Changing Groupset Make

[Christopher Harrison]

Hi all,

I am very tempted to upgrade my entire groupset, however I was
wondering if I could please ask for a bit of advice?

Firstly, my current set is Shimano-based; with 105s on the front,
Tiagra on the back (or the other way around, I can't remember).
Anyway, I would like to upgrade to the Campagnolo Centaur set... Now,
I know that Shimano and Campagnolo kit are not mutually compatible;
but if you're upgrading *everything* does this matter? Presumably the
holes that are in the frame (Trek 1200) are standardised.

Following that, I'm a bit confused as to what is what, when buying a
groupset. I can manage crank length and cassette ratios -- but could
someone please tell me what the difference is between an "Italian" and
"English" bottom bracket; a "short" and "medium" rear mech; and a
"braze on", "32mm band" and "35mm band" front mech?

Many thanks, in advance :)
Christopher

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Jun 13, 11:19*am, art.shap...@unisys.com (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:

> I used to have Shimano stuff, and really believed that the only thing the
> Italians could do better than the Japanese was women.

Maybe a little different. Not "better".

> But then, on the previous Klein, I wore out two Ultegra brifters and one Dura
> Ace in nine years. Of course, they couldn't be repaired as per normal Shimano
> policy.
>
> On the Habanero, I bit the bullet with Campy. *And I've worn the brifters out
> once. *I was intimidated about repairing them, despite being a decent mechanic
> - couldn't take the risk of missing a ride - so the local pro shop did it. *
> And I was back on the road. *
>
> I think this is a reasonable selling point for Campy. *And I personally like
> not having stuff that everyone else has - the same reason I wouldn't purchase,
> say, a Trek or Canondale machine even if they're perfectly decent bicycles..

To me it just comes down to what you like, and/or maybe what you're
used to. I'm a long-time Campy fan, have three road bikes that are
Record/Chorus/Centaur, got the wife Centaur for her new Guru, etc.
etc., but Ultegra/Dura-Ace def. does not have cooties, no matter how
many people use it.

BTW, by the time you pay a shop $50 or more per lever to replace the g-
springs (and the lever retractor springs, while you're at it; a step I
skipped with my Records and they started rattling immed. after) some
several times (not wishing this upon you by any means) over the *next*
nine years, we could wonder how close you'd get to paying for a shiny
new set of Ultegrur-aces. Which would be shiny, and new, and maybe 11-
or 12-speed, too <g>.

More important than quibbling: can you get the crank length you want?
And in a Triple, or Compact? Hub drillings? Campy is minimum 32 now.
How about cassette tooth counts? Do the levers fit your hands in the
first place, and are they comfortable to ride?

That stuff first, then price, and then who cares who made the parts?
--D-y

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Christopher Harrison wrote:

> Hi all,

> I am very tempted to upgrade my entire groupset, however I was
> wondering if I could please ask for a bit of advice?

Are you sure you want to change the entire groupset parts assembly
combination? I may have missed a modifier there but you can fill. At
least its not a grouppo. We seem to be divided by a common language.

Jobst Brandt

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

On Jun 10, 9:30*am, Christopher Harrison
<SpamFact...@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am very tempted to upgrade my entire groupset, however I was
> wondering if I could please ask for a bit of advice?
>
> Firstly, my current set is Shimano-based; with 105s on the front,
> Tiagra on the back (or the other way around, I can't remember).
> Anyway, I would like to upgrade to the Campagnolo Centaur set... Now,
> I know that Shimano and Campagnolo kit are not mutually compatible;
> but if you're upgrading *everything* does this matter? Presumably the
> holes that are in the frame (Trek 1200) are standardised.

Yes they are-Bolt on the Campagnolo set, ensure you have a Campagnolo
or Campagnolo compatible rear hub for the cogset, go ride.
>
> Following that, I'm a bit confused as to what is what, when buying a
> groupset. I can manage crank length and cassette ratios -- but could
> someone please tell me what the difference is between an "Italian" and
> "English" bottom bracket; a "short" and "medium" rear mech; and a
> "braze on", "32mm band" and "35mm band" front mech?

Italian BB threads are 'correct' threaded on both sides. That is,
right/clockwise to tighten the cups on both sides. Most frames,
including the Trek, is 'english' which means the right side is
opposite threaded, so left/counterclockwise to tighten. The left side
is right/clockwise to tighten.

Cage lengths on the rear derailleur allow for more chain length for
more extreme cogset and front chainring ranges. For a double/2 ring
crank and anything but the 13-29 rear cog, get a short. If
double(either standard or compact-50/34tooth chainrings) and 13-29
cogset, get the medium. If you aren't sure, get the medium.

The front derailleur either is bolted on a little tab on the seat
tube(brazeon) or if there is no tab welded/attached to the frame, it
clamps on and depends on the diameter of the tube that it clamps onto.
Either 28.6mm, 31.8mm or 34.9mm.

If all this is mystifying, go talk to a decent bike shop.
>
> Many thanks, in advance :)
> Christopher

[Bill Sornson]

Christopher Harrison wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am very tempted to upgrade my entire groupset

Just plonk Frank and Flailor, and it ain't so bad.

:-P

[Tom Kunich]

"Christopher Harrison" <SpamFactory@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote in message
news:274a1829-aef2-429d-8ef9-da8c0fa540b0@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> I am very tempted to upgrade my entire groupset, however I was
> wondering if I could please ask for a bit of advice?

The Centaur is a good group. About as good as the 105. The Centaur works a
little better in some things and not quite as well in others. The 105 shifts
smoother and quieter. The Centaur lets you know with a solid CLACK that it
has changed gears. (BTW, I prefer the Campy)

There is a difference in the rear cassette spacing between Shimano and
Campagnolo for most of their groups so if you're planning on changing out
the rear wheel as well you won't have any problems.

As I recall, the Shimano brakes feel better, the Campy shifters are more to
my tastes and the this is a spectacular deal on the Centaur Compact cranks :
http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=600081&subcategory=60001034&brand=&sku=21261&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=Shop%20by%20Subcat%3A%20Road%20Cranks

Jobst HATES low gears by the way. Climbing a straight up road in anything
lower than a 48-15 is sissy stuff to him. Not knocking him mind you - just
trying to give you some idea of why his tastes are radically different from
most people's.

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Jun 10, 10:30*am, Christopher Harrison
<SpamFact...@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote:

> I am very tempted to upgrade my entire groupset, however I was
> wondering if I could please ask for a bit of advice?
>
> Firstly, my current set is Shimano-based; with 105s on the front,
> Tiagra on the back (or the other way around, I can't remember).
> Anyway, I would like to upgrade to the Campagnolo Centaur set.

Why go to Campagnolo? Shifters are different from what you're used
to-- have you ridden the Campy brifters, especially, and the rest of
the grouppo*, and like it better?

* Phhhht phhht test test this thing awn? --D-y

[Christopher Harrison]

Thanks, all :)

I had forgotten what an "interesting" mix you find on Usenet! However,
you've certainly answered my questions; for which I'm grateful. (One
can never be too sure of Wikipedia!) Spero che io parli Campagnolo
presto!

I've had a closer look at my bike and it was the other way around: It
seems to have a Tiagra chainset, hubs and brakes; with a 105 rear
mech; and the standard Trek/Bontranger crank and [presumably] BB. As
such, moving to Centaur level would be the upgrade I'm looking for;
particularly as most of my components are ready for a change (due to
wear). I was going to get some new wheels too, so hubs aren't an
issue.
Interestingly, you seem to imply that Centaur is about equivalent to
105. From what I've researched, Centaur is about the equal of Ultegra
(or better, depending what you read). Naïvely, they're about the same
price; but would you guys concur?

Apologies for my novice questions, but one has to start somewhere!

Thanks;
Christopher

[andresmuro@aol.com]

On Jun 10, 9:30 am, Christopher Harrison
<SpamFact...@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am very tempted to upgrade my entire groupset, however I was
> wondering if I could please ask for a bit of advice?
>
> Firstly, my current set is Shimano-based; with 105s on the front,
> Tiagra on the back (or the other way around, I can't remember).
> Anyway, I would like to upgrade to the Campagnolo Centaur set... Now,
> I know that Shimano and Campagnolo kit are not mutually compatible;
> but if you're upgrading *everything* does this matter? Presumably the
> holes that are in the frame (Trek 1200) are standardised.

You can change your components to campy. You need to make sure that
you get everything. Shimano shifters will not work properly with campy
parts and viceversa.
>
> Following that, I'm a bit confused as to what is what, when buying a
> groupset. I can manage crank length and cassette ratios -- but could
> someone please tell me what the difference is between an "Italian" and
> "English" bottom bracket;

it is the threading and opening size for the bottom bracket and
headset that different builders use. Most use english threads which
are almost standard now. Some Italian builders may still use Italian
threads, but your Trek frame will have English threads.


a "short" and "medium" rear mech; and a

This is the length that separates the two pulleys in the rear
deraullier. The more gears and ranges that you have, the longer that
this distance will be to ensure even tension of the chain in all
gears. a medium cage deraullier will work fine in more situations. a
short cage deraullier will not. Since compact cranks and triples are
very popular nowadays, you will probably benefit more from a medium
cage deraullier.

> "braze on", "32mm band" and "35mm band" front mech?

brazed on means that the front deraullier is held to the frame by a
bolt only. The bolt will fit a deraullier hanger that has been already
brazed into the frame. If the frame does not have a brazed hanger, you
need to get a front deraulier that has a band that clamps around the
frame. The size of the clamp will depend on the diameter of the
downtube.

Finally, Mike Jacaubousky (sp) is a trek dealer. If you post a message
here with his name and a reference to Trek, and ask him what threads,
clamps, lengths you need, he'll know exactly what your bike will
need.

hope this helps,

Andres
>
> Many thanks, in advance :)
> Christopher

[Hank]

On Jun 10, 9:21*am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Christopher Harrison wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I am very tempted to upgrade my entire groupset, however I was
> > wondering if I could please ask for a bit of advice?
>
> Are you sure you want to change the entire groupset parts assembly
> combination? *I may have missed a modifier there but you can fill. *At
> least its not a grouppo. *We seem to be divided by a common language.
>
> Jobst Brandt

I understood everything the OP said, but have no idea what you're
getting at.

He says he wants to change out all the components, which he reiterates
later in the post.

[Bill Sornson]

Hank wrote:
> On Jun 10, 9:21 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Christopher Harrison wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I am very tempted to upgrade my entire groupset, however I was
>>> wondering if I could please ask for a bit of advice?

>> Are you sure you want to change the entire groupset parts assembly
>> combination? I may have missed a modifier there but you can fill. At
>> least its not a grouppo. We seem to be divided by a common language.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt

> I understood everything the OP said, but have no idea what you're
> getting at.

Pedantry. Surprised?

> He says he wants to change out all the components, which he reiterates
> later in the post.

Ol' JB never lets clear information interfere with his penchant for
pointless bullying and belittling.

HTH

[JG]

Christopher,
Taking a break from asking novice questions about Buddhism?

Assuming you are seriously planning to swap out a bunch of mid-level
Shimano components for mid-level Campy components...yes it will work
fine if you change everything. But a new rear derailleur will require
a new cluster which will require a new hub which will require someone
to build a new wheel... If you don't know the difference between
British and Italian BB threading go to Wikipedia and figure it out
first.

Of course it's your money and telling you how to spend it would be
almost as obnoxiouos as telling someone how to parent. But a wool
jersey or a Schmidt SON28 will do a lot more to enhance most normal
person's cycling experience...

JG

[Michael Press]

In article <3bKdnQ50X42yYtPVnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Christopher Harrison" <SpamFactory@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:274a1829-aef2-429d-8ef9-da8c0fa540b0@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I am very tempted to upgrade my entire groupset, however I was
> > wondering if I could please ask for a bit of advice?
>
> The Centaur is a good group. About as good as the 105. The Centaur works a
> little better in some things and not quite as well in others. The 105 shifts
> smoother and quieter. The Centaur lets you know with a solid CLACK that it
> has changed gears. (BTW, I prefer the Campy)
>
> There is a difference in the rear cassette spacing between Shimano and
> Campagnolo for most of their groups so if you're planning on changing out
> the rear wheel as well you won't have any problems.
>
> As I recall, the Shimano brakes feel better, the Campy shifters are more to
> my tastes and the this is a spectacular deal on the Centaur Compact cranks :
> http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=600081&subcategory=60001034&brand=&sku=21261&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=Shop%20by%20Subcat%3A%20Road%20Cranks
>
> Jobst HATES low gears by the way. Climbing a straight up road in anything
> lower than a 48-15 is sissy stuff to him. Not knocking him mind you - just
> trying to give you some idea of why his tastes are radically different from
> most people's.

46/25

--
Michael Press

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:0cfe96b4-1580-44e0-b28d-03a5d57eaabf@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com,
JG <jchg@cox.net> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Christopher,
> Taking a break from asking novice questions about Buddhism?
>
> Assuming you are seriously planning to swap out a bunch of mid-level
> Shimano components for mid-level Campy components...yes it will work
> fine if you change everything. But a new rear derailleur will require
> a new cluster which will require a new hub which will require someone
> to build a new wheel...

Unless you use an American Classic cassette designed to replicate C spacing
on a S freewheel body. Simpler, and this is a part that wears, anyway.

[Tom Kunich]

"Christopher Harrison" <SpamFactory@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote in message
news:26ab7028-9065-4a39-9f15-89f782ac594c@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> Interestingly, you seem to imply that Centaur is about equivalent to
> 105. From what I've researched, Centaur is about the equal of Ultegra
> (or better, depending what you read). Naïvely, they're about the same
> price; but would you guys concur?

Welllllll - operationally the Centaur is about equal to Ultegra. However,
Ultegra is better finished in my opinion.

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Jun 11, 9:19*am, Christopher Harrison
<SpamFact...@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks, all :)
> As
> such, moving to Centaur level would be the upgrade I'm looking for;
> particularly as most of my components are ready for a change (due to
> wear). I was going to get some new wheels too, so hubs aren't an
> issue.
> Interestingly, you seem to imply that Centaur is about equivalent to
> 105. From what I've researched, Centaur is about the equal of Ultegra
> (or better, depending what you read). Naïvely, they're about the same
> price; but would you guys concur?

OK, I'll speak directly IRT to a problem with Campy.

A longtime Campy user, I've gotten to the point where the thumb
buttons are really bothering my thumbs-- when I want to ride on the
hoods, which is most of the time, I can't wrap my thumbs around the
hoods without getting poked in a bad place, and the newer "roundy"
style thumb buttons have a little pointy place (on my Centaurs,
anyhow) that is just exactly wrong for my poor old beat-up thumbs to
handle.

Rode a couple of ShimaNo bikes, Ultegra and Dura Ace. Despite the
confusion in operating "strange" shifting controls that might occur at
moments of stress (which could be somewhat dangerous, especially
riding in tight groups), I'm thinking of switching brands. Plus, Campy
hasn't made 165mm crank arms for many moons, and my old CRec items are
piling up hours (slowly, but piling...).

Big minus for Shimano are the flipper-style QR's for brakes, which can
be left open (and we've all done it) accidentally and then your
braking is much reduced, and of course the emergency situation is just
waiting for you to forget to flip the thing closed again. The Campy
button-style is so simple and so secure, it's a wonder Sh-No hasn't
copied it (or the historical forebears from Weinmann and possibly
others) long hence. At least they finally put an orbital adjuster
washer under the brake shoes.

The Shimano pedals beat the pants off Campy (opinion), as well. Having
owned at least three sets of each...

WTF cares about "equivalent" between brands, really? You want to look
at the brand you're interested in to make a good choice IRT price v.
bearing quality (for instance) and other functional/finish factors as
you stroll through the catalog group sets. "This one is shinier" might
be a valid factor, but not a primary one IMHO.

IOW, if you can handle the thumb buttons, for one biggie, then Campy
is fine. If changing might be a problem, for the buttons or "emergency
response" on familiar controls, or any other reason, why change? --
D-y

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

On Jun 11, 8:19*am, Christopher Harrison
<SpamFact...@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks, all :)
>
> I had forgotten what an "interesting" mix you find on Usenet! However,
> you've certainly answered my questions; for which I'm grateful. (One
> can never be too sure of Wikipedia!) Spero che io parli Campagnolo
> presto!
>
> I've had a closer look at my bike and it was the other way around: It
> seems to have a Tiagra chainset, hubs and brakes; with a 105 rear
> mech; and the standard Trek/Bontranger crank and [presumably] BB. As
> such, moving to Centaur level would be the upgrade I'm looking for;
> particularly as most of my components are ready for a change (due to
> wear). I was going to get some new wheels too, so hubs aren't an
> issue.
> Interestingly, you seem to imply that Centaur is about equivalent to
> 105. From what I've researched, Centaur is about the equal of Ultegra
> (or better, depending what you read). Naïvely, they're about the same
> price; but would you guys concur?

Tough sometimes to match group to group but Centaur is roughly on the
same lever as ultegra, little lighter. Veloce to 105.
>
> Apologies for my novice questions, but one has to start somewhere!
>
> Thanks;
> Christopher

[Morten Reippuert Knudsen]

On 2008-06-11 16:38:43 +0200, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> said:

> "Christopher Harrison" <SpamFactory@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:26ab7028-9065-4a39-9f15-89f782ac594c@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Interestingly,
>
>> you seem to imply that Centaur is about equivalent to
>> 105. From what I've researched, Centaur is about the equal of Ultegra
>> (or better, depending what you read). Naïvely, they're about the same
>> price; but would you guys concur?
>
> Welllllll - operationally the Centaur is about equal to Ultegra.
> However, Ultegra is better finished in my opinion.

i don't agree with that statement. The finnish of centaur is equal to
Chorus/Record.
Centaur is lighter than Ultegra(SL) and very close to DureAce 7800 in
terms of weight.

--
mvh. Morten Reippuert Knudsen

"Besides, if you can't get a decent kernal panic
or two in a month, what's the point of living?"

[Tom Kunich]

"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-6CC5A7.15000111062008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <3bKdnQ50X42yYtPVnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Jobst HATES low gears by the way. Climbing a straight up road in anything
>> lower than a 48-15 is sissy stuff to him. Not knocking him mind you -
>> just
>> trying to give you some idea of why his tastes are radically different
>> from
>> most people's.
>
> 46/25

He rode by me while I was climbing Kings Mountain Rd. and his gear was so
big that I couldn't see how he could turn it over.

[A Muzi]

> In article <3bKdnQ50X42yYtPVnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Christopher Harrison" <SpamFactory@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:274a1829-aef2-429d-8ef9-da8c0fa540b0@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> I am very tempted to upgrade my entire groupset, however I was
>>> wondering if I could please ask for a bit of advice?
>> The Centaur is a good group. About as good as the 105. The Centaur works a
>> little better in some things and not quite as well in others. The 105 shifts
>> smoother and quieter. The Centaur lets you know with a solid CLACK that it
>> has changed gears. (BTW, I prefer the Campy)
>>
>> There is a difference in the rear cassette spacing between Shimano and
>> Campagnolo for most of their groups so if you're planning on changing out
>> the rear wheel as well you won't have any problems.
>>
>> As I recall, the Shimano brakes feel better, the Campy shifters are more to
>> my tastes and the this is a spectacular deal on the Centaur Compact cranks :
>> http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=600081&subcategory=60001034&brand=&sku=21261&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=Shop%20by%20Subcat%3A%20Road%20Cranks
>>
>> Jobst HATES low gears by the way. Climbing a straight up road in anything
>> lower than a 48-15 is sissy stuff to him. Not knocking him mind you - just
>> trying to give you some idea of why his tastes are radically different from
>> most people's.

Michael Press wrote:
> 46/25

Almost.
Jobst rides a seven speed 13~26 cassette
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Jun 11, 5:10*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> He rode by me while I was climbing Kings Mountain Rd. and his gear was so
> big that I couldn't see how he could turn it over.

It's a trick, like touching your nose with a sledge hammer. --D-y

[Hank]

On Jun 12, 5:34 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <pe...@vecchios.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 11, 8:19 am, Christopher Harrison
>
>
>
> <SpamFact...@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote:
> > Thanks, all :)
>
> > I had forgotten what an "interesting" mix you find on Usenet! However,
> > you've certainly answered my questions; for which I'm grateful. (One
> > can never be too sure of Wikipedia!) Spero che io parli Campagnolo
> > presto!
>
> > I've had a closer look at my bike and it was the other way around: It
> > seems to have a Tiagra chainset, hubs and brakes; with a 105 rear
> > mech; and the standard Trek/Bontranger crank and [presumably] BB. As
> > such, moving to Centaur level would be the upgrade I'm looking for;
> > particularly as most of my components are ready for a change (due to
> > wear). I was going to get some new wheels too, so hubs aren't an
> > issue.
> > Interestingly, you seem to imply that Centaur is about equivalent to
> > 105. From what I've researched, Centaur is about the equal of Ultegra
> > (or better, depending what you read). Naïvely, they're about the same
> > price; but would you guys concur?
>
> Tough sometimes to match group to group but Centaur is roughly on the
> same lever as ultegra, little lighter. Veloce to 105.
>
>
>

...and Mirage to Tiagra and Xenon to Sora...In terms of materials and
features, those are pretty close parallels. Especially the Xenon/Sora
comparison, both having plastic knuckles on the RD. And until 2007,
both had different brifter mechanisms than their older sibling groups.

[Christopher Harrison]

On 12 Jun, 20:26, Hank <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 5:34 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <pe...@vecchios.com>
> wrote:
> > Tough sometimes to match group to group but Centaur is roughly on the
> > same lever as ultegra, little lighter. Veloce to 105.
>
> ...and Mirage to Tiagra and Xenon to Sora...In terms of materials and
> features, those are pretty close parallels. Especially the Xenon/Sora
> comparison, both having plastic knuckles on the RD. And until 2007,
> both had different brifter mechanisms than their older sibling groups.

This is my reasoning... Essentially, Campy and Shimano have, more-or-
less, a duopoly on the market; so it would seem sensible to compete
head-to-head at each price-point, across their respective ranges.
That's why, in my previous post, I was comparing based on value.

[JG]

What value? You buy it, it gets cheaper, you take it out of the box,
it gets cheaper, you put it on your bike, it gets cheaper, you ride
with it, it gets cheaper.

(Of course if you throw it in a box and wait 20 years, suddenly Ebay
gets very attractive.)

You might want to think about what you are gaiing by such total and
expensive change - nice shiny similar parts is a prefectly reasonable
goal, but the only one apparent...

JG

[Arthur Shapiro]

I applaud the OP's decision.

I used to have Shimano stuff, and really believed that the only thing the
Italians could do better than the Japanese was women. (Apologies for being
non-PC.)

But then, on the previous Klein, I wore out two Ultegra brifters and one Dura
Ace in nine years. Of course, they couldn't be repaired as per normal Shimano
policy.

On the Habanero, I bit the bullet with Campy. And I've worn the brifters out
once. I was intimidated about repairing them, despite being a decent mechanic
- couldn't take the risk of missing a ride - so the local pro shop did it.
And I was back on the road.

I think this is a reasonable selling point for Campy. And I personally like
not having stuff that everyone else has - the same reason I wouldn't purchase,
say, a Trek or Canondale machine even if they're perfectly decent bicycles.

Art

[JG]

Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
designs. There is something impure about a clockwork shifter
mechanism that must be replaced in full, but then, most of us now have
sealed bottom brackets.
Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
you quickly find that nobody actually has them, and nobody actually
wants them, because the newer stuff does more and works better.
Sure, in theory it's great that you can buy a single derailleur plate
to replace the one you broke. But who breaks a plate without bending
the cage and scraping the finish off the mounts... And when you add
it all up, it's cheaper to buy a new derailleur. Why do they still
make chainring bolts? a full set of Campy rings is more expensive
than a new triple. When you grind the small ring to dust, you can buy
a steel after-market version, but when the large rings go, it's time
to get rid of those scratched up arms too. And there's no need for
different sizes anymore because the cassettes have so much range and
the front derailleurs are optimized for specific rings.
Finally, according to others, the simple, more common parts, like cogs
and cassettes are not all that widely available. In the end it's all
economics and you actually end up spending more for the privilege of
being thrifty by rebuilding...

JG

[jim beam]

JG wrote:
> Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
> generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
> when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
> put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
> designs. There is something impure about a clockwork shifter
> mechanism that must be replaced in full, but then, most of us now have
> sealed bottom brackets.
> Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
> you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
> you quickly find that nobody actually has them, and nobody actually
> wants them, because the newer stuff does more and works better.

<snip>

actually, the question is why some of these parts are needed in the
first place.

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/fatigued_campy_shift_mech.jpeg

this is a known and frequent failure - and it's a design issue because
of the stress riser where the break happens. it shouldn't happen and it
would take about 5 minutes to re-design so it never recurred.

yes, you'll see lots of stories of broken shimano shift mechanisms, but
personally, i've never experienced one*. i've experienced two of the
above, and i dropped campy because of it.



* the design error imo is that the "up" and "down" shift levers are not
only close, but both move in the same direction - i believe all problems
therefore stem from people accidentally pushing both levers at the same
time, and if they don't get the shift they want, they just keep on
pushing until something gives. should the shifters be redesigned to
allow for "mistakes" like this? perhaps. but used with dexterity,
shimano shifters will just keep on going - unlike campy where their
design means breakage is inevitable, regardless of usage.

[A Muzi]

JG wrote:
> Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
> generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
> when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
> put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
> designs. There is something impure about a clockwork shifter
> mechanism that must be replaced in full, but then, most of us now have
> sealed bottom brackets.
> Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
> you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
> you quickly find that nobody actually has them, and nobody actually
> wants them, because the newer stuff does more and works better.
> Sure, in theory it's great that you can buy a single derailleur plate
> to replace the one you broke. But who breaks a plate without bending
> the cage and scraping the finish off the mounts... And when you add
> it all up, it's cheaper to buy a new derailleur. Why do they still
> make chainring bolts? a full set of Campy rings is more expensive
> than a new triple. When you grind the small ring to dust, you can buy
> a steel after-market version, but when the large rings go, it's time
> to get rid of those scratched up arms too. And there's no need for
> different sizes anymore because the cassettes have so much range and
> the front derailleurs are optimized for specific rings.
> Finally, according to others, the simple, more common parts, like cogs
> and cassettes are not all that widely available. In the end it's all
> economics and you actually end up spending more for the privilege of
> being thrifty by rebuilding...

http://www.yellowjersey.org/srk.html
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:05:30 -0700 (PDT), JG <jchg@cox.net> wrote:

>Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
>generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
>when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
>put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
>designs.
>Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
>you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
>you quickly find that nobody actually has them

Dude, you're harshing on my mellow.

[A Muzi]

jim beam wrote:
> JG wrote:
>> Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
>> generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
>> when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
>> put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
>> designs. There is something impure about a clockwork shifter
>> mechanism that must be replaced in full, but then, most of us now have
>> sealed bottom brackets.
>> Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
>> you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
>> you quickly find that nobody actually has them, and nobody actually
>> wants them, because the newer stuff does more and works better.
>
> <snip>
>
> actually, the question is why some of these parts are needed in the
> first place.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/fatigued_campy_shift_mech.jpeg
>
> this is a known and frequent failure - and it's a design issue because
> of the stress riser where the break happens. it shouldn't happen and it
> would take about 5 minutes to re-design so it never recurred.
>
> yes, you'll see lots of stories of broken shimano shift mechanisms, but
> personally, i've never experienced one*. i've experienced two of the
> above, and i dropped campy because of it.
>
>
>
> * the design error imo is that the "up" and "down" shift levers are not
> only close, but both move in the same direction - i believe all problems
> therefore stem from people accidentally pushing both levers at the same
> time, and if they don't get the shift they want, they just keep on
> pushing until something gives. should the shifters be redesigned to
> allow for "mistakes" like this? perhaps. but used with dexterity,
> shimano shifters will just keep on going - unlike campy where their
> design means breakage is inevitable, regardless of usage.
>

re: Campagnolo
Uh, that piece has been carbon for years now. You may know something
about that material; failure rate has vaporized. The carbon carrier with
springs is cheaper than a gear cable set.

re:Shimano
Are you basically saying 'blame the rider'? That was your criticism of
Jobst's comments three hours before you wrote this.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[jim beam]

A Muzi wrote:
<snip for clarity>

> http://www.yellowjersey.org/srk.html


genius!

[A Muzi]

> A Muzi wrote:
> <snip for clarity>
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/srk.html

jim beam wrote:
> genius!

Thanks. If one man laughs it was worthwhile.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[jim beam]

A Muzi wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> JG wrote:
>>> Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
>>> generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
>>> when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
>>> put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
>>> designs. There is something impure about a clockwork shifter
>>> mechanism that must be replaced in full, but then, most of us now have
>>> sealed bottom brackets.
>>> Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
>>> you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
>>> you quickly find that nobody actually has them, and nobody actually
>>> wants them, because the newer stuff does more and works better.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> actually, the question is why some of these parts are needed in the
>> first place.
>>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/fatigued_campy_shift_mech.jpeg
>>
>>
>> this is a known and frequent failure - and it's a design issue because
>> of the stress riser where the break happens. it shouldn't happen and
>> it would take about 5 minutes to re-design so it never recurred.
>>
>> yes, you'll see lots of stories of broken shimano shift mechanisms,
>> but personally, i've never experienced one*. i've experienced two of
>> the above, and i dropped campy because of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> * the design error imo is that the "up" and "down" shift levers are
>> not only close, but both move in the same direction - i believe all
>> problems therefore stem from people accidentally pushing both levers
>> at the same time, and if they don't get the shift they want, they just
>> keep on pushing until something gives. should the shifters be
>> redesigned to allow for "mistakes" like this? perhaps. but used with
>> dexterity, shimano shifters will just keep on going - unlike campy
>> where their design means breakage is inevitable, regardless of usage.
>>
>
> re: Campagnolo
> Uh, that piece has been carbon for years now. You may know something
> about that material; failure rate has vaporized. The carbon carrier with
> springs is cheaper than a gear cable set.

that's good to know - i guess. but it's a fudge to throw an exotic
material at a design "error".


>
> re:Shimano
> Are you basically saying 'blame the rider'? That was your criticism of
> Jobst's comments three hours before you wrote this.

you have another explanation? i don't since the mechanism has no
obvious flaws [other than lever proximity as said before]. the
materials used are good. any machine can be broken by ignorance and
brute force. and you can be sure the person bringing it into the shop
isn't going to admit their error if they think they can get something
replaced.

jobst's shimmy "theory" neither adequately explains nor properly cures -
blaming the rider for a serious condition like that, one that is
potentially life threatening in extremis, is b.s. "shivering"? that's
a joke - it doesn't explain the same phenomenon in motorcycles or even
some old types of car. both of the latter have been cured by addressing
stiffness and dynamics. as indeed have a lot of modern bicycles. all
my oversize tube aluminum frames simply refuse to shimmy. that's not
exactly coincidence.