# Record vs Chorus carbon cranks



## ejr13 (Dec 14, 2006)

Due to some rehab time I'm going to get some compact cranks. I have 2006 Record carbon cranks now, they came with the used bike I bought off of a friiend. What is the difference between Record and Chrous carbon? What am I getting for the extra $ of Record?

Thanks for the help.


----------



## brewster (Jun 15, 2004)

You're getting the word Record instead of Chorus...if that means something to you...go for it.


----------



## Barabaika (Jan 15, 2007)

There is a significant difference in weight: 643 and 679g

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/z...&PRODUCT.ID=3489&CATEGORY.ID=6&MODE=&TFC=TRUE

What differentiates the Record Ultra Torque crankset from the other models in the Campy line is its Ultra Hollow manufacturing technique. The carbon fiber arms are molded to create a hollow structure. The chainring spider is also hollow. Unlike other carbon cranksets, there's no aluminum exoskeleton under there. The only metal is at the threaded pedal interface. And the steel semi-axles are molded directly into the carbon crankarms without the use of an insert.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

brewster said:


> You're getting the word Record instead of Chorus...if that means something to you...go for it.


Owning either of these cranks is God's way of telling you that you make way too much damn money.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Barabaika said:


> There is a significant difference in weight: 643 and 679g
> 
> http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=BUY_PRODUCT_STANDARD&PRODUCT.ID=3489&CATEGORY.ID=6&MODE=&TFC=TRUE
> 
> What differentiates the Record Ultra Torque crankset from the other models in the Campy line is its Ultra Hollow manufacturing technique. The carbon fiber arms are molded to create a hollow structure. The chainring spider is also hollow. Unlike other carbon cranksets, there's no aluminum exoskeleton under there. The only metal is at the threaded pedal interface. And the steel semi-axles are molded directly into the carbon crankarms without the use of an insert.


less than 30grams? gimme a break. If you were really interested in low weight cranks you wouldn't get either of these.

//FWIW

http://neebsuk.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/30-grams/
Has anyone ever _seen_ 30g of cereal? It equates to 11 flakes of delicious “corn”!


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

I've ridden both Record and Chorus carbon, and to me they feel identical. Thirty-six grams makes zero difference. You can get some good deals on 2006 close-out models right now if you look around. I just picked up Record carbon compact cranks for $325 from Wheel & Sprocket in Wisconsin...cheaper than any Chorus model I could find.


----------



## Clevor (Sep 8, 2005)

team_sheepshead said:


> I've ridden both Record and Chorus carbon, and to me they feel identical. Thirty-six grams makes zero difference. You can get some good deals on 2006 close-out models right now if you look around. I just picked up Record carbon compact cranks for $325 from Wheel & Sprocket in Wisconsin...cheaper than any Chorus model I could find.


I got my 2006 Record CT for $249; if you look hard enough, you can also find 2006 Record doubles for that price. Cheaper than Ebay even. Might not be in your size though.


----------



## BLUE BOY (May 19, 2005)

Barabaika said:


> There is a significant difference in weight: 643 and 679g



The weight difference is NOT significant, especially considering the price difference.
Save that money and just use the bathroom before you ride and you'll lose more than
36 grams! Go with Chorus.


----------



## BLUE BOY (May 19, 2005)

Bocephus Jones II said:


> Owning either of these cranks is God's way of telling you that you make way too much damn money.


 Actually it means you have good taste in fine cycling equipment.:thumbsup:


----------



## ejr13 (Dec 14, 2006)

Thanks for the help. Sounds like no serious differances. I'm no weight wienie so that doesn't matter.


> Owning either of these cranks is God's way of telling you that you make way too much damn money.


As I said they came on a used bike I bought and I'll sell the cranks to fund the new ones......which I can get a bro deal on otherwise I couldn't afford either.


----------



## ejr13 (Dec 14, 2006)

Also, according to the Campy website "Ultra·Drive™ EPS™ chainrings with antifriction treatment " Chorus gets NO anti-friction treatment. Can anyone tell the differeance ?


----------



## BLUE BOY (May 19, 2005)

ejr13 said:


> Also, according to the Campy website "Ultra·Drive™ EPS™ chainrings with antifriction treatment " Chorus gets NO anti-friction treatment. Can anyone tell the differeance ?


 Performance wise,nothing that you would notice. Cosmetic wise, the Chorus rings
have that nice, traditional polished alloy appeareance and the Record antifriction coated
rings have a dull Ti gray appearance. I believe the antifriction coating,in theory, is supposed extend the useful life of the ring.


----------



## SDizzle (May 1, 2004)

In the old, square taper model (geez, I feel bad calling them 'old'), the only difference is alloy vs. steel chainring bolts, and EPS coated chainrings on the Record model. For the new UT models, the Record cranks have hollow arms whereas Chorus are solid. Chainrings and bolts are now the same, and are very nice. Either way, I'd probably just go with Chorus, though I'm a big fan of the EPS chainrings (not for any good reason).


----------



## merckxman (Jan 23, 2002)

*It's funny...*

...ask most people if they wished had purchased RECORD vs. CHORUS "x" years ago and the answer is yes.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

ahh so thats what the eps on my rec alloy crankset means.... man i was worried that my ti colored small ring was actually ti and would wear quicker... is the coating on the silver colored big ring as well (double)??


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*significant?*



BLUE BOY said:


> The weight difference is NOT significant, especially considering the price difference.
> Save that money and just use the bathroom before you ride and you'll lose more than
> 36 grams! Go with Chorus.


36 grams is about 5% difference for these parts. Apply that to all the parts on the whole bike, and it's about 3/4 of a pound for 15 pound bike. Sure, it's not going to turn you into Lance Armstrong, but for anyone building a "light" bike, for whatever reason, it sure as heck is "significant."

I do think the Record is the lightest compact crankset (which must include the bottom bracket weight these days) made.


----------



## I am The Edge (Jul 27, 2004)

the question is, how strong is the record crank compared to the chorus. at 190 - 200 lbs am i gonna feel it flex during a mash-fest sprint or climb?


----------



## BLUE BOY (May 19, 2005)

Fixed said:


> 36 grams is about 5% difference for these parts. Apply that to all the parts on the whole bike, and it's about 3/4 of a pound for 15 pound bike. Sure, it's not going to turn you into Lance Armstrong, but for anyone building a "light" bike, for whatever reason, it sure as heck is "significant."
> 
> I do think the Record is the lightest compact crankset (which must include the bottom bracket weight these days) made.


 Well, ejr13 doesn't seem to be that focused on the weight issue; Good for him by the
way. I know there are alot of cyclist so focused on the weight of their bike(s) that they
are like fish on a hook being reeled in by the industry that wants to sell them the next
lightest components or frame. IMO some people take this stuff way too seriously.


----------



## BLUE BOY (May 19, 2005)

I am The Edge said:


> the question is, how strong is the record crank compared to the chorus. at 190 - 200 lbs am i gonna feel it flex during a mash-fest sprint or climb?



Both groups are designed for road racing; So mash-fest away my friend!


----------



## BLUE BOY (May 19, 2005)

wankski said:


> ahh so thats what the eps on my rec alloy crankset means.... man i was worried that my ti colored small ring was actually ti and would wear quicker... is the coating on the silver colored big ring as well (double)??


 No special coating on the silver ring.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

Fixed said:


> I do think the Record is the lightest compact crankset (which must include the bottom bracket weight these days) made.


I don't know about that. I've got a set of aluminum compact cranks with square taper BB that are lighter. 

Campagnolo Record CT UT cranks, 643g; UT cups, 49g; total weight 692g

Stronglight Ironlight alum. compact crank, 540g; Erikson Ti BB, 148g; total weight 688g

Of course, If I used a Tune Bigfoot (aluminum) crank, I could have dropped another dozen grams.


----------



## Clevor (Sep 8, 2005)

ejr13 said:


> Also, according to the Campy website "Ultra·Drive™ EPS™ chainrings with antifriction treatment " Chorus gets NO anti-friction treatment. Can anyone tell the differeance ?


What's the story on this; do all Record components come with the EPS coating???

My 2006 Record CT crank has the coating on the big but not small ring. A Record triple crank which is supposed to be 2006 does not have the EPS coating on any of the three rings, though they do have the pewter color. So does the EPS coating only go on high end Record cranks??? BOO!

BTW, some of you may have noticed the 'Made in Italy' stamp is not present on many rings circa 2006/2007. Somebody complained about his 2007 rings not having the stamp. Don't think this is consistent, as neither ring on my 2006 Record CT crank has it, but all three rings on my 2006 Record triple do .


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

My '06 CT rings say Brev. Campagnolo, but not Made in Italy. The crankarms have the Made in Italy sticker. The crank-fixing bolts say Made in Italy.


----------



## Clevor (Sep 8, 2005)

Mark McM said:


> I don't know about that. I've got a set of aluminum compact cranks with square taper BB that are lighter.
> 
> Campagnolo Record CT UT cranks, 643g; UT cups, 49g; total weight 692g
> 
> ...


When guys quote cranks weights, often it's apples to oranges, because it should include TOTAL crank weight including crank bolts. For example, on a standard square taper setup, stock bolts weigh 34 gms and Ti bolts 17 gms. Doesn't 684 gms sound nicer than 701? So you bet I go with Ti bolts (and get a lot of razzing about it).

On the listed weight of the 2007 Record UT crank, I believe one 10 mm bolt is involved, so it should be included in the crank weight. It shouldn't amount to much, but it will probably drive that 692 figure above 700 gms, than figure in the usual 3% fibbing on actual weight that goes on.

I'm not sure about those Campy weights: my 2006 Record CT crank is advertised as 540 gms but it came out to 555. Now this is with 50/34 chainrings. I hate to think what the ole Record square taper used to weigh, with 53/39 rings. But pretty much all these carbon cranks will weigh in around the 530-575 gm area.

I recently picked up a discontinued FSA K-Force ISIS crank off the Classifieds here. The guy I bought it from said it weighed around 510 gms. Slap it on a Ti/ceramic Token BB of around 147 gms, add Ti bolts, and that comes in to a respectable 674 gms complete. This, for a 53/39 double with those massive FSA chainrings for stiffness! Got the crank and an FSA MegaQuad Ti BB for $245 shipped. New and unused. It will actually lop around 100 gms off the current FSA MegaEXO crank setup (tho' I am changing out the one that came stock on my TCR Comp 1 with a DA7800).


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Apples and apples*



Clevor said:


> When guys quote cranks weights, often it's apples to oranges, because it should include TOTAL crank weight including crank bolts.


The Stronglight Ironlight cranks mentioned includes the pre-installed self-extracting crank bolts (which annoyingly use a reverse thread for the extracting cap, so you can't use a standard crank puller).

Now that you mention it, I've actually got a set of even lighter compact cranks - they are a pair of Kooka std. size MTB cranks (which are the same 110 mm BCD as compact road cranks). Since the cranks alone weigh only about 390 grams, you can easily get the entire crankset/BB to weigh under 680 grams.

And good think we're comparing compact cranks - my standard road sized (130 mm BCD) Grafton SpeedStix only weigh 360 grams a pair for the bare cranks - so even with the larger road chainrings, you can get down to about 670 grams.


----------



## Clevor (Sep 8, 2005)

Mark McM said:


> Now that you mention it, I've actually got a set of even lighter compact cranks - they are a pair of Kooka std. size MTB cranks (which are the same 110 mm BCD as compact road cranks). Since the cranks alone weigh only about 390 grams, you can easily get the entire crankset/BB to weigh under 680 grams.


Speaking of the Devil, I was just thinking about these cranks couple of weeks ago. About 10 years ago I picked up two Kooka ATB cranks on closeout. These have the rainbow colors (rings different colors). I figured I'd have to junk them now, or at least I forget what BB size they use. But of course they are square taper.

I believe 110 mm sounds familiar. So current road BBs would work with Italian and English frames?

What about the rings? Can the rings be swapped out for road rings? 

So you say they weigh 390 gms for a triple???  

What's neat is my C50 is the WC scheme with rainbow colors. I forget the actual colors of the crank, but I think one ring was green, one yellow, and one red, with a blue spider and Wow, that would look awesome on the frame! And I do have a CT crank destined for the build. Not many guys riding a C50 with a rainbow-colored, triple, Kooka crank! :lol:


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

Clevor said:


> Speaking of the Devil, I was just thinking about these cranks couple of weeks ago. About 10 years ago I picked up two Kooka ATB cranks on closeout. These have the rainbow colors (rings different colors). I figured I'd have to junk them now, or at least I forget what BB size they use. But of course they are square taper.
> 
> I believe 110 mm sounds familiar. So current road BBs would work with Italian and English frames?
> 
> ...


Yes, Kooka cranks fit standard taper cranks, so you could fit them on Italian or English frames.

Current "compact" road cranks use the same BCD as the old "standard size" MTB cranks, and chainrings are interchangeable. Typically, a "standard" MTB crank came with 46/36/26 chainrings, so if you replaced the 46 with a 50 and removed the inner chainring, you'd have a compact road crank. A wide variety of chainring sizes are available for 110 mm BCD, so you could also put 53/39 chainrings on the Kooka cranks abd have standard road gearing.

The 390 grams is for the bare crankarms. With a set of 50/34 chainrings and chainring bolts the weight would come up to about 525 grams - still very light for a compact double crank.

The downside is that Kooka cranks were notorious for breaking. Although, you'd probably get a little longer life out of them on a road bike than an MTB.


----------



## Clevor (Sep 8, 2005)

Mark McM said:


> Yes, Kooka cranks fit standard taper cranks, so you could fit them on Italian or English frames.
> 
> Current "compact" road cranks use the same BCD as the old "standard size" MTB cranks, and chainrings are interchangeable. Typically, a "standard" MTB crank came with 46/36/26 chainrings, so if you replaced the 46 with a 50 and removed the inner chainring, you'd have a compact road crank. A wide variety of chainring sizes are available for 110 mm BCD, so you could also put 53/39 chainrings on the Kooka cranks abd have standard road gearing.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info. So coming in at a not earth-shatteringly light 525 gms, the crank would mainly serve for novelty purposes. I suppose I could find anodized rings somewhere and come up with a color combo to highlight the WC scheme on my frame. I forgot what color the spider is; I think red.

I recall the crank arms were machined out of billet aluminum. Couple that with a Phil Wood or Token Ti BB at around 145 gms, and that's a decently light crank setup. It should be plenty strong enough for the road. Food for thought! :thumbsup:


----------



## Clevor (Sep 8, 2005)

*Update: finally found that Kooka crank . . .*

Here's a pic of the Kooka ATB crank I bought about 10 years ago on closeout. Kooka went out of business at the time.

Unfortunately, it's not a Rasta with multicolored crank arm, but I think the color scheme might fit into the Oscar Friere WC scheme on my C50 fairly well. I have not been able to find a source of colored chainrings, otherwise a green 50 and yellow 36 would be just the ticket to match the rainbow color bands on the frame. I may have to go with black rings.

The total weight of this 175 mm crank is 588 gms with 42/32/22s. Without rings I get 440 gms. I get something like a 94 mm bolt circle on the large rings and something like 60 mm on the small ring (forget exactly). But I did a quick search and they do make ATB rings in this bolt circle, and 50/36s should be easy to find.

One possibility is building the lightest triple crank setup in existence - for a road bike. If I go with a 50/40/30 setup (which Campy did offer two years ago), I might be able to build a triple crank in the 610-620 weight range. Most Alu triples weigh in at around 750 gms.

Mark McM, if I go with a Phil Wood Ti BB, I presume the chainline is adjustable so I would just have to set the correct chainline. Plus the Phil Wood would knock 50 gms off a Record BB.

Since my crank weighs 588 gms as is, not sure a 50/36 CT setup would weigh much less. But the colors and trick look would certainly be a conversation piece with roadies, who probably never heard of Kooka .


----------



## jafran456 (Jul 8, 2005)

Barabaika said:


> There is a significant difference in weight: 643 and 679g
> 
> http://www.competitivecyclist.com/z...&PRODUCT.ID=3489&CATEGORY.ID=6&MODE=&TFC=TRUE
> 
> What differentiates the Record Ultra Torque crankset from the other models in the Campy line is its Ultra Hollow manufacturing technique. The carbon fiber arms are molded to create a hollow structure. The chainring spider is also hollow. Unlike other carbon cranksets, there's no aluminum exoskeleton under there. The only metal is at the threaded pedal interface. And the steel semi-axles are molded directly into the carbon crankarms without the use of an insert.


LET'S BREAK DOWN THE SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT DIFFERENCE MENTIONED ABOVE:

679 - 643 = 36 GRAMS

36 GRAMS DIVIDED BY 454 GRAMS PER POUND = 0.0792951 POUNDS

0.0792951 POUNDS TIMES 16 OUNCES PER POUND = 1.2687216 OUNCES

*1.2 OUNCES*......WOW SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT DIFFERENCE!!!!


----------



## TACSTS (Feb 4, 2004)

Clevor-

I've got that same Kooka crank myself. Bought it from Nashbar years ago for $34 I think. Took off the big and little rings and used it on a singlespeed for a couple of years. Great crank I thought, despite reports of them being prone to cracking and failing quite catastrophically. Do an advanced search on eBay for Kooka cranks. That NOS crank you've got there is worth $200 easy. Also if I remember correctly It's mountain compact meaning, 94mm BCD chainrings. Might be hard to find suitable road chainrings for that, but I've never actually looked, so who knows? I'd probably just hang onto it as a memento from the Ano-era.


----------



## Clevor (Sep 8, 2005)

TACSTS said:


> Clevor-
> 
> I've got that same Kooka crank myself. Bought it from Nashbar years ago for $34 I think. Took off the big and little rings and used it on a singlespeed for a couple of years. Great crank I thought, despite reports of them being prone to cracking and failing quite catastrophically. Do an advanced search on eBay for Kooka cranks. That NOS crank you've got there is worth $200 easy. Also if I remember correctly It's mountain compact meaning, 94mm BCD chainrings. Might be hard to find suitable road chainrings for that, but I've never actually looked, so who knows? I'd probably just hang onto it as a memento from the Ano-era.


Yeah, I posted a pic on a big thread in the MTBR forum; you might be interested in it:

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?p=2087709#poststop

And yes, two Kooka cranks did go for >$200 recently on Ebay, but those were the Rasta cranks with multicolored crank arms. That's the one I wanted to match the World Champ scheme on my C50, but those cranks had orange and purple spiders, and I wanted a red spider with maybe green/red/yellow crankarms (after all, no orange and purple on those World Champ bands). But nah! I wouldn't drop that kind of money on one of those cranks anyway.

Not too sure this Kooka will work as a 50/34 on my C50 (required a 113 mm BB on the ATB bikes), tho' I did see some 50-tooth 94 BCD chainrings somewhere. But I want a 50 green and 36 yellow, which should go well with my red, gold, blue crankarm. No luck finding anyone selling anodized rings though but correct, I plan to just hold on to the crank. It is a takeoff with new rings so it may fetch a decent price someday (I have two of them). Or I may just put it on the C50 with black chainrings. The spider does have a Clavicula-like look.

The crank should be plenty strong for road use where you only encounter the occasional pothole.


----------



## wilric44 (Mar 4, 2007)

After reading the suggestions there is no difference in the two, besides the weight and price. I know the Chorus cassette will probably last longer. I opted for Chorus instead of record on my Orca. I ordered Record but change it out since weight is not an issue. I never ridden Record so I guess I would never know the difference.


----------



## miso (Aug 17, 2006)

BLUE BOY said:


> The weight difference is NOT significant, especially considering the price difference.
> Save that money and just use the bathroom before you ride and you'll lose more than
> 36 grams! Go with Chorus.


According to the info supplied by competitive cyclist, the Record cranks have alloy chain ring bolts and the Chorus cranks use steel. For about $20 you could replace the steel bolts with alloy and the weight difference between the two cranksets would be even less (approximately 15 whopping grams).

Needless to say, there are far less expensive ways one could drop half an ounce on a bike.


----------

