Semi-trivial Crank observations

The Campagnolo UT cranks released for IIRC the 2007 model year forward
seem pretty sweet. They make some of the lightest aluminum cranks at a
given price and generally blow away the other big brands if I am able
to rely on manufacturer claims. The only weakness is they don't have a
"modern" triple, relying still on the classic FST bottom bracket,
which is no big deal, but I wanted to have something I could remove
and replace fairly easily. I ended up with a Shimano 105 triple that
weighs 920 grams including grease for my 175 with 30/39/50 rings.

But for the double, even the Ultegra "SL" is 847 with bottom bracket.
Compare to the 2011 Veloce at 803 grams.

But there is the cool thing; the UT Veloce was 871 grams. Still not
bad given the typical cranks in that price range used to run closer to
1000 grams. Here we have Shimano to thank for pushing the technology
with outboard bearings, but as usual Campagnolo beats them at their
own game with the Ultra Torque.

But getting to my point; Campy has revised again, the lower few groups
(Chorus and higher are still UT) they have gone with a 1-peice axle
closer to the Shimano style, with the axle attached to the spider.
They knocked about 65 grams off the effected cranks and dropped the
width by 1.5mm.


But why would they lead by changing only the lower cost models? Either
the UT is better or it isn't. The new scheme is called "Power Torque."
It seems like the hollow cranks keep UT and the solid cranks get the 1-
peice axles.

Are there any mechanics or users with direct expereince to shed light
on what might be the thinking behind this?

I'm looking at the Athena and Centaur carbon fiber cranks to use on my
"climbing" bike. I may put the triple on a different frame, or use it
on the climbing bike in the winter. If Shimano cranks weren't so heavy
and expensive, I might have tried to keep Shimano up front with Campy
shifting the rear. I don't shift the front ring very often, I live in
the hills, either going up or coming down. I'm not even sure I need a
30*25 gear, but there were a few commuting days with ful back pack,
etc. I don't want to relive some of those expereinces.

On Jun 26, 3:53*pm, Chris M wrote:
The Campagnolo UT cranks released for IIRC the 2007 model year forward
seem pretty sweet. They make some of the lightest aluminum cranks at a
given price and generally blow away the other big brands if I am able
to rely on manufacturer claims. The only weakness is they don't have a
"modern" triple, relying still on the classic FST bottom bracket,
which is no big deal, but I wanted to have something I could remove
and replace fairly easily. I ended up with a Shimano 105 triple that
weighs 920 grams including grease for my 175 with 30/39/50 rings.

But for the double, even the Ultegra "SL" *is 847 with bottom bracket.
Compare to the 2011 Veloce at 803 grams.

But there is the cool thing; the UT Veloce was 871 grams. Still not
bad given the typical cranks in that price range used to run closer to
1000 grams. Here we have Shimano to thank for pushing the technology
with outboard bearings, but as usual Campagnolo beats them at their
own game with the Ultra Torque.

But getting to my point; Campy has revised again, the lower few groups
(Chorus and higher are still UT) they have gone with a 1-peice axle
closer to the Shimano style, with the axle attached to the spider.
They knocked about 65 grams off the effected cranks and dropped the
width by 1.5mm.

But why would they lead by changing only the lower cost models? Either
the UT is better or it isn't. The new scheme is called "Power Torque."
It seems like the hollow cranks keep UT and the solid cranks get the 1-
peice axles.

Are there any mechanics or users with direct expereince to shed light
on what might be the thinking behind this?

I'm looking at the Athena and Centaur carbon fiber cranks to use on my
"climbing" bike. I may put the triple on a different frame, or use it
on the climbing bike in the winter. If Shimano cranks weren't so heavy
and expensive, I might have tried to keep Shimano up front with Campy
shifting the rear. I don't shift the front ring very often, I live in
the hills, either going up or coming down. I'm not even sure I need a
30*25 gear, but there were a few commuting days with ful back pack,
etc. I don't want to relive some of those expereinces.


Let me be the first to point out you're in the wrong forum. This forum
is for legal and/or religious rants.

On 6/29/2011 12:27 PM, Scott wrote:


Let me be the first to point out you're in the wrong forum. This forum
is for legal and/or religious rants.

It's easy to get confused with this. As the title/subject indicates
Crank Observations .... Perhaps this would be the correct place ?




Bill
--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

Scott wrote:
Let me be the first to point out you're in the wrong forum. This forum
is for legal and/or religious rants.

William R. Mattil wrote:
It's easy to get confused with this. As the title/subject indicates
Crank Observations .... Perhaps this would be the correct place ?

Has anyone measured Lafferties crank factor to ascertain if he's a 168,
170, 172.5 or 175.

In article ,
Simply Fred wrote:

Scott wrote:
Let me be the first to point out you're in the wrong forum. This forum
is for legal and/or religious rants.

William R. Mattil wrote:
It's easy to get confused with this. As the title/subject indicates
Crank Observations .... Perhaps this would be the correct place ?

Has anyone measured Lafferties crank factor to ascertain if he's a 168,
170, 172.5 or 175.

165 on one side, 180 on the other.

--
Old Fritz

On Jun 26, 5:53*pm, Chris M wrote:
The Campagnolo UT cranks released for IIRC the 2007 model year forward
seem pretty sweet. They make some of the lightest aluminum cranks at a
given price and generally blow away the other big brands if I am able
to rely on manufacturer claims. The only weakness is they don't have a
"modern" triple, relying still on the classic FST bottom bracket,
which is no big deal, but I wanted to have something I could remove
and replace fairly easily. I ended up with a Shimano 105 triple that
weighs 920 grams including grease for my 175 with 30/39/50 rings.

But for the double, even the Ultegra "SL" *is 847 with bottom bracket.
Compare to the 2011 Veloce at 803 grams.

But there is the cool thing; the UT Veloce was 871 grams. Still not
bad given the typical cranks in that price range used to run closer to
1000 grams. Here we have Shimano to thank for pushing the technology
with outboard bearings, but as usual Campagnolo beats them at their
own game with the Ultra Torque.

But getting to my point; Campy has revised again, the lower few groups
(Chorus and higher are still UT) they have gone with a 1-peice axle
closer to the Shimano style, with the axle attached to the spider.
They knocked about 65 grams off the effected cranks and dropped the
width by 1.5mm.

But why would they lead by changing only the lower cost models? Either
the UT is better or it isn't. The new scheme is called "Power Torque."
It seems like the hollow cranks keep UT and the solid cranks get the 1-
peice axles.

Are there any mechanics or users with direct expereince to shed light
on what might be the thinking behind this?

I'm looking at the Athena and Centaur carbon fiber cranks to use on my
"climbing" bike. I may put the triple on a different frame, or use it
on the climbing bike in the winter. If Shimano cranks weren't so heavy
and expensive, I might have tried to keep Shimano up front with Campy
shifting the rear. I don't shift the front ring very often, I live in
the hills, either going up or coming down. I'm not even sure I need a
30*25 gear, but there were a few commuting days with ful back pack,
etc. I don't want to relive some of those expereinces.

dumbass,

eat a dick.

And we thought Lafferty and Kunich had issues ! ?