Campy Power Torque?

[deluz]

Is Campy Power Torque considered ok?
I have a thing for Campy cranks even though I run SRAM.
It is really hard to find a Campy 11 speed compact UT crankset.
I would prefer UT but it easier to find PT.
I currently have OT (Over Torque) on my Cannondale and it is fine.
Both PT and OT use press fit on the NDS crank and require a removal tool which I have for OT but not PT.
Thanks for any input.

Oops posted in the wrong forum. Please move to General. Thanks

[AngryScientist]

moved for you.

PT is fine. Yes you need a puller but no big deal. The only thing is last time i checked it wasnt too easy to find PT cups. If you find a set for your particular BB standard, they should last forever pretty much.

[Gabe77]

Power Torque is considered an absolute PITA - due to the lack of ununstallability foresight from Campagnolo. But they fixed it (eventually).
There were two versions of Power Torque - that and PT Plus. The second one comes with self-extracting cranks so you don't need any bearing pullers etc.
You may not actually need PT or PT+ at all since last iteration of Potenza came out with Ultra Torque cranksets (the HO series). I have this one - same tech as the Chorus & up. (So there are actually 3 iterations of Potenza cranksets).
The BB cups are different between PT & UT but same for PT & PT+.
In my opinion for all the lauded technology of the Hirth joint Shimano got it right with end-spline and pinch bolt spindle design. No extractors/pullers or highly precise half-axles required.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Gabe77

Power Torque is considered an absolute PITA - due to the lack of ununstallability foresight from Campagnolo. But they fixed it (eventually).
There were two versions of Power Torque - that and PT Plus. The second one comes with self-extracting cranks so you don't need any bearing pullers etc.
You may not actually need PT or PT+ at all since last iteration of Potenza came out with Ultra Torque cranksets (the HO series). I have this one - same tech as the Chorus & up. (So there are actually 3 iterations of Potenza cranksets).
The BB cups are different between PT & UT but same for PT & PT+.
In my opinion for all the lauded technology of the Hirth joint Shimano got it right with end-spline and pinch bolt spindle design. No extractors/pullers or highly precise half-axles required.

Guess it depends on who you ask. "Installability" is a walk in the park and find one of many pullers, and taking the drive side crank of is as easy as many, many square taper cranks that needed a 'puller'.

I guess shimano and their external BB design was easy(and an answer to their crappy OctaStink)...gee whiz tho..as they walked thru the later DA and Ultregra series..it would have been nice if shimano had stuck to one cup spline size and design except for 3...that required unique to shimano tools.
UT is 'considered' to be the best of the best, in terms of design superiority. Another mediocre shimano design than Campagnolo and others, improved upon.

[rwsaunders]

I had a PT crank on a bike that sees lots of foul weather and I recently had to replace it, because I toasted the pedal threads on the DS…total operator error. The crank and bearings had been very reliable for almost 7 years and I purchased another unit for the same bike, the only change this time being compact gearing versus mid-compact gearing.

I was going to buy a puller, but I called my LBS and he saved me the expense and the time in buying a tool that I might use 2X. If you swap out cranks on a regular basis and are concerned about bb cup replacement, I’d go with UT, but I have no reservations about using PT again.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Gabe77

In my opinion for all the lauded technology of the Hirth joint Shimano got it right with end-spline and pinch bolt spindle design. No extractors/pullers or highly precise half-axles required.

Mechanically, the splined pinch-bolt design is quite good. But don't give Shimano credit for this, as this design had been used for decades before Shimano adopted it.

The pinch bolt design does have some draw-backs compared to the Campagnolo design. The combination of external bearings and pinch-bolt crank has increased crank U-factor (lateral width at the spindle). U-factor can matter to some people with narrow stance widths. In the last iteration of square taper BBs, cranks that used Shimano's 103mm spindle and Campagnolo's 102mm spindle had very low U-factors, with Campagnolo having a U-factor of just 128mm. When Shimano introduced their Hollowtech II design (with external bearings and pinch bolt cranks), the U-factor increased by more than 10mm. In contrast, the Ultra-Torque system, which also uses external bearings, was able to maintain the same 128mm U-factor.

A second draw back of pinch bolt cranks is that most of them attach the entire spindle to the right crank. While mechanically this makes sense, it results in extra logistic costs. Specifically, the packaging must be larger than for other cranks, which means wasted space for shipping and storage.

[Gianni Bianchi]

I've got PT CX11 crank, a PT Potenza crank and the Chorus 11 hirth. All of them work flawlessly. IMO the campy solution is much more elegant than the shimano solution, but I also have a campagnolo tatt, so I may be a tad biased.

[JanG]

I have a couple of bikes with PT. With a puller, getting the crank off is really not that bad. What I find hard to understand, is that the replacement cups only have a bearing in the non-drive side. One has to buy a bearing for the drive side separately as well as the tools to remove and replace it.

Otherwise, I have had no problem with one crank on a road bike and the other on my former CX race bike.

JanG

[deluz]

Thanks for all the great feedback.
My current OT crank uses a puller (different than PT) and I have no problems with it. I do have Shimano 105 on one bike and it is very easy to install / remove. While the pinch bolt works great it makes the crank look clunky compared to the clean look of Campy. I also notice on the 105 there is a subtle chain noise when I am on the big ring that I don't get with Campy. Could be my imagination.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by JanG

I have a couple of bikes with PT. With a puller, getting the crank off is really not that bad. What I find hard to understand, is that the replacement cups only have a bearing in the non-drive side. One has to buy a bearing for the drive side separately as well as the tools to remove and replace it.

Otherwise, I have had no problem with one crank on a road bike and the other on my former CX race bike.

JanG

Well, at least you can replace it compared to the 'bic lighter' shimano philosophy.

BTW- PT is a 7mm width 6805 bearing..not the 6mm width of UT cranks. 6805N.

[deluz]

I have narrowed down my choices to the following two cranksets:

Power Torque CX11:


Uses "C.A.R.T." Cyclocross Advanced Racing Technology chainring treatment is meant to shed dirt, mud, and sand with ease to preserve drivetrain performance in abrasive conditions. I am assuming for road use this would be fine.

Pros: Cost $250, weight 634g.
Cons: Requires puller tool.

CHORUS 11 SPEED ULTRA TORQUE:



Pros: More modern design, does not require puller tool.

Cons: Higher cost $355, Higher weight 683g (but still lower than current Shimano 105 760g).

I will need new BB cups but it looks like I can use the same tool that I already have that fits Shimano.

I am leaning towards the PT because lower cost and weight, I think I like the look better too. Not sure if the Chorus is worth the extra $ unless maybe shifting would be better. I am not sure how much a puller tool would cost, maybe I can use the Over Torque puller that I already have. Thanks for any input.

[thwart]

Re: the above weight numbers... remember the PT crank has a bearing in the cups, unlike the UT, so the BB itself is heavier.

That said... several years ago, I weighed a silver alloy Centaur UT 50/34 compact crank + BB cups and compared it to a silver alloy Veloce PT 50/34 compact crank + BB cups... IIRC the PowerTorque was indeed lighter by 20 gms.

[rwsaunders]

The CX crank has 46/36 rings? That might be too low of a big ring if you ride in a flat/rolling area…ymmv.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by thwart

Re: the above weight numbers... remember the PT crank has a bearing in the cups, unlike the UT, so the BB itself is heavier.

That said... several years ago, I weighed a silver alloy Centaur UT 50/34 compact crank + BB cups and compared it to a silver alloy Veloce PT 50/34 compact crank + BB cups... IIRC the PowerTorque was indeed lighter by 20 gms.

I found a similar weight difference (Power Torque being lighter) in an even more apples-to-apples comparison of an Athena Ultra Torque crankset + BB to an Athena Power Torque cranks + BB (both were the same length and with the same chainrings).

[deluz]

Originally Posted by rwsaunders

The CX crank has 46/36 rings? That might be too low of a big ring if you ride in a flat/rolling area…ymmv.

I think I posted the wrong picture. It's this one with 50/34: