INTRO
THE BUILD
CRANKS AND BOTTOM BRACKETS
LEVERS
BRAKES
DERAILLEURS
CASSETTES
DOWNSPEC
WRAP-UP

---

INTRO

When you tell the guys at Campagnolo that you’re comparing their Record group to Shimano’s Dura Ace group, they object. "Dura Ace is really comparable to Chorus (Campy’s second from the top)," they say. They’ve got a point. While this wasn’t always the case, nowadays Chorus really is Record, but without a few items subbed-in of exotic material manufacture. And since Dura Ace doesn’t have composite brake levers or derailleur parts, you can make a good case for Chorus and Dura Ace being a fairer match.

But I wanted to do a shootout of the top groups made by the two top component makers so, fair or no, I chose Record and Dura Ace for my shootout. Over the next week or so I’ll be comparing these two groups, and I’ll also write about the groups a little downstream from the top at the same time.

Why am I doing this? Several reasons. First, there are plenty of elements on your bike and mine that are more or less interchangeable. Whether we ride with this stem or that, these frame tubes or those, that seat post or the other, won’t make much difference. That is because there are no moving parts, very little that can break down, and there are fewer elements of engineering involved. Also, there is not generally a great degree of cost involved by choosing one of these products over another.

Campy vs Shimano, though, is a major decision. You might choose a Hitachi monitor over a Viewsonic, it’s not that big a deal. But this… this is like Apple vs Windows. We’re not just talking product here, we’re talking philosophy. We’re talking politics. Heck, we’re talking religion.

So, I had my trusty local builder, Ves Mandaric (he of Yaqui) build me two identical frames: Scandium tubes, internal cable routing, blah blah. Top-of-the-heap aluminum frames. I had two Reynolds Ouzo Pro forks in my possession (I traded Reynolds their use of my trailer for the Las Vegas Interbike Show for a pair of forks), and these great forks went on these two frames. Everything else was exactly the same, save, I think, a difference in stem manufacturers (but the fit and set-up was the same I both cases).

By the way, there is one big difference between these bikes. As I was comparing top-o’-the-line to top-o’-the-line, the apex of Campy’s line is 10-speed. So, it’s Record 10-speed vs Dura Ace 9-speed getting compared here.

THE BUILD

I pretty much hate working on bikes. I’ve done it enough to last me the rest of my life. It’s rote. It’s greasy. It’s boring. And sometimes, when the stuff doesn’t fit onto the frames right, it’s maddening. But in this particular case, I didn’t mind. Mostly it was okay because I don’t have to do it very much anymore, and I was doing it this time because it was research. Part of how well a bike, or a road group, is going to rate with me is in how easy it goes together. If it takes a physics degree and top scientists from the Los Alamos National Lab to figure out how to route this and install that, hell with it. It’s going to get shat on – and with vigor – right here in these virtual pages. If, OTOH, it’s like butta, I’m going to rave on it.

Now that both bikes are built, I have the following to say.

Shimano goes together easily. No problem there. Never was going to be a problem. I’ve put together a lot of this stuff, and so it’s sorta like adjusting the valves on a ’64 VW Bug. After awhile you can do it with your eyes closed.

Campy was a bit different, because in the tri world you just don’t see it that much. Yeah, my wife has a Campy-equipped road bike, but it was built some time ago, and as I’m thinking back, I don’t think I was the one who put it together. Plus, I only had a smattering of Campy tools (spline tools, chain tools, etc.), and I frankly couldn’t remember putting together an Ergopower bike. So I was in virgin territory here.

The one thing that hasn’t changed in all the years since I’ve been farting around with Campy – my first bike had Nuovo Record, and that goes back to the ‘70s – is Campy fit. Everything takes a couple of foot pounds of torque just to thread in. It’s like something between your regular just screw-it-in-type-fit and an interference fit. Nobody machines like Campy. Clearances feel like everything was EDM wire cut. It all fits better than perfectly, hence the term "Campy fit." Nothing else fits like it.

Realize, though, that can be the difference between precision and accuracy. Sometimes Shaquille O’Neal shoots all his free throws precisely 2" too long. He’s shooting them really precisely. But with no accuracy (they all hit the back of the rim and bounce out). Campagnolo has been known – in particular while trying to get click-shifting and MTB stuff to work right in the ‘80s – to make its stuff fit perfectly, and function perfectly ghastly. It’s all well and good that it fits nicely, but then we’ve all got to mount our bikes and ride, you know?

Some noteworthy things I should mention:

The brake housing is slightly larger than Shimano’s. Who woulda thunk it? So the internal cable routing holes in the frame – designed to perfectly fit Shimano – are actually a slight bit too small for Campy housing. So, when I finally succeeded in threading the housing into the guide inside the top tube a very fine sliver of plastic shaved off the housing as I pushed it through. No big whoop, it’s fine. But I thought it was kinda funny that these two companies can’t use the same size housing.

The bolt that passes through the front derailleur tab, or clamp, and threads into the derailleur – fixing the derailleur in place -- has a beveled washer that won’t come off. How they got it stuck on there is another story. Point is, the washer is flat on one side, so that the bolt head can rest flush against it. It’s beveled on the other side, so that it fits properly against a beveled front derailleur tab (that is brazed onto the frame). But I used a clamp (a Shimano clamp). In other words, I spec’d the frame with no derailleur tab, and had always intended to use a clamp. The clamp has a flat surface where the bolt affixes, and so I had to take the washer off the Campy FD bolt. But the washer wouldn’t come off.

"Why doesn’t the washer come off?" I asked the Campy guys.

"Why didn’t you just spec a Campy band-type derailleur?" they replied.

The conversation went like that, each of us asking questions, neither of us giving answers. Whatever. That’s why, I figured, God in his wisdom invented machine screws, so that I can just pull a new generic bolt out of the bin and put on the damn derailleur.

Only one other issue to mention, which concerns the 10-speed chain. It takes a special Campy chain tool. For those who don’t know, Campy is renowned for making the best set of tools in the industry. While bike mechanics the world over may or may not take pride in owning a Campy Chorus or Record road group, they all must own a Campy tool kit.

Nowadays – in the 10-speed era – the kit also means owning a 10-speed chain tool. For those who wish to go the budget route, there are alternatives. Basically, the Campy 10-speed chain tool consists of two plates that contract toward each other while keeping square to each other. As opposed to a pin, which presses the chain pin into the links, these are a pair of plates that press the link parts flush against the link plates. They also have a locking, Vise-Grip®-like mechanism, so that you can really apply a lot of force. Going to the hardware store, one can find a tool that does this for about a fifth the cost of the otherwise $70 Campy tool. If you can find a pair of locking, C-clamp Vise-Grip® pliers with opposing faces that do not swivel, and stay square to each other, that’ll do the trick. Failing that, just go to Excel Sports or Colorado Cyclist, and just buy the damn Campy tool.

That pretty much describes the fun I had. Both bikes went together well. While I underwent the setback of not being able to ride the Campy bike until I could talk to the Campy guys, after they explained it all to me I found that the 10-speed chain actually goes together more easily than your basic garden-variety chain.

So, nothing bad to report, all in all. Both these groups pass the assembly test with flying colors.

CRANKS AND BOTTOM BRACKETS

Readers of Slowtwitch know that I have a particular issue with Shimano's cranks. Shimano’s killer app down in this area is its Hollowcrank technology combined with its splined cranks. Shimano has nicely managed to lighten things up here, but as is the case with, say, aluminum bikes—especially the oversize-tube models like Klein and Cannondale—lightening meant fattening as well.

The same principle applies here. As a result, while the Q-factor (distance from the frame out to the pedal) is the same on Hollowcranks as it was with pre-Hollowcrank Shimano and current Campy, the heel clearance is greatly diminished. In other words, if you measure the distance from the outside of a Hollowcrank at the pedal eye to the centerline of the frame, it is about the same as that historically used by most of the industry (including pre-Hollowcrank Shimano). But if you again measure from the outside of the crank to the centerline of the frame, this time from the bottom bracket instead of from the pedal eye, Hollowcranks stick out 11 millimeters farther from the frame’s centerline on each side. From one crankarm to the other, the entire distance is almost an inch greater than with Campy’s cranks, and than Shimano’s own pre-Hollowcrank Dura-Ace cranks. In other words, the Hollowcranks don't taper down toward the bottom bracket nearly as much as other cranks do.

This means that if a rider does not ride with his feet more or less pointing straight ahead (or pigeon-toed)—and especially if he or she rides splay-footed—the medial side of the cycling shoe is going to rub against the outside of the crankarm. When I ride with Dura-Ace cranks, pretty soon the logo on the left starts to look like the logo on the right.

For how many people is this a problem? I don’t know. A LOT of people ride Dura-Ace cranks successfully, and for that matter Ultegra and 105 cranks, all of which are made this way. But you’ll see a theme start to emerge in this review, and I’ll state the thesis for the first of many times right now:

Shimano Dura-Ace parts, as I’m testing them now and as I’ve tested them historically, are spectacular. Dura-Ace performs flawlessly. It represents the state of the art. But there is no way anyone can justify the fact that it outnumbers Campagnolo in triathlon as it currently does. The ratio should perhaps be two Dura-Ace groups for every Record or Chorus group in the transition area. Or perhaps 3:1, or even 4:1. But in no way should it be 10:1, or 20:1, or 50:1, or whatever it currently is.

I say this because these two groups each perform so well that the crank issue alone is enough to make me—as one particular idiosyncratic user who DOES ride somewhat splay-footed—choose Record or Chorus over Dura-Ace. This is not to say I believe Dura-Ace inferior to Record. I’m making an assessment that applies to me and to my particular need for additional medial foot clearance.

We’ve spoken about the crank. What about the bottom bracket? What about splined BBs in general? Shimano appears, at least to the casual observer, to more vigorously defend some of its patents than others. If you read their cog- and chainring-specific patents—those that refer to ramps and pickup pins and all that stuff—it seems like Campy and most other toothed-gear makers infringe. I frankly don’t understand how Campy gets around it. I have read these patents—most or all of them pertaining to the way Shimano makes its cogs and gears—and I’ve gone over them in great detail and at significant expense with my intellectual property attorney, and with engineers in my employ who had specific knowledge of this technology. It is very tricky trying to engineer around these patents. Yet you look at what’s out there and you (well, I) come to the conclusion that Shimano must be litigation-shy in this area, perhaps due to a fear of being labeled an unfair monopolist. I don’t know. I'm just guessing.

I bring this up because the patent on its splined BB is not one of those areas in which Shimano is a shrinking violet. The company draws a line in the sand here—at least that’s how it appears to me as a casual observer. Therefore, you won’t see other splined BBs that interface with Shimano’s cranks other than those made under license (and Shimano doesn’t grant many splined-BB licenses). It appears that other companies believe in the idea of the splined BB enough to make their own splined BB industry standard, working around Shimano's patent. A small innovative components company called TruVativ introduced this idea and has invited some of its competitors to join in, and they've accepted. Therefore, it seems apparent that splined BBs are considered a good way to make a crank interface with the BB.

Does that mean Campy is using antiquated technology, inasmuch as it still relies on traditional square-hole designs? Perhaps. At the same time, it must be said that it is very hard to make a square-hole crank if you make the crank the best way, by cold-forging it. Machined cranks had their heyday in the early ‘90s, but after so many of them broke the industry in general tired of them and reverted back to the tried-and-true cold-forging technology. But when you cold-forge a crank, you must broach-and-coin the square-hole to make it hard enough so that it won’t deform against the BB axle. The crank must perfectly match the BB and, with chainrings attached, it must turn on its arc in perfect true. It is amazing how tight the tolerance must be. Hard to believe as this is, if the total runout of a large chainring through an entire revolution is a mere one-tenth of a millimeter, it will appear quite out of true to the naked eye.

This is certainly one reason why splined BB technology is appealing to crank makers. It is easier to make a crank spin true. But Campy has its square-hole technology down pat, and so far it sees no reason to change. While it might appear that Campy is using old technology, then this way of making a crank seems to hold up well against new innovations. Old though the technology might be, I rather like the fact that Record keeps saying Record on the outside of my cranks, and Carnac keeps saying Carnac on the inside of my shoes.

Having said all that, there are some things about Campy that annoy me—areas in which I prefer my Dura-Ace bike—and I’ll cover these and other issues in future installments.

LEVERS

These are the epicenters of road groups these days. Most of the high tech thinking is represented in the levers. They have more moving parts than a space shuttle and cost almost as much. As they should. Regardless of whether they're DA or Record, they're engineering marvels.

This is where it's really no fair comparing the two when it comes to features. Campy makes its lever blades out of carbon versus Dura Ace's aluminum. Really, Chorus is a better head-to-head comparison. Chorus and Record are exactly, precisely, the same group, other than a little carbon here and there, and the odd piece of titanium. Really, if I was trying to get the biggest bang for my buck, I'd leave Record for the movie stars to buy, and I'd choose Chorus. That wasn't always the case. In previous iterations of Campy's top road groups Record was substantially different. But not anymore. Chorus is no longer second fiddle to the flagship group. Actually, Chorus is even better in some ways -- durability, for example. Chorus is no longer poor-man's Record. Rather, Record is pretentious-man's Chorus.

Back to the levers. Each brand has its strong suit. They are both shift and brake levers all in one. Shimano's levers are called STI, and Campy calls its system Ergopower. Both have a smaller blade just behind the brake lever blade. In Shimano's case, this blade shifts the chain down to a smaller cog -- a harder to pedal cog. With Campy, it's the opposite. Going back and forth between bikes is sort of like flying back and forth to England -- as we do to see my wife's family -- and preparing to do everything opposite. The Record levers have a button on the side of the brake hood (pictured), pointing inward. Your thumb shifts the chain back down the cogset.

Which is the better lever? There's no right answer. I've used both systems a bunch and they both work very well. The nice thing about the Campy system is its aero routing throughout. There are no gear cables flying out the side of the brake hoods as there are with Shimano. Now, as a road rider, this is no big problem. As a triathlete it's no big problem either, because I don't ride with STI levers in triathlons -- I ride with bar-end shifters. But there are many users out there who prefer to ride with STI or Ergopower style shifting systems, mounted on road race bars, and clip-ons. Were I to ride this way, I'd only do so if my bike had a somewhat more relaxed geometry -- say 75 or 76 degrees of seat angle at the steepest -- and I'd use a shorter-than-normal clip-on. Say, a Profile Jammer, for example.

All of a sudden it's starting to get a little crowded up there. Now I've got shift cables and housing in the same general vicinity of the handhold position on my clip-ons. I don't want to make too much of this. It's not a substantial problem, as the shift cables are trending downward toward the downtube -- alongside which they'll run -- and it's not like I'm going to get tangled up in them as I'm reaching out for the clip-ons. It's just that this is one nice aspect of Campy if this is a configuration you intend to run. There are no shift cables anywhere near the clip-ons.

Campy has a bulkier brake hood, no doubt because of everything mechanical that's going on in there. I guess it's the price one pays for internal gear cable routing. It's not a bad profile, but it's bigger, and it's different. If I don't ride Campy for a long time and then I jump on an Ergopower bike, climbing out of the saddle, with my hands on the hoods, takes a little getting used to. I've also got to figure out how to avoid the downshifting button. No big problem, just the trade-off between Shimano versus Campy. In general, I'd say, Shimano has a slightly more comfortable brake hood when climbing out of the saddle. It's more form fitting. On the other hand, the Ergopower brake hood is flatter and more expansive across its top, forming a sort of platform on which one can perhaps (slightly) more comfortably rest one's hands while riding seated on the hoods.

All that is just to say there isn't a better system. Which leads me again to say, "Why so little Campy in the transition area?" Perhaps I'll posit an explanation later on.

BRAKES

You look at these groups and you ask yourself, "Is the same designer working for both companies?" Click shifting, Ergopower and STI, cassette cogs, ramps and pick-up pins in the chainrings, dual-pivot brakes, all appear on both bikes. Who's copying whom?

In the case of the brake calipers, Shimano clearly came out with dual pivot brakes first, and while they're a throwback to the idea of function over lightweight (side-pull brakes can certainly be made to be lighter), their function is unassailably better than anything ever previously used in cycling.

But don't give Shimano's engineers too much credit. The design was originally under patent by a German company called Altenberger. Quietly, for 20 years or so, Shimano and Campy quietly went about making brake calipers of inferior design because they were enjoined from using the superior Altenberger design. Not that the Altenberger brakes were that red-hot. The execution left much to be desired. But the idea was there. It wasn't until the Altenberger patent ran out that both companies -- Shimano first -- began to integrate a dual-pivot design into their gruppos.

As for the calipers themselves, hey, yet again, it's pick-em. Neither has a big edge over the other. There is one nice characteristic to Campy calipers, and that is a way to tighten the tension on the spring. Is this necessary? Perhaps not, or at least not often. I haven't found a situation in which my Shimano dual-pivot calipers needed tighter springs. On the other hand, Shimano assumes you'll use its calipers in concert with its STI levers, in which case there is a return spring also built into the brake lever. If you're using any version of a pursuit bar-specific lever -- a Dia Compe #188, a Syntace Space Control, or a Profile Quick Stop -- there is no return spring. So, for triathletes with pursuit bars mounted, perhaps here's a slight edge to Campy.

DERAILLEURS

Where is the right place in this review to bring up the most obvious difference between these two groups – that one has ten speeds and the other nine? Perhaps this is as good as any.

Consider this question: If Campagnolo's latest component groups had eight speeds on the back, don't you think the entire cycling world would dismiss Campy as archaic, features-wise? Yet the fact that Shimano has nine speeds to Campagnolo's ten doesn't seem to phase many people. Perhaps you could say, "Okay, but hey, once you have nine speeds, do you really need more?"

Fair point. But to tell you the truth, I've been hearing that (and saying it) since we had five cogs in the back. I think the high point came when we had seven cogs, and Shimano offered us eight. That is when, if I remember correctly, the rear ends of our bikes had to grow in width, from 126.5mm of distance between the dropouts to 130mm. Now, when we get an extra cog we don't make a big stink about it. In fact, we kind of like it. On my Shimano cassettes, I'm able to go from 12t to 27t without having any ridiculously high jumps. On Campy, my 10sp cassettes go from 12t to 25t, and it seems almost like a straightblock.

If there is one criticism I have of Campy, it's that its cassettes don't come in all the ranges I'd like. But that's a gripe I'll take up on a further section in this review.

Campy lovers argue that you can shift a Campy 10sp drivetrain under load and it performs this operation more smoothly than does Shimano’s 9sp. I must confess that I've got a lot more Shimano miles under my belt (well, since 1985) than Campy miles. So, perhaps there is some nuanced difference here that I'm just not hip enough to discern. But honestly, when both these groups are dialed in I don't perceive much difference in the way they shift. They both shift great. If I'm out of the saddle climbing and I shift to an easier gear while applying a lot of pressure to the pedals each of these groups will usually execute the shift with little complaint. When I'm shifting to a larger gear -- harder to pedal -- while under a significant load neither group is exceptionally happy. If only under a moderate load, both groups will shift up and down with no problem whatsoever.

The Record group is exceptionally light, and that is partly due to the replacing of aluminum with carbonfibre here and there. One of those places is in the rear derailleur parallelogram. The Chorus derailleur is exactly the same as Record, except with aluminum used throughout the derailleur. If I were buying Campy only for the function, I'd buy Chorus. The weight you save in getting a small bit of carbon here and there is minor, and the carbon isn't going to last as long as the forged aluminum.

All the way around, I'd say that both groups' derailleurs perform very well, and I don't think one wins over the other. Except -- as I say -- with regard to the number of shifts. I think it would be intellectually dishonest to say that ten speeds are not an advantage over nine. If the tables were turned, Campy would take a big hit for having one less gear. You might eschew Campy for any number of reasons, but after an entire generation of riders has watched Shimano continually up the ante with one additional gear after another, at this particular point in time Campy – with its ten speeds to the competition's nine – has hoisted Shimano by its own petard.

One note I’d like to make on a previous section – brake calipers. A reader has pointed out something that ought to have been made earlier in this review, that Campy has a particular feature that – in a way – paints it into a corner.

As anyone knows, when you change a wheel you must spread the caliper arms so that the tire can easily clear the brake pads. Shimano does this with a lever on the side of the calipers. Campy does this with a button on the brake levers. This means that if you have a tri bike with pursuit bars and a non-Campy lever (say, a Dia Compe #188 or a Syntace Space Control) you won’t have any way to spread the caliper arms. This is a big Campy negative, and Campy routinely does this. It tries its hardest to make sure that the functionality of its groups depends on using only Campy parts throughout. That’s great if Campy made all the parts you’d need, but it doesn’t. It makes bar-end shifters for time-trialers and, yes, it makes brake levers that match. But these are brake levers that go on road bars, not on tri bars. In this one case Campy ought to have talked to somebody before it made its decision on what style of brake lever to make for those using its bar-end shifters. It ought to have made something that goes into the ends of pursuit bars.

In reality, it wouldn’t make a huge difference to me, because pursuit-bar-types of levers have a lot of "throw" – which is to say the pads can be quite a ways away from the rims and still have plenty of stopping power. I generally prefer this arrangement, because if my wheel gets a little wobbly during the event – if I break a spoke, or if the wheel just picks this unfortunate time to act up – I don’t want my wheel rubbing on my brakes. Therefore, changing a wheel on a setup where I can’t spread the caliper arms isn’t a big deal to me, because they’re already sufficiently spread on my tri-specific bike for the wheel to go in and out easily.

But this might be an issue with some users, and for that reason perhaps Campy brake calipers on a bike with aftermarket levers could be a negative.

CASSETTES

With ten speeds to Shimano's nine, you'd think it would be easy for Campy to win the cassette category in a gruppo shootout. It's a split decision, though, as it turns out.

Riding in San Diego's backcountry, you need some small gears. My buddies and I ride a lot in De Luz Canyon, a big expanse of nothing but avocado ranchos that abut the eastern boundary of Camp Pendleton (where IM California is held). The canyon straddles both Riverside and San Diego Counties, and is 20 miles through, one-way, if you take the shortest route. But there are little roads criss-crossing the canyon, and you can ride a century in De Luz without riding over the same stretch twice (but you'll come the same intersections several times, and it's usual to find cyclists out there with quizzical looks on their faces, obviously lost).

There's Sandia Creek, a road with a grade almost two miles long with a steady pitch of 18%. There's Via Vaquero, with a lot of 15% - 20% pitches, and one short pitch at 28%. And there's Los Gatos, two-thirds of a mile long and, except for one brief respite of 10% in the middle, the entire thing is between 22% and 27%.

A friend of mine did Los Gatos with Steve Hegg, and said Hegg powered up in a 21-tooth cog. Me? I'm doing the paperboy in my 27t. That's if I have a 27t to do the paperboy in, and that only occurs if I'm riding a Shimano-equipped bike. I've got a 12-27 cogset to work with, albeit with nine speeds.

I can have a Campy with a 29t if I want, but only if I agree to get stuck with 13t for my first position cog. What I really want is to have my 11t cog back, but still have a granny. There is a technical problem, though.

Derailleurs have a maximum range of teeth they can accommodate. The upper limit designation is in total teeth, meaning you take the difference between the two chainrings, and between the largest and smallest cog, sum these, and that is total teeth. An 11-23 cogset with a 53-39 set of chainrings yields 26 total teeth. A derailleur's cage size determines how many total teeth it can accommodate, as it is the responsibility of the cage (that thing at the bottom of the rear derailleur with the two pulleys) to take up the extra chain slack when the chain is on a progressively smaller combination of chainring and cog.

My Campy bike is equipped with a 12-25 10s cogset, and a 53X39 set of chainrings. This yields 27 total teeth, which is exactly the upper limit of a Campy Record derailleur. So, how come Campy makes a 13-29 cogset, if the derailleur can't handle that range? Because Campy also makes a medium-cage version of its Record derailleur, which expands the range of gears you can use. Therefore, why doesn't Campy make an 11-26 cogset?! I'd have my Los Gatos gear, and my 11t first-position cog!

---