Campagnolo on a trekking bike?



Status
Not open for further replies.
"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > >From: [email protected] Get a Campagnolo system with a TA Zephyer crank(triple, 110/74mm
> > >BCD)...
>
>
> "Scic" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Is this a "better" crank than the Sugino XD (Super Shift Rings) 26/36/46 -
> bcd
> > 74/110?
>
>
> Both are nice, the Sugino being readily available just about everywhere and at a lower price.
> "Better" has such a nebulous meaning on r.b.t.. . .

In this case the Zephyr is a 110/74/56, so you can use a 20t granny, also if you are using 12t
jumps between rings a Shimano XT-751 front derailer works better than a 105. The 751 is made for
48/46 big rings.
 
"Sheldon Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I observed:
>
> >>Another way of looking at it is that a trekking bike (or a hybrid for that matter) is basically
> >>a touring bike with upright handlebars instead of drops.
>
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>
> > I'd primarily define them by function: if the bike is made for
travelling
> > long distances without help (so you're carrying your own gear). If the
bike
> > is adequate than I'd call anything a trekking bike - even a recumbent.
>
> If you wish to create your own definitions for words, that's your priviledge, but if you actually
> expect to communicate with other people, it is more efficient to use the generally understood
> meanings.
>
> I was trying to be helpful, understanding that you're not a native English speaker.
>
> Perhaps in Dutch the terms "touring bike" and "trekking bike" mean the same thing, but they don't
> in English. You might find my Bicycle Glossary helpful: http://sheldonbrown.com/glossary
>
> Your original posting, where you confusingly referred to your touring bike as a "trekking" bike
> led me to waste time offering a helpful answer to your question, assuming that you were using the
> term "trekking bike" in the accepted sense.
>
> Since Campagnolo doesn't make any shifters that work with the handlebars used on trekking bikes,
> the answer to your question as posed was "no, impossible."
>
> Sheldon "Words DO Have Meanings" Brown +-----------------------------------------+
> | Man invented language to satisfy his | deep need to complain. -- Lily Tomlin |
> +-----------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone
> 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
> http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
>
Sheldon, I too am planning to build a touring bike in the next year. I really enjoy Ergo levers
and would like to figure out a way to have dependability and gears on my *touring* bike, while
using Campy shifters. I'm staying on paved roads here in the states. What's your approach to
accomplish this?
 
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:22:02 -0000, "Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:

>All I can say is that I'm surprised that works (with a chain long enough for the big-big)! I know I
>couldn't do it with my Racing T on my bike. Perhaps it partly depends on the hanger design.
>
>Note for OP. Racing T rear derailleur (now discontinued) has less capacity than a Centaur
>long cage.
>
>ps. Bottom-posting would be appreciated.
>
>cheers ~PB

The 3x10 Campy rear derailleurs, i.e. the 2002 Record and 2003 Centaur are longer than the previous
"long cage models". They are rated at 39t and handle the long chain very well. The front derailleur
is an old XTR, which is prior to MicroDrive.
 
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:06:45 GMT, "Frank Knox" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Sheldon, I too am planning to build a touring bike in the next year. I really enjoy Ergo levers
>and would like to figure out a way to have dependability and gears on my *touring* bike, while
>using Campy shifters. I'm staying on paved roads here in the states. What's your approach to
>accomplish this?

Mirage Ergo 9 Centaur 2003 Rear Derailleur Shimano MTB front deraillleur
46/36/24 rings
47/32 Shimano cassette on 135 mm hub like XT or XTR, Rim 15-17 mm bead to bead. 14/15 butted spokes
x 36 holes.

Touring frame with both studs for cantis and holes for dual pivot brakes.

Tires up to 12/32 with Long Reach Shimano dual pivots. The release on the brake and Ergo
release lets the big tire in. If you need fenders, you'll need other brakes or straight pull
brakes with adapters.

I'd actually prefer a 12/32 that you can get from Sheldon Brown or a
48/27 if you can live with that.
 
Frank Knox wrote:

> Sheldon, I too am planning to build a touring bike in the next year. I really enjoy Ergo levers
> and would like to figure out a way to have dependability and gears on my *touring* bike, while
> using Campy shifters. I'm staying on paved roads here in the states. What's your approach to
> accomplish this?

Use Ergo 9-speed shifters, Campagnolo rear derailer, with Shimano rear hub. The other parts can be
whatever tickles your fancy.

You might like one of my special custom touring cassettes, see:

http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/k7.html#9

I'm actually considering putting together a package like this, but haven't worked out the details.

If your frame will handle a 135 mm rear hub, get a 36 hole "mountain" rear hub, XT or similar. They
build stronger wheels and are somewhat better sealed against wet crud.

Sheldon "Mixmaster" Brown +-----------------------------------------------+
| The difference between truth and fiction: | Fiction has to make sense. | --Mark Twain. |
+-----------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone
617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
 
> > > >From: [email protected] Get a Campagnolo system with a TA Zephyer crank(triple, 110/74mm
BCD)...

> > "Scic" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > Is this a "better" crank than the Sugino XD (Super Shift Rings)
26/36/46 -
> > bcd
> > > 74/110?

> "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Both are nice, the Sugino being readily available just about everywhere
and
> > at a lower price. "Better" has such a nebulous meaning on r.b.t.. . .

"Scott Goldsmith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In this case the Zephyr is a 110/74/56, so you can use a 20t granny, also if you are using 12t
> jumps between rings a Shimano XT-751 front derailer works better than a 105. The 751 is made for
> 48/46 big rings.

We agree. They are both nice. The Sugino product serves a great many touring cyslists' requirements
adequately ( and much better than the 39/53 cranks we take off new bicycles!) You note some
attractive aspects of the TA, which I agree are wonderful cranks, but for some reason we sell a hell
of a lot more $69 Sugino cranks. I think there's a place for both.

--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971
 
Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[email protected]... <snip>
> If you wish to create your own definitions for words, that's your priviledge, but if you actually
> expect to communicate with other people, it is more efficient to use the generally understood
> meanings.

Well, that's always relative, since the Dawes bicycles site proved that what one might perceive as
generally accepted can be completely different elsewhere. After all, you wrote: 'The term "trekking
bike" is not English...'.

>
> I was trying to be helpful, understanding that you're not a native English speaker.

And your efforts are appreciated. Note that I did use the term 'touring bike' after you helpfully
tried to correct me. Know that your words were not in vain.

>
> Perhaps in Dutch the terms "touring bike" and "trekking bike" mean the same thing, but they don't
> in English. You might find my Bicycle Glossary helpful: http://sheldonbrown.com/glossary

Literally translated, that would be 'tourfiets' and 'trekfiets', respectively. I'd say a tourfiets
would be used for single-day trips, commuting, etc. It would be a bike with a comfortable position.
A trekfiets would be used for long distances and lots of luggage - the literal Dutch translations
refer to the opposite of what you hold to be correct. Dutch framebuilder Van Herwerden
(www.vanherwerden.nl) produces the Roadmaster and Roadmaster X frames. They call them both
'randonneurs', but the version without the X is meant as a tourfiets, while the Roadmaster X is a
trekfiets (I would not dare to use the english translations in your presence and annoy you even
more!) The difference between these frames is small: the rider's position on the roadmaster is
slightly more a racing position, while the roadmaster X, one sits more upright. Neither is like a
road ('racing') bike, however. Also, the roadmaster X has reinforced tubes. It's a very strong
steel frame.

<snip>
> Sheldon "Words DO Have Meanings" Brown

Here's a book you might enjoy: 'The Surgeon of Crowthorne', by Simon Winchester. It's about the
history of the Oxford English Dictionary, a dictionary that does not assume that words have fixed
meanings, but tries to list in what way words have actually been used. Words have meanings, but we
are not subject to them, and the same word can have different meanings to different people. Many
people contributed to the OED: if a contributor found a word used in a different sense, (s)he would
write down the reference and the quote and send it to the dictionary's compilers.

Sometimes such differences are only very small, like in our case. I really don't think that whether
or not a bike has drop bars or not makes such an immense difference - Van Herwerden outfits its
roadmaster bikes with any type of handlebar and doesn't care about renaming or recategorizing them.
I'd call the Roadmaster X a trekfiets no matter what kind of handlebar has been put on it. That
would translate to trekking bike. And since 'trekking' means 'making a long and difficult journey'
(according to my English dictionary), I figured this should cover the meaning fairly well.

And to be honest; you could have figured out I actually want drop bars from the fact that I was
asking about campagnolo components, right?

Jonathan.
 
Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[email protected]... <snip>
> If your frame will handle a 135 mm rear hub, get a 36 hole "mountain" rear hub, XT or similar.
> They build stronger wheels and are somewhat better sealed against wet crud.

Whan I was at a bike shop, they said that 32 and 40 spoke wheels are both stronger than 36. With 32
holes, the solidity of the material makes the rim stronger, while a 40-hole rim has the advantage of
added spokes in the wheel. At 36 holes, neither advantage makes the wheel really strong, so such a
rim would be less strong than the other two. Strongest of all would be a 48-spoke wheel. The
salesman advised for *touring* bikes the Mavic T 520 rim - with 40 holes. Problem is that 40 hole
hubs are not very common. Peter Chisholm (below) mentions Phil Wood hubs, but they're quite
expensive, according to www.philwood.com.

So this would suggest that for a stronger wheel, one should use a rim with 32 holes (and non-radial
spokes), which would be next in line after the 40-spoke wheel. Perhaps the same Mavic rim. What do
you think?

Jonathan.
 
Jonathan v.d. Sluis <[email protected]> wrote:
>Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>>If your frame will handle a 135 mm rear hub, get a 36 hole "mountain" rear hub, XT or similar.
>>They build stronger wheels and are somewhat better sealed against wet crud.
>Whan I was at a bike shop, they said that 32 and 40 spoke wheels are both stronger than 36. With 32
>holes, the solidity of the material makes the rim stronger,

Suure. Did they, by any chance, happen to have 32h rims for sale and no 36h?

Nearly all 32h rims are the same as 36h rims, just drilled differently.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
 
I wrote:

>>If your frame will handle a 135 mm rear hub, get a 36 hole "mountain" rear hub, XT or similar.
>>They build stronger wheels and are somewhat better sealed against wet crud.

Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:

> Whan I was at a bike shop, they said that 32 and 40 spoke wheels are both stronger than 36. With
> 32 holes, the solidity of the material makes the rim stronger, while a 40-hole rim has the
> advantage of added spokes in the wheel. At 36 holes, neither advantage makes the wheel really
> strong, so such a rim would be less strong than the other two.

That is about the most amazing, bald-faced crock of sh** that I've ever heard!

My very strong advice is that if this salesman tells you it's a beautiful sunny day outside, bring
your umbrella and a flashlight.

Do not buy ANYthing from this sleazeball!

Sheldon "Astonished" Brown +-------------------------------------+
| The leach's kiss, | The squid's embrace, | The prurient ape's defiling touch, | And do you like
| the human race? | No, not much. --Aldous Huxley |
+-------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone
617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
 
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Whan I was at a bike shop, they said that 32 and 40 spoke wheels are both stronger than 36. With
> 32 holes, the solidity of the material makes the rim stronger, while a 40-hole rim has the
> advantage of added spokes in the wheel. At 36 holes, neither advantage makes the wheel really
> strong, so such a rim would be less strong than the other two. Strongest of all would be a
> 48-spoke wheel. The salesman advised for *touring* bikes the Mavic T 520 rim - with 40 holes.
> Problem is that 40 hole hubs are not very common. Peter Chisholm (below) mentions Phil Wood hubs,
> but they're quite expensive, according to www.philwood.com.

You might want to apply your own analytical skills to what the salesman is telling you. Do really
think it's plausible that the extra metal that fills in the four holes gives a 32h rim more
"solidity" than a 36?

What gives a wheel its strength, as in load capacity, is spoke tension. Spoke tension is limited by
the rim. What gives a wheel durability is good building technique, as in even tension and stress
relieving.

If you get 40h rims, you must get a stronger rim to get the full advantage of the extra spokes,
because the rim limits the spoke tension. A strong rim and 40 spokes will yield a very strong and
durable wheel but as you say the cost is increased significantly.

From personal experience, I would say that quality spokes and rims, combined with skilled building,
will prove quite satisfactory for loaded touring (or trekking if you prefer) in either 26 inch or
700. Thirty-six spokes, brass nipples, 3-cross.

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR
 
"Robin Hubert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Scic" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >From: [email protected]
>
> > >Get a Campagnolo system with a TA Zephyer crank(triple, 110/74mm BCD)...
> >
> > Is this a "better" crank than the Sugino XD (Super Shift Rings) 26/36/46 -
> bcd
> > 74/110?
>
> By a whole lot! You can also still get Ritchey triples, as I understand it.

Ritchey double and triple cranks, at least the 110bcd ones are still available at Rivendell here:

Ritchey 110bcd double crank: http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/webalog/cranks_bbs_c-rings/12223.html

Ritchey 110bcd triple crank (which now appear to be only available as a 175mm):
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/webalog/cranks_bbs_c-rings/12226.html
 
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> [email protected]... <snip>
> > If you wish to create your own definitions for words, that's your priviledge, but if you
> > actually expect to communicate with other people, it is more efficient to use the generally
> > understood meanings.
>
> Well, that's always relative, since the Dawes bicycles site proved that
what
> one might perceive as generally accepted can be completely different elsewhere. After all, you
> wrote: 'The term "trekking bike" is not English...'.
>
> >
> > I was trying to be helpful, understanding that you're not a native English speaker.
>
> And your efforts are appreciated. Note that I did use the term 'touring bike' after you helpfully
> tried to correct me. Know that your words were
not
> in vain.
>
> >
> > Perhaps in Dutch the terms "touring bike" and "trekking bike" mean the same thing, but they
> > don't in English. You might find my Bicycle Glossary helpful: http://sheldonbrown.com/glossary
>
> Literally translated, that would be 'tourfiets' and 'trekfiets', respectively. I'd say a tourfiets
> would be used for single-day trips, commuting, etc. It would be a bike with a comfortable
> position. A
trekfiets
> would be used for long distances and lots of luggage - the literal Dutch translations refer to the
> opposite of what you hold to be correct. Dutch framebuilder Van Herwerden (www.vanherwerden.nl)
> produces the Roadmaster
and
> Roadmaster X frames. They call them both 'randonneurs', but the version without the X is meant as
> a tourfiets, while the Roadmaster X is a
trekfiets
> (I would not dare to use the english translations in your presence and
annoy
> you even more!) The difference between these frames is small: the rider's position on the
> roadmaster is slightly more a racing position, while the roadmaster X, one sits more upright.
> Neither is like a road ('racing')
bike,
> however. Also, the roadmaster X has reinforced tubes. It's a very strong steel frame.
>
> <snip>
> > Sheldon "Words DO Have Meanings" Brown
>
> Here's a book you might enjoy: 'The Surgeon of Crowthorne', by Simon Winchester. It's about the
> history of the Oxford English Dictionary, a dictionary that does not assume that words have fixed
> meanings, but tries
to
> list in what way words have actually been used. Words have meanings, but
we
> are not subject to them, and the same word can have different meanings to different people. Many
> people contributed to the OED: if a contributor
found
> a word used in a different sense, (s)he would write down the reference and the quote and send it
> to the dictionary's compilers.
>
> Sometimes such differences are only very small, like in our case. I really don't think that
> whether or not a bike has drop bars or not makes such an immense difference - Van Herwerden
> outfits its roadmaster bikes with any type of handlebar and doesn't care about renaming or
> recategorizing them. I'd call the Roadmaster X a trekfiets no matter what kind of handlebar has
> been put on it. That would translate to trekking bike. And since
'trekking'
> means 'making a long and difficult journey' (according to my English dictionary), I figured this
> should cover the meaning fairly well.
>
> And to be honest; you could have figured out I actually want drop bars
from
> the fact that I was asking about campagnolo components, right?

Thanks - I'll look for the book. The other work on the subject, "The Madman and the Professor" is
excellent"

--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971
 
I run a tandem on 36 hole x 700c rims and XTR hubs. I use straight 14 ga and laced 4x. The rear
wheel was built in '92 and the front needed a new hub a couple of months ago.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:35:35 +0100, "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Whan I was at a bike shop, they said that 32 and 40 spoke wheels are both stronger than 36. With 32
>holes, the solidity of the material makes the rim stronger, while a 40-hole rim has the advantage
>of added spokes in the wheel. At 36 holes, neither advantage makes the wheel really strong, so such
>a rim would be less strong than the other two.
 
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> I could not find cantilever brakes on the campagnolo website. What durable cantilever brakes are
> compatible with their brake levers?
>

Only just happened upon this thread, but thought I'd chip in anyway. Anything bar full-size V-brakes
(designed, in the main, to work with special straight-bar levers with an internal cam) are OK.
Tektro make a version called the Mini-V which apparently works OK with Ergo levers and similar.
Full-size V-brakes can be made to work with Ergopower levers, but not "from the box" - they need a
special cable pulley (sold here in the UK as Travel Agents and other brand names). Tektro, Radius
and Avid all make good "old school" cantis which work well with drop-bar levers; newer lo-pro cantis
aren't so good in the compatibility stakes. If you're really lucky, you may be able to locate some
new or S/H Campag canti brakes (from the days when they made MTB bits too) to give your bike a
uniform all-Campag look! I use Modolo cantis with my Chorus levers; although very good they too
haven't been made for years, sadly. Finally, if you have lots of money to spare, the brake to go for
is the SRP Mr. Grumpy.

David E. Belcher

Dept. of Chemistry, University of York
 
"David E. Belcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > I could not find cantilever brakes on the campagnolo website. What
durable
> > cantilever brakes are compatible with their brake levers?
> >
>
> Only just happened upon this thread, but thought I'd chip in anyway. Anything bar full-size
> V-brakes (designed, in the main, to work with special straight-bar levers with an internal cam)
> are OK. Tektro make a version called the Mini-V which apparently works OK with Ergo levers and
> similar. Full-size V-brakes can be made to work with Ergopower levers, but not "from the box" -
> they need a special cable pulley (sold here in the UK as Travel Agents and other brand names).
> Tektro, Radius and Avid all make good "old school" cantis which work well with drop-bar levers;
> newer lo-pro cantis aren't so good in the compatibility stakes. If you're really lucky, you may be
> able to locate some new or S/H Campag canti brakes (from the days when they made MTB bits too) to
> give your bike a uniform all-Campag look! I use Modolo cantis with my Chorus levers; although very
> good they too haven't been made for years, sadly. Finally, if you have lots of money to spare, the
> brake to go for is the SRP Mr. Grumpy.

No difference in braking geometry from "full width" to "low profile" cantilevers among the major
brands. All are fine with normal Ergo levers.

And if money were no object I'd use the current Tektro cantilever (personal opinion). As a matter of
fact, I do - on this year's Campagnolo touring bikes.
--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971
 
Status
Not open for further replies.