# Mislabeled Campagnolo stuff on ebay



## Friction_Shifter (Feb 8, 2006)

I'm hardly a campy expert but I am decently familiar with certain years. (85-91 or so). I've noticed a good amount of stuff that is mislabeled. I think the rule of thumb is, "if uncertain just call it Record".

There was never a Record monoplanar brake was there? or was there...


----------



## SC_clydesdale (Oct 6, 2005)

*monoplanar records*

In the mid 80's, when the delta record's/croce's hit the ground like wet cement, 

Mgt. at Campagnolo said,

Lo-our newest innovation is falling on deaf ears...

Although our current top shelf brakes have greater retardation potential.....

Than our Super Record.......

And the weight difference is Lo-about that of a 1/4 pounder with cheese....

Or a full water bottle.....

And customers are flocking like lemmings to our enemy Shimano....

And our innovation capabilites will be considered suspect....

And one may win the Tour de France using components by our evil competitor Shimano......

Who makes fishing equipment.....

And ski equipment....

And GOLF??? equipment....

In addition to cycling equipment to rival our most holy cycling jewelery......

And Tullio's replacement said:

Let us take a standard monoplanar Super Record Brakeset (now in I think the Triomph or Victory gruppo)........

Let us add a piece of blue plastic in its center, making it more desirable to those desiring "bling"......

And mgt. in Vincenze called it "Cobalto".......

And the customers saw although it offered reduced velocity retardation potential...

Which was inconsequential in their eyes....

Said, Lo-it is lighter than thy delta.....

and has increased bling due to the bright shiny piece of blue plastic......

and has lettering of Campagnolo in script.......

And the customer brought it in higher amounts than the technologically superior but heavier Delta.......

And the jewels they did fall off......

Having adhesion due to most failable epoxy......

And the Delta's due to their rarity began to command greater prices than new some twenty years hence on an invention known as e-bay.......

And monoplanar Campy brakes faded into obscurity.....

Due to the fact their retardation potential was much less due to the increasing girth of the 21st century riders......

Who desireth brakes from an era when their girth was not so great......

And mgt. at Vincenze developed "dual pivot" because retardation potential was greater.....

To compensate for the greater girth of their focus market.......

And Tullio looked down from the heavens, and said "Damn-fat guys have money......"

Or something similar in his native Italian tongue.....


----------



## brewster (Jun 15, 2004)

Monoplanar Record no. Only in the Chorus group. Very nice brake at the time and lighter than the Deltas of the same late 80's, early 90's vintage. That is why some pros would run the Chorus brakes on thier otherwise Record grouppo.

The Ebay listing issue becomes more complicated due to the fact of Campy's trickle down technology that they adopted in the 90's. A part starts out as a Record part and then makes it way to Chorus and down further. It's essentially the same part with a different label and less exotic bolts.

brewster


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Monoplanar brakes*



brewster said:


> Monoplanar Record no. Only in the Chorus group. Very nice brake at the time and lighter than the Deltas of the same late 80's, early 90's vintage. That is why some pros would run the Chorus brakes on thier otherwise Record grouppo..


Actually, monoplanar brakes started in the Chorus group, but after Chorus gained dual pivot brakes, the monoplanar design was re-labeled Athena.

They were actually not a particularly good brake - but after Campanolo discontinued their Cobalto brakes (which were were really just Nuovo Record sidepulls with a shiny blue stone glued onto the brake nut), the only options were Delta brakes or monoplanar brakes. Delta brakes were terrible - heavy, difficult to setup, and with poor modulation - so many teams opted for the lesser of two evils and used the monoplanar brakes.



brewster said:


> The Ebay listing issue becomes more complicated due to the fact of Campy's trickle down technology that they adopted in the 90's. A part starts out as a Record part and then makes it way to Chorus and down further. It's essentially the same part with a different label and less exotic bolts.


Agreed. With the combination of Campy not printing identifying labels on their products and the trickle down of technology, it often takes a true student of Campy history and product minutea to tell different components apart.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

Friction_Shifter said:


> I'm hardly a campy expert but I am decently familiar with certain years. (85-91 or so). I've noticed a good amount of stuff that is mislabeled. I think the rule of thumb is, "if uncertain just call it Record".
> 
> There was never a Record monoplanar brake was there? or was there...


That's the price you have to pay to be a member of the fraternity. If you don't know what it is, you deserve to be taken. Of course Campy could stamp a part number on everything, but then everybody would know. - TF


----------



## DMoore (Feb 4, 2004)

*Monoplanar brakes weren't that bad*

You have to view products in their historical context. The Chorus Monoplanars followed the Record/Cobalto sidepulls and overlapped the Delta's. By comparison they stopped better than either and were lighter than the Delta's. Up to that point, Shimano was making sidepulls as was Superbe. None of those brakes beat the Chorus in performance.

At about that time Shimano debuted their dual pivot brakes. They raised the bar significantly for braking performance. Campy played catch up, as they so often have, and a season (or two) later came out with their own dual pivot brakes. Chorus also came out with dual pivot brakes, although the exposed pivot made them significantly less attractive than the Records. At that point the monoplanar brakes moved to the Athena group.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Monoplanar brakes a flawed concept*



DMoore said:


> You have to view products in their historical context. The Chorus Monoplanars followed the Record/Cobalto sidepulls and overlapped the Delta's. By comparison they stopped better than either and were lighter than the Delta's. Up to that point, Shimano was making sidepulls as was Superbe. None of those brakes beat the Chorus in performance.


I beg to differ. I have used Chorus Monoplanar brakes for several years, and in general, they are a poorly performing brake. Campagnolo developed these brakes during the late 1980's at a time when they were technologically adrift, and appear to have been designing their products more for asthetics than for performance. Monplanar brakes, while lovely to look at, are flawed in both design and execution.

Because one arm passes through the other, the width of the slot in one arm has to match the width of the other arm very precisely to maintain rigidity without excessive friction. Unfortunately, it is much harder to control these manufacturing tolerances than to simply have an adjustable pre-load, as is the case with practically all other brake designs. If the slot is too wide (or the central arm to narrow), there will be play in the central arm which can result in brake chatter. If the slot is too narrow (or the central arm too wide) there will be excessive friction in the pivot, reducing braking force and modulation. On other designs, the arms stack on top of each other with an adjustable pre-load, so that play can be eliminated without excess friction.

In execution, for some reason Campagnolo decided that one of the arms should ride on an aluminum bushing. Aluminum sliding on aluminum has a high coefficienty of friction, resulting in stiction and poor modulation. Other designes instead use brass or bronze bushings on a steel shaft, which is both more durable and lower friction.

It is interesting to note that even though there have been many single pivot brake developed in the intervening years (such as Campagnolo's rear differential brake or the Zero G brakes), no one has since tried a mono-planar design. I guess they've learned the lessons of history.


----------



## Friction_Shifter (Feb 8, 2006)

Mark McM said:


> I beg to differ. I have used Chorus Monoplanar brakes for several years, and in general, they are a poorly performing brake. Campagnolo developed these brakes during the late 1980's at a time when they were technologically adrift, and appear to have been designing their products more for asthetics than for performance. Monplanar brakes, while lovely to look at, are flawed in both design and execution.
> 
> Because one arm passes through the other, the width of the slot in one arm has to match the width of the other arm very precisely to maintain rigidity without excessive friction. Unfortunately, it is much harder to control these manufacturing tolerances than to simply have an adjustable pre-load, as is the case with practically all other brake designs. If the slot is too wide (or the central arm to narrow), there will be play in the central arm which can result in brake chatter. If the slot is too narrow (or the central arm too wide) there will be excessive friction in the pivot, reducing braking force and modulation. On other designs, the arms stack on top of each other with an adjustable pre-load, so that play can be eliminated without excess friction.
> 
> ...


thanks that was useful. I am still in the process of building up a 95% equipped campy bike (already had american classic hubs, in a few years will be campy). The campy is 88-90. As beatiful as the monoplanar's are I refuse to buy something that is stupid engineering (learned my lesson with croce brakes). Like metal sliding against like metal = bad from a tribological point of view(unless you want high friction). Nice explanation on the tolerances thing. I knew I should have bid on the NOS victory calipers. Tried and true design and they went for $31 (I've gotten seriously addicted to ebay these last few weeks). Well the wait goes on. While the stuff from 88-90 all has the same shinny finish (choruse, crecord, croce)I'm not limiting myself to those years....


----------



## JP (Feb 8, 2005)

SC_clydesdale said:


> In the mid 80's, when the delta record's/croce's hit the ground like wet cement,
> Mgt. at Campagnolo said,
> Lo-our newest innovation is falling on deaf ears...
> Although our current top shelf brakes have greater retardation potential.....
> ...


So sayeth the post of the week


----------



## nenad (May 5, 2004)

*Monoplanars a flawed design?*



Mark McM said:


> I beg to differ. I have used Chorus Monoplanar brakes for several years, and in general, they are a poorly performing brake. Campagnolo developed these brakes during the late 1980's at a time when they were technologically adrift, and appear to have been designing their products more for asthetics than for performance. Monplanar brakes, while lovely to look at, are flawed in both design and execution.
> 
> Because one arm passes through the other, the width of the slot in one arm has to match the width of the other arm very precisely to maintain rigidity without excessive friction. Unfortunately, it is much harder to control these manufacturing tolerances than to simply have an adjustable pre-load, as is the case with practically all other brake designs. If the slot is too wide (or the central arm to narrow), there will be play in the central arm which can result in brake chatter. If the slot is too narrow (or the central arm too wide) there will be excessive friction in the pivot, reducing braking force and modulation. On other designs, the arms stack on top of each other with an adjustable pre-load, so that play can be eliminated without excess friction.
> 
> ...


If monoplanars were a flawed design then why did campagnolo produce them for almost a decade? Also, why are my Chorus monoplanars working properly? They are working properly because I also own a pair of Record D calipers and there is no noticable performance issue in terms of braking and stopping power, except I have to pull my brake levers just slightly harder with monoplanars.

For the record, I am using new Campy 2000 brake pads on both sets of calipers.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*The one and only Monoplanar brake (thank God).*



nenad said:


> If monoplanars were a flawed design then why did campagnolo produce them for almost a decade? Also, why are my Chorus monoplanars working properly? They are working properly because I also own a pair of Record D calipers and there is no noticable performance issue in terms of braking and stopping power, except I have to pull my brake levers just slightly harder with monoplanars.


Just because Campagnolo produced them for a few years (about 8) doesn't mean that they were a good idea. Notice that Campagnolo kept moving them to lower and lower groups - starting at Chorus, they moved to Athena, then Veloce, and ending up as Mirage. Campagnolo has produced many different varieties of single pivot brakes for past 40 or so years (the latest versions are the rear brakes on Differential Brake sets), but there has only been one monoplanar brake. Although the group name of the monoplanar changed several times, the actual brake itself remained the same. Perhaps the only reason it was kep in production was to recoup the cost of the initial tooling. In addition, nothing has stopped other brake manufacturers from making monoplanar brakes, and yet none have.

I'm sure Campagnolo discovered that it was more trouble than it was worth to design and manufacture a monoplanar brake, which is why they have not repeated the exercise.


----------



## Friction_Shifter (Feb 8, 2006)

my main issue with the monoplanars is that they address an issue that isn't an issue imo. they are overengineered. I've got a set of older 1987ish shimano SLR brakes (I think the set below 105) and these flex (a lot)where they are mount to the fork (I've never observed the rear brake in action) basically the entire brake flexes forward under even just moderate braking. Sure they probably flex in the calipers a little but I don't see it(this is gonna be difficult to see looking from above I admit but when one considers the amount of al in two arms vs the amount of metal (steel) in the mounting bolt and the respective lever arms, etc). I also have some DA 7400 which I can't see flexing. My croce d'aune could never see flexing. I just don't think caliper arms flex that much within the arm, but rather the whole caliper flexes more with respect to the mounting bolt. And with newer better brakes I think this issues has been reduced to where its negligible(better bolt materials? I really don't know, just know my 87 DA's i can't see flex while my 87 SLR's flex significantly). I think the monoplanars were something that looked bling and with some marketing/sales could sell decently. Just like the deltas and croces (which I just sold). Not saying they are bad brakes, never rode them, they are just heavier and overengineered for a reason that will produce miniscule improvements if any. The way i see it is if the monoplanar do what they are intended to do (stiffer calipers) they just put more stresses on the flexiest part of the system (the bolt area). They are sexy though I do admit that, and they probably work at least decently to good, maybe very good or excellent.


----------



## nenad (May 5, 2004)

Yes. I admit I bought them for the looks. In my experience they brake very well, having put Campy 2000 brake holders and Kool-Stop brake pads. It was also a special feeling opening 14 year old boxes for the first time; they are new old stock.


----------



## dnalsaam (Dec 6, 2004)

The last generation Delta brake calipers work as well as any monoplanar brake caliper and close to as well as any successive brakes. Anybody who disputes this is totally ignorant. The main problems with the delta calipers were the set-up, difficulty to get a proper cable line and the brake levers. If you get a skilled mechanic to fit the delta calipers up with Ergo levers on a larger frame you will understand exactly what I mean. Because of the height of the delta caliper, they are never a good fit on small frames; this is the main reason why some pro mechanics set up other calipers on bikes. The problem relating to the set-up is that if the cable end was slightly splayed, it was nigh impossible to set the brake up correctly. You also needed to cut the cable to the perfect length as there is no real room for additional cable inside the brake. For bike mechanics under time pressure, like all pro mechanics, this made for an unfriendly situation. Lastly, the brake levers were Campagnolo's first major attempt at aerodynamic levers and the mechanical advantage is very poor compared to most modern levers. There have also been incredible improvements in the cable smoothness; all things that make delta brakes a pleasure to use and among the easiest to modulate. The first generation delta brake levers permitted set-up with the cables sprouting out of the top of the levers and when using this solution the calipers work better than with the rear exit cables. Any frame larger than a 55 cm can easily be set up with deltas without any lost performance.


----------

