SRAM BB30 Crankset Installation

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

Moderator: robbosmans

Valbrona
Posts: 1629
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:25 am
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

by Valbrona

highdraw wrote:
Valbrona wrote: The plastic lockring is perfectly fine no matter how much you disparage it. Metal comes with a weight penalty versus plastic.


It's not that the plastic lockring isn't capable of doing its job. It's the fact that being plastic the threads formed in it can easily be damaged with heavy-handedness.
Last edited by Valbrona on Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

highdraw

by highdraw

Valbrona wrote:
highdraw wrote:
Valbrona wrote: The plastic lockring is perfectly fine no matter how much you disparage it. Metal comes with a weight penalty versus plastic.


It's not that the plastic lockring isn't capable of doing its job. It's the fact that being plastic the threads formed in it can easily be damaged with heavy-handedness.

Heavy handedness not only places unnecessary stress on the lockring you obsess over but induces excessive preload which is major cause of premature BB30 bearing wear often complained about on the internet. These are needless self inflicted wounds that have nothing to do with the design being flawed but rather a reflection of the guy working on it.
Btw, never use a sledge hammer to align a rear derailleur either. A friendly tip.

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm

by Rick

highdraw wrote:Sorry but way ahead of you. You don't know what you are talking about. I worked in the industry on the design. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The only people that have problems with BB30 are those like yourself that don't understand the design and understand root cause. This thread has a nice subset of those that are making judgments without understanding the physics involved. When BB30 is set up properly 'it can't creak' be it with wave washer or mechanical preload locking collar. Both are effective.


So, at this point, I don't know if you are desperate to defend a design that you feel like you had some part in creating, as you claim...
Or if you are just trolling. There are lots of ways to discuss an issue without always implying that everyone who disagrees with you "don't know hat they are talking about", or "it's too deep for them" or "it's rubbish". The irony is that "the physics involved" is really pretty simple" provide a laterally stiff enough installation that nothing moves under loads.

It really doesn't matter. BB30 units are notoriously noisy, and we have fixes.....while you continue to insist that everyone else "doesn't understand" even though we have actually tried all your recommendations before resorting to the other methods.

BTW: I don't have any Campy Ultratorque setups and I had never heard of "The Rogue Mechanic", so I looked it up. The common theme between BB30 and Campy problems: the wave washer.
The Rogue Mechanic's video is really a very good solution, even though it is a PIA to precisely select washers. BUT IT WORKS.

Otherwise, it appears to me that Campy bearing cups are similar to shimano hollowtech. Why doesn't shamano have so many problems ? : The crank is preloaded against the bearings AND THEN RIGIDLY CLAMPED TO THE SPINDLE. The common theme among relatively problem-free systems: RIGID CONNECTION....no wave washer.

Unbiased readers can choose to do whatever they want with their BBs. It is not worth arguing about with an insulting troll. :thumbup:

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

by Calnago

I've been through it all as well. I'm with @Rick. That said, I have never installed or used a Campy ultratorque system without the wavy washer, but lateral movement is not something you want there, and if there is any at all you want to minimize it as much as possible.
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

highdraw

by highdraw

Rick wrote:
highdraw wrote:Sorry but way ahead of you. You don't know what you are talking about. I worked in the industry on the design. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The only people that have problems with BB30 are those like yourself that don't understand the design and understand root cause. This thread has a nice subset of those that are making judgments without understanding the physics involved. When BB30 is set up properly 'it can't creak' be it with wave washer or mechanical preload locking collar. Both are effective.


So, at this point, I don't know if you are desperate to defend a design that you feel like you had some part in creating, as you claim...
Or if you are just trolling. There are lots of ways to discuss an issue without always implying that everyone who disagrees with you "don't know hat they are talking about", or "it's too deep for them" or "it's rubbish". The irony is that "the physics involved" is really pretty simple" provide a laterally stiff enough installation that nothing moves under loads.

It really doesn't matter. BB30 units are notoriously noisy, and we have fixes.....while you continue to insist that everyone else "doesn't understand" even though we have actually tried all your recommendations before resorting to the other methods.

BTW: I don't have any Campy Ultratorque setups and I had never heard of "The Rogue Mechanic", so I looked it up. The common theme between BB30 and Campy problems: the wave washer.
The Rogue Mechanic's video is really a very good solution, even though it is a PIA to precisely select washers. BUT IT WORKS.

Otherwise, it appears to me that Campy bearing cups are similar to shimano hollowtech. Why doesn't shamano have so many problems ? : The crank is preloaded against the bearings AND THEN RIGIDLY CLAMPED TO THE SPINDLE. The common theme among relatively problem-free systems: RIGID CONNECTION....no wave washer.

Unbiased readers can choose to do whatever they want with their BBs. It is not worth arguing about with an insulting troll. :thumbup:

What's worse...you being insulted or you spewing a ridiculous solution like solid spacing a BB30 which is a laughable solution? Sorry...but you just can't make this stuff up. Next some guy will suggest chewing gum to quiet his BB and defend it fiercely and he too will be wrong as rain including the delusional Rogue Mechanic when there is nothing wrong with Campy UT with a wavewasher or the ten's of thousands of wavewasher BB30's riding the streets throughout the world that are dead quiet. The guys that developed these designs have forgotten more about them than the chewing gum brigade who wants to reinvent the wheel when all that needs to occur is for the wheel to be installed per design intent.

highdraw

by highdraw

Calnago wrote:I've been through it all as well. I'm with @Rick. That said, I have never installed or used a Campy ultratorque system without the wavy washer, but lateral movement is not something you want there, and if there is any at all you want to minimize it as much as possible.

Here's a novel concept for you. The lateral force applied by the wavewasher provided the BB is within tolerance prescribed in Campy's literature will isolate the lateral movement of the crank because the spring preload is greater than the lateral force applied to the crank by pedal forces which are vastly vertical in loading and horizontal forces to the crank are contained by the spring rate of the wave washer. This is all tested in development. I have 30K miles on Campy UT on 5 different bikes with a wave washer and never an issue. Nobody needs to smoke the crack that the Rogue Mechanic is smoking who couldn't get hired at Campagnolo for all the tea in china because he doesn't have the technical training and yet he spews his nonsense on the internet that some are gullible enough to believe.
Last edited by highdraw on Fri Sep 18, 2015 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

by Calnago

If that were completely true then there would be no need for the circular C-clip on the drive side of Campy's Ultratorque systems, which is there to prevent lateral movement in excess of 0.25mm. Still, I don't even like that it can move that much but the wavy washer, in addition to preload, also is there to account for variances in frame BB shells.
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

highdraw

by highdraw

Calnago wrote:If that were completely true then there would be no need for the circular C-clip on the drive side of Campy's Ultratorque systems, which is there to prevent lateral movement in excess of 0.25mm. Still, I don't even like that it can move that much but the wavy washer, in addition to preload, also is there to account for variances in frame BB shells.

All wavewashers are there to compensate for build tolerance as it turns out...including the fractional bedding of bearings as they wear in...which is easily adjusted by a mechanical preload lockring which typically needs to be touched up from time to time. Campy in fact makes both designs...wavewasher with UltraTorque and locking collar with OverTorque which supports BB30 for various width BB shells.
PS: it could be argued why the circlip exists. One theory is...if the crank Hirth joint center bolt lets go, the drive side of the crank will not fall out. The other is assembly. The circlip retains the drive side half shaft for pushing the two halfshafts together. The .25mm you reference could easily be designed in as overall containment and travel of the spindle laterally based upon a dimensional tolerance ideal. And yes Campy elects to maintain this feature because of the afore mentioned. Wavewasher designs are excellent provide the compression of the wavewasher is close to its nominal mid point of travel. This escapes some unfortunately and those that struggle with wavewashers with BB30 either have insufficient clearance or the wavewasher is under compressed. With BB30, this takes proper spacing and with Campy this takes attention to the tolerances they prescribe.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm

by Rick

...if the crank Hirth joint center bolt lets go, the drive side of the crank will not fall out.

But the wave washer will cause the non-drive side to spring outward...and that's of lesser concern ?!?! :roll:
The other is assembly. The circlip retains the drive side half shaft for pushing the two halfshafts together.

But, off course, someone actually has to be holding the non-drive side crank in place at the time of assembly anyway, so that is obviously not its purpose.

This thread has become almost humorous. I am trying to not start getting off topic. :lol:

highdraw

by highdraw

Rick wrote:
...if the crank Hirth joint center bolt lets go, the drive side of the crank will not fall out.

But the wave washer will cause the non-drive side to spring outward...and that's of lesser concern ?!?! :roll:
The other is assembly. The circlip retains the drive side half shaft for pushing the two halfshafts together.

But, off course, someone actually has to be holding the non-drive side crank in place at the time of assembly anyway, so that is obviously not its purpose.

This thread has become almost humorous. I am trying to not start getting off topic. :lol:

We agree at last. This thread became hilarious when you started posting your witchcraft cause and effect.
Were your really a product development engineer? Unbelievable.
Are you Rube Goldberg's ghost?...lol.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm

by Rick

highdraw wrote:We agree at last. This thread became hilarious when you started posting your witchcraft cause and effect.
Were your really a product development engineer? Unbelievable.

Yes.
Ironically, I have used a device similar to the wave washer in numerous designs: the belleville washer.
But we usually use that in situations where we want to keep a relatively constant controlled force on a part while allowing it to move slightly.
We also use a variation of the "precise washer selection" scheme, using these "laminate washers"
Image
You just peel off very thin layers until it is the right thickness. :)

I can't think of any real product that uses wave washers for an application where they really want the fastened item to remain in a fixed position. It is too easy to just use a locking collar to compensate for tolerance variations. Wave washers are almost always used to deliberately allow motion, usually in vibration or due to large thermal expansion differences.

When you were developing the BB30 system, I am sure you took into consideration the spring constant is for a BB30 wave washer. So what force do you think it is exerting when compressed to half its length ?
Now estimate how much side load a strong (or even just "typical") rider could exert on the crank spindle during a sprint.
How do those compare ?

highdraw

by highdraw

Rick wrote:
highdraw wrote:We agree at last. This thread became hilarious when you started posting your witchcraft cause and effect.
Were your really a product development engineer? Unbelievable.

Yes.
Ironically, I have used a device similar to the wave washer in numerous designs: the belleville washer.
But we usually use that in situations where we want to keep a relatively constant controlled force on a part while allowing it to move slightly.
We also use a variation of the "precise washer selection" scheme, using these "laminate washers"
Image
You just peel off very thin layers until it is the right thickness. :)

I can't think of any real product that uses wave washers for an application where they really want the fastened item to remain in a fixed position. It is too easy to just use a locking collar to compensate for tolerance variations. Wave washers are almost always used to deliberately allow motion, usually in vibration or due to large thermal expansion differences.

When you were developing the BB30 system, I am sure you took into consideration the spring constant is for a BB30 wave washer. So what force do you think it is exerting when compressed to half its length ?
Now estimate how much side load a strong (or even just "typical") rider could exert on the crank spindle during a sprint.
How do those compare ?

You see, here is the problem Rick. Your very question proves you don't understand the design or you would never ask such a question. Really? How do these numbers compare? How do you think they should compare? Is it ok for the crank to be immobilized in a steady state low watt condition say at 250 watts when pacelining at 22mph but then the wavewasher won't capture the crank laterally when a 1500 watt rider is sprinting out of the saddle? Tom Bonnen who is closer to a 2000w rider rode a Campy UT crank for years with a wave washer. So the criteria is, a wave washer must restrain the crank well enough under 'ALL' conditions...the bike sitting at home in your garage, the bike being ridden at a constant wattage and a full out high watt foray where lateral displacement of the crank could cause the chain to slip and put the rider on his face. This would obviously be calamitous and a boundary condition of the design. But here is another reason why your question exposes your lack of comprehension. Even a weak wavewasher will not cause chain slippage when a strong rider is out of the saddle. Why is that? Tolerance. 1/2 of the washer compression displacement will not cause the chain to jump off with rider out of the saddle sprinting even if the crank does move laterally this amount. This is design intent. Where problems occur is if this gap is exceeded which is common when Joe 6 pack doesn't install it properly. This lack of preload causes the balls in the bearings to resonate between inner and outer races due to lack of tension. Its obvious what the wave washer has to accomplish and it does this very well provided there is suitable compression through appropriate spacing and this gap will not cause the chain to slip off the big ring when sprinting...whether the wave washer compresses or not. This has all been tested in the laboratory repeatedly....been tested in the TdF repeatedly over thousands of miles in racing conditions among the top riders in the world...Nibali won the TdF on a Campy Record UT crank with wavewasher...and millions of miles out on the road as it has been out for 10 years now and still going strong with 2015 Super Record. It is one of the best designs I have ever personally ridden in fact. So a wavewasher doesn't need your validation. Its record speaks for itself.

Btw, did you hear that noise in the background? That was the sound of cash registers selling 500 new $8000 top brand race bikes today throughout the US with a wavewasher used to capture lateral movement of the crank. For some reason the design continues to be produced and for some reason the entire industry doesn't listen to you. A travesty. Top companies who employee thousands of engineers from the top engineering schools putting out designs that are injurious to their bottom line because they deliberately choose a poor design on a critical feature of the bike...their bottom bracket. Amazing all these people are wrong and you are right.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm

by Rick

highdraw wrote:You see, here is the problem Rick. Your very question proves you don't understand the design or you would never ask such a question.

There is a lot of irony here.
This lack of preload causes the balls in the bearings to resonate between inner and outer races due to lack of tension.

I think all the engineers know who to believe now. :wink:

So a wavewasher doesn't need your validation. Its record speaks for itself.

Whew ! More irony! ;)

Do we need a historical list of bad designs that bike companies have tried and later had to abandon or greatly modify because they didnt work like some "design engineer" thought they were going to ? :mrgreen:

BTW: None of us (people who notice BB30 flaws) have claimed that it doesn't work or that all of them are noisy, or that the wave washer never works. It is just that some obviously do have problems and there is an improved installation method that fixes it. I don't feel like defending against every one of your red-herring and straw-man arguments. Anyone who wants to fix their BB30 can read through the reasoning and make a rational judgement. :thumbup:
Last edited by Rick on Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

highdraw

by highdraw

Rick wrote:
highdraw wrote:You see, here is the problem Rick. Your very question proves you don't understand the design or you would never ask such a question.

There is a lot of irony here.

So a wavewasher doesn't need your validation. Its record speaks for itself.

Whew ! More irony! ;)

Do we need a historical list of bad designs that bike companies have tried and later had to abandon or greatly modify because they didnt work like some "design engineer" thought they were going to ? :mrgreen:

Some engineer? Who signs off on designs? Engineering Mgrs and Directors. How about a chorus off all top bike makers endorse the design. How about Campagnolo who chooses this design on their finest and most celebrated groupset in history? Campy Super Record.
But then there is Rick and his opinion...lol. Irony? You define it.
I'm out. Don't worry everybody. The forum is in great hands with Rick. He really knows his stuff.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm

by Rick

highdraw wrote: The forum is in great hands with Rick. He really knows his stuff.

Or, you can just keep using a wave washer, and shutup and ignore the sounds the crank is making, because "It's designed properly.....and Campy uses it, Dammit! " :thumbup:

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



Post Reply