Record vs Chorus UTorque crankset layup differences?
02-17-07, 08:02 AM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Record vs Chorus UTorque crankset layup differences?
I have searched and this is my first post so forgive me if this has been beaten to death elsewhere: I know there are 3 differences (chainring treatment, chainring bolts, incompressible foam remains in chorus) but I have no understanding of the carbon layup differences between the two cranks? My understanding is that the completely different layup of the Record crank gives rise to a higher strength to weight ratio relative to the Chorus but I'd like to know how that conclusion is reached and whether there's an appreciable performance difference (since the weight difference is ~ 40 grams). I have read that the difference is analogous to the layup differences in Campy '05 and '06 which did quantifiably increase lateral stiffness. Any help out there from someone who can 'splain it to me Lucy?
02-17-07, 08:06 AM
#2
Dirt-riding heretic
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
Posts: 17,413
Bikes: Lynskey R230/Red, Blue Triad SL/Red, Cannondale Scalpel 3/X9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
Nope, no difference in the actual carbon. Same crank, except Record gets the foam sucked out as you mentioned. A couple different dealers have told me this.
Because the record crank arm is lighter and the foam lends no strength, then yes, there IS a higher strength to weight ratio for Record, but not because you're adding strength--you're just subtracting weight that serves no structural purpose.
The other differences as you pointed out are the slipperier chainrings and different bolts.
Because the record crank arm is lighter and the foam lends no strength, then yes, there IS a higher strength to weight ratio for Record, but not because you're adding strength--you're just subtracting weight that serves no structural purpose.
The other differences as you pointed out are the slipperier chainrings and different bolts.
__________________
"Unless he was racing there was no way he could match my speed."
"Unless he was racing there was no way he could match my speed."
02-17-07, 08:08 AM
#3
.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: "The Woo", MA
Posts: 4,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by DrPete
Nope, no difference in the actual carbon. Same crank, except Record gets the foam sucked out as you mentioned. A couple different dealers have told me this.
Sneaky Italians...
02-17-07, 09:54 AM
#5
Dirt-riding heretic
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
Posts: 17,413
Bikes: Lynskey R230/Red, Blue Triad SL/Red, Cannondale Scalpel 3/X9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
Originally Posted by biker7
Unless you have to spend more money for little value added, buy the Chorus UT crank. Its beautiful, stiff and light.
George
George
__________________
"Unless he was racing there was no way he could match my speed."
"Unless he was racing there was no way he could match my speed."
02-18-07, 06:55 AM
#6
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I found it hard to believe that Campy would have 2 different processes but it was explained to me that there was a structural difference (e.g. if you cut both arms you would find that the Record arm was not only hollow but there was less carbon. I spoke with one fellow who was convinced that arms were different in more ways than the foam remaining. Appreciate everyone's assistance.
