Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

301 - 320 of 393 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Any one fitted a Campagnolo Ultra Torque 39/53 chainset to a Roadlogic frame ?
I’ve tried with mine and it would appear it is not compatible
The chain ring bolts hit the chainstay long before the chainset is torqued up.
The compact version fits, but clearances are a bit tight.
I think this is only an issue with these UT chainsets as I’ve tried the older square taper Campagnolo 39/53 chain set and an old ocatlaink Dura ace 39/53 and these go in without issue.
I know other frames are not compatible with these Campag UT chainsets.
Just a heads up if someone is thinking of fitting one, and it would be good if Ritchey stated somewhere that they are not compatible.
Ritchey Crank Issue - Clash 39-53 (27).JPG Ritchey Crank Issue - Clash 39-53 (24).JPG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
I have a 2014 Record UT 39/53 in my Road Logic. The clearance is a little tight but it hasn't touched the chainstay in the ~3,000 miles I have on mine. Says a lot of the Road Logic's stiffness. (More likely says more about my awesome power output.:wink5:) I don't know if will fit but it is possible but do you have Power-Torque BB cups in there instead of Ultra-Torque?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,429 Posts
All cranks are designed to meet certain chainline criteria. That is, the chainrings must line up a specified distance from the centerline of the bicycle so the chainrings are centered about the cassette.

Some frames, specifically some cyclocross frames, have chainring size limitations such as "inner chainring max. size "X". Some 'cross frames can't accept a road sized inner chainring like a 39T. I merely mention this as an example. I'd like to think your Road Logic frame can fit a 39T inner ring as that's pretty common for a road bike. Something else must be going on if other cranks fit fine. Can spacers be mounted on the drive side bearing cup without compromising installation of the crankarms?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Interesting – Thanks for the replies, if I could get that sort of clearance I’d be happy.
I’ve been riding the bike for a year with the compact – I just assumed the UT 39/53 was a no go.
I have UT cups fitted, BB shell is faced within spec (68mm). Couldn’t shim it as these UT cranks aren’t so adaptable, width between bearings is critical and I don’t think I’ve got enough play to add a sufficiently thick shim. The Compact version of the same crank fits fine, no lateral play and spins freely.
My cranks are 2010 Centaur Carbon versions- don’t know if 2014 Record versions are different – the ring bolt heads on mine protrude quite a bit, I don’t see yours in the photo.
Chainline looks fine, BB seams central. Pictures below show Compact fitted. (ruler is crap – missing 1.5mm from start, but you get the idea)
Ritchey Crank Issue - Chain line ok (20).JPG Ritchey Crank Issue - chain line measure (12).JPG Ritchey Crank Issue - 34-50 Close Below (17).JPG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,429 Posts
You should be measuring to the center of the space between the two chainrings. I believe the typical chainline measurement is 43.5mm. Given the photos, that looks pretty close.

Why don't you contact the Ritchey Rep, who has a long running thread on this forum? I've actually e-mailed Ritchey Designs directly from their web site and received a response to a tech question. I'd be curious what they say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
You should be measuring to the center of the space between the two chainrings. I believe the typical chainline measurement is 43.5mm. Given the photos, that looks pretty close.
I was trying to get my picture to match OneGoodKnee's so a comparison could be made since my 39/53 clears and his doesn't.

Campagnolo specs chainline as 43.5mm from the center of the Hirth Joint to the inside edge of the big chain ring, and that the Hirth joint is centered on the seat tube.
View attachment 312843
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Thanks for the images TKA, they do appear pretty similar.

I'm happy with the compact, if I ever get back to TwoGoodKnees then I might miss the 39/53 but I'll just have to fit a non Campag version.

I did e-mail the Ritchey people in Europe many months ago. They asked for pictures and measurements etc. I sent them, but they never got back. I said that I thought it was probably just an issue with the UT 39/53 and not a frame issue, just a compatibility issue. I took their lack of reply as simply confirmation of this.

I love the bike, not complaining about it, just disappointed when the 39/53 didn't fit and I was interested to see if anyone else had other experiences with these UT chainsets.
TKA has shown me it is possible, albeit with a different (newer) version UT crank.

Thanks all.
 

·
Ritchey Design Rep
Joined
·
640 Posts
Thanks for the images TKA, they do appear pretty similar.

I'm happy with the compact, if I ever get back to TwoGoodKnees then I might miss the 39/53 but I'll just have to fit a non Campag version.

I did e-mail the Ritchey people in Europe many months ago. They asked for pictures and measurements etc. I sent them, but they never got back. I said that I thought it was probably just an issue with the UT 39/53 and not a frame issue, just a compatibility issue. I took their lack of reply as simply confirmation of this.

I love the bike, not complaining about it, just disappointed when the 39/53 didn't fit and I was interested to see if anyone else had other experiences with these UT chainsets.
TKA has shown me it is possible, albeit with a different (newer) version UT crank.

Thanks all.
I wanted to do some research on my end before I answered. I just got an email response today from my European office that they had been clued into this by you, and unfortunately it appears that, despite their drawings and measurements (which is what we go off of when designing), Campagnolo Ultra Torque 39/53 cranks uses bolts that stick out in the back and interfere with the stays and are incompatible with our frame. No fix has yet to be made. Sorry about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Thanks Dave
as I suspected, its just an issue with this crank. I think the newer versions have countersunk ring bolts.
There is an easy fix - fit another crank, virtually any other crank.

I found a more radical approach on the net from this builder.....

MEECH Custom Bicycles: May 2013

“Perfect fit. Campy Ultra-Torque cranks provide the least amount of clearance with these chain stays so if I can make them fit then I know most other brands will also. This is actually a 53/39 tooth chainring setup, so thats why it is as tight as it is. This is actually built for a cyclocross crankset and that will provide even more room”.



I don't think I'll be getting the hacksaw out any time soon.

Here's an image of my problematic UT chainring bolts.
They doth protrude too much, methinks.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,580 Posts
"Yikes" was my exact thought when I saw that. You must *really really really* like your cranks to do that to a frame to accommodate them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
I changed tires this spring from Conti Hardshells to Conti GP 4000 S II and now I have a clearance issue. On my last ride on the bike last fall I road thru a pile of leaves on the side of the road. Some nice person hid a a 4" thick chunk of steel in the leaves. Somehow I did no damage to the front tire but dented the rear HED Belgium+ and cut the Hardshell. Lesson learned, don't ride thru the leaves.

Both tires are 25mm but the GP 4000 hits the underside of my Chorus Skeleton brake. There is plenty of clearance around the fork, and the Hardshells cleared the brake by 3-4 mm. I've managed to adjust the Skeleton brake to give me about 1 mm clearance, but with the spring road conditions this is causing the brake to act like a old tire saver.

Anyone else running Conti GP 4000 S II on their Road Logic, and do you have adequate clearance at the brake? I'm planning on changing the brake to get better clearance and want to know if an Ultegra or DA gives better clearance. Or if there is another brake that works better I'll get that instead. The last option is to pull the pre-Skeleton brake from my commuter and put that on the Road Logic, but that will only work if the Skeleton brake clears the 28mm tires on the commuter which I doubt it will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
943 Posts
I changed tires this spring from Conti Hardshells to Conti GP 4000 S II and now I have a clearance issue. On my last ride on the bike last fall I road thru a pile of leaves on the side of the road. Some nice person hid a a 4" thick chunk of steel in the leaves. Somehow I did no damage to the front tire but dented the rear HED Belgium+ and cut the Hardshell. Lesson learned, don't ride thru the leaves.

Both tires are 25mm but the GP 4000 hits the underside of my Chorus Skeleton brake. There is plenty of clearance around the fork, and the Hardshells cleared the brake by 3-4 mm. I've managed to adjust the Skeleton brake to give me about 1 mm clearance, but with the spring road conditions this is causing the brake to act like a old tire saver.

Anyone else running Conti GP 4000 S II on their Road Logic, and do you have adequate clearance at the brake? I'm planning on changing the brake to get better clearance and want to know if an Ultegra or DA gives better clearance. Or if there is another brake that works better I'll get that instead. The last option is to pull the pre-Skeleton brake from my commuter and put that on the Road Logic, but that will only work if the Skeleton brake clears the 28mm tires on the commuter which I doubt it will.
Yes, I run 25 mm 4000S II's with Ultegra brakes. No problems with clearance, especially on the rear. Rim width makes a difference; the wider the rim, the less clearance you will have all around. I kinda wish I had more fork clearance, but the brake itself clears the tire just fine. You might try 23s. The 4000S 23s actually measure 25mm when mounted on my Ultegra 10 speed wheels. The 25s about 27.5mm.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1459787476.083185.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
My new Ritchey logic. 7.2 kg as is without pedals/7.5 with.

I really don t understand why the picture is shown upside down.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Anyone else running Conti GP 4000 S II on their Road Logic, and do you have adequate clearance at the brake?
I just attempted to install 28mm GP4000S II in the front - at 70psi. I'm using the WCS Zeta II wheels and Ultegra 6800 brakes. It has 2-3mm of side clearance in the fork and the brake, but the center seems to JUST rub both the fork and the brake on two small spots in the tire's rotation, and has less than 0.5mm (a half) millimeter clearance around the rest of the rotation.

I'm going to try a 25mm Conti GP 4000 S II and see how that works. The bike came with (I bought the full bike) 25mm Ritchey WCS Race Slicks, so I imagine the 25mm Contis will work fine.

The 28mm:
IMG_1171.jpg
IMG_1172.jpg
IMG_1173.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
I just attempted to install 28mm GP4000S II in the front - at 70psi. I'm using the WCS Zeta II wheels and Ultegra 6800 brakes. It has 2-3mm of side clearance in the fork and the brake, but the center seems to JUST rub both the fork and the brake on two small spots in the tire's rotation, and has less than 0.5mm (a half) millimeter clearance around the rest of the rotation.

I'm going to try a 25mm Conti GP 4000 S II and see how that works. The bike came with (I bought the full bike) 25mm Ritchey WCS Race Slicks, so I imagine the 25mm Contis will work fine.

The 28mm:
View attachment 315234
View attachment 315235
View attachment 315236
same thing that happened with my ritchey forks/brakes, just too tight. do any new ritchey road models take 28's?
 
301 - 320 of 393 Posts
Top