[CR]Was: Campy crank breakage, Now: General Campy shortcomings

(Example: Production Builders:Frejus)

In-Reply-To: <20020828152639.85520.35058.Mailman@phred.org>
References: <20020828152639.85520.35058.Mailman@phred.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:39:33 -0700
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "Jan Heine" <heine@mindspring.com>
Subject: [CR]Was: Campy crank breakage, Now: General Campy shortcomings

Sorry if this offends Campy-fans...

I have seen a Campy crank break on a friend's bike. He bought the crank new, he isn't very strong, he had not that many miles on them. This one broke at the spider. He is not even

The reality is that the cranks were a bad design. Stress relieving the spider/arm interface would have helped (can be done by the owner, but this should have been done at the factory!), as well as placing a little more material in the place where yours broke - or just leaving out the nice-looking, but weakening groove. Why this wasn't done over the production run of more than 25 years is beyond me. Obviously, Campy didn't care. At least until the 1980s, when they finally addressed these problems with their non-groove cranks.

Stronglight cranks were ridden hard by many people, racer, randonneurs and others. Especially the randonneurs often put extreme distances into a year. Yet the cranks rarely break. I have heard one exception: In the early 1950s, Roger Baumann, who went on to win Paris-Brest-Paris in 1956 and also set a track 24-hour world record, broke all kinds of cranks: Herse, TA and even Stronglight. However, Stronglight seems to have lasted best, and he used that for PBP. You can read about this in the second issue of Vintage Bicycle Quarterly, my newsletter, where I interview M. Baumann about his experiences riding for René Herse at the time.

We should be honest: Campy stuff looks great, is beautifully made, has a wonderful history, but also has severe engineering shortcomings. Axles that break with alarming frequency, brakes that slow you down somewhat, shift levers that slip, headsets that index, cranks that break. I have used Campy for years with good results, but some careful engineering could have made a 100% product. Instead, the money was spent on sponsoring pro racers. It was a good decision - look where the people who made superior products at the time ended up! (Maxi-Car used oversize axles that don't breaks starting in 1946 or so, Mafac brakes provided superior stopping power starting in 1956 or so, Huret shift levers don't seem to have the same propensity to slipping, Stronglight headsets - even the older ball-bearing ones - don't index as quickly, most cranks don't break unless they are Campy NR copies).

It has to be said that most other component manufacturers were happy to copy Campy, but without the quality. So unless you knew where to look, you would have been hard-pressed to find something better than Campy at the time. But to consider that small operators like Phil Wood and Bullseye could take one look at a Campy hub and come up with a product that was an improvement (if not perfect, for that, you have to go to Maxi-Car) tells you something. You'd think that in the 35 years since Campy invented the quick release, they'd have got the hub design perfected!

That said, with care and good maintenance, most of these problems can be avoided. And the glorious history is there. Just like a Ferrari race car - not the most advanced design, but glorious looks and such a rich history (pardon my using a car analogy). Finally, the quality of Campy stuff always has been beyond reproach (silky smooth bearings, beautiful finish), just not the basic engineering.

Jan Heine, Seattle, who has replaced two Campy rear axles this year despite the fact that his daily rider uses Maxi-Car! The dropout alignment is perfect on both bikes.