gearbasher

I know this has been discussed "ad nauseum" (spelling?). But being a neurotic with OCD tendencies, I need reassurance.
I needed a new BB for my C-record era Chorus crankset (111mm symetrical spindle). I found a brand new modern Pista BB in my parts box (111mm symetrical spindle). How it got there? I don't recall. So, I figured, why not? I heard stories about Campy changing their spindle taper around '94. I pushed the crankset on both spindles and it seemed to go on the same depth with hand pressure. I measured the spindles at the tip and a point almost at the widest part of the taper. They are within .1mm of each other. Not that I used a very precise method. The only thing I noticed is the Pista spindle's taper is about 1mm longer. So, I mounted the crankset. Torqued it down. The chainline looks good.
As I'm lying in bed, last night, I start to wonder. So, out comes the laptop and googling I go. Damn, there are so many different opinions. Sheldon Brown says Campy spindles are ISO. Velobase says the C-record era spindles are ISO. Phil Wood says to use a JIS taper for pre '94. Some shop's sites say also use JIS. In various forums there are mixed opinions. I know the Pista spindle is ISO. So, to make a long story short, my question is:

Am I ok with the Pista BB on the C-record era, Chorus Crank?

I don't need a mechanical failure (at least, one caused by me). I've broken enough bones in my life.

cudak888 

Is the pista BB a pre-1994 Campagnolo product?

If yes, there's no reason to even consider worrying about taper compatibility (with exception to damaged cranks).

-Kurt

P.S.: I've yet to see this documented, but I did once find a post-1994, subcontracted (Japanese?) Athena crank with an ISO taper. The Italian cranks did make the switch in '95, but I get the notion that the transition was not immediate throughout the entire lineup.

gearbasher

No, the Pista is a modern cartridge type.

cudak888 

Remove the mounting bolt and measure the depth of the spindle, when seated and torqued. Then remove the crankset, install it on a pre-1994 Campagnolo spindle, and measure the depth.



-Kurt

gearbasher

Kurt,
Ok, I tried your suggestion. On the old spindle it measures 1.56mm +/-.03mm depending on which of the four sides I'm measuring. On the new spindle, it's 1.63mm +/-.02mm. So, I'd say I'm good to go. But it does look like that crankset is nearing the end of it's lifespan. Hey it has over 90,000 miles on it and has been on three different frames.

Thanks.

miamijim

Awhile back I did some very in depth researching and measuring in regards to Campy spindles. Although the pre-'95 spindles were never marketed or labled as 'ISO' they're so close they might as well be ISO.

You have a 111 symmetrical spindle? Install it, if the crankarms and chainrings dont hit the frame your good to go. Under torque the spindle should engage the crankarm hole ~2/3 give or take.

thirdgenbird

ive talked to campy directly about this issue.

they told me that my "c-record" crankset is not ISO or JIS. he said that it was a proprietary taper but there would be no problem running a modern centaur, veloce, or record pista 111mm symmetrical bottom bracket.

Ive been running my "c-record" crankset with a modern 111mm veloce bottom bracket (due to its vintage appearance) with no ill effects.


i put c-record in quotes because it is obviously a c-record crank but has a late (1995+) emblem which brings up another topic ive seen debated. when did c-record just become record?

cudak888 

Less than 1mm difference; approximately 0.7mm +/- .05mm. Acceptable enough in my book.

Given the wear on the taper, I'd try to use the later tapers with it. If it wears to the point where it bottoms out, use a JIS spindle to prolong its life (on a beater, if you see fit). Won't hurt.

I generally accept the advent of the drop parallelogram RD's as the end of C-Record - particularly as the catalogs dropped it at the same time.

I'm not sure if some of the boxes continued to say C-Record, but those could always be re-used, just like previous-year leftovers. I'm reasonably sure that's the explanation for your 1995 crankset - I don't believe a C-Record-based crank was ever cataloged for Record in 1995; the official '95 Record was completely different.

-Kurt

thirdgenbird

my dad bought two pairs of these 180mm cranks in 1995. as you eluded, at this time the the record crankset was completely different and used a 102mm bb.

when he bought them he was told that campagnolo was only making small batches of 180mm cranksets each year. professional teams got the first option, and the whatever was left got distributed to the public. the story may not be true, but i do know that he had a very hard time finding them. either way it can probably be assumed that due to their low volume, the 180mm crank arms were carried over from the previous generation. i was just surprised that they updated them to the later branding but retained the self extracting bolt.

miamijim

Dont mean to nit-pick but if I remember correctly Campagnolo only briefly whispered the letter 'C' briefly in one catalog. All subsequent catalogs refer to the post Nuovo and at certain point concurrent Super groups as simply 'Record'.

cudak888 

I'll have to take a look at the catalogs again to see just how prolific the "C" prefix was, but for where they skimped on its mention in the catalogs, they made up by sticking the moniker on every box possible.

-Kurt