Campagnolo 2007 Record vs. 1st gen 10-speed (2002-2006)

[Chris M]

I have first generation 10 speed Record and another with 10 speed
upgrades to 9-speed Record (the rear derailleur is late 9 speed with
10-speed pulleys) and the mixed bike has the new 5.9 chain (which is
the quietest bike drivetrain I ever could imagine, I can hear the
tires singing on the pavement even at very low speeds).

My question is, with gear this good, are the components aside from the
obvious benefits of the UT Cranks (though even those are questionable
in terms of necessity, or I would choose the 2007 over previous for a
new application but I doubt I would ever "upgrade" the previous 10
speed gear, not a single component as far as I can tell).

This is not a criticism as Campagnolo can't be faulted for making gear
so good that you don't to throw out older gear!

It just leads me to wonder if the price differences (with previous
gear NOS selling for significant discounts) is it worth buying the new
gear while 2006 NOS is still widely available? Any anecdotal stories
of side-by-side comparisons would be interesting, from those who have
tried both.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 21, 2:19 pm, Chris M <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have first generation 10 speed Record and another with 10 speed
> upgrades to 9-speed Record (the rear derailleur is late 9 speed with
> 10-speed pulleys) and the mixed bike has the new 5.9 chain (which is
> the quietest bike drivetrain I ever could imagine, I can hear the
> tires singing on the pavement even at very low speeds).
>
> My question is, with gear this good, are the components aside from the
> obvious benefits of the UT Cranks (though even those are questionable
> in terms of necessity, or I would choose the 2007 over previous for a
> new application but I doubt I would ever "upgrade" the previous 10
> speed gear, not a single component as far as I can tell).
>
> This is not a criticism as Campagnolo can't be faulted for making gear
> so good that you don't to throw out older gear!
>
> It just leads me to wonder if the price differences (with previous
> gear NOS selling for significant discounts) is it worth buying the new
> gear while 2006 NOS is still widely available? Any anecdotal stories
> of side-by-side comparisons would be interesting, from those who have
> tried both.

I think the big differences for 2007 Record/Chorus are: 1. crank/
bottom bracket is now a one piece/integrated unit like Shimano, etc.
2. skeleton brake calipers instead of solid normal looking calipers.
3. Quick Shift left Ergo which requires a shorter lever travel when
shifting from the small ring to the big ring.

I have not tried any of these 2007 changes compared to the 1998
through 2006 Campagnolo parts I have. But I'll give an opinion. 1.
One piece integrated crank/bottom bracket. My square taper
traditional crank bottom brackets work just fine for me. Can't see
any reason to change this component unless getting a whole new group.
Hard to believe there would be any real quantitative difference by
this change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 2. Skeleton brakes.
My traditional looking dual pivot calipers stop me as quick as I need
to stop and are easy to adjust. Can't see any reason to change these
unless getting an entire new group where they come standard. I don't
really like the looks of them anyway. 3. Quick Shift left Ergo. The
throw on the left Ergo lever is fairly long when going from the small
to big ring. I'd like it to be shorter. Many times I have to ratchet
the chain up by taking two pushes on the lever. Not a huge deal but
it would be nice to have a shorter throw. Not worth upgrading for me
though. Spending a couple hundred for complete new Ergos or just the
left Quick Shift one is not worth it. Not sure if you also need to
buy a new Quick Shift front derailleur to make the Quick Shift left
Ergo do its magic. More cost if Quick Shift front derailleur is
needed.

Those are the three differences in 2007 Campagnolo Record/Chorus
compared to older versions. Is it worth it?

 

[Bill Westphal]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Apr 21, 2:19 pm, Chris M <[email protected]> wrote:

[...deleted...]
> left Quick Shift one is not worth it. Not sure if you also need to
> buy a new Quick Shift front derailleur to make the Quick Shift left
> Ergo do its magic. More cost if Quick Shift front derailleur is
> needed.
>

According to the Campy website, you do need them both to get the full
benefit.

> Those are the three differences in 2007 Campagnolo Record/Chorus
> compared to older versions. Is it worth it?

Not for me, esp since I had perfectly good fd's ready for recycling.
Talk about planned obsolescence. I saved $50 and got new '06 record
ergo levers ($243 at universalcycles) on the last bike. Licktons is
selling new '06 silver Centaur ergolevers for $190, which is
considerably less than the cost for all the rebuild parts recommended
by Branford Bike for the old sluggish Centaurs

Bill Westphal

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

On Apr 21, 1:19 pm, Chris M <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have first generation 10 speed Record and another with 10 speed
> upgrades to 9-speed Record (the rear derailleur is late 9 speed with
> 10-speed pulleys) and the mixed bike has the new 5.9 chain (which is
> the quietest bike drivetrain I ever could imagine, I can hear the
> tires singing on the pavement even at very low speeds).
>
> My question is, with gear this good, are the components aside from the
> obvious benefits of the UT Cranks (though even those are questionable
> in terms of necessity, or I would choose the 2007 over previous for a
> new application but I doubt I would ever "upgrade" the previous 10
> speed gear, not a single component as far as I can tell).
>
> This is not a criticism as Campagnolo can't be faulted for making gear
> so good that you don't to throw out older gear!
>
> It just leads me to wonder if the price differences (with previous
> gear NOS selling for significant discounts) is it worth buying the new
> gear while 2006 NOS is still widely available? Any anecdotal stories
> of side-by-side comparisons would be interesting, from those who have
> tried both.

Only difference are the brakes, the hubs and the crank. More marketing
that any genuine performance difference.
2006 hubs, cranks/BB and brakes worked just fine and dandy. 'Worth' is
a personal decision, cannot be determined what is 'worth it' to you.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

On Apr 23, 8:26 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2:19 pm, Chris M <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have first generation 10 speed Record and another with 10 speed
> > upgrades to 9-speed Record (the rear derailleur is late 9 speed with
> > 10-speed pulleys) and the mixed bike has the new 5.9 chain (which is
> > the quietest bike drivetrain I ever could imagine, I can hear the
> > tires singing on the pavement even at very low speeds).
>
> > My question is, with gear this good, are the components aside from the
> > obvious benefits of the UT Cranks (though even those are questionable
> > in terms of necessity, or I would choose the 2007 over previous for a
> > new application but I doubt I would ever "upgrade" the previous 10
> > speed gear, not a single component as far as I can tell).
>
> > This is not a criticism as Campagnolo can't be faulted for making gear
> > so good that you don't to throw out older gear!
>
> > It just leads me to wonder if the price differences (with previous
> > gear NOS selling for significant discounts) is it worth buying the new
> > gear while 2006 NOS is still widely available? Any anecdotal stories
> > of side-by-side comparisons would be interesting, from those who have
> > tried both.
>
> I think the big differences for 2007 Record/Chorus are: 1. crank/
> bottom bracket is now a one piece/integrated unit like Shimano, etc.
> 2. skeleton brake calipers instead of solid normal looking calipers.
> 3. Quick Shift left Ergo which requires a shorter lever travel when
> shifting from the small ring to the big ring.

If you look inside the lever, all the innards are the same, 2006/7.
marketing going on here to match the reall changes in Centaur and
below.
>
> I have not tried any of these 2007 changes compared to the 1998
> through 2006 Campagnolo parts I have. But I'll give an opinion. 1.
> One piece integrated crank/bottom bracket. My square taper
> traditional crank bottom brackets work just fine for me. Can't see
> any reason to change this component unless getting a whole new group.
> Hard to believe there would be any real quantitative difference by
> this change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 2. Skeleton brakes.
> My traditional looking dual pivot calipers stop me as quick as I need
> to stop and are easy to adjust. Can't see any reason to change these
> unless getting an entire new group where they come standard. I don't
> really like the looks of them anyway. 3. Quick Shift left Ergo. The
> throw on the left Ergo lever is fairly long when going from the small
> to big ring. I'd like it to be shorter. Many times I have to ratchet
> the chain up by taking two pushes on the lever. Not a huge deal but
> it would be nice to have a shorter throw. Not worth upgrading for me
> though. Spending a couple hundred for complete new Ergos or just the
> left Quick Shift one is not worth it. Not sure if you also need to
> buy a new Quick Shift front derailleur to make the Quick Shift left
> Ergo do its magic. More cost if Quick Shift front derailleur is
> needed.
>
> Those are the three differences in 2007 Campagnolo Record/Chorus
> compared to older versions. Is it worth it?

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

On Apr 24, 2:05 am, Bill Westphal <[email protected]> wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Apr 21, 2:19 pm, Chris M <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [...deleted...]
>
> > left Quick Shift one is not worth it. Not sure if you also need to
> > buy a new Quick Shift front derailleur to make the Quick Shift left
> > Ergo do its magic. More cost if Quick Shift front derailleur is
> > needed.
>
> According to the Campy website, you do need them both to get the full
> benefit.

Not true at all. I have installed 2007 lever with older FDs and vice
versa. Inside, the shift disc for 2007 is the same part number as
2006..marketing going on, no real difference. ALL Fders became the
same as 2006 and earlier 'FB' Fdrs, i think for Campag to sabe $.
>
> > Those are the three differences in 2007 Campagnolo Record/Chorus
> > compared to older versions. Is it worth it?
>
> Not for me, esp since I had perfectly good fd's ready for recycling.
> Talk about planned obsolescence. I saved $50 and got new '06 record
> ergo levers ($243 at universalcycles) on the last bike. Licktons is
> selling new '06 silver Centaur ergolevers for $190, which is
> considerably less than the cost for all the rebuild parts recommended
> by Branford Bike for the old sluggish Centaurs
>
> Bill Westphal

 

[A Muzi]

> Chris M <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I have first generation 10 speed Record and another with 10 speed
>> upgrades to 9-speed Record (the rear derailleur is late 9 speed with
>> 10-speed pulleys) and the mixed bike has the new 5.9 chain (which is
>> the quietest bike drivetrain I ever could imagine, I can hear the
>> tires singing on the pavement even at very low speeds).
>>
>> My question is, with gear this good, are the components aside from the
>> obvious benefits of the UT Cranks (though even those are questionable
>> in terms of necessity, or I would choose the 2007 over previous for a
>> new application but I doubt I would ever "upgrade" the previous 10
>> speed gear, not a single component as far as I can tell).
>>
>> This is not a criticism as Campagnolo can't be faulted for making gear
>> so good that you don't to throw out older gear!
>>
>> It just leads me to wonder if the price differences (with previous
>> gear NOS selling for significant discounts) is it worth buying the new
>> gear while 2006 NOS is still widely available? Any anecdotal stories
>> of side-by-side comparisons would be interesting, from those who have
>> tried both.

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Only difference are the brakes, the hubs and the crank. More marketing
> that any genuine performance difference.
> 2006 hubs, cranks/BB and brakes worked just fine and dandy. 'Worth' is
> a personal decision, cannot be determined what is 'worth it' to you.

We've built several mixed 2006/2007 Campagnolo bikes to indulge
customers opinions on the worth or worthlessness of skeleton, square
taper, grey color, carbon, 36 vs 32, on and on. Everyone is the expert
on his own opinion. However groundless that may be, there are no recent
or current 'bad' choices for Campagnolo gear so WTF.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Bill Westphal]

Qui si parla Campagnolo <[email protected]> writes:

> On Apr 24, 2:05 am, Bill Westphal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
>> > On Apr 21, 2:19 pm, Chris M <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [...deleted...]
>>
>> > left Quick Shift one is not worth it. Not sure if you also need to
>> > buy a new Quick Shift front derailleur to make the Quick Shift left
>> > Ergo do its magic. More cost if Quick Shift front derailleur is
>> > needed.
>>
>> According to the Campy website, you do need them both to get the full
>> benefit.
>
> Not true at all. I have installed 2007 lever with older FDs and vice
> versa. Inside, the shift disc for 2007 is the same part number as
> 2006..marketing going on, no real difference. ALL Fders became the
> same as 2006 and earlier 'FB' Fdrs, i think for Campag to sabe $.
>>

That's incredible. I previously took Campy somewhat seriously, but
the same part numbers? Wow. Actually, I've been comparing part #'s
myself and am pretty shocked at how similar '06 and prior Centaur and
Chorus were. And only a teflon part in the Record discerns it from
Chorus/Centaur. Some deal with the hubs. Amazingly similar.

-excerpt from Campy website in "Record Ergopower Controls"section:

The 2007 range of Ergopower Record controls, body and levers, are
still in composite but their left-hand control mechanism has been
slightly modified to increase the performance reference when
interfaced with QS front derailleurs. The modification is to the
indexing mechanism in which the idle stroke has been shortened so that
the lever begins to act on the derailleur after a few degrees of
actuation and shifting is snappier. And then, thanks to the
modification of the derailleur, it is even lighter. Ergonomic and
ultra-light, integrated Ergopower Record controls constitute the
absolute benchmark.

 

[Donald Gillies]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:

>I think the big differences for 2007 Record/Chorus are: 1. crank/
>bottom bracket is now a one piece/integrated unit like Shimano, etc.
>2. skeleton brake calipers instead of solid normal looking calipers.
>3. Quick Shift left Ergo which requires a shorter lever travel when
>shifting from the small ring to the big ring.

You forgot this : the new record hubs look like cr*p, and lost the
oiler holes. I wonder if they work like cr*p too ?? The 2006 record
hubs seem to have become UnObtainium REAL FAST.

I imagine that Campy decided people should spend their money on carbon
cranks, and cheapened some other parts of the Record grouppo design.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 1:35 pm, [email protected] (Donald Gillies) wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
> >I think the big differences for 2007 Record/Chorus are: 1. crank/
> >bottom bracket is now a one piece/integrated unit like Shimano, etc.
> >2. skeleton brake calipers instead of solid normal looking calipers.
> >3. Quick Shift left Ergo which requires a shorter lever travel when
> >shifting from the small ring to the big ring.
>
> You forgot this : the new record hubs look like cr*p, and lost the
> oiler holes. I wonder if they work like cr*p too ??

I was replying to actual functional difference between 2007 and 2006
and earlier. Aesthetics such as black or silver or gray for Centaur a
couple years ago have no affect on function. Why do you think black
Record hubs would work like **** while the silver Record hubs work
perfectly? When they added the gray Centaur line did you think it
made the components work like **** while the silver Centaur line
worked fine? Do people use those oiler, grease injection holes? I've
heard you inject the axle full of grease so it pushes out the old
grease. Does not seem like the right way to regrease your hubs, but
maybe some people do it this way.



The 2006 record
> hubs seem to have become UnObtainium REAL FAST.

I agree.




>
> I imagine that Campy decided people should spend their money on carbon
> cranks, and cheapened some other parts of the Record grouppo design.
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA

 

[Lou Holtman]

[email protected] wrote:
> Do people use those oiler, grease injection holes? I've
> heard you inject the axle full of grease so it pushes out the old
> grease. Does not seem like the right way to regrease your hubs, but
> maybe some people do it this way.

I always wondered if there were people dumb enough to do that, given the
fact that overhauling a Record hub is a 15 minutes job....if you have a
slow day. Buying a lightweight hub and double the weight with grease??


Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 12:06 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Chris M <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I have first generation 10 speed Record and another with 10 speed
> >> upgrades to 9-speed Record (the rear derailleur is late 9 speed with
> >> 10-speed pulleys) and the mixed bike has the new 5.9 chain (which is
> >> the quietest bike drivetrain I ever could imagine, I can hear the
> >> tires singing on the pavement even at very low speeds).
>
> >> My question is, with gear this good, are the components aside from the
> >> obvious benefits of the UT Cranks (though even those are questionable
> >> in terms of necessity, or I would choose the 2007 over previous for a
> >> new application but I doubt I would ever "upgrade" the previous 10
> >> speed gear, not a single component as far as I can tell).
>
> >> This is not a criticism as Campagnolo can't be faulted for making gear
> >> so good that you don't to throw out older gear!
>
> >> It just leads me to wonder if the price differences (with previous
> >> gear NOS selling for significant discounts) is it worth buying the new
> >> gear while 2006 NOS is still widely available? Any anecdotal stories
> >> of side-by-side comparisons would be interesting, from those who have
> >> tried both.
>
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> > Only difference are the brakes, the hubs and the crank. More marketing
> > that any genuine performance difference.
> > 2006 hubs, cranks/BB and brakes worked just fine and dandy. 'Worth' is
> > a personal decision, cannot be determined what is 'worth it' to you.
>
> We've built several mixed 2006/2007 Campagnolo bikes to indulge
> customers opinions on the worth or worthlessness of skeleton, square
> taper, grey color, carbon, 36 vs 32, on and on. Everyone is the expert
> on his own opinion. However groundless that may be, there are no recent
> or current 'bad' choices for Campagnolo gear so WTF.
>
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Andrew, can you clarify your WTF? I am hoping it is "whatever tickles
your fancy" (or some variation of that), and not the other common WTF,
aka WTH.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] <[email protected]> writes:

>>> I think the big differences for 2007 Record/Chorus are:

>>> 1. crank/bottom bracket is now a one piece/integrated unit like
>>> Shimano, etc.

>>> 2. skeleton brake calipers instead of solid normal looking
>>> calipers.

>>> 3. Quick Shift left Ergo which requires a shorter lever travel
>>> when shifting from the small ring to the big ring.

>> You forgot this : the new record hubs look like cr*p, and lost the
>> oiler holes. I wonder if they work like cr*p too ??

> I was replying to actual functional difference between 2007 and 2006
> and earlier. Aesthetics such as black or silver or gray for Centaur
> a couple years ago have no affect on function. Why do you think
> black Record hubs would work like **** while the silver Record hubs
> work perfectly? When they added the gray Centaur line did you think
> it made the components work like **** while the silver Centaur line
> worked fine? Do people use those oiler, grease injection holes?
> I've heard you inject the axle full of grease so it pushes out the
> old grease. Does not seem like the right way to regrease your hubs,
> but maybe some people do it this way.

As a preservationist, Gilles should drive a car with grease fitting on
the various parts of the car, even though there are no grese guns any
more to service them. The oil holes on Campagnolo hubs, inherited
from FB hubs, never had a function. These bearings were run on grease
and had ineffective shields that made them require cleaning and
replenishing grease. Oil did neither of these.

>> The 2006 record hubs seem to have become UnObtainium REAL FAST.

> I agree.

What is it that relegetes them to the "****" definition? What fails to
work properly?

>> I imagine that Campy decided people should spend their money on
>> carbon cranks, and cheapened some other parts of the Record grouppo
>> design.

"Grouppo"? Just say group, we will understand. Otherewise you need
to expand your use of Italian to "mozzi", "perno", "chiave", "trenta
sei fori" and a slew of other terms that Tullio used.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

On 26 Apr 2007 23:43:15 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

[snippo]

>"Grouppo"? Just say group, we will understand. Otherewise you need
>to expand your use of Italian to "mozzi", "perno", "chiave", "trenta
>sei fori" and a slew of other terms that Tullio used.
>
>Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

I could swear that I've read that complaint before . . .

Ah, here it is, in a timely editorial inveighing against U.S.
bicyclists aping the British:

"Anglo-mania"

"I begin to fear that the epidemic of Anglo-mania is spreading. There
are many things, doubtless, that we might adopt from John Bull with
benefit, but the sufferers from this epidemic appear to be capable of
'catching' bad things only. Ill-fitting, badly cut, ugly-colored
garments are bad enough; but English slang is worse. Let us adopt the
bicycle and tricycle, and every improvement thereon; but let us
leave the 'bike' and 'trike' to 'gents' who are responsible for such
abominable abbreviations."

"Outing" magazine 1883

http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_02/outII02/outII02q.pdf

In the future, kindly stop using abominable abbreviations like "ride
bike!" (which reeks of Anglo-mania) and exhort us instead to "ride
bicycle!"

I realize with horror that you're not alone in this wretched use of
Brit-ified slang--Peter Chisholm had best reform his habit of using
"gent" in posts, lest I accuse him of similar leanings.



Cheers, ^H^H^H^H^H^H^ Yours Faithfully,

Carl Fogel

 

[Donald Gillies]

[email protected] writes:

>[email protected] <[email protected]> writes:

>As a preservationist, Gilles should drive a car with grease fitting on
>the various parts of the car, even though there are no grese guns any
>more to service them. The oil holes on Campagnolo hubs, inherited
>from FB hubs, never had a function. These bearings were run on grease
>and had ineffective shields that made them require cleaning and
>replenishing grease. Oil did neither of these.

Whatever, Jobst. You must been having a bad week, that you have to
dump on other people to make yourself feel betters. I guess it
doesn't help that bikes were made with fittings to run on oil (not
grease) from 1900 until 2006. We must have been doing something
stupid for at least 106 years, and you must have all the right
answers, too !!

And it's "Gillies", not "Gilles", by the way.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

 

[Donald Gillies]

[email protected] writes:

>[email protected] <[email protected]> writes:

> As a preservationist, Gilles should drive a car with grease fitting on
> the various parts of the car, even though there are no grese guns any
> more to service them. The oil holes on Campagnolo hubs, inherited
> from FB hubs, never had a function. These bearings were run on grease
> and had ineffective shields that made them require cleaning and
> replenishing grease. Oil did neither of these.

Whatever, Jobst. You must be having a very bad week, why do you have
to dump on other people to make yourself feel good?

I guess it doesn't help that bikes were made with fittings to run on
oil (not grease) from 1900 until 2006. We must have been doing
something stupid for at least 106 years, and you must have all the
right answers, too !!

And it's "Gillies", not "Gilles", by the way.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

 

[[email protected]]

Donald Gillies writes:

> [email protected] writes:

>> [email protected] <[email protected]> writes:

So what did Russel Seaton write that put this into perspective, and to
what is the following paragraph responding. I suspect you are
embarrassed at the content of what you wrote or you would not have
deleted it.

>> As a preservationist, Gilles should drive a car with grease
>> fitting on the various parts of the car, even though there are no
>> grease guns any more to service them. The oil holes on Campagnolo
>> hubs, inherited from FB hubs, never had a function. These
>> bearings were run on grease and had ineffective shields that made
>> them require cleaning and replenishing grease. Oil did neither of
>> these.

> Whatever, Jobst. You must be having a very bad week, why do you
> have to dump on other people to make yourself feel good?

very very, I suppose If that is all you can muster for an ad hominem.

> I guess it doesn't help that bikes were made with fittings to run on
> oil (not grease) from 1900 until 2006. We must have been doing
> something stupid for at least 106 years, and you must have all the
> right answers, too !!

Oh, and who lubricated wheel bearings through oil holes in the hub
shaft, the hole you seem to miss so much. If you did that, then you
may have notice that the oil ran out the end caps and down the spokes
to collect road grime.

> And it's "Gillies", not "Gilles", by the way.

My spell checker didn't catch that typo. I'll work on that.

Jobst Brandt