rootboy 

We all know by now that Record is Record is Record. However, when Campagnolo introduced it's "NEW" Record ...what?,,in 1968?....they made some changes to the venerable line of parts known as Record. What were these design changes?

fender1

Price?

RobbieTunes

Nuovo?

Truthfully, I've never really known the difference.
It was the friction stuff that worked, with levers that were easy to get used to.

cudak888 

Record: https://www.velobase.com/ViewGroup.as...f-552965141aa5
Nuovo Record: https://www.velobase.com/ViewGroup.as...9-10765e5428e5

-Kurt

JohnDThompson 

The original Record rear derailleur was chrome plated bronze; the "Nuovo Record" was aluminum.

aixaix 

Major change was the rear derailleur. "Record" is chromed bronze, while "Nuovo Record" is aluminum. Virtually every other component changed little or not at all, although there were a number of changes made during the NR group's life (circlip for retaining the front derailleur arm, e.g.). Campy's first brakes were NR.

I suspect that "Nuovo Record" was the group designation, and that "Nuovo" was added principally because of the redesigned rear derailleur & the introduction of brakes into the group (although they weren't generally available for a while).

rootboy 

That about sums it up, I think. But I'm interested in all the little design changes as well. A big one was the switch from 151 BCD cranks to 144 mm. But maybe some of these design changes do not correlate with the "Nuovo" era designation at all. How about between "Nuovo Record" and "Super Record"?

aixaix 

Campy made many design changes over the years: probably hundreds between the beginning of the Record era and the end of the Super Record era. Most of them were running changes which didn't accompany any new designations. As I said, the "Nuovo" part of NR was likely added to identify the group as a whole, and to distinguish it from the earlier group which contained many of the same components, but not an alloy rear derailleur or any brakes at all.

There are a lot of internet sites with good Campagnolo reference material, catalogs & links. These include Velobase, Disraeli Gears, Velo-Retro, Campy Only and of course, Classic Rendezvous. I don't know of any one definitive, exhaustive source for all the changes Campy made to its components over the 20+ years between the introduction of the Record and the end of Super Record production. Could be a cool project...

dbakl

Yes, and the catalogs many times kept using old pictures that didn't illustrate the changes...

aixaix 

That's a good point. The catalogs are often misleading when trying to establish a timeline. They also had pictures ( of prototypes or one-offs, perhaps) that were different from the actual parts.

Picchio Special

In most cases, the catalogs continued to call the group "Record," with the group containing several "Nuovo record" parts. The first part to be called "Nuovo" was the bottom bracket, which got grooves to shed dirt. Then the change was made to the rear derailleur, as noted. The crank changed bcd, but never changed its name: it remained "Record" throughout. Campagnolo never introduced a "Nuovo Record" group, rather, they upgraded several of the individual items in the "Record" group. Keep in mind that the concept of the "groupset" we have now was really developed in the 70's into the 80's and didn't really exist in the 60's.
Incidentally, the 144bcd cranks were in existence in the early 1960's, at least in the pro ranks.

Picchio Special

Incidentally, the brakes, like the group, were "Record." and not "Nuovo Record." Which should provide some insights into Campagnolo's choices of nomenclature - "Nuovo" was reserved for a significant redesign or upgrade of an already existing element of the "Record" group.

aixaix 

You may be giving Campy credit for more consistency in naming things than they deserve. The first gen Super Record rear derailleur has a lot more in common with the NR unit than it does with the second gen SR, e.g. And as you pointed out, resizing of the chain rings was not accompanied by any name change, while adding a scroll (a minor modification) to the BB cups apparently was.

Like many small companies, Campagnolo seems to have treated the naming & documenting of things as an afterthought.

rootboy 

I'm learning some interesting tidbits already, the predominant reason for posting this somewhat redundant thread. That and there seems to be some small controversy every time the theme comes up in another thread. Thought I'd present the opportunity for the knowledge to flow and the knowledgeable to inform the whole forum. Of course it won't be the last on the subject but it's educational nonetheless. I note in my catalog 17a that the Nuovo Record designation seems to be applied primarily to the group set and to individual components and that the designation is largely dropped in catalog 18 in favor of simply "Record", though some individual components still retain the name, such as the rear derailleur. Super Record components however seem to be delineated by their distinct name, probably because they represented major design or material changes. Cranks, though, are referred to as both names in my catalog, largely because they were exactly the same, and bridged the gap between groups, aside from the chain rings. All neither here nor there I suppose, but I like to learn new things. That's why I'm here.

Picchio Special

I disagree. I think you're giving Campagnolo too little credit. I think it's possible to discern a pretty clear pattern in the way their nomenclature changed, especially if one doesn't retroject a later conception of the Gruppo into the past. It was the "Record" gruppo, which had some "new" elements added to it: it's fairly easy to perceive the bottom bracket "dirt-shedding" grooves as a significant improvement, while the bcd change was merely an accommodation of the shift to crossover gearing rather than a significant upgrade to the component itself. Why wouldn't Campagnolo have dubbed its new brakes "Nuovo Record" if that was a term to which they had not given some thought? If you look at Super Record, the intent was clearly to use that title for parts that had been lightened, either through the removal of material (chainrings, brake levers), or material (i.e. titanium bits). It's easy to forget that Campagnolo tried to convince potential purchasers that part of the SR rear derailleur was made of a special, light alloy.
It's true that Campagnolo wasn't consistent, but to write their choice of nomenclature as "afterthought" makes little sense, given the fact that it's not hard to construct a fairly clear explanatory narrative - especially if you're alert to the ways Campagnolo named its products.
It does take a good deal of time and effort to discern the patterns and the reasons. Whether that's time well-spent is up for debate.

aixaix 

I defer to your superior discernment, and accept your pointing out consistency where I see only arbitrary distinctions.

A couple of minor things, though.

I'm reasonably certain that referring to "Record Gruppo", "NR Gruppo", etc. was done in Campy's literature earlier than you think. I cannot cite anything and am too lazy to look, so I'll concede this point before you refute it.

However, where I stand firm is on scrolling, sir! Adding a scroll to the BB cup is a simple machining operation, while changing from 151mm BCD to 144mm BCD involves new dies for each and every chain ring, as well as a new die for the drive side crank. It also made the crankset incompatible with the earlier chain rings. Of course, it made smaller rings available which was the whole point. All scrolling does is make it marginally less likely that crud on the crank pin will end up in the bearings. Not something most of us will ever notice, even if we benefit from it. (Marginally, at best.) If you are going to celebrate your latest and greatest idea with new nomenclature, let it not be scrolling!

Your point about the brakes being "Record" is well-taken. Since they superseded nothing, there was no reason to call them "new". Likewise, the hubs were always "Record". Still, why no new name when the drive crank shrank?

As you say, they weren't consistent. And you are right in saying I was wrong; that names were not an afterthought.

My sense is that they were far more focused on the pig than on the squeal, so to speak.

conspiratemus1

^ But machining the scroll, or rifling, into the bores of the Nuovo Record BB cups meant that they had to be made thicker, and this required moving the bearing shoulders on the spindle further inboard in order that the lock ring would still lie flush with the adjustable cup when locked down against the shell. So in a bicycle fitted with NR cups, a worn spindle had to be replaced with NR, not Record. Thus the name difference helped keep track of which parts fit together with which. (Point taken that you could make the same argument that changing the bolt-circle diameter on the cranks should also have also prompted a name change, but at least when you are assembling rings to crank you can tell right away if the BCD doesn't match. With a bottom bracket, it would be obvious that you had the wrong spindle only after the balls had been installed in grease and the cup screwed into the shell.)

The thinner Record cups (and their wide-shouldered spindles) remained available for some years after NR came out because NR was made with a spindle length for double chainrings only. Record spindles were available for single (track), double, and triple chainrings.

aixaix 

How many different BB cups were called variously Record and N.R.?

I have ones that are too thin to be scrolled, thicker ones that aren't scrolled but could be, others that are and appear to be the same thickness as the second, and others that might be even thicker. The fixed cup of this last set isn't flat on the outside, but has a groove machined between the outer edge and the center, where the axle pokes through.

I guess I should take some measurements when I repack the BBs.

conspiratemus1

Here is the reference I used in sourcing those NR bottom brackets for a fleet project of a few years back:

https://www.minortriad.com/campagbb.html

A Bikeforums member posted it here -- I didn't find it myself.

I didn't know there were thick NR-type cups that weren't scrolled (which I'm calling rifling since that is the word more commonly used on this board to refer to the helical nature of the grooves. We should take a time-out to be sure that my rifling is the same as your scrolling.....otherwise "Let's call the whole thing off" )

Les

jan nikolajsen 

Nowhere more than concerning bottom brackets does classic Campagnolo parts confuse me. I remember reading that Record News article at some point during a resto/build and still emerging with unanswered questions.

aixaix 

Rifling is fine with me.
It is possible the thicker smooth-bore (shotgun?) cups are either track cups or from BBs used with the remarkable "Sport" crank: chrome steel, three-arm cotterless cranks which are slender, strong, light & gorgeous. I have them on three bikes. Any idea how long they were made? They seemed to appear for a very short time around 1970, then disappear completely.

conspiratemus1

Musket cups!

But that choking and spluttering sound you're hearing is me, out of my depth now and desperately trying to keep the rising water out of my lungs.

dbakl

As I've said before, the catalogs were never available to consumers back in the day. The newer stuff was universally called Nuovo Record by everyone, though technically some parts may have been Record. I think when someone says Nuovo Record, you know what parts they mean. Not so with Record, especially since Campagnolo brought that name back.

rootboy 

Yes, and since all of the parts are now only available on the second hand market the distinction of the names, whether used correctly or not, seems to be the way most parts are identified. Rightly or wrongly.

aixaix 

Picchio Special, as usual, is right: Campy called it the "Record Group" (Catalogs 15-17, even after Super Record had been introduced). Those parts which were mostly or completely unchanged (hubs, e.g.) were still designated "Record", while Nuovo Record was used for the derailleurs & BB. Interestingly, the pedals with black alloy frames are called "Superlight Record" in Catalog 17.
"Nuovo Record Group" appears for the first time in the "Special Catalog" of 1974, published by Olympic Resources, a Texas Campy importer/rep (I guess). Whether this was assigned by Campagnolo or Olympic Resources is not clear, though later catalogs apparently published by Campy continue to refer to it as "Nuovo Record Group (or Gruppo)". Oddly, the front derailleur (1052/1) is referred in this catalog variously as "Record"(p 14) and "Nuovo Record" (p 15).

Now it's time to decode Cinelli serial numbers!