keidal

Will a Campagnolo Super Record or Nuovo Record chainset correctly fit any cotterless Campagnolo bottom bracket axle please, or is there a specific bottom bracket for the Super Record cranks ? Thank you.

parken

nope, you need a specific asymmetric axle, different in length for cranksets make before or after 1978...

Grand Bois

No, the cranks are all Record. The only exception was a rare, un-fluted crank that came out in the early eighties and was called Super Record. There was never a Nuovo Record crank.

BlueDevil63 

Parken is correct. The spindle length changed in 1978. It got approx approx 2mm longer to accommodate CPSC mandated changes. This writeup on this BicycleClassics.com page is very helpful Vintage Bicycle Parts : Bottom Brackets

You can use post 77 spindles with any year crank with minimal difficulty. You may have clearance problems if you use pre 77 spindles with later cranks.

Spaghetti Legs 

Welcome to the abyss of the Record bottom bracket. The crank requires an asymmetric spindle with a length of 113 or 115.5 mm. There was a safety recall in 1978 (US CPSC) which necessitated the longer spindle. I'm not sure that the crank design changed, but the front derailleur had a lip added to the cage.

There are a couple of old threads on this you can search.

JohnDThompson 

The biggest change in the Record crank arms came with the CPSC-compliant in (I think) 1977, which required a different spindle than the earlier arms. This, and the different cup thicknesses of Nuovo Record Road cups versus Record/Pista/Gran Sport cups, gave rise to the mysterious and arcane markings on the spindles:

https://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/campy-BB-specs.pdf

Grand Bois

You only need the longer spindle if you are using the later FD with the stupid lip on it.

jeirvine 

The arms are indeed different pre- and post CPSC. Here's my 70's-80's Record crank spindle cheat sheet:

Italian (70):
Double -Pre: 113. Post: 115.5
Triple - Pre: 118. Post: 124

English/French (68):
Double - Pre: 112. Post: 114.5
Triple - Pre: 117. Post: 123

keidal

Thank you for all this information. Many years ago, an old bicycle mechanic I seem to remember told me that he thought the "Super Record" cranks had a slightly different taper to all other, but I presume now that the cranks are the same, it's only the chainring design which is different between the Super and Nuovo Record chainsets ?
I've often wondered about the Super Record mystique. Is it that Campagnolo items are so much better in some way, in design or material / engineering than other Italian makes such as Gipiemme, Ofmega, Galli, Miche and the like ? There is such a difference in price between the various items offered for sale - Campagnolo v the others !
I presume that Caampagnolo Super Record items lasted well into the 1980's or even longer perhaps ?

cadillacmike68

I think the Super Record ended in the mid to late 80s.

Main difference between SR and Record Gruppos (with some Nuovo Record items in it) was additional lightening by drilling / milling fluting out parts like the rings, brake hoods, cages, and the use of titanium in the hub and pedal axles plus the derailleur bolts. The titanium axles had a rep for breaking and were soon withdrawn but the titanium derailleur bolts remained. The SR rear derailleur also got a modified cage and lots of black anodizing in 77-78 to allow it to handle a larger lowest gear freewheel cog. SR pedals had black anodized cages (like the superleggeri pedals) and after the titanium axles were withdraws, the two were identical. The SR seatpost got a change as well to a single bottom accessed saddle bolt. There were steel Record and anodized aluminum SR toe clips as well.

The only superlight Campy item that I disdain is that damned pump head for Silca pumps. It gouges out the down tube and messed up my bike, And the Carlton decal that was there., so I bought the regular blue rubber tipped one and replaced the decal.

I don't know how much weight was saved (I can weigh the different items since I have both), can't be more than a pound or two, but in pro level racing everything helped, plus it was the aura of Campy SR that attracted many, including myself.

If you can get ahold of or view online the Catalog 17, 18 and 18bis you can see the small differences in the components.

repechage

Super Record spaned the arm design changes.
There was no recall, but there were engineering changes, those changes added dimension between the back side of the arm and the face of the chainring. In addition they adjusted the position of the taper in the arm, the net result required a longer drive side spindle.

As stated earlier and I agree, the true Super Record crank arm has no machined face fluting. It also has extra material at the known stress riser region between the two spider arms adjacent to the crank arm.

Prior to that the arms were Record, whether they had a 151 or 144 BCD. Common convention with the introduction of the Nuovo Record bottom bracket declared the cranks Nuovo Record too.

repechage

The ti hub axles were vaporware. Never made it to series production. Be careful of drilled brake hoods, but the brake lever blades were pierced to resemble drilling.
Be wary of taking the catalogs as gospel. The catalog introducing Super Record for example shows black chainrings and a few other details that did not see production.

Back in the day we called Super Record - Stupid Record.
The headset was cool, the rest was overpriced and of little tech benefit, the ti BB spindle and pedal axles were flexy and fragile. If one raced, you went superleggeri pedals, the seat post if you could find it. If you had to have ti, you went with a Teledyne spindle and Arnold Industries aluminum bolts. For derailleur pulleys you went Bullseye, only in red at the time.

cadillacmike68

I meant levers, not hoods. I forgot the SR headset - many thought the aluminum races were not durable enough. Anyway, being a Cadillac man, I like the chromed Record headset better.

As for a non face fluted SR crank from the early 80s - never heard of it and I have all the catalogs and was working at a bike shop part time back then. I was heavily into Campy then (still am) and just don't remember it. It might have existed (Nuovo Super Record maybe). but I just can't recall it.

I do have a new in the box complete SR crankset (no BB) from 1978. It's on my bike now, but the crank arms are identical in appearance to the Record arms that I took off the pro to put this one on. Well, almost identical, the arms on my Pro were from My Motebecane Le Champion and were 1973/74 and as such did not have the needed clearance for a 1978 NR or SR front derailleur. But from the front they look identical, 5 milled flutes on the spider arms and one long one on the crank arm itself.

repechage

The 50th anniversary group was the introduction of a crank arm without flutes on the arm, the milling on the spider remained till the end.

As Campagnolo moved from easy to decode date codes ( trailing year digit in a diamond) to cryptic numerals in circles then in boxes, the decoder ring is needed. Then the lag between production and retail.
It gets quite hair splitting too the first "non flute" arms had stamped shield decoration then laser etched. As the record crank was out if production by this point... It was Super Record or Corsa Record ( C-Record) lets call this '85-'86.
Unfortunately things are not easy at this time, C Record was in production in '84 but good luck buying it. I have 1984 date code cranks as an example. Blame the Delta brake fiasco.

From the mechanics perspective all the incremental changes were trackable and sonetimes unwanted. Why they changed the Pista cranks to 144 BCD was curious. When you could buy either style from the distributors everybody wanted the older 151 BCD arms, so many more chainrings around to use in that size, and Others like Sugino made size equal alternatives.

The Super Record headset had pressed in steel races, I was hoping it would be more durable for customers as the races could be heat treated possibly better, did not seem that way in service. The thin lower crown race was fragile too. They Did get styling kudos. I stayed with the chromed units until decades later when I bought bikes with them already installed.

keidal

Thank you for this vast amount of information and interesting comments.
I have a Campagnolo 3 arm double steel cranks / alloy 52:42 rings chainset [Sport ?] which I'm now considering using using on a restoration project.
Which Campagnolo bottom bracket should I use please, to avoid the 42 ring fouling the chain stay ?

cadillacmike68

Steel 3 arm? sounds like a 70-s Gran Sport, or whatever they called it. It might take the regular record BB from the same time frame. The catalog lists a different sport BB, but the size numbers are the same, i.e. 68-SS-120 or 70-SS-120. The sport items probably have a less refined finish as compared to the records.

One caveat, the Cat 17 shows what looks like to be aluminum cranks for the sport Gruppo. Steel arms might have been earlier, but should take the same BBs

repechage

The Gran Sport bottom bracket had a black oxide finished spindle, it did have very nice ground bearing surfaces, and the big item, it reverted to the earlier Record cup configuration, no reverse inner spiraling to work debris out or help, prevent muck from entering. ( that spiraling was the Nuovo feature)

I like that steel crank, I would have used one way back but the chainring sizes were very limited, the distributors only carried 52/42.

cadillacmike68

I looked that 50th anniv gruppo up. Now I remember it. I wonder what one costs now??? Probably in the stratosphere...

A few years later, After Tulio's departure, they made a "Croce D'Aune Gruppo" which also had no fluting on the crank arms.

hobbs1951

I've not read all the posts so forgive me, just a few thoughts:

1. SR Titanium axle pedals/& BBs were unreliable when new (viz Fignon's famous breakage), more so now they're old.
2. Back in the day pro mechanics (I know two) favoured the two bolt NR seatpost over the SR one which was prone to snap in the tapered section betwixt post and clamp - a pal had one snap recently...that was a big ouch.
3. Super Record cranks - the last type - had no fluting.

General rule - aero seatposts are heavier than their non aero brothers.

As I said a few thoughts.

John.

repechage

When new, we just did not like how they flexed. A number of guys ran the Teledyne ti spindle that had been available just prior, it was of solid center and it had noticeable flex, going to a hollow spindle was just asking for more, (incrementally so, but more flex) The 3/16" bearings were meh, only the oldest at the shop recall the earlier experiment with 3/16" bottom bracket bearings and they saw no benefit.

I have stated elsewhere before, the pedals might have been a winner had they added material to the reduced region between the pedal body and the wrench flats, wrong shape for the job in titanium.

CliffordK

As I understand it, Super Record chainrings had a thin ring around where the teeth are, and a hollowed out spider.

Nuovo Record chainrings had a double ring, and a solid spider.

Any true Campagnolo chainrings that have the single ring and a solid spider are cut Nuovo Record rings.

I assume Campagnolo sold fluted Strada cranksets with the Super Record Rings.

repechage

For over a decade, yes, the Super Record chainrings made the model, the arms were common. The bottom bracket was the rest of the complete crank set assembly. The CPSC adaptations help confuse the issue for many who were not around or not aware at the time.

cadillacmike68

The crank arms themselves were the same for Record and Super Record.

That is up until the early 80s when Campy introduced its new Record group with the upside down crank 4 arm crank and the ludicrous delta brakes. I never liked the way those things looked.

That's when I lost interest in any new Campy items and decided I would keep my Pro Mk V as a period correct 1978 Record / Super Record bike forever.

HennyB

Goodevening (although here in the Netherlands), can I use a pre 78 crank with a 113mm axle (Italian) on a frame with a rear fork size of 126mm? It seems to be really narrow. Thanks in advance.

alcjphil

Old thread, but a good question. My 1973 Raleigh Professional obviously had a pre 1978 crank and it had 126 mm rear spacing because it had a 6 speed freewheel