i could be interested in this. unless one of our sponsors gets to me soon and slinkys constant heckling of my groupset wears me down 
i should also check to see how bad my BB is after a solid season of mud and washing.
Correct. But you don’t need a campy-specific puller, any gear puller will work! Back off the centre bolt and push against that…
Campy CX = Power Torque
Chorus/Record = Ultra Torque
the cups that I will have handy* are CX Power Torque.
*if my new CX frame gets here with its scary BB30 shell!
CX70 front top pull mech on and working a treat.
Lighter, smother shifting. Quieter and no doubt less hassle in the long run.
Even with a good dose of lock tight the cable pulley came undone twice.
Joy
E
From e-Richie:
“anyone who is not neils albert and is posting here (Blakey: VSalon) and uses a 46t outer for 'cross races gets my respect atmo.
you guys are specimens.
i’m out at 44t.”
Added this to this thread because I am sure it has something to do with the release of this group.
First pictures (big call) of a cyclocross specific shoe - I wish there was more then one.
Brad, is Molly’s spy snap the pic you’re trying to link to?:
New CX specific shoe!! on Twitpic
You can’t embed twitpics, I’ve tried.
^ Yeah.
Weird, the picture works for me but it might just be cached or something.
Just did it from cyclobucket.
I think the gist I am trying to get across is that I would prefer Shimano to release Ultegra/DA 42/44/46 chainrings to complement their existing cranks. Rather than dish out a complete cross-specific crank but only offer one chainring combo. This goes for Sram and Campy as well. They do DA 46s for Sven Nys and Stybar so they are getting produced somewhere…
This. And it would be sweet if they made them hollow like the DA/Ultegra ones…
ok im confused. has it been stated anywhere that the chainrings on the ‘cross cranks’ wont be backward compatible on the same brand normal compact cranks?
i can see a lot of business benefit to selling the ‘package’ of crank and ring from their perspective. its pretty much par for the course for most of the industry. however id be surprised if it only allowed one chainring size, as that would be very silly knowing that there isn’t a default cross ring combination.
im reasonably sure i read somewhere that aftermarket cross rings in other sizes will be available for all three this/next season (probably as they work out what the uptake is, so they can plan their manufacturing accordingly).
as for albert/stybar… (and all the pros): they are on (semi) custom stuff so the production of their stuff is done in a different location to where what the ‘masses’ would get their stuff made.
SRAM have been doing ‘team’ chainrings (36/46t IIRC) for a couple of seasons, but these are apparently tricky to come by (and only available to certain SRAM-sponsored riders/teams). A lot of the US (and some Euro Pros) seem to run thorne rings for that reason.
FSA do 46t rings in 110 bcd not sure about 44t. Sram do 36t inner rings.
Have fitted both and they work. Issue is more with the derailleur cage and the closer gear ratio.
The CX70 mech is supposed to suit the closer ratio better but it also works fine on my 50/36t.
The CX70 crank is more 105 than Ultegra. You wont get Shimano coughing up for the tooling for there Dura Ace outer rings for CX any time soon. Just buy some after market rings.
E
Interesting you say that. It does make you wonder why they make a specific CX crank arm when they could just use the compact 105 or Ultegra crank arms and chuck smaller rings on them… in fact the CX finish is pretty similar to the new grey Ultegra
Like wise with the Dura ace crank, the rings would have to be tooled up for to suit the hidden chain ring bolts.
My guess is the CX70 crank is a 105 crank with a slight colour mod and the different ring sizes. I cant see a difference.
E
Obviously a 110 BCD ring is going to work on a 110 BCD crank as much as a 130 BCD ring on a 130 BCD cranks etc etc - but they may not always look good!! 
What I am saying is why bother producing a ‘cx specific’ crankset that (in my opinion) look rubbish when they already have decent looking cranks in the shimano line-up?
I am talking from an aesthetic point of view.
This is exactly my point!
oh, i agree (without understanding if there are some some hidden functional differences) but will say that Cx is a booming market and by having ‘cx-specific’ cranks you can add some more marketing BS and maybe fool some less savvy consumers.
especially if you have had to make any major tooling changes to ‘create’ the product
bike marketing is infrequently driven by functionality… (however rumours about the SRAM Cx cranks sound like they might have added some functional changes to their line).
I agree with you on the rubbish looking bit, those Shimano cranks look terrible. I too like the idea of smaller chainrings on the current cranksets. My bike has Rival cranks w/ what I assume are just smaller rings on the standard Rival compact platform… I hope this is the case, I haven’t actually measure them.
I just saw this:
This is quite old from 2009, but check out the custom hollow 46T DA chainring! Shimano don’t sell them yet, but interesting to see. Looks like Shimano didn’t anodise the chainring black.
Shimano has subsequently released the CX groupsets which don’t have this chainring, perhaps for cost reasons. So I guess we’ll never see these again… 
That ain’t a DA chainring.
Bolts on the wrong side.
E
Scroll down to the middle of the linked page- you’ll see what I mean. Ignore the first photo.