Campagnolo SR Strada Bottom Bracket question

upnaround said:

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

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 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "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. *********************************************

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Qui Si Parla Ca
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 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali
costruite eccezionalmente bene"

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.
*********************************************

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by A Muzi

Bupnaround said:

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 [/B]

upnaround said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

upnaround said:

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.

Quoted message said:

A Muzi said:

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 said:

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

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

upnaround said:

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 hidden])

upnaround said:

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 hidden])

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?
--

upnaround said:

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.