- By Wheel
- Hub Parts
- Shim Kits
- RogueMechanic Support
- Wheels Manufacturing
It’s hard to believe that it has been 15 years since Campagnolo Ultra-Torque was introduced to the marketplace. I remember the day in 2007 when I was standing in a local bike shop holding the brand new Campagnolo Record Ultra-Torque crankset, the drive-side in my right hand and the non-drive side in my left. I looked at the semi-axles, Hirth joint, and the bearings and said to the shop owner, “this won’t work.” The owner, being a big fan of everything, Campagnolo, looked at me as if I had three heads. I didn’t bother explaining why because, although he is a nice guy, I knew that he had limited technical knowledge.
After seeing the promotional images online and reading all of the technical articles put out by Campagnolo, It was great to finally get to personally hold and inspect an Ultra-Torque system. I left the bike shop with ideas swirling around my head, but my overwhelming thought was that I must be missing something critical about the design. My hangup was the lack of a way to compensate for bottom bracket shell width discrepancies that most of the other cranksets were able to do. It is rare to have English threaded bottom bracket frame shell widths be precisely 68mm and Italian threaded shells to be exactly 70mm as specified. Additionally, with the placement of the bearings being fixed on each semi-axle in combination with the Hirth joint connecting the two together, one would also have to assume that the manufacturing of each side of the semi-axle and the machining of the Hirth joint is absolutely the same and that process is repeatable. I would later go on to learn that the reputation of repeatable machining of exacting measurements in Italian factories leaves a lot to be desired. Putting all of this together, even if the two sides of the cranksets semi-axles were EXACTLY the same length, every single one, there still isn’t a way to adjust for a shell that is under-spec at 67.8mm or over at 68.3mm. I had concluded that this is why they opted to use a wave washer.
It wasn’t long before I had the opportunity to install one. And like every responsible bike mechanic, I installed the Ultra-Torque crankset and bottom bracket following the factory installation instructions verbatim. Approximately six months and 3K miles later, I received a text from that customer that said that he was getting a noise/knock that he thought was coming from the bottom bracket. I had a solid sense that it was the Ultra-Torque system. Since he lived close by, I asked if I could head over there as soon as possible to pick it up and keep it for a few days. After a quick test ride and inspection without disassembling it, I noticed the very obvious axial movement to the drive-side when the wave washer was compressed and the immediate return to the non-drive-side when the pressure was released. I called my father-in-law (who retired from NASA) to see if he could stop over to give it a look. As soon as he arrived, all that I told him was that there was a knocking noise that was coming from the bottom bracket area and asked if he could figure out what was causing it. I didn’t want to bias his assessment, so I didn’t tell him anything else. I told him that I’d be back in about an hour.
When I returned, he said that the noise appeared to be a result of the axial movement in the crankset. This supported my theory. We discussed some different approaches to a solution. We landed on the idea of eliminating the wave washer and introducing some sort of shim stack to make up for the absent wave washer and to be able to precisely dial in the system to the specific bottom bracket frame shell width. Remember, this was just before the introduction of press-fit bottom brackets. In the following days, I ordered shims in several different thicknesses. I knew from the start that this process would be tedious and time-consuming to get right. It is a big difference from the relatively simple method described in the official installation manual.
My first attempt at a solution was using a combination of external and internal shims with the wave washer still in the recommended location. This effectively took up the additional space while adding some preload to the system. This worked for about two weeks until I received another text telling me that the click was back. It was silent and smooth for several hundred miles of hard riding. The knocking turned into a click. I was disappointed, but I wasn’t surprised. I felt that I was making progress towards a solution.
I landed on what I first called a Wavewasherectomy. The removal of the wave washer and the addition of external shims installed between the bottom bracket shell face and the non-drive side threaded cup. After a while, I added an alternative method. This was the addition of external spacers while continuing to use the wave washer, which effectively added preload to the wave washer and bearings. This technique was most effective for shell widths that were over spec. This approach was for people who were not comfortable with removing the wave washer. I made it aware to those who chose this approach that there was a good chance that in the future, they might have to add to the shim stack if or when the wave washer takes a set and loses its spring tension over time which it will then effectively lose it’s original work height. Ultimately, I landed on a set of eight shims in four different thicknesses. I machine down the OD for both the English and Italian shim kits and the ID of the Italian shim kit. You can find the custom machined, stainless steel RogueMechanic Shim kits for threaded English and Italian bottom brackets here.
As you would expect, some keyboard warriors on the cycling forums didn’t want to play nice. One, in particular, had me banned because of my opinion and because he thought that I was disrespectful (this was not the case because that is not my style). I approached the issue on the forums as if I was missing something. I wasn’t aggressive. All that I wanted to do was to provide a solution that was happening to some, not all that had a Campagnolo Ultra-Torque system. I concluded that there were two camps out there; one approached this issue theoretically and the others practically. Mine is the practical approach. I received a massive amount of heat, but the hate was more than offset by the amount of love and gratitude I received from those who ordered a shim kit and eliminated the dreaded Ultra-Torque noise. I went on to offer a solution for Campagnolo Ultra-Torque Press Fit bottom brackets. These are a set of custom machined PTFE shims designed to be added internally onto the non-drive side semi-axle. You can use them with or without the wave washer.
So 15 years later, I continue to produce the shim kits and ship them worldwide. I feel obligated to continue until Campagnolo offers a solution or modifies its design. Back in 2014 at NAHBS in Charlotte, NC, I even gave a couple of the top dogs at Campagnolo North America the opportunity to convince me why the axial movement is acceptable and to give me a reason to stop offering the shim kits. Even though we had some great conversations, they could not give me a valid reason to stop. So in closing, I will continue to produce these shim kits until the need is no longer there, and I am grateful for the opportunity to help those who were experiencing issues.
I once had a compact Chorus UT crankset that I ended up selling and refitting a square taper crank. No matter how meticulous my assembly, within a hundred or so miles the click/knock would come back. It should be clear to anyone that the wave washer is a lazy half assed method of compensating for tolerance in the BB shell width-it may work well enough on a shell on the high side of tolerance but not so well the other way. I’ve read some other comments suggesting that the wave washer provides “preload” on the bearings-these are not taper rollers. I now have another Centaur UT crankset assembled using shims and it has been quiet for over a year. You need to use some common sense in selecting the shims but it ain’t rocket science. Bottom line, shimming the end float is THE correct way to assemble UT cranks.
Thank you for your detailed comment and kind words Wesley. I agree with your assessment. -John
Hi Rogue Mechanic. I’ve been using a 2013 11-speed Campy Chorus UT group with a Mavic Ksyrium wheelset on my bike (a Masi Evoluzione, a Taiwanese-made frame that uses press-fit bottom bracket cups – I use a Praxis bb system) and the first few years it was flawless. Gradually I started hearing a knocking noise that became louder and louder as one riding season turned into another. I was convinced that the noise was coming from the bottom bracket area and kept taking it off, regreasing it, tightening it (to spec), etc. to not much avail. Eventually a couple of years ago I was so fed up I bought and installed a Praxis crankset. I rode the bike and the noise was still there. So it was not the Campy cranks after all. The problem in fact came from the Mavic Ksyrium rear hub, which simply needed tightening, which is something that I check on a regular basis (I reinstalled the Campy crankset on my bike).
Thank you for your comment. “Noise abatement” can definitely be challenging and frustrating. A Mavic rear hub that needs adjustment (and a QR skewer that isn’t tightened sufficiently) can also make noises for sure. Keep that UT bottom bracket maintained and you should be fine!
I have a Cannondale EVO team bike they came with SLK crankset everything else are Campagnolo I had that same problem with the SLK I replaced them with a set of Campagnolo Ultra Over Torque in 2016 and put on over 10,000 miles with no problem. I still have those SLK and they built the same way as the Campagnolo Ultra-Torque I suppose you are right.
Hello Edwad, I am glad to hear about your success using the Over Torque system. Thank you for your comment! -John
Having just read this historical review of your BB fix, I thought to send you this note. I have 4 Campy ultratorque crank sets on 4 different bikes. All are road bikes and higher-end metal framesets presumably machined to industry spec standards. After installing the first UT crank I had the same questions you had. I’m an engineer and a cyclist of decades experience. I found your site after searching for Mavic wheel parts to repair an R-Sys wheel that was involved in a crash I unfortunately had. I saw you first post on the UT shim fix and ordered sets for all of these frame BBs. 3 English and 1 Italian. Installed just as instructed and recommended; no wave washer.
I have been riding and rotating through all of these bikes for the past 8 or 9 years now. They run flawlessly – no shifting problems, no movement and no noise. I did re-shim one just once. Three of these cranks are SR and one is Record. The cranks have been super performers and apart from a few cosmetic flaws, I do like this first gen. carbon-era of Campy mechanical groups.
My longer-term service record of using your shim fix is plenty good enough for me and I’m really happy that you made the shim parts available. Thanks you, Sir.
Oh, and I’m not particularly hard on wheels and still use the Mavics. I still run the Ksyrium and R-Sys, and now All-road wheels on a bunch of my road and gravel/cross bikes. I just wish Mavic had offered a wider rim width than 19mm earlier on the Ksyrium and R-Sys models. I think they are a good design for a mass-produced wheel kit and hard for better for the price.
Thank you so much for sharing your detailed experience, your kind words, and for your business. All are very much appreciated. Regarding Mavic wheels, yes, I would have been nice if they offered wider than 19mm rims with those wheels and I agree that they make a darn good wheel for the price, all things considered. Thanks again! -John
I have Roguemechanic shim sets in two bikes. The bottom bracket performance in each is amazing. Periodically I drop the chain from the chain rings and spin the crank arms: the spinning is free and there is no axial play. There is no possible improvement.
Hello Alan! Thank you for your business and for your kind words. I am glad that you are satisfied with the results. Thanks for your comment! -John
As an owner of multiple Campy-equipped bikes, I’m firmly in the camp of “happy you came up with & marketed these”. Cheers
Thank you so much for your kind words Jeff! Cheers!
Comments will be approved before showing up.
January 22, 2023
I have a 2012 Wilier Cento Uno which has a molded-in BB386 Evo shell and am using a Campy UltraTorque crank. I’ve found that slightly reshaping the wave washer (effectively making it taller) to increase the preload helps. But over time the side play knock comes back. Would your pressfit shim kit work for my bb config? I’ve also seen solutions using a non-permanent bearing retaining compound. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this approach.
Hi Joe! I have found that it is typical for the wave washer to “lose its set” or lose its height over time if you deform it or not. It’s the nature of wave washers. Yes, you can use my press fit shims with (to add preload) or without the wave washer. You can also use a non-perm bearing retaining compound, but I have found that it isn’t durable enough to work effectively. Thanks for writing. I hope that this info helps. -John