# What's with the new Campy Power-Torque crank?



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Velo-News says that you need a special crank puller to get the left arm off............but it's not available in the USA..........(and if it was, you shouldn't use it on the carbon crank)

Zinn says:

Dear Readers and Campagnolophiles,
I had promised to follow up on Power Torque crankset removal when I found out the solution. Arguably, the solution does not yet exist for American consumers, but I can tell you what I now know about it, namely that removing Campagnolo’s new Power Torque crankset is still an issue.

Here is Campy’s video on installation and removal. However, from what I have found out, that puller tool shown in the video is made by Cyclus in Erfurt, Germany and is not currently available in the USA. In fact, it does not appear on the Cyclus website yet. Furthermore, Campagnolo recommends against using that tool on a carbon crankarm, since it could mar the carbon, so I am not at all sure how one would remove a carbon Power Torque arm currently without damaging it.
Lennard 


http://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/servicevideo/videocatid_4_videoid_34.jsp


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Velo-News says that you need a special crank puller to get the left arm off............but it's not available in the USA..........(and if it was, you shouldn't use it on the carbon crank)


Not sure if Zinn is _entirely_ correct here. The tool shown in the video is just a garden-variety gear puller you could buy from anyone who sells shop tools. But the required counterbearing insert that appears miraculously in the video at 2:46 is not something you'll find anywhere. So Zinn's general message of this being an issue is correct, and especially so with the carbon cranks. Photo shows the Cyclus tool with counterbearing insert.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

Hard to imagine why Campy did this. I have yet to see an explanation. I have a similar design Truvativ GXP Roleur crankset that uses a self-extracting bolt on the nds crank. Can be removed in seconds with a 8mm pedal wrench.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

bikerjulio said:


> Hard to imagine why Campy did this.


Judging by the video*, no attention to detail in the product support department, perhaps?  

*mechanic starts to cross-thread the drive-side cup, drops a part; confusing jump cuts; bad English ("Disinstallation"); inconsistent terminology (assembling / installing). All minor stuff, but come on: it's not that hard to get a short video right.


----------



## T-shirt (Aug 15, 2004)

So, they've determined that a one piece axle is better than two, eh? With the securing bolt on the outside, instead of inside the bb shell, ease of installation is improved a bit. As for damaging the carbon, I don't know, wrap the claw ends of the tool in electrical tape or something. But I think it would take some amount of carelessness to damage the carbon.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Counting beans.*



T-shirt said:


> So, they've determined that a one piece axle is better than two, eh?


Just guessing here, but the expense of machining the Hirth joint to the tight tolerances required turned out to be so high that it was only recouped with the astronomically-priced Record stuff.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

1) I will probably never buy a carbon crank

2) I will probably never buy a crank that you have to use a gear puller to remove.

Why o why, did Campy get rid of square taper bottom brackets......If you say "stiffness, I'll smack you.


Hirth is "kinda" stupid.....This is really stupid.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

square taper? what's that? you must be really old


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> 1) I will probably never buy a carbon crank
> 
> 2) I will probably never buy a crank that you have to use a gear puller to remove.
> 
> ...


I've been riding a Record square taper crank and bb all summer after riding a carbon UT Record crank for about a year and a half. Other than the greatly reduced stif....

I mean I can't tell the difference at all. Actually I had a clicking problem on the UT which I got fixed.


----------



## ultraman6970 (Aug 1, 2010)

Hey, Im not even that sure but looks to me that the thread size in the crank is almost the same than the one in a regular crank extractor, and knowing campagnolo it could be true also. The darn hole looks big but probably is the same thead size. IF thats the case just put it in, and use the puller and the same time. The extractor will work as the countbearing piece people is talking about.

Now, that i know of, the power torque thing wont go into carbon, the created it to go into the low end campagnolo stuff and probably to get a platform to test a fix for the clickings and issues u-torque has in the axle. (the only thing campangolo has to do is to send thin spacers with their cranksets or with the cup sets and nobody would be complaining about noises and stuff no more)

So i doubt this thing will show up in the expensive stuff any day soon.


----------



## ultraman6970 (Aug 1, 2010)

I have an aluminum set of UT cranks and i believe are plenty stifff, the sensation is tighter than with squared tapper cranksets while pedaling. I cant give any opinion about UT carbon cranks because i have not used any and with the pricing i doubt i ever will.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

> Why o why, did Campy get rid of square taper bottom brackets......If you say "stiffness, I'll smack you.


Marketing.

The competition all have "stiffer and lighter" hollow over-sized bottom brackets to which Campagnolo must respond. Combine that with the institutional bias for action which must have resulted from the 1985 indexed shifting fiasco.

Consumers also need a reason to replace bikes and parts that will last a lifetime. 



> Hirth is "kinda" stupid.....This is really stupid.


The middle of the bottom bracket axle is a more sensible place for a separable joint than the ends since there are lower bending loads there.

I'm more offended by 

1. The SKU reduction effort which has eliminated 13 starting cogs and triple cranksets in the 11-speed line. I don't have the 800W 37 MPH sprint it would take to spin out even a 13 so the extra gear will be a 12 and I don't get anything (except more expensive cogs and chains).

2. The crippled thumb lever lever on 2011 shifters below Chorus which won't go down more than one cog. It's great to be able to shift both brifters at the same time and end up in the next gear. Might as well buy Shimano without that.

3. The elimination of shifter small parts (including spring retainers and thumb return springs for first generation ergo levers). You wear out a couple $3 springs, buy a pair, and be on with your life. Otherwise you buy a $100 assembly. Pretty close to Shimano.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

I've used alloy record cranks, alloy Centaur UT, and Record Carbon UT on the same bike and I really like the Carbon UT's. I rode it with the alloy UT the morning of the upgrade and rode it again in the afternoon with the carbon UT and it was stiffer. It felt good on the steep hill I have to climb when I leave my driveway. I'm overly excited about the coating on the chainrings on Record. The Centaur UT was from 2007 so it had the really nice polished record level chainrings before they starting selling with the stamped version. 

I rode the alloy UT for two years and around 10K miles. The bearings felt as smooth as the ones on the new crankset.


----------



## ultraman6970 (Aug 1, 2010)

I have the same comments about the UT cranks than big bill, I gave drew a thum up because i agree with him in that campagnolo is becoming more and more as shimano. Thats the reason i have not moved off campagnolo 10, i do not see a reason for it, the bad thing is that at some point campagnolo will stop making parts for it specially brifters springs and stuff like that and probably i'll be obligated to migrate to something new.

So far if i have to move i would love to move to a campagnolo electric or some [email protected] like that, the 1st independent sucker able to get a campagnolo electronic shifter simple enough to build it at home will win the lotto big time.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*not quite right....*



ultraman6970 said:


> Hey, Im not even that sure but looks to me that the thread size in the crank is almost the same than the one in a regular crank extractor, and knowing campagnolo it could be true also. The darn hole looks big but probably is the same thead size. IF thats the case just put it in, and use the puller and the same time. The extractor will work as the countbearing piece people is talking about.
> 
> Now, that i know of, the power torque thing wont go into carbon, the created it to go into the low end campagnolo stuff and probably to get a platform to test a fix for the clickings and issues u-torque has in the axle. (the only thing campangolo has to do is to send thin spacers with their cranksets or with the cup sets and nobody would be complaining about noises and stuff no more)
> 
> So i doubt this thing will show up in the expensive stuff any day soon.



The power torque crank is made in a carbon version - Centaur. It's cheaper to build the one-piece spindle, but the overall function is no different than the ultra torque soindle. Both require a precise BB shell width and rely on a wave washer to preload the bearings. Campy cranks don't suffer from any problems that can be cured with thin washers and I've never once read of a problem with the hirth joint at the center of the UT spindle. Most problems are the result of improper installations.


----------



## fhfr436 (Nov 13, 2018)

*Simple Solution with Tool I Had on Hand*

I just got a Raleigh Grand Prix travel bike with a full Veloce 2x10 groupset.
I haven't owned or used a Campagnolo piece in 25-years, but I thought I'd keep this groupset since resale prices seem too low to be worth the effort.
However, I changed my mind after understanding this ridiculous PowerTorque crankset design.


I was able to buy a seemingly decent-quality 14mm 1/2" square-drive bit from HomeDepot mail order for only $4. Like many of you, I thought that the $100 Park Tool crankarm extractor seemed (and apparently is) poorly designed and overly complicated.


I successfully removed the alloy left crankarm with no damage or difficulty using a standard spring-loaded automotive battery terminal clamp puller that I've owned for 25+ years. No modification to the puller was required, unlike the forged pullers I've seen used by others. I simply backed the crank bolt out a few threads, inserted a piece of metal as a shim, then pushed directly against it.
I still think it's a stupid design all-around and will send it to eBay, likely replacing it with Shimano or FSA.


----------

