Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Bicycle Mechanics
Reload this Page >

Campagnolo UT install on shell wider than spec

Bicycle Mechanics Broken bottom bracket? Tacoed wheel? If you're having problems with your bicycle, or just need help fixing a flat, drop in here for the latest on bicycle mechanics & bicycle maintenance.

Campagnolo UT install on shell wider than spec

Old 06-18-10, 03:30 PM
  #1  
JoeF45
Want to ride more!
Thread Starter
 
JoeF45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South of Seattle, in the rain
Posts: 83

Bikes: Marin for dirt, Cannondale for road

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Campagnolo UT install on shell wider than spec: Revised 06/19

Hello, everyone;

I'm aware that there a several threads related to installing UT cranksets, and have read them all diligently. None has directly addressed my problem, so here's a new thread.

I've got a new Campy UT compact double crankset ready to go on my old Cannondale, and this morning had a shock when I put a digital caliper on the empty English threaded BB shell and found it was 69.07 MM wide.

Campy's directions make it plain that the width of BSC shells should be between 67.2 and 68.8 MM for the UT installation to be successful. Whether you torque the cups (preferred method) or hand-tighten them with much Loctite 222 (Metodo Alternativo), the directions don't address overwidth shells, except to recommend facing them!

The difference of .27 MM is .106 inches, and in machining terms, that's a lot! My guess is that the teeth in the Hirth joint between the semi-axles maynot fully mesh, and that sooner or later, I'll have a real problem, with many warning sounds from the BB.

One possibility might be to remove the "wavy washer" to make up the distance between the bearing cups.

So here are my questions:

1. How serious is this? Am I just hyperventilating over small stuff?
2. If it's serious, does removing or changing a spacer (wavy washer or something else) make any sense?
3. Does the extra space have any effect on the installation method? That is, if I decide to install the UT on the currently overwidth shell, should I definitely use torquing, or Loctite?
4. Are there other things I need to know?

If anyone has dealt with this, and can share experiences, I'm very eager to hear your comments or suggestions.

Thanks in advance, as always.

Joe F

Late details:

Got out my 1-2-3 blocks, which for a machinist give a very accurate 1", 2", and 3" dimension in a hardened and ground piece of steel. Turns out the caliper is dead-on, giving 1.000"/25.4 MM for the 1" dimension, 2.000"/50.8 MM for the 2" dimension, and 3.000"/76.2 MM for the 3" dimension.

But my math is suspect, as one sharp-eyed poster noted. The BB shell is out .0106, much less an effort to reduce.

Thanks again to the several posters who have helped very much. My LBS has a shell-facing tool and the experience to use it. Bike will go the BikeStand next week for some machine work.

Joe F

Final Late Details: Successful facing, successful install

I like to close out a thread with a result, so here's what happened.

My LBS agreed that the shell was overwidth, and used a very impressive tool that both chases the threads and shaves down the shell with cutters on both the drive and non-drive sides. They did so, very nicely and very carefully. I took the bike home, and the UT bearing cups and crankset went in within minutes.

I torqued them to Campy spec, both the cups and the hollow screw that holds the two piece axle together. Put a new Record chain on to match up with the new crankset and the new cassette, and took the bike for a couple of rides.

Not sure I can feel any real difference. The UT crankset and BB is lighter than the old square taper version (by about 120 grams!), and it *may* be a bit stiffer. I got out of the saddle on a couple of climbs and the bike certainly doesn't flex much.

Thanks to all for the comments and advice, and thanks to Bill S and his crew at the BikeStand.

Joe F

Last edited by JoeF45; 07-09-10 at 12:30 PM. Reason: New details again; successful install
JoeF45 is offline  
Old 06-18-10, 04:38 PM
  #2  
reptilezs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: boston, ma
Posts: 2,898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
just face the bb shell
reptilezs is offline  
Old 06-18-10, 04:49 PM
  #3  
AEO
Senior Member
 
AEO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: A Coffin Called Earth. or Toronto, ON
Posts: 12,258

Bikes: Bianchi, Miyata, Dahon, Rossin

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
any decent shop should be able to face your bb shell and shave off the excess.
especially so with softer aluminum.
__________________
Food for thought: if you aren't dead by 2050, you and your entire family will be within a few years from starvation. Now that is a cruel gift to leave for your offspring. ;)
http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/arti...ger-photos.htm
AEO is offline  
Old 06-18-10, 04:52 PM
  #4  
HillRider 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 31,342

Bikes: '''96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '12 Surly Pacer, All are 3x8,9 or 10. It is hilly around here!

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1089 Post(s)
Are you sure of your reading? That width sound outside Cannondale's QC so I'd be sure you aren't being mislead by a faulty width reading. Missing 68.0 mm by almost 1.1 mm is a LOT. If the width you read is really correct, have it faced.
HillRider is offline  
Old 06-18-10, 05:25 PM
  #5  
JoeF45
Want to ride more!
Thread Starter
 
JoeF45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South of Seattle, in the rain
Posts: 83

Bikes: Marin for dirt, Cannondale for road

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Facing shell for overwidth Cannondale BB

Thanks to everyone who replied.

My LBS (populated with serious and very helpful cyclists) has a tech who pointed out that I'd crush the bearings if the shell width were off as much as the caliper says. Reason enough to get the shell faced.

On the other hand, Cannondale is thought to have been better oriented to proper dimensions, and so I may just have a bad caliper.

So, step one is to make sure the dimensions are either correct (the caliper is lying, and so time to get a new digital caliper), or not.
If the shell is overwidth, get it faced!
If not, install the UT crankset and go for a ride!

Thanks again, everyone.

JF
JoeF45 is offline  
Old 06-18-10, 05:26 PM
  #6  
JoeF45
Want to ride more!
Thread Starter
 
JoeF45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South of Seattle, in the rain
Posts: 83

Bikes: Marin for dirt, Cannondale for road

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Originally Posted by HillRider View Post
Are you sure of your reading? That width sound outside Cannondale's QC so I'd be sure you aren't being mislead by a faulty width reading. Missing 68.0 mm by almost 1.1 mm is a LOT. If the width you read is really correct, have it faced.
HillRider, you raise a very important point. I was surprised at the variance, and now am suspicious of the caliper reading.
JoeF45 is offline  
Old 06-18-10, 05:30 PM
  #7  
MrTuner1970
Underwhelming
 
MrTuner1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Mississippi
Posts: 1,263

Bikes: Lynskey R330 Ti, Dean El Vado Ti, Trek 4300

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Originally Posted by JoeF45 View Post
... and so I may just have a bad caliper.
Did you zero the caliper before measuring?
MrTuner1970 is offline  
Old 06-19-10, 12:38 AM
  #8  
JoeF45
Want to ride more!
Thread Starter
 
JoeF45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South of Seattle, in the rain
Posts: 83

Bikes: Marin for dirt, Cannondale for road

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Zeroing caliper

Originally Posted by MrTuner1970 View Post
Did you zero the caliper before measuring?
Yes, and also tried measuring in different locations on the shell, and in both metric and inch measurements. I've used this instrument for machining metal, and thought it was accurate.

Your point is a good one, but I made extra efforts to get a good reading, and it was consistent. If the caliper is out of adjustment, it's consistently out of adjustment.

JF
JoeF45 is offline  
Old 06-19-10, 09:07 AM
  #9  
DaveSSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Loveland, CO
Posts: 5,189

Bikes: Look KG461, Colnago C-RS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
The problem here is a simple error in converting to English units. .27mm is a trivial .0106, easily removed by facing.

Grease the threads and torque to 35Nm. Do not use the loctite method.

Last edited by DaveSSS; 06-20-10 at 09:54 AM.
DaveSSS is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.