Arrivederci Rotor…..

I have been through so many iterations and permutations of bottom brackets and cranksets I have lost count…I think I may have finally solved my problems with Campagnolo and BBright. Finally.

Experience is what you get when you don’t get what you wanted in the first place, right ?

I could not live with the Rotor crankset. Well, more accurately, I could not live with the font shifting of the Rotor Rings. Absolutely horrible – months of dropped chains, constant adjustments, the awful noise of chain rubbing against the front derailleur and worse yet, the trepidation of approaching a climb not knowing if I was going to be able to shift to my small ring or be stuck at the bottom with greasy hands wrestling with my chain as my riding companions soldiered onwards and upwards.

Luckily for me, Campagnolo had a (albeit unofficially supported ) solution – the Over-Torque crankset. Why unofficially ? Good question, there is no reason IMHO….but Campagnolo says no.

But if Over-Torque supports BB386 (46mm x 86mm) there is no reason why the 79mm shell of BBright can’t be accommodated…perhaps they can’t be bothered by taking one spacer out of the bag ? (in their defence, the centre BB sleeve from a PF30 BB is not long enough to bridge the 79mm width of BBright – but it’s only necessary for EPS electronic groupset owners – what you could do is get a BB386 BB sleeve and trim it down 3.5mm on either end, but DON’T buy a BB386 BB instead of a PF30 BB, you won’t get the appropriate spacer(s) !)

A Press-Fit 30 (or PF30) bottom bracket is a 46mm ID shell by 68mm wide that houses a set of bearings in removable cups that accommodate a 30mm crankset spindle. It’s a completely symmetrical design whereby the centre of the shell to the outer faces of the drive and non-drive side are an equal 34mm. BBright is essentially a PF30 bottom bracket that is 11mm wider on the non-drive side (NDS) while maintaining the same 34mm centre to shell face dimensions of the drive side (DS)

So to adapt a Over-Torque crankset for Cervelo’s BBright, you simply use the Campagnolo PF30 bottom bracket and only one of the two included spacers – the spacer goes on the DS, and the adjustable lock-ring on the NDS. Presto.

Only I given my “experience” with my Cervelo and BBright, I wanted it (nearly) perfect, so here’s what I did:

First step after removing the Rotor Crankset and Chris King PF30 BB, I reamed the shell with the Park Tool #791 reamer to the exact dimensions of 45.94mm. While I don’t have the recommended Park HTR-1B tool and 750.2 Cone, a local machine shop made a bushing for the #791 reamer to fit my Cyclus tool (from the Czech Republic, very well made) as well as a custom cone basically identical to the #750.2 from Park.

Reaming the shell was dead-easy and left me with a nice clean carbon shell to press the new Campagnolo bottom bracket cups in. I did a test fit first before applying the Loctite 609 for the final press.

I used the Park #668 PF30/BB30 bushings on my Campagnolo UT-BB140 tool designed for the Campagnolo OS-Fit BB cups – works like a charm, and easier to use than my Park HHP-2.

My trusty dog Tullio watched over the whole proceedings in the garage. Actually, his name is Comet….Tullio would have been cool, though…..

After test fitting, I applied the Loctite 7649 Primer to the cups and inside the shell and allowed to dry, followed by a liberal application of Loctite 609 on the cups, then pressed in place. Unlike previous attempts NO nasty popping and creaking sounds ensued….they went in with sufficient resistance but smoothly.

I left the UT-BB140 in place after backing it off ever so slightly overnight before installing the Crankset. Although theoretically the cure time for the Loctite in in the range of ~ 30 minutes, I had other matters to attend to that evening, so I installed the crank the next day. In hindsight, I wish I had faced the shell as well, but not having invested in the Park #690-XL facer I took the chance the shell was as parallel as specs and factory QC tolerances allowed, alas..it was not the case, but close enough.

If you are interested in installing your own Over-Torque Crankset – be forewarned – you’ll need to invest in the special tool necessary for installing (and removing) it – the UT-FC220 and it’s companion part UT-FC130 in addition to a 24mm box end wrench, as well as1.5mm, 5mm and 8mm allen wrenches. Campagnolo’s official instructions are here. For Cervelo BBRight owners, use only one spacer (on the DS) and the adjustable spacer on the NDS.

There you have it. New chain and rear cassette installed as well for prudence sake (plus the old chain was coming up to around 8,000 km). Perfect front shifting restored, as good as if not better than my original Chorus Over-Torque compact. Note, you may find it near impossible to lock the adjustable spacer with the 1.5mm allen once it’s in place….the bottom bracket cup makes it very difficult. While mine hasn’t budged in ~ 1000 km, I plan on removing the NDS crankset arm and locking the ring down with some Loctite 242 on the treads at first opportunity or if necessary, whichever comes first.

First ride with the new Crankset….performed flawlessly. I have a nice 172.5mm 110 BCD Rotor 3D+ with 50/34 Rotor Rings and a Chris King PF30 BB if anyone is interested ? I can’t guarantee they will shift all that well, but I’ll make you a great deal…..

Hacking a CycleOps 100 Pro Part 2…Now With Power

In my previous post, I wrote about my unofficial CycleOps model 100 to 200 upgrade from parts procured from eBay. Well, it’s been taken a step further, almost to a model 300 for a relatively paltry sum.

For the uninitiated, the various models of CycleOps indoor bikes are described here.

The Model 300 adds the ability to track power by building their PowerTap technology into the trainer freewheel. Thus, it commands a large (some $1500) premium over the base 100 model.

But CycleOps offers another product as an alterative to their PowerTap power meters. Billed as the “Worlds Most Inexpensive Power Meter”, the PowerCal  uses a proprietary algorithm to determine power from heart rate. And for around $100, it’s a good deal to boot.

Determining power from heat rate is nothing new. People familiar with Garmin or Polar monitors and software have long seen the estimated calories or energy expenditure calculated after a workout. So is it accurate ? Yes and No. While there is no way that the PowerCal can determine power with the same accuracy of a dedicated power meter for instantaneous changes of short durations (sprints, climbs),  importantly for this exercise (no pun intended), reviewers have concluded that the PowerCal is surprisingly accurate enough when used to determine power expenditure over a full workout. Which pretty much sums up a trainer workout, particularly when there are no environmental factors to influence the results.

Yesterday was my first workout with the PowerCal. Setup couldn’t have been easier. 2 minutes to pair with the Joule 2.0 computer and I was off.

Antidotally, I’m pretty sure the power  measured is in the ballpark. I’ve often noted that my Garmin Forerunner overestimates calories by as much as 40% when compared to the data from my iBike for the same interval. When comparing the workout data from the PowerCal to a previous training ride of similar intensity, the PowerCal estimated the work approximately 38% less than the Garmin. Which is what I would have expected.

So there we go. As good as a Model 300 with PowerTap. No. But certainly a worthy upgrade over just measuring speed and heart-rate for indoor rides for me. Call it a Model 250. Or Model 200b. Or.. ?

Hacking a CycleOps 100 Pro, Part 1

After riding a Kurt Kinetic Fluid trainer for close to three years, I decided to take the plunge and upgrade to a real indoor cycle. My rationelle spending the money on a $1500 trainer was multifold. One, it would save wear and tear on my primary bikes drivetrain. Two, it would allow me the flexibility to be able to get a ride in on those early season “off days” when the proposition having to re-setup my Kurt and bike was simply too much to deal with, and, three, the compactness and quietness of the CycleOps would allow me to set up rather discreetly in a corner of my office where the Kurt simply didn’t fit. After logging more than 1500km indoors since last January, I don’t regret the purchase. Personally, I do prefer the feel of the Kurt, and it’s not just adspeak when Kurt claims their trainer as having the most realistic road feel. It does. But the compactness, quietness and sturdiness of the CycleOps indoor bikes trump the Kurt, hands down.

I opted for the new 100 Pro model, with road bar. The bar, along with the fact you can freewheel, are the two principal advantages of the CycleOps Pro indoor cycles over a less expensive spin bike. Being able to dial in your postion exactly to mirror the fit of your road bike (minus the bar width) makes switching between the trainer and road bike seamless. Being able to freewheel after a hard effort makes for a more pleasant training experience. After all, I don’t ride a fixed gear on the road, why would I want the hassle indoors as well ? And it’s quiet, particularly compared to the Kurt fluid trainer that was noisy as hell.

The main differences between the 100 and 200 model is that the 200 model adds the Joule 2.0 cycling computer with cadence and speed sensors and can interface with a ANT+ heart rate monitor. At the time of purchase, I opted for the basic model, figuring I could kludge something together, or at least ride with my Garmin Forerunner to track my heart rate. As it turns out, the Garmin speed and cadence sensor (GSC10) fits on the chain-stay perfectly, and by taping a magnet to the flywheel and setting a custom wheel diameter (1465mm) speed and distance along with heart rate during indoor workouts can be tracked.

What I didn’t realize until recently is that CycleOps offers a dealer “upgrade” kit to turn the basic 100 into the more advanced 200 model, and offers the installation instructions available for joe public to see.

The Garmin GSC10 fits the chain-stay of the CycleOps Pro frames perfectly. The magnet (located above) is secured with double sided tape

A quick browse of the manual revealed that the parts necessary were standard CycleOps bits and easily procured from either your local cycling dealer, or, in my case, eBay. A quick “buy it now” and I was the owner of a new Joule 2.0 computer with heart-rate strap for less than $125 dollars. The only real difference seems to be in the handlebar mount, but the standard Joule 2.0 computer mount still fits perfectly on the road style bar (I can’t comment on the tri-style bar).

The included multi-mount fits the CycleOps road bar with the included zip ties as shown.

The Joule 2.0 computer is a marvel of engineering, and unlike the Garmin units, doesn’t discriminate when it comes to non CycleOps ANT+ accessories. It paired with the GSC10 perfectly, and although I don’t have a cadence sensor, it’s a great upgrade over using the Forerunner indoors.

So there you go. Unofficial 100 to 200 upgrade (minus cadence). Over 400 dollar savings in my pocket…cha-ching.