View Single Post
Old 10-18-17, 08:06 PM
  #8  
repechage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,305
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3464 Post(s)
Liked 2,831 Times in 1,997 Posts
Originally Posted by Chombi1
Is the smaller bearing spec necessary because they needed to increase the spindle cross section for added strength?
No, unfortunately if Campagnolo had modified the profile a bit they would have been terrific pedals.
The inboard steel bearing cone is pressed on to the shaft, the added dimension drove the need to go with a smaller ball bearing size to use the same body. They could have used the same parts as the other pedals outboard...

In my opinion if they had done away with the reduced diameter between the pedal body and the wrench flats the pedal would have been a winner. An almost direct material substitution was not the way to do it. Ti does not have the same stiffness of steel for the same cross-section. This foretold the problem Campagnolo would find themselves in a decade later, poor engineering design choices.
repechage is offline