Steelman54 

Yeah, this has been talked about, but I just read the latest power torque has a built in extractor.

I scored a nice used Waterford frameset (R-2200) that I plan to build up this winter. Was thinking of going with the Centaur groupset in silver, but I've recently seen some very good prices on Potenza, maybe even the same cost once all bits are added in. Power torque has a bad reputation for service, but the new Potenza has the PT crank with the built in extractor. Yeah, I know all about Hirth joints, and splines, etc. and am hard pressed to see that it matters, at least for the power my old legs put out.

I'm thinking I go with whichever one I get the best deal on here, or am I missing something here. Oh yeah, not particularly interested in shaving 10 grams here or there, so weight not a big factor. However, the best groupset deal on cost is.

What do you guys think?

Mike

wschruba

Cost of the piece/how it fits the aesthetic of the bike.

How it is removed for service almost never matters to me (though UT has enough little steps/specific requirements to bother me...)

speedevil 

What? To remove UT cranks, there are 3 steps:

1. remove the clip from the DS cup
2. remove the bolt holding the halves of the hirth joint together
3. pull the cranks out of the BB

Done.

Doesn't seem like too many steps to me.

wschruba

I'm well familiar with UT, hence my statement. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

1) specific tool to reach bolt in middle of crank (socket mounted hex key, extender, breaker bar or ratchet wrench). Doubly so for the Spec. crank...
2) wavy washer to set crank pre-load
3) poor bearing sealing
4) several steps to remove/install, versus: insert spindle, tighten retaining bolt

Ultra Torque was, and remains to be, a solution searching for a problem.

HillRider

I agree and I've always wondered if it was just a patent beater or the usual Campy insisting on not using someone else's design, even if it's a better one. However, the original Power Torque was worse, particularly for the carbon cranks. If they now have an autoextractor, that's a major improvement.

alcjphil

Campagnolo stuck with square taper cranks for several years not because they wanted to skirt patents, but because they wanted to preserve the same low profile clearance that they had with their previous cranks that allowed riders who pedal toes out to avoid having their heels and ankles hit the crank arm. They succeeded with their Ultra torque cranks. I have been riding these cranks since they were still made for 10 speed, (11 years) with zero problems or any bearing replacements, so I don't understand how anyone might suggest that sealing might be a problem. They are easy to install, I have installed all kinds of exterior bearing bottom bracket cranks and Ultratorque cranks are no more difficult to install than any other design

wschruba

Nobody said they were difficult. They said "irritating".

Big difference, yes?

Steelman54 

Road Fan

From another old engineer: It doesn't matter why Campy went to PT and then moved on to UT. Save for, for years one of they're key marketing points has been low q with even l//r spacing, correct chainline, without compromising heel and ankle clearance. They had all of that nailed with the Record carbon square taper parts, but ... I dunno. What I can get now is UT, since I can't find much in the way of a square taper Record-grade CT crankset with 170 or 172.5 that will give me the lowest Q (pretty much) in the market and allow me to just use one of several 102 mm BBs I have in my BB Box.

Seems to me I just need to buy UT 11 cups instead of UT 10 cups, and I cannot use PT 11 cups. That's a little irritating, but it should get sorted out at least in my head pretty soon.

Road Fan

Can you explain?

Litespud

There an NIB 172.5 Record CT carbon crankset on eBay at the moment, but they want nearly $800 for it

wschruba

You won't regret it for a second when the pedal eyelets literally unscrew from the crankarms. Because they, for some reason, put threads on a molded-in fixture.

Road Fan

Which cranksets did they do this on? And are the pedal threaded inserts actually coming out, or it this a feared failure. I never heard of it.

I do know that cutting threads in carbon composite and expecting a metal threaded insert to hold when opposing a set of carbon threads, is a fool's errand.

Which cranksets do not retain the pedals well?

wschruba

The carbon square taper cranks that are currently being talked about.

Do a search for pedal eyelets in carbon cranks. They will come up. Apparently a glued-in, threaded insert. Not hard to see why they can and do fail.

I can only hope they've moved away from them,

Road Fan

What about the non-square taper cranks? Those are what I'm interested in. Have you seen such problems in the non-square types, especially Ultra-Torque?

wschruba

As far as I know, no. That's not to say they don't, just that I haven't encountered it (like I have two pairs of Record CT cranks...). I follow a simple rule whenever I'm looking into buying a new, unknown (to me) thing: I type the name of whatever it is, plus failure, broken, etc...into the search engine of choice.

jadocs

Back from the dead, I know. Quick question....are super record ultra-torque bearings worth the extra expense over the record bearings? I understand ceramic vs. regular, but do they really make a difference?

Steelman54 

Just my opinion, but I cannot see that you will notice any difference. Why pay for ceramic bearings, unless you are maybe earning your living pedaling.

jadocs

My thoughts as well, but since I don't have any practical experience with them, thought I would check.