned on in the past...). Trek did a nice job. Light and stiff. In an effort to save some grams, they utilized a proprietary lower cartridge bearing. This was installed directly onto the crown race of the fork, thus eliminating the use of a crown bearing race. It is my understanding that this bearing was borrowed from Klein. Anyway, to cut to the chase, water likes to collect in the headtube area and cause a whole bunch of problems. This is what I'm talking about...

Well, this mess now only reeked havoc on the lower bearing, it also is evidence of the corrosion/ degrading of the aluminum steertube. Check this...

I needed a plan to stop any further degrading of the aluminum, so I got on the blower to my buddy Dr. J who is like a chemistry god and asked him for advise. He gave me a simplified lesson about what was going on and the nature of aluminum and corrosion and then he told me what to do and I did it. Here's a pic of the steertube and bearing before I installed it back into the headtube... (this is what a $45 bearing looks like...)

Btw... I recommended that the fork not be ridden and should be replaced because there is no way to confirm that the steertube is still structurally sound...
That's it for now. Thanks for checking in. -John

Compatible doesn't mean Good

Recently, I was working on 2008 Trek Madone....Nice bike. There's technology in this frame that is something to write home about, but this post isn't about promoting the Trek Madone...Here's what it looks like...
l

Anyway, before I get off on a tangent... It can with a Bontrager compact crankset, Dura Ace front and rear derailleur, SRAM 10spd chain...PC 1090 and SRAM OG 1070 cassette. I was installing a Dura Ace 7800 12-27t cassette for a lower gear range and Shimano R700 compact chainrings to improve front shifting. I was going to keep the 1090 chain because in the past when dealing with 9 speed chains, I found that there was only a slight difference between the Shimano and SRAM equivalent chains. Well, I was not at all happy with how the 1090 chain meshed or interfaced with the Dura Ace cassette. In fact it sounded more like a chainsaw than it did a top-end drivetrain. Not good. Don't get me wrong, it worked, but it didn't work nearly as well as the Shimano chain that I replaced it with. So, if your stuck in some small town, this side of East Podunk, and the local shop just happens to only have SRAM 10spd chains, it will work.... but it will sound like you're being chased by my Stihl...

Here's what the upgraded Bontrager crankset looks like...

Thanks for checking in! -John

Ridley X-Fire Build

I completed this build of a new Ridley X-Fire Cross bike yesterday. Looks nice. The fit/finish is clean and it felt really solid during my short test ride. Time will only tell how it will hold up. If it's anything like my three favorite things that come from Belgium... beer, chocolate, and waffles... I think that it's a safe bet that it will be enjoyed.

Felt FC

Joe's new ride....

Specialized S-Works HT

Kevin's new ride...