Campagnolo is one of cycling’s most famous brands, and the Italian marque has finally launched a power meter for the first time, claiming class-leading accuracy. Can it still compete with Shimano and SRAM? In lieu of detailed information about the HPPM power meter, we’ve gone one better and got our hands on a test bike with one fitted to it instead, which is also dripping in the latest Campagnolo Super Record groupset and Bora Ultra WTO wheels.
> The bikes of the WorldTour peloton 2024
Our demo bike – a Basso Vento R – features the brand new HPPM power meter that has literally been released today, the latest Super Record WRL groupset fresh back from its full review here at road.cc and some very bling Bora Ultra WTO wheels, released earlier in the year.
All this high-end carbon loveliness is clearly going to be good; but with the products coming at quite a premium compared to competitor brands, we were keen to assess if the cutting-edge tech is worth the extra for those who can afford it.
Power meter
We’ll start with the new power meter, because it is as new as new can be. This is also the only part of the groupset that we haven’t used yet, but let’s take a look at some of the tech and what we know about it so far…
It’s not exactly a secret that Campagnolo was going to be bringing out a power meter. It’s been rumoured for quite some time, there’s been patent after patent, and ever since the Super Record WRL groupset got released we always assumed that the recesses on the crank arms were for a future power meter.
> 12 reasons why you should buy, and use, a power meter
What we actually got though was a spider-based power meter, which Campagnolo calls HPPM, or HIGH PRECISION POWER MEASUREMENT (note the capital letters to really hammer it home).
In the (very brief) press release, we’re informed that the power meter uses 16 sensors and one gyroscope. It measures to an impressive claimed accuracy of +/-1%, and has a very high-frequency sampling rate.
If these claims are to be believed then it’s mighty competitive. The latest Shimano Dura-Ace R9200 power meter only has a claimed accuracy of 1.5%, with road.cc reviewers and other publications finding that it’s not always completely reliable. SRAM Red, meanwhile, we’ve found is more reliable courtesy of Quarq’s technology, but even that only has a claimed accuracy of 1.5%.
Campagnolo’s power accuracy figures, on the other hand, match that of the class-leading SRM Origin Power Meter 9, which also has 1% accuracy.
The impressive tech doesn’t stop there, as the angular velocity and torque signals are measured every five milliseconds. That’s 200 hertz, which Campagnolo says gives the clearest possible reading of the data. It’s also got a titanium axle and carbon fibre cranks.
Speaking of cranks, you can get the power crankset in the standard lengths of 170mmm, 172.5mm and 175mm, and with 45-29, 48-32 or 50-34 chainring options. The port to charge up the power meter has the same magnetic connector as the rest of the groupset, with each charge said to last over one month.
We don’t yet have UK pricing, rumour has it the new power meter will retail for a whopping $2,449/€2,240, which works out at about £1,920. That’s almost identical to the SRM Origin 9, but significantly more than Shimano’s R9200P (£1,200) or SRAM Red (£1,125) albeit Campag’s boasts better stats.
Camagnolo says that “precise measurement matters”, but this clearly doesn’t come cheap. We’ll be keen to hear if you think a Campagnolo power meter was worth the wait in the comments, as always.
Groupset
> Review: Campagnolo Super Record Wireless
Power meters are all well and good, but the flagship product in Campagnolo’s lineup is its latest road groupset, Super Record WRL. This is still quite new and only released last year, and we put plenty of miles in before giving it a score out of 10 (you’ll find the link to the review above).
Campagnolo’s Super Record groupsets have always been on the expensive side, but this latest one differs because as the name suggests it’s wireless.
Like SRAM AXS groupsets each mech has a separate battery, but unlike SRAM, they’re not interchangeable. This means if one runs out of battery out on the road, there might be some swearing.
> Complete guide to electronic gears
Also like we’ve seen with SRAM, the chainrings have got smaller thanks to wider range cassettes. The smallest sprocket at the back is a 10T, and that means the chainrings don’t have to be as big to get the same gear. We rather like this modern approach, and find for amateurs it generally feels more comfortable as you can stay in the big ring for longer.
In the full review we also praise the braking; Campagnolo might have been a bit later to the hydraulic disc brake game than its American or Japanese rivals, but the callipers are very powerful and stop you in a smooth way without ever feeling grabby.
Weight-wise, the latest Super Record is also competitive. On our scales the groupset came in at 2,571g excluding brake hoses, which will add just a few extra grams. That compares well with the Shimano Dura-Ace R9200 groupset which we reviewed at 2,507g, and SRAM Red at 2,518g.
> 7 reasons why you should get electronic shifting
When riding the new groupset, the first thing you’ll notice is that Campagnolo has done away with the thumb shifters, which, if you weren’t aware, sat on the inside of the hoods. They were not only used on the previous version of the electronic Super Record EPS groupset, but for a good few decades before that.
Campagnolo claims a battery range of around 750km (466 miles), but obviously, that depends on how much you use your gears. One of our review bikes using this groupset covered 415 miles and went back with around 33% left in the batteries, so that should give you a good idea of the range.
When you get to this sort of price point, value for money isn’t usually as much of a deal breaker as it is for lower to mid-level groupsets. Campagnolo has always kind of had that style of delivering a product to the marketplace, and the price is what it is. In this instance, that’s about £800 more than its competitors.
For a full groupset you’re looking at £4,500, which is more expensive than Shimano Dura-Ace at £4,280, and the latter comes with a power meter included; without it, you’re looking at closer to £3,700. SRAM’s top-end Red AXS groupset is fully wireless like Super Record, but it costs quite a bit less at about £3,700.
The only place where Super Record isn’t competitive is the price. For some that’ll be a deciding factor, but for much of its target audience, it won’t be.
As for performance, it has a completely different feel from Dura-Ace and Red in the way it shifts, but I think it’s neither better nor worse. It’s stunning to use, and while the price is high our reviewer still scored it 9/10.
Wheels
Did you know that in the 1970s Campagnolo supplied wheels for Ferrari’s Formula 1cars? While the brand is all about bike wheels nowadays, it does claim that the latest Bora Ultra WTO hoops are – as you might expect – wider, faster and lighter than ever before. Another little fact for you: WTO stands for Wind Tunnel Optimised. Who knew?
> Campagnolo makes Bora Ultra WTO and Bora WTO road wheelsets “lighter” and “more aerodynamic”
The new range consists of 35mm, 45mm and 60mm rim depths, and we’ve got the mid-depth option here. All three depths now get an internal rim width of 23mm, which Campagnolo says will “benefits aerodynamics and trajectory control”… whatever that means!
As you’d probably expect from a set of wheels in 2024, they will happily take tubeless tyres. The new wheels still feature the distinctive G3 spoke lacing pattern, which apparently isn’t just for looks, but contributes to enhanced stiffness too.
This is also how you can tell the Bora Ultra WTOs from the non-Ultra version. The Ultras have seven groups of spokes, whereas the lower range wheels have eight.
You still get internal spoke nipples, which do look good and is supposedly slightly more aero, but will also make them harder to work on.
We’ve previously been very impressed with the performance of Campagnolo wheels, but they have historically been a bit on the heavy side. These new rims have undergone a weight reduction of 135g compared to the previous version, meaning that this 45mm deep wheelset weighs in at 1,425 grams, which is much more competitive.
The price? £3,146.50.
Can Campagnolo still compete?
Well, in nearly all cases Campagnolo’s equipment is more expensive than rivals such as Shimano and SRAM; but we’ve found that it is still capable of producing top-level tech.
The World Tour pros might not be using this gear in 2024, but we think that’s more to do with finances and luck than the quality of the products. As has been the case throughout much of Campagnolo’s history you have to pay a premium, but in return you’ll still get some of the best-looking and best-performing kit in the world.
Some would argue that Campagnolo components aren’t as ‘special’ as they once were, but in our reviews of their latest products, they do always seem to buck a trend or two.
> Check out the Colnago C40 Gold Limited Edition
Sometimes this is for better, sometimes for worse, but in nearly all cases Campagnolo seems to come at new products with a different approach to everyone else.
Campagnolo never seems to be overly concerned about making products that will sell well. A new Chorus or Centaur groupset would surely be better for revenue than a power meter which costs the best part of two grand, but that’s not the Campagnolo way!
I wouldn’t call myself a die-hard Campagnolo fan, but I can still respect what the brand does and respect that it seemingly designs, produces and sells whatever it wants. It’s all very good, too!
Let us know what you think of Campagnolo’s latest equipment down in the comments below, as well as which of these components you’d most like to fit to your bike…
41 thoughts on “Campagnolo launches its own power meter with a £2k price tag – we’ve got one and here’s our first impressions”
Across mine and my wife’s
Across mine and my wife’s bikes I run Campag 9, 10 and 11 speed, mainly Centaur, but with some Chorus and Record, and even some Mirage! It was all bought second hand, so I didn’t pay the premium for new (my best buy was an Ultra Torque Carbon Centaur chainset for £40 – I bet the seller still hates me). I prefer the feel to Shimano (never ridden SRAM), it seems easier to maitain/ adjust than Shimano, and you can get small parts to keep older components working instead of having to replace the whole thing.
As for a £4.5k wireless groupset, it is no more out of my reach (or beyond my requirements) than a £3.7k one.
As I understand it the absence of Campag from the pro peloton is due to their unwillingness to provide FOC components to the teams, when most of them are generally being paid by Shimano or SRAM to use their stuff.
Did you fit the Ultra Torque
Did you fit the Ultra Torque yourself? It might be fantastic once it is all assembled, but I think it is a bit of a nightmare to work on compared with traditional BBs and chainsets.
Ultra-Torque is just a single
Ultra-Torque is just a single bolt to install/remove, it couldn’t be easier. Maybe you’re thinking of Power-Torque – this was a bit trickier but still easily done with the correct tools.
I don’t think Campagnolo is any harder to work on than SRAM or Shimano, but they don’t exactly encourage home mechanics – dig around for the technical manuals and video tutorials though and you’ll find it’s straightforward enough.
It was definitely Ultra
It was definitely Ultra-Torque. It’s a while since I did it, and I can’t remember exactly what the problem was, but at the time I thought it was far more fiddly than traditional gear. I think there was nasty spring clip that was pretty tricky to remove and fit (I suspect a lot of people didn’t bother fitting it, as it looked superfluous). And undoing/tightening the bearing cups was a bit of a nightmare, as you had to apply a pretty massive torque and the spanner always felt as though it might slip.
It is hard to fathom someone
It is hard to fathom someone finding the Ultra Torque cups hard to install or the spring clip ‘nasty’. But each to their own. I guess the problem is that most mechanics rarely service a Campagnolo equipped bike and either do not care to look things up or resent the trouble of having to do so.
john_smith wrote:
I removed UT cranks and cups last weekend without any drama. Marginally fiddlier than Shimano but nothing to write home about. Fitting was easy too.
PS wanna buy a UT chainset?
Did you manage to get the
Did you manage to get the cups out without damaging the anodizing? I would consider myself far from hamfisted but still managed to get a couple of scratches in them. Maybe I’m just too fussy.
john_smith wrote:
I agree with your self-assessment! I removed them with a loosely-fitting Shimano tool, doubtless putting a few minor scars on them. But given the cosmetic state of the chainset, I don’t see why anyone would care.
john_smith wrote:
The bearing cups have the same torque as Shimano outboard bearing cups.
As for the clip on the drive side, once you have it started you just pop the other side in, dead easy. You might need a T-hook to remove it though. All in all, I’ve worked on both Shimano and Campag cranks, they’re fine.
john_smith wrote:
UT is easy to work with in my view. Have it on two of my bikes and never struggled with it at all. Strokes for folks I guess.
That hard-to-get-at torque
That hard-to-get-at torque screw on the shifters is my bugbear – have they fixed that on more recent groupsets?
Why couldn’t they have stuck
Indeed. And why couldn’t they have stuck with Allen screws? Torx are fine if you can get at them, but not so good if you have to jam the key in at an angle.
Presumably to stop you
Presumably to stop you ruining the allen bolt by putting too much torque on it with the ball end. The Torx is perfectly accessible with the correct tool
john_smith wrote:
Because it’s an aluminium screw and would round out easily otherwise.
Get a long-reach torx bit.
Get a long-reach torx bit. Problem solved. I have zero issues getting at those torx bits because……I got the right tool.
jpj84 wrote:
Just needs a long Torx (available from any motor shop), easy.
john_smith wrote:
Ultra Torque is dead easy to fit, just one bolt!
Where’as Shimano’s system is also pretty easy, but has two bolts. And what about Shimano’s awful plastic afterthought tab sitting between the bolts on the LH crank? Easy to forget when you’re trying to disassemble. Actually not sure what you’re on about.
I think Campags R and D dept
I think Campags R and D dept is one guy called Mark. Mark doesnt work weekends or holidays and has been off with long covid since 2021. Mark started coping Srm power meter which was released in 2007 and has purchased all the parts from Aliexpress which he has not put together with the help of Tektro, who make ALL of campagnolo brakes.
And Shimano can’t make an
And Shimano can’t make an accurate meter. SRAM bought their PM tech and personnel when they bought Quarq.
For the record, all SRM did was apply what was already in use elsewhere. SRAM didn’t come with some new tech or physics. Wheatstone bridges and other strain gauges have been around for a very long time. Just ask anyone who’s taken a first-year electrical engineering course.
You might also want to review the differences between Campy’s PM and SRM’s.
The only people who care
The only people who care about ultra accurate pm numbers are pros. And they ride what they are told and are pretty happy enough on that score. The bigger point is, Campag are seriously in decline. Wake up if you really want to dismiss this. They used to make a decent top quality group set for every level. Super record, Potenza, Athena, Centaur, Chorus. Now you only get SR & Chorus. They totally abandoned the middle market. The bit where 105 and Rival sit – where probably most of the money comes from. They think they can live off their name, but it’s totally invisible nowadays. Unless it’s a top end Colnago with it fitted it’s hardly ever seen. Their legacy is vanishing and not many people really care about what brand of gears they have, so long as they are functional. Their wheels are all they really have left and they are not the best on the market for the premium either.
That’s false. I doubt the
That’s false. I doubt the pros even know. The pros don’t do any high-resolution testing of the power meters. High-resolution testing is done in labs, not on the road, and it’s done with calibrated sensors and other calibrated electronic devices. And how do account for all the pros running Shimano power meters, power meters that have shown to be wildly imprecise and inaccurate, eh?
You make a lot of assumptions without any facts in hand.
Point is, if pros are not
Point is, if pros are not getting the best meters out there on their bikes – most are Shimano or Sram (QuarQ) or power2max etc. then who is benefitting?
Abd let’s look at your argument. No facts to back it up whatsoever yet say I’m false.
They are pros. They get paid
They are pros. They get paid to use what they are paid to use. Unless what they are paid to use is so bad that affects their performance, then they benefit, and so do the people who are paying them.
Very funny, but you stray
Very funny, but you stray from satire, which is fine, into misinformation, which is not.
The new SRAM Red AXS D2 is
The new SRAM Red AXS D2 is rumoured to be in the £4.5k zone.
Shimano’s “power meter” is
Shimano’s “power meter” is not really worthy of the name given the well-publicised issues with the accuracy of the iterations of that PM. So mentioning that PM as if it’s some metric of comparison is pretty laughable. And let’s be clear bout SRAM’s PMs: they bought Quarq. They bought their knowledge. It’s not like they came up with anything on their own.
And why keep playing that old saw about Campy not being represented in the World Tour? So what? You did see that they are still working with other pro teams as part of the development process. If we’re gonna ask if Campy has lost its way, then we also have to ask more obvious questions like, “Do cycling media ‘journalists’ use any critical thinking at all?”
Pause for a second and consider the resources of giant companies like Shimano and SRAM vs small private companies like Campy. Just looking at recent revenue figures, Shimano’s revenue is over 25 times greater than Campy’s and almost 5 times greater than SRAM’s. SRAM’s revenue is about 6 times greater than Campy’s. That means both SRAM and Shimano have a lot more money to throw at the marketplace and to spend on sponsorship.
It’s also worth noting that a company needs to meet its own market and financial goals, not the goals that “journalists” assume for those companies, with those assumptions likely being uninformed, at best.
I assume you have considered
I assume you have considered the fact that campy have been on a slow decline vs shimano/SRAM for years at this point and that part of the reason their revenue/profits are so much less than the other two massive players is because they are simply not competitive and haven’t been for years at this point. Its not like Campy are some small boutique start up that didn’t, at one point have a considerable share of the market and have simply dropped the ball for years…
As to them not meeting someone elses arbitrary financial goals, I think that if they don’t start to become more relevant again they will start to fail to meet their own financial targets in the coming years.
I agree that their PM isn’t really of any relevance to any of this but to suggest that Campy aren’t in a pretty poor position is somewhat silly.
Campagnolo still makes profit
Campagnolo still makes profit every year by selling as much product as they can make in house, without spending huge sums on sponsorship or making millions of cheap units in Malaysia or China to fuel the OEM market with low margins. Campagnolo’s strategy of targeting the very high end probably makes them better placed to weather the incoming storm that the industry is due to face, where the low/middle end bike sales that shimano/sram make their money from will be hardest hit
What makes you think they’re
What makes you think they’re in “slow decline”? Is your metric just that their market share is smaller? “Slow decline” has to be measured at least against a company’s goals, and as far as I can tell, none of us know what Campy’s goals are. So saying they’re in decline is guessing at best.
By your argument, Colnago is in decline since its market share is smaller than it once was, but Colnago has stated its “goal” is to cater exclusively to that market. Colnago has said they are meeting their financial goals. That success as viewed by Colnago lays waste to the idea that a smaller market share implicitly means a company is “declining”.
Euhm. P2max makes very
Euhm. P2max makes very accurate and consistent powermeters since early 2010. Accuracy is not the same as consistency. I had type s, ngeco, 2x ng now. And they are keep running consistent day in day out (not affected in real world conditions). A lot of pwm work indoor work nice but as soon as outside they get inconsistencies, overreading, …. It takes companies like Garmin, SRM 4iii many iterations to get a meter tconsistent for prices which are laughable. My type s is now 10y old and still runs like a charm. A p2max ngeco costs around 500 euro.
SRM didnt even have temp comp a few years back for eye watering prices (3k+ crank included). I use a rotor carbon crank with p2max ng 4sl) and rotor rings for 1500 euro the same as what I would need to pay for shimano junk. And its way lighter.
2.3k for this combo is laugable for such company and they still thing that they can still sell this overpriced stuff.
Look at Assioma. Cheaper option and are very consistent and accurate for a normal price. That company is way smaller then Campa.
The power meter development
The power meter development has nothing to do with size, and yet we have no data yet on the precision (aka, “consistency”) or accuracy of Campy’s PM. Yes, Assioma’s are excellent. That’s one reason I chose Assiomas! The larger point is that SRM is not the be-all/end-all of PMs. They were the first, and they’ve got that legacy, but being first and having a legacy do not imply anything about the quality of a product.
Note that Favero is a small company focused on one thing. Campy is also small company, but their focus is significantly wider.
So you pay EUR 2450, but you
So you pay EUR 2450, but you cannot get a shorter crank than 170mm?
Ah, campagnolo – the brand
Ah, campagnolo – the brand that sells a £100+ corkscrew, and a ‘limited edition’ version for near enough £2k.
Has anyone bought them?
Has anyone bought them?
I don’t need to spend $2500
I don’t need to spend $2500 to know my power numbers suck, thank you very much.
Pass.
Tasty. But why don’t they do
Tasty. But why don’t they do a 52/42 chainset or the like?
Is there anybody, even a pro,
Is there anybody, even a pro, for whom a claimed accuracy improvement of 0.5% over their rival products is genuinely going to be important? If someone’s riding at 300W, is it really that vital that the power meter shows bang on 300 rather than 301.5?
I don’t care for power meters
I don’t care for power meters at all (wouldn’t want one even if it was offered for free, I like to keep my bikes simple), but for purely academic purposes:
A 1,5% accuracy when riding at 300W would mean the readout could be anywhere between 295,5 and 304,5W.
A 1% accuracy when riding at 300W would mean the readout could be anywhere between 297 and 303W.
So that’s a 9W vs a 6W bandwidth at 300W.
I never work with wattages, so if any of that matters is up for others to decide.
Personally I don’t train for anything, I just go on rides, and as long as I’ve had fun a ride and it helps me stay healthy, I’m golden.
So at very worst, if Meter A
So at very worst, if Meter A is 100% accurate, Meter B could be 3W out, or they could both be completely accurate or the same amount wrong…
Agree with your last sentence, I used to have a power meter, I found it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t know; after four decades of riding, I know when I’m on the limit or when I have anything in reserve. If it was good enough for Pogacar on the Planche des Belles Filles, good enough for me.
the way I read the article
the way I read the article Campag are claiming it to be less accurate than thier competitors since they are claiming +/- 1% (a range of 2%) while the others are claiming 1.5% accuracy.
There is always a risk that this is just poor composition of the article and I am not going looking for the various manufacturer specs
± 1% is better accuracy than
± 1% is better accuracy than ± 1.5%. If you want to talk about “range”, then the others would be 3% [+1.5% -(-1.5%) = 3%]