One that wasn't Campagnolo:
http://technology.open.ac.uk/
Chuck Schmidt SoPas, SoCal
Jan Heine wrote:
>
> 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.