RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General
Campy carbon cranks, what are they smoking?(53 posts)
|Campy carbon cranks, what are they smoking?||Ian|
Oct 4, 2001 7:27 AM
|When I saw the picture of the new Campy carbon crankset here on rbr.com, I started thinking it might be time to go Campy 10 speed. So, at Interbike, that is one of the first things I wanted to look at. Picked then up, handled them, very nice. Then I asked the lady working the booth what the retail price would be. Are you ready......$900-$1000! I was thinking $500, maybe $600. I guess if I decide to get carbon cranks it will be Zipp or Profile. Would anyone here actually pay that much for a crankset?|
|You were at Interbike?........||Len J|
Oct 4, 2001 7:37 AM
|give us the details, Please????????
|Some of what I saw...||Ian|
Oct 4, 2001 8:32 AM
|Well, the Campy carbon cranks and Campy carbon wheels obviously. By the way, the wheels will be $2,200 to $2,500, which I thought to be a little more in line with other high end carbon wheels. The Record aluminum cranks will continue, the carbon will be an option.
There were 500, no 1000 bikes with carbon stays. I am exaggerating of course, but if you want a bike with carbon stays, you will have plenty to choose from.
The Litespeed line looks pretty nice.
The Specialized road bikes looks nice this year, from entry level to high end.
I saw the new Zipp 303 limited edition wheels. They weigh around 950 grams, for the pair. But, retail is $3,000.
I saw the Lew carbon rim clincher, the Atlanta. I like clinchers, so I will have to look at that product down the road.
Jenna Jameson (adult film star) was at the Marzocchi booth. I didn't get to see her, but I heard she has been hired to be their spokesgirl. So we may see her in some ads.
I saw the Stella Azzurra booth. Some nice stuff, but nothing to get super excited about considering the prices.
The new Mavic Ksyrium light weight version looks nice. It looks like a normal Ksyrium wheel, but with the aero section of the rim machined away.
Colnago had their Ferrari bike there. And they had a full-suspension MTB version. I saw the world map paint job that Dog has on his Colnago. I didn't really like it when Dog posted the picture, but that thing is mighty pretty in person.
I am sure there was other stuff I saw, but just can't remember it all right now.
|I can't believe that Jenna Jamenson bit||mk_42|
Oct 4, 2001 12:29 PM
|I can't believe that someone seriously hired a porn star to be their spokesperson. Has she quit the porn business and gone, er, "straight", or is she still doing that sort of thing?
I'm having a hard time imagining what those people were thinking (seriously, as a business decision). Unless of course I know exactly what they're thinking (heh heh). I wonder what kind of advertising they're planning.
|I can't believe that Jenna Jamenson bit||Ian|
Oct 4, 2001 1:12 PM
|I don't know for sure that they hired her, but she was there. She has been somewhat accepted by the mainstream media, she has hosted a few shows on E television.|
|I can't believe that Jenna Jamenson bit||tlg|
Oct 5, 2001 7:33 AM
|How hot was the lady?||TJeanloz|
Oct 4, 2001 7:43 AM
|I mean absolutely no disrespect here, but companies at interbike, particularly Italian companies, tend to hire hot models to man their booth. They try to memorize a script and answer questions, but they're really bad. The babe at the ITM booth last year told me that THE stem would retail for around $50. It wholesales for more than triple that.
As a general rule, hotness of booth personell is inversely proportional to bike knowledge. Then again, she could have been spot-on, and Record is again going to be out of the reach of most people.
|How hot was the lady?||Ian|
Oct 4, 2001 8:11 AM
|This lady was attractive, but was not a hired model. She was dressed in a business suit and knew what she was talking about.|
|Porn stars are VERY knowlegeable about CRANKS- nm||filtersweep|
Oct 5, 2001 1:06 PM
|As attractive as the Rec. Carbon Cranks are...||Cima Coppi|
Oct 4, 2001 7:52 AM
|I'll be sticking with my trusty alu record cranks until they wear out (in about 20 years). I cannot justify upgrading to to the Record Carbons, when there are many other upgrades whose weight savings/$$ is significantly better than this one. Also, I have not yet heard if Campy is releasing the cranks in 180mm length, which was not immediate when the last redesign was released.
|As attractive as the Rec. Carbon Cranks are...||ColnagoFE|
Oct 4, 2001 7:59 AM
|BUT THEY LOOK SO COOL! Still at my 195 lbs I'm sticking with my current AL Chorus cranks.|
Oct 4, 2001 7:57 AM
|Everything I've read says these cranks will be no less than $700 retail. It'll be interesting to see the prices of the 2002 Record group and whether the carbon crank will be an option or if the alloy Record crank is going away.
They are cool and I'm sure those who can easily afford them won't be able to resist. Personally I'm on the fence - part of me would feel like a sucker paying that much for vanity. But it's been known to happen.
Oct 4, 2001 8:18 AM
|Oh yeah, people will buy them. Just not me.|
|LBS guy says||Dog|
Oct 4, 2001 8:21 AM
|The owner of my favorite LBS, who went to Interbike, said that his cost will be about $560, and they will retail for $700-$750.
A little pricey, yes.
|So, Doug, when are you getting yours? :-)||look271|
Oct 4, 2001 4:03 PM
|Keep us posted!|
Oct 4, 2001 7:59 PM
|While they would look pretty good on the C40, I just can't see spending $700 to look cool, at the same time throwing out a perfectly good Record Al crank set. That's pretty nutty.
However, should I wear this one out...
|One can only hope....... :-) nm||look271|
Oct 5, 2001 6:07 AM
Oct 5, 2001 7:03 AM
|Maybe I'll have to run into a curb or something..... :)
Someone below says they're 500 grams versus our AL sets at over 630.
OK, I WANT THEM!
|The pros aren't even using them yet||mr_spin|
Oct 4, 2001 8:25 AM
|So be prepared to pay top dollar. That's the price you pay for being cutting edge.
That stuff looks cool, but I've got Shimano, and I'm in no hurry to change.
|re: Campy carbon cranks, what are they smoking?||texbaz|
Oct 4, 2001 8:32 AM
|Boy they sure look good but, carbon on cranks makes me wonder if this is not a good idea since most cranks can get slight abrasions from shoes coming in contac with the arms.
Seems like a waste for the average rec rider if not totaly impracticle.
I work on components in the aviation field that are carbon fiber and some of our biggest concerns are delamination and water intrusion.
|And they'll sell as many as they can make||JS|
Oct 4, 2001 8:46 AM
|at whatever price they ask. It's a function of the Record gruppo.|
|And they'll sell as many as they can make||bikedodger|
Oct 4, 2001 8:51 AM
|One reason for the high price may be that they can only make limited quantities and the price will limit the demand to what can be made. As they get higher up the production learning curve and availability improves the price will come down.|
|What did P.T. Barnum say?||DaveG|
Oct 4, 2001 8:54 AM
|$1000 bucks for cranks!? I want a whole bike for that! Yes, they are light and yes they look cool but $1000? However, given the present status/weight conscious bike market I bet they sell well. My plan is to market a crank that sells for $2000. Very exclusive and twice as good as a $1000 crank.|
|Campy proves it's true - every day. (nm)||grzy|
Oct 4, 2001 9:13 AM
|What did P.T. Barnum say?||mackgoo|
Oct 5, 2001 5:27 AM
|So for you anyone who pays more than a 1000 bucks for a bike is a sucker?
Won't say what we'd call any one who buy's Shim...;-)
|Historical Record Pricing...||TJeanloz|
Oct 4, 2001 9:16 AM
|It is interesting to note that the price of bicycle componenets has not effectively changed in many years. Check out a catalog from the mid 1980's- a Record group costs around $1500. It's cheaper than that in most shops today. And I think we'd all (except a few Super-Record die-hard fans) agree that the current iteration is better than the old stuff- or at least more expensive to produce. Record was out of reach for most people. But in the last three years in particular, it has gotten cheaper and cheaper.
It used to be that a Record bike was a thing of rare beauty. Now every schmo with $1400 has it. So maybe the crankset is an attempt to get Record back into the rarified air of "if you have to ask, you can't afford it." It will bring retail of the group into the ~$1999 range, and really separate it from Dura-Ace. I don't want to start a fight here, but at this point, if both were free, who would prefer Dura-Ace to Record?
I also know that I had at least 5 customers who will buy it regardless of price.
|Where is your shop, what is its name?||MB1|
Oct 4, 2001 9:22 AM
|You sound like you could be that rare bike shop guy with a sense of reality and common sense.
BTW I'd probably take the DA, sadly and with regret gave up on Campy years ago.
|Where is your shop, what is its name?||TJeanloz|
Oct 4, 2001 9:34 AM
|Unfortunately, I'm recently retired from the bike shop biz. Common sense dictated the move.
But I do encourage people to stop by Louisville Cyclery, just outside Boulder, CO, for a realistic, un-hyped road bike experience. Scott, my former boss, is a wealth of knowledge and common sense goodness. He could write a book (and is, in fact, partly responsible for the two Zinn books).
|Historical Record Pricing...||cioccman|
Oct 4, 2001 9:28 AM
|Well, I've got both, DA 9 and Rec 10 w/ergo carbon levers, Nucleons, the whole enchilada. I can't say either is flat out better. They're surprisingly different in their feeling. DA is more silky and smooth and quiet. The Rec stuff really slams into gear with authority and is rather noisy. I like not having to move the entire brake lever so far for shifting.|
|Historical Record Pricing...||TJeanloz|
Oct 4, 2001 10:05 AM
|I know nobody cares, but here goes anyway:
I have all three major groups; Dura-Ace, Record and Mektronic.
For most of my racing years I was a Dura-Ace man, alright, Ultegra- I couldn't afford the best stuff until later. But I was a tried-and-true Shimano man. I turned my nose up at Record- it looked good, but was too fancy for real racing.
Then I got my job at the shop. The mechanics harped on me for two years: "When are you going to be a man and switch to Campy; Record is SO much better." So I figure: fine, I'll get a Record group just so that I can say that I owned it and didn't find it any better than Dura-Ace, and so that I could better help customers who asked.
I still have both. I almost never ride the bike with Dura-Ace. I wouldn't say that Record works any better, but it intangibly 'feels' better. I like it better. I don't know why.
Mektronic was a whole 'nother bowl of worms I won't go into right now.
|Them's fight'n words||Chris Zeller|
Oct 4, 2001 10:35 AM
|"I don't want to start a fight here, but at this point, if both were free, who would prefer Dura-Ace to Record?"
I'm not taking a position on Campy vs. Shimano but I think there are pleanty of people who still perfer Shimano. I still think they are pretty competitive. I don't think its as black and white as this and I'd expect may to dispute this. Many pros race on Dura Ace as well as on Record and most don't pay for their equipment.
|Them's fight'n words||TJeanloz|
Oct 4, 2001 10:49 AM
|It's really not worth arguing about. Pros are a moot point because they'll ride whatever they get paid the most to ride. They all have a personal preferance, but the contract comes first.
I agree that Dura-Ace is an awesome groupset- I'm not out to malign them. But if logistical matters (including things like replacement cost and availability) were no issue, what possible advantage does Dura-Ace offer? I realize that for most, those things are issues, and as such, Dura-Ace is attractive.
|Nice chattin' gentlemenly about this||cioccman|
Oct 4, 2001 10:58 AM
|I'm going to slide outta this after this short comment. It's nice to see how someone else who has both, feels about each one. How either rides or works is entirely different than arguing about what pros use, whether or not someone else likes one for some reason, how easy it is fix or get parts for or how much it costs.
It's impossible for a person who has not spent a lot of time on both to make intelligent analysis about what each rides an works like. Those folks will argue. I believe those who have used both will have mutual respect for each and be able to see that neither is categorically better.
Oct 4, 2001 1:16 PM
|Any money not spent on excessively expensive stuff leaves more money for other things. 'Course that means I could be riding a differrent Huffy for each day of the week and still have lots of money left over.... |
To me it's all about most bang for the buck. Carbon cranks don't do it for me. Yet. I am a big carbon fan and run a slew of carbon components on my windsurfing wave boards (booms, mast, base, fin, board) even build my own w/lots of CF. But it really does buy you something interms of performance and durabilty. All the other stuff either fails or is really heavy and flexy.
How much does one of these Campy cranks weigh in comparison to a "normal" crank?
Oct 4, 2001 1:35 PM
|Well, my FSAs are about 30 grams (not too much) less per crank than new DAs. Furthermore, the FSAs were including the bolt, the DAs were not. Assuming the bolt is about 40 grams (on the light side), we're talking weight savings of about 70 grams per side.
I'm a weight weenie, I admit it.
Oct 4, 2001 2:01 PM
|Celebrate your weight wennie-ness. I do every day.;-)|
|Small Point||Cliff Oates|
Oct 4, 2001 2:14 PM
|500 grams versus 632 for an AL Record crank. Along with a $500+ price premium, of course. It's not for me, but Campy will sell as many as they produce.
If anyone is planning on upgrading and is looking for a buyer for their slightly used AL Record crankset, drop me a line...
Oct 5, 2001 2:50 PM
|Well that's right around the "magic" (i.e. arbitrary) $100 per ounce GM upgrade criteria - but I'm not running Campy. |
When Campy 10 came out there were a LOT of good deals on used 9 speed Campy and Shimano to be had. Maybe history will repeat itself with utilitarian all alloy cranks?
|Hysterical record pricing...||Tom C|
Oct 4, 2001 6:41 PM
|In my gut I balked at your remark that component prices have not effectively changed. So I reached over to the time capsule and pulled out an Oct. 1985 Bycycling Magazine.Pg. 111, an advertisement for Mike's Cyclery lists the "Aero" group (that's how they referred to early C-Record to differentiate it from Super Record) at $799, $699 if purchased with a frame. Same place has SR pro i.e. Super Record with SL pedals and steel not titanium BB for 485. Colorado Cyclist in the same issue has the SR pro or reduced group as some called it for $419. Typical pro bikes were 1200-1500 complete. 16 years later, 3500 to 5500 is more typical, a bit more than tripling. Salaries have just about doubled, a bit more than doubled perhaps but disposible income has kind of lagged behind, e.g. housing energy prices, medical and college costs etc. leaving bikes well, pricey.|
|Hysterical record pricing...||mackgoo|
Oct 5, 2001 5:40 AM
|Inflation my boy. How does that figure in. Just out of curiosity, If Shimano was around how much was their group.|
|Hysterical record pricing...||Tom C|
Oct 5, 2001 7:24 AM
|Since you brought it up same October 1985 issue has Colorado Cyclist offering the Dura-Ace group for $474.95. That group had the cassette included however. Campy groups had no cassettes at the time. In fairness to Campy, the Dura-Ace group of that era didn't offer a seatpost. 1985-2001 has to represent at least in the US one of the more benign inflation periods in our history. Take a look at the US stock market (stock markets don't like inflation). In contrast that same era probably represent a net Deflation for Japan. My remarks were aimed at Mr. Jeanloz's comments above but the thread got placed lower somehow.|
|Hysterical record pricing...||TJeanloz|
Oct 5, 2001 7:44 AM
|I was 6 in 1985. I liked bikes, but I didn't memorize prices. Furthermore, inflation in the period 1985-2001 was not really "benign"- for the 16 year period it was 65% (annualized to 4.0625%/year). Of course, that is benign compared to the 16 prior years, where inflation was 193% (or 12% annualized), but that was the 70's, and they were ugly. Statistics from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
Unfortunatly, I no longer have the shop's filing cabinet to back up my claim, but I did pretty careful research on a cold January day last year, and I concluded that since Ergo/Sti were introduced, prices have remained fairly constant.
|Hysterical record pricing...||Tom C|
Oct 5, 2001 12:24 PM
|Benign in this case is, as you note, a relative term. By rolling over medium term treasury bonds, you could have beaten inflation by a wide margin over the last 16 years. Since in 85 I was unfortunately 34 and had also lived through the 70's when practically nothing short of Italian shotguns and violins beat inflation believe me, the last 16 years have been benign. Group prices are in print as I stated.|
|re: Campy carbon cranks, what are they smoking?||cioccman|
Oct 4, 2001 9:18 AM
|Gotta admit, they're gorgeous. Not any more gorgeous than my two sets of FSA carbons that were $300. Don't think I'd shell out $700 for them at this point. Things do change though.....|
|The price will be $700. What about crash damage?||Tig|
Oct 4, 2001 11:06 AM
|Take a look at the pedal ends of your aluminum cranks if you've had them for a while of crashed a few times. Pretty scarred up, huh? I wonder how durable carbon cranks are after a few crashes?|
Oct 4, 2001 11:16 AM
|These cranks are for lookin' not for ridin'
If can't replace them after every scratch, then you can't afford them.
Oct 4, 2001 12:00 PM
|Seems like fraudulent jerkoffware intended to distract from the fact that it's the latest massaging of a 16 year old design and that Shimano has the truly advanced item in the crankset world. For the record, I am usually a Campy fan more than a Shimano one!|
Oct 4, 2001 2:41 PM
|I'm not sure what's more advanced about the Shimano design: the new interface to the BB is a retrograde step- from an originally poor design- because its taper fit is too slight, and encourages misalignment. The 'hollowtech' stuff is pointless: no crank ever failed as a result of its being a bar rather than a tube. The big problem with conventional crank design is the pedal fixing, which is almost designed to fail by encouraging fretting: nobody has yey decided to improve this interface however, though the fix would be simple, by incorporating a partial taper fit.
For the record, I'm a ssshimano rather than campag fan... though they make almost as many stupid mistakes.
Oct 5, 2001 5:43 AM
|LOL, Nice work||cioccman|
Oct 4, 2001 11:26 AM
|Well, I had a very bad crash on my DA rig with a set of carbon cranks on it. Not a scratch on them.
Other than my hands, nuckles, forearms, elbows, shoulders, knees and ankles, the bars, levers, seat, rear der mount and pedals took the majority of the hit.
|I'll see your wounds and raise you a scratched crank! LOL -NM||Tig|
Oct 4, 2001 12:07 PM
|I must put my .02 in here...||Jules|
Oct 4, 2001 2:28 PM
|I think the Campy CF cranks look shweet! If I had more disposable income, I would buy them.|
|re: Campy carbon cranks, what are they smoking?||mackgoo|
Oct 5, 2001 4:57 AM
|My name is Bruce and I'm a Campyholic, confirmed Shimanophobic. 1000$? Uh,uh. I still can't believe that price. How much of a premium did they get for the carbon Ergo's over the alloy? But if that's it I'll just stick with my plain old alloy cranks, gee what a compromise.
I will be pouring over E bay and the European web sites I've found good deals at though. Oh and I don't think Campy is smoking anything. Probably got a load of Uzo in. The real stuff, not the fake stuff you normally get. The stuff that looks like curdled milk with all those white floaters.