# Campy cranks and bb



## lpdjshaw (Aug 8, 2004)

I'm thinking of making the switch to Campy but the only thing holding me back is the old style square taper bb. I know they've been around for years but evey other mfg out there has gone to tubular spindles and now outboard bearings for increased bearing life and stiffness - they're also nice 'cuz you don't have to adjust 'em! I'm not too excited about going aftermarket on the bb/cranks, my past experience has been much better using all parts of the drivetrain from the same mfg.
So all you Campy guys (and gals) could you give me your two cents worth on the Campy or aftermarket cranks/bb?


----------



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

*FSA Superlights.*

I wanted carbon but didn't want to fork out the price of the carbon Record cranks. I'm riding the FSA Carbon Team Pro Superlights with the FSA Platinum Pro titanium bottom bracket. Is it stiffer than my Record Aluminum's and Record Crabon bottom bracket? I honestly can't tell the difference. I do believe the FSA shifts better, it a lighter setup and looks better too! I'm getting acceptable wear, to me, with the ISIS bottom brackets as I just wore out my first one and it took over 8,000 miles to do it. They are rebuildable. I've been on the FSA's now for almost two years now and there's no desire to go back to my Record cranks.



lpdjshaw said:


> I'm thinking of making the switch to Campy but the only thing holding me back is the old style square taper bb. I know they've been around for years but evey other mfg out there has gone to tubular spindles and now outboard bearings for increased bearing life and stiffness - they're also nice 'cuz you don't have to adjust 'em! I'm not too excited about going aftermarket on the bb/cranks, my past experience has been much better using all parts of the drivetrain from the same mfg.
> So all you Campy guys (and gals) could you give me your two cents worth on the Campy or aftermarket cranks/bb?


----------



## tvphobic (May 12, 2003)

similar to Juanmoretime and not sure that cranks are the place for carbon, I decided I didn't need Record cranks and am running Ritchey WCS V 52-39. Love 'em on the BB-6500, no complaints, stiff as hell, 592g.


----------



## SDizzle (May 1, 2004)

A few things: you're not going to have any percieveable stiffness problems. In order to actually lose power from flex, said flexing component would have to get hot. I've heard of stiffness tests that show Campag sq taper and Octalink/ISIS to be purposefully identical, but can't speak to them myself. Also, you don't have to adjust Campag BBs. They're all (forr all intents and purposes) cartridge sealed bearings, and are shell/spindle specific, even the 10-yr old Chorus that I pulled from one of my bikes last night. After 30000 miles, it still looked pretty good.

The best reason to run Campag cranks is the Q-factor: they're almost a centimeter closer together than anything from FSA, Truvativ, etc. That said, I second the Ritchey WCS - I bought a pair earlier this week and will be mounting them on a DA 7700 BB later today. The Q-factor on the Ritcheys is similar to Campag, and actually lower than Centaur or Veloce. The Ritcheys ($125! And stupid light!) will be replacing a hot new pair of Gossamer Mega EXOs that just weren't that hot.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm using an FSA Carbon Team Pro with an Ultegra BB on one frame and an FSA Superlight with Ultegra BB on a second. They work well.

I think it's interesting though that people have this "low tech" attitude about square taper BBs. They've worked well forever, continue to work well and serve people who put stresses on theirs that we could only dream of. While Octalink and ISIS and outboard are all cool technological innovations, they aren't necessarily better. 

When I built a bike, I start with straight Campy as the baseline. The only reason the two I have happen to be sporting FSA is that I had the cranks lying around from other projects and wanted to put them to use. Square taper works just fine for me.


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

terry b said:


> I think it's interesting though that people have this "low tech" attitude about square taper BBs. They've worked well forever, continue to work well and serve people who put stresses on theirs that we could only dream of. While Octalink and ISIS and outboard are all cool technological innovations, they aren't necessarily better.


Not only do square tapers work but you at least you get some stability with campag. In the last ten years Shimano has had three or four BB/crank interfaces. Expect to see another one in 2006 or 2007.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*about Q*

The Q factor on older campy cranks was quite narrow, but I believe you'll find the newer ones to be all very similar, in the 145-150mm range. Do you have a verified value for a current campy double?

FWIW, I switched from years of campy double crank use to a 160mm wide FSA triple and never noticed the difference. I bought FSA because campy didn't offer a 39T triple middle ring.

The campy BB and square tapered spindle will work fine, for all but perhaps the heaviest of riders.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

I just replaced my 1998 Record crankset with a FSA mega exo SL-K compact crankset. The installation was easy. I posted pictures on the component forum. I was plagued with bb noise that would always come back no matter what. Given the age of the crankset, the miles on it, the different bikes, and the three bottom brackets, I probably overtorqued it at some point and flared it. The choice was to either buy a new campy crankset or get something more modern. I like the outboard bearing concept but didn't want shimano. I had to wait a few months on the FSA because of the delays in the availability of italian threaded cups. I did not notice any significant change in q factor but did notice a big increase in stiffness even if it was in my head. With the record, I could squeeze the crankarm over and touch the chainstay. I am pretty strong (bigbill). I cannot do this with the FSA and there is no difference between the gaps. This could also be a function of a "sloppy crank". There are marks on both chainstays where the crankarm has hit the frame. No dents, just missing paint. Eddy Merckx, Big Mig, and Greg Lemond won the tour de France on square taper bottom brackets. I just liked the FSA.


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

SDizzle - 

Do you happen to have any actual Q measurements on the Centaur's or Veloce's, or even a stated spec from Campy? I've been trying to find that out for awhile now.

C-40 - 

I'd be almost willing to bet that Chorus/Record is < 145mm. Just anecdotally-speaking from my own use, (what they feel like to my legs) because I've never measured them myself.


----------



## Jdub (May 5, 2004)

terry b said:


> I'm using an FSA Carbon Team Pro with an Ultegra BB on one frame and an FSA Superlight with Ultegra BB on a second. They work well.
> 
> I think it's interesting though that people have this "low tech" attitude about square taper BBs. They've worked well forever, continue to work well and serve people who put stresses on theirs that we could only dream of. While Octalink and ISIS and outboard are all cool technological innovations, they aren't necessarily better.
> 
> When I built a bike, I start with straight Campy as the baseline. The only reason the two I have happen to be sporting FSA is that I had the cranks lying around from other projects and wanted to put them to use. Square taper works just fine for me.


My current projects going to be my first non-Campy Crank setup with Campy drivetrain. For me the deciding factor was so much the stiffness as the weight savings. With the FSA Superlight and a Ti ISIS BB your looking at a savings of around 100 to 130 grams for not much more money over the standard Record Crank and BB. The Record Carbon crank is so absurdly expensive it's not even worth discussing in my mind even though that does get you down to a comparable weight.


----------



## SDizzle (May 1, 2004)

I have now raced once and ridden several long rides on my Ritchey WCS CT cranks, and I'll never go back to my FSAs. While it kind of sucks having a Shimano DA BB on my totally Campag bike, the whole set up is flawless. The Q-factor does make a difference, at least for me, and is identical to my classic Chorus 9sp.

Unlike the FSAs, my Centaur CT will actually make the shift from 34 to 50t, and with less effort than a classic 39-53 to boot. Likewise, for $155, I saved almost half a pound.


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

SDizzle said:


> I have now raced once and ridden several long rides on my Ritchey WCS CT cranks, and I'll never go back to my FSAs. While it kind of sucks having a Shimano DA BB on my totally Campag bike, the whole set up is flawless. The Q-factor does make a difference, at least for me, and is identical to my classic Chorus 9sp.
> 
> Unlike the FSAs, my Centaur CT will actually make the shift from 34 to 50t, and with less effort than a classic 39-53 to boot. Likewise, for $155, I saved almost half a pound.



Hey - we need you to measure the Centaur CT's Q if you can and post it.


----------



## SDizzle (May 1, 2004)

AJS said:


> Hey - we need you to measure the Centaur CT's Q if you can and post it.


I don't have any Centaur. The best I can do is middle-1990s Chorus 9sp. I also can't find Campy's spec for the Centaur's Q-factor any place online, but recall having read about it somewhere. I think it might have been in a British magazine's review of the 10sp Centaur gruppo. Maybe try some Google searches...


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

SDizzle said:


> Unlike the FSAs, my Centaur CT will actually make the shift...


Misunderstood. Thought you meant you had the Ritchey's AND Centaur CT cranks, but I guess you meant the front der.  

Google? Been there, done that.


----------



## lpdjshaw (Aug 8, 2004)

*Thanks to all who responded on the Campy bb/cranks question*

Well I decided to make the switch to Campy and I'm going to go with a total Campy set up. I know that alot of you haven't had any problems running aftermarket cranks but my past experience and problems I've read about on the net influenced me to stick with Campy bb and cranks. (Good point about Shimano always changing thier spec on bb/crank interface too).
I'm also sticking with 53/39 after considering compact. I currently run a 39/27 low gear which works pretty good for 95% of the hills I ride and going with Campy I can get a 13-29 so maybe I won't have to walk those 28% slopes that come up the other 5% of the time.
I also looked around a bit and saved well over $100 off the Record carbon cranks by spending a bit of time looking around on the net. I know, even at $500+ they're still pretty pricey but what's a couple hundred bucks extra on a bike that I'm already into for thousands. Plus, those babies are beautifull!


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

Well I'm going even further out of the box than the FSA crowd for my new Chorus experiment; going to try a Ultegra 6600 crank (10 speed type with integrated bottom bracket). It's not that I'm worried about power loss from flex, it's just that I HATE to hear chain rub  

The new integrated bb is 24mm in diameter vs 22mm for ISIS/Octalink vs 17 mm for square taper. The increased diameter adds stiffness which should lead to less chain rub.

I'm using a Shimano chain also  Less than $30 for new 10 speed Dura Ace chain vs. $40+ for Campy.

Should be an interesting experiment 

Ed


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

For what it's worth I ride both aluminum and carbon Record. Neither experience any chain rub whatsoever.


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

divve said:


> For what it's worth I ride both aluminum and carbon Record. Neither experience any chain rub whatsoever.


When I moved from 7400 Dura Ace square taper to 7700 Octalink, there was a noticable reduction in the amount of chain rub. I noticed the biggest difference when sprinting in the big ring, such as when trying to maintain momentum over a rolling hill without downshifting.

Another thing I don't like about square taper is the fact that the crank spreads a little every time the crank is removed. Take it off enough times and it will bottom out. I'm not exactly sure how many times you can take it off before it bottoms but this is a concern.

Just my opinion.

Ed


----------



## bikeboy389 (May 4, 2004)

Nessism said:


> When I moved from 7400 Dura Ace square taper to 7700 Octalink, there was a noticable reduction in the amount of chain rub.
> Ed


Ya know, it wouldn't solve chain rub issues for me no matter what kind of BB I put on. My chain rub problems have always come from frame flex.

A stiffer frame did more for chain rub than anything else I could think of.

I still flex it, but it's reduced enough that I only get rub in situations where I get stuck in a higher gear than I should be on a short climb or sprint.


----------

