Campag 2007

[AndreZA]

Ek het maar net die fotos en link gepost sodat mense kan sien wat is oppad, nie om 'n Campag vs. Shimano vs. SRAM vs. who ever dabat te begin nie.

[linnega]

Selfs ekke dink dit is mooi..... but beauty might be skindeep!!!!!! SRAM rules!!!!!!

smileys/smiley4.gif

[Dura]

Hope it lasts!!

[pastapouch]

Hear hear,

[E1A104]

Hope what lasts? The new gruppo, the argument, the non-argument, the SRAM??

[R2S2]

Some more info, and expected prices:

http://www.campyonly.com/rumors/2006/2007_gruppos.html#PRICE S

[cracked up]

ill take it....

cracked up38922.7782060185

[SwissVan]

That spline design is barely suspect - it's called a Hirth coupling 

(after some quick googling - and it's used for, among other things, holding together the shafts of jet turbine engines. It's designed to handle huge amounts of torque, with minimal load on the fixing bolt. Pressure between the teeth of the joint carry all the torque load, and the fixing bolt just keeps the teeth together)

apparently also used in the motor racing industry and for joining car crank shafts together.

Think it is the first time this type of coupling has been used in the cycle industry but as I said it is pretty standard in many other industries.

[/quote']

The anti torque crank imo is overkill, bicycle BB's are only a few inches long and experience squat torque compared to turbine engine shafts. I reckon it will cause more problems than what it will solve.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

On a lighter note, wonder if it will be possible to assemble the 2 crank arms incorrectly i.e. not 180 degrees apart. Imagine Bike shop mech is in a rush and rebuilds the cranks one tooth out?

 

[E1A104]

HUH??? First the spline design is suspect and now it's overkill - which is it and why?

On a lighter note, I have that same worry myself, best I dig some more.

[R2S2]

"The anti torque crank imo is overkill, bicycle BB's are only a few inches long and experience squat torque compared to turbine engine shafts. I reckon it will cause more problems than what it will solve."

I suspect it has less to do with torque than it does with cost of manufacturing, ease of assembly, and lessening the complexity of the bearing assemblies.

[SwissVan]

HUH??? First the spline design is suspect and now it's overkill - which is it and why?

On a lighter note' date=' I have that same worry myself, best I dig some more.

[/quote']

Eiiii ure just like the E numbers on food and drink packages.......smileys/smiley2.gif

Suspect - Campag motives - to boost their part sales because the potential imo exists that more parts will be damaged during assembly than with previous BB designs.

Overkill - its a bicycle part, not a Boeing or Formula one.

Time will tell

[E1A104]

E Numbers ???? smileys/smiley5.gif

Must say that it looks a far simpler system to me, but having said that it looks like it could lead to damage if not installed correctly which also applies to most BB assemblies IMO. Time will tell I guess. I do recall reading somewhere that the assembly process is "self aligning" - looking at the pictures I'm not sure how that could be, perhaps the teeth are different sizes and need to be matched/lined up during assembly. (Still trying to get more info on this issue)

Campag seem to be in a no-win situation here with people either saying the teeth/coupling will not be able to cope with the power generated by a strong rider and others calling it overkill.

I personally quite like the look of it, the engineering behind it as well as the fact that the Q factor remains the same which was a problem when shimano intoduced the outboard BB.

RUMOUR has it that even Centaur/Veloce would be on a par with Ultegra and DA in the weight stakes.

[cracked up]

thats true.. and mirage and xenon also get a face lift both mirage and xenon become 10speed and are lighter than 105 10speed..

i say it looks great and these I.TIES know what they are doing...

[cracked up]

the quicksift mech.. cuts shifting time in half.. so its not only lighter than shimano but also smoother

[R2S2]

Those fancy joints have very little to do with the glamour of "turbine engineering" in this case, but are put in place for the following reasons:

The two half shafts are actually fixed to the crankarms, and instead of having bolts through the centre of each crankarm, holding it onto the shaft, you now have two crank & half-shaft halves, joined in the middle, where there is very little (no) leverage induced strain on the joint.

It places the bearings much nearer to the crankarms, as there is now no longer any nead for the sloppy square taper interface between arm and shaft.  This provides for even more of a reduction on leverage iduced strain on the bearings, and should in the long run prove great for bearing life.  

From a manufacturing oerspective it makes it easier to machine out the shaft to make it hollow, as the mounting areas for the external bearings would make it very difficult, were the shaft a single complete unit. This obviously lowers machining cost, as well as to make the process just a bit more precise.

As for your comment re damage of components SwissVan:

If anything, assembly will be much easier, and only a complete t(w)it will be able to get it wrong.  There are 20 splines in the joint, so the least you could get it out by when assembling is 18 degrees - come now, even a beginner would soon enough notice if they had cocked this bit up!

R2S238923.5028587963

[E1A104]

Anyone know where I can get a list of the component weights?