Re: [CR]Pinnicle of the vintage lightweight era?

(Example: Framebuilders)

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:06:17 -0800 (PST)
From: "Tom Dalton" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]Pinnicle of the vintage lightweight era?
In-Reply-To: <>

I'll disagree with Chuck, mostly for the sake of discourse. I think that the pre-1990 C-record stuff was really just an evolutionary step past SR. It was the post-1990 C that had indexing, casette, an articulated derailleur body, etc.

Bit by bit...

BB: Same bearing setup as SR, including delicate alloy cups, but with the improvement of a reliable steel axle.

Crank: The major diff. was that the new crank took 39-tooth rings, arguably an evolutionary improvement (151mm>144mm>135mm). Like the SR, it benefitted from deletion of the stamped logo.

Pedal: The original C was trendy "aero" platform design, but the entire bearing setup was same as SL. By 1987 the Ergo pedal was introduced, and it was functionally the same as an SL. The "advantage" was the replaceable cage. The truth was that the cages needed frequent replacement, whereas SL's were never a problem to begin with. In any case, Ergo's were still nothing like the clipless pedals that replaced them.

Ft. der: Not much can be done to this part. This is still way before the later contoured cage profiles.

Rear der.: A super rec. with a face lift, especially after they ditched the stupid "wheel change" spring. The ball bearing pulleys were the incremental "improvement".

Shifters: Campy provided a factory sustitute for the Simplexes that so many riders had started using during the SR era. (I'm convinced that Campy never seriously intended for (pre-1990) C-record to be indexed.)

Hubs: Still a basic screw-on hub. The "improvement" was in the easier to remove/replace dustcap. The real problem was the 3/16" front hub bearing and, on the really early ones, the spoke-eating flanges.

Headset: Aero styling, but it was still far more similar to an SR (SR track, actually) than modern cartridge/threadless system.

Post: Again an SR with a facelift. The same clamp that worked for most people, but slipped for bigger riders. The 6mm allen adjustment was a step in the wrong direction, but at least it had an infinitely adjustable angle, unlike the new Campy posts that are glorified Laprades.

Brakes: The early Deltas were a non-issue in my mind, since all early users of C-rec enjoyed Cobalto brakes. Once again SR with a facelift. While the lever could be routed areo, it could also be routed conventionally, which many pros chose to do at the time. I even recall seeing Deltas routed non-areo in 1987 to 1988. The big improvement over the SR was that the lever had better ergonomics, at least for most people. Better transition from bar to hood, and more room for the fingers above and below.

In some respects I do think C-record may have been SR taken a step too far, but I don't see it as revolutionary or fundemantally different from what lead up to it. I think the biggest improvements it offered were in the better shifters and more comfortable brake levers. I also like that it did away with titanium in Campy's top group. In my opionion, the downside was that it was rushed to market before some serious durabliity issues had become obvious. Reducing the size of the headset, front hub, and BB (relative to NR) bearings was a bad move. Spoke-breaker flanges and snapping crankarms were both problems as well.

If it were up for vote, I'd vote to include the early C-record in what we call the classic era and mark the end with the intro of Campy 8-speed indexing and cassettes.

Tom Dalton

--- Chuck Schmidt wrote:

> Wes Gadd wrote:
> >
> >(snip) I feel the "pinnacle" is represented by a
> handcrafted,
> > lugged steel frame equipped with C Record with
> Delta parts. I'm sure I'll
> > catch some flak for not choosing NR or SR . But I
> feel that this was the last
> > evolution of the traditional Gran Sport rear gear,
> as well as the last of the
> > non-index, toe clip, thread on freewheel parts.
> I disagree... I feel that the C Record (C=Corsa,
> intro'd 1985) group has
> more to do with Campagnolo's current parts (aero
> cable routing, aero
> styling of parts, index shifting) than they have to
> do with the earlier
> Record parts (Record, Nuovo Record, Super Record)
> going back to the Gran
> Sport derailleur of 1951.
> I think the logical end (and "pinnacle" if we must)
> would be the
> Anniversary group that coincides with Tullio
> Campagnolo's death in
> 1983. This group has the triangular-sectioned brake
> caliper arms, the
> spring relocated in the rear derailleur body, and
> the non-fluted
> crankarms. Of course, with the little gold seals
> and "CampagnoloTullio"
> signatures everywhere, it might be considered a
> little ostentatious by
> some.
> Maybe the pinnacle would be the final Super Record
> "reduced" group ('87
> last year produced): caliper arms with conical
> (instead of domed)
> center bolt nuts and brake release nuts and
> triangular section arms with
> script logo, non-fluted and lazer etched crank arms,
> SL steel-axle
> pedals, spring relocated in rear derailleur body,
> and nutted titanium
> bottom bracket axle.
> Note that I'm leaving out the Cobalto brake
> calipers. These were
> actually part of the C-Record group after the Delta
> brakes were
> recalled, shortly after their introduction.
> Other opinions?
> Chuck Schmidt
> South Pasadena, California
> (list of reprints,
> T-shirts, Timeline)
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.