Way back in September of 2008, I published my initial post about what I thought was a problem with the Ultra-Torque design. Now going on a year later, I am even more confident with my initial theory. But now I have a solid solution to the problem that some who have a Campagnolo Ultra-Torque crankset/bottom bracket may have experienced.
First, I want to make a couple points...
I will not deny that for the most part, Ultra-Torque is a good design. Where it fails is in its capability to allow for shell width variances. This may seem like a a minor flaw, but it has major consequences.
For the life of me, in this day and age, and with all of the current technology, why can't frame manufactures make their 68mm bottom bracket shells 68mm and their 70mm shells 70mm?!?! If this was the case, there wouldn't be a need for the wavy washer in the Ultra-Torque design.
The wavy washer is a legit component in certain applications in many industries. But in this instance, it's a band-aid.
If it's OK to have axial or lateral movement to the non-drive side, why is the Ultra-Torque design the ONLY design out there that has this movement? If any of the other systems exhibit this movement, it means that either the bearings are shot, or you didn't install the proper bottom bracket and/or spacers.
Based of the volume of emails and comments I have been receiving about this "non-issue", I believe that it's fairly common. Over the last few months, I have applied my "fix" to several bikes. All with success. The end result has been a very smooth, very stiff, axial-movement free Ultra-Torque system. Just now I believe Campagnolo wanted to be. Next up, step by step details. Thanks for checking in. -John