In return, for the sake of discourse: C-Record looks more like the current stuff than it does the Super Record stuff as far as styling is concerned (aero). Anniversary/late Super Record coincides with Tullio Campagnolo's death; C-Record came later and looks different.
Chuck Schmidt South Pasadena, California http://www.velo-retro.com (Campy Timeline) blue sky, breezy, headed above 70°... time to ride
Tom Dalton wrote:
>
> 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