Photography by Matt Wikstrom

Campagnolo Super Record RS groupset review

by Matt Wikstrom - September 16, 2014

Campagnolo recently refined its Super Record groupset. The company made a variety of modifications to the drivetrain that included an overhaul of the chainrings and front derailleur. The result is the RS edition that will be produced in limited numbers with exclusive badging. In this review, CTech Editor Matt Wikstrom takes a look at how the new groupset performs.

Campagnolo introduced Super Record in 1974. It was designed as the successor to Nuovo Record, but in the first instance, offered little in the way of performance improvements. Super Record was defined by a fresh finish instead — some black anodising — and the incorporation of exotic materials (titanium) to reduce the weight of the groupset (and justify an exorbitant asking price).

Super Record was refined a little over the coming years and a limited edition was produced to celebrate Campagnolo’s 50th anniversary in 1983. Super Record was widely appreciated for its robust design and beautiful aesthetic, however the groupset lacked an edge in performance, especially when compared to the advances being made by Shimano with indexed shifting. Super Record was eventually discontinued in 1988 as Campagnolo overhauled its Record groupset to become the company’s flagship.

Campagnolo resurrected Super Record in 2009 for the release of its first ever 11-speed groupsets. Super Record resumed its place as the company’s flagship, and just like the first era, the group featured several titanium upgrades and a hefty pricetag to match.

Two special editions of Super Record have been produced since its return to Campagnolo’s catalogue. In 2013, the company celebrated its 80th anniversary with a specially marked and boxed edition, followed by the RS edition earlier this year. While the latter was specially badged and produced in limited numbers, Super Record RS was also refined to improve the quality of shifting.

Before the ride

According to Campagnolo, Super Record RS features modifications throughout the drivetrain. The majority involve subtle changes in shape or angle, however the front chainrings were overhauled with new shifting ramps and profiles for the teeth. The front derailleur was also redesigned and the carbon cage was replaced by metal.

The other defining features of Super Record remain unchanged for the RS edition. Thus, every component is lighter than its Record equivalent thanks to extra engineering (e.g. the brake levers have three cutouts compared to two for Record) and the strategic use of titanium (e.g. a Super Record cassette has six titanium sprockets compared to three for Record). Super Record is further distinguished by the addition of ceramic bearings for the cranks. It is worth noting that Campagnolo does not make a Super Record chain so the groupset makes use of a Record chain.

Super Record cranks utilises Campagnolo’s unique Ultra Torque design that splits the bottom bracket axle in two. A bolt is used to fasten the two halves when the cranks are installed in the frame. The bottom bracket bearings are seated on each half of the axle, so by offering different sized cups, Campagnolo ensures that Ultra Torque cranks are compatible with the majority of bottom bracket standards (i.e. BSA, ITA, BB30, BBright, OSBB42, OSBB46, and BB86).

Super Record RS has unique silver badging with flashes of green, white and red in honour of the Italian flag. The styling is understated yet distinctive; I can’t help but think of classic race cars, wire wheels, and leather trim. As with previous editions of Super Record, there is plenty of carbon weave on show and very little bare aluminium.

As a limited edition, Super Record RS is destined to become a collector’s item, but unlike the 80th anniversary edition, buyers will not have to pay extra for it. Super Record RS currently retails around AU$2,800 with a choice of three crank lengths (170, 172.5, or 175mm) and three chainring combinations (50/34, 52/36, or 53/39).

For this review, I installed the RS groupset on Colnago’s C60 and added Bora Ultra 35 wheels. I didn’t have any problem installing the cranks in the C60’s ThreadFit bottom bracket since it was compatible with Campagnolo’s 86.5 x 41mm (BB86) cups. The rest of the installation was straightforward though I continue to find Campag’s mix of Allen and Torx heads a little maddening (e.g. the brake cable pinch bolt has an Allen head while the calliper mounting bolt and brake pads use a Torx head).

For the record, the weight of the final build was 6.76kg sans pedals and bottle cages.

After the ride

Some readers will already be familiar with my bias, but I will announce it for the rest to hear: I have a preference for Campagnolo and have been riding Campag for almost two decades. In that time, I’ve become well versed with the brand’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as the quirks that inspire either fondness or frustration.

Super Record RS is a great groupset and it functions as well as can be expected for a brand’s flagship. The quality of the shifting is superb, as is the braking, and the rest of the transmission is smooth and precise. The group also continues to offer the same distinctive feel as Campagnolo’s previous offerings.

The prime motivation for re-visiting the design of Super Record was to deliver some of the performance benefits offered by electronic shifting to the mechanical groupset. When viewed from this perspective, Super Record RS falls short of its aspirations (“mechanical shifting perfection”) because upshifting still requires some effort.

In contrast, Shimano’s design for the mechanical Dura Ace 9000 groupset removed most of the effort associated with upshifting, and therefore trumps Campag’s latest effort. Interestingly, Campagnolo has redesigned Super Record (as well as Record and Chorus) for 2015, taking inspiration from Shimano’s innovations.

The refinements made to the front derailleur and chainrings for the RS edition have influenced the quality of the front shifting though. Yes, some effort is still required at the lever, but down in the transmission, the chain shifts on to the big ring with new immediacy. There is no hesitation and the chain does not rattle as it struggles to gain a foothold, because it rises quickly and precisely to the big ring, every time.

One of Campagnolo’s quirks is that the company’s groupsets typically need to be run-in before they start working at their best. For example, the chain is somewhat noisy out of the box, but after 500km it is silent. Similarly, the shifters start out a little stiff and require around 1,000km to hit their stride. I managed around 700km on the RS group, so there’s a chance the shifting will get lighter with more use.

Campagnolo’s brakes offer plenty of power but they have a progressive feel that may not satisfy riders accustomed to more immediate braking. I find braking is less tiring on long descents with Campag’s brakes because a light touch scrubs plenty of speed without any risk of locking up the wheels. And for those that have always wondered, the calipers do not have a quick release lever like Shimano and SRAM. Instead there is a button at the top of each brake lever that provides a release for the calipers.

I can see two downsides to owning this groupset: first, there will be the expense of maintaining a Super Record groupset (a new cassette retails for more than $300); and second, in the event of a crash and damage to the groupset, there’s no hope of obtaining a matching part (equivalent, yes, but lacking the special badging).

Final thoughts and summary

As mentioned above, Campagnolo recently announced an overhaul of its Super Record, Record and Chorus mechanical groupsets for 2015. The derailleurs and cranks have been re-designed with inspiration from Shimano while the refinements introduced with Super Record RS will be incorporated into all three groupsets. As a consequence, Super Record RS has essentially been superseded, though 2015 groupsets will only be available later in the year (at the earliest).

Cynics will dismiss the RS edition as a last ditch effort to run out old stock, but I think there is value in its unique styling. Moreover, Super Record RS is Campagnolo’s best performing mechanical groupset right now. Some will buy this groupset and keep it boxed with the hope of a healthy return in the years to come, and I expect they’ll be satisfied. But for those that choose to make use of it, I doubt there will be any disappointment or regret, just satisfaction and perhaps a measure of pride associated with owning a limited edition groupset.

Acknowledgments: Thanks to Campagnolo for supplying Super Record RS for review. Campagnolo currently advertises with CyclingTips however we were not paid to prepare this review.

WRAP-UP

Distinctive

With the announcement that Campagnolo will be overhauling Super Record for 2015, the RS edition has essentially been superseded. Regardless, its unique badging ensures that this groupset retains its appeal, especially for those that prefer the traditional styling of the crankset. The refinements introduced to Super Record RS have improved the quality of the front shifting, while the rest of the groupset continues to offer a high level of performance.

GOOD STUFF

Smooth and precise shifting
Smooth, powerful braking
Improved front shifting
Distinctive and attractive styling

BAD STUFF

New version coming for 2015

CTECH RATING

8.5

Form

9.0

Function

9.0

Marketing claims

8.0

Serviceability

6.0

Appeal

8.0

USER RATING

Not enough user ratings to show averages

HAVE IT

HAD IT

WANT IT

Review and rate this product

REVIEWS () COMMENTS (46)

Tags: Campagnolo, Super Record

Steve G

Limited edition… so someone *has* to have it.
I’d love to try some Campy, but it’s price just niggles me. I bet it’s lovely though.
- John
  
  I love Jerry Seinfeld’s summation of ‘limited edition’ - limited to how many we can sell of them!
Marc Metzger

Bike Porn… :-)
Sean

Makes my plasticy sram red look like junk.
jules

i couldn’t buy these. imagine fitting them and sliding down the road shortly afterwards. i wouldn’t sleep.
velocite

Never had Campagnolo anything, but don’t like the sound of that two part part crank axle.You’ve got to have a join somewhere, but at a crank must be a better place.
- Colombus
  
  You obviously need to do your homework. A Hirth joint is 30 times more secure, without the requisite torque, than say a spline joint - such as the Shimano system. I’ve never seen Campagnolo UT cranks pull apart, but have seen Shimano cranks pull apart - that’s why the safety catch was introduced a year or so after their intro. I say this as Shimano user. Which leads me to my second point - a noisy Campagnolo chain? - surely you’re joking. I run a Campy chain on my DA Di2 for the very reason that they are the most quiet of chains.
  - velocite
    
    OK, thanks for that, didn’t know it was called a Hirth joint, or what a Hirth joint was. Just for kicks I stand by my point: the Hirth joint may be secure and all, but the place to have it is not in the centre of the axle, where the bending moment is greatest. I’m sure it all works fine, but I’ve never had a problem with my splined SRAM crank.
    
    I didn’t actually understand the reference to different sized cups and what it has to do with the split axle.
    - echidna_sg
      
      I hope you aren’t an engineer. take another look at the splines of the campag joint - much deeper and much more surface area than either shimano or sram’s outboard versions as well as located between two inline, weight loaded bearings. Sram and shimano use a pinch bolt to secure the left crank arm to shallow splines with no additional support - a design that is not very far removed from cotterless crank designs of 50 years ago. Have seen plenty of shimano left cranks come loose mid ride (not good in a sprint!)
      
      Different external diameter cups allow 1 axle size to be compatible with all BB options, unlike shimano or sram which make a larger diameter, lighter weight axle version of their cranksets for BB30 when compared to a traditional english thread BB (for example).
      - velocite
        
        1. I think you missed my point echidna: the splines may well be deep but the centre of the axle is the worst place for them.
        2. My SRAM crank does not use a pinch bolt. The splines may not be tapered but they’re a pretty good interference fit.
        3. If I understand what you said correctly, the different sized cup approach is not dependent on the split axle - is it?
        
        echidna_sg
        
        1, It may not be the best, but is moving the joint to a position where it has no support and shallower/less splines on the end of a lever really better? its definitely lighter to go with the SRAM type design…
        2, I ride both campag and sram, and I guess the easiest way to explain it would be imagine if both had a little slack or play in the system - on a campag crank, the two halves would misalign and you would feel the movement, but you could still ride and cause no damage. Some slack in the Sram design would create large shear forces if you were standing to climb or sprint (but you could otherwise, still ride) and shimano would simply strip the *cough* knurling…
        3, you got it…
        
        Sean
        
        *Gets sum popcorn*
        
        Ty
        
        With the Campy the joint is 2 steel shafts joined. Shimano is 1 steel 1 aluminum. That steel Hirth joint isn’t going anywhere.
    - Winky
      
      Glad you’re not an engineer. The middle of the spindle is just fine. Lower bending moment there than adjacent to the bearing.
      
      Having aid that I’ve broken 3 Hirth coupling bolts on my 10-speed UT Campag Record. Properly torqued, the bike shop says they’ve never seen it before, but there you go. I guess it just the watts I’m pushing.
      - velocite
        
        You cannot get away with anything on this forum. My immediate reaction to the picture of the axle was to think of it as a beam, so middle = max stress. When echidna challenged I thought I should draw myself a little diagram, but if I’m wrong I’ll look like a dick, so I’ll bluff. And now I look like a dick, but that’s good, bullshit should never win.
        
        So now perhaps I’m a fan of this Hirth joint in the middle. I was thinking of Campy on my next bike, but breaking 3 coupling bolts? What are they made of, and what is the torque?
        
        Winky
        
        Recommended torque on that bolt is pretty high. I can’t recall off-hand, but it’s in Campag’s support documents on their website. It is important to get the torque right. If it is too loose the “teeth” on the coupling won’t take enough of the cyclical loading and the bolt will fatigue and eventually fail. I got three year out of the first one, then two went in another two years.
        
        The bolts I broke were steel, but they also do a titanium option (standard on Super Record, perhaps?). I wouldn’t let it put you off. My experience is unusual by all accounts. The new Campag stuff is moving to a different system in any case.
Neil

Firstly - I’ve never ridden or owned Campag. But, I really find this review makes me feel quite comfortable with that. An exorbitant price tag for something that is inspired by Shimano and doesn’t shift as lightly as Shimano.
I also am getting a bit jack of the limited edition this or that that they seem to release every year. Looks like a way to make a killing off suckers.
- echidna_sg
  
  read again… this is for the 2014 SR - he insinuates that the 2015 campag takes “inspiration” from shimano - something that shimano has done for 30 years in the other direction. Whatever floats your boat though, if you never try, you will never know.
echidna_sg

would I buy it? no chance, would I ride it? most definitely!
Campag rider

The only thing that is different from regular Super Record is the FD, which is a hybrid of SR mechanism & Chorus non-carbon cage, and the chainrings themselves. Everything else is exactly the same, except the badging.
- gfk_velo
  
  Please note - the cage of the FD is categorically *not* the Chorus cage - if you look up close and personal you will see that the shaping is very different, to give a proper integration with the RC14 chainrings, which are also difefrent to Chorus.
Spider

I completely agree about the 1000km run in. With Record (10spd) it was so industrial and clunky on my first rides I thought ‘what have I done!’ after moving from 105 & Ultegra …and then just it just got better and better. In the old days (BC: Before Cadel) we used to say ‘Campagnolo wears in, Shimano wears out’ to describe the effect.
- Sean
  
  LOL thats just a myth man. Campag always feels better than shitmano, whereas sram is plasticy, tackier, lighter, more ergonomic and cheaper than both.
Nat

the only bad things about Campagnolo are the cost of replacement parts, parts are not as widely available as SRAM and Shimano and that it doesn’t wear out (so no excuse to buy new stuff…)
http://www.facebook.com/pmark1bike pmark1bike

Mmmm the only decision RS or EPS? I have been on Campy for many years and won’t look back. Nothing against Shimano or Sram I’m sure they work very well but the aren’t Campy. :-)
SCP

It’s Campag, not Campy… And $2800! Yeah Right.
Mark_Kelly

Quote from Cycling Tips: “Campagnolo’s brakes offer plenty of power but they have a progressive
feel that may not satisfy riders accustomed to more immediate braking.”

Translation: These brakes actually have modulation. People who’ve never experienced this may find it disconcerting.
- Rex
  
  ok we’re all so superior.
- mattb
  
  How is that modulation achieved? Spring tensioning?
  
  Does that make a difference to braking effectiveness when you need to stop in a serious hurry? Reviews of DA always seem to talk about how superior the braking is over everything else (maybe its USP)
  
  as for taking inspiration from Shimano… please dont! I have never owned campag, only ever shimano, but really really want campag for my next groupset - because it is different from Shimano (nothing wrong with Shimano, just want to see how the other half live)
gfk_velo

The 2015 Campagnolo groups may have some similarities to what Shimano are doing but are far from inspired by … if you look at FD design, for instance, Campagnolo shift actuation ratios have been progressively changing to longer arm designs since the 1990s, as demands on FDs have grown greater and greater. Now, with industry-wide acceptance of the “Compact” format chainset as the new standard, it has drawn both Campagnolo and Shimano into a place where they have had to say “OK, for reasonable applied force at the lever to produce the shifting forces we now need at the chainring, we need to make this change to the overall actuation ratio and to have that actuation ratio vary significantly across the movement range of the FD”. Whilst there is certainly more than one way to do that, both Campagnolo and Shimano have settled on and extensively tested over a number of seasons, the same method.

The 2015 RD bears no relation at all to the Shimano offering and works on a totally different basis.

FEA has given rise to the four arm crank - the change in BCD and the necessity to support (especially the outer) chainring whilst controlling the overall weight and maximising rigidity makes the four arm design attractive - it’s noteable that FSA, who did the same thing last year, were not accused of aping Shimano, and that other makers have produced variations on four-arm designs and in one case at least, a two-arm four bolt design (Deda Locomotiv) without that criticism being levelled. If it’s a good engineering solution, it’s a good engineering solution and not even the most pro- of pro-Campagnolo protagonists would claim that Shimano, or FSA for that matter, were not good engineers.

What needs to be taken into account is that product life-cycles mean that if two products are launched a year apart, it is very unlikely (unless they are absolutely direct lifts of one another) that one is a copy of another - design, testing and then retooling time simply prevents this from being the case - what can be said is that similar ideas often start from similar roots or with similar problems to solve and that cost and materials constraints will be common to manufacturers in the same areas of production and hence it’s no real surprise that the solutions they adopt won’t be wildly different.
http://www.cyclingTipsBlog.com cyclingTips

Nothing like a good ol’ groupset debate!
- Neil
  
  It’s quite funny to watch the Campy fans come out. I think they get a bit upset when their beloved is compared to Shimano.
  Don’t think you’d get the same reaction from people on Sram.
- STS
  
  +1!
  
  If it only was based on facts I would be happy to take part in it. But some contributions are so … well, typical contributions to those kind of discussions.
  
  Two contributions though:
  
  1. These Ultra-torque bolts break as their heads are put under cyclic bending loads with rotating direction. And if you’re happy you will survive the sudden loss of control over what your feet are doing. A customer of mine barely did when his bolt broke when he was climbing out of the saddle and found himself lying on the road right in front of a big tractor coming down the mountain with one meter left between him and the wheels. He engaged himself in a legal battle with Campagnolo after they did not want to compensate for his damage. But he lost it because they had the better lawyers and the judge no technical understanding.
  
  2. This whole UT bb design with the wave washer acting as a way too soft preload ist the worst of all bb designs on the market right now. Nearly every time I have to install or repair this crap I have to add some thin shims in order to space the bearing out properly so that the spindle does not move axially under load towards the drive train side. Just push on your left-hand UT crank and you will find out in nine out of then cases that the spindle moves considerably.
  - Colombus
    
    Unless you can tell us that the BB widths on the frames where within the Campagnolo spec - from approx 67-69mm - then there would be very little for Campagnolo to answer. By spacing the BB cups beyond the required width, you are causing the problem you mentioned. When a mechanic has to manipulate a company’s design to make it work for them, methinks the problem lies with the mechanic and not the design.
    - STS
      
      That was my first thought when I encountered this problem for the first time. So I measured the bb (BSA) housings width. It was 68.1 mm. Now I know that the problem occurs unless the bb width is 69.0 mm. Most recreational cyclists do not recognize it and your typical racer doesn’t care much about the detailled mechanics, but there are some cyclists that actually apply some real force to their pedals especially when riding out of the saddle and of those some don’t like the noise of the chain rubbing on the derailleur’s cage when the whole crank-axle-unit slides towards the drive side.
      Maybe that’s why most Campagnolo front derailleurs have a plastic insert on the inner side of the outer part of their cage. It’s much more silent when the chain rubs against plastic compared to metal ;-). And it keeps the carbon - perfect material for a front derailleur cage by the way from an engineer’s point of view - from getting worn out.
      
      I shim the non-drive-side bearing inside the cup at the same place where the wave washer goes thus increasing the preload of the wave washer but never to that extent that the Hirth coupling won’t get into full contact when the bolt is tightened. This measure also decreases the amount of “grinding” that takes place inside the cups each time the bearings slide over to the right side.
      
      I’m sure you know that your favorite component producer had to modify the crucial connecting bolt and significantly increase the recommended tightening torque in order to deal with the incidents that had happened during the first years of use of their UT cranksets.
      
      It just shows how much you’re into the details if you believe that one of those wave washers that Campagnolo supplies with the cups can cover close to 2,0 mm of difference in bb housing width by compressing more or less.
      
      Believe what you want to believe, champ. I’ll stay with the facts.
      - echidna_sg
        
        The wave washer concept being the solution to variable BB width is stupid, 100% agreed - Shims are where its at. Just as an aside, is this where/why press fit BB’s (of varying brands) seem to regularly develop a creak? I assume the factory slaps the standard crank and BB on every frame without width measurement….
      - Colombus
        
        I’m sure you’ll forever stick with your interpretation of the fact, champ. Perhaps if the good folks in Vicenza are reading this, you might get the call to redesign their components. They obviously have no idea.
        And that little plastic bumper on the FD, has been around a lot longer than the UT crank design.
Steve G

Bloody hell… this turned a bit nasty overnight.
I did realise it was such a religious debate!
- Jonathan
  
  It’s like listening to Melbournites talk about football: their team is the best and that’s that. No point even entering into a discussion with a dyed-in-the-wool Campagnophile.
  - Steve G
    
    Fair enough. I’m willing to give any groupset a go given the opportunity… There’s a campag Centaur groupset available locally, but even that is rather pricey.
  - Keir
    
    This is correct. I’m sure there is a reason not to own Campagnolo but I am unaware what that reason is.
- echidna_sg
  
  I hope that was sarcastic! its more important than politics or religion by a long shot ;-)
gordon Tangen

I just sold my Chorus UT 10 speed group carbon for a killing and it was beat to hell, took the money from that and got Dura Ace pedals, and a bomb proof hand built wheelset. Some people just love campag. For me, racing and commuting in the elements of the pacific northwest USA campag is a luxury best left on the weekend show-off bike for club rides. And even then I would rather save the $2800 and go Shimano/Sram and put the rest into some Zipps or the like. Campag is nice but better suited for the show boater that can afford $150+ cassettes and $30 cables not the amateur racers.
SilverD

please do not write more “Campag”. In Italian, the set of consonants “gn” is considered a single letter and is pronounced like the letter “ñ” in Spanish. So, is “Campa” or “Campy”.
- David
  
  While you are correct about the pronounciation of “gn” (source: I’m Italian born & bred, and I’ve got that letter combo in my family name), I note that an Italian would NEVER shorten Campagnolo. An Italian would take his / her merry old time to spell out such a long name of beauty and perfection and enjoy, savour the moment … like you do with wine (source: I’m Italian born & bred, and I have SLIGHT bias against gruppo-san and buddy-group). ;)
- Steve G
  
  Right… that is total wankery. Seriously.