Nuovo/Super Record Crank Differences
08-12-18 | 03:25 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 54
From: Lexington, KY
Bikes: 1980 Mercian Vincitore, Bridgestone MB3, Bottecchia Gran Turismo, Kona Dew-E
Nuovo/Super Record Crank Differences
Is the only difference between the Nuovo Record and Super Record cranksets, the lighter chain rings? Or are there other differences like material or finish?
I bought a Super Record crank and realized, I got a 172.5mm instead of 170. I know, I should have checked but got excited at the price. I have a Nuovo Record crank, so wondered if it is just a swap of the chainrings.
I suppose the other question is does the 2.5mm make that much of a difference anyway? Mind you, I have short legs.
Thanks!
I bought a Super Record crank and realized, I got a 172.5mm instead of 170. I know, I should have checked but got excited at the price. I have a Nuovo Record crank, so wondered if it is just a swap of the chainrings.
I suppose the other question is does the 2.5mm make that much of a difference anyway? Mind you, I have short legs.
Thanks!
__________________
Chris
Crapmaster Emeritus
Chris
Crapmaster Emeritus
08-12-18 | 03:35 PM
#2
Randomhead
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 25,930
Likes: 4,825
From: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
The length doesn't matter, you wouldn't have noticed if you just rode them. But now you know, you're going to think they are too long.
There is no difference in the arms between Super Record and NR.
There is no difference in the arms between Super Record and NR.
08-12-18 | 03:46 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 54
From: Lexington, KY
Bikes: 1980 Mercian Vincitore, Bridgestone MB3, Bottecchia Gran Turismo, Kona Dew-E
Thanks so the length probably does not matter, but I could swap the rings with my Nuovo Record 170 if want. And it would still be Super Record! 
__________________
Chris
Crapmaster Emeritus
Chris
Crapmaster Emeritus
08-12-18 | 06:47 PM
#6
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 54
From: Lexington, KY
Bikes: 1980 Mercian Vincitore, Bridgestone MB3, Bottecchia Gran Turismo, Kona Dew-E
Yep, the SR is a 74, I believe the NR the same or close.
__________________
Chris
Crapmaster Emeritus
Chris
Crapmaster Emeritus
08-12-18 | 08:17 PM
#7
The Record crank set arrived in 1958.
It has gone through changes-
The significant: ( in my view)
Change from a 151 BCD to 144 mm BCD
Adaptations to accept the CPSC front derailleur cage. ( cage with the "lip")
Still a Record crank but commonly known as Nuovo Record. Reason? Best guess would be the Nuovo Record bottom bracket - the one with the reverse rifling in the cup bores.
Still Record crank...
Super Record got the cut away rings.
Arms the same save for the CPSC dimension migration - more distance between the back of the arm and the ring- introduction of the Pin to arrest chain wedging.
The Super Record cranks in my book are the very late without fluted milling on the arms- more material at the back adjacent to the arms and adjoining spider legs.
CPSC changes flowed in- 1977 is pretty safe best tell is the backside of the crank arm drive side adjacent to the spindle port- post CPSC has a much lower conical mound.
( one has to go very early to find a flat back drive side arm - but unless you are extremely lucky- you will be paying big dollars for them)
It has gone through changes-
The significant: ( in my view)
Change from a 151 BCD to 144 mm BCD
Adaptations to accept the CPSC front derailleur cage. ( cage with the "lip")
Still a Record crank but commonly known as Nuovo Record. Reason? Best guess would be the Nuovo Record bottom bracket - the one with the reverse rifling in the cup bores.
Still Record crank...
Super Record got the cut away rings.
Arms the same save for the CPSC dimension migration - more distance between the back of the arm and the ring- introduction of the Pin to arrest chain wedging.
The Super Record cranks in my book are the very late without fluted milling on the arms- more material at the back adjacent to the arms and adjoining spider legs.
CPSC changes flowed in- 1977 is pretty safe best tell is the backside of the crank arm drive side adjacent to the spindle port- post CPSC has a much lower conical mound.
( one has to go very early to find a flat back drive side arm - but unless you are extremely lucky- you will be paying big dollars for them)
Last edited by repechage; 08-12-18 at 09:31 PM. Reason: Word correction
08-12-18 | 09:04 PM
#8
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 54
From: Lexington, KY
Bikes: 1980 Mercian Vincitore, Bridgestone MB3, Bottecchia Gran Turismo, Kona Dew-E
What years are post CPSC? Answered my own question, looks like 78 for SR/NR.
__________________
Chris
Crapmaster Emeritus
Chris
Crapmaster Emeritus
08-12-18 | 10:39 PM
#9
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,970
Likes: 59
From: Catskills/Brooklyn, NY
Bikes: See sig
The length matters to me, but I have really short legs. I can definetly feel the difference between 170 and 172.5, and 175s are unusable for me. I prefer 165 or even smaller if I can get it.
08-13-18 | 06:36 AM
#10
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 54
From: Lexington, KY
Bikes: 1980 Mercian Vincitore, Bridgestone MB3, Bottecchia Gran Turismo, Kona Dew-E
Just curious how short your legs are? I have a very short inseam and standover height. I am not terribly short, but my legs are very short for my height, with a longer torso. An old fitting said I should use 170, but it also said I should ride a 52cm frame, which is tight in my crotch, no room at all.
__________________
Chris
Crapmaster Emeritus
Chris
Crapmaster Emeritus
08-13-18 | 09:21 AM
#11
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,970
Likes: 59
From: Catskills/Brooklyn, NY
Bikes: See sig
Just curious how short your legs are? I have a very short inseam and standover height. I am not terribly short, but my legs are very short for my height, with a longer torso. An old fitting said I should use 170, but it also said I should ride a 52cm frame, which is tight in my crotch, no room at all.
08-13-18 | 09:48 AM
#12
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 54
From: Lexington, KY
Bikes: 1980 Mercian Vincitore, Bridgestone MB3, Bottecchia Gran Turismo, Kona Dew-E
That's exactly how I am: short legs, long torso. It means I prefer a long top tube compared to the seat tube, and shorter cranks. My preferred size would be something like 53-54cm ctc seat tube, 57CM ctc top tube, 165mm cranks, 90-100mm stem. I can ride a frame up to 57cm, but I have to almost slam the saddle. I'm a little less than 5'-9" tall overall, but I'm all arms.
08-13-18 | 10:20 AM
#13
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,970
Likes: 59
From: Catskills/Brooklyn, NY
Bikes: See sig
ahhh, someone who understands. I paid for a fit kit and two years later went into a unique shop in Seattle, the guy said, “you can’t ride a 52!” I had just bought a 51 and thought it might be small. He said a 50cm Fran would probably be perfect. But you know all he did was look at me, so I kind of downplayed it at the time, but I learned he really was an expert. Not that it matters, but he built me some wheels that are still true 20+ years later...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
PassTheShank
Classic & Vintage
4
03-29-10 11:38 AM
