2011 Cervelo R3/2011 Campy Record 11 Build Issues

[Kontact]

Originally Posted by firerescuefin

Kontact,

What is a huge Cervelo turn-off is the lack of support/response you seemed to have received as a Cervelo dealer (no slight to you). Puts the customer in no-man's land.

And I'd agree - I think I said earlier that I am not a huge Cervelo fan.

But every brand seems to have things that they could do better - read the recent thread about Serotta's frame bearings.

I think Cervelo is a company whose endless quest for innovation often gets ahead of their ability to support it, and the designers still appear to be learning things that everyone else knew a long time ago. But for stock brands, you could certainly do worse. I'd certainly like to see more of our customers riding home on Parlees, Serottas and Sevens, though.

[ultraman6970]

Sincerely all these new standards are a real PITA, who cares if bb30 BB is like 5% stiffer than regular threaded BB, after all like 99.9% of the cycling community sucks at the sport compared with the people who really is good at the sport and would use more of these new ideas.

Still dont understand why they are making stuff with more parts to fail, threads, cups and ready to go. In this case is, ok! what do i have here?? my crankset works with this? who knows? who makes the cups i need? it will work fine?? Oh campagnolo doesnt work with this! hmm... now i have a creak, have to loctite the cups again!, thats so saaadd... too many parts that can fail now. Nothing like regular BBs.

Leave that new stuff to pro racers, as i said before, like 99.9% of the population just doesnt need new standards and if cervelo continues like this, their whole bikes will use proprietary headsets, BBs and cranksets. Great!

[Kontact]

Originally Posted by ultraman6970

Sincerely all these new standards are a real PITA, who cares if bb30 BB is like 5% stiffer than regular threaded BB, after all like 99.9% of the cycling community sucks at the sport compared with the people who really is good at the sport and would use more of these new ideas.

Still dont understand why they are making stuff with more parts to fail, threads, cups and ready to go. In this case is, ok! what do i have here?? my crankset works with this? who knows? who makes the cups i need? it will work fine?? Oh campagnolo doesnt work with this! hmm... now i have a creak, have to loctite the cups again!, thats so saaadd... too many parts that can fail now. Nothing like regular BBs.

Leave that new stuff to pro racers, as i said before, like 99.9% of the population just doesnt need new standards and if cervelo continues like this, their whole bikes will use proprietary headsets, BBs and cranksets. Great!

I really see BB30/PF30 as fixing a problem that occurred when the oversized/hollow spindle cranks came out - outboard bearings eat heal clearance.

Since BB30 uses a 68mm shell with internal bearings, it can be adapted to use with just about an crank system, plus it is simple and offers cranks as narrow as the old square taper.

BBright - I don't know...

[binxnyrwarrsoul]

Part of the reason I'd never own a Cervelo.

Originally Posted by firerescuefin

Kontact,

What is a huge Cervelo turn-off is the lack of support/response you seemed to have received as a Cervelo dealer (no slight to you). Puts the customer in no-man's land.

[CNY rider]

Originally Posted by Kontact

I really see BB30/PF30 as fixing a problem that occurred when the oversized/hollow spindle cranks came out - outboard bearings eat heal clearance.

Since BB30 uses a 68mm shell with internal bearings, it can be adapted to use with just about an crank system, plus it is simple and offers cranks as narrow as the old square taper.

BBright - I don't know...

I have Campy square taper cranks that I would say are pretty flawless in design and function
I bet less than 1% of cyclists could "flex" or otherwise make them or the bottom bracket function sub-optimally.
So what was REALLY the whole purpose of new bottom bracket designs and are we actually better off now?

[ultraman6970]

CNY ultra torque feels way stiffer than squared tapper, really. But my point is, why create all of this paraphernalia with new designs when as simple the better? Love UT but when i have to find a bike now that takes threaded BB cups, i will run out of options soon because all the manufacturers are leaving the threads out maybe for next year. Maybe go with pressed fit cups and adapters is simple but the issue is that forces everybody to start buying stuff u really dont need. A pair of cranks, a good one is about 300 bucks minimum, then u get a new frame and u need to start thinking in spend 400 more because of the cranks... sucks u know.

[Kontact]

The point of all these changes was losing weight, which works and sells a lot of bikes. Square taper is heavy, splined was lighter, UT lighter still and 30mm aluminum spindles really light.

BB30 is stupid easy to adapt, and there isn't a really a weight penalty for doing so. In the case of UT, it is a substitution of one factory cup for another. What's the downside to a BB that is lighter and slimmer than any other, but totally backwards compatible?

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Kontact

I really see BB30/PF30 as fixing a problem that occurred when the oversized/hollow spindle cranks came out - outboard bearings eat heal clearance.

Since BB30 uses a 68mm shell with internal bearings, it can be adapted to use with just about an crank system, plus it is simple and offers cranks as narrow as the old square taper.

BBright - I don't know...

Yep, except hollow spindles, octalink and isis, were an answer to another not asked question for bicycles. Square taper, new cranks from shimano(7410) and Campagnolo, with short spindles, were stiff, reliable, useful, loads of heel clearance. Then shimano had to do octalink, followed by isis, which did nothing but start the bike wizards down this road.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Kontact

The point of all these changes was losing weight, which works and sells a lot of bikes. Square taper is heavy, splined was lighter, UT lighter still and 30mm aluminum spindles really light.

BB30 is stupid easy to adapt, and there isn't a really a weight penalty for doing so. In the case of UT, it is a substitution of one factory cup for another. What's the downside to a BB that is lighter and slimmer than any other, but totally backwards compatible?

Called BB'creak'. Sorry, but splined, etc was lighter but square taper wasn't 'heavy'. That's like saying aluminum CR bolts are so much lighter than steel ones..yep they are lighter but steel CR bolts aren't 'heavy'.

Yep, only 2 things you can measure in a bike shop, weight and price. If it's light and expensive, it must be top shelf..but often it isn't.

Lots of this stuff is embraced by frame builders cuz it's cheaper to do also. Big tubes are easier to mate to big tubes(headtube and BB shell) and it's easier to make a glued in shell than a threaded piece..and yep, I saw another BB30 shell that wasn't made square..nice noise!! And continually toasted bearings...nice.

[CNY rider]

Originally Posted by ultraman6970

CNY ultra torque feels way stiffer than squared tapper, really..

Feels way stiffer is pretty suggestive.
Does anyone here actually think they can flex a Record crank on a sq taper BB?
Seriously?

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by CNY rider

Feels way stiffer is pretty suggestive.
Does anyone here actually think they can flex a Record crank on a sq taper BB?
Seriously?

Grazie for that. Big gorilla crank testers, exerting way more force than any of us mere mortals, shows stiffness hardly measureable. Chipo and some other really big dudes sprinted for green jersey points with shimano and Campagnolo, aluminum, square taper cranks and didn't seem to have any issues..so for us 'rec' riders, sorry don't see the reason. But I don't see the reason behind lots of this stuff...coming full circle back to cervelo and 'nother BB design.

[Kontact]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Yep, except hollow spindles, octalink and isis, were an answer to another not asked question for bicycles. Square taper, new cranks from shimano(7410) and Campagnolo, with short spindles, were stiff, reliable, useful, loads of heel clearance. Then shimano had to do octalink, followed by isis, which did nothing but start the bike wizards down this road.

I have two similar Ti bikes - one with a 7410 crank and the other with an Octalink Ritchey WCS crank. The Ritchey is clearly stiffer (under my massive 145 lbs.) at about the same weight. SRAM manages to scrub off between 130 and 150 grams by going from GXP to Red, which puts their high end cranks with BB at the same weight as 7410 and Ritchey WCS without a BB.

I seem to remember fighting creak with cartridge BBs all the way back to the early '90s when there was only cartridge BBs with square taper. I have not seen creak issues with all the Cervelo R series we service. Were you suggesting going back to loose ball BB that don't have any square interfaces to potentially creak?

Oldepotatoe,

I realize you are a conservative guy by nature, and really don't care for any of the monkeying around that happened between 2000 gram 32 spoke wheels and solid steel BB spindles until now, but average bike weights have dropped in that period by 3 or 4 pounds while drivetrain, frame and fork stiffness has gone up. Most people really like that, and the weight improvements have been primarily in wheels and components. Buyers expect 16 pound bikes that don't rub the FD when climbing - and they can get them now. That isn't a bad thing.

Being conservative isn't bad, either. Really, I think it would have been cool if the jump from square taper to BB30 happened without all the baby steps - more like the change from threaded 1" to threadless 1 1/8". If the English BB had been abandoned as fast as the 1" head tube we would have a very mature pressed in system by now. Klein and Merlin have been doing pressed in bearing successfully since the '80s - BB30 just builds on that.

[lhuerta]

Originally Posted by Kontact

We have never been able to get such a thing from Cervelo. We just get a confused run around.

But if they have it, that's the right answer.


Update: This guy got the right parts, obviously:

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/fo...p?f=10&t=80217

Kontact, I am confused... if you are a Cervelo dealer and presumably an able mechanic, why would you suggest the BB adapter workarounds that you list above for a BBRight install. The BBRight adapter cups for Campy, Shimano FSA and Rotor have been widely available from Cervelo since November when they began delivering their 2011 BBRight equipped R-Series frames. Granted, there are some limitations to installing some older cranks/BB systems to the new BBRight standard, but such is the case when any new standard is introduced (e.g. headset bearings, stem clamp/handlebar diameter etc).

Also, I am not clear why you indicate that Cervelo folks are confused and inaccessible. Anytime I have had a warranty issue or technical question, I simply pick up the phone and call Toronto directly and I always speak to a real and capable person on the other end. When their tech support people have not been able to answer a question at times they have patched me through to one of their engineers and my questions have always been answered (either directly on the phone or vial email). For example, in handling my warranty claims for three R-series frames in the last 24 months, I have never had to wait for longer the 10 days for a replacement frame. The only issue I have had with Cervelo is that they have yet to issue a directive to dealers and consumers outlining the need for Loctite 609 or 641 when installing the BBRight adapter cups.

With regard to the BBRight system and its claim of increased BB stiffness...for those who have not tried a Cervelo R-series frame with BBRight it is really worth experiencing. I too was a doubter of perceived vs real increase in BB stiffness, but was pleasantly surprised by the noticeable difference. The increased stiffness is due not only to the oversize BBRight shell, but also the massive seatstays and the square seat and down tubes that connect to the BB shell. Moving from a 2010 R3-SL frame with threaded BB shell to 2011 R5 with BBRight Campy adapter cups, the difference was very notable.

Lou

[Kontact]

Originally Posted by lhuerta

Kontact, I am confused... if you are a Cervelo dealer and presumably an able mechanic, why would you suggest the BB adapter workarounds that you list above for a BBRight install. The BBRight adapter cups for Campy, Shimano FSA and Rotor have been widely available from Cervelo since November when they began delivering their 2011 BBRight equipped R-Series frames. Granted, there are some limitations to installing some older cranks/BB systems to the new BBRight standard, but such is the case when any new standard is introduced (e.g. headset bearings, stem clamp/handlebar diameter etc).

Also, I am not clear why you indicate that Cervelo folks are confused and inaccessible. Anytime I have had a warranty issue or technical question, I simply pick up the phone and call Toronto directly and I always speak to a real and capable person on the other end. When their tech support people have not been able to answer a question at times they have patched me through to one of their engineers and my questions have always been answered (either directly on the phone or vial email). For example, in handling my warranty claims for three R-series frames in the last 24 months, I have never had to wait for longer the 10 days for a replacement frame. The only issue I have had with Cervelo is that they have yet to issue a directive to dealers and consumers outlining the need for Loctite 609 or 641 when installing the BBRight adapter cups.

With regard to the BBRight system and its claim of increased BB stiffness...for those who have not tried a Cervelo R-series frame with BBRight it is really worth experiencing. I too was a doubter of perceived vs real increase in BB stiffness, but was pleasantly surprised by the noticeable difference. The increased stiffness is due not only to the oversize BBRight shell, but also the massive seatstays and the square seat and down tubes that connect to the BB shell. Moving from a 2010 R3-SL frame with threaded BB shell to 2011 R5 with BBRight Campy adapter cups, the difference was very notable.

Lou

Because on the several occasions we've called them on this issue, we were given the wrong information, part numbers that didn't do what they should, directions to call Quality, who also didn't have or send the right stuff and general confusion when our lead mechanic tried to explain why the stuff we were sent didn't work. Finally we just used the lathe.

If other shops are having a different experience with adapters - I couldn't tell you why we've had such a hard time.

That said, other Cervelo issues, like the loose cable stop rivets, unworkable cable routing on old S3s, the various P4 issues, fragile Rotor hardware and general warranty returns were handled expeditiously, even if we had to make a special tool to get a rivet gun close enough. I was not saying that Cervelo is universally bad, but we've found them challenged on this particular adapter issue, and I couldn't tell you why.


I had not said that they were inaccessible. I think you misread something.


And if our struggles with these issues are a thing of the past - fantastic. We haven't had to install a non-BBright crank in a month or more, so what I wrote may be entirely out of date.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Kontact

I have two similar Ti bikes - one with a 7410 crank and the other with an Octalink Ritchey WCS crank. The Ritchey is clearly stiffer (under my massive 145 lbs.) at about the same weight. SRAM manages to scrub off between 130 and 150 grams by going from GXP to Red, which puts their high end cranks with BB at the same weight as 7410 and Ritchey WCS without a BB.

I seem to remember fighting creak with cartridge BBs all the way back to the early '90s when there was only cartridge BBs with square taper. I have not seen creak issues with all the Cervelo R series we service. Were you suggesting going back to loose ball BB that don't have any square interfaces to potentially creak?

Oldepotatoe,

I realize you are a conservative guy by nature, and really don't care for any of the monkeying around that happened between 2000 gram 32 spoke wheels and solid steel BB spindles until now, but average bike weights have dropped in that period by 3 or 4 pounds while drivetrain, frame and fork stiffness has gone up. Most people really like that, and the weight improvements have been primarily in wheels and components. Buyers expect 16 pound bikes that don't rub the FD when climbing - and they can get them now. That isn't a bad thing.

Being conservative isn't bad, either. Really, I think it would have been cool if the jump from square taper to BB30 happened without all the baby steps - more like the change from threaded 1" to threadless 1 1/8". If the English BB had been abandoned as fast as the 1" head tube we would have a very mature pressed in system by now. Klein and Merlin have been doing pressed in bearing successfully since the '80s - BB30 just builds on that.

I guess calling Kelin and Merlin pressed in BBs 'successful' is one person's perception.

I guess 3-4 pound drop in bike weight helps you put it onto the top of your car but that 1800 gram savings in that almost 90,000 gram rider and bike package means something to some and nothing to others. Like I said, you can meausre weight and price. BTW-I have a square taper crank on both of my old fashioned metal bikes and never drag my chain on the inside of my front der.

I also chase creaks almost everyday, many on external and BB30 BBs..some on octalink and square taper. I also play with shims on BB30 cranks all the time, trying to find that spot where the crank actually turns vs the number of shims where it is loose.

I would rather(and do) work on these things than sell them(I sell only one BB30 frame, Moots RSL) and think older designs, in spite of the huge weight penalty, to work better in many cases.