Alternatives to AC-H for Campagnolo Centaur? ( I know this has been beat into the ground)



J

Jochen

Guest
Thanks for reading.

I am building up with Centaur triple. (Crazy Hills round here)
Are there any alternatives to AC-H (other than SC-S,
which is not the direction I want to go with weight)
I know the newer Chorus and Record BBs are asymmetrical
and do not work.
Athena BBs will work, I think... they were symmetrical?
I see them in 111mm...
What about Phil Wood- is there one that will function correctly?
Any other options?
It mildly irks me that the AC-H is such an "boat anchor"
For those, what is the condition that necessitates
a 115mm spindle?

Thank You,

Jochen Schübler
 
Jochen wrote:
> Thanks for reading.
> I am building up with Centaur triple. (Crazy Hills round here) Are there
> any alternatives to AC-H (other than SC-S, which is not the direction I
> want to go with weight) I know the newer Chorus and Record BBs are
> asymmetrical and do not work. Athena BBs will work, I think... they were
> symmetrical? I see them in 111mm... What about Phil Wood- is there one
> that will function correctly? Any other options? It mildly irks me that
> the AC-H is such an "boat anchor" For those, what is the condition that
> necessitates a 115mm spindle?
> Thank You,
> Jochen Schübler




Don't worry about it mate. The Centaur AC-H is only 68 grams heavier
than Chorus. There's no way you can tell the difference especially since
it's non rotational weight. Concentrate taking weight off your wheels
and your belly.



--
 
jochen-<< I am building up with Centaur triple. (Crazy Hills round here)
Are there any alternatives to AC-H >><BR><BR>

You need a 115.5mm spindle if you have a frameset with an oversized
seattube...Certainly for a 34.9mm, 'maybe' for a 31.8. Some of these can use a
111mm spindle.

Phil is a good choice altho not that much lighter than an AC-H and lots more
money.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
 
On 13 May 2004 22:27:24 -0700, [email protected] (Jochen) wrote:

>Thanks for reading.
>
>I am building up with Centaur triple. (Crazy Hills round here)
>Are there any alternatives to AC-H (other than SC-S,
>which is not the direction I want to go with weight)
>I know the newer Chorus and Record BBs are asymmetrical
>and do not work.
>Athena BBs will work, I think... they were symmetrical?
>I see them in 111mm...
>What about Phil Wood- is there one that will function correctly?
>Any other options?
>It mildly irks me that the AC-H is such an "boat anchor"
>For those, what is the condition that necessitates
>a 115mm spindle?
>

There's nothing wrong with an AC-H bb. The only downside is the
installation tool required.

I'd think that the asymmetrical bb would work.

You sometimes need the 115.5 bb if your seatube is 32 mm or wider. In
my experience, most time not. On the wider tube, the derailleur will
not travel in toward the frame enough.

Others will strongly disagree but in practical use, a Shimano taper
107 for 111 Campy or 110 for 115.5 works fine. A Shimano BB UN 72,
now 73 is a great value.
 
[email protected] (Jochen) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Thanks for reading.
>
> I am building up with Centaur triple. (Crazy Hills round here)
> Are there any alternatives to AC-H (other than SC-S,
> which is not the direction I want to go with weight)
> I know the newer Chorus and Record BBs are asymmetrical
> and do not work.


That's correct. You could use a Record track (111mm symmetric),
either traditional or cartridge.

> Athena BBs will work, I think... they were symmetrical?
> I see them in 111mm...


They are symmetric, but out of production for years. You might find
one for a hefty price or just get lucky.

> What about Phil Wood- is there one that will function correctly?


110.5mm PW, stainless or titanium. Expensive and not so light either.

> Any other options?
> It mildly irks me that the AC-H is such an "boat anchor"


I won't comment on your weight fetish, other than you could always
substitute a lighter crank/bb combination. I mean, you *bought* a
Centaur triple group, didn't you? I would use the AC-H. It is a good
bb.

> For those, what is the condition that necessitates
> a 115mm spindle?


Chainline (shifting) and chainstay clearance.



Robin Hubert
 
> I am building up with Centaur triple. (Crazy Hills round here)

I have a Centaur triple group when I go to the mountains. Worked very
well last year.

> Are there any alternatives to AC-H (other than SC-S,
> which is not the direction I want to go with weight)


Don't know what SC-S means. An alternative is the Campagnolo Pista
track bottom bracket. It uses 111mm spindle. I am guessing it is
symmetrical like the 111mm AC-H. But a track bottom bracket does not
have the weather tightness of a normal bottom bracket. The Pista is
220 grams. The AC-H is 288 grams.

> I know the newer Chorus and Record BBs are asymmetrical
> and do not work.


Right. They will probably move the chain line to places you don't
want it.

> Athena BBs will work, I think... they were symmetrical?
> I see them in 111mm...


Athena is AC-H. Athena, Daytona, Centaur, Veloce, Mirage, Xenon all
use the AC-H bottom bracket. There is a non hollow bottom bracket
too. Probably just AC without the -H on the end. I suppose the
Mirage and Xenon received the non hollow bottom bracket.

> What about Phil Wood- is there one that will function correctly?


Probably. But Phil Wood makes heavy stuff. And expensive. No one
buys Phil Wood for reduced weight. The AC-H is $20 from Excel Sports.
You can buy a lot of AC-H bottom brackets for $20 each.

> For those, what is the condition that necessitates
> a 115mm spindle?


The 111mm AC-H bottom bracket is used for all doubles regardless of
seat tube diameter and all triples with smaller diameter seat tubes.
I have a lugged steel frame with a 1.125" seat tube (clamp on front
derailleur) and use the 111mm AC-H for my triple Centaur crankset. I
also use the 111mm AC-H on my welded aluminum frame with a 1.25" seat
tube (clamp on front derailleur) and triple Centaur crankset.

The 115mm AC-H is used for triples with very large seat tubes. A seat
tube of 1.375" (for clamp on front derailleur) or very large seat
tubes with braze on front derailleur would be about the only times you
need to use the 115mm AC-H for a triple crankset.
 
Russell Seaton <[email protected]> wrote:

> Don't know what SC-S means.


<snip>

> Athena is AC-H. Athena, Daytona, Centaur, Veloce, Mirage, Xenon all
> use the AC-H bottom bracket. There is a non hollow bottom bracket
> too. Probably just AC without the -H on the end. I suppose the
> Mirage and Xenon received the non hollow bottom bracket.


Centaur uses AC-H. Veloce uses the same thing with a solid axle (AC-S).
Mirage and Xenon use SC-S, which has Steel Cups, while AC-H and AC-S
have Aluminium Cups.

Source: http://www.campagnolo.com

Of course, all three bottom brackets are inter-changeable so there's no
reason to use a particular bottom bracket with a particular groupset.
All three are cheap and heavy, so there's no real difference.

-as
 
Jochen wrote:
> Thanks for reading.
>
> I am building up with Centaur triple. (Crazy Hills round here)
> Are there any alternatives to AC-H (other than SC-S,
> which is not the direction I want to go with weight)
> I know the newer Chorus and Record BBs are asymmetrical
> and do not work.
> Athena BBs will work, I think... they were symmetrical?
> I see them in 111mm...
> What about Phil Wood- is there one that will function correctly?
> Any other options?
> It mildly irks me that the AC-H is such an "boat anchor"
> For those, what is the condition that necessitates
> a 115mm spindle?
>
> Thank You,
>
> Jochen Schübler

I use the Phil Wood with a Centaur triple. The Phil Wood BB weighs about
15 grams more than the Record BB. And it's completely stainless steel.
Phil's are the best.

Kenny Lee
 
paul-<< Others will strongly disagree but in practical use, a Shimano taper
107 for 111 Campy or 110 for 115.5 works fine. A Shimano BB UN 72,
now 73 is a great value. >><BR><BR>

And the same price as a AC-H, which is also a great value. I don't think
anybody ought to use the wrong BB for a crank because some local bike shop is
too lazy or inept to have the proper part.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
 
I appreciate everyone's input, thanks for assisting me in beating
this topic into the ground some more.

>I won't comment on your weight fetish, other than you could always
>substitute a lighter crank/bb combination. I mean, you *bought* a
>Centaur triple group, didn't you?


Affirmative. In fact, "comment" is welcome. Personally, I think it
pardonable to troll r.b.marketplace for years and pick up the entire
group sans BB & hubs for $280 and still want to pare weight, for
instance, avoid heavy wheels. I would have bought lighter if it made
$ & cents. There's nothing bad about trying to violate the "cheap,
lightweight, or reliable, pick two" dictum, it's just unlikely that
one can succeed. I'm just experimenting.
I purchased a mint Bianchi Daytona frame with an Alpha Q Sub-3 fork
(admitted bordering on "stupid light") at fire sale prices too. It's
not likely I'll have the opportunity to ride a $4K bike to see if it
can help me break through a plateau. Losing the difference in body
mass that exists between heavy and light components is pretty easy,
especially if you have a lust for spending long hours on your bike-
that lust which can easily be amplified by a subjective impression of
performance gains. It's a positive feedback mechanism that I have
already proved exists for me, however irrational. I like heavy bikes
too- I commute on a total "woof-woof"