Consideration about Campy Cranks

apoman-<< Or am I doomed? I must include that the bike is still not built at
this piont, so the cranks/spindles have not had any wear to them by
being ridden. >><BR><BR>

The crank will always go on this amount or farther now as you have deformed the
aluminum flats of the crank.

Not screwed, as long as the small ring isn't hitting the right stay. Not
'ideal' but useable.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Quoted message said:

Immediately thereafter, I examined both cranks, and did comment to
myself that the drive side small chainring looked awful close to the
right chainstay. About the thickness of a quarter, that's it between
the chainring teeth and frame.

My 42 tooth chainring is about a dime's thickness from the chainstay.
1998 Chorus crank and bottom bracket. Seems like the right distance
to me. I have always used grease on the bottom bracket tapers. Lots
of grease. And I have pulled and reinstalled the crank numerous
times.

Quoted message said:

Right after that (Cussing under my breath) I install both front, and
rear Derailleur, lay the chain on the inner Chain ring, thread it
through to the last Cog on the cassette, and run it through the rear
deraileur to check chainline alignment.

Sure enough, the Right Side Crank appears to have gone on a little bit
too far, as I can see the Chain will wind up rubbing the Large
Chainring due to chainline misalignment with the chain on these cogs I
mention.

Don't use this extreme cross gear of inner chainring with outer cog.
Or just use a 42 inner chainring and you won't rub the outer
chainring.

Quoted message said:

Campagnolo's measures for Chainline settings is 43.5mm. I just
measured this specification on mine, from the center of both
chainrings the the center of BB, and come up with 41.097.

How on earth are you able to measure to the thousandth of a
millimeter? Those magnetic base dial calipers only measure to the
thouandth of an inch. Which is about 25.4 times larger than a
thousandth of a millimeter. What did you use to measure this
chainline with? I'm curious because I'd like to measure things on my
bike but I don't have a granite alignment table to clamp the frame to
and then use dial calipers to measure everything. Don't have the time
or patience to do this either.

Quoted message said:

Had this been a Phil Wood Bracket, I have have been able to adjust the
chainline, but as far as I know, Campy BB's don't allow for this.

I suppose you could put a 2.403 mm thick spacer between the fixed side
cup lip and the bottom bracket shell. That would move your right
crank out to the appropriate chainline.

(Mark) said:

Campagnolo's measures for Chainline settings is 43.5mm. I just
measured this specification on mine, from the center of both
chainrings the the center of BB, and come up with 41.097.

Quoted message said:

I'd welcome advice on what now are my options?

Several times I've "saved" cranks by shimming the taper. IIRC I
usually get about 2mm with one layer of coke can wrapped to cover all
four flats.

Maybe give it a try if you like.

See also
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=coke+can+shim+crank+group%3Arec.bicycles.tech&meta=group%3Drec.bicycles.tech

or

http://tinyurl.com/4kcjp

"Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Sure enough, the Right Side Crank appears to have gone on
a little bit too far, as I can see the Chain will wind up rubbing
the Large Chainring due to chainline misalignment with the
chain on these cogs I mention.

That's not unusual, even when everything is within spec. Running
small-small is verboten.

Quoted message said:

Campagnolo's measures for Chainline settings is 43.5mm. I just
measured this specification on mine, from the center of both
chainrings the the center of BB, and come up with 41.097.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Had this been a Phil Wood Bracket, I have have been able to
adjust the chainline, but as far as I know, Campy BB's don't
allow for this.

I'm not sure why you have the problem you have, but 2mm is a long way for a
crank to move on the taper. I would probably ride the bike as it is. If
you're not happy, a 2mm spacer under the fixed bottom bracket cup will put
things back into alignment.

James Thomson

[email hidden] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

apoman-<< Or am I doomed? I must include that the bike is still not built at
this piont, so the cranks/spindles have not had any wear to them by
being ridden. >><BR><BR>

The crank will always go on this amount or farther now as you have deformed the
aluminum flats of the crank.

Not screwed, as long as the small ring isn't hitting the right stay. Not
'ideal' but useable.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Hi Peter, thanks for your reply. Well, that's the thing, your quote
"useable"?
IMO, it won't be useable, not if I can never use the small cog, and
small chainring combo without rubbing/snagging,and I will never be
happy with the way this looks (Or will work) right now.

The tolerance of the thickness of a quarter between small chainring,
and chainstay is just not gonna do it for me, and I wonder too, (But I
doubt this) what if the Crank should "Walk" up the spindle some more?

What I have noticed, (And now I know why), is in the Campy manual that
comes with the crank, there is a "range" of allowable torque to be
used.
I gather Peter, that this range was specified for a specific purpose.
And that was so you could make sure to achieve specified Chainline
dimension specs per the campy manual,(43.5mm) and still be within
reasonable torque setting for the cranks bolts. Am I correct in this
thinking? Or no? I figure campy had to come to these conclusions, as
thier bottom brackets have no feature incorporated for chainline
alignment.

Tomorrow, the frame is going to make a trip to my LBS, The LBS owner,
also a Paramount owner will do his best to help me, and hopefully both
him, and I can come to some conclusions. I may have to decide to
remove the Crank/BB, and purchase a Phil Wood English Campy Double
Bottom Bracket, that will allow some chainline adjustability?

I consider myself a very good mechanic, and have worked on
multi-million dollar equipment/machinery for the past 30 years. I'm
quite familar with proper use of Torque wrenches, and I am fussy to a
fault with stuff like this.

In retrospect, perhaps what I'm trying to accomplish is a bit out of
the ordinary by trying to fit modern 2004 10-speed drivetrain
components to a 1989 Paramount Frame. I may not have encountered
these odd problems using a more modern frame for a build-up? (Or using
time era correct parts on the Schwinn)

I'd like to also add, that I can see that these 10-speed systems are
not quite as simple in many ways to the drivetrain systems of old.
Tolerances are much more critical/finicky, as these modern 9-10 sp
Cogs/chainrings are very closely spaced, leaving very little room for
error/misalignment.

The fact that a small amount of grease was used on the spindles may
have no bearing on the chainline problems of this build up, or that I
have now run into a problem.

One problem I definitely believe, is my lack of "Bike" experience, and
also, I seem to be treading in uncharted waters with this build-up,
not knowing what to expect, and how certain components will work with
this vintage 50th Anniversary Paramount frame.

I've tried writing to you Peter in private to discuss this, and to
perhaps let you know what the outcome will be, but my personal email
letters to you come back as "undeliverable"

I'll post my findings/conclusions as soon as possible here on the
group.
Thanks again Peter, I very much appreciate the help/advice you have
given me in the past. Mark D.

Mark said:

IMO, it won't be useable, not if I can never use the small cog, and
small chainring combo without rubbing/snagging, and I will never be
happy with the way this looks (Or will work) right now.

You should never use that gear anyway, nor the next one along, preferably.
The cross-over generates excessive friction so is inefficient and causes
rapid wear. Same with large ring with large cog.

There isn't a perfect chainline for derailleur gears, it's always a
compromise. The "good" and "bad" gears will just be slightly different to
usual. This is hardly a problem because of the duplication of ratios you
get with double and triple chainsets.

Q factor may be an issue (distance between foot and BB), though some
people would pay good money to have a narrower Q than normal.

Quoted message said:

The tolerance of the thickness of a quarter between small chainring,
and chainstay is just not gonna do it for me, and I wonder too, (But I
doubt this) what if the Crank should "Walk" up the spindle some more?

You could remove crank and refit with less torque. Hopefully it will
still be tight enough.

Quoted message said:

What I have noticed, (And now I know why), is in the Campy manual that
comes with the crank, there is a "range" of allowable torque to be
used.
I gather Peter, that this range was specified for a specific purpose.
And that was so you could make sure to achieve specified Chainline
dimension specs per the campy manual,(43.5mm) and still be within
reasonable torque setting for the cranks bolts.

Maybe it is, but also they have to allow for error. Different torque
wrenches will give different results, for a start. For instance, it's
common for manufacturers to quote a torque range for handlebar stem bolts
instead of one single value. Why is that?

And isn't it sensible to use less torque instead of no grease?

Quoted message said:

In retrospect, perhaps what I'm trying to accomplish is a bit out of
the ordinary by trying to fit modern 2004 10-speed drivetrain
components to a 1989 Paramount Frame. I may not have encountered
these odd problems using a more modern frame for a build-up? (Or using
time era correct parts on the Schwinn)

Clearance varies from bike to bike. Some have the stays further out or
use fatter tubing, but the centre to centre measurements should be the
same. BB shells have been standard for many years.

See www.sheldonbrown.com for a wealth of info.

www.parktool.com/repair_help/FAQindex.shtml may also be useful.

~PB

apoman-<< What I have noticed, (And now I know why), is in the Campy manual
that
comes with the crank, there is a "range" of allowable torque to be
used.
I gather Peter, that this range was specified for a specific purpose.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

many people slam me for this but I think it is written that way, on a dry
spindle, to try to predisct chainline. If you always say 'dry spindle', then
use the specified torque, the cranks will be really close to where they say
they want them. Vast differences in lubricants, sloshed onto the spindle,
nullifies this.

My opinion, Sheldon and others, before you take the time to tell me I'm wrong
BUT I have been installing square taper cranks for 20 years this way and have
never had one fall off, come loose or go on too far.

apoman-<< In retrospect, perhaps what I'm trying to accomplish is a bit out of
the ordinary by trying to fit modern 2004 10-speed drivetrain
components to a 1989 Paramount Frame. >><BR><BR>

That shouldn't make any difference.

apoman<< I've tried writing to you Peter in private to discuss this, and to
perhaps let you know what the outcome will be, but my personal email
letters to you come back as "undeliverable" >><BR><BR>

??
[email hidden] me.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

I said:

it's
common for manufacturers to quote a torque range for handlebar stem
bolts instead of one single value. Why is that?

On second thoughts, I might be mistaken about that being "common" but I
sometimes see a range of torque given for components other than cranks
where there's no obvious reason for it.

~PB

Hello Mark,

I think it is nearly impossible to get the 43.5 mm chain alignment
recommended even if you had done things perfectly. I believe this
because I have built a number of bicycles with both modern Chorus and
Record parts and even without grease on the flats, I have never had
perfect fits. There is simply too much variation in bicycle frame-
building to get it that close.

If you try to reinstall with lower torgue, your crank will creak on the
BB and you make risk really damaging the flats because of imprecise fit
with the flats lower on the taper.

I have also never had a combination of parts that allowed me the
smallest cog and inner chainring option. I think this has more to do
with modern cassette widths and the much shorter chainstays of modern
road bikes. I would not change a thing on your bike and as Pete
recommended, don't use those chain/cog combinations. I would simply
finish putting your bike together and just ride. Remember, there will
be times when the crank set is removed and reinstalled and you will
modify the flats ever so little each time. This is normal though I
don't recommend doing it any more often than necessary (replacing
chainrings, BB, etc.)

Good luck and happy riding.

Terry

Mark said:

[email hidden] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

apoman-<< Or am I doomed? I must include that the bike is still not built at
this piont, so the cranks/spindles have not had any wear to them by
being ridden. >><BR><BR>

The crank will always go on this amount or farther now as you have deformed the
aluminum flats of the crank.

Not screwed, as long as the small ring isn't hitting the right stay. Not
'ideal' but useable.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Hi Peter, thanks for your reply. Well, that's the thing, your quote
"useable"?
IMO, it won't be useable, not if I can never use the small cog, and
small chainring combo without rubbing/snagging,and I will never be
happy with the way this looks (Or will work) right now.

The tolerance of the thickness of a quarter between small chainring,
and chainstay is just not gonna do it for me, and I wonder too, (But I
doubt this) what if the Crank should "Walk" up the spindle some more?

What I have noticed, (And now I know why), is in the Campy manual that
comes with the crank, there is a "range" of allowable torque to be
used.
I gather Peter, that this range was specified for a specific purpose.
And that was so you could make sure to achieve specified Chainline
dimension specs per the campy manual,(43.5mm) and still be within
reasonable torque setting for the cranks bolts. Am I correct in this
thinking? Or no? I figure campy had to come to these conclusions, as
thier bottom brackets have no feature incorporated for chainline
alignment.

Tomorrow, the frame is going to make a trip to my LBS, The LBS owner,
also a Paramount owner will do his best to help me, and hopefully both
him, and I can come to some conclusions. I may have to decide to
remove the Crank/BB, and purchase a Phil Wood English Campy Double
Bottom Bracket, that will allow some chainline adjustability?

I consider myself a very good mechanic, and have worked on
multi-million dollar equipment/machinery for the past 30 years. I'm
quite familar with proper use of Torque wrenches, and I am fussy to a
fault with stuff like this.

In retrospect, perhaps what I'm trying to accomplish is a bit out of
the ordinary by trying to fit modern 2004 10-speed drivetrain
components to a 1989 Paramount Frame. I may not have encountered
these odd problems using a more modern frame for a build-up? (Or using
time era correct parts on the Schwinn)

I'd like to also add, that I can see that these 10-speed systems are
not quite as simple in many ways to the drivetrain systems of old.
Tolerances are much more critical/finicky, as these modern 9-10 sp
Cogs/chainrings are very closely spaced, leaving very little room for
error/misalignment.

The fact that a small amount of grease was used on the spindles may
have no bearing on the chainline problems of this build up, or that I
have now run into a problem.

One problem I definitely believe, is my lack of "Bike" experience, and
also, I seem to be treading in uncharted waters with this build-up,
not knowing what to expect, and how certain components will work with
this vintage 50th Anniversary Paramount frame.

I've tried writing to you Peter in private to discuss this, and to
perhaps let you know what the outcome will be, but my personal email
letters to you come back as "undeliverable"

I'll post my findings/conclusions as soon as possible here on the
group.
Thanks again Peter, I very much appreciate the help/advice you have
given me in the past. Mark D.

Terry Rudd <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<mkROc.202916$JR4.37155@attbi_s54>...

Quoted message said:

Hello Mark,

I think it is nearly impossible to get the 43.5 mm chain alignment
recommended even if you had done things perfectly. I believe this
because I have built a number of bicycles with both modern Chorus and
Record parts and even without grease on the flats, I have never had
perfect fits. There is simply too much variation in bicycle frame-
building to get it that close.

If you try to reinstall with lower torgue, your crank will creak on the
BB and you make risk really damaging the flats because of imprecise fit
with the flats lower on the taper.

I have also never had a combination of parts that allowed me the
smallest cog and inner chainring option. I think this has more to do
with modern cassette widths and the much shorter chainstays of modern
road bikes. I would not change a thing on your bike and as Pete
recommended, don't use those chain/cog combinations. I would simply
finish putting your bike together and just ride. Remember, there will
be times when the crank set is removed and reinstalled and you will
modify the flats ever so little each time. This is normal though I
don't recommend doing it any more often than necessary (replacing
chainrings, BB, etc.)

Good luck and happy riding.

Terry

Thank you Terry for your help, and I wish to thank everyone else here,
who responded, and helped me with advice.

I have very good news, and it appears that I worried too much over
nothing.
I brought the frame to my LBS this, we put the frame up on the
mechanic's stand, the owner who is very knowledgeable looked
everything over, and said that everything looked just fine to him.

I asked him to measure Centerline on the BB/Crank. Campy's spec for
the double BB, and double Crank is 43.5mm. He measured 43mm exactly,
and I confirmed this, so I was off .5mm! For the heck of it, I pulled
a dime out of my pocket to measure thickness. A dime measured about
1.5mm thick. So I was off by a 1/3 of the thickness of a dime! Not bad
ehh?

On went the Wipperman chain, and all looks great. Managed to do some
more assembly on the frame this afternnoon, and the bike is looking
just fantastic!
It looks so beautiful, it's almost Pornographic!!!

Thank you all very much again for your kind help. It is deeply
appreciated. Mark D.

(Mark) said:

Onto installing the cranks. Both right, and left side were installed
without a hitch, and torqued to 30 ft lbs with a Snap-On Click type
Torque wrench.

Quoted message said:

Immediately thereafter, I examined both cranks, and did comment to
myself that the drive side small chainring looked awful close to the
right chainstay.

I'd be really surprised if you could move a new crank down the axle,
or move a BB cup onto the BB shell, or move BOTH TOGETHER, by 2+ mm by
overtightening.

Face it, your frame arrived screwed up by the factory. This is not
rocket science, people make mistakes. Get a $2.00 2mm or 3mm spacer,
it's no big deal. Waterford might have faced the shell once too many
times. This problem is not uncommon. If your 42T is 1mm from the
framset, remember that when the crankset is torqued on the large ring,
the crank will bend backwards somewhat and may cause chain rub.
Frameset cain rub happens all the time on my flexy ALAN frameset.

I've seen high-end production bikes shipped from the factory with a
2mm spacer on the right hand side. U R not alone.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

[email hidden] (Donald Gillies) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(Mark) said:

Onto installing the cranks. Both right, and left side were installed
without a hitch, and torqued to 30 ft lbs with a Snap-On Click type
Torque wrench.

Quoted message said:

Immediately thereafter, I examined both cranks, and did comment to
myself that the drive side small chainring looked awful close to the
right chainstay.

I'd be really surprised if you could move a new crank down the axle,
or move a BB cup onto the BB shell, or move BOTH TOGETHER, by 2+ mm by
overtightening.

Face it, your frame arrived screwed up by the factory. This is not
rocket science, people make mistakes. Get a $2.00 2mm or 3mm spacer,
it's no big deal. Waterford might have faced the shell once too many
times. This problem is not uncommon. If your 42T is 1mm from the
framset, remember that when the crankset is torqued on the large ring,
the crank will bend backwards somewhat and may cause chain rub.
Frameset cain rub happens all the time on my flexy ALAN frameset.

I've seen high-end production bikes shipped from the factory with a
2mm spacer on the right hand side. U R not alone.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

Hi Don, No, I don't believe Waterford did a bad job at all with the
Bottom Bracket, Which I understand these were sourced from Takahashi
back then by Schwinn/Waterford. In fact, the quality of this Paramount
frame is exceptionally good IMO. Probably done better than many of the
so called high end frames coming off the line today. Lug work on this
frame was beautifully done.

As I mentioned in a later post to this thread, the actually measured,
Centerline meaurement on this frame/BB had measured out at exactly
43mm, which is only .5mm off from Campy's specifications. My LBS, once
seeing the frame, and the installaition I did of the BB, and crank
said I did a fine job, and that I will not have any problems down the
road with it.

I guess this minor "miniscule" amount of error can be normally
expected from any proper installation, and if I had hypothetically had
an error of say 2mm, or more, then yes, I can imagine that a spacer to
the flanged Record right side cup may have been then needed. That, or
the use of perhaps a Phil Wood BB, which would've allowed
adjustability in this manner to achieve correct centerline.

I had at first lacked a great deal of experience of using these new 9,
and 10 speed systems, as many of the vintage road bikes I've owned
over the years were typically 5, and 6 speed cassettes, with much
wider cog/chainring spacing, and much wider chains too.

I do have a greater understanding now, that these newer systems rely
on much more precise alignment, measurement, and adjustment to perform
correctly.

All in all, it's actually been a fun experience learning, and coming
up to date with the latest in bike drivetrains, and technology.

My build up is coming along very nicely, and will be completed very
shortly.
All I'm waiting for now is some Jagwire cable housing sleeves/frame
protectors to slip over cable housings where they contact the frame,
to prevent any paint damage.
Thanks Don, Mark