Has Moots been in contact with Campagnolo to let them know of the problem?
-
derekimes
MemberHill Billy,
Sounds like you are in the same boat as I am. I have now spoken to numerous ti builders, they don't all use the same PF30 shell, and almost all have discouraged me from using the OS Fit Cups. I have spoken to Campy and they want me to send the cups back for them to evaluate. I now have 2 sets of OS Fit cups and one set of threaded, plus a good supply of loctite. I am tired of the time wasting, they are all at Interbike right now and have not responded to my last communications. You are more passive than I am, I am not going to purchase a very expensive product that has a flawed design, then work harder to sell the used cranks to someone for a loss. I paid for a full Record/Super Record bike with Shamals for a reason, and to have to run a plastic BB with Rotor or FSA cranks was not on my list. Campy is a big company, if they make a poor product they ought to admit it, take the product back, and let consumers find another solution without making us wait or jump through hoops.
I was almost certain that Loctite 7088 Primer(because of the inactive nature of Ti) along with loctite 609 or 660 even would hold the cups in. I rode once and the driveside cup is backing out just like yours. Now I hope I can get the cups out without damaging my frame. You shouldn't have to bond things to a brand new frame to make them work anyway. I got a PF30 because supposedly the large BB would allow me to have more surface area for a 1.75" downtube. I'd give anything for a 68mm BB with Record cups threaded in. Quiet, durable, serviceable, and peace of mind. I have none of that right now.
Jerry Ott at Campagnolo USA is the guy to talk to. I laughed when he told me he couldn't give much credence to what people say in 'chat rooms'. We are just the guys paying for this crap and trying to use it. I don't trust the Campy catalog now.
Keep us posted on what you decide.
Derek
Posted 1 year ago # -
HillBilly
MemberThanks Derek.
I started a new topic specific to Campy PF30 adapters before you had responded so will provide any update to that thread. I'm interested to know if anyone has actually been able to make them work?
Bottom line is we (my lbs and me) will give one more shot with new cups and some spacers but failing that at least I have a Cannondale crank I can use in the interim with a new PF BB. What I will then do is keep the Campy UT SR crank and push Campy to come up with a solution. Assuming they do, I can then put that crank in? At least I can keep rolling while I wait...
Posted 1 year ago # -
davidb
MemberHas anyone measured the Campy and SRAM parts? I'm wondering if the Campy are just flat the wrong dimension for a proper press fit, or if they are inconsistent part-to-part. Having measured the tolerance on a few of my Moots parts, I would believe that the frame machining is absolutely flawless. Bearings typically also have excellent tolerances, so the adapter sure sounds like the problem. I'm curious about this. Could someone measure the adapters to four decimal places and publish the dimensions? A big-ish sample size would be good too.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Full Mootion
MemberAt the risk of offending folks I'll post in clear language what almost every post says here. Campy QA sucks. Only exceeded in suckiness by their customer apathy. RUN! RUN AWAY FAST!! Nobody and I mean NOBODY builds things like 8 year old Chinese kids.. You know what they say small hands for small jobs.
Posted 1 year ago # -
davidb
MemberBelievable and maybe disappointing. The Campy on my 1971 Motobecane (yes, made in France then) worked good for the time, but I haven't had any modern stuff. It was the classy stuff then.
The exact degree Campy QA suckosity would be easy to measure with a micrometer and a handful of samples. The suckositude could then be compared to SRAM's ruleosiousness with another handful of measurements.
What was it that Lazarus Long wrote about hard numbers? (aah, Wikipedia...)
"If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion."(I actually like opinion a lot, intuition is way under-rated)
Posted 1 year ago # -
sbsbiker
MemberSorry to disagree, but some companies do things better than others. Campy may not have their BB-30 system dialed but their shifting and finish are head and shoulders above Sram. As far as I know noone has lost the Tour de France because of campy, andy schleck dropped his sram chain, lost the tour while putting it back on and then went to campy. maybe it's the "adapter" that you guys are having problems with, maybe it wasn't thought out as well as the rest of the campy line 'cause Campy isn't sold on BB30?
My biggest question for all of you Campy/BB30ers is; why do you use products that are not designed tomaximize the BB30's qualities?( Ie pressed bearings with a big spindle) I thought part of the reason to goto BB30 was to get increased stiffness via a larger BB spindle (30mm) if campy isn't offering the larger diameter spindle are you not compromising performance of the BB30 system by "adapting "it to the current standard? Also aren't you adding 29g more weight to a frame that's specifically designed to be lighter/simpler by using campy adapters? Is that smart? Wouldn't the entire system work better and be a simple install with a BB30 specific crankset?
Please correct me if I'm not posting factual arguements about the campy BB30 system, I can't afford either a RSL or Record, much less both but can see why anyone who did drop that kind of money would be red faced pissed with a creak.
Sorry to dissent but I'm a campy guy and when you start dissing campy I feel someone needs to question you. I have 9speed campy on my Hampsten it works flawlessly after 10+ years, and 8 speed original Ergo on my Merckx still working flawlessly after 20 years.
Posted 1 year ago # -
29ner
MemberI agree with SBSbiker. To diss Campy (while perhaps warranted) is of no value right now. I don't know, but I would bet good money that Campy is aware of the problem and is working out the details. These things do not happen over night and no 'call to Campy' is gonna make it happen any quicker (ever deal with the Italian businesses? nothing happens quickly in Italy, at least from my experiences). It's unfortunate, but it happens. Anyone remember their first foray into index shifting (Syncros)?, their first clipless pedals?, Delta Brakes?, their off road stuff?
Syncros was laughable (I know, I had it). It sure looked nice though,
The clipless pedals: amazingly adjustable, way over engineered, heavier than a pair of bricks. I think they sold 4 pair.
Delta Brakes: actually pretty sweet, a collectors item now. Have fun setting them up.
The off road stuff: specifically the brakes levers. Look like off of a KTM off-road motorcycle, vintage 1969. Speaking of over engineered and heavy. My team director has a set(!) and uses them as conversation pieces/paper weights. No lie.So, this doesn't answer the frustration part of a BB adapter that creaks. That'll put you in the looney bin after a few miles. Deal with it by the solutions offered as far as 'other' cranks/bb until it's corrected. It's unfortunate they are not heavy enough to be paper weights.
Posted 1 year ago # -
HillBilly
MemberDon't get me wrong here - I'm no Campy hater - quite the contrary. I love Campy which is why I was really hoping to run a full group on my RSL. I have been running Record 10sp on my Cannondale System6 for the last 6 years and have nothing but praise for it. I was, however, using a Cannondale si crank on that bike so was getting the "benefit" of a true BB30.
With the release of Campy's PF30 adapter I opted to get the full group on my RSL. If I had known then what I know now though, I would have stuck with a true BB30 crank such as the Cannondale Si SL (I agree with you on that point, sbsbiker). The Campy "solution" to adapting to PF30 is flawed. It simply doesn't work as intended. I am yet to find one person who actually rides their bike who is having long term success with it. I am still a huge fan of Campy though - their stuff is awesome but you will need a traditional threaded bb to get the best performance out of their cranks.
This leads to where Derek is coming from which is that we have been sold a product that is not fit for purpose. Campy really should take back the crank and adapter and refund the $$$. If they come up with another solution in the future that works, then great, but their customers shouldn't have to suffer in the interim.
HillBilly
Posted 1 year ago # -
derekimes
MemberI couldn't agree with HillBilly more. RE sbsbiker's points, perhaps a BB30 crank with a 30 mm spindle is stiffer, but not by much, and the two primary choices are Rotor and FSA. Maybe these are good cranks, but they don't shift as well as an all campy bike and they don't look as good(opinion). The real benefit of a ti bike with a PF30 BB shell is the larger diameter shell itself, allowing us to use larger down tubes and greater contact area with the ST and DT and stays. My bike has a 1.75"DT, this is hard to pull off on a 68 mm shell without serious manipulation of the tube(so I am told).
"maybe it's the "adapter" that you guys are having problems with, maybe it wasn't thought out as well as the rest of the campy line 'cause Campy isn't sold on BB30?"
It most certainly is the adapter we are having trouble with, that is the subject of this. If campy makes a product, puts it in a catalog, and sells it, it should work for the purpose it was intended. I bought a PF30 bike and an entire SR/Record mix with shamals with the faith that Campy makes a good product. They should take their cranks and cups back because the cranks are useless to me if the cups don't work. And trust me, they don't, at all. The idea that we should spend cash and then put up with this is ridiculous. Campy is not aware of the problem, they deny it exists at all. I stated that earlier, they say their cups are 46mm and up to spec. I don't care what they measure out to, they don't have enough material extending into the BB shell, or they need to be 46.1mm, or they need to have instructions that say use locite X and let them cure for 48 hours, or something. Personally I think the idea of having cups that require epoxy is stupid, but I am just a guy that knows a lot about bikes and buys a fair amount of stuff.
As far as 29er saying this is unfortunate and it happens, no shit. Are you actually saying I should pay for items that don't work and wait for someone to possibly find a solution later on down the road? I don't know what to say to that.
Derek
Posted 1 year ago # -
Domestique
MemberI've been thinking about getting an RSL but... after reading this thread I'm beginning to have second thought. I like Campy and it seems that there is an issue with their PF30 BB cups. Is there a solution for this other than plumbers tape? I would think at this level and these prices you shouldn't have to resort to 'band-aids'.
Posted 1 year ago # -
sbsbiker
MemberDerek, is this the first time you have bought an expensive part only to find that the first generation of the technology isn't perfect. I've seen it time and again from many sources. You pay top dollar for someth ing new and trick only to have an issue come up the designers didn't plan for. Then next year they make a small change that fixes the problem and the consumer is left saying "doh!"
For years I've eyed the first edition XTR porducts with envy when Shimano does a redesign but learned firsthand that waiting for others to debug the new parts before getting them for my bike. Sorry for your frustrations.
Swap out that crank and ride that bike. That should improve your attitude.
I'm waiting for BB45 to come out before I jump on board.
Posted 1 year ago # -
29ner
MemberPrecisely what SBS said. I've learned (and spent) to never purchase a 1st year product. Particularily in the world of cycling and Campy. I hear your frustrations, but kindly don't vent your frustrations at me. Live and learn. Campy should refund or whatever.
And, I would never NOT buy an RSL because of a Campy problem. That is just plain silly, Campy will make good and there are alternatives in the mean time. I like Campy and I don't like mixing component group either - certainly not on a road bike.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Full Mootion
MemberFunny people are saying don't buy a first year part but are lining up for the Moots RSL. First year my friends. So how can a little company in Colorado get it right and Mr DEEP POCKETS Campy screw it up. I guess that truly speaks to the GREATNESS of Moots. BTW I bet if there was a problem Moots would do the right thing. They would stand behind their product not run and stick their head in the sand and be in denial.
Campy was good in their day but they have slipped tremendously. This year of the 18 Pro Tour Teams on the groupset front, it’s the newest of the three big players that leads the way. SRAM supply eight teams, Shimano six and Campagnolo four, down from six last year (maybe that's why they haven't got round to updating their sponsored team list.
When the Pro's can ride anything (and believe me if Campy was the best they would be all over it with little regard for sponsor dollars) why are they running from Campy? Why do they have the least representation?
Don't get me wrong I think visually Campy is head and shoulders above the rest. But functionally and QA well............ I'll let the Pro's speak
Posted 1 year ago # -
Full Mootion
MemberIf Campy was any better they would get Campy to sponsor them. Pro's do ride their sponsors but they ride them because they're better and because they get paid. If they were worse they wouldn't ride them. Lampre, Omega, Quickstep, and Movistar. Hardly the stars of the tour. In fact three of the four finished in the bottom 5. I'd call them the leftovers. Is it just coincidence that Cadel's BMC team switched from Campy to Shimano and he wins. Probably but I couldn't resist.
Fact of the matter is for donkeys like us we can buy something we like as opposed to the best because it won't make a hill of beans difference in the end. I though choose not to support Campy as I feel llike they are almost always last to market ( I know Record 11 as opposed to everyone else's 10) and their QA sucks in this day and age. Campy has become a follower. Evolutionary not revolutionary. Now 20 years ago a different story. In my mind today Campy is like Harley Davidson. People are buying for the name cache not necessarily the innovation. Yesterday's technology at tomorrow's price is an apt description. My $.02
I've got my force shield up for the bashing from the Campy kool aid drinkers
Posted 1 year ago # -
tbill
MemberI guess I'm late to this party... I think this issue lives on the fringe of the whole drive toward non-standard, press-fit bottom bracket designs (of which BB30 is one of the oldest, and PF BB30 has gained a lot of popularity among the more recent designs). Afaik, neither Campagnolo nor Shimano make cranksets/bearings that are native to anything other than English- or Italian-threaded bb shells. If you want to use their cranksets/drivetrains, you need an adapter. Bear in mind, too, that 99.99999% of the market for these new designs is carbon frames, with bb shells that are either molded into the carbon (typically alu), or molded out of the carbon (eliminating the metal altogether). One of the main reasons why PF BB30 has been gaining in popularity even in this market is because the tolerances for getting a standard BB30 bottom bracket square are so high it adds considerably to the construction cost, and even then it's hard to get right. As my favorite mechanic explained, it's the same problem that Chris King describes in his critique of integrated headsets, except turned on its side, with a lot more torque applied... Welded frames add another layer of complexity to the equation because its harder to keep the bb shell perfectly square. Threading a bb post-welding is more reliable than prepping it for press-fit cups (whether BB30, PF BB30 or otherwise). This isn't a Moots issue—pretty much every ti builder I've spoken says it's just the way it is.
According to a blog on the old website, when Moots was in the process of developing the RSL, they started out experimenting with standard BB30. They liked the extra beefiness of the bb, but they eventually had issues with squeaking etc. They switched to PF BB30, and the problems went away. It seemed that the nylon liner provided some give to overcome micro-alignment issues, and avoided metal-to-metal contact.
When the RSL was first introduced, there was a lot of confusion about whether Campy cranks would work. At that time, Campy only had the 42mm adapters (for standard BB30). The mechanic at the shop where I bought my RSL was convinced that he could get the Campy cranks to work, so I didn't give it much thought. As the delivery date approached, there was more and more discussion about the incompatibility of Campy and PF BB30 here and elsewhere, at which point I started looking for alternatives to the Campy crank. After a fair amount of research, I concluded that the Cannondale Hollowgram SiSL was the best substitute, and it took over a month after the frame arrived to source the parts to build one up.
When Campy introduced the 46mm adapters for PF BB30 for the coming year, I questioned how they would work on the RSL given that they would appear to present the same problems that Moots encountered with standard BB30 (i.e., metal-to-metal contact, etc.). (http://moots.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=24#post-109) It appears that we now have the answer.
As I see it, the problem is that the 46mm adapters were designed to work in the 99.99999% of the market. Even in that market, probably 10% will have some issues because of the manufacturing tolerances of the frames. My guess is that the adapters are more precisely manufactured that the bb shells that they will go in, so I doubt one is going to find much variation on the dimensions of the adapters. In the .000001% of the market represented by Moots and others, the likelihood of issues will be much more pronounced. I can't imagine that Campy would make an adapter with a nylon bushing to allow for some play, so unless someone else does, it's probably better to avoid Campy cranks for these frames. That doesn't mean one needs to avoid Campy altogether—my experience is that the Cannondale crank works very well in a otherwise Campy drivetrain.
Posted 1 year ago # -
poff
MemberI am running hollowgram crank om my RSL. It is stiffer and lighter than campy's + looks cooler IMHO. I run it with a compact SRM spider. Campy 11spd rings are available for hollowgram crank (just get the right spider). Problem solved. Another option is to get Rotor 3D+ with campy rings.
Posted 1 year ago # -
River,
Sram makes the Press Fit BB30 cups & bearings. Stainless steel or Ceramic versions. You should be able to pick up at your local dealer.Let me know if you have an other questions.
Thanks,
Jon@Moots
Posted 1 year ago # -
HillBilly
MemberI thought I'd provide a brief update after my frustration with Campy UT cranks and campy PF30 adapters.
I bought a new set of Cannondale Si SL cranks with the new compact EVO Spider and new EVO lockring designed specifically for PF30. I also ordered from Cannondale a PF30 bottom bracket, actually a SRAM but includes required wavy washer and other bits and FSA 11 speed rings in 50/36. My LBS has installed them and I have now put quite a few kms on them.
Verdict? Sublime. No hint of noise, stunning shifting and overall performance. This is what an RSL should be like. The bike absolutely rocks! I run an 11-25 cassette and find the 50/36 is the perfect match for where I live and ride (lots hills and gorges).
Finally an extremely happy camper. Although I'm long one Super Record Compact Crank with Ti spindle?
Cheers
Hillbilly
Posted 1 year ago # -
HillBilly,
Thanks for the update! Glad to hear it is all working out.All the best,
Jon@Moots
Posted 1 year ago # -
tbill
MemberHillBilly, that's exactly what I did a couple of years ago, and I have never had a squeak from the bb. The cranks are fantastic. Anyone out there considering putting Campagnolo on a ti (or other metal frame) frame with BB30 or PF BB30 owes it to themselves to put the SiSL crank on (either with Campagnolo rings if standard, or FSA rings if compact).
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.