Campy Crank - Alloy or Carbon

[SleepyCyclist]

Campy CT UT - Centaur since it's the level that offers both.
If both were similar in price, which would you pick and why?
tia, M

[DarrenCT]

classic bike = alloy

carbon bike = carbon

[Kervin]

I had a alloy Centaur CT UT for about 2 months. Not that I'm shooting to win the Sunday Worlds, but I thought it was really heavy. It also was wider than the record alloy 53/39 so that my heel would hit on the center of the spider. So, with that in mind, I'd say go with the Carbon.

[MilanoTom]

Originally Posted by Kervin

I had a alloy Centaur CT UT for about 2 months. Not that I'm shooting to win the Sunday Worlds, but I thought it was really heavy. It also was wider than the record alloy 53/39 so that my heel would hit on the center of the spider. So, with that in mind, I'd say go with the Carbon.

According to Campagnolo specs, the weight difference between Centaur Carbon and Alloy cranksets is 121 grams (4.32 oz.) for standard or 135 grams (4.82 oz.) for compact. I may be a bit less perceptive than some, but if were to hoist two 18- or 20-pound bikes and could even tell that they were less than five ounces apart in weight, I'm sure I wouldn't realize that the difference was in the crankarms.

I'm reminded of a young racer I met at a local shop a couple of years ago. He was getting one of those carbon shell SLR saddles and was thrilled because he was going to save 15 grams over his previous saddle.

All wise-a** semi-kidding aside, cost can't help but be a factor, considering the price difference. If I was spec'ing a bike with Centaur and wanted UT, I'd get the alloy. I think they look pretty nice (much nicer than the non-UT Centaur), and I seriously doubt that most of us would notice any performance difference. If I decided I wanted carbon, I would more likely buy one of those non-UT carbon cranks from Nashbar or go with a non-Campagnolo crankset.

Regards.
Tom

[Kervin]

Originally Posted by MilanoTom

....He was getting one of those carbon shell SLR saddles and was thrilled because he was going to save 15 grams over his previous saddle....

Hmmm... I do have an SLR saddle on my bike...

I only noticed the weight when I took the crank off and compared it with the record I was putting on. The alloy Centaur CT UT is wider than the 53/39 alloy record or the 53/39 carbon UT record that I have now. The width is the reason I took it off, the weight is why it will stay off .

I do like the outboard bb because I don't have to trim the front derailluer much. I do like the campy attachment method better than the FSA. The little allen bolts on the left crankarm bother me.

[MilanoTom]

Originally Posted by Kervin

Hmmm... I do have an SLR saddle on my bike...

I only noticed the weight when I took the crank off and compared it with the record I was putting on. The alloy Centaur CT UT is wider than the 53/39 alloy record or the 53/39 carbon UT record that I have now. The width is the reason I took it off, the weight is why it will stay off .

I do like the outboard bb because I don't have to trim the front derailluer much. I do like the campy attachment method better than the FSA. The little allen bolts on the left crankarm bother me.

I'm with you on the FSA attachment method. I tried it once, and then went back to conventional cranks and BBs. The UT seems like a pretty cool concept, but I don't have occasion to try one at the moment. I've got all the spare cranksets I need.

I know that the older Centaur alloy took a 9mm longer BB spindle than Record/Chorus, but didn't know if it translated into a wider Q-Factor for the crankarms. I'm going to be putting one of the "Nashbar special" carbon Centaur CT cranksets on my new Sachs, so I'll be able to compare it to the Record CT on my Colnago (when it gets warm enough to ride on a regular basis, that is).

I used to shave grams and all that kind of stuff, until I tried a steel-railed Regal on my Grandis. It's worth every extra ounce (and not worth replacing with the ti-railed version).

Regards.
Tom

[jeffg]

I honestly would go alloy.

First reviews of the non-UT Centaur gave the nod to Chorus/Record, which share the same BB standard and were apparently stiffer, though I am not that would matter to me.

I love the UT cranks I have and would prefer alloy to carbon.

Then again, my favorite crank is the PMP compact with 102 BB, followed by the alloy Chorus with a Phil BB, so I am so not with it

[Kervin]

Originally Posted by MilanoTom

...I know that the older Centaur alloy took a 9mm longer BB spindle than Record/Chorus, but didn't know if it translated into a wider Q-Factor for the crankarms. ...

The extra "width" seemed to be at the center of the crank. It reminded me when I did a ride on a NR crank a while back. What was perfect back in the day, hits on my heels now.

[shinomaster]

Originally Posted by jeffg

I honestly would go alloy.

First reviews of the non-UT Centaur gave the nod to Chorus/Record, which share the same BB standard and were apparently stiffer, though I am not that would matter to me.

I love the UT cranks I have and would prefer alloy to carbon.

Then again, my favorite crank is the PMP compact with 102 BB, followed by the alloy Chorus with a Phil BB, so I am so not with it

The alloy cranks are stiffer than the carbon? What reviews?

[jeffg]

Originally Posted by shinomaster

The alloy cranks are stiffer than the carbon? What reviews?

No, let me clarify.

The initial Euro reviews I read suggested that Centaur compacts were not as stiff as Record/Chorus, apparently due to the bb & chainrings, and it was to the point where it made a difference to the Germans who publish Tour and they recommended Record/Chorus. At that time this left you with carbon only choices, and occasioned my first carbon crank purchase

The same folks now say the UT cranks are all good and it was mainly an aesthetics/weight issue. So, I know I would purchase a Centaur UT if I had it to do over again, but a Chorus CT with a Phil BB is still sweet.