Campagnolo Centaur Question

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"doug thomas" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>
> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
>
> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?

Russell has covered this very well.

A triple is the best way to get low gears. The
principle disadvantage of a triple is shifting the
front; because you cannot just throw the shifter to go
from big to middle chain wheel.

Possible disadvantages of a compact double.

* The gearing sweet spot could end up between the two chainwheels.
* May not get a gear as low as you want.
* Large gearing jumps in an 11-29 cassette.

Tom Nakashima recently posted his positive review of
his transition from a road double to a compact double.
I recommend that you look it up.

For me, the third chainwheel of a triple is a bail out
gear. Mostly I ride the middle and big ring. With a
tight cassette the gearing (but not the front shifting)
is like a road double with a granny gear. If you get a
triple, get a 24 or 26 cog chain wheel.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > D'ohBoy wrote:
> >>
> >> Here's a vote for compact. I use a Record 34/50 with a med cage rear
> >> der. With the 50 and a 13 tooth small cog I spin out at about 35 mph
> >> (on the flats with a tailwind). Good enough for me.
> >
> > Why settle for 'good enough'?
>
> I think that's a philosophical question, but I'll take a stab. I want
> to spend very little time mucking about with my commuter bike. As long
> as the gearing is close enough to what I need, I'm happy. I'm not
> searching for a theoretical 'perfect' setup.
>
> > What does a compact have what a triple doesn't gearwise?
>
> Better shifting? At least, that's been my experience.
>
> I run a 48/36 x 11-28 [1]. That gives me about the same range as a triple
> using a 52/42/30 x 12-25 [2]. A 34 lower ring would drop me to 32.5 gear
> inches as my lower. Of course, if you're touring or a similar
> application, the triple is eminently sensible.
>
> [1] 34 - 116 gear inches
> [2] 32 - 116 gear inches

Same range, but vastly larger jumps.

As you say the use of the bike matters. The original poster seems
to be talking about recreational road rides of considerable
distance.

My utility bike has 46-50 / 14-32 seven speed. Half step gearing
and a good range. Excellent, but not for lots of climbing on an
extensive ride.

--
Michael Press

 

[Sir Ridesalot]

On May 16, 8:46 am, "doug thomas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>
> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
>
> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
>
> Doug Thomas
> Welland, Ontario

Hi there.

I have 2 bikes for road riding. One has a 34-50 compact crank, very
old, and the other has a 30-42-52 Veloce triple circa 2004.

I run the Veloce triple using a Veloce medium cage and a 12-26
cassette with no problems. Shifting is via pre-2007 Mirage Ergos and
is excellent. 30 front and 26 rear equals 31.2 gear inches. A 26 front
and 26 rear equals 27 gear inches. Pre-2007 Ergos shift both a double
or a triple and have excellent trim capabilities.

I like the triple because if I need lower gears as I get older I can
get a smaller inner chainring.

With the compact crank I would have to get a new cassette to get a
lower gear. I did put a Mirage rear derailleur on it recently in case
I do decide later to lower the lowest gear on it. 34 front and 32
(SRAM or Shimano cassette on Shimano hub) rear equals 28.7 gear
inches. 34 front and 26 rear equals 35.3 gear inches.

Sorry but I don't have the data for these combinations with a 29 teeth
rear cog.

Cheers from Peter

 

[Jay Beattie]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<big snip>

> Another way of looking at it -
>
> If you aren't one who is slightly embarassed by having a 39 instead of a
> 42 or 44, and you're sincerely asking about compact versus triple, it's
> probably time for the triple and some reall sissy gears.


I didn't read all the posts, but did the OP ever say what his current
gearing is? I mean really, maybe the guy just needs a cassette with a 26
tooth cog. If he has one of those off the rack pseudo racers with a corn-cob
cassette, he may only need a new cassette and not a whole new crank.

Now if he has a 39/26(28) and that's not cutting it, then it might be time
to talk about lower gears and a different crank. With ten speed cassettes,
though, I really wonder about needing a triple for anything other than
super-low gear loaded touring. I know that a triple and a close range
cassette will yield better spacing, but then again, does that really matter
to the OP?

I am for the cheaper compact crank alternative (no new BB, no new
shifters -- assuming he does need new shifters for a triple), but before
making that choice, I would do the channeling-Frank
Berto-beer-and-gear-chart extravaganza and figure out exactly what gears I
would gain by going triple and then deciding whether an inch here or there
is worth the increased expense and the slight inconvenience of shifting a
triple. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On May 16, 3:23 pm, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > D'ohBoy wrote:
>
> >> Here's a vote for compact. I use a Record 34/50 with a med cage rear
> >> der. With the 50 and a 13 tooth small cog I spin out at about 35 mph
> >> (on the flats with a tailwind). Good enough for me.
>
> > Why settle for 'good enough'?
>
> I think that's a philosophical question, but I'll take a stab. I want
> to spend very little time mucking about with my commuter bike. As long
> as the gearing is close enough to what I need, I'm happy. I'm not
> searching for a theoretical 'perfect' setup.
>
> > What does a compact have what a triple doesn't gearwise?
>
> Better shifting? At least, that's been my experience.

If you are using STI (aka, 'push & pray') indexed front shifting, that
may be the case. Less so now than in the past, but still fussy as to
choice of rings, FD, left shifter, etc., etc., etc. OTOH, with
friction front shifting (traditional Ergo, DTs or barends), triples
shift wonderfully and have done for years (and, yes, all you 'racers'
out there, this does not apply to racing situations; we all already
know that).
>
> I run a 48/36 x 11-28 [1]. That gives me about the same range as a triple
> using a 52/42/30 x 12-25 [2]. A 34 lower ring would drop me to 32.5 gear
> inches as my lower.

What this really proves is that a 30T is not a really sensible choice
for the inner ring on many triples. Your 36/28 low is slightly
bettered by a 26/21 on a triple (and a 26/22 slightly betters the
34/28 low), so a really tight cassette would give the same low range,
but with nice small steps between gears.

> Of course, if you're touring or a similar
> application, the triple is eminently sensible.
>
> [1] 34 - 116 gear inches
> [2] 32 - 116 gear inches
>
> --
> Dane Buson - [email protected]
> "Stupidity is an elemental force for which no earthquake
> is a match." -Karl Kraus

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

On May 16, 6:46 am, "doug thomas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>
> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
>
> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
>
> Doug Thomas
> Welland, Ontario

Yikes, as you will hear here, all Campag left shifters from the first
day, were double AND triple compatible.
Might mention this thread to the LBS, and mention that they 'may' want
to do some research on the 'other' choices for road componentry.

 

[D'ohBoy]

On May 16, 2:16 pm, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> D'ohBoy wrote:
> > Lou wrote, in part
> >> With a triple put on a 13-26 (13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26) cassette
> >> and you are done. No cassette swapping, no skipping chain on a cassettes
> >> you don't use often or separate chains for each cassette and still have
> >> a 42 middle ring you can use on the flats.
>
> >> Lou
> >> --
> >> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
>
> > The compact requires certain additional skills, tools and behaviors
> > but on the other hand, offers many benefits over the current 53/39 de
> > facto standard without having to go through the hassle and cost of the
> > conversion (fder, rder, chain, crank). And if he didn't have campy,
> > it would be MUCH more expensive. With the compact, all the guy has to
> > do is get the crank, lower his fder, shorten the chain a bit and
> > ride. And if you rotate two chains, and don't let them get over 2000
> > miles or so, skipping is not a differentiating issue between compact/
> > triple no matter how many cassettes you run.
>
> > And if he has a known terrain that he always rides in, one cassette
> > will do (13-26 is probably appropriate for all but the most
> > mountainous non-touring terrain).
>
> > So the compact is cheaper and easier to convert to, and with the
> > proper choice of cassette is as good as a triple. And one additional
> > cassette will fill out any desired gear range.
>
> > An easy, cheaper choice, IMO.
>
> > D'ohBoy
>
> Aha, you want the cheapest solution. Hmm, you choose a Record CT crank
> and 4 cassette's??
> I have one bike with a triple and one bike with a Record Compact. I have
> no problem to admit that the compact on that bike is for the looks and
> the weight. Gearwise the triple wins all the time.
>
> Lou
> --
> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)


Dude, two cassettes and the crank is all I really need. A 13-29 and a
12-25 is all he'll ever need. And, if he rides the same terrain, ONLY
ONE CASSETTE.

I have all those cassettes because I acquired them over the years
during my younger, stronger 53/39 era. I have the Record crank
because I like to ride a really nice light bike - and I can afford
it. Can get a Centaur compact for MUCH less.

Yes, the triple is more convenient to those with little skill with
bike maintenance. But I have the 13-26 on one wheelset, and the 13-29
on another. Swap out the wheels and bingo, climbing day. Swap once
more, and bob's yer uncle, flats.

Ach, well to each there own. I notice you have both <eg>.

D'ohBoy

 

[Lou Holtman]

D'ohBoy wrote:
> On May 16, 2:16 pm, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> D'ohBoy wrote:
>>> Lou wrote, in part
>>>> With a triple put on a 13-26 (13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26) cassette
>>>> and you are done. No cassette swapping, no skipping chain on a cassettes
>>>> you don't use often or separate chains for each cassette and still have
>>>> a 42 middle ring you can use on the flats.
>>>> Lou
>>>> --
>>>> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
>>> The compact requires certain additional skills, tools and behaviors
>>> but on the other hand, offers many benefits over the current 53/39 de
>>> facto standard without having to go through the hassle and cost of the
>>> conversion (fder, rder, chain, crank). And if he didn't have campy,
>>> it would be MUCH more expensive. With the compact, all the guy has to
>>> do is get the crank, lower his fder, shorten the chain a bit and
>>> ride. And if you rotate two chains, and don't let them get over 2000
>>> miles or so, skipping is not a differentiating issue between compact/
>>> triple no matter how many cassettes you run.
>>> And if he has a known terrain that he always rides in, one cassette
>>> will do (13-26 is probably appropriate for all but the most
>>> mountainous non-touring terrain).
>>> So the compact is cheaper and easier to convert to, and with the
>>> proper choice of cassette is as good as a triple. And one additional
>>> cassette will fill out any desired gear range.
>>> An easy, cheaper choice, IMO.
>>> D'ohBoy
>> Aha, you want the cheapest solution. Hmm, you choose a Record CT crank
>> and 4 cassette's??
>> I have one bike with a triple and one bike with a Record Compact. I have
>> no problem to admit that the compact on that bike is for the looks and
>> the weight. Gearwise the triple wins all the time.
>>
>> Lou
>> --
>> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
>
>
> Dude, two cassettes and the crank is all I really need. A 13-29 and a
> 12-25 is all he'll ever need. And, if he rides the same terrain, ONLY
> ONE CASSETTE.


Dude???


> Ach, well to each there own. I notice you have both

Yes, so I know what I'm talking about. ;-)

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

 

[Dane Buson]

Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I run a 48/36 x 11-28 [1]. That gives me about the same range as a triple
>> using a 52/42/30 x 12-25 [2]. A 34 lower ring would drop me to 32.5 gear
>> inches as my lower. Of course, if you're touring or a similar
>> application, the triple is eminently sensible.
>>
>> [1] 34 - 116 gear inches
>> [2] 32 - 116 gear inches
>
> Same range, but vastly larger jumps.

Granted. My only kvetch with my current setup is I have a 17 where I
would prefer a 16. I'm planning on fixing that when I build my next
11-28 cassette.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"When two people are under the influence of the most violent,
most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions,
they are required to swear that they will remain in that
excited, abnormal and exhausting condition until death do
them part." -George Bernard Shaw

 

[D'ohBoy]

On May 17, 8:17 am, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> D'ohBoy wrote:
> > On May 16, 2:16 pm, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> D'ohBoy wrote:
> >>> Lou wrote, in part
> >>>> With a triple put on a 13-26 (13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-26) cassette
> >>>> and you are done. No cassette swapping, no skipping chain on a cassettes
> >>>> you don't use often or separate chains for each cassette and still have
> >>>> a 42 middle ring you can use on the flats.
> >>>> Lou
> >>>> --
> >>>> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
> >>> The compact requires certain additional skills, tools and behaviors
> >>> but on the other hand, offers many benefits over the current 53/39 de
> >>> facto standard without having to go through the hassle and cost of the
> >>> conversion (fder, rder, chain, crank). And if he didn't have campy,
> >>> it would be MUCH more expensive. With the compact, all the guy has to
> >>> do is get the crank, lower his fder, shorten the chain a bit and
> >>> ride. And if you rotate two chains, and don't let them get over 2000
> >>> miles or so, skipping is not a differentiating issue between compact/
> >>> triple no matter how many cassettes you run.
> >>> And if he has a known terrain that he always rides in, one cassette
> >>> will do (13-26 is probably appropriate for all but the most
> >>> mountainous non-touring terrain).
> >>> So the compact is cheaper and easier to convert to, and with the
> >>> proper choice of cassette is as good as a triple. And one additional
> >>> cassette will fill out any desired gear range.
> >>> An easy, cheaper choice, IMO.
> >>> D'ohBoy
> >> Aha, you want the cheapest solution. Hmm, you choose a Record CT crank
> >> and 4 cassette's??
> >> I have one bike with a triple and one bike with a Record Compact. I have
> >> no problem to admit that the compact on that bike is for the looks and
> >> the weight. Gearwise the triple wins all the time.
>
> >> Lou
> >> --
> >> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
>
> > Dude, two cassettes and the crank is all I really need. A 13-29 and a
> > 12-25 is all he'll ever need. And, if he rides the same terrain, ONLY
> > ONE CASSETTE.
>
> Dude???
>
> > Ach, well to each there own. I notice you have both
>
> Yes, so I know what I'm talking about. ;-)
>
> Lou
> --
> Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)


Had a triple, dumped it. So I know what I'm talking about too.
You're obviously a last words kinda guy - so have at it - I will let
you have them.

D'ohBoy

 

[[email protected]]

On May 16, 5:41 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 16 May 2007 15:36:16 -0700, Ozark Bicycle
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Gearwise, the advantage always goes to a well-chosen triple.
>
> >Image-wise, the compact double looks more 'macho' ; that's a big part
> >of the appeal, IMO.
>
> The nice thing about a double as opposed to a triple is that it
> requires less thought -- it's binary. You just shif up or down all
> the way.

My triple has 52-42-30 rings. Paired with a 13-26 cassette. I can
shift up or down all the way, binary as you say, in either the outer
or middle ring and get as much gearing as I need unless I am trying
for speed. Speed down the hill needs the outer ring. Speed up the
hill needs the middle ring. Assuming 90 rpm. 42x13 is 23mph. 42x26
is 11mph. 52x13 is 28mph. 52x26 is 14mph. Nice overlap where many
people ride. 14-23 mph range. Binary up and down the cassette if you
want. No compact double needed.



If you're riding in situations where you have to shift
> quickly, this is nice. If you're just cruising leisurely (even fast,
> but mentally leisurely) it's no real advantage.
>
> Of course Ozark has some sort of insecurities where he often has to
> claim other people do things for "image" reasons.
>
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

 

[richard]

LIES! You will need a different front derailleur for triple, but not a
new Ergo lever.

I once had all triples (3 good road bikes). I converted one to a
compact and liked it so much I cnverted another to compact as well.

doug thomas wrote:
> I would like to make hill climbing a little easier, and have to decide
> between a Campagnolo Centaur triple front crank or a compact crank.
>
> If I purchase a triple, will I need to purchase a new brake/shifter combo as
> well? I was told this at the bike shop, and wanted to confirm this.
>
> Any other ideas on the compact vs. triple debate?
>
> Doug Thomas
> Welland, Ontario
>
>