Homebrew01

Just took this off their website for 2013:

https://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/gro...iAthena_catid_13.jsp

Ergopower™ Power-Shift™ ATHENA™ Controls 11s

Deep Black, Bright Silver, or if you like, with carbon finish: three alternatives for personalising your bike to the max. The performance features are top of the line thanks to Power-Shift™ technology which enables multiple upshifting (3 gears) and single downshifting.

I've been vocally anti-powershift, but have calmed down a bit. Some people may not care about multiple shifting, so as long as they are aware of what they are getting, then it may be fine for them.

Personally I really like multiple shifting so bought a couple pairs of 2010 Centaur 10 speed shifters, one for a current bike and one for an unspecified build.

chaadster

I understand that PowerTorque requires an additional sixty bucks worth of tools beyond what's needed for Ultratorque, but it's not as though servicing is complex, longer, or anything like that.

And as far as the multiple gear shift thing, maybe it's nice to have in certain scenarios, but not having it isn't going to ruin your ride or prevent you from winning the Tour de France, as Shimano have proven.

So in all, I think too much is made of these issues, and while they're worth considering when making a gruppo purchase, they are not deciding factors in and of themselves.

RollCNY

$120. Puller is $60, fingers and shims are $60. My Centaur crank was $108 new. Now, its no show stopper, and I will continue to build things with Centaur, but when the tool to remove a crank costs more than the crank, it is annoying.

Campag4life

I don't expect you or others to understand the design difference between Power Torque and Ultra Torque Cranks. It by far transcends crank disassembly of Power Torque and necessary puller. Its about the design...which is a tapered spline with soft shoulder that builds bolt torque. Its a crap design that is prone to variable axial stack up and a less than solid left crank arm prone to creaking. Where UT is one of the best designs in the industry...right up there with DA with straight spline, mechanical preload adjustement and double pinch bolts, PowerTorque by contrast is just the opposite. An Ultegra crank is far superior to PT in terms of design....or Sram....or Rotor...pick one.

As to single click downshift. This is giving up on a very good quality as an inducement to pay more for a higher groupset i.e. Chorus or Record...and Campy's calculus to sell their higher end groupsets...a bit sad that they do this but the reality if you want this feature which I do having ridden it for many miles. To me, its worth it because I currently have 2011 Centaur with this feature and believe its a great quality.....multiple up/down shifting.

Campag4life

Roll...if you can, dump your PT crank until it creaks you to death. Pick up a used Chorus UT crank off ebay to replace it. I have a 2006 Chorus UT Campy crank with 12,000 miles on it with original bearings and it has been perfect.

RollCNY

I have had the thought. I also know of a few places with NOS UT Centaur and Veloce cranks. And your explanation of the creaks help, because I have been chasing one on that bike for a while now.

Question: is the 11 speed chain still a PITA, requiring the special tool? Part of why I built Centaur was to avoid that issue.

flatlander_48

KMC Missing Link...

Campag4life

As flatlander stated...KMC missing link. Btw, you can avoid the Campy chain completely if you wish. KMC has a narrow 11s chain. I have run KMC 10s chain with Missing link for many thousand miles with Campy. The KMC missing link is reported to work well with Campy 11s chain as well. The KMC missing link I believe really makes transistion to 11s a lot easier...a very sweet masterlink in my experience...I use for Ultegra chains as well...no need for a press in pin in any chain design in my experience.

chaadster

Regardless of your expectations, it's always good to be clear about what we're talking about here. I understand the distinctions you make between the robustness of the UT and PT crank designs, and agree the UT design is better. However, the potential problems of the tapered spindle PT design are not the same thing as actual problems, and as with most things in life, compromises, such as accepting marginally higher risk probability, need to be made. In other words, superior design does not necessarily yield superior results in application, unless the application is peace of mind, in which case then, 'superior design' it is!

Using PT does not mean there will certainly be creaking, just as using UT does not assure us there will not be a problem. UT does eliminate the risk of potential problems that could arrive from manufacturing tolerance problems related to the PT tapered spline design, but the issue is not really if PT is a 'crap design' as you say, but rather if there is a high probability of recognizing a problem with PT, and whether the cost of upgrading to UT is commensurate with that probability.

So yes, PowerTorque is is not so good a design in an absolute sense as UltraTorque, but PT is not certain to be a problem for most riders, under most circumstances, I don't think. I don't do exhaustive studies of the nature and frequency of complaints between PT and UT, but I do a fair amount of bicycle reading online and in magazines, and it doesn't seem that PT is major sore spot for riders, aside from the need to 'tool-up' or take it in to a shop for service.

I also agree Ultrashift is a nice quality to have, but I think it is wholly appropriate for Campy to charge more for accoutrements; at least, needing to 'powershift' click for each upshift just as the reigning UCI World Road Race champion and reigning Tour de France champion have to on their Shimano systems, is preferable to me than, say, sacrificing finish quality or getting a dramatically less durable drivetrain for the same money.

rekmeyata

The Athena will shift up to 3 gears at once (but you can't downshift more then one at a time), like you I don't see what the big deal is, even when I rode the mountains of California did I ever need to shift more then one gear at a time. I guess if the rider fails to plan his shifts he may find himself scrambling to find gears, but even then 3 would be the most one would ever need to jump.

flatlander_48

I am running a Chorus chain with the Missing Link. Note, however, the 11sp Missing Links are stated by KMC to not be reusable. The 10sp and others are reusable.

flatlander_48

Yes, superior design can still suffer from poor execution like anything else...

Homebrew01

But only 1 gear the other direction, while non-Powershift shifts 5 and 3. I find multiple shifts in both directions to be useful. Others may not.

ThinLine

900 Aero as in Saab automobiles? Looking at a new bike and considering Chorus with record brakes. Last time I had Campy was in 1990 on a Basso Lotto SLX w/ full campagnolo record, delta brakes and yipsilon wheels, still have it hanging on the wall and still a masterpiece.
Centaur should serve you well and post pics when all is done.

Campag4life

My sense is...you have never worked on a Power Torque crank. There has been outcry on other forums...most notably Roadbikereview on the Campy forum.
If you are interested...there is an engineer over there that really got into with Campy on the design. I side with his findings and you can find his elaborate findings if you look.

I really couldn't make out your last comparison with Shimano...but if you like Campy, I would say you are a perfect candidate to own PT and I strong encourage you to do so.

halfspeed

I only have about a thousand miles on my PowerTorque carbon CX crank, but it's on all kinds of surfaces including gravel, mud, dirt, sand, ice and snow. Not a creak or a noise yet. I've also had it off once to swap the 36T for a 34T, because I like a 34/29 on 20% grades. It wasn't a big deal to remove with the right tools. (Removing the chainring bolts was a PITA, however.) That's certainly not an extensive study, but it does show that PowerTorque is not necessarily a disaster and I tend to think that chaadster is mostly right on that count.

rousseau

Clarity, people...the issue is with single or multiple UP-shifting, not downshifting. Downshifting has been multiple cogs for years.

It's the UPSHIFTING that is at issue. Ultrashift can UPSHIFT 5 sprockets at a time and downshift 3, while Powershift can only UPSHIFT one while downshifting 3.

rm -rf

Campagnolo's web site says:I see your correlation of bike upshifting to automobile upshifting, to a faster gear. That actually makes the most sense.

It's funny that some riders (and companies) use the opposite direction. Maybe it's because it feels like pushing "up" to a bigger cog, then dropping "down" to a smaller cog.

I tend to use "shift 3 bigger cogs" instead of "downshift 3 cogs" just to avoid confusion.

rousseau

What? As a Campagnolo fanboy who believes Campagnolo can do no wrong...they're doing wrong! That's weird.

chaadster

Holy mental telepathy, Batman! Not only have I not worked on my PT crank, I read every page of that thread on RBR, Roadworthy, so you nailed that much. However, I am in the forest, not just up a tree. Thanks for supporting my conclusions.

Campag4life

My conclusion is...I think you have eaten too many poison berries from the forest. May I call you hanging-chad?

Campag4life

I do admit a bit of surprise you own Power Torque...with your understanding of design and mfg. background. Basically PT cranks could be coined the ghost of square taper. Remember those? Have to believe you have owned one or three as a long Campy owner. Maybe you are OK with a taper for a crank arm interface...apparently so. I am not. Not with all the great crank options out there including Campy's own venerable UT. All cranks in the industry are either straight spline, hirth joint or fluted spindle end and hard shoulder. For good reason and fundamental. Because of the axial tolerance sensitivity of controlling the dimensional agreement of two mating tapers...male and female. The same problem early Campy square taper was known for. I so much miss all the threads about 'how to quiet square taper'. Quite a dilemma. Introduce anti seize or grease on the taper as a hedge against disagreeing machined surfaces and torque the center bolt to spec and you completely change the chain line by drawing the crank arm or spider all the way onto the spindle. A bad joke of a design. This is why Campy has their albatross of a wave washer for PT which looks like something Rube Goldberg designed on acid. Glad its working for you tho. I wouldn't mount one if given one. Ultra Torque was one of the best designs Campy had developed and PT which was likely a kluge around the patent infringement paid to Ligtening for the hirth joint or some other poor excuse is let's say...not their finest hour...maybe on the order of Campy's infamous seatpost...lol.

chaadster

Oh c'mon...now you're pulling our leg, aren't you? You're working on a movie script, right? Something like 'square taper cranks and BBs were endemic viruses on planet Creakon, and the proto-humanoids had to eradicate them in order to be able to develop to the point where they could invent the bicycle, which they then pedaled across the cosmos, eventually reaching Earth, where they gave the primitive, square taper crank riding humans splined cranks, allowing Man to not only pedal up mountains, but off into space as well. Little did the Creakons realize the force they unleashed, setting the stage for pan galactic bicycle wars.'

Dude, that's gonna be a kick ass movie. I mean, envisioning a world before splined cranks and hirth joints? Far out, daddy, far out!

Homebrew01

Square taper may not be an engineering marvel, and newer designs are better, but i don't recall any personal problems with it in my 35 years of using it.

Campag4life

Describing the world you live in helps frame why you would choose PT. Of course you don't know a spline from from a cable stop do you?...lol.
As I stated earlier, you are a fitting owner of Power Torque. Hey, it probably matches your shoes.