cs1

I know some of you have been following the news/rumors about the new Campy crank/BB. In case you haven't already read anything, this is an interesting link. https://www.campyonly.com/rumors/2006/ultratorque.html

In a nutshell, it's a 100 gr lighter than current models.

Tim

halfspeed

" shoe ormalleolus"?

"With an eye on standardization that makes life simpler, Campagnolo decided to use tools already in existence. "

" The crankset can be disassembled in just a few seconds: unscrew the screw which unites the two semi-axles using the 10 mm socket wrench; pull the cranks off the bottom bracket shell; "

Yay!

What's a Hirth joint?: https://www.voithturbo.com/hirth-serration.htm

sch

Hirth joint looks like the adjustment set up on the Stronglight headsets on my ancient PX 10.
Steve

HillRider

Campy is a worse offender than even Shimano in requiring proprietary tools and non-standard parts. A good example is their new Record and Chorus compact cranks which use the "standard" 110 mm bolt circle EXCEPT they offset one bolt so only their chainrings will work.

I wonder if this new bb is a change in philosophy or just an exception.

cs1

Nice link on the Hirth joint. It does look expensive to produce though.

Tim

Landgolier

so wait, Campy's big new innovation is a 1-piece crank (cut in half with a hirth joint) with an integrated BB?

excuse me while I go laugh my @#$ off

I swear to god, some day they're going to figure out a way to weld and glue the whole friggin' bike together so you have to buy a new one every time you get a flat.

HillRider

I'm not sure from the description where the bb bearings are. It sounds like they are internal to the bb shell just like every bb has been until the new Shimano/FSA external bearing designs came along.

If so, the large diameter spindles will require small bearings. That was one of the complaints against the original ISIS and Octalink bbs. Shimano seems to have made reliable Octalink bottom brackets but FSA/Truvative/etc have had a lot of early failures.

cs1

I'm not so sure about that. Take a look at the patent drawings they applied for


https://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?IDX=...&QPN=EP1352826
https://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?IDX=...&QPN=EP1352824
https://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?IDX=...&QPN=EP1350714


Tim

Psimet2001 

The renderings on the site appear to show an external bearing setup.

OneTinSloth

here is an article with a better picture of what's going on with this crazy contraption.

and here is a picture of what looks like the mirage version of it. the joining bolt looks like it's recessed to the middle of the BB spindle.

Soil_Sampler

https://www.velonews.com/tour2005/tec...es/8447.0.html

www.negmass.com

Different spline and bearing set-ups on these cranks.

cs1

Nice links. I've seen the Mirage crank photo before. I never realized that now Campy has brought the hidden bolt feature on the spyder down all the way to Mirage.

Tim

operator

Funniest thing I read all day.

Cactus

Its a shame really, the square taper hasn't yet been improved upon, and this probably won't change that status either. Anyone who approves of cantilevering the bearing races out from the ends of the bottom bracket can't really be concerned with stiffness. Or longevity. Give me a tappered square with cup and cone bottom bracket any day. Easy to install, easy to maintain, runs smoothly, doesn't cost much. King Eddie, today, on a bike with a traditional bottom bracket could beat all the new-school bottom bracket designers in a match sprint.

HillRider

Interesting comment but meaningless. Sure Merckx could beat most bb designers. Maybe you could to. These guys are engineers, not racers.

Cartridge bb's were developed for their ease of installation and lack of maintenance, not because they were mechanically more efficient. The new splined and integral spindle/ external bearing bb's are slightly lighter and (maybe) stiffer but, again, no one is claiming better efficiency.

TallRider

But they are implying better efficiency.

I, too, doubt that modern BB's increase rider efficiency to any notable level. The mechanical value of the integrated crank/bb does make sense somewhat, certainly better than ISIS/Octalink. What a dead end.

An interesting thing is that cup-and-cone square-taper BB's usually had slightly wider bearing spacing than moder cartridge square-taper BB's.

OneTinSloth

exactly what about the external bottom bracket design is inherently more flexy or prone to failure than a square taper BB? i'm specifically wondering why you think a larger spindle with larger bearings and larger surface to surface contact is going to fail, or be less stiff?

have you ridden a bike with this type of bottom bracket? i ride shop bikes and customer bike with these BBs all day long, then i hop on my old trek 600 tourer with a 107 square taper bb and i can tell the difference in stiffness for damn sure.

sure, the square taper spindle works. it performs the function of securely holding the crankarms and providing an axle for them to ride on. but technology changes, and our capabilities and requirements change, new techniques for working with various materials improve.

personally, for day to day cycling, commuting/grocery runs/trips to friends' houses, square taper does just fine. and for my road bike, octalink is plenty stiff. i'm currently using a square taper on my MTB, but will almost surely swap that out to an external BB/crank because i work with them all day long, i know how it all fits together and it makes much more sense to me than turning a bolt and press-fitting two vital parts together on a piece of metal that's 1/2"-3/4" in diameter.

TallRider

OneTinSloth: your subtitle appears to be accurate. Cactus argued that the square taper hadn't been improved upon. He didn't say that an external bottom bracket design was worse (e.g., inherently more flexy or prone to failure). Rather, I read Cactus as arguing that it's a solution to... what was the problem?
Yes, materials have changed, but the basic design of integrated crank/bb systems doesn't depend on newer technology. And I'm rather dubious on your point that "requirements change." The physical motion of cycling hasn't changed in years. We may expect more because of improvements in technology, but I'm not sure that integrated systems are a meaningful improvement in technology. They are a new upgrade, a more expensive component, etc., that costs the average rider significantly more than they're worth to that average rider in terms of improved performance.

Yes, the new integrated systems are stiffer, measurably so (though not always noticably so). Your comparison on the Trek 600 tourer isn't fair because it's a totally different frame, and much more bottom bracket flex is due to the frame than the bottom bracket.

The debate on this issue centers around whether or not the integrated crank/bb systems actually make a rider faster for a given amount of effort. Do they?

OneTinSloth

that's why i was asking about longevity. that statement implies that they're worse. cactus needs to prove that there's a reliability issue with this setup, you can't just make a claim like that and not back it up.

as far as faster/stiffer, i can also use the example of the specialized allez sport model, and compare it to the allez comp. the allez sport has a square taper BB, and the allez comp has a shimano external BB. it's the same basic frame around the BB area, even though we're comparing a $900 bike to a $1300 bike. the allez comp is a faster bike.

or, i could take the guy who had his campy 8 speed giordana updated with full 10 speed 105 who has been turning in better times on his training rides since that upgrade. the bike might be half a pound lighter now than it was then, if that, so i don't think the weight difference is a factor.

you could look at the data that shimano churns out regarding the hollowtech II cranks regarding stiffness. but it's biased and boring...all those charts and graphs...

i don't regard external BBs as a solution without a problem, the problem was, square taper BBs were flexy and prone to breakage under stress (MTBing, cyclocross). professional riders demand more, and like it or not, for road and MTB, they are the ones in the driver's seat. lancey pants says "i need something stiffer" and shimano makes it. they haven't stopped making square taper cranks and bottom brackets, and they won't, because joe-average rec. rider is still using them. as for bearing longevity, square taper rules. external BBs haven't been around long enough to really judge, but it makes sense that they'll last just as long as square taper bearings.

for someone where performance is paramount, square taper just doesn't make sense anymore. for the average joe running to the grocery store, or riding casually, square taper is the best solution. if i had the money to drop on a hollowtech II crankset for my steel roadie, i wouldn't. but i also wouldn't go back to square taper. older stuff is great. it gets the job done, but seriously, people who cry "solution without a problem" need to pull their heads out of the sand and try the new stuff. i could say the same thing about square taper versus cottered cranks. i've never had a problem with them. they look nice, they're plenty stiff (solid steel crankarms ought to be), and they work just fine.

cs1

Somehow this seems to be veering away from my original post. Where is the bunny with pancake on his head?

Tim

MichaelW

Why is everyone designing fancy schmancy bottom brackets for a BB shell dimentioned for a solid steel, sq taper axle. These days, frames have special proprietry head tubes for inergral HS . Why dont they just bite the bullet and specify an oversized BB shell. This will allow them room for hollow axles AND well sized bearings. It will also give more area for welding of oversized tubing.

Racing folk can enjoy the extra stiffness and lightness of proprietry bits and the rest of us can enjoy the smug feeling of standardisation, secure in the knowledge that we can buy replacement parts in 10 years time.

bellweatherman

I f-ing hate that elitist campyonly.com website. It borders on noxious anti-asian sentiment. I have to admit. Their stuck-up attitude really turns me off from Campy products. I'm not generally a Campy fan anyway, but the new cranks from Campy really do look hot! Found a pic from their new lower end Mirange crank which has the see-through hollow see through spindle hole. Pretty nifty! Campy hasn't released pics of the Record cranks to my knowledge, but I'm sure photographers will be taking pics of them on the Tour riders this year.

Here's some info on the new crank design:
https://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...006/news/05-12

And a pic:

HillRider

I agree that the campyonly web site is blindly and obnoxiously Campy-phile. They excuse every mistake and present every non-standard design and proprietary Campy part as if it were a blessing while relentlessly bashing Shimano for doing much less egregiously dumb things. If Shimano can do it and Campy can't then you don't need it and the innovation is useless. They get old fast.

That said, I just built up my brand new bike with a complete 10-speed Chorus triple group. After 100,000+ miles (very satisfactory miles I might add) on Shimano I decided to try something different.

So far my experience has been all positive. The shifters work well and their repairability could be a big plus in the future. The derailleurs are solid and accurate and the ability to fine-tune the fd position is a real advantage. The hub adjustments can be done on the bike with only a 2.5 mm hex key which is also an advantage and a clever touch. The availability of two cassettes with 13T top cogs is also a plus for me as I have absolutely no use for a 53x12 for anything. Obviously the bottom bracket is the older Campy square taper design which works fine and, from the independent tests I've seen is nearly as stiff as Shimano's best and better than some of the other cranks like FSA.

However, there is nothing magic about it. It works well but so does Shimano. A lot of Campy's proprietary designs were done, not because they are better, but to get around Shimano's patents. I think their new bb design is based on the same requirement and/or they are doing something different just to be different.

TallRider

apologies to Tim (cs1) for the thread hijack. But it's not a total hijack - this discussion is centered around the reasons behind the move to integrated crank/bb systems.

OneTinSloth: thanks for the reply.
* I wouldn't argue that integrated crank/bb with external bearings has poorer durability. As you say, the jury is out on that. But they should, in principle, be able to be durable just fine.
* as far as faster/stiffer, I'm still dubious. The two specialized bikes have a number of other differences, and I'd still be surprised if there was much speed difference between them. I'd love to see some data from actual riding, on an otherwise equal bike, say with Shimano's current Dura-Ace crank, compared to the last square-taper Dura-Ace crank with the 103mm bottom bracket. Same chainrings. I dubious as to whether there would be any meaningful difference in speed in a blinded test where the rider didn't knowwhich crank he/she was riding. Tom Boonen won last year's world championship and lots of stages on campy square-taper bb/crank system, and his riding style would "require" crank stiffness a lot more than Lance's would. The tests that HillRider cites, about Campy's square-taper stuff being close to Shimano Dura-Ace's integrated crank/bb stiffness corroborates this observation.
* integrates systems do end up being slightly lighter.
* I'm curious how many failures from axle breakage occured with Shimano XT/Ultegra-level square taper (UN-7X) and higher. I doubt many at all. Let alone with Phil Wood BB's (although that's not a fair comparison, becuase those cost as much as integrated systems).

Basically, I'm still quite dubious as to whether integrated crank/bb systems translate into any meaningful/measurable increase in performance while actually riding. This should be easy to do double-blinded tests on, that could establish statistical significance. Has any manufacturer done them? If so, have they put the data out there?

If no such data is out there, it's a fair bet that there's little to no improvement.

I have heard anectodal reports of less chain rub on the front derailler cage with integrated systems. Even if there's little-to-no actual performance increase, this is worth something, if it's true.

cs1

No problem Tim. Your replies are almost always well thought out. There are those who are much more combatitive in their replies. I just posted the links to inform those members who are Campy fans. I try to stay above the Shimano/Campy debate if possible. I'm still thinking that bunny needs to make an appearance.

Tim