Campy compact -- but not 110BCD

[Keith A]

Check out the full story (http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2004/news/apr30) at CyclingNews.com. Unfortunately, Campy decided to not use the 110 BCD as the other compact cranks and are using their own standard with the bolt placement on the crank arm in a different position from the other four.

[gabbard]

"They wanted to change the design as little as possible" Well, they changed it, and thus probably the CF mold, so why not change it to use a 110 BCD chainring? Two possible reasons:

1.) Campy engineers were not bright enough to figure it out.

2.) Campy marketeers were too stubborn to allow it.

I'm guessing that #2 is the correct answer.

Steve

[bubba]

Check out the full story (http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2004/news/apr30) at CyclingNews.com. Unfortunately, Campy decided to not use the 110 BCD as the other compact cranks and are using their own standard with the bolt placement on the crank arm in a different position from the other four.
Contrary to the article,I think Tyler used a 52/36.

[jeffg]

is that there is no alloy version. I think the idea of a new FD to handle the 16 tooth jump (if one opts for that) is a good one; however, I just don't want a carbon crank on my bike, no matter who makes it. But a 34X29 for the Alps, hmmmm ....

[BigMac]

Just what the cycling industry needs; plastic cranks with another new BCD standard :crap: The ridiculous pricing will be same as current plastic Record and Chorus 135BCD versions...which already have constrained inventory, as will these I am sure :crap: Many riders have been using 110bcd cranks as 50-36 doubles for many years but due to injury, one gets used at TdF and suddenly the industry re-embraces the 'compact double'. The already pricey Zephyr has been recently discontinued, the NOS Ritchey's and Mavic 110's have doubled in price and the new 110/compacts are poorer designed with even higher pricetags. :crap: :crap: :crap: Other than that all is perfect in the cycling world...oh wait a minute, DA10 and Record 10 are selling as fast as they can produce'em at nearly $2k a pop. This is a joke, no? :butt:

Sorry, too much coffee this morning, I'm heading downstairs to gym to work on the heavy bag. Have a great weekend, get out and ride.

Ride on!

[jeffg]

Just what the cycling industry needs; plastic cranks with another new BCD standard :crap: The ridiculous pricing will be same as current plastic Record and Chorus 135BCD versions...which already have constrained inventory, as will these I am sure :crap: Many riders have been using 110bcd cranks as 50-36 doubles for many years but due to injury, one gets used at TdF and suddenly the industry re-embraces the 'compact double'. The already pricey Zephyr has been recently discontinued, the NOS Ritchey's and Mavic 110's have doubled in price and the new 110/compacts are poorer designed with even higher pricetags. :crap: :crap: :crap: Other than that all is perfect in the cycling world...oh wait a minute, DA10 and Record 10 are selling as fast as they can produce'em at nearly $2k a pop. This is a joke, no? :butt:

Sorry, too much coffee this morning, I'm heading downstairs to gym to work on the heavy bag. Have a great weekend, get out and ride.

Ride on!

Hey, BigMac! Don't worry ... the jerk and I are still using alloy PMP cranks with a low Q factor (even lower than Campy) and smooth spinning square taper BB (way better than the current Campy garbage BBs). Best of all, I got mine before the dollar started tanking! Also, unless Campy changes their cassette offerings, you get no real advantage with a compact over a 53-39, 13-29. On my Campy-equipped bike (and yours from what I remember), the combo of alloy Campy crank and Phil Steel BB is sweet! I'll keep smiling unless I am forced to use some proprietary Campy BB a la Shimano :banana: :banana: :banana:

[gdw]

Campy and Shimano are playing the same game. Shimano has their non-standard Dura Ace granny and 1001 bottom brackets while Campy wants to push high priced plastic and a proprietary compact system. No thanks. High end bikes and components have really hit the ridiculous stage. They just aren't worth the extra cost to those of us not on the TDF shortlist. I'm going to ride what I currently have, buy replacement parts at closeouts, Veloswap or on Ebay, and maybe buy a nice motorcycle with the savings. :butt:



I dreamed I saw Ned Ludd's (or was it Grant Peterson) ghost last night. :banana:

[saab2000]

1. in the 60's, plastics were supposed to be revolutionary. Plastic was revolutionary then, and its cousin carbon fiber, is bringing benefits today. You can call it plastic to bring it down, but the fact is that chemistry has brought some legitimate improvements to bikes. Yesterday it was adjustable plastic cleats (remember wooden soled shoes with nail on cleats?) and today it is lightweight, reliable components. It is technology and it is called progress.

2. Shut up and ride! :D

[gdw]

1. Not all plastic is evil but much of it is unneccessary. Carbon fiber is great on high performance planes but I can't break Mach 1 no matter how hard I try. Progress my butt, when I was a kid....
2. I'd like to but it's snowing again. :D

[jeffg]

1. in the 60's, plastics were supposed to be revolutionary. Plastic was revolutionary then, and its cousin carbon fiber, is bringing benefits today. You can call it plastic to bring it down, but the fact is that chemistry has brought some legitimate improvements to bikes. Yesterday it was adjustable plastic cleats (remember wooden soled shoes with nail on cleats?) and today it is lightweight, reliable components. It is technology and it is called progress.

2. Shut up and ride! :D

Reliable? Remember Campy's 1st generation CF post. No thanks! Yes, CF does have its place. I love my Hampsten/Parlee Z1 -- a great handling bike, stiff, light, comfy, etc. It is not as snappy as my Legend, but it is wonderful. However, it is no where near as durable as Ti. For a crank, I do not want something that cannot handle impact or it may suffer catastrophic failure. I prefer an alloy crank even on a CF bike. If I have to walk home or DNF a race/ride due to component failure, it's not progress.

[BigMac]

My wood soled Duegi's were the best shoes I ever owned. Incredibly comfortable, durable and super stiff. Tiled floors were an adventure however. Actually cf soled shoes are the only cf item I use. My DMT's are nearly as comfortable as my Duegi's, equally stiff and very light. If the cf fails, I probably am not stranded on side of road or injured. Same cannot be said of the bulk of cf components and frames...and yes their respective fail/safety record is abominable compared to their metal predecessors...at least the better designed metal predecessors rather than the weight-weenie designs.

CF is plastic. I certainly do not consider that as derogitory, merely a fact. Would you feel more comfortable with fiber-reinforced resin? CF desribes the reinforcing material which is sometimes cf, sometimes Boron, Kevlar, something else and/or a combination thereof, the base material remains plastic (resin, epoxy, etc).

Not meant to inflame the cf sensitive, just the facts.

Ride on! :banana: :banana: :banana:

[saab2000]

.... and yes, it is a plastic. It is used in many airplane components.

I also know that Duegi woodsoled shoes were good, but my point is, I hope, taken. Almost nobody would buy a wooden shoe today as their main shoes, except for some people who really like retro things. That is OK.

I just think that carbon is here, it is here to stay, and it is not a bad thing. It provides more choice and not less.

Metal is not perfect either. Serotta sells a "plastic" bike and it is rarely derided here like some of the Campy stuff. My new steel Strong is outfitted with a lot of carbon stuff - bars, crank, seatpost.

I cannot tell the difference in performance in any of it.

BTW - my first generation Campy Record post is still going strong! :banana: