Shrevvy 

I bought what I thought to be a Campagnolo Nuovo Record bottom bracket. When it was installed, the spindle appears too short and is loose in the bottom bracket even though the length matches what is on Velobase.com. I searched and found that there were both thin walled and thick walled cups on these bottom brackets. I am thinking I may have thin walled cups with a regular spindle? Below are the specs and pics. I'd like to make sure what I need before I try and replace the cups.

68 mm bottom bracket
Spindle marked 68-SS-120; 112 mm; 51 mm between the bearing races
Campagnolo Nuovo Record crankset with 11 in a square, which Velobase says takes a 112 mm spindle

If there is anything else needed to make a determination, let me know. Here are the pics. I should have taken a pic of the bearings, but there are 11 bearings in a race. That also matches Velobase for the bottom bracket. There is also a 14 bearing 3/16" race for the thin walled bottom bracket on Velobase.

These are indoor pics, one with a flash and one without.





Spindle markings



Adjustable Cup

jeirvine 

Yes, those are thin (un-r!fled) cups. And your crank is post cpsc (1978), so should take a 114.5 mm spindle. You may need a whole new unit. I may be interested in a straight swap for what you've got. I am 99% sure I have a 114.5/thick cup 68 English BB in my stash.

Here's my cheat sheet:

Italian 70mm BB:
Double -Pre CPSC: 113mm. Post: 115.5mm
Triple - Pre: 118mm. Post: 124mm

English/French 68mm BB:
Double - Pre: 112. Post: 114.5
Triple - Pre:117. Post: 123

Spc -- ≻ c - record
Ssa -- ≻ croce d'aune
Ssb -- ≻ chorus
Ssg -- ≻ athena

Shrevvy 

That is helpful. I do have another crankset without a date, which puts it early 1970s, I believe. Now that you mention it, that crankset was purchased at the same time from the same person as the bottom bracket. I grabbed the other crankset because it had the chainrings I wanted (52-42 vs 52-48), but I can just swap those. The crankset without the date code would need a 112 mm spindle, correct?

Shrevvy 

What is the Spc --> c-record notations at the end of your post?

jeirvine 

Those are markings for later 80s/90's BBs.

fietsbob

the rifled NR cups had to be thicker, to put in that grit shedding spiral, so axle inner races were closer together.

without the thickness for the spiral the cups, thinner, axle races further apart..

68 - ss- 120 is from 5 speed era.

HennyB

I'm building up a bike with a Record Crank from 1978 and use a 68mm BB with an 114,5mm spindle. The crank still hits the frame. Anyone has a solution for this?

jdawginsc 

Both cranks or just one of them. They are asymmetrical so the right side has to be slightly longer.

Or the crank arms taper interface is stretched?

HennyB

Thank you for your reaction. It's only the drive side, the other side is fine.

How can I see if the cranks arms taper interface is stretched? I tried another Record crankset and this one has the same problem.

repechage

my assessment is that the cups shown by the original poster came from a later OR bottom bracket, the reveals I see are for the seals. I have not measured those, only seen in images.

jdawginsc 

You may wish to flip the spindle to see if it fits evenly that way. If the NDS then hits the stay it’s the wrong BB methinks.

Ive installed them backwards on multiple occasions...I’ve also struggled thinking I have the right BB length only to have to work around it.

bulgie 

Yes that sounds right. Does the spindle look symmetrical to you? We need measurements for left and right, from the cones to the ends. I don't have one in front of me to measure but the Right should be several mm longer.

HennyB

I have measured the spindle and its not symmetrical. Unlike the spindle in the photo above, mine does not say 120, but only 68 ss. So everything seems to be correct. The only option then remains that the crank arms taper ends interface is stretched?

repechage

The assembly is a jumble of parts.

what is the date code on the back of the drive side crank arm?

a more recent arm, will want a longer approx 115mm +/- .5 mm spindle WITH the later Nuovo Record cups- reverse rifling in the bore.
there are other no go assembly configurations.

very rare for Campagnolo arms to expand- they WILL radiate cracks and expand. I have tossed such. Previous gorilla mechanics.

always possible for the frame to have been over faced. Check overall BB shell width.

I do not know the dimension specifics of the OR cups.

in short
measure frame
check drive side crank date
use spindle for that arm era
use correct cups.
in your case a 1mm washer behind the fixed cup to translate arm is not going to help.

to confuse things, Campagnolo DID make spindles with +1 or 1.5 even, they are stamped so. They were not rare 50 years ago but uncommon.

bulgie 

Some examples. The first two are two views of the same crank, early-'60s, the one with the raised platform around the pedal hole. Came to me like that, on a '60 or '61 Bianchi Specialissima I once owned. PO was a Cat.1 racer




The third one is another, later crank (don't know what year, pic collected from the internet)

mpetry912 

Somewhere I had a pic of a really badly cracked Campy arm at the spider to arm join. Dangerous lookiing.

I don't ride these parts anymore. you are paying inflated prices for used parts, you do not know to what indignities they have been subjected, and just about impossible to piece together a matched set.

you can go to Eye Bicycles in Osaka and see rows and rows of complete sets new in box. Don't ask the price.

here's this one which is on display here, unused, and probably never will be. 2nd Gen titanium super duper record with the "nuts"

nuts

/markp

JohnDThompson 

Campagnolo bottom brackets can be … complicated. This document may help, and gives the offset and shoulder spacing measurements Mark asked about, above. It was printed before the C-Record era, though, so none of that info is included. C-Record era bottom bracket spindles were symmetrical, though, so that ought to help identify whather what you have is of that era.

3alarmer 

...you don't say much about the spindle/cups you are using. If it's a sealed unit BB with that length, and you're getting interference with the drive side crank arm, one cheap quick fix is to use a spacer or two on that side, when installing the sealed unit, to move it over a little.

If you're talking about some sort of loose ball BB unit, and you're sure the BB spindle is in the right way, and you still get interference, it's unlikely the arm sockets are "stretched".

I note that you're using the designation "Record" crank. "Record has been used and re-used by Campagnolo a lot over the years. Record, New Record, C-Record, Super Record ..... I honestly do not remember all of them.
But the original Record crankarms are a little different from New Record, which is what this original thread was about.

Here's a link to the Rene Hearse site, for some of the different SKF options they sell that should work for Campy.

If it's an original, old style, Record crank (the ones with a BCD of 151), it needs a longer spindle, per Sheldon Browne's website, of 116, I think.

A lot of this fitting a crank to a frame is just trial and error sometimes. And it also depends on what you have to start with. Which I'm still not sure of. The basic principles are outlined here. If your crank is hitting your frame, you need a longer spindle, or some way to move the spindle outward in the direction of the interference, until it goes away.

bulgie 

Pics courtesy of Don Pardo. No, not that Don Pardo (the TV announcer for over 70 years, voice of Saturday Night Live for its first 38 seasons. Yes, 38, not a typo!) Different guy!

repechage

save for the very early arms, ( non anodized, raised pedal bore, 151 BCD ) a 114/115 spindle will move the arm outward and provide room between the ring and the stay. It will alter chainline and adjustment. Won’t help fitting a lock ring onto the adjustable cup.

HennyB

Thank you all for the help and quick responses. I bought a very thin spacer and will try as soon as possible. Of course I will let you know.

• Bottom bracket size in frame is 68mm (English thread)
• It is a Nuovo/Super Record crank from 1978 (8 in a diamond), I use term Record because they are the same (except the chainrings)
• Spindle (Campagnolo) is 114,5 mm, is asymmetrical and has 68-SS engraved
• Cups (Campagnolo) are thick walled and rifled

3alarmer 

.
...is this possibly a triple crank ? If it's loose ball and you move the fixed cup too far over, eventually you get to a point where you lose the threads on the adjustable side for the lock ring. In theory, at least, a 114.5 spindle should work OK with a double. But this is an operation that often defies theory. If this gets too frustrating, after a while I just go with a sealed unit, of which there are many that will work.

repechage

I think useful to observe that this crank and other Campagnolo cranks that failed like this or adjacent to the pedal eye show abrasion through the anodizing layer and sometimes even material removal. I long lost a comment from a metallurgist that the 7000 series alloy Campagnolo used could be induced to failure this way sticks in my mind.
the 7000 series material confirmation only finally arrived from display advert copy in the 1980’s. The full page advert where there was a photorealistic rendering of the crank set.

regarding Record and Nuovo Record…
always treacherous.
my take is the early pre rifled cups were Record. The rifled cups were Nuovo Record.
both paired with Record Cranks. The Super Record were by chainrings.
an argument can be solidly made that the very late fluteless arms with the CNC machining on the back to beef up the spider stress riser point were Super Record.

keeping in mind that by the bike shops, for simplicity of marketing in the late 1960’s on, post brake intro, a full Campagnolo bike was called “Nuovo Record” riffing off the rear mechanism.