# Ultra-Torque vs Power-Torque Athena Crankset



## davethedyer (Aug 16, 2013)

Ultra-Torque vs Power-Torque Athena CranksetHi all. I'm about to pull the trigger on my Lynskey Pro-Cross build.
I've been seeing some great deals on the Athena Ultra-Torque Carbon Crankset in the 53-39 only.
I believe this was from 2010. From the specs it's heavier then the current Athena Power-Torque carbon crankset. 
Then there is the current 2013 Power-Torque alloy.
With the two later ones the compact 54-30 is available.
Any ideas?​


----------



## temoore (Mar 9, 2004)

One factor is whether you do your own maintenance. If I remember correctly, the Power Torque cranks require several new tools to be able to remove the crank. The cost of these would be at least $120. This includes a special crank puller, and adapter set, and a 14mm allen socket. 
The UT requires no special tool other than a 10mm allen and the tool for the BB cups, which is not very expensive. 
If you don't do your own work, it is probably no big deal. Not sure of the technical differences - plus/minus.


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

The reason the 2010 Athena Ultra Torque cranks are heavier than the newer Power Torque model, is that both bearings are pre-installed in the cranks for UT, and with PT only the drive side crank has a bearing in it. The additional bearing in the non drive side PT bottom bracket cup evens out the difference. So it's six of the one half dozen of the other so far as weight differential is concerned.

On the other hand the 2012 chainrings are a bit of an upgrade (supposedly stiffer) than the 2010 ones. At least for the carbon cranks. But I'd have to agree that Ultra Torque is a much better design for ease of maintenance.


----------



## primov8 (Dec 16, 2012)

The newer XPSS chainrings still have the same amount of ramps and pins as their previous counterparts. I believe they're arranged a bit differently and unlike the typical 2-piece chainring bolts to bolt the chainrings onto the spider, the XPSS rings uses a single bolt that threads onto the smaller chainrings.


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

primov8 said:


> The newer XPSS chainrings still have the same amount of ramps and pins as their previous counterparts. I believe they're arranged a bit differently and unlike the typical 2-piece chainring bolts to bolt the chainrings onto the spider, the XPSS rings uses a single bolt that threads onto the smaller chainrings.


I suppose that accounts for most of the 'increased stiffness' claims as it eliminates an extraneous mechanical attachment x4 (the longer hidden bolt attached to the RH crankarm is same as ever). Campy's blurb at the time stated a 30% improvement in rigidity and it never looked to be down to the alloy or thickness of the plate itself.


----------

