heres why
Bustedknuckle said:
You know why. UT has a tolerance of 68.2-70.8.
Yep, plenty of the same with 'users' as well, those who get their info 2nd, 3rd, or 4th hand or what they read somewhere on the 'web'.
The web is full of bullsh1t. As a rule I try not to add to it which is why, in general, I'll only talk from first hand experience. I will accept that there are undoubtedly loads of badly fitted UT units causing problems because of the failure to adhere to he strict tolerances
If you are going to be a service oriented pro shop(and I am a Campagnolo pro shop, have been since they started the program), you have the proper tools, whether you need to work on Campagnolo or the other '2' type componentry.
Well this is at the crux of why we are disagreeing.
You are looking at this from the point of view of a bike shop owner. You need to invest in tools, and you know that expensive tools will pay for themselves.
I'm not. I'm a rider who does big miles. I do all my mechanics except for:
A) when I'm using something (usually old/defunct/esoteric) where I need some someone with historical knowledge and experience who I might need to get medieval on the part with a blowtorch and pliers
B) When the job requires a very expensive tool whose purchase I not going to be merited by the very rare use it might get.
It is B that we are talking about here. In the past, the kind of tools I might be talking about are things like BB and Head tube facing tools..the sort of thing that gets used once in the lifetime of the frame but costs several hundred pounds to buy.
All of a sudden, I now find that changing a Power Torque bearing is in this category. The official tools cost nearly £100. Of course you can grind down an automotive puller and use some foreign coins as the blank for less cash, but the point is for the keen cyclist this is a ridiculous thing to have to do for what used to be a simple task.
The point is not that the jobs are fiddly and difficult...they aren't....but it is needlessly complicated and expensive to tool up for.
Granted, the UT is simpler to remove, but it is the PT that really annoys me. This is because the extra hassle and expense to get the thing off is all about solving another problem.....but not a functional problem that the end user will benefit from, but a marketing problem that benefits only Campag. Namely, how do you make a mass market OEM crank set which isn't as costly as the UT, can easily be fitted to cheaper branded bikes by less skilled factory workers, and isn't going to infringe any patents held by Shimano?
Power Torque is the answer to that, but it is an answer to Campags market in problem and nothing else
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram