Campy Bottom Bracket compatibility
 

Bought a 80’s Colnago Master with a Record bottom bracket that had a Shimano Dura Ace spindle. After riding the bike noticed some play in B.B. Bike shop said the Shimano/Campy combo isn’t compatible. Trying to find a Campy spindle that will work. Will a C-Record spindle be compatible with the B.B. and Super Record cranks? The current B.B. is 36 x 24f Italian threads and spindle is 111mm with 70mm shell.

You need a 115mm Campy/ISO spindle for SR with an Italian BB, and there are several on Ebay. For the same money you could also get a Veloce cartridge unit with a 115.5 spindle that should work well.

Hmm. I'm not sure about that LBS guy's comment. It sounds too pat. There are a lot of variables. The real questions are: Where in the crank/BB assembly is the play occurring? In the BB itself or in the joint(s) between spindle and arm(s)? If you pull the spindle out do the bearings appear to be riding at the correct height? Might the BB bearings just need careful adjustment? Do the bearing cups thread into the BB shell with sufficient threads? Is the chainline reasonably close or do the rings need to be moved in or out?

C-Record used may have used 3/16" balls vs the 1/4" your cups are made for, so make sure that Q is answered here.

But I'm with [MENTION=190941]jimmuller[/MENTION]. I'm not sure your LBS guy really knows. I've mixed BB before w/o issue, as long as the middle flange to flange measurement is the same. But I don't have time to look up specs before I head out for my morning ride.

One thing I do know off the top of my head, a 111mm Campy old taper spindle is too short for for 80's Record crank. You're looking for 115.5mm

The Shimano/Campagnolo discrepancy shouldn't result in play in the bearings; something else is responsible for that. Is it perhaps a spindle designed for a 68mm shell being used in a 70mm wide shell? That might make it difficult to adjust without bottoming the adjustable cup in the shell. Or is it the arm loose on the spindle causing the play? Check for damage in the square bore of the crank arm.

Re: C-Record bottom bracket compatibility with vintage Super Record cranks. I've not tried it, but my suspicion is that it won't work. The C-Record spindle is symmetrical, while the vintage Record spindle is asymmetrical. Nor are the internal parts interchangeable: C-Record uses 3/16" balls, while Record uses 1/4" balls.

Not sure but along with length, it might also come down to whether the crank you want to use needs a symmetrical or non-symmetrical spindle. Some of the C record era Campy cranks had symmetrical spindles. At least I l know the two 1st gen Chorus cranks I have, uses such....

Is the play in the B.B. shell or at the crank/taper interface?

The square taper is different Shimano vs Campy in the 80’s and may result in some improper seating of the crank. In some cases the crank will bottom out on the taper but I can’t perform the mental gymnastics right now to remember the specific mix/match situation where that will occur. My take home from that though is I use Campy spindles with Campy cranks.

Regarding the spindle length, late 80’s and early 90’s C Record, Chorus, Athena doubles use 111 mm spindles. Need a pic to give better advice on that.

This was my immediate thought when I read the difference in the BB and crank manufacturers. We had a thread regarding this a few months back, I cannot find it, but the fit is different IIRC.:foo:

Bill

C'mon, guys. Super Record uses 115mm spindles for Italian, Campy 115 spindles are available, what's with the "Hmm, I don't know about that" stuff? Assemble the crank and BB correctly first, then determine whether there is an issue isn't wholly the fault of using a JIS spindle.

Kontact subtly touched on that in the second post when he pointed out that the OP should be looking for an ISO spindle for his Super Record crankset. The OP's Campy cranks are made for an ISO-tapered bottom bracket spindle. Shimano cranks and bottom brackets use JIS. The taper angle is the same, but ISO spindles are a bit skinnier at the end.

It is possible to mix and match somewhat, but you need to be aware of the fitment considerations to compensate. Sheldon Brown's site, linked below, touches on that.

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/bbtaper.html

No offense, but the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. You can't generalize Campy/Shimano as incompatible, because they have both used several different tapers over the years.

More specifically, after 1985, Dura-Ace used the same taper as Campagnolo. That probably didn't change until Campy started using ISO taper (1991 or 2). Dura-Ace didn't start using JIS until they went to cartridge BB units IIRC.

ISO and JIS didn't exist prior to about 1991 so anything before then is what it is. Even after that point, the standards are voluntary.
The C-Record spindle will fit in the crank, sure. But it is not the right length. C-Record are either 109 or 111mm (depending on frame clearance,) Super Record will be either 113 (before 1978) or 115.5mm (1978-on). Your '80s setup would use 115.5mm then.

C-Record and Super Record used the same cups, FWIW. Alloy cups with steel races, 3/16" balls. They do not use the same spindles as the standard 1/4" ball BBs.

Incorrect. Please see my previous post.
This much is true. JIS tapers tend to be longer too. ISO mandates a length to the taper, JIS does not.

This, frankly, is where St. Sheldon lets you down. JIS and ISO have only existed since about 1991, so literally everything made before then is not, I repeat, NOT JIS or ISO. ISO at least was a compromise taper that would work decently well with everything from Campagnolo to Stronglight to Zeus. (Unfortunately, this left Ofmega out in the cold.)
JIS basically standardized the Maxy-type spindle that was already the de facto Japanese standard, but with some exceptions that remained, and still do.

The world of BB tapers is much more complicated than ISO and JIS. Please remember that when talking about practically anything C&V.

Here are the relevant pages from the Sutherland's vols. 5 and 6, which straddled the pre- and post-ISO/JIS years. Please save them and burn their information into your brains so you don't have to argue about JIS and ISO where it does not apply.

I agree with Jim, the LBS answer seems calculated to make you just buy something. Thing is, are they skilled in vintage components like cup/ball BBs specifically for Campagnolo? What kind of Record is it? C-Record has some unique features making it different from Nuovo and Super Record.

And while 115.5 may be a decent approximaiton of the necessary spindle length, it is not a symmetrical BB, and it's usually for triples. From my refurbishment of my 1980 Masi with Nuovo Record, I know that when it's assembled correctly, everything fits the frame and the BB like a glove with the correct spindle, cups, BB shell, and crankset, and the drive and non-drive side location of the crank arms are symmetrical with respect to the chain stays. I would want to spend a lot of time in trial assembly to verify whether the Veloce has the same dimensions as the appropriate cup/spindle combination.

What I would do practically with your bicycle is first try to adjust the existing bottom bracket for the correct play (zero play but zero extra friction after tightening the lock nut), and then do a few days of riding to see if it works ok. Then measure the chainlines, Q 's (both left and right), crankarm clearances, and other possible measurements to see if it's right, then doverhaul the bearings to check that the bearing is aligned ok internally, then with all that data assess what it really needs if anything. If the spindle is really ok with the Campagnolo crank you are just lucky IMHO, but it might be ok.

Thanks for the info! So, I got some calipers and measured the spindle and it’s actually 113mm. I’m thinking your assumption is correct that LBS had no clue cuz they ordered me a Campy Centaur bb that is 111mm for a replacement.

The first day I had the bike it seemed to be fine on the 30 miler I did. The second day, not so much. Seems like the play was between the spindle/bb interface.

not to confuse this much more, but early 80's or late 80's? and what vintage cranks? early 80's BB and cranks are different from later cranks.

a sheer guess is the shimano spindle was used to match the taper of a later 80's crankset and use an early 80's bb

Yes, "different" is the word. They are not even close; you can tell them apart from 100 ft. away.

Super Record of course has some differences from Record as well. The crankarms themselves are the same. Not just similar, but same part number. The only difference is the chainrings.
A true Super Record BB, on the other hand, will have a titanium spindle. Record, Nuovo Record, and C-Record have steel spindles, but all different from each other, and not compatible with each others' cups. The only cups that will interchange are the SR and CR.

With all due respect, it's not a "decent approximation." It's a factory specification.
The original spindle length for Record, Nuovo Record, and Super Record was 113mm, and yes, not symmetrical. Depending on the spindle, it was originally 1-2mm longer DS than NDS. Their Record triple spindle was 118mm, 5mm wider, and all on the drive side.

In 1978, Campagnolo widened all their spindles by 2.5mm to accommodate the changes in the FD and cranks mandated by the CPSC. They added 1mm to the left and 1.5mm to the right of all the previous spindle specs. That spec was stamped onto the spindles for the first year or so, then they changed the stampings permanently. That's how you end up at 115.5mm.

Or you could just get the right Record/Super/Nuovo Record BB and not have to spend any time in trial assembly. The titanium are like unicorn horns, and about as expensive. But the steel ones aren't that rare.

A little lucky, maybe. As I previously noted, the original spindle length for Record/Super Record (Italian thread) was 113mm. Which is, as we now know, exactly what he has. Lucky? Perhaps the person who put it in there knew what they were doing. Which is very likely, because this compatibility issue was rather better known back then than it appears to be now.

I would not work with this shop any more. Sounds like they are not helping you. Assuming you actually have a Super Record crankset, that spindle will be too short. If you have a C-Record, that will probably work fine though. A picture will help.

If you do, and if you can't find the correct Campagnolo BB, you can confidently get another Shimano Dura-Ace BB-7400 bottom bracket with a 70-W-113 spindle. Get it adjusted and installed by someone who knows how to do it. Chances are, if the mechanic doesn't have gray hair, he won't. Just sayin'

You won't help yourself with "seems." You'll end up getting more bad and/or confusing answers than helpful ones.

Luckily it's easy to determine. Hold both crank arms and try to move them laterally. If they move together, the problem is the BB adjustment. If one moves and the other doesn't, then one is not tight on the taper.

If one isn't tight on the taper, it might just be a bit loose, and tighten up satisfactorily. Hopefully the taper itself isn't damaged seriously.

The CPSC change to Record/Super Record was made in 1978, with the aforementioned change to the BB spec.
Record crankarms were made for several years past the introduction of C-Record, but the BB spec did not change. Gran Sport alloy arms of the era use the same BB spec as Record, but with lower-quality parts.
As already noted, the C-Record is a completely different crankarm with a completely different BB spec.

Wow, so much stuff here, most of it seemingly good. Let's not forget the OP's original problem, that the BB had some free play. Of course you need the correct spindle or one not so very different, but solving the free play problem requires knowing where it coming from. A spindle of the wrong length won't give it free play. A mismatched taper might if the crank arm bottoms out against the flare at the inner end of the taper. Something as simple as poorly adjusted bearings certainly would. Wrong cups or BB width or bearing size could also if they prevent good adjustment.

Start with the simple stuff. You already have a crank and spindle installed. The chain line may or may not be okay. Start by holding one crank arm while you try to wobble the other. If the whole assembly, i.e. both arms, moves then it's in the BB bearings. So try to readjust the bearing cups. If one arm can be made to wobble even when the other is held firm then it's in the arm/spindle joint. Try it on both sides. If you really need to replace the spindle then you need to find the correct length and symmetry and taper, etc. It isn't rocket science.

So, I just reinstalled bb assembly and cranks and grabbed both crank arms and don’t notice any play. Am thinking the fixed cup was coming loose and causing play. I am guessing maybe just a little loctite will solve the problem vs the $80 bb the shop said I needed? When the problem arose, that was the cup I had to hand tighten frequently to get me to the bike shop.

This is good news. That's the problem then. Just a case of good old epicyclic movement. All this spindle taper talk is academic. Which is not to say unimportant.

Yes, as you now know, Italian cups will unscrew if the BB is a little too tightly adjusted. Loctite can help but I find that proper adjustment keeps if from happening if you get that drive side cup nice and tight.

Attachment 597944

Attachment 597951

Attachment 597952

Indeed it is! Always better to look for the simple solution first!

Italian and French BBs use right-hand threads on the drive-side. The problem with that is the pressure around the inside of the cup against the BB shell rotates the cup in a counterclockwise direction which unscrews it. (One can say the French were crazy for having done so but the Italians must have had a very good reason for it!:))

Anyway, the solution is to get it really tight. Normal hand-tight isn't enough. You don't need Loctite (though some people say it's the only solution), you just need to get it really really really tight. You need to good BB wrench and you need to grunt it home, or whack it with a dead-weight mallet, or do anything to get it really really really tight. And add a few more really's.

What you have there is a 1984 Super Record crankset, Nuovo Record BB cups, and of course the Dura-Ace 113mm spindle. All that should work just fine together. As long as your chainrings aren't hitting the frame, and you're using a 6 or 7sp freewheel with 126mm rear spacing anyway. That extra 1.5mm of DS space from the 115.5mm spindle isn't really a make-or-break difference.

By 1984, Super Record cranks were supplied at retail with Nuovo Record BBs, because the SR titanium BB spindles did not hold up well under any but the lightest riders. IIRC they had a recommended 165 lb (75kg) rider weight limit and that was probably pushing it. Fine for most pro racers, but not necessarily your average weekend warrior.