2015 Campy SR Cranks Creaking - anyone else?

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

User avatar
dadoflam08
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:25 am
Location: Southern Great Southern Land

by dadoflam08

Am running 2015 Campy SR on my Baum - usually a silent bike. Been getting a progressively worsening creak - particularly when out of the saddle. Finally tracked it down to the new cranks after the usual end-to-end investigation, new headset etc when I put my previous 2011 SR cranks back on the bike and silence seemed to return.
Had creaking on both large and small chainrings which have individual boltsets so I am suspecting the bearings or hirth joint - purely speculative at this point.
Has gone back to Campy distributor for look over.

Anyone else experienced this?
Last edited by dadoflam08 on Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
'83 De Rosa+'11 Baum Corretto+'08 BMC Pro Machine >6kg+'86 Pinarello Team +'72 Cinelli SC +'58 Bianchi+'71 Cinelli SC+'78 Masi GC+'83 La Redoute Motobecane+'94 Banesto Pegoretti+'88 Bianchi X4 +'48 Super Elliott+'99 Look Kg281+'18 Pegoretti

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

What kind of BB? Pressfit? Ooops, Nevermind, just saw the part about no creaks with the other crank. Maybe the chainring bolts. On new cranks I always like to disassemble and reassmble with a thin film of grease on the faces where metal meets and make sure they are all torqued properly and evenly.
Lol. Nevermind again. Should have read your post more thoroughly. Seems like you're doing the right troubleshooting. Grease between bearings and cup I presume.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

em3
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:57 pm
Location: NYC

by em3

....just because the 2015 cranks have individual bolts sets it doesn't mean that they are immune to creaking. Calnago's suggestion to apply grease where bolt face meets chainring is still applicable, not to mention grease in hirth joint too.
______________

Thales
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:14 pm

by Thales

Hi guys - did you resolve this - my 2015 Campag SR cranks are also creaking - on a 'normal' threaded bottom bracket - its driving me mad.

User avatar
tommasini
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:48 am
Location: Central USA
Contact:

by tommasini

I'm running 2 of the 2015 SR's - no problems. Besides the potential dabs of grease mentioned already (I only dab some on the hirth and the bolt for the hirth - I leave the chainring bolts alone), a previously suggested culprit for all cranksets is lack of lube also on the pedal spindle threads. Perhaps being a new crank that wasn't done at installation?

User avatar
dadoflam08
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:25 am
Location: Southern Great Southern Land

by dadoflam08

Campy replaced my cranks no questions asked - new set running beautifully silent
'83 De Rosa+'11 Baum Corretto+'08 BMC Pro Machine >6kg+'86 Pinarello Team +'72 Cinelli SC +'58 Bianchi+'71 Cinelli SC+'78 Masi GC+'83 La Redoute Motobecane+'94 Banesto Pegoretti+'88 Bianchi X4 +'48 Super Elliott+'99 Look Kg281+'18 Pegoretti

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

That's great @dadoflame08, were they able to determine the source of the creak? Anyway, good that all is running as it should. Never heard of Campy just replacing something like that with "no questions asked". But nice that they did.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

szazbo
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:26 am

by szazbo

Not to bring out the haters, but might be the normal wave washer issue that will occur in many bikes. You can call BS if you want but Rogue Mechanic's fix does work. I have 3 SR bikes and 2 of them had crank/BB related noises after installing them the correctly. Not at 1st but 2k miles down the road. I resolved them in an unconventional manner by loctiting the bearings to the cups. Noise disappeared because crank was no longer moving in the cups against the wave washer. There have been many threads about this and the experts want to defend Campy and their design blah blah. I am not a Campy hater at all but had noise Some will have the issue and some will not depending on BB shell dimensions and some other variables. The last bike I used the RM shims to eliminate BB dimension variable and noise is gone forever. Been 5k miles this time. Just my experience and not looking for the haters to say I don't know what I am doing.

http://roguemechanic.typepad.com/roguemechanic/

User avatar
bikerjulio
Posts: 1900
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:38 pm
Location: Welland, Ontario

by bikerjulio

The most widely misunderstood part of the UT system is the retaining clip. The clip holds the DS bearing firmly in place so that there is no side-to-side movement. The second most misunderstood part is the wave washer. It simply provides a little preload to the NDS bearing. No more or less.
There's sometimes a buggy.
How many drivers does a buggy have?

One.

So let's just say I'm drivin' this buggy...
and if you fix your attitude you can ride along with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GekiIMh4ZkM

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Yikes, here we go again...
The retaining clip simply prevents the crank from moving an excessive amount laterally. It does not even actually touch the bearing otherwise. The wavy washer, in addition to providing a little preload, is there to take up the slack in frame tolerances from the standard 68mm, accommodating shell widths of 68.0mm +/- 0.8mm. If you push the non drive side of the crank laterally, it will compress the wavy washer and stop when the drive side bearing hits the retaining clip. It's a good system, and I've never had problem with it, but in an ideal perfect world, the crank would not have any lateral movement at all, zero. But it seems to be negligible in the Campy system and in the real world works very well, after all, it's only a bicycle crank. Shimano use a mechanical preload, and I like that. So does the Campy Overtorque system (I think, I've never actually installed one yet). These when setup correctly prevent any lateral play at all. But the solidity of the hirth joint in the Ultratorque system keeps everything perfectly spaced and solid, with a bit of tradeoff with using a wavy washer to accommodate some BB shell width tolerances. They all work when installed correctly. The Rogue Mechanic's system basically converts the wavy washer preload system in the Campy Ultratorque to a (hopefully) extremely precise mechanical preload. The difficulty in this method is getting everything exactly perfectly right, and by it's nature takes quite a bit of trial and error. I've never used it but could see how it would work providing all the stars are perfectly aligned and you get it juuuust right. And if you eliminate ALL movement laterally while simultaneously having the right amount of preload, which is what a mechanical preload and the Rogue Mechanic's method attempt to do, then it does eliminate a potential source of creaking.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
bikerjulio
Posts: 1900
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:38 pm
Location: Welland, Ontario

by bikerjulio

In my installs the clip does touch the DS bearing and holds it firmly in place. If you can move the crank by pressing on the NDS then it's not installed right. All my UT setups are rock solid.

Somewhere on the interwebs is a thread where Graeme agrees.
There's sometimes a buggy.
How many drivers does a buggy have?

One.

So let's just say I'm drivin' this buggy...
and if you fix your attitude you can ride along with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GekiIMh4ZkM

AJS914
Posts: 5397
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

I've never had an issue with an Ultra Torque crankset either. His solution though is interesting. Maybe one is more prone to have a problem if their BB shell is on the short side of the 68mm spec? On his site, he does talk about an alternate installation method of using one of his washers in addition to the wavy washer. It seems like that scenario would be good for a shorter than spec BB giving the bearings a little more pre-load.

User avatar
Calnago
In Memoriam
Posts: 8612
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Yes. I know what Graeme says. He says if it doesn't move at all then the shell may be a bit oversize. The retaining clip prevents I think no more than 0.25mm of lateral movement max. I experimented with this a great deal on different frames. I also thought there was zero lateral movement in my system. But after cleaning and regreasing the cups etc., I conceded there is. And it's ok. I would press it from the non drive side with clip in, then remove the clip and press again. It moved farther with the clip removed which confirms the clip actually does something in the event of minor lateral movement. It prevents an "excessive" amount of movement. Initially I wrestled with why the clip was even there but now see its purpose. Trek does not use the clip at all for their campy adaptor kits for BB90. Just their own wavy washer. But they can tightly control their frame tolerances and it moves about the same as on a BSA 68.0mm shell with the wavy washer and clip installed. But Campy has to provide a system that will work with all manufacturers BB shells, hence the wavy washer and retaining clip.
Last edited by Calnago on Sun Dec 13, 2015 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

XCProMD
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:25 am
Location: Cantabria

by XCProMD

The wavy washer is a fantastic idea, above all because it is extremely difficult to have two exactly parallel faces on both sides of the BB.

Campag's system allow to take the slack that might happen in part of the cycle without having to overload the bearings in another.

With other systems you will inevitably run with some excessive load in part of the cycle and/or play in another.

It is not a Campagnolo invention, it is widely used when precision and reliability is needed in this kind of berating systems.

graeme_f_k
Shop Owner / Manufacturer
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

by graeme_f_k

To paraphrase various comments I have posted at various times: the wavy washer will compensate for errors of +/-0.8 mm in the overall width of the shell and the "safety clip" may allow up to 0.25 mm of lateral movement - but if the BB is slightly over the +/-0.8mm of allowed tolerance then the safety clip may not allow any side to side movement at all.

XCProMD is correct insofar as wavy washers are very widely used in all manner of precision bearing systems (and let's not forget, there is one in a fair number of BB30 systems out there, too) ... The wavy washer is not really there to compensate in any way for a lack of parallel / concentricity in the BB shell - it will compensate for relatively small errors to some extent but that's not it's main job. The shell needs to be concentric-chased and then faced using the BB threads as a guide in order to get as close to perfectly parallel, perpendicular-to-the-bore faces as is practically possible.

At the risk of repeating what Calnago has already pointed out - or, perhaps, to flesh it out a little - What anyone who is packing the space out with shims needs to remember is that by and large, the smallest shim stock that is used is 0.1mm. 0.1 mm, that's 100 microns, is 10 x the tolerance of sphericality used in a Campagnolo-spec ballbearing, even if the shim itself is bang-on the centre-point of it's thickness tolerance - and it probably won't be. So you are paying a lot of money to get balls that are within +/- 10 microns of perfectly spherical - more money if you have ceramic balls which have still better sphericaility - then you are potentially messing the whole thing up by introducing an error that might be as much as (in practical terms) maybe 5x that. Plus, you are either potentially introducing a shed-load more preload than the system is designed for, or, assuming that by some weird fluke, the shims are either "precisely" on the money for width, or a tiny but indetectable fraction under-width, no preload at all. It'd be nothing short of a miracle if you happened to hit the spacing that gave the preload in the designed range. And that's when the bearings are new - never mind what happens when they wear and develop play.

OverTorque - the threaded ring system used to recover small errors in BB width specification is not really designed to apply any significant preload to the bearings, though it could be used to compensate for any float that might develop with wear and tear on the bearings. It's there to absolutely fix the relative positions of the BB axle, the cranks, and adaptors and the bearings so that it is not possible, under a cyclic load, for the bearings to try and "walk" as happens in other systems where these parameters are not fixed. Unless the distances across the BB axle are fixed, some propensity for the bearings or their containing cups to "walk" exists, hence BB adaptors being able to eventually walk out of the frame if not bonded into place.

A couple of notes on the 4 arm crank ... if you are contemplating re-bolting the rings, the recommendation based on testing with the pro teams is new bolts every time, a trace of Loctite 247 on the threads (optional) and dry under the heads, evenly torqued to 8 nm.

The teams, during the field-test phase, played with re-using bolts and Loctite-ing, and with grease and over-torquing and in both cases had problems with bolts coming adrift. Using a second-hand bolt dry gave galling problems and difficulty releasing the bolts the next time around ... hence the advice, new bolts, dry excepting the Loctite if you feel the urge.

Why should this be so? The anodising on the back of the bolt head is abraded by contact with the relatively hard anodisation on the chainrings, such that on release, most of that soft anodisation is taken off the surface. Surface anodisation is just that, penetrating only a micron or two into the alloy surface and confering no additional hardness to speak of ... so when the bolt is then re-tightened against the still relatively hard and relatively rough surface of the chainring, galls are raised that tend to jam the head of the bolt and resist loosening. That's great, until you want to release the bolt at which point that can become a real problem.

For sure, if you do get a chainring bolt jammed you can drill it out - but bear in mind that you are drilling into a blind hole, backed with a carbon skin. I'd want to be darn' sure of the depth gauge on my drill press before I started that job, not to mention being very sure of the jigging of the crank to make sure it was dead-on perpendicular to the chuck ... EZ-outs are a possible get out of jail option, but why give yourself the stress?

If you have an issue with creaking in the 4-arm crank and you can trace it back to the crank as the definite cause, then for sure the ASC in your market will look at it and should field test it. If they (we) make it creak, then remedial measures up to and including replacement will be undertaken. Of course questions may be asked - any manufacturer needs to establish that the goods that they sell, if returned as a possible warranty case, are being used within the specified environment - end users should not take this as a slight on them, or as a questioning of their honesty - it's a normal part of a procedure designed to establish whether all the required parameters are being met - *you* may be the best mechanic on God's Good Earth but if you send *me* a part back as a potential warranty (and remember, I am examining it in isolation from the bike it is being used in), I have no way of knowing that, so I am going to ask you all the questions I need to, in order to make sure of the circumstances. Everyone who works with me at Velotech Cycling Ltd is a cyclist and that's broadly true of all the SCs across Europe and North America - none of us want to shaft you and most of us will bend over backwards to help as much as the warranty system allows (and from time to time, more) if there is a genuine problem ... but to do that, we often need to ask what look like bloody silly questions ...:-D
A Tech-Reps work is never done ...
Head Tech, Campagnolo main UK ASC
Pls contact via velotechcycling"at"aim"dot"com, not PM, for a quicker answer. Thanks!

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply