Kommisar89

That's very interesting. But I just looked on eBay and I don't see any BB's that say anything about pre-94. Several say pre-2007 which is just when Ultra Torque came along. Do you have the part numbers for the ones you ordered? I'd like to look into those.

TheValveSource

It took a little leap of faith (and the fact that they aren't that exensive!) but after I figured out the spindle length, I ordered one. It worked great.

I have my eye an old Super Record crank from the mid 80's. The spindle length on that is around 115. I found a regular chrome sealed on EBay from Token for $39. After I get the SuperRecord crank in, I'll get the Token and have no doubts it'll work.

I inquired about bb/spindle for C Record cranks. He said his regular set up will work.

Road Fan

I'm not sure asking anyone "Does this work for pre-1994?" is a good idea. The question implies that you need to know if it works for ALL pre-1994 Campy, and a whoever tries to answer it would have to go out on a limb. They may not be willing or sufficiently confident in their knowledge.

I'd suggest asking "Does this fit a 19xx YYY Campy crank?" instead. They either know that answer or they don't and can answer the question with certainty.

BTW, C-record double is designed for a 111 mm spindle length, symmetrical. I have that on authority from Peter Chisolm at Vecchio's and one of the more experienced guys at Lickton's. I don't think there were any C-record triples. You can go wider but you'll incur extra tread.

Kommisar89

Which part number did you order? I might want to order one of those.

surveyman2020

I just came across this post and it seems to answer some of the issues I have been having with my bike. I have a 1966 Raleigh International with an all original Campy Record drivetrain. The entire drive train is getting pretty worn out, so I decided to start my replacements with the front crank and chainwheel. The bike came with Campy 170mm crank arms and I found, what looked like an identical chainwheel with 175mm cranks, on Ebay. I purchased the crank from Ebay and when I tried to install the newer crank arms on my old spindle I found that they were extremely loose and would not tighten up. That's when I started questioning what was going on. This was the first site that I came across that actually answered the question. Nobody else seems to know why Campagnolo did this. I'm very frustrated. I'm thinking about changing out the entire drivetrain with Shimano Dura Ace. I realize the Campy name was a legend in the time period that my bike was built. However, old Campy parts are extremely hard to come by and they are very proud of their price. I feel like there are a ton more Shimano parts on the market than Campagnolo at more reasonable prices. I still have to deal with the weird Raleigh threading on the bottom bracket. Has anyone tried doing the conversion that I am attempting do do? If so, who do you recommend for finding the necessary parts?

dddd

Old thread, but if you have two Record cranksets there that are both pre-C-Record, then the tapers SHOULD be the same! Even the C-Record cranks still had the older taper before their ISO cartridge bb's came along.
Campag changed to the slightly smaller ISO taper only when their cartridge-style bottom-brackets became part of the gruppo around 1991 or so. The different taper affects engagement by only 1mm.

There is also the issue of the driveside arm and spindle OFFSET, which changed around 1978 due to the the CSPS regulations regarding the safety implications of the earlier front derailer's cage plate edge(!). But this did not affect the taper dimensions, only the spindle and arm offsets.

An ISO taper will work fine in an older Record crank, but it's up to you to get the right spindle length that compensates the more-symmetric spindle disposition (versus the older bb's which had significant driveside offset).

It's best not to use a JIS taper with a Campy or ISO crankarm because the larger JIS spindle has much narrower flat surfaces which also engage a shorter depth in any non-JIS crankarm. At higher torque levels, the more-rounded corners and resultant narrower flats of the JIS spindle can be expected to impose greater "bursting" stress in the Campag or ISO crankarm for any given level of applied torque.

JohnDThompson 

A Campagnolo-equipped Raleigh is unlikely to have a 26tpi bottom bracket. Most likely it is standard English thread. If the current bottom bracket is Campagnolo, it should be marked with the thread spec: e.g. 1.37 x 24F, which is English thread.

conspiratemus1

I had been looking this up, too, and came across this and many other old threads discussing it.here on BF and elsewhere. miamijim wrote up an excellent discussion in 2010, with (his) actual measurements.
Campag introduced their cartridge BBs in 1994. In that first year only there is no stopping flange on the right cup. In 1995 and after there is a flange. Only available in Record, there is no gruppo name printed/engraved on the cup. The cartridge is made available in Chorus the next year, and so the gruppo names appear in the cups from then. This, I believe, conclusively dates my used BB to 1995, shortly after the supposed change to the ISO taper which is claimed to be skinnier than pre-1994.

However, I just acquired a 1st-Gen Chorus crankset date-coded 61-in-a-box, = 1990, the second-last year they were made. This crankset drives onto the 1995 BB spindle to the proper depth when torqued to 300 inch-lb and the chainline is correct at ~43.5 mm. So this would suggest that there is no material difference between pre- and post- 1994 tapers (which might be thought to have occurred with the introduction of cartridge BBs (but at Record level only, at first) in that year.)

Getting to 300 in-lb required (for me) an extender on the 8 mm Allen key for the crankbolts. These cranks are not by any stretch of the imagination a loose fit on the spindle and in no way do they go on too far, as would be expected if the new spindle was skinnier than the old crank was expecting. There is still taper visible beyond the back side of the crank.

i didn’t think to check if the old NR/SR crank from 1985 that came off this bike would fit properly on the cartridge spindle, and I‘m not about to remove the new crank to find out. But I did notice, when I removed the crank bolts to to de-install the old crank, there wasn’t much crank taper showing above the spindle end, suggesting these cranks had been removed a lot in the years before I acquired them. That might be the issue that Surveyman2020 is having: his “new” crank may be worn out. The tapers have to be the same, even if the 1994 business is true generally (it doesn’t seem to be in my case).

surveyman2020

Thanks everbody for all the information regarding the Campy tapers. I am still not 100% convinced that my "new" cranks are worn out. If they are worn out , they are REALLY worn out! They can be slipped over my current BB spindles by hand and never get close to snugging up. Is it possible to wear them out to that point? I do not see any signs of stress on the spindle area of the "new" cranks. Seems to me that there would be some kind of stretch marks or metal deformation if they have been over tightened. i'm not seeing any of that. They look as clean as my old ones. I'm still baffled. in any case, i will see if I can find some newer crank arms WITH the matching spindle. hopefully, that will resolve my issue.

conspiratemus1

^ Photos would help.

reconnaissance

If the inside tapers of your crank are clean and angular, they’re not worn. But it does sound like the cross-section of your spindle is too small for the crank, and that can be attributed to the difference in early Campy spindles compared to JIS and others. It’s probably cheaper to change the bottom bracket to one compatible with the cranks, than vice-versa. And if the spindle bearing races and cups are in good shape, there’s a market for them.

Cheers

jonwvara 

There seems to be some over-thinking going on here. In my experience, JIS spindles are a very good fit for old Campagnolo cranks.