The alloy Campagnolo used to make parts is no mystery. Their chainrings were/are 7075T6. Anyone can have the metal tested to find this out, not a big deal. Japanese chainrings on the lower price point cranksets normally would not use this 7075 alloy. I actually designed cranks that were made in Japan and heard the argument from our supplier that this hard alloy was not needed for chainrings. I would not budge on this, and got them to do it. Dura-Ace rings were made from 7075 also. It's not a big secret. But there are reasons for not using it. Cost is first. But they also did not like the requirement that the sheet alloy had to be stored inside. If water gets on it it stains, looks bad on the finished product. Space is expensive in Japan.
Spain was a mostly closed economy during Franco. The Zeus parts were a form of import substitution for the home market. If one lived in Spain and wanted to have a racing bike the import duty would make it very expensive to have Campi parts. The materials available in Spain during these times was similar to what was in Italy, Spain did have an aircraft industry. The cogs on the Zeus freewheel used 7075 for instance. And most of these parts are forged, not cast. Some of the detail work on Zeus was not great, and the milled slots in the crank arms was a bad idea.
JIm Merz Big Sur CA
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Amir Avitzur <walawalaoxenfree@gmail.com>wrote:
> John:
>
> I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from ... but I disagree on
> most points:
>
> 1. "spanish manufacturer using copies of Campy molds"
>
> - Everybody copies everybody, especially if the design is good
>
> But Zeus did not copy the molds because
>
> - their designs were very close, but not identical.
> - companies don't give their competitors access to their molds (unless
> they are related)
> - companies have non-competitive understandings with strategic partners
> such as die-makers
>
> 2. "Campy eventually sued them out of existence" ...... really? send me
> a
> link to the source of this info
>
> 3. "Never popular in the pro peleton" ... not touching this one ... see
> archives
>
> 4. "Brittle alloys" ... don't know, never saw any statistics, doubt they
> were ever published
>
> 5. Shimano never was able to duplicate Campy alloy specs
>
> - Shimano didn't need to copy anybody's alloys ... study them, yes ...
> copy, no
> - Shimano needed to make the best of what they had
>
> 6. "The castings were crude at all price points" ... no argument here
>
> - my point was functionality, reliability, repeatability ... slant
> parallelogram designs were better than the competition in all respects
> right
> off the drawing board (but I agree, they were never as pretty as Campy
> designs)
>
> 7. "If you don't haves experience with the product, What's the point of
> posting?"
>
> - I rode with all these product over many, many years. But as I'm not a
> very aggressive rider, all worked fine for me.
> only thing I ever broke were spokes and helmets.
> - shimano & suntour outshifted Campy ...
> otherwise why would campy have changed to slant parallelogram designs?
>
> 8. There's no need to call names on the list.
> Shimano may not have made the best parts in the world, but they were
> good enough for them to survive,
> prosper and become the world's biggest component maker.
>
> As for George's comments:
>
> Zeus had basically three lines of products: Alfa, Criterium, and 2000 ... I
> rode Criterium parts
>
> Amir Avitzur
> Ramat-Gan, Israel
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Synergy Cycling Services <
> synergy@belizemail.net> wrote:
>
> > Zeus was a spanish manufacturer using copies of Campy molds under
> extremely
> > lax Spanish patent laws. Campy eventually sued the out of existence.
> The
> > materials were never up to Campy levels ( or even Shitmano or Suntour).
> > Notorious for voids or brittle alloys cast to Campy dimensions. Never
> > popular in the pro peloton, they were for your wannabees that could not
> > afford the real thing. Shimano never was able to duplicate Campy alloy
> > specs ( I am a former Shitmano employee) especially chainrings. It drove
> > the Japanese crazy! Giggle all you want . Your archive comparisons were
> not
> > made by pro mechanics that had to work with the struff! The castings were
> > crude at all price points. They were somewhat less than pretty. You
> usually
> > had to remove flashing waste before you could install threaded parts. If
> > you don't haves experience with the product, What's the point of posting?
> > John Lands
> > Synergy cycling Technical Services
> > ( Former Olympic Team, National Team, Shimano Technical Support, Mavic
> Race
> > Service mechanic)
> >
> > --- walawalaoxenfree@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > From: Amir Avitzur <walawalaoxenfree@gmail.com>
> > To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > Subject: [CR] headset thread help - Zeus
> > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:33:54 +0200
> >
> > Somebody at Synergy Cycling Tech Services, I don't know who, said:
> >
> > "NOTHING Zeus ever made was superior to Campy."
> >
> > Unsigned, absolute statements, like this one make me giggle.
> > (they remind me of all the racer wannabees in the 70's who laughed at
> > Shimano & SunTour)
> >
> > The archives are full of Campy/Zeus comparisons.
> > Read them, they're interesting.
> >
> > Never having used a Zeus headset, all I can say about them is that they
> are
> > mighty pretty, to my eyes.
> > Having used them for years and years I can say that Zeus cranks, bottom
> > brackets and hubs are mighty pretty and quite reliable.
> >
> > YMMV
> >
> >
> > Amir Avitzur
> > Ramat-Gan, Israel