# New Campagnolo 4-arm spider crankset. Good or bad?



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Looks like Campy is mimicking Shimano 6800/9000.
What do the faithful think of the new crank spider design? since one of the reasons I've often heard mentioned by the Campy faithful is the "simple and elegant" design of the crank compared to Shimano (which looks a bit bulky).


----------



## davelikestoplay (May 27, 2010)

I don't like it. I don't care if its technically superior or they are just copying shimano, either way it is ugly, and ugly campy is no good. 

But I have 3 year old Athena crank, so by the time I need to replace it (somewhere between 10 years and never) they will have moved on to something else.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

On one hand... it looks better than Shimano.

On the other hand... you can't polish a turd.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

headloss said:


> On one hand... it looks better than Shimano.
> 
> On the other hand... you can't polish a turd.


Yea but at least the D/A style cranks look like finished products.

First time I saw the new campy cranks I thought I was either looking at a phoshopped image, or was looking at a defective/unfinished product.




davelikestoplay said:


> I don't like it. I don't care if its technically superior or they are just copying shimano, either way it is ugly, and ugly campy is no good.





davelikestoplay said:


> But I have 3 year old Athena crank, so by the time I need to replace it (somewhere between 10 years and never) they will have moved on to something else.




I still have my 2006 Centaur cranks...


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

It's Shimano's plastic looking chain rings that get me... I think my next crank will be a Sugino OX801D if for no other reason, because it uses a standard chain ring. The fact that it's available in alloy/silver doesn't hurt either. I do like the outboard cups and I don't see the UT or OT as any better than HT2, just cleaner (and forget PT altogether). 

My current campy build has a 2009 UT Centaur crank... but then, they can't even use a standard chain ring between the alloy cranks and the carbon cranks after 2008. Sometimes, I really hate component companies. If I had a do over, I think I would have gone with alloy sq. taper cranks (knowing what I now know).


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

<style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }</style>


> I have 3 year old Athena crank,
> I still have my 2006 Centaur cranks
> My current campy build has a 2009 UT Centaur crank



I'm still cruising on my Nuovo Record cranks that came on my bike in 1982 (used then). Sometime in the late 80's, I installed a Sugino Mighty Competition chainring on the campy crankset. 

It is not that the new cranks have a 4 point spider, they still have 5 points, but use the crank arm as the 5th point. I think it makes a lot of sense. They still need some kind of a guard sized to the chainring to keep the chain from dropping between the chainring and crank. Most old arms had some kind of a peg to do this.

Anyway, I think the rotated chainring/spider is a good idea, especially now the new cranks are much less blocky in shape than my 70's era crank.

Recently I bought a used FSA fiber crank for a build I was going to do. Unfortunately the left crank arm is loose. What a mistake it was to purchase that!!!

No doubt the bike manufacturers only look 5 to 10 years down the road. I am beginning to wonder how well all these carbon fiber gizmos will hold up. My 30+ year old cranks have deep wear marks from where my toestraps rubbed the crank arms. Would I have worn through carbon fiber? Broken them on a hill climb? That 5th bolt in the crank, does it ever strip out?

After a couple of years, the logo decals just look plain cheap. The old deeply engraved logos endure much better through time.

I'm not sure the square tapers of old were 100% standardized in size, but now there certainly is a bewildering array of bottom bracket choices. If you choose an update in 20 or 30 years, perhaps there will be used stuff on E-Bay, otherwise everything will have changed. Hopefully the English or Italian BBs will still be supported.


----------



## BLUE BOY (May 19, 2005)

CliffordK said:


> <style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }</style>
> 
> It is not that the new cranks have a 4 point spider, they still have 5 points, but use the crank arm as the 5th point. I think it makes a lot of sense. They still need some kind of a guard sized to the chainring to keep the chain from dropping between the chainring and crank. Most old arms had some kind of a peg to do this.




No, I'm pretty sure these newest cranks are 4 points and not 5.


----------



## 1Butcher (Mar 15, 2011)

headloss said:


> On the other hand... you can't polish a turd.


And do you have proof of that?


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

1Butcher said:


> And do you have proof of that?


He does not, and as Mythbusters demonstrated you can polish a turd.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

My initial take on them was the look was "chunky" and I didn't care for them.
From the technical side they are an improvement (stiffer, single crank solution for multiple configurations this is a big plus for any manufacturer especially a small one).
I'd have no issues using one of them, as function ways heavily on my buying choices. Not sure that I will be as I use crank based campy PMs, which aren't all that elegant looking either.


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

BLUE BOY said:


> No, I'm pretty sure these newest cranks are 4 points and not 5.


Unfortunately I never see any equipment this new. 

Here are some images from the Campy 2014 catalog

The first is from the Athena group, showing a bolt point on the back of the crank arm.









This second is from the Super Record crank. I've inscribed a pentagon on the crank showing the fifth bolt point would be right in the middle of the back side of the crank arm. The outer chainring also indicates a design that would lead to bolting onto the same bolt point as the inner chain ring behind the crank arm.









Do you have any photos of a different crank?

As mentioned above, once the crank arms diverge from the boxy shape of the 70's and 80's, and go from a separate crank and spider to an integrated crank and spider, then there is no reason not to integrate the bolting pattern to the crank arms. The only downside I can see is that I assume the crank arm is threaded. If one strips the threads for any reason, then essentially the whole crank is toast. Hollow crank arms would also have to be designed for the additional stress of the fifth bolt. If the bolt circle is the same, then the inner chainrings should be interchangeable. The outer ring would need the chainguard peg positioned near the crank.

I remember touring a bike shop in Parma, Italy sometime in the 80's, and watching a bike builder truing the chain-rings using a big screwdriver, I think. Hopefully the new cranks run true from the factory.

You're right, Shimano seems to use a 4 bolt pattern.


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

Oops,

Now, I see. 2014 models, 5 bolt points.
2015 models (I think), 4 bolt points.

It appears as if there are separate bolt points for the inner and outer chainrings which does make a little sense. But, you're right, they do look a bit chunkier. This image is marked 53/39 which is a decent size. One also seems to lack the through bolting on the chain rings. In a sense, that is "cleaner", but less flexible if stripped.


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

This new design reminds me a bit of Mavic's old starfish crank, which I used for many years (still have the second-generation model on my fixed gear). It is indeed a good design for reinforcing the chainrings' rigidity, and simplifies the bolt attachment as well (although it also helps Campagnolo keep ahead of the aftermarket mfrs that make compatible chainrings and bolts). All in all, there is a bit of a three way arms race between the leading three groupset brands now, and I see this 2015 Campagnolo as putting the competition to SRAM as much as to Shimano. SRAM's Red crankset is also recently redesigned as a flat, aero-shaped spider, with the hidden bolt behind the crankarm as with previous Campagnolo models. So the 2015 cranks from Campy are also in response to that, as a 'next generation' design. 

Not sure how it would adapt to a crank-based power meter system, although they might have something proprietary in mind. Then there are also potential issues we haven't really seen in the technical details of bolt attachment, whether the threads are in carbon, or in bonded aluminium inserts. I've been through four of those Mavic cranks, and galvanic corrosion/mechanical mangling/stripped threads (mea culpa) is a bit of a vulnerability especially riding on salted winter roads (learned my lesson so often there...) or exposed to coastal airborne salt. That is one of the things Campy claim to address in their recent technical literature for other products though. I only mention that because it's less of an issue with the typical two-sided bolt attachment seen in traditional crank designs.

Otherwise expect that the differentiation between Chorus/Record/S Record versions here will be roughly the same as before, with increasingly fancy bearings, carbon layered around a structural foam insert for Chorus crankarms, truly hollow carbon crankarms with the other two. No doubt an even more exotic titanium S Rec version will be in the offing with a counterclockwise threaded axle bolt as well, but it does look like these are all using the Ultra torque hirth joint, meaning good news! We can all save 40 bucks by using our old BB cups, yay!


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

aa.mclaren said:


> This new design reminds me a bit of Mavic's old starfish crank, which I used for many years (still have the second-generation model on my fixed gear). It is indeed a good design for reinforcing the chainrings' rigidity, and simplifies the bolt attachment as well (although it also helps Campagnolo keep ahead of the aftermarket mfrs that make compatible chainrings and bolts). All in all, there is a bit of a three way arms race between the leading three groupset brands now, and I see this 2015 Campagnolo as putting the competition to SRAM as much as to Shimano. SRAM's Red crankset is also recently redesigned as a flat, aero-shaped spider, with the hidden bolt behind the crankarm as with previous Campagnolo models. So the 2015 cranks from Campy are also in response to that, as a 'next generation' design.
> 
> Not sure how it would adapt to a crank-based power meter system, although they might have something proprietary in mind. Then there are also potential issues we haven't really seen in the technical details of bolt attachment, whether the threads are in carbon, or in bonded aluminium inserts. I've been through four of those Mavic cranks, and galvanic corrosion/mechanical mangling/stripped threads (mea culpa) is a bit of a vulnerability especially riding on salted winter roads (learned my lesson so often there...) or exposed to coastal airborne salt. That is one of the things Campy claim to address in their recent technical literature for other products though. I only mention that because it's less of an issue with the typical two-sided bolt attachment seen in traditional crank designs.
> 
> Otherwise expect that the differentiation between Chorus/Record/S Record versions here will be roughly the same as before, with increasingly fancy bearings, carbon layered around a structural foam insert for Chorus crankarms, truly hollow carbon crankarms with the other two. No doubt an even more exotic titanium S Rec version will be in the offing with a counterclockwise threaded axle bolt as well, but it does look like these are all using the Ultra torque hirth joint, meaning good news! We can all save 40 bucks by using our old BB cups, yay!


Good post up to your last sentence. Believe the new 4 arm Record thru Chorus with hirth joint...agree, thank goodness for the hirth joint....but believe the cranks will all be a long 30mm dia. spindle and therefore you can not use your/my old UT Record cups.

Believe in 2015 Campy will adopt their 2014 OverTorque spindle size at least in terms of length and diameter...same principle as Rotor 3D+ and new FSA Kforce 4 arm crank. This 30mm crank because of it long length will still work on English threaded BB's with special threaded cups housing BB30 bearings and of course mount to many if not all of the 90mm length Press fit BB's now on the market and use spacers to fit more copious BB/PF30 framesets.

My final comment about the new 4 arm is, no doubt it is a technical marvel for many of the reasons you state. Campy losing the horrendous press fit left arm of their OverTorque which takes a special tool...hirth joint is fantastic....the crank will be super strong and light. Two large considerations....one is cost. These cranks will be ridiculously expensive of course not to mention proprietary chainrings required as you state and then there is the aesthetic. They look a hellofa lot clunkier than current Record 5 arm cranks...but the industry is moving to 4 arm for a reason and we will adjust to that.


----------



## Donn12 (Apr 10, 2012)

I think the new design is ugly


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

roadworthy said:


> These cranks will be ridiculously expensive of course not to mention proprietary chainrings required as you state and then there is the aesthetic. They look a hellofa lot clunkier than current Record 5 arm cranks...but the industry is moving to 4 arm for a reason and we will adjust to that.


It's not even the 4-bolt that bothers me... so much as the increasingly bulky rings that are needed to work with such a setup. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that there really isn't much advantage of a 4-bolt-bulky-chain-ring approach vs. a 5-bolt-retro-grouch approach besides weight. I'm not convinced that there is really a performance gain (but in fairness, I haven't been on the four bolt Shimano and even if I have, I don't ride hard enough to notice any flex in the traditional cranks that I already own).

If this is what the race community wants, then by all means, let it be. But don't force us all to take the parts made for a Ferrari and install them in a Dodge. I'm just still bitter that we can't have a continued production of a UT alloy crank. I'm not drawn to the new set for aesthetic reasons... but I'm not drawn to it for performance reasons either. I just don't see the benefit of the new design to the average rider, it seems more like change-for-change sake. Makes perfect sense at the Super-Record level, but that's about it. It will likely end up on one of my bikes, but only because I buy a bike that is already built up. Doing my own builds, I'll probably never touch these cranks. Meh... whatever, just my take.

So the new style is going to retain the Hirth joint? I missed that. The geek in me loves that approach.


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

headloss said:


> It's not even the 4-bolt that bothers me... so much as the increasingly bulky rings that are needed to work with such a setup. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that there really isn't much advantage of a 4-bolt-bulky-chain-ring approach vs. a 5-bolt-retro-grouch approach besides weight. I'm not convinced that there is really a performance gain (but in fairness, I haven't been on the four bolt Shimano and even if I have, I don't ride hard enough to notice any flex in the traditional cranks that I already own).
> 
> If this is what the race community wants, then by all means, let it be. But don't force us all to take the parts made for a Ferrari and install them in a Dodge. I'm just still bitter that we can't have a continued production of a UT alloy crank. I'm not drawn to the new set for aesthetic reasons... but I'm not drawn to it for performance reasons either. I just don't see the benefit of the new design to the average rider, it seems more like change-for-change sake. Makes perfect sense at the Super-Record level, but that's about it. It will likely end up on one of my bikes, but only because I buy a bike that is already built up. Doing my own builds, I'll probably never touch these cranks. Meh... whatever, just my take.
> 
> So the new style is going to retain the Hirth joint? I missed that. The geek in me loves that approach.


Well, I hear your points but the engineer in me likes the 4 arm. I concede that I think my carbon Chorus 5 arm UT crank looks better and for a rider of my caliper like yourself, we won't see any performance advantage....but the biggest issue with UT is the bearings are pressed onto spindle half shafts. Finally Campy solves this with a pure BB30 long spindle crank only with hirth joint. The new 4 arm Campy crank like Rotor's 3D+ and FSA 4 arm will fit just about every BB out there including English threaded. Over time you will see this hopefully trickle down to a lower cost point and Campy will smell the coffee and get rid of PowerTorque and even OverTorque...neither I would ever own because I don't like either design due to splined press fit requiring special tools. The downside for the new 4 arm will be high cost of replacement chain rings and also just the cost of the crank which will be exorbitant.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Very interesting takes. As i await my new steel Cinelli frame to arrive, I'm pondering all your opinions..


----------

