Re: [CR]Campagnolo titanium parts


From: "dddd" <dddd@pacbell.net>
To: "Classic Rendezvous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <20060116154630.36587.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Campagnolo titanium parts
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:44:11 -0800
reply-type=original

I've noticed that even in recent years, some of the information that is passed along at the shows, at booths or in product info or tech seminars, appears deliberately incorrect. What I first took as an attempt to fool the audience seems to really be a training session in aggressive salesmanship, from which bike shop folk can take the exxagerated or misleading information back to the sales floor for use at their discretion, assuming they even know what's true and what isn't. Obviously, in this case the black parts newly included with the ti bits could round out the "fancy material" theme of the new group, giving an impression of added value.

David Snyder Auburn, CA
> Jan wrote:
>
> "I doubt he would have published that correction if he wasn't pretty sure
> of this, or at least was told this by Campagnolo!"
> Tom writes:
> I think you're onto something here. This is entirely speculative, of
> course, but I wouldn't be surprised if Rebour was either misled by, or had
> simply miscommunicated with, the Campy representative(s) at the show. In
> my limited experience the individuals dispatched to trade shows often make
> up for incomplete knowledge with hype and enthusiasm. In particular, I
> recall sitting through a Shimano technical presentation about the then-new
> XTR group. A mechanic I know asked the presenter what material was used
> on the new freewheel cogs, and the response was that the cogs were 7000
> series aluminum. They were most certainly not made of any type of
> aluminum, but I think the poor presenter thought it would be better to
> guess at a technical-sounding answer than to admit that he was unsure.
>
> It is well within the realm of possibility that Rebour asked about the
> nature of the obviously different black rings and headset and was told
> that they were made of titanium. The titanium BB, pedal and hub axles,
> along with the titanium derailleur pivot bolts, were the biggest selling
> points / innovations on the SR group, and it is easy to see where an
> uninformed PR guy might make assumptions about the nature of the strange
> black parts in order to give an interesting explanation. Incidentally, as
> depicted in the Raleigh catalog referenced by Mr. Maasland, the lower
> brackets of the SR post were also black anodized in the prototype groups.
>
>
> One thing that cast serious doubts on the whole possibility of titanium
> SR rings is the bizarre assertion that only titanium would allow
> construction of a cut-down ring of sufficient strength. I think a lot of
> NR rings had undergone aftermarket surgery by late 1973, and it was pretty
> well known that they were reliable. Moreover, how could a change in the
> chainrings save 260 grams? Does a pair of NR rings even weigh that much?
>>>>Tom, that's a good point. Ti just ain't logical. -Dave
>
> Another thing to consider is the competition. This is really grasping at
> straws, but is it possible that someone somewhere at Campagnolo felt a
> need to (mis)represent their new group as having more titanium than it
> actually did because of the introduction of the Zeus 2000 group? That
> group actually did have titanium rings and pedal cages as well as titanium
> BB cups and crank bolts, none of which was seen on standard SR parts.
> Realistically, the Zeus 2000 group was probably a few years off, but it's
> certainly an interesting coincidence that the 2000 group actually had the
> titanium parts that Campagnolo was at least asserting that they would
> offer.