Campagnolo SR Strada Bottom Bracket question

[upnaround]

The parts in question: Super Record Strada Crankset (170mm). Nouvo
Record (or at least I think it's a NR) Bottom Bracket (English; 68-SS-
120; thin cups; bolted; axle length = 111mm). When fitting the crankarms
onto the bottom bracket it's obvious both crankarms at the pedal ends
sit a bit close to the chainstays (about 5/8") and the inner chain ring
is about 3mm away from the chainstay. It looks like an axle that would
be about 10mm longer in total length would do the trick. The extra 5mm
on the drive train side still looks in line with the rear hub spacing in
my estimation. Would replacing the axle be the right choice? It doesn't
HAVE to be authentic Campy, as long as it can still accomodate this
crankset. Any recommendations? It looks like Phil Wood has a good
selection, but I haven't yet inquired. Anyone's input would be greatly
appreciated.



--

 

[A Muzi]

upnaround wrote:

> The parts in question: Super Record Strada Crankset (170mm). Nouvo
> Record (or at least I think it's a NR) Bottom Bracket (English; 68-SS-
> 120; thin cups; bolted; axle length = 111mm). When fitting the crankarms
> onto the bottom bracket it's obvious both crankarms at the pedal ends
> sit a bit close to the chainstays (about 5/8") and the inner chain ring
> is about 3mm away from the chainstay. It looks like an axle that would
> be about 10mm longer in total length would do the trick. The extra 5mm
> on the drive train side still looks in line with the rear hub spacing in
> my estimation. Would replacing the axle be the right choice? It doesn't
> HAVE to be authentic Campy, as long as it can still accomodate this
> crankset. Any recommendations? It looks like Phil Wood has a good
> selection, but I haven't yet inquired. Anyone's input would be greatly
> appreciated.

Sounds completely normal to me. Modern gear seems too far
away to these old eyes.

And you say "thin cups". That would be a Record 1046 or a
Gran Sport (or some other) but not a Nuovo Record 1046a
which has 'exclusion grooves' at the edge of the cup.

Campagnolo made many slightly variant spindles for both BB
systems with confusing markings. However yours seems OK. Did
you sight or measure the chainline?

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

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

upandaround-<< When fitting the crankarms
onto the bottom bracket it's obvious both crankarms at the pedal ends
sit a bit close to the chainstays (about 5/8") and the inner chain ring
is about 3mm away from the chainstay. >><BR><BR>


Normal to me. Remember this stuff was designed for 120mm dropouts, 5s
freewheels, where the freewheel wasn't very far from the centerline of the
bike..making for good and narrow chainlines.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[upnaround]

Qui Si Parla Ca wrote:
> upandaround-<< When fitting the crankarms onto the bottom bracket it's
> obvious both crankarms at the pedal ends sit a bit close to the
> chainstays (about 5/8") and the inner chain ring is about 3mm away from
> the chainstay. >>
> Normal to me. Remember this stuff was designed for 120mm dropouts, 5s
> freewheels, where the freewheel wasn't very far from the centerline of
> the bike..making for good and narrow chainlines.
> Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com/http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote
> convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Thanks for your response, Peter. Actually, the distance from the inner
chainring to the chainstay is just less than 2mm after tightening the
crankarm bolts. The left crank at the pedal end clears the left
chainstay by 1/4" and the right crankarm clears the chainstay by 1/2".
Sorry for the misinformation but I rushed into this forum and didn't
have all the facts straight. And yes, this is for a 120mm rear spacing
with a 5-spreed freewheel. Just looks to me like an extra 3-5mm on each
side is still needed. *********************************************



--

 

[upnaround]

A Muzi wrote:
> upnaround wrote:
> > The parts in question: Super Record Strada Crankset (170mm). Nouvo
> > Record (or at least I think it's a NR) Bottom Bracket (English; 68-SS-
> > 120; thin cups; bolted; axle length = 111mm). When fitting the
> > crankarms onto the bottom bracket it's obvious both crankarms at the
> > pedal ends sit a bit close to the chainstays (about 5/8") and the
> > inner chain ring is about 3mm away from the chainstay. It looks like
> > an axle that would be about 10mm longer in total length would do the
> > trick. The extra 5mm on the drive train side still looks in line with
> > the rear hub spacing in my estimation. Would replacing the axle be the
> > right choice? It doesn't HAVE to be authentic Campy, as long as it can
> > still accomodate this crankset. Any recommendations? It looks like
> > Phil Wood has a good selection, but I haven't yet inquired. Anyone's
> > input would be greatly appreciated.
> Sounds completely normal to me. Modern gear seems too far away to
> these old eyes.
> And you say "thin cups". That would be a Record 1046 or a Gran Sport (or
> some other) but not a Nuovo Record 1046a which has 'exclusion grooves'
> at the edge of the cup.
> Campagnolo made many slightly variant spindles for both BB systems with
> confusing markings. However yours seems OK. Did you sight or measure the
> chainline?
> --
> Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Thanks for your response, Andrew. My facts weren't straight on my
original post. After tightening both crankarm bolts (wheeze...), the
inner chainring comes to within 2mm of the chainstay, while the pedal-
end of the right crankarm clears the chainstay at a reasonable 1/2". The
pedal-end of the left crankarm clears the left chainstay by only 1/4".
The bottom bracket was a seperate online auction item which may not be
the ideal match. And that <2mm distance from the chainring to the
chainstay looks a bit too close for comfort. But I'm anxious to ride and
it seems the quick fix would be to find a crank axle that's about 120mm
long and can accomodate my existing bearings/cups. The chainline looks
like it can take another 5mm without distorting too much. Besides, I
never use 6th-gear and very rarely use 1st-gear so the extreme angles
don't matter too much. Plus I can dish out the freewheel just slightly
(~2mm) without goofing up the chainline. I'm a pure newbie at this but
over the past year have bought up old NR/SR parts and had an old-school
Reynolds frame built and this has been my only hang-up. I still think
for the short term I'll check out an aftermarket axle which can work
with my bracket parts and crankarms. I've been away from bicycling for
25 years but I remember Phil Wood made reliable parts in the seventies
and see they offer backward-compatable bracket axles in various lengths.
They're a bit pricey ($80) but I'm this close to riding and can make one
more sacrifice if the result is a finished bike.
*********************************************



--

 

[Donald Gillies]

upnaround <[email protected]> writes:

>The parts in question: Super Record Strada Crankset (170mm). Nouvo
>Record (or at least I think it's a NR) Bottom Bracket (English; 68-SS-
>120; thin cups; bolted; axle length = 111mm). When fitting the crankarms
>onto the bottom bracket it's obvious both crankarms at the pedal ends
>sit a bit close to the chainstays (about 5/8") and the inner chain ring
>is about 3mm away from the chainstay. It looks like an axle that would
>be about 10mm longer in total length would do the trick. The extra 5mm
>on the drive train side still looks in line with the rear hub spacing in
>my estimation. Would replacing the axle be the right choice? It doesn't
>HAVE to be authentic Campy, as long as it can still accomodate this
>crankset. Any recommendations? It looks like Phil Wood has a good
>selection, but I haven't yet inquired. Anyone's input would be greatly
>appreciated.

do you have the axle turned around in the right direction, because
there is a 3mm offset on one side of the campy axle.

do you have a post-1978 axle on a pre-1978 crankset or vice-versa
because the CPSC changes affected the offsets in these years. Do you
even have a pre-1978 crankset on a post-1978 frame because this could
cause a problem.

My PDF of campagnolo catalogue #17 says that a NR double bottom
bracket is 112 mm wide, with a 3 mm offset on the drive side. What
this means is that from tip of axle to center of BB shell, the axle
should be 54.5 mm, and 57.5 mm (weird, i know).

Have you considered buying a spacer for the fixed cup to move the axle
out by 1 mm or 2mm ?? If you have some taper left on the non-drive
side, this might be a viable option. I have a bike with a narrow
nervex BB shell and it came stock from raleigh with a spacer installed
on the zeus bottom bracket.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

 

[A Muzi]

> > upnaround wrote:
> > > The parts in question: Super Record Strada Crankset (170mm). Nouvo
> > > Record (or at least I think it's a NR) Bottom Bracket (English; 68-SS-
> > > 120; thin cups; bolted; axle length = 111mm). When fitting the
> > > crankarms onto the bottom bracket it's obvious both crankarms at the
> > > pedal ends sit a bit close to the chainstays (about 5/8") and the
> > > inner chain ring is about 3mm away from the chainstay. It looks like
> > > an axle that would be about 10mm longer in total length would do the
> > > trick. The extra 5mm on the drive train side still looks in line with
> > > the rear hub spacing in my estimation. Would replacing the axle be the
> > > right choice? It doesn't HAVE to be authentic Campy, as long as it can
> > > still accomodate this crankset. Any recommendations? It looks like
> > > Phil Wood has a good selection, but I haven't yet inquired. Anyone's
> > > input would be greatly appreciated.

> A Muzi wrote:
> > Sounds completely normal to me. Modern gear seems too far away to
> > these old eyes.
> > And you say "thin cups". That would be a Record 1046 or a Gran Sport (or
> > some other) but not a Nuovo Record 1046a which has 'exclusion grooves'
> > at the edge of the cup.
> > Campagnolo made many slightly variant spindles for both BB systems with
> > confusing markings. However yours seems OK. Did you sight or measure the
> > chainline?

upnaround wrote:
> Thanks for your response, Andrew. My facts weren't straight on my
> original post. After tightening both crankarm bolts (wheeze...), the
> inner chainring comes to within 2mm of the chainstay, while the pedal-
> end of the right crankarm clears the chainstay at a reasonable 1/2". The
> pedal-end of the left crankarm clears the left chainstay by only 1/4".
> The bottom bracket was a seperate online auction item which may not be
> the ideal match. And that <2mm distance from the chainring to the
> chainstay looks a bit too close for comfort. But I'm anxious to ride and
> it seems the quick fix would be to find a crank axle that's about 120mm
> long and can accomodate my existing bearings/cups. The chainline looks
> like it can take another 5mm without distorting too much. Besides, I
> never use 6th-gear and very rarely use 1st-gear so the extreme angles
> don't matter too much. Plus I can dish out the freewheel just slightly
> (~2mm) without goofing up the chainline. I'm a pure newbie at this but
> over the past year have bought up old NR/SR parts and had an old-school
> Reynolds frame built and this has been my only hang-up. I still think
> for the short term I'll check out an aftermarket axle which can work
> with my bracket parts and crankarms. I've been away from bicycling for
> 25 years but I remember Phil Wood made reliable parts in the seventies
> and see they offer backward-compatable bracket axles in various lengths.
> They're a bit pricey ($80) but I'm this close to riding and can make one
> more sacrifice if the result is a finished bike.

2mm isn't a problem. Really. Just ride it.


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

 

[upnaround]

Thanks for your response, Don. In regards to your post:

***
do you have the axle turned around in the right direction, because there
is a 3mm offset on one side of the campy axle.***


Spindle is in correct direction; offset end on drive side. A closer
measurement reveals it's 112mm long instead of 111mm as originally
stated (very sorry...)

***
do you have a post-1978 axle on a pre-1978 crankset or vice- versa
because the CPSC changes affected the offsets in these years.***


Both crankarms have stampings of a diamond with an eight inside, so I'm
guessing this is a 1978 model. The spindle could be pre-1978, but I
don't have anything to substantiate that.

***
Do you even have a pre-1978 crankset on a post-1978 frame because this
could cause a problem.***


The frame is new and the bottom bracket tube length is 67.5mm.

***
My PDF of campagnolo catalogue #17 says that a NR double bottom bracket
is 112 mm wide, with a 3 mm offset on the drive side. What this means is
that from tip of axle to center of BB shell, the axle should be 54.5 mm,
and 57.5 mm (weird, i know).

Have you considered buying a spacer for the fixed cup to move the axle
out by 1 mm or 2mm ?? If you have some taper left on the non-drive side,
this might be a viable option. I have a bike with a narrow nervex BB
shell and it came stock from raleigh with a spacer installed on the zeus
bottom bracket.***


The spacer idea sounds interesting, but I can't give up any more of
spindle on the non-drive side. It still looks like a new spindle is the
only solution. Thanks for your input. -upn



--

 

[John Thompson]

On 2004-05-07, upnaround <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for your response, Peter. Actually, the distance from the inner
> chainring to the chainstay is just less than 2mm after tightening the
> crankarm bolts. The left crank at the pedal end clears the left
> chainstay by 1/4" and the right crankarm clears the chainstay by 1/2".
> Sorry for the misinformation but I rushed into this forum and didn't
> have all the facts straight. And yes, this is for a 120mm rear spacing
> with a 5-spreed freewheel. Just looks to me like an extra 3-5mm on each
> side is still needed.

Have you measured the chainline or at least sighted along the chainline to
see how things line up? If you have a 5spd freewheel, you should be able
to sit behind the bike and see the middle cog in line with the space
between the two chainrings. If that looks good, and you have > 0mm
clearance at the chainstay, you'll be fine.

--

-John ([email protected])

 

[John Thompson]

On 2004-05-09, upnaround <[email protected]> wrote:

> The spacer idea sounds interesting, but I can't give up any more of
> spindle on the non-drive side. It still looks like a new spindle is the
> only solution. Thanks for your input. -upn

You could use a 70mm spindle with a spacer to get more clearance on the
drive side and still have enough thread on the non-drive side to fit the
lockring.

--

-John ([email protected])

 

[upnaround]

Thanks for your two responses, John:

You could use a 70mm spindle with a spacer to get more clearance on the
drive side and still have enough thread on the non-drive side to fit
the lockring.
*********************************************
It never occurred to me to consider 70mm spindle. Never knew they were
interchangeable, but then again I don't know a whole lot... That would
be a cheaper option than a new P. Wood and also "keep it Campy."

In regards to your next post (below), the freewheel does line up well
with the chainrings. Guess I'm just not used to seeing such close
tolerances. Sounds like most of you agree that an inner chainring coming
within 1-2mm of the chainstay is no big deal. Q: Could greater amounts
of "pedal stress" on the crankarms (eg- pedaling up steep hills) cause
very slight (say about 1-2mm) lateral movement of the crankarms,
reducing the already tight clearance even more? Or should I just clam up
and discover for myself the clearance is not an issue?
--



--

 

[dianne_1234]

On Sun, 09 May 2004 20:01:25 GMT, upnaround
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Thanks for your two responses, John:
>
>You could use a 70mm spindle with a spacer to get more clearance on the
>drive side and still have enough thread on the non-drive side to fit
>the lockring.
>*********************************************
>It never occurred to me to consider 70mm spindle. Never knew they were
>interchangeable, but then again I don't know a whole lot... That would
>be a cheaper option than a new P. Wood and also "keep it Campy."
>
>In regards to your next post (below), the freewheel does line up well
>with the chainrings. Guess I'm just not used to seeing such close
>tolerances. Sounds like most of you agree that an inner chainring coming
>within 1-2mm of the chainstay is no big deal. Q: Could greater amounts
>of "pedal stress" on the crankarms (eg- pedaling up steep hills) cause
>very slight (say about 1-2mm) lateral movement of the crankarms,
>reducing the already tight clearance even more? Or should I just clam up
>and discover for myself the clearance is not an issue?
>--

I've shimmed the square taper. I get about 2mm using a coke can
wrapped around the four sides. I've also gotten about 1mm covering
just two adjacent flats. I used a torque wrench to tighten the cranks
to spec.