Dura Ace vs Record

pliptrot

Lots of opinions on this, little evidence other than weight. Dura Ace rear derailleurs (9-speed) have ball bearings (with a clever design for transverse loads in the top pulley) in the pulleys; Record (last all-alloy version) on plain bearings. Oh yes, that was twice the price of the Dura Ace version.

Dura Ace freehubs had the drive side hub bearing right by the drop-out; complicated and difficult design, whereas the Record version put the drive side hub bearing even further inboard than the old freewheel design: Dura Ace evidently superior.

Back of Dura Ace cranks polished as well as the front: Campag Record not well polished at all out of view. Also the (pre-carbon sleeve) version of the bottom bracket (Campag's first attempt at sealed units?) put the bearings under compressive load as you tightened up the left hand cup.

Campag were peddling the Look 286 as their Record pedal offering for a while: Dura Ace always offered with far superior cup and cone designs, which are more durable and have no play.

Now I know that Campag. have wobbled in the past (think off-road components, SGR pedals and such) and I imagine that many die hard fans will forgive them. But perhaps the Japanese have really moved ahead? It was privately admitted by most that Suntour derailleurs were far superior to Campag's best, but, well as Campag was (much) more expensive they sold on.

When Gary Klein started making frames, his first big move on the road to success was to increase the price significantly. Here's betting, judging by recent posts here, that Mrs. Campagnolo's kids have learned that lesson, and learned it well.

timbooth

You are talking about old technology, not the current offerings.

Cranks/BB - Most seem to agree that the current Campagnolo design is superior to Shimano (Though someone WILL argue with me on that) - the interface is stiffer.

Brakes - I've always found Campagnolo brakes far superior to Shimano (my old Athena were better than my current 9-speed DA ones).

Shifters - 50/50 on what you find more comfy.

This always comes up and is as inflamatory as 'steel is real' 'factory vs handbuilt wheels' and 'Girls Aloud - hot or not'.

pliptrot

What is the interface on the crank set you are talking of? I love the way the bike has become a consumable item - stuff less than 5 years old is now considered old technology.

Nevertheless, the points I made above are all about good solutions to the principal problems presented by the modern bicycle and it's design (here I refer to the fundamental design, much of which has not changed in decades, and not the superficial frippery which so engages us these days), solutions which the Italians never really addressed. You may remember that Campag dismissed index shifting when it first appeared, suggesting (along with the cognescenti and most of the bike mags) that it was really of interest to "non-competitive"cyclists.

In 1986 a pair of Campag record hubs laced with 28 DT spokes to Ambrosio Durex rims weighed in at 1380 grams. And they didn't cost 500 quid, either. Old technology may have some merits, after all.

I'd be interested in any objective views as to the merits of DA versus Record. Principally because it would be good to see something worth reading on this forum and also because it's a choice I may make shortly. My old technology is running as new, but I - and perhaps I'm not alone in this- am vain enough to want another new bike.

aracer

Apart from discussing old technology, comparing hub design is pretty irrelevant for most people nowadays as groupsets no longer come with hubs so most people use wheelsets with hubs which aren't from the same maker as the groupset.

pliptrot

And of course the image police would have something to say if you tried to buy something other than you were told by your favourite bike mag. Between them Campagnolo and Shimano make the best hubs, so it is, perhaps, a little disconcerting to see so many people spending so much money on so much inferior kit.

I bought, on the recommendation of the wheel builder, Hope hubs. They are absolutely wretched, being badly designed, very badly made and hopelessly unreliable. Such equipment is not, I suspect, uncommon in these days of marketing hype, but such slipshod manufacturing and poor design would not be excused by the motor trade, or any other industry for that matter.

And I'll make this point again; Campag used to put ball bearings in their derailleur pulleys, and then they stopped. This is one of the easiest ways to improve the performance of a derailleur equipped bicycle, but is not, apparently, worth doing on a derailleur which retails at more than 150 quid. Which is ironic, given that derailleur gears are crude, unsophisticated things anyway.

Anonymous

Do you really want an opinion pliptrot, or are you just showing off?

aracer

pliptrot wrote:

What is the interface on the crank set you are talking of? I love the way the bike has become a consumable item - stuff less than 5 years old is now considered old technology.

For the sake of discussion of what is the best to buy now, 1 year old stuff may be old technology. It's pretty pointless saying not to buy a part because the previous part by that maker was poorly designed.

If you have problems with Hope hubs, despite the many thousands who don't (I have them in my TT wheels, and many MTBers also get on very well with them) maybe it's your mechanical sympathy which is the problem, not the design. Meanwhile I suspect you may find some arguments from Chris King / Phil Wood / Uli Fahl etc, over whether Shimano / Campagnolo really make the best hubs.

pb21

Facts:
Record is lighter.
Record is much more expensive.

Opinion:
Record looks nicer.

I would say having never used dura ace that they both perform equally.

cougie

Just get whatever takes your fancy.

Life is simply too short to spend hours agonising over decisions like this. Choose one and then ride the damn thing. Easy.

pliptrot

Oh dear, in an attempt to provoke a little lively debate about the relative merits of Japanese and Italian engineering I seem to have invoked all manner of invective. If I were showing off, would I not be talking about my new bike which cost a month's salary, rather than my old hack, replete as it is with old technology?

And yes, I do want opinions. they are much more fun than insults, and I have more sympathy for those who give them. Sympathy does not, I am given to understand, wear things out or cause them to break prematurely. I'd be intrigued as to see the relative failure rates of Hope hubs versus, well, any other manufacturer. I have little sympathy for crappy stuff.

And I do believe that precedents should have some impact on the here and now. Manufacturing even relatively simple things like bicycle components takes know how and rather a lot of experience, and the precise point is that if, previously, a manufacturer has failed to impress, then it's likely to slip down the list of favourites. I'm sure many people out there still make Skoda jokes. The evidence hanging up in my garage suggests as I have implied above, but I'd like to understand how Campag have come on in the last few years. I'd like to spend a month's salary (Whitley - there I go again) on a new bike, but I would also like to make an informed choice.

cougie

Pliptrot - are you new to cycling forums ?

The shimano vs campag debate comes up time and time again. Just google back for them, and nothing is ever sorted 100%.

LangerDan

TimBooth wrote:

Cranks/BB - Most seem to agree that the current Campagnolo design is superior to Shimano (Though someone WILL argue with me on that) - the interface is stiffer.

I'm not going to argue but I think we need another year or two of user experience with Ultra-Torque to see how the coupling holds up, particualrly when a) it starts getting made from cheaper materials as it propagates down through the Campagnolo range and b) as it gets maintained (or not as the case may be) by folks in their sheds.

Brakes - I've always found Campagnolo brakes far superior to Shimano (my old Athena were better than my current 9-speed DA ones).
.

Unfortunately that probably doesn't apply now below Chorus-level. The guy in my LBS was telling me last week how he is using 2006 spec mid-range Campagnolo callipers rather than 2007 on new builds because the braking performace is not acceptable.

Rob Sallnow

pliptrot wrote:

And I'll make this point again; Campag used to put ball bearings in their derailleur pulleys, and then they stopped. This is one of the easiest ways to improve the performance of a derailleur equipped bicycle, but is not, apparently, worth doing on a derailleur which retails at more than 150 quid. Which is ironic, given that derailleur gears are crude, unsophisticated things anyway.

Campag stopped putting ball bearings in their Record mechs in about 1993 when it was discovered )by Shimano) that a top jockey wheel with float improved shifting...and it is difficult to achieve float when using ball bearings....except in Shimano pedals. I don't know what you mean by Dura Ace rear derailleurs (9-speed) have ball bearings (with a clever design for transverse loads in the top pulley) in the pulleys as the current Dura Ace mech uses 'sealed' bearings for the bottom and a trench bearing for the top one.

Shimano also peddled their own Look pedal made under licence and I very much doubt the bearing quality was any better.

The rear of Dura Ace cranks were polished to distract from the ugliness of it's front.

pb21

LangerDan wrote:

TimBooth wrote:

Cranks/BB - Most seem to agree that the current Campagnolo design is superior to Shimano (Though someone WILL argue with me on that) - the interface is stiffer.

I'm not going to argue but I think we need another year or two of user experience with Ultra-Torque to see how the coupling holds up, particualrly when a) it starts getting made from cheaper materials as it propagates down through the Campagnolo range and b) as it gets maintained (or not as the case may be) by folks in their sheds.

I installed a new chorus chainset last week and while I was doing so started to worry about the longevity of the system.

pliptrot

Cougie,

I am relatively new, but as opinions seem to change faster than the equipment on which they are based, it's always good to ask the question. What I was hoping for was precisely the sort of sensible and anecdotal response as from LangerDan, rather than the usual indolent tripe from those who identify with and, evidently, are defined by their choices of the things they buy.

sl

PilProt - Having used DA and Record for many years I guess I have an opinion

1) Bottom brackets - the square taper sealed BB used on Record and Chorus was a high quality unit with 3 serviceable cartridge bearings - I disagree on your comment that tightening the cups loaded the bearings - the carbon/ally spacer prevents that happening. I would have commented that the soft alloy cups were easily stripped if over tightened - The quality of this item outstrips anything I have seen from Shimano

2) Rear mechs - you correctly mentioned the older Campag mechs did have ball bearings in the jockey wheels and the new ones use brass plain bushes but then assume this has been done on a cost basis? I suspect they have changed becuase the ball races in jockey wheels fill up with sh1t and run roughly whereas bushes don't?

3) Chainsets - the horst link in the new Campag chainsets is a much better solution to the DA approach of having a splined end with two allen bolts (IMHO) - lighter and simpler.

4) Rear hubs - agree on your point about the inner bearing on campag being inboard and have had problems with this bearing wearing out in the past - difficult to get at and badly sealed on the old 8 speed C-record hubs - on the plus side you can get spares and completely repair the unit if you are that way inclined. I have a set of new DA 7801 wheels with DA cup/cone hubs and they are a thing of beauty.

5) Pedals - thinks this is a matter of opinion rather than anything else - the original C-Record look copies had titanium bearings that were amazing! I ride Look rather than Shimano or Campag on the basis of ease of spares/shoe compatibilty?

6) Finish - easy - Campag every time - the quality of the anodising is far superior to Shimano - just look at kit from both suppliers thats 10 years old - the Campag wears far better and looks nicer.

7) Brakes - both good although I do think the current DA units flex a lot and aren't and strong as current Campag?

8) Changers - thought I use to prefer Campag but the smoother change of Shimano is growing on me - I would say that I have Record Ergo levers 13 years old that still work perfectly - anything Shimano has long since dissolved. I would say that the down change on a shimano front mech of Shimano DA or Ultegra is plasticy and feels like its about to break.

I bought a DA g/set last year simply because I got bored buying Campag every time and am equally happy with it, its more plasticy and refined than Camapg, whereas Campag seems better engineered and robust. Bottom line is they are both very good having been around for a long time and its good to have competition between two manufacturers to keep things moving forward.

Lastly, I would say that I think the new SRAM changers are total rubbish and I can't believe anyone putting up with them for long - something that the reviewers are starting to comment on now that the post-launch blabber has worn off :-)

Rob Sallnow

pliptrot wrote:

What I was hoping for was precisely the sort of sensible and anecdotal response as from LangerDan, rather than the usual indolent tripe from those who identify with and, evidently, are defined by their choices of the things they buy.

So it strikes me as strange that you would go on about the 'inferior' design of Campag freehubs....an observation that seems as old as the hills.
If you look at an exploded diagram of a Campag hub, even the design from the mid 90s you will see that it doesn't really differ at all to a current Dura Ace hub...the ball bearings seem to be in the same place. I'm not a fully fledged Shimano expert but it may be that Dura Ace used to be built like the current Ultegra and 105 hub where the bearings do appear closer to the dropout but for some reason their 2007 top of the range hub seems to have the same kind of configuration as a top to bottom of the range mid 90s Campag design.

Sub3_99

I've been using the Chorus UT crankset now for just over a year. In that time I've taken it apart and put it back together again twice out of curiosity. Despite my best attempts to bodge it by using a plumbing tool to tighten it instead of the proper BB tool, plus trying it with & without the spring spacer thingie, It's worked well, and I have nothing but the utmost confidence in it's ability to withstand anything that even the stupidest backyard maintainer can do to it.

Like others on here I prefer Look pedals to anything else, and will swear by the Suntour Superb Pro front hub that I'm running on my winter wheels. Nearly 10 years of use now and still spinning as smoothly as the day that the wheels were built for me.

davman

sl

A Horst Link is a type of rear suspension, not Ultra Torque chainsets, which use a Hirth coupling.

pb21

Interesting that you state you were unsure about the longevity of the Ultra Torque system. As Hirth couplings are used in, amongst other machinery, gas turbines, i'd bet that Campagnolo wouldn't have moved to this type of connection if they didn't think it was viable

Simon

timbooth

"What I was hoping for was precisely the sort of sensible and anecdotal response as from LangerDan, rather than the usual indolent tripe from those who identify with and, evidently, are defined by their choices of the things they buy."

Congratulations on winning the 'Utter Pomposity Award' - as you say you are relatively new to forums, may I humbly suggest that if you don't want to hear answers that differ from the law of your own opinion, that you don't ask the questions in the first place.

May I also be the first to apologise if my meager experiences of riding bicycles for the last 25 years is not 'anecdotal' enough.

Your arrogance is breath-taking - I wonder if you are in fact, a troll.

aracer

TimBooth wrote:

Your arrogance is breath-taking - I wonder if you are in fact, a troll.

He does seem a lot like one - coming on spouting controversial and inaccurate opinions (and then complaining when people disagree with him). Bearing that in mind I'll point out that this post is replying to other people's points not his, as I really can't be bothered.

Rob Sallnow wrote:

If you look at an exploded diagram of a Campag hub, even the design from the mid 90s you will see that it doesn't really differ at all to a current Dura Ace hub...the ball bearings seem to be in the same place. I'm not a fully fledged Shimano expert but it may be that Dura Ace used to be built like the current Ultegra and 105 hub where the bearings do appear closer to the dropout but for some reason their 2007 top of the range hub seems to have the same kind of configuration as a top to bottom of the range mid 90s Campag design.

Then again you are also talking about old (this year's) technology 8) For 2008 there is a new DA hub which reverts to the original Shimano freehub design with the right bearings in the end of the freehub part.

Regarding UT longevity, then the connection design is definitely good, and better than Shimano's http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/r ... &t=3210578 I've heard not so good tales about the bearing longevity of UT (the bearings are unsealed on one side apparently!) though that should be fixable with a bearing upgrade.

Rob Sallnow

aracer wrote:

Rob Sallnow wrote:

If you look at an exploded diagram of a Campag hub, even the design from the mid 90s you will see that it doesn't really differ at all to a current Dura Ace hub...the ball bearings seem to be in the same place. I'm not a fully fledged Shimano expert but it may be that Dura Ace used to be built like the current Ultegra and 105 hub where the bearings do appear closer to the dropout but for some reason their 2007 top of the range hub seems to have the same kind of configuration as a top to bottom of the range mid 90s Campag design.

Then again you are also talking about old (this year's) technology 8) For 2008 there is a new DA hub which reverts to the original Shimano freehub design with the right bearings in the end of the freehub part..

I'm refering to the standard hubs. Are you talking about the new hub on the 2008 Dura Ace wheelset? Cyclingnews are unsure of the bearing configuration in their 20/08/07 article.

aracer

The FH-7850, part of the 2008 wheels, but it seems it will be available separately - info on bearings from http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB ... hp?t=33703

franklin pierce

pb21 wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

TimBooth wrote:

Cranks/BB - Most seem to agree that the current Campagnolo design is superior to Shimano (Though someone WILL argue with me on that) - the interface is stiffer.

I'm not going to argue but I think we need another year or two of user experience with Ultra-Torque to see how the coupling holds up, particualrly when a) it starts getting made from cheaper materials as it propagates down through the Campagnolo range and b) as it gets maintained (or not as the case may be) by folks in their sheds.

I installed a new chorus chainset last week and while I was doing so started to worry about the longevity of the system.

The "dog clutch" style of interface at the centre of hte bottom bracket was tried back in the '80s, to fairly wide-spread destruction. As a general rule the rocking motion induced at the bolt head was quite fatiguing. I haven't seen anything campagnolo has done to mitigate it, but I suppose time* will tell.


* a few million load cycles?

Eurostar

I had test rides of bikes equipped with both. My heart was saying - go on, buy Campy...it's lovely, beautiful, traditional and from nice Yurpeans instead of Bridge on the River Kwai guards.

But. The big, ugly DA STI levers were a revelation - so comfy, so useful, basically the best bar extensions ever. Plus, I liked the clicky precision of the DA gear change experience. Record feels woolly and slack. I gather this is a selling point, but I don't like it. Plus, with DA you have one gear changing paddle on each shifter - with Record you have two. (Because Shimano have patented their design, apparently.)

So...when it comes to ergonomics and function, I sincerely believe DA to be streets ahead of Record, just as it has been since DA 7400 appeared in the early '80s when it was the first groupset with indexing. Campy have been playing catch-up ever since, but they are STILL behind. Not surprising when a mighty Japanese engineering company decides to beat a bunch of Italians at their own game.

Titanium

Record has issues today. The previous incarnation of the group has lightweight Ti bolts and other weight saving parts. Now they bring us the Skeleton brakes but stick heavier bolts back on and I get the feeling they'll bring a new version with light bolts in 08 or 09.

What I mean is they could easily make Record better today but it feels like they are holding back, it's cycnical. In the same way the Record and Chorus Ultra-torque cranks are identical, except the Chorus version has the mould bladder left inside it. That's like making two frames and leaving a lead weight inside one and charging money for the one without the lead inside.

Pagem

i read a nice quote somewhere:

one looks beautiful and works okay. the other looks okay and works beautifully...

aracer

Titanium wrote:

In the same way the Record and Chorus Ultra-torque cranks are identical, except the Chorus version has the mould bladder left inside it. That's like making two frames and leaving a lead weight inside one and charging money for the one without the lead inside.

To be fair, my understanding is that the Chorus moulding process is slightly different - extracting the bladder is a more complex and expensive process. It's not as if they've actually added anything to the Chorus version - a better analogy would be charging more for a frame with double buitted tubing than one with plain gauge (are all 80s frame builders as guilty as Campag?)

Anyway, it's not as if Shimano don't deliberately degrade parts in order to create a marketing distinction - do you really think DA costs 50% more to make than Ultegra?

Eurostar

aracer wrote:

Titanium wrote:

do you really think DA costs 50% more to make than Ultegra?

Well, it is made in a separate factory, where the only other group they make is XTR. That's what I read the other day at acf.

Edit: just looked this up and it seems to be true http://thisjustin.bicycling.com/2006/07 ... impre.html

wildmoustache

Titanium wrote:

Record has issues today. The previous incarnation of the group has lightweight Ti bolts and other weight saving parts. Now they bring us the Skeleton brakes but stick heavier bolts back on and I get the feeling they'll bring a new version with light bolts in 08 or 09.
.

But the brakes are lighter and as good at stopping as the previous version ... and therefore better (so far at least). if they needed to drop the ti bolts to hit their margin targets then so be it ... perhaps they should have also released a Ti bolt version for an additional charge.

Wasn't there also a drop in the price of record compared to 06?

pliptrot

Many thanks for all these opinions, all of which have been helpful and informative. Just what I was trolling for, in fact. Thanks also for all the insults, however those of you who have offered these should, I suggest, refer to the dictionary for a better understanding of the words "opinion" and "pompous".

I wonder how much weight folks give to buying European ( being modestly patriotic) as opposed to Japanese?