I will have to agree that C was a big departure visually. In some ways, the current stuff looks more like SR than C did (At least the crank has been whittled down a bit and the seatpost is round). My argument was that C was very similar to SR mechanically. It provided little innovation or added benefits over SR, except for better brake and gear levers and a much needed styling update.
Hey, SR still rules and all, don't get me wrong.
By the way, after all the SL freewheel chat of last week, I got to thinking: How cool would it have been if Campy had made an all-steel FW as a companion to the SL. That way the steel could have been Record and the alloy the Record SL. A steel FW of the same quality as the SL would have been rad'... and probably a bit cheaper and far more serviceable. Hmmm... maybe like the Shimano FW-7400.
Tom Dalton
> In return, for the sake of discourse:
> C-Record looks more like the current stuff than it
> does the Super
> Record stuff as far as styling is concerned (aero).
> Anniversary/late
> Super Record coincides with Tullio Campagnolo's
> death; C-Record came
> later and looks different.
>
> Chuck Schmidt
> South Pasadena, California
> http://www.velo-retro.com (Campy Timeline)
> blue sky, breezy, headed above 70°... time to ride
>
>
> Tom Dalton wrote:
> >
> > I'll disagree with Chuck, mostly for the sake of
> > discourse. I think that the pre-1990 C-record
> stuff
> > was really just an evolutionary step past SR. It
> was
> > the post-1990 C that had indexing, casette, an
> > articulated derailleur body, etc.
> >
> > Bit by bit...
> >
> > BB: Same bearing setup as SR, including delicate
> > alloy cups, but with the improvement of a reliable
> > steel axle.
> >
> > Crank: The major diff. was that the new crank
> took
> > 39-tooth rings, arguably an evolutionary
> improvement
> > (151mm>144mm>135mm). Like the SR, it benefitted
> from
> > deletion of the stamped logo.
> >
> > Pedal: The original C was trendy "aero" platform
> > design, but the entire bearing setup was same as
> SL.
> > By 1987 the Ergo pedal was introduced, and it was
> > functionally the same as an SL. The "advantage"
> was
> > the replaceable cage. The truth was that the
> cages
> > needed frequent replacement, whereas SL's were
> never a
> > problem to begin with. In any case, Ergo's were
> > still nothing like the clipless pedals that
> replaced
> > them.
> >
> > Ft. der: Not much can be done to this part. This
> is
> > still way before the later contoured cage
> profiles.
> >
> > Rear der.: A super rec. with a face lift,
> especially
> > after they ditched the stupid "wheel change"
> spring.
> > The ball bearing pulleys were the incremental
> > "improvement".
> >
> > Shifters: Campy provided a factory sustitute for
> the
> > Simplexes that so many riders had started using
> during
> > the SR era. (I'm convinced that Campy never
> seriously
> > intended for (pre-1990) C-record to be indexed.)
> >
> > Hubs: Still a basic screw-on hub. The
> "improvement"
> > was in the easier to remove/replace dustcap. The
> real
> > problem was the 3/16" front hub bearing and, on
> the
> > really early ones, the spoke-eating flanges.
> >
> > Headset: Aero styling, but it was still far more
> > similar to an SR (SR track, actually) than modern
> > cartridge/threadless system.
> >
> > Post: Again an SR with a facelift. The same
> clamp
> > that worked for most people, but slipped for
> bigger
> > riders. The 6mm allen adjustment was a step in
> the
> > wrong direction, but at least it had an infinitely
> > adjustable angle, unlike the new Campy posts that
> are
> > glorified Laprades.
> >
> > Brakes: The early Deltas were a non-issue in my
> mind,
> > since all early users of C-rec enjoyed Cobalto
> brakes.
> > Once again SR with a facelift. While the lever
> could
> > be routed areo, it could also be routed
> > conventionally, which many pros chose to do at the
> > time. I even recall seeing Deltas routed non-areo
> in
> > 1987 to 1988. The big improvement over the SR was
> > that the lever had better ergonomics, at least for
> > most people. Better transition from bar to hood,
> and
> > more room for the fingers above and below.
> >
> > In some respects I do think C-record may have been
> SR
> > taken a step too far, but I don't see it as
> > revolutionary or fundemantally different from what
> > lead up to it. I think the biggest improvements
> it
> > offered were in the better shifters and more
> > comfortable brake levers. I also like that it did
> > away with titanium in Campy's top group. In my
> > opionion, the downside was that it was rushed to
> > market before some serious durabliity issues had
> > become obvious. Reducing the size of the headset,
> > front hub, and BB (relative to NR) bearings was a
> bad
> > move. Spoke-breaker flanges and snapping
> crankarms
> > were both problems as well.
> >
> > If it were up for vote, I'd vote to include the
> early
> > C-record in what we call the classic era and mark
> the
> > end with the intro of Campy 8-speed indexing and
> > cassettes.
> >
> > Tom Dalton
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/