Re: [CR]Broken cranks, later Campy designs borrowed GPM construct

Example: History

Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:54:35 EST
Subject: Re: [CR]Broken cranks, later Campy designs borrowed GPM construct

Jerry- I get to chime in my experience somewhat akin to yours, except pointing out a different manufacturer. If one looks at the later "non-milled" campy NR/SR cranks, you will find that Campy actually added extra material to these "stress-riser" crack generating areas, making an improved stronger crank. BTW, I always found it odd that this stronger model usually sells for LESS than the weaker earlier models, (CR members are a fickle bunch). To the best of my knowledge this improved version didn't start showing up until approximately the mid 1980s. However, GPM had this same area "Beefed-up" starting with their 1980 models, (ChronoSpecials or ChronoSprints I believe were the model names). This is another fact we Campy-o-philes often over-look. Cheers- Dave Anderson Cut Bank MT

In a message dated 2/7/2004 6:38:37 PM PST, writes: This demonstrates another fallacy in the myth of Campy superiority. Campy cranks were acknowledged to be made of harder alloy than Stronglight or TA. Did this make them better? Well, they wore less and showed less wear after the same number of miles. Better, right? Maybe not. The harder Campy alloy was also more brittle, so they suffered brittle stress cracking, notably at the junction of spider and right arm or at the pedal hole. This type of failure is almost unheard of with the softer Stronglight or TA cranks. Of course TA and especially Stronglight arms, being softer, had a greater tendency to seize up on the axle. But this could be prevented by applying a very light film of grease to the axle when installing them. The familiar Campy pattern - great quality control, stupid design.


Jerry Moos
Houston, TX