# Campy crankset questions



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I will be getting a new Cannondale EVO 105 and swapping out the components with 2015 Campy Chorus / Athena.
Since the crankset is BB30 I have been looking at Campy Overtorque.
First question is can i keep the existing BB30 bearings and just slide the crankset in? The 2014 cranksets are being sold at a discount, the 2015 "Ultra" version is more than I want to pay. The chainrings look the same to me, will the 2014 crankset shift ok with 2015 shifters / derailleurs?
Other options I have looked at are Cannondale SI which is expensive, SRAM Red 22, reasonable price and proven, won't match the other Campy components, but not sure I care if it works.

Thanks


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

There are at least 2 ways you could go on this.

Campy OT will work with the BB30 bearings and Campy supply what is essentially a fancy spacer kit so that it all goes together.

Since I'm not a fan of the whole BB30 design, and not really a fan of OT either, if it were my bike I'd consider ditching the BB30 bearings and using a UT crankset with a Praxis BB.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

^he's on to something


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

bikerjulio said:


> There are at least 2 ways you could go on this.
> 
> Campy OT will work with the BB30 bearings and Campy supply what is essentially a fancy spacer kit so that it all goes together.
> 
> Since I'm not a fan of the whole BB30 design, and not really a fan of OT either, if it were my bike I'd consider ditching the BB30 bearings and using a UT crankset with a Praxis BB.


My current bike is a Tarmac and it initially had problems (clicking) with the BB30 crankset. The shop fixed it and I didn't have any problems since. What is it that you don't like about Campy OT? Have you ridden it yourself? I know that UT is popular but I am not sure it makes sense to add an adapter to convert to something else. It's going to add cost and weight and possibly loose some stiffness although it probably isn't significant. The current 2015 UT cranksets are the four arm versions. Is it what you would use?

Thanks


----------



## ccurry007 (Jan 18, 2005)

I have both of the solutions discussed here. I have an OverTorque crank in a Cervelo. I'm not much on the BB30/PF30 design either (well, BBRight in Cervelo speak) so I used a BBInfinite bottom bracket. It is my best pedaling platform. But there is a big gotcha. The tool to install/remove/maintain the OverTorque crankset is around $100, though 5 minutes ago I see ExcelSports have it for $70. If you are in the US, I wouldn't assume your LBS is going to have it.
I also have an UltraTorque crank (vintage 2010 I think) on a PF30 Bianchi with a Praxis BB. I have no issues with the pre 2015 front chainrings on the 2015 shifters and mechs.

Either approach can serve you well. I'd like to recommend the set up I have on my Cervelo. It is the 'native' fit for a 30mm spindle bb shell. But if you take my Cervelo set up in full though, there are 2 gotchas. The BBInfinite bottom bracket goes in and functions very well. But if it ever needs to come out it's another story entirely. Even replacing the bearings (which you must do eventually) is cumbersome. And there's also the Campagnolo proprietary tool. Many folks think the whole design is crap in part because of that. I think it would be a lot more popular - as it does work really well in the 30mm shells, if the special tool wasn't required.
So the safe play is UltraTorque with Praxis.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

By using a wide BB386 EVO crank (like OT) in a narrow BB30 bearing spacing you get all the mechanical disadvantages of higher forces on the bearing, when you could be using a wider, "normal" bearing spacing that's more securely attached.

I like things simple, easy to assemble and dissassemble, and not least, good value for money.

My criticism of OT is that it is none of these. Unlike UT, it is complicated and requires expensive special tools. I especially dislike the PT-like splined NDS crank connection. If Campy had just put their money into a hirth joint again, I'd be all for it. 

Praxis is not an adapter so much as a BB system itself. With that you are able to use a proven, and simple UT system. 

As for whether the 2015 crank is a big step forward, I don't know. The ability to swap rings around is nice in theory, but then Campy make their propriatary rings very difficult (almost impossible), to obtain and expensive if you can find them. Try looking.

From the simplicity POV I'd rather have standard rings with standard BCD and hole spacing, but that ship sailed away from Campy a long time ago. My next choice would be pre-2015 UT from the "value" POV.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

jnbrown said:


> I know that UT is popular but I am not sure it makes sense to add an adapter to convert to something else. It's going to add cost and weight and possibly loose some stiffness although it probably isn't significant.


Either way, you are adding an adapter unless you run a BB30 crank. 
I doubt you'll noticed a difference between a 24mm and 30mm spindle... most of the benefit for a bb386 crank comes in added frame stiffness, which you won't get on a bike designed for BB30.

Get what's most economic and don't think twice about it.

I disagree with Julio regarding the special tools needed... either you need a bearing puller to get the crank off (PT/OT), or you need a bearing puller to swap bearings (UT), either way, you need a tool. Why would anyone be pulling a crank off for any reason other than to replace bearings? Hirth joint is cool but does it really add anything other than simplicity? Don't get me wrong, I'm sticking with UT (simple and elegant), but I think the differences in the real world are marginal at best.

Then again, a bearing overhaul on PT/OT would require two tools... but if you have other bikes with Shimano HT2 and the like, you'd need the tool to press/remove bearings from the cups. Which might be important if you do overhauls yourself but really moot if you just take it to a bike shop that already would have all of the necessary tools.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

> Why would anyone be pulling a crank off for any reason other than to replace bearings?


One reason would be to check the bearings. There's no test like having the bearing in your hand, even while still pressed on, to check for roughness.

In my case I have 4 different UT cranksets and many bikes. UT makes it very quick and easy to swap cranks around as I feel the need, which I have done many times over the years. No special tools and done in 10 mins.

I have found the bearings to last a long time, and in the 8 years since UT appeared, have only replaced one that started to feel a little rough, and yes a tool is needed, although not too expensive.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

bikerjulio said:


> Since I'm not a fan of the whole BB30 design, and not really a fan of OT either, if it were my bike I'd consider ditching the BB30 bearings and using a UT crankset with a Praxis BB.


^^^^^This!! my Time has the crappy BB30 system, and I went with the Praxis Ultra Torque system. It's works flawlessly.


----------



## 1Butcher (Mar 15, 2011)

^^^^^^^This


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

Thanks for all the helpful info.
Sounds like I would be better off with UT and the Praxis adapter.
My take on OT is the following:

It requires a special tool, but it costs $70 annoying but not a huge deal.

The spline connection is not the same as PT which people seem to hate so maybe not a problem.

The length of the spindle is longer than BB30 so some disadvantage there.

The chainrings are 2014 technology so the front shifting might not be as good.

All in all it has compromises.

I was somewhat concerned about the weight of a UT crank because its heavier than an OT or BB30 crank but I believe that weight includes the bearings which are not included in the BB30 weight. So the added weight would be the Praxis BB which I am trying to find out. I am not a WW but when building a new bike I don't want to add weight uneccessarily. My understanding is that for 2015 Campy changed the front shifting to be more Shimano like, but to get that shifting performance a 2015 four arm UT crankset must be used. It is true you can't buy the special chainrings for the four arm crankset probably because nobody will wear out the rings for another few years.
I am also thinking SRAM Red 22 might be a good option. I get all the advantages of BB30 in a proven crankset and save maybe 150g of weight. But I am not sure how it will shift with a Campy derailleur, it would be an experiment and of course visually it wouldn't match. Mixing components isn't new to me, I have used Campy shifters with Shimano drive train by inserting a JTEK adapter, but it didn't work very consistently so I got rid of the JTEK and replaced the RD with a SRAM WiFli and it works pretty good. This is on a tandem where the long cables can be problematic but it works very well.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

I could be wrong but I thought the claimed improvement in front shifting in 2015 was the redesigned FD, rather than any change to the rings. There was nothing wrong with Campy shifting anyway, it can only be an incremental improvement.

As far as weight goes, you don't save anything with SRAM. Many people make the mistake of not including a complete BB along with the crank.

According to Fairwheel:

OT - 670g
UT - 675g
Red - 667g









https://fairwheelbikes.com/c/reviews-and-testing/road-bike-crank-testing/


----------



## ccurry007 (Jan 18, 2005)

jnbrown said:


> but to get that shifting performance a 2015 four arm UT crankset must be used.


I wouldn't worry about that. I'm using the 2015 drivetrain with a ~2010 UltraTorque crank. Shifting is excellent. I like it enough I'm gonna end up upgrading another bike (or two, I'm a sucker for this stuff). I won't be buying any new cranks. What I have will work just fine.



jnbrown said:


> The length of the spindle is longer than BB30 so some disadvantage there.


Yeah, sounds right. BBRight is a wider shell and my BB puts the bearing stance quite wide. You won't have that luxury with BB30. That's another bump for the UltraTorque/Praxis on BB30.

FWIW, I care about weight but I don't like to obsess over grams on the BB/crank. I want that interface to be reliable and dead quiet. I didn't even look at the weight on the Praxis.
Heck, I still wish all BB's were threaded.


----------



## tka (Jun 11, 2014)

bikerjulio said:


> I could be wrong but I thought the claimed improvement in front shifting in 2015 was the redesigned FD, rather than any change to the rings. There was nothing wrong with Campy shifting anyway, it can only be an incremental improvement.


I believe they increased the number of gates & pins on the 2015 rings. I can say that my friend's 2015 Record FD & crankset combo seems to shift a little faster than my 2015 Chorus FD/2014 Record crankset combo. Both are excellent, however.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I am not sure how SRAM Red goes from 557g to 667g, must be the bearings and clips.
This has been very helpful. I am thinking I should go with Chorus 2015 which I can get from Ribble for $330. The look of the four arm design doesn't bother me and I have to believe the beefier chainrings and closer attachment to the spider is going to be stiffer and shift better. It is also the future for Campy and I don't want to try to stay in the past on a new bike. So I will accept the small amount of weight of the Praxis BB whatever it is.

Thanks to everybody


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

tka said:


> I can say that my friend's 2015 Record FD & crankset combo seems to shift a little faster than my 2015 Chorus FD/2014 Record crankset combo.


A couple of milliseconds isn't worth that hideous looking 4-arm crankset. I'm holding onto my 2010 SR crankset. And I will procure maybe two more for future use.


----------

