Colnago C60 - Campagnolo bottom bracket

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6058
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Yes, so they have it looks like. Might have been nice if they made it so that you can use the same tool to tighten it that you have to use to remove the existing Threadfit cups, since that tool is proprietary. Only real issue with this setup I see is whether they've got the tolerances as tight as regular Campy cups and it doesn't look like the surfaces where the bearings sit are anodized, so I think I'd be a little more diligent about removing the cranks on a regular basis and checking things out.
But, having done a few C60's now with pressfit Campy cups into Colnago's TF BB with zero problems so far, I think I'm happy continuing this route and keeping it all "in the family" so to speak, if for no other reason than they don't say "Wishbone" on them.
In looking at the alloy sleeve that colnago uses to thread the Threadfit cups into, I've wondered if it is beefy enough for a direct solution such as this, since it looks a lot thinner than threaded BB's I'm used to seeing. So I thought maybe it's the combination of the sleeve and the Threadfit cups that give it the beefiness it needs but I don't know. It would appear that this alternative would hopefully do the same if that's the case. Good luck with it but it does not seem to me like it will do a better job and costs a lot more considering a set of Campy cups are what... about $40. And Wishbone's cups are ~$100? Then add the tool you need to remove the existing TF cups. I could see it if there seemed to be an issue with the current setup, but unlike a lot of pressfit BB's out there, I'm not seeing that this is the case with Colnago's Threadfit solution. If it were me I'd just stick with the Threadfit option with Campy cups rather than introduce yet another manufacturer into the equation.
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

ghisallo2003
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:10 pm

by ghisallo2003

Hi Cal, In retrospect, I agree. I am not sure that the frame threads are designed for this threaded solution. Rather they are designed to allow the limited insertion (perhaps a few times per frame life) of a threaded interface for press-fit. I think there is actually a weakness there and that like the T47 proposition, a better solution would be a proper threaded design which did give confidence.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6058
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I don't know... the threads have a pretty fine pitch, I think finer than you'd find in a normal threaded bottom bracket. But it does look very strong. And the Threadfit cups go in pretty deep, which is good. I really checked the tolerances on these cups and they were very very good. So that's why I say I think I'd just leave the stock system in place, and use the campy cups, especially since I've not heard of any issues (well there was one guy who posted a thread about some campy cups that seemed to be way out of tolerance, but I've not experienced anything like that). I just think the industry is now too used to the cost savings of producing a less than perfect carbon shell, and that going back is not an option for them.

Anyway, here's some pics of the Threadfit System which I'm repeating from my C60 build thread...

The alloy sleeve that gets permanently bonded to the BB shell, along with the tool used to remove the Threadfit cups...
Image


The BB without the Threadfit cups... nicely faced so everything is square...
Image


The Threadfit cups themselves...
Image


As you see it upon frame delivery...
Image
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

graeme_f_k
Shop Owner / Manufacturer
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

by graeme_f_k

Miller wrote:I used a little bit of Loctite 641 although catching up with Campag technical manuals it seems they recommend 609 (?). I selected a Loctite with the minimum grab on the basis that the Campag cups might have to come out sometime. They are a tight fit anyway.


Loctite 603, 609 or 641 are all fine. The key thing is the medium strength and the ability to cross gaps of up to 0.2 mm so that if the BB shell isn't accurately cylindrical, the Loctite is still holding the cup.

641 isn't available or I should say, is not legally sold, in all juristictions, hence the Campagnolo documentation offering some alternatives.

If the cups are being fitted into a carbon sleeve, or an anodised alloy sleeve, a much quicker and more predictable curing of the Loctite can be gained by using Loctite 7649 activator - see the relevant Loctite technical documents. This is because in common with many similar products, 603, 609 and 641 all need free metal ions to kick off the curing process. If both the cup and the sleeve are anodised, the only way that you'll get any bare metal is if the junction between the two parts scrapes some anodising off - and of course in a carbon sleeve, the probability of the carbon scraping the anodising of the cup is very low - hence the recommendation.

The shear force (grab?) required is fairly low in this situation but release is not a huge issue anyway, although I'd draw the line at walloping the cups out with a drift. It's fairly simple to make up a tool that can be fed into the BB and expand internally, forcing the cups apart and in this way, force is applied progressively, a definitely better option than laying about things with a mallet or hammer.

There is an issue with just using a big bolt and two thumping great washers (apart from the obvious possibility of damaging the lip of the comparatively thin wall of the cup) fir fitting PF Campag cups (or in fact, most other PF cups, too).

The correct drift is shaped so that it can only sit square inside the cup and square to the shaft of the press. It's snug enough in the internal bore and on the shaft of the press that it can't tilt. This means that the cups will always press in parallel and concentrically with each other. It's perfectly possible to use a bolt and two washers as described but if either surface of the BB shell is significantly out of square, you'll possibly end up pressing one cup in at least marginally skew. If you then use that as a base to press the other cup in, that may end up skew, too. Better to use the right tool for the job and not try and cut corners. Relative to what's being spent on the frame, group, etc ... the extra £55.00 or so for the tool is not really a significant expenditure, especially given that it may end up being used multiple times - heck, you could probably E-Bay it for half what you paid for it if the on-cost of buying the tool is that much of a hardship!
A Tech-Reps work is never done ...
Head Tech, Campagnolo main UK ASC

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6058
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

graeme_f_k wrote:...

The shear force (grab?) required is fairly low in this situation but release is not a huge issue anyway, although I'd draw the line at walloping the cups out with a drift. It's fairly simple to make up a tool that can be fed into the BB and expand internally, forcing the cups apart and in this way, force is applied progressively, a definitely better option than laying about things with a mallet or hammer.


Hi Graeme... yes to everything you said except would like to add a bit to the above. Loctite 609, when cured properly does take a bit of force, either with a "wallop" or heat (risk softening the resins holding the carbon together, not to mention paint), or as you say, with a gradual progressive force. I like the "wallop" method the best, as the bond created by the Loctite 609 is in fact a fairly strong bond, and not just a tight pressfit, where a gradual progressive force would be best for sure. But with the bond set, even if you use a gradual force, nothing happens until at some point the force gets great enough to "break" that bond, after which the cups can be pulled gradually out as you suggest or just removed with lighter wallops. I guess I just like to get that first wallop out of the way and all is good. Oh, big caveat... make sure you're using a proper removal tool and NOT the edge of a flat screwdriver or something where you just wallop each edge back and forth till it's out.

But maybe I just like saying the word "Wallop". It's festive.
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

graeme_f_k
Shop Owner / Manufacturer
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

by graeme_f_k

ghisallo2003 wrote:Hi Cal, In retrospect, I agree. I am not sure that the frame threads are designed for this threaded solution. Rather they are designed to allow the limited insertion (perhaps a few times per frame life) of a threaded interface for press-fit. I think there is actually a weakness there and that like the T47 proposition, a better solution would be a proper threaded design which did give confidence.


The main issue for composite frame makers is the BB sleeve to composite interface, especially when combined with a threaded BB cup that needs a fair torque on it to secure it properly and often a higher torque to take it out again. Release torque is nearly always slightly higher than installation torque anyway - but as soon as you factor in any corrosion in the thread, then that release torque can end up significantly higher than the installation torque. Making the bonding on the sleeve resistant to that at low cost is a challenge.

Unfortunately, T47 doesn't really address this issue as you are still going to need a sleeve carrying two accurately aligned threads inside the BB.

So, it's seen as much better to come up with some cunningly-worded marketing spiel that dumps an awful solution like Press-Fit on the market, with the probably unintended benefit of allowing Praxis, C-Bear, Wheels Manufacturing et.al. to make some quite nicely engineered solutions to what is a fundamentally awful design. It also knocks the headline weight and, because the tolerances are not accurately controlled, the price of the frame down so that we can just increase both again with a collet-style BB assembly, which TBH is, apart from the Colnago TF type solution, is the only way to guarantee concentric, parallel cup fitting in frames that are generally made to woefully poor standards.

Colnago TF can only work because once installed, at no stage is there any significant rotational force applied to the sleeve. You get a tiny amount through bearing precession of course but that is not enough to loosen the TF to frame interface. As Calnago says, it's a great solution with very few problems recorded.
A Tech-Reps work is never done ...
Head Tech, Campagnolo main UK ASC

graeme_f_k
Shop Owner / Manufacturer
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

by graeme_f_k

Calnago wrote:
graeme_f_k wrote:...

The shear force (grab?) required is fairly low in this situation but release is not a huge issue anyway, although I'd draw the line at walloping the cups out with a drift. It's fairly simple to make up a tool that can be fed into the BB and expand internally, forcing the cups apart and in this way, force is applied progressively, a definitely better option than laying about things with a mallet or hammer.


Hi Graeme... yes to everything you said except would like to add a bit to the above. Loctite 609, when cured properly does take a bit of force, either with a "wallop" or heat (risk softening the resins holding the carbon together, not to mention paint), or as you say, with a gradual progressive force. I like the "wallop" method the best, as the bond created by the Loctite 609 is in fact a fairly strong bond, and not just a tight pressfit, where a gradual progressive force would be best for sure. But with the bond set, even if you use a gradual force, nothing happens until at some point the force gets great enough to "break" that bond, after which the cups can be pulled gradually out as you suggest or just removed with lighter wallops. I guess I just like to get that first wallop out of the way and all is good. Oh, big caveat... make sure you're using a proper removal tool and NOT the edge of a flat screwdriver or something where you just wallop each edge back and forth till it's out.

But maybe I just like saying the word "Wallop". It's festive.


Can't argue with a man with his festive hat on!

You are right - the progressive force generated required to push the cups out in a jack-type situation will be no less than is actually applied by a hammer, as once the cup is free, the possible excess force generated by the hammer just fires the cup across the workshop :-D - the bond has the same shear strength in both cases - I guess I am just risk-averse. It's only a matter of time, especially in commercial situations where this job is done many, many times a month, before drifting a cup out, the mallet or hammer (or even the drift) ends up going somewhere it shouldn't. It's also very hard to support the "non-walloped" side of the frame so you are putting a percussive load onto a structure not really designed to withstand it. A jack-type system will apply force evenly to almost the whole internal surface of the cups so damage is less likely and the cups will be pushed out as they were fitted - concentrically - so there is less potential to damage the BB sleeve. Last, it's quite hard to regulate how much force you are applying when smacking something with gay abandon, whereas a jack-type system will only ever apply the amount of force needed and if the amount of force being applied "feels" excessive, you can stop and have a think!

The downside is that I made my tool for doing this and not everyone has that facility ... hmmmm ... :-D

Anyway, I met the "Man With The Hammer" out training today and it wasn't a happy experience, so I am "off hammers" ... :-D
A Tech-Reps work is never done ...
Head Tech, Campagnolo main UK ASC

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6058
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I am risk averse as well, but I am not in a commercial situation and I can support the non drive side of the frame with soft wood or something whilst taking careful aim through the hole in the bottom bracket at something across the room that I have no use for anyway. It makes the whole process into a game of careful aim and application of appropriate force. Besides, whenever you have too much time to stop and think about things.... it usually ends badly. The guys at Calfee turned me on to this approach above when I was contemplating removal of my first bottom bracket that I had actually used a retaining compound on, which held perfectly since install but I had to remove it in order to send the frame away for a respray.

I think you just like to use that special tool you made, and rightly so! :P
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
Miller
Posts: 1282
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:54 pm
Location: Reading, UK

by Miller

Something I've wondered, when you remove press-fit cups from a BB shell by smacking them out or however: what state is the interior of the BB shell left in? Like, do cups come out cleanly or is debris left behind.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6058
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I wouldn't call it "debris" but there may be a little dried retaining compound on things, which I just scrape away with an exacto knife. With pressfit cups there is always a bit of "microwear" from removing and installing new cups. So it's not something you want to do unless necessary. That's another reason Colnago's Threadfit system is superior... if for some reason those cups were to get damaged (although it's hard for me to imagine how), you can simply replace them very easily. Versus a destroyed carbon shell, where it's not as simple as that.
I suppose if you were dealing with a less than sound carbon shell, where there were loose or broken fibers present that some of those fibers may end up as "caualites". Again, that's another reason why alloy shells are generally preferable imo.
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

joeyb1000
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:37 pm

by joeyb1000

Two comments:
1. I switched to the Wishbone a couple on months ago. It has a tighter grip on the bearings than the Campy cups (I only had the clicking issue on the C60 -- never on any threaded cups). I like that the inside of the BB is sealed.
2. I removed the Campy cups by removing the threadfit cups first and buying a piece of PCV to support it.

tadrums
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:41 am

by tadrums

Interesting...but I don't quite understand what u mean by "PVC" to support it". Thx.
t
TA

tadrums
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:41 am

by tadrums

garypremo wrote:I am about to build my Colnago C60 with a Campagnolo Super Record 11 Ultra Torque crankset. The frameset is currently in transit.

I plan to use Wishbone TF82525C threaded bottom bracket cups.

Wishbone BB1.jpeg
Wishbone BB3.jpeg
I bought it on eBay for $100.

It seems like a better solution than pressed in cups with Loctite; I'll soon find out.

Beware that if you visit the Wishbone site at this link:
http://www.wishbonetw.com/product-1.php?id=24
it lists under the Specifications that is it compatible with Shimano HollowTech2 and SRAM GXP.... BUT stamped right into the drive side cup (above) it says: Thread Fit 82.5 TO Ultra Torque! The listing is obviously incorrect.

Further, the eBay seller mr_ride clearly says that it is for a Colnago C60 with Ultra Torque.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/mr-ride-BB-TF82 ... 2147836344

I'll report back here once the build is complete.

Considering this same install. May I ask how it worked out? Thx!
TA

garypremo
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

by garypremo

tadrums:

Actually, I learned that the frame set was sent from Europe just a couple of days ago, so it's still in transit. I will definitely post to this thread once it is built and I have ridden it a little. If you need more timely feedback you might ask joeyb1000.

I do have all of the non frame set components and I can concur with joeyb1000 that the Campy bearings fit quite snugly into the Wishbone cups. Its not a problem though; once you have the bearing and the cup aligned, the bearing goes in with only minimal force.

I see you posted a query to joeyb1000 regarding what he meant by removing Campy cups from the threaded Colnago shell with "a piece of PCV to support it". I believe that once he had removed the Colnago shell with the Campy bearing cup inside, he used a PVC (a section of thick walled Polyvinyl chloride pipe) to serve as a back stop to allow him to force the Campy cup out of the Colnago shell. The inside diameter of the pipe would be slight larger than the inside diameter of the Colnago shell but smaller than the shell's outside diameter. He would place the Colnago shell facing down against the pipe and apply force to the Campy cup to drive it out. It sounds like a good method; it moves the operation of applying force safely away from the frame.
2016 Colnago C60 PLWH 61 CM Traditional Geometry

joeyb1000
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:37 pm

by joeyb1000

garypremo wrote:tadrums:
I see you posted a query to joeyb1000 regarding what he meant by removing Campy cups from the threaded Colnago shell with "a piece of PCV to support it". I believe that once he had removed the Colnago shell with the Campy bearing cup inside, he used a PVC (a section of thick walled Polyvinyl chloride pipe) to serve as a back stop to allow him to force the Campy cup out of the Colnago shell. The inside diameter of the pipe would be slight larger than the inside diameter of the Colnago shell but smaller than the shell's outside diameter. He would place the Colnago shell facing down against the pipe and apply force to the Campy cup to drive it out. It sounds like a good method; it moves the operation of applying force safely away from the frame.

Correct.
I tried using a headset removing tool in the frame, but the EPS shell liner prevents the tool from catching the cups. I does mean a trip to the hardware store to find a fitting with just the right diameter, but it's nice not to use a hammer on my frame.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post