Campy: Lower Gears for Extremely Sporadic Use



A

Arthur Shapiro

Guest
Last weekend I failed to complete a grotesquely hilly century (the Mulholland
Challenge, 110 miles / 12000 feet of climbing.) Bonked and completed 98 miles
with 9340'.

I had put a compact UT Record crankset on late last year after enquiries in
this forum, primarily to ease the tortuous climb to the Mt. Baldy ski lifts.
That 34/25 low was sufficient for me to do anything I needed; it was the
prolonged, relentless nature of this particular ride, coupled with getting
lost, plus the temperature range from 35 - 100 that did me in.

My question: what do I need to know before putting in a 29 toother for the
next grotesque ride, the Breathless Agony in a couple weeks?

a). The bike is a combination of Chorus (10 speed) and Record power train
components. Could I use one of the cheaper Campy clusters, given that this
would be put on a tiny number of times per year? Or would I be unhappy with
the "lesser" stuff?

b). Would I need to put on a longer-cage derailleur? Would the answer change
if I consciously agreed to avoid several of the larger cogs on my 50 tooth
chainring?

c). Ditto #b for the chain.

Thanks for any advice. I need to do something and do it fast.

Art
 
On Apr 20, 6:40 pm, [email protected] (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:
> Last weekend I failed to complete a grotesquely hilly century (the Mulholland
> Challenge, 110 miles / 12000 feet of climbing.) Bonked and completed 98 miles
> with 9340'.
>
> I had put a compact UT Record crankset on late last year after enquiries in
> this forum, primarily to ease the tortuous climb to the Mt. Baldy ski lifts.
> That 34/25 low was sufficient for me to do anything I needed; it was the
> prolonged, relentless nature of this particular ride, coupled with getting
> lost, plus the temperature range from 35 - 100 that did me in.
>
> My question: what do I need to know before putting in a 29 toother for the
> next grotesque ride, the Breathless Agony in a couple weeks?
>
> a). The bike is a combination of Chorus (10 speed) and Record power train
> components. Could I use one of the cheaper Campy clusters, given that this
> would be put on a tiny number of times per year? Or would I be unhappy with
> the "lesser" stuff?
>
> b). Would I need to put on a longer-cage derailleur? Would the answer change
> if I consciously agreed to avoid several of the larger cogs on my 50 tooth
> chainring?
>
> c). Ditto #b for the chain.
>
> Thanks for any advice. I need to do something and do it fast.
>
> Art


Veloce cassettes work great and run about $50 if you have them shipped
across the pond. I like probikekit.com, because airmail shipping to
the US is free, and is usually faster to the West Coast than orders
from Nashbar. If you must have at least one aluminum carrier, Centaurs
run about $75.

As for the derailleur and chain, I strongly recommend against going
that far out of spec. Especially on the chain. If you bonked on that
last ride, you simply can't trust that you're not going to make a
stupid shift and break your chain, rip the derailleur off the hanger
(or the hanger off the frame) and quite probably crash. If you do opt
to avoid a range, avoid the small/small combos and go with the longer
chain.

FWIW, my CX bike currently has a Veloce UT 50-34 crank, a Centaur long
cage RD and a SRAM PG-970 11-34 cassette. The cog spacing is close
enough to C10 to index just fine with my 10s Veloce Ergos, and I have
a wider range than most road triple setups (52-42-30/12-25). You just
set the limit screws to lock out the final click.
 
On Apr 21, 3:40 am, [email protected] (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:
> Last weekend I failed to complete a grotesquely hilly century (the Mulholland
> Challenge, 110 miles / 12000 feet of climbing.)  Bonked and completed 98miles
> with 9340'.
>
> I had put a compact UT Record crankset on late last year after enquiries in
> this forum, primarily to ease the tortuous climb to the Mt. Baldy ski lifts.
> That 34/25 low was sufficient for me to do anything I needed; it was the
> prolonged, relentless nature of this particular ride, coupled with getting
> lost, plus the temperature range from 35 - 100 that did me in.
>
> My question: what do I need to know before putting in a 29 toother for the
> next grotesque ride, the Breathless Agony in a couple weeks?
>
> a). The bike is a combination of Chorus (10 speed) and Record power train
> components.  Could I use one of the cheaper Campy clusters, given that this
> would be put on a tiny number of times per year?  Or would I be unhappy with
> the "lesser" stuff?
>
> b). Would I need to put on a longer-cage derailleur?  Would the answer change
> if I consciously agreed to avoid several of the larger cogs on my 50 tooth
> chainring?
>
> c). Ditto #b for the chain.
>
> Thanks for any advice.  I need to do something and do it fast.
>
> Art


Sounds like fun!

If you made it 98 out of 110, you don't need to make any technical
changes. Dealing with the temp, as well as eating and pacing will get
you those last 12.

Looking to make temporary tech changes will IMO lead to potential
issues that you won't have time to even discover, let alone solve in
the time you have.

I'd focus on the other aspects of preparation.

Good luck!

Joseph
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:

> Last weekend I failed to complete a grotesquely hilly century (the Mulholland
> Challenge, 110 miles / 12000 feet of climbing.) Bonked and completed 98
> miles
> with 9340'.
>
> I had put a compact UT Record crankset on late last year after enquiries in
> this forum, primarily to ease the tortuous climb to the Mt. Baldy ski lifts.
> That 34/25 low was sufficient for me to do anything I needed; it was the
> prolonged, relentless nature of this particular ride, coupled with getting
> lost, plus the temperature range from 35 - 100 that did me in.
>
> My question: what do I need to know before putting in a 29 toother for the
> next grotesque ride, the Breathless Agony in a couple weeks?
>
> a). The bike is a combination of Chorus (10 speed) and Record power train
> components. Could I use one of the cheaper Campy clusters, given that this
> would be put on a tiny number of times per year? Or would I be unhappy with
> the "lesser" stuff?
>
> b). Would I need to put on a longer-cage derailleur? Would the answer change
> if I consciously agreed to avoid several of the larger cogs on my 50 tooth
> chainring?
>
> c). Ditto #b for the chain.


a) Campy gears match well across their groups. So no problem with your
Veloce cassette proposal.

b) IIRC, for CT setup, a short RD is good for everything below 13-29
cassette, which needs a medium RD.

c) Campy chains don't have quick link, which means breaking and
rejoining will require the use of their somewhat expensive joining link
chain. Or you can use a 3rd party 10 speed chain. In any case, you
obviously will need a different chain length if you are going to make
significant changes to your gearing. It really isn't very smart to try
to compromise as accidents will happen.
--
 
On Apr 20, 7:40 pm, [email protected] (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:
> Last weekend I failed to complete a grotesquely hilly century (the Mulholland
> Challenge, 110 miles / 12000 feet of climbing.)  Bonked and completed 98miles
> with 9340'.
>
> I had put a compact UT Record crankset on late last year after enquiries in
> this forum, primarily to ease the tortuous climb to the Mt. Baldy ski lifts.
> That 34/25 low was sufficient for me to do anything I needed; it was the
> prolonged, relentless nature of this particular ride, coupled with getting
> lost, plus the temperature range from 35 - 100 that did me in.
>
> My question: what do I need to know before putting in a 29 toother for the
> next grotesque ride, the Breathless Agony in a couple weeks?
>
> a). The bike is a combination of Chorus (10 speed) and Record power train
> components.  Could I use one of the cheaper Campy clusters, given that this
> would be put on a tiny number of times per year?  Or would I be unhappy with
> the "lesser" stuff?


Veloce is Centaur and Chorus w/o the 'spider' of aluminum carrier-
Great cogset with the same durability and performance as the others
for less $ and a WEE bit of weight.
>
> b). Would I need to put on a longer-cage derailleur?  Would the answer change
> if I consciously agreed to avoid several of the larger cogs on my 50 tooth
> chainring?


If your chain is sized correctly now(not too short), just put it on.
We have a demo bike with a short cage, 13-29, FUL sized crank-no
problem.
>
> c). Ditto #b for the chain.


See above
>
> Thanks for any advice.  I need to do something and do it fast.
>
> Art
 
Thanks, everyone. Went over to the LBS yesterday and a Veloce cassette will
be here on Thursday. Hope that will get me over the 12000 feet of Breathless
Agony, including one climb exceeding thirty miles in length.

They believe that if I'm willing to tolerate sloppy shifting, I'll get away
with the current derailleur and chain. That's OK given the
once-or-twice-a-year need for this setup.

Art
 
On Apr 22, 10:46 am, [email protected] (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:
> Thanks, everyone.  Went over to the LBS yesterday and a Veloce cassette will
> be here on Thursday.   Hope that will get me over the 12000 feet of Breathless
> Agony, including one climb exceeding thirty miles in length.
>
> They believe that if I'm willing to tolerate sloppy shifting, I'll get away
> with the current derailleur and chain.  That's OK given the
> once-or-twice-a-year need for this setup.
>
> Art


Sloppy shifting? I have run a short cage Centaur 10 speed rear
derailleur with a 13-29 cassette (Veloce) and 46-30 chainring double
(Race Face Turbine LP) and Record shifters. No sloppy shifting.
 
Artoi wrote:
>
> In any case, you
> obviously will need a different chain length if you are going to make
> significant changes to your gearing.


I don't think this is the case. A chain that is set to an adequate
length for a 50/29 should work fine for 50/25, given that the small/
small combination is the same (or almost the same) in either case. It
only matters that there is enough wrap capacity for the larger
range.

Chalo
 
On Apr 22, 11:43 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 10:46 am, [email protected] (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:
>
> > Thanks, everyone.  Went over to the LBS yesterday and a Veloce cassette will
> > be here on Thursday.   Hope that will get me over the 12000 feet of Breathless
> > Agony, including one climb exceeding thirty miles in length.

>
> > They believe that if I'm willing to tolerate sloppy shifting, I'll get away
> > with the current derailleur and chain.  That's OK given the
> > once-or-twice-a-year need for this setup.

>
> > Art

>
> Sloppy shifting?  I have run a short cage Centaur 10 speed rear
> derailleur with a 13-29 cassette (Veloce) and 46-30 chainring double
> (Race Face Turbine LP) and Record shifters.  No sloppy shifting.


But that's within the short cage's wrap capacity. A 16T gap up front
isn't. I've tried, and you definitely get droopy chain in the small-
small with a 13-29/50-34.
 
On Apr 22, 12:23 pm, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 11:43 am, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 10:46 am, [email protected] (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:

>
> > > Thanks, everyone.  Went over to the LBS yesterday and a Veloce cassette will
> > > be here on Thursday.   Hope that will get me over the 12000 feet of Breathless
> > > Agony, including one climb exceeding thirty miles in length.

>
> > > They believe that if I'm willing to tolerate sloppy shifting, I'll getaway
> > > with the current derailleur and chain.  That's OK given the
> > > once-or-twice-a-year need for this setup.

>
> > > Art

>
> > Sloppy shifting?  I have run a short cage Centaur 10 speed rear
> > derailleur with a 13-29 cassette (Veloce) and 46-30 chainring double
> > (Race Face Turbine LP) and Record shifters.  No sloppy shifting.

>
> But that's within the short cage's wrap capacity. A 16T gap up front
> isn't. I've tried, and you definitely get droopy chain in the small-
> small with a 13-29/50-34.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Waitasec...I suck at math. That's a 16T gap, too. :cool:
 
On Apr 22, 2:23 pm, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 11:43 am, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 10:46 am, [email protected] (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:

>
> > > Thanks, everyone.  Went over to the LBS yesterday and a Veloce cassette will
> > > be here on Thursday.   Hope that will get me over the 12000 feet of Breathless
> > > Agony, including one climb exceeding thirty miles in length.

>
> > > They believe that if I'm willing to tolerate sloppy shifting, I'll getaway
> > > with the current derailleur and chain.  That's OK given the
> > > once-or-twice-a-year need for this setup.

>
> > > Art

>
> > Sloppy shifting?  I have run a short cage Centaur 10 speed rear
> > derailleur with a 13-29 cassette (Veloce) and 46-30 chainring double
> > (Race Face Turbine LP) and Record shifters.  No sloppy shifting.

>
> But that's within the short cage's wrap capacity. A 16T gap up front
> isn't. I've tried, and you definitely get droopy chain in the small-
> small with a 13-29/50-34.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I think 32 is outside the official wrap capacity of a short cage rear
derailleur. But when I hear "sloppy shifting" I think of actual
shifting between cogs. The fact the chain is slightly loose when
cross chained all the way in the small-small doesn't register as
sloppy shifting to me. The chain crisply shifts into and out of this
forbidden combination just fine. And with a 46-30 crank and 13-29
cassette, there is plenty, plenty of overlap at either end of the
cassette so no reason in the world to go to small-small. The 30 ring
only gets used when climbing steep or long hills/mountains. And then
I'm also in the middle and big cogs on the cassette.
 
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:40:39 GMT, [email protected] (Arthur
Shapiro) wrote:

>a). The bike is a combination of Chorus (10 speed) and Record power train
>components. Could I use one of the cheaper Campy clusters, given that this
>would be put on a tiny number of times per year? Or would I be unhappy with
>the "lesser" stuff?


I know the rides and have done each. If you already have a 12/25, the
cogs can be mixe/matched to make a 12/29. I regular cage rear
derailleur will handle that combination and you will not have to
lengthen the chain. The chain comes very close to the bottom of the
rear derailleur when you are in the small/small but it's not a
problem, even if it ticks.
 
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:23:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank <[email protected]>
wrote:

>But that's within the short cage's wrap capacity. A 16T gap up front
>isn't. I've tried, and you definitely get droopy chain in the small-
>small with a 13-29/50-34.


Must depend on your bicycle. I've done it for years.
 
On Apr 22, 9:46 am, [email protected] (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:
> Thanks, everyone.  Went over to the LBS yesterday and a Veloce cassette will
> be here on Thursday.   Hope that will get me over the 12000 feet of Breathless
> Agony, including one climb exceeding thirty miles in length.
>
> They believe that if I'm willing to tolerate sloppy shifting, I'll get away
> with the current derailleur and chain.  That's OK given the
> once-or-twice-a-year need for this setup.
>
> Art


Poppycock. If the Rder is adjusted well, and isn't worn out, the
shifting will be fine.
 
"Campy" and "Low gears" Is it even legal to say those words in the same
sentence? This is, after all a company that seriously believes then
lowest gear any cyclist could ever possibly need is a 45-21, regardless
of how steep the hill is.

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (It's Chris) wrote:

> "Campy" and "Low gears" Is it even legal to say those words in the same
> sentence? This is, after all a company that seriously believes then
> lowest gear any cyclist could ever possibly need is a 45-21, regardless
> of how steep the hill is.


http://www.fullcycles.com/product_info.php/products_id/251

http://www.masherz.com/products/campagnolo/recordutcrankcompact.htm

34-29 compact double, and Campy makes triples too. I'm willing to tar
Campy with any of their actual failings, but don't just make stuff up.

They abandoned the 151 mm BCD in 1967,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
 
On May 1, 9:57 pm, [email protected] (It's Chris) wrote:
> "Campy" and "Low gears" Is it even legal to say those words in the same
> sentence? This is, after all a company that seriously believes then
> lowest gear any cyclist could ever possibly need is a 45-21, regardless
> of how steep the hill is.
>
>  - -
> Compliments of:
> "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"
>
> If you want to E-mail me use:
> ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net
>
> My website:http://geocities.com/czcorner


lessee, 34 small ring on a double, 30t small ring on a triple, 29
largest cog. Compare that with shimano 10s and Sram 10s, Sram being
the worse in terms of very low gearing. PLUS, any wrench that knows
this stuff will tell you a Campag 10s ERGO, longest cage RD shifts a
shimano 11-34 9s really nicely. Try shimano or Sram 10s shifters with
their own 9s cogsets and see how it works.
 
It's Chris wrote:
> "Campy" and "Low gears" Is it even legal to say those words in the same
> sentence? This is, after all a company that seriously believes then
> lowest gear any cyclist could ever possibly need is a 45-21, regardless
> of how steep the hill is.


Since 1968, Campagnolo's inner ring was 42t. After 1986, the standard
Campagnolo low chainring was 39t. Still is for Campagnolo race bikes.
In this new century, most new Campagnolo equipped bikes are 50-34 with a
12~25. Some are 30-40-53 with a 29 low rear. You might get out more,
look at new things a bit.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 
Andrew Muzi wrote:

>> "Campy" and "Low gears" Is it even legal to say those words in the
>> same sentence? This is, after all a company that seriously
>> believes then lowest gear any cyclist could ever possibly need is a
>> 45-21, regardless of how steep the hill is.


> Since 1968, Campagnolo's inner ring was 42t. After 1986, the
> standard Campagnolo low chainring was 39t. Still is for Campagnolo
> race bikes. In this new century, most new Campagnolo equipped bikes
> are 50-34 with a 12~25. Some are 30-40-53 with a 29 low rear. You
> might get out more, look at new things a bit.


There are good reasons for not going to smaller CW both for whom they
are made and what it does for chains. Campagnolo started with a
tradition from old man Tullio to supply professional racers with good
reliable competition equipment. That was before the day of the "me
too" generation that wanted to look like racers and spent large sums
on equipment that had an appearance of professionalism.

The current riders spend several times for a bicycle than racing
bicycle of yore cost. At the same time they are unable to operate the
classic Silca plastic frame fit tire pump, switching to mini pumps
that require endless strokes. They demanded ever more gears and that
they can be shifted under load while not letting go of the bars at the
flip of a finger.

In the days of yore, Campagnolo gears with 39-52t in front and 13-24t
in the rear were used to climb the toughest road courses in the Alps.
Today we see 53-11t and 26-26t combinations and everything in between.

As special cranks to accept smaller than 39t CW were offered by other
manufacturers, chain durability became an issue, the mechanical
advantage and increased rider weight more than doubled tensile loads
on chains while chain-lines became more off axis with increased number
of front and rear sprockets.

I suspect that just as rims have become a common failure item, chains
and chainwheels will do likewise as Walter Mitty types take over the
market. I see that has occurred at Mavic and other suppliers already.

I am not amused.

Jobst Brandt
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In the days of yore, Campagnolo gears with 39-52t in front and 13-24t
> in the rear were used to climb the toughest road courses in the Alps.
> Today we see 53-11t and 26-26t combinations and everything in between.
>
> As special cranks to accept smaller than 39t CW were offered by other
> manufacturers, chain durability became an issue, the mechanical
> advantage and increased rider weight more than doubled tensile loads
> on chains while chain-lines became more off axis with increased number
> of front and rear sprockets.
>
> I suspect that just as rims have become a common failure item, chains
> and chainwheels will do likewise as Walter Mitty types take over the
> market. I see that has occurred at Mavic and other suppliers already.
>
> I am not amused.


There's nothing Walter Mitty about low gears. Not all of us have legs of
steel - mere mortals are allowed to ride bikes in nice hilly places too!

The bike I use in the Alps has 24 front, 32 at the back...

clive