Hi,

Finally decided to try it out so I bought a Fulcrum RSS crank set as it's the equivalent 10S version of the regular steel Super Record crank. CULT bearing etc., the works.


Cups are SR, the latest, lighter ones which came with thread locker across the full width of the threaded part of the cups and are pre-greased.
The frame's BB shell is BSA and ran ISO tapered BB bracket just fine from Record to my home made cup and cone CULT bearing BB and its accompanying Ti axle for years, no problem.

When I installed the cups I encountered quite a bit of friction which I put down to the thread locker. The shell was cleaned prior to mounting the new external cups and the old square taper cups screwed in fine just by hand.

As everything worked fine before, I did not face nor roam the BB (I do not have these tools anyhow) as I thought this won't be of any concern.
And yet when the crank was assembled I was very much disappointed. As both arm spun freely on their own as they should, they now stay put at whatever position you care to have them once the bolt joins them. IOW they do not resume their natural point of equilibrium at all.
Mounted pedals on them to add some weight/load and it's still the same.

Note that I have not yet ridden this crank but by comparison to the old square taper BBs I've seen, this system actually shows quite a bit more friction when I actually expected much less of it. Granted it's pretty much unloaded given the weight of the pedals but so were the older systems.

Now I fully understand that for any system to have its bearings align properly all things need to align and be parallel and I assume from prior experience with square taper BB systems this would be the case.
I'm also aware that whatever misalignment is present, it is going to be more obvious whenever the bearings are moved farther outwards but there's still that joining bolt to set things straight somehow, I think?

IOW, I just don't get it.

Thanks for any advice,

_________________
Being a snob is an expensive hobby.

I'll start by saying I haven't worked on the "Fulcrum" cranks but I believe they are essentially Campy cranks rebranded (so Shimano people don't feel awkard using them if they desire) and work exactly the same. Secondly, once everything is installed correctly the crank should just spin effortlessly with those cult bearings, so something does sound off with your setup. The thread locker that is on the cups does indeed make it difficult to screw these in by hand. I sometimes remove that by running an awl along the threads. I like to coat both the threads of the BB and the cups with copper based anti-seize. I torque the cups down to the recommended 35Nm. Ok, regardless of how you greased or preped the threads here's where you may have some issues. I'm going to assume that you did not cross thread the cups and that the threadlocker was what was making them difficult to screw in by hand. I'm also assuming it is a steel frame you're working with or at least the faces of the bb shell are exposed and accessible. Sounds like it may have not been faced before? This is important, as it was in the days before cartridge bb's came onto the scene. The cups need square faces to align against. There is some "give" in the threads that allow this. But if the faces of your bottom bracket are not square, neither will be the cups. Is there paint on the faces of the cup. If so, run a facing tool and remove it. It doesn't take much to misalign everything.

But before you go running off to get your bb shell faced, check that 1) the width of your shell is within the specs given which for campy is +/- 0.8mm. So, if it's a 68mm shell (English), then you should measure somewhere between 67.2 and 68.8. The wavy washer takes up the slack.

Those are really the only things I can think of that it could be really, it's a pretty simple design. Short of manufacturing defect somewhere along the way. Oh, and make sure the retaining spring on the drive side is properly seated in it's slot and that the right side of the crank is pushed in all the way so that the ends of the retainer spring are actually in the groove.

Also, as an aside, the instructions for Campy Ultra Torque used to say that putting loctite on the threads of the cups and tightening them by hand was the "preferred method". I have it on pretty good authority that the only reason that alternative installation was there initially was becasue the proper tools to tighten them down properly were not widely available when Ultra Torque was introduced. They have since removed those instructions in favor of instructions simply saying to properly torque down the cups to 35Nm. No one I know installs them by hand with a bunch of loctite. That just gunks things up and makes for a overly difficult removal and reinstallation when you want to remove everything for a good cleaning and maintenance down the road. This applies to threaded BSA type installations. With pressfit cups, then anything you can get to work may be necessary... loctite, chanting, secret spells, etc.

Good luck, I don't know what else to say. Of course, if the fulcrum cranks are completely different than campy then ignore everything I've just said.

Oh, I forgot one last thing... did you remember to age the crank properly for six months at least. (kidding!!)

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ

fdegrove,

Here is my experience, on the same frame!!

nuovo record spin forever - rain or shine (not even taken care of) ( I feel guilty about that)
(2009) 10 speed sealed bearing spin less than forever
Ultra Torque cult way way less than forever ( I would't have bought it if I had known how bad it is and that is why I paid for the cult (BS) My frame changed and had to change to a quote modern unquote crank.

call me old school but the new BB designs are not better than the old ones. The idea that the press fit BB save weight is not 100% true, most of the 2nd gen cups and adapters are adding enough weigh that the weight total is very close to the (2009) 10 speed sealed bearing.

c

Recommends putting loctite on the cups? No thank you! The BB shell has to be manually faced; the Campy youtube vid shows you. I didn't fancy spending £200 on the tools, so the shop did it for me. I haven't touched my Chorus BB. One service in three years and it run's like a dream. The best system in my opinion.

Hi,



As I recall it I used another set of SR cups on my very first trial installation. These cups had only a few mm of thread locker on them around the centre of the threaded part.
Although it wasn't exactly super smooth it was markedly better than the current install which uses new cups. Little did I know that that awful tool Campa requires you to use was going to leave such an amount of scuff marks on these cups...

So, I suspect the copious amount of tread locker that came with the new cups may actually be partly the cause of the problem. That plus maybe the fact that BB shell and threads aren't properly prepped even though they look as if they are.

It's not as if the bearings are locking up, I can't feel them as you can like when you're over tightening a cup and cone bearing for instance.

BB shell measures 68mm and yes, this crank is technically identical to a SR UT one. It's just 10S that's all.
The frame is a carbon one, a Kuota Kahn from 2005 to be precise.

I guess I'll unscrew the cups, clean the thread locker off, use anti-seize instead and give it another shot.
If that still is unsatisfactory I'll just take it a LBS. No point in investing over 200 Euro in tooling that's already obsolete as we speak, right?

Thanks guys,

_________________
Being a snob is an expensive hobby.

Still, whether you screwed the cups in with the threadlocker or not, that shouldn't make a difference in the alignment once everything is tightened down. But if the beginning threads of the bb are not in great shape its possible that you crossthreaded it a bit since its hard to tell with all that thick dried up threadlocker they put on. But now that you say you can "feel" it getting not so free moving as your tightening it down, that really makes me think that it's an alignment issue and the only other thing I can imagine is that it's not faced properly. You do have the proper cups right, English vs Italian thread, although if you had the wrong ones they wouldn't even be able to be threaded in at all in the first place. I don't know at this point either and I'm pretty sure you know what you're doing there so let us know how you get on in the end. Good luck.

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ

There is a simple way to test for the need to face the BB shell. Screw the cups in until the contact a .010 inch feeler gage and then use .008-.012 inch feelers to check for high or low areas around the shell. If you find deviations larger than that, then the shell needs facing. Just hope that whoever does it actually reduces the runout. Facing is a rather crude scraping operation that isn't extremely accurate. I've seen pictures of some nasty looking rippled surfaces after facing.

I also se anti seize on BB threads even if threadlocker is present. If the shell is not faced it may or may not make a difference. It is standard practice to face the BB shell prior to first install of external cup BB. It helps bearing life. Take it to your LBS. Since BB30 eats bearings I have a feeling external cup BB's will be around for a while yet. Campag thankfully have not jump on the 30mm axle bandwagon.

DaveS facing maybe crude but it is essential.

_________________
www.thecycleclinic.co.uk

Facing is not essential. I've owned at least a dozen frames in 25 years and none of them needed it. Modern frames are much less likely to need facing than old steel frames. Just be sure that there is no paint on the faces of the shell, before measuring for the need.

My belief is that if an outboard bearing crank (Ultra Torque or Shimano/Sram/Other) is not rotating as freely as one would presume (i.e. a Cult bearing Campy versus a notoriously stiff Shimano BB) that after you check the BB width to be sure (for Ultra Torque) , that next on the list is to have the BB threads chased with a unit that threads in simultaneously from both sides - thus ensuring that there isn't some out of tolerance distortion on the BB - if a steel or alu frame for instance from the heat from brazing/welding, for a carbon frame....depends on how the BB insert was made/installed.

http://www.parktool.com/product/bottom- ... -set-BTS-1

Hi,

Personally I don't think facing the BB shell is critical at this point as with the amount of thread locker present I haven't yet torqued down the cups to 35Nm.
Which I believe is not necessary as the friction of a Loctite's 222 thread locking compound is 26Nm and the dry thread locker Campa is using is pretty similar.
It would matter if you'd want to torque the cups down as this force would actually act on the threads of the BB shell and cups and force them into a certain direction.

Either way, as my BB shell measures 68mm spot on several points I think I can safely assume it has been faced before. Campa's tolerance then also allows me to actually back of the cups a bit, to the point of just not touching the BB shell and still fall within tolerance, I suppose.

What I do suspect however is a very slight run out of the coaxiality of the threads of the BB shell. Not so much so you would actually notice it when using the good old ISO tapered BB yet too much for the outboard bearings to actually work as they should.
It must be rather slight as I never suffered excessive bearing use or drag whilst using old style BBs with this frame.

BTW, none of the threads inside the BB shell are damaged but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to chase them and if necessary recut them properly so they are perfectly coaxial for I fear that's where my problem stems from.



May I ask, why use both thread locker and anti-seize together? The presence of anti-seize negates the presence of the thread locker.
Thread locker is an anti-seize which acts by chemically isolating two different metals. Typical anti-seize paste OTOH acts as a donor of ions to both sides so any ion wanting to bond with another ion from the other side is now actually bonding to the voluntureering copper ions instead.
Not that I want to lecture anyone on this anyway.

Either, all input is welcomed.

Ciao,

EDIT: It seems Tomassini and I are thinking along the same lines which sounds rather comforting.

_________________
Being a snob is an expensive hobby.

Exactly, as Tommasini points out. That's the exact tool I have and I thought it was kind of just understood that "facing" must be done with such a tool to ensure that both faces are square with each other. You can use that tool with either threaded bushings, which just thread into the bb but do not cut, or with the actual taps which are very sharp and will remove material very easily. Not a bad idea to use them and just clean up the threads if you think it might need it.

And Fdegrove, absolutely correct in that there is no point in using both threadlocker and antiseize compound. They conflict with each other. I hate the compound that is all over the threads of campy cups and generally remove it with an awl. But don't "back off" a bit on the cups. Let the cups seat themselves tightly on the faced bb shell, not just align themselves in the rather loose threads. Torque them down properly against a faced shell to 35Nm. I've never had one come loose. And unlike your experience, I've never installed an Ultratorque crankset that didn't spin in the same way that your Boras spin. Can you get away withouth facing... probably, I'm sure a lot of shops do that. But why would you if you want it done right. You're a perfectionist right. Don't get sloppy now.

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ

YES!!

In my prior message I should have added that after a good chase of the threads (using the actual taps) then get on to the facing of the BB. I was basically trying to point out that simply facing the BB might neglect a concurrent thread misallignment.

This tool only does the later http://www.parktool.com/product/bottom- ... -set-bfs-1

Thanks guys for continuing to share the knowledge!!

I can see why you might have not bothered with facing and chasing, having just pulled a bottom bracket you had no problem with. Still, I would always recommend it, especially if it 'feels' wrong when re-threading.

I just re-did one recently. I pulled the cups, cleaned and re-lubed and re-installed everything. When I chased the threads, there was a bit of re-cutting going on, which surprised me. I think that the World Tour Teams skip a few steps, too! Anyway, the cups went on easily, which is what I would have expected from Campagnolo and Ridley.

You should probably pull them, face and chase, then re-install.

I use anti seize as I often end up removing some threadlocker as I have had the cups bind up in the BB shell before beacuse of this damm yellow stuff and that is after chasing the threads. That by the way is the first thing I do, chase then face. So the anti seize is there to compensate for the threadlocker I remove. Those cups that bound up were pretty stuck, once I got it out and removed thread locker they went in easily. Only happened once (and it was not crossthreaded) but it scared me on a brand new frame.

_________________
www.thecycleclinic.co.uk