Recent Comment About Campagnolo Ultra Torque

Here's a comment that I received earlier this week.  I'm sorry that he's having this frustrating issue and it's frustrating to me as well that Campagnolo still chooses to ignore this.  It's not just me folks.  Thanks SD for taking the time to share your first hand experience with me.  -John

Greeting from a not-so-sunny UK. I tell you what, John - some people out there must run some seriously poorly maintained bikes (I know for sure they do!). Those who claim that there is not a problem with UT BB's are either very lucky or ignorant. I run two Ridleys (both 68mm shells) and have no end of problems with clunking. It's not just me - it's everyone else I know that has these problems with UT and not just on Ridleys - I'm talking Scott, Fondriest, Lightspeed, Pinarello, Colnago. I speak from experience here as I ride and race upwards of 15000 miles per annum in all weathers. I've tried the two wavy washer approach and that has helped although there is still movement enough in there to score the surfaces of both washers after 500 miles or so of use. It's a seriously flawed design, no matter what the response to the contrary. If you hadn't carried out the research you have then we'd all be the worse for it. That's a fact. 100%. I'll be ordering a couple of shim kits and experimenting. I'm fed up with the constant stripping, regreasing, rebuilding, etc. I even switched to Ceramic Speed bearings and cups to see if that would help but to no avail. Shims are absolutely what is needed. Even if you decide to retain the (compressed to 0.7 or 0.8mm) wavy washer element you would still need to ensure that it had no more than 1mm of space to occupy otherwise your assembly will be slopping all over the place. In either case, whether you keep the washer or ditch it, you need to shim out that 'difference'. Keep up the good work, mate. Cheers S.D