Smaller chainrings on Campy Super Record crank ?



C

Chuck Connell

Guest
Hi all,

I have a 1985-ish Campy Super Record crank set on a road bike. I have just
started riding this bike again after many years, and I am not as fit as I
used to be. I need lower gears. I got a 26t freewheel on the rear, which
helped some. That is about as big as I can go on the rear, while still keep
the SR rear derailleur. What I'd like to do is get smaller front rings, now
at 42/52. So a couple questions...

- What are the smallest normal rings I can put on the front? Could be a
Campy-copy if that works better.

- Is there a way to go even smaller, without making it a triple? Like some
kind of adaptor plate that would take a 32t ring, or something like that?

TIA,
Chuck Connell
781-939-0505 (office)
http://www.chc-3.com -- My home page

(NOTE: I use a spam filter for inbound mail. In some cases,
this filter rejects legitimate messages. If I do not answer
your mail, please call me on the phone.)
 
B

Booker C. Bense

Guest
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email protected]>,
Chuck Connell <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I have a 1985-ish Campy Super Record crank set on a road bike. I have just
>started riding this bike again after many years, and I am not as fit as I
>used to be. I need lower gears. I got a 26t freewheel on the rear, which
>helped some. That is about as big as I can go on the rear, while still keep
>the SR rear derailleur. What I'd like to do is get smaller front rings, now
>at 42/52. So a couple questions...
>
>- What are the smallest normal rings I can put on the front? Could be a
>Campy-copy if that works better.


_ See

http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/chainrings.html

Probably 41 is the limit.

>
>- Is there a way to go even smaller, without making it a triple? Like some
>kind of adaptor plate that would take a 32t ring, or something like that?
>


_ You can make it a triple with either the TA or Willow
adapters. You sound like a good canidate for a "compact double".
I have a 110 BCD crank that I run 50/34 on an even older
bike and it works quite well.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQY/UaWTWTAjn5N/lAQGl/gQAtUKMeUMC2gwIEVIghIcuj1EcA8nAEswO
cC06wsk7/yNMLswJGx+WC+ywbO23HMoc3NPgqCmp7VgyEAc5pN8LpLPr4on3vvwm
4m8KcXHbtWfDen2jRS/9t+kSzL6Bfnzube0TYW0bQhsPefBIeCRAWhdCuRf1IbMt
kYxfhHVaaik=
=y4Jz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
S

Sheldon Brown

Guest
Chuck Connell wrote:

> I have a 1985-ish Campy Super Record crank set on a road bike. I have just
> started riding this bike again after many years, and I am not as fit as I
> used to be. I need lower gears. I got a 26t freewheel on the rear, which
> helped some. That is about as big as I can go on the rear, while still keep
> the SR rear derailleur.


Derailers are dirt cheap. Even a $20 current Shimano unit will shift
WAY better than that relic, and will handle up to a 34 tooth sprocket.

> What I'd like to do is get smaller front rings, now
> at 42/52. So a couple questions...
>
> - What are the smallest normal rings I can put on the front? Could be a
> Campy-copy if that works better.


41 is the smallest physically possible, because the chainring mounting
bolts of a 144 mm BCD crank would bump into the chain if you tried to
put something smaller on.
>
> - Is there a way to go even smaller, without making it a triple?


Absolutely not.

Don't get so attached to your old parts that they prevent you from
having the gears you need.

Sheldon "Upgrades" Brown
+--------------------------------------------------+
| The less you bet, the more you lose if you win |
| --Alan Rudolph (_Trixie_) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
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
 
C

Chuck Connell

Guest
Thanks much Sheldon. I was hoping you would read my post and chime in with
a creative answer. I know I can get a bigger rear deraileur, then put on a
bigger rear cluster. In fact, I already have these parts in a box somewhere
in the attic. Problem is: I love the way this bike looks with the black SR
parts and other black trim items and all campy, etc. I am trying to make it
easier to ride, but still look the same. I know this is not rational...

p.s. Say HI to JimD.

Chuck


"Sheldon Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>
> Derailers are dirt cheap. Even a $20 current Shimano unit will shift WAY
> better than that relic, and will handle up to a 34 tooth sprocket.
>
> 41 is the smallest physically possible, because the chainring mounting
> bolts of a 144 mm BCD crank would bump into the chain if you tried to put
> something smaller on.
>>

>
> Don't get so attached to your old parts that they prevent you from having
> the gears you need.
>
 
A

Al Williams

Guest
"Chuck Connell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Hi all,
>
> I have a 1985-ish Campy Super Record crank set on a road bike. I have just
> started riding this bike again after many years, and I am not as fit as I
> used to be. I need lower gears. I got a 26t freewheel on the rear, which
> helped some. That is about as big as I can go on the rear, while still
> keep the SR rear derailleur.

(snip)

I have a freewheel with a 28 that I can put on either of my old Campy bikes
and it works fine.


__o
Keep on Ridin' `\ <
(*)/(*)
***********************************************
* Al Williams [email protected] *
* San Jose CA Chief Cyclist, DNRC *
***********************************************
 
J

John Thompson

Guest
On 2004-11-08, Chuck Connell <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have a 1985-ish Campy Super Record crank set on a road bike. I have just
> started riding this bike again after many years, and I am not as fit as I
> used to be. I need lower gears. I got a 26t freewheel on the rear, which
> helped some. That is about as big as I can go on the rear, while still keep
> the SR rear derailleur. What I'd like to do is get smaller front rings, now
> at 42/52. So a couple questions...
>
> - What are the smallest normal rings I can put on the front? Could be a
> Campy-copy if that works better.


The smallest standard ring for this crank is 41T. AFAIK, Campy made them
in the Nuovo Record version only (with an inner ring -- see
http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/41t.jpg) but they are quite scarce. You'd
probably have better luck with a 3rd party ring, e.g. Ofmega/Avocet or TA.

> - Is there a way to go even smaller, without making it a triple? Like some
> kind of adaptor plate that would take a 32t ring, or something like that?


Campy made a Record Triple crank arm (part #819) that took a special 36T
inner ring (part #804). Some other companies, e.g. Merz Engineering, IRCC,
made a 34T inner ring that would fit the bolt pattern.

My solution to this was to use a Zeus crank instead:
http://www.os2.dhs.org/pictures/albums/bikes/dsc02705.jpg

--

-John ([email protected])
 
D

Drew Eckhardt

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Chuck Connell <[email protected]> wrote:
>- What are the smallest normal rings I can put on the front? Could be a
>Campy-copy if that works better.


You have a 144mm bolt circle that won't fit a ring smaller than 42T.

>- Is there a way to go even smaller, without making it a triple?


Replace the crankset with a smaller bolt circle one. Modern Campagnolo
cranks (135mm) will accept a 39T, other (130mm) cranks a 38T. 50/34 is the
defacto standard for compact (110mm) road cranks which Campagnolo now
offers in carbon fiber (about $500 + the new bottom bracket).

If you want to keep the crank TA makes replacement chain rings with a 74mm
bolt circle to mount a third ring one your existing crank. You could use
42/32 for your middle and inner rings.

>Like some
>kind of adaptor plate that would take a 32t ring, or something like that?


You'll need a triple to have the 32 as an inner ring, compact mountain crank
to have the 32 as a middle ring.

--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.
 
J

Jeff Wills

Guest
"Chuck Connell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
What I'd like to do is get smaller front rings, now
> at 42/52. So a couple questions...
>
> - What are the smallest normal rings I can put on the front? Could be a
> Campy-copy if that works better.
>
> - Is there a way to go even smaller, without making it a triple? Like some
> kind of adaptor plate that would take a 32t ring, or something like that?
>


Harris Cyclery has you covered either way:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/chainrings.html#144
41 teeth is as small as you can go with your crankset's 144mm bolt
pattern.

For smaller, there's no way getting around making it a triple. A
Willow "Triplizer" chainring will allow you to mount a third
chainring- as small as a 24 tooth- on your crank. You'd probably be
better off with something a little larger- 30 tooth, perhaps- to avoid
replacing both derailleurs. You'll also have to get a longer bottom
bracket spindle.

Jeff
 
T

Tom Paterson

Guest
>From: [email protected] (Drew Eckhardt)

>>- Is there a way to go even smaller, without making it a triple?

>
>Replace the crankset with a smaller bolt circle one. Modern Campagnolo
>cranks (135mm) will accept a 39T, other (130mm) cranks a 38T. 50/34 is the
>defacto standard for compact (110mm) road cranks which Campagnolo now
>offers in carbon fiber (about $500 + the new bottom bracket).


Saving some 8-900 -odd words:

http://technology.open.ac.uk/materials/mem/mem-ccf4.html

I don't have any real info on failure rate of C Record and Record cranks.
Assuming until corrected that it's "better".

Campy Centaur triples are reasonable, go down to a 30t inner ring. The 39t
small cog on the double crank (135 bolt circle) make a nice jump down for less
young legs.

You get used to the looks. You get used to handlebar shifting, too. --TP
 
N

Neal

Guest
"Chuck Connell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Thanks much Sheldon. I was hoping you would read my post and chime in with a
> creative answer. I know I can get a bigger rear deraileur, then put on a
> bigger rear cluster. In fact, I already have these parts in a box somewhere in
> the attic. Problem is: I love the way this bike looks with the black SR parts
> and other black trim items and all campy, etc. I am trying to make it easier
> to ride, but still look the same. I know this is not rational...
>
> p.s. Say HI to JimD.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> "Sheldon Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>
>> Derailers are dirt cheap. Even a $20 current Shimano unit will shift WAY
>> better than that relic, and will handle up to a 34 tooth sprocket.
>>
>> 41 is the smallest physically possible, because the chainring mounting bolts
>> of a 144 mm BCD crank would bump into the chain if you tried to put something
>> smaller on.
>>>

>>
>> Don't get so attached to your old parts that they prevent you from having the
>> gears you need.
>>

>
>


I was in the same situation with an older frame and Super Record. I tried a
tripple crankset with the friction shifting and I had gears I could handle but I
eventually changed over to Campy Centaur/Chorus. I suggest that you try a bike
with the Ergo shifters. You will not miss the friction shifting. I think these
new shifters are far superior and safer. I had several occasions where I was
not quite in gear with the friction shifting and fell.

Neal
 
D

Donald Gillies

Guest
"Chuck Connell" <[email protected]> writes:

>Hi all,


>I have a 1985-ish Campy Super Record crank set on a road bike. I have
>just started riding this bike again after many years, and I am not as
>fit as I used to be. What I'd like to do is get smaller front rings,
>now at 42/52.


Here's is some Triplizer information (complete with pictures) that I
have collected and have given to the vintage TREK web site for safe
keeping :

http://www.vintage-trek.com/tripleizer.htm

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
 
D

Donald Gillies

Guest
"Chuck Connell" <[email protected]> writes:

>Hi all,


>I have just started riding this bike again after many years, and I am
>not as fit as I used to be.


I felt the same way recently - wanting a triple - and I have 3 old
campy nuovo record bikes here in San Diego. Then I started riding
every day on a bike with a 42-52T stronglight crank and a 14-28T rear
freewheel. I found that if I:

(a) Ride the bike every day
(b) Admit defeat and walk the last 100 ft for the first few days
(c) Don't stare all the way up the hill, it's too depressing
(d) Focus on my technique

Then I can climb a steep hill that's about 6 blocks long at 10%+ grade
(I'm 42 yrs old.) I am much happier now than when I used to woos out
and use the 30/27 at 3 mph on my old TREK 2300 (whose frame cracked,
by the way, from riding this hill...)

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
 
D

David L. Johnson

Guest
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:15:43 -0500, Chuck Connell wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have a 1985-ish Campy Super Record crank set on a road bike. I have just
> started riding this bike again after many years, and I am not as fit as I
> used to be. I need lower gears. I got a 26t freewheel on the rear, which
> helped some. That is about as big as I can go on the rear, while still keep
> the SR rear derailleur. What I'd like to do is get smaller front rings, now
> at 42/52. So a couple questions...
>
> - What are the smallest normal rings I can put on the front? Could be a
> Campy-copy if that works better.


Well, those probably go down to 39t. There is an easy way to tell. Look
at the inner ring. How much space is there between the teeth and the
bolts? If it is the old-style Campy size, clearly nothing smaller than
42t will fit on the bolts. (OK, there was a 41 made by someone, but
ignore that). If there is a 1/4" space or so, then you can get a
39-tooth inner ring to fit.

>
> - Is there a way to go even smaller, without making it a triple? Like
> some kind of adaptor plate that would take a 32t ring, or something like
> that?


You can replace the cranks with something else. Common these days is to
get a "compact" crank with 110mm bolt circle. This allows down to either
a 35 or 34 inner ring. These are available widely, either as
fancy-schmancy carbon versions, or old-fashioned touring or mountain-bike
cranks. Prices vary, but these can be had cheap.

I use older 94mm "compact" mountain-bike cranks, and leave off the granny
except for touring. I usually use a 46/30, which gives me as low a gear
as I find I need for even the very steep hills around Eastern PA (those
in Colorado may scoff, but there are several hills here that are 20%
grades. Really). I find that ratio gives me a nice break also between
the large ring, which I use for flats and most rolling hills, versus the
little one, which I use for real climbs. These components are also cheap
these days; at swap meets or on-line sales I can get rings for $5-$10.

You may not want something that small, depending on your age and strength,
but a 52/42 is way below optimal with 8-9 speed cassettes.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster. --Greg LeMond
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |
 
J

Jeff Wills

Guest
"Chuck Connell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Thanks much Sheldon. I was hoping you would read my post and chime in with
> a creative answer. I know I can get a bigger rear deraileur, then put on a
> bigger rear cluster. In fact, I already have these parts in a box somewhere
> in the attic. Problem is: I love the way this bike looks with the black SR
> parts and other black trim items and all campy, etc. I am trying to make it
> easier to ride, but still look the same. I know this is not rational...
>


A semi-rational swap would be to find a set of Sugino Mighty Tour arms
(110bcd) and set up a 34/50-ish double. The Mighty Tour arms are very
similar in appearance to the old Nuovo/Super Record crankarms. I have
a set in my collection, but I'm holding on to them for my next
project.

Jeff
 
A

A Muzi

Guest
-snip gearing lament-

Sheldon Brown wrote:
> Don't get so attached to your old parts that they prevent you from
> having the gears you need.


That oughta be on a plaque.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
M

Mark Wolfe

Guest
Donald Gillies wrote:
> "Chuck Connell" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Hi all,

>
>
>>I have just started riding this bike again after many years, and I am
>>not as fit as I used to be.

>
>
> I felt the same way recently - wanting a triple - and I have 3 old
> campy nuovo record bikes here in San Diego. Then I started riding
> every day on a bike with a 42-52T stronglight crank and a 14-28T rear
> freewheel. I found that if I:
>
> (a) Ride the bike every day
> (b) Admit defeat and walk the last 100 ft for the first few days
> (c) Don't stare all the way up the hill, it's too depressing
> (d) Focus on my technique
>
> Then I can climb a steep hill that's about 6 blocks long at 10%+ grade
> (I'm 42 yrs old.) I am much happier now than when I used to woos out
> and use the 30/27 at 3 mph on my old TREK 2300 (whose frame cracked,
> by the way, from riding this hill...)
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA


Which hill? Scored a Sugino XD 46/36/24 at the swap meet this weekend,
looking for something to tackle with the new bob bike and it's low
gearing.


--
Mark Wolfe Lakeside, ca http://www.wolfenet.org
gpg fingerprint = 42B6 EFEB 5414 AA18 01B7 64AC EF46 F7E6 82F6 8C71
The FSF is not overly concerned about security. - FSF
 
Q

Qui si parla Campagnolo

Guest
Neal-<< I suggest that you try a bike
with the Ergo shifters. You will not miss the friction shifting. I think
these
new shifters are far superior and safer. I had several occasions where I was
not quite in gear with the friction shifting and fell. >><BR><BR>

Tee hee...fell? Sorry, altho lever mounted shifting is a great innovation,
probably one of the best, that brough MANY back to bicycles, it is not
essential to 'get where you are goin'. I have used friction shifters for years,
have no problem at all, and see no need to convert. BUT STI/ERGO is nice but
not 'required' at all.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
 
Q

Qui si parla Campagnolo

Guest
Andy writes about Sheldon-<< Sheldon Brown wrote:
> Don't get so attached to your old parts that they prevent you from
> having the gears you need.


That oughta be on a plaque. >><BR><BR>

How did those old farts do it?? Ya know, ride and race on all the tall tall
mtns in Europe during the major tours with that antiquated stuff??

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
 
N

Neal

Guest
"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Neal-<< I suggest that you try a bike
> with the Ergo shifters. You will not miss the friction shifting. I think
> these
> new shifters are far superior and safer. I had several occasions where I was
> not quite in gear with the friction shifting and fell. >><BR><BR>
>
> Tee hee...fell? Sorry, altho lever mounted shifting is a great innovation,
> probably one of the best, that brough MANY back to bicycles, it is not
> essential to 'get where you are goin'. I have used friction shifters for
> years,
> have no problem at all, and see no need to convert. BUT STI/ERGO is nice but
> not 'required' at all.
>
> Peter Chisholm
> Vecchio's Bicicletteria
> 1833 Pearl St.
> Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535
> http://www.vecchios.com
> "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"



I agree that the friction shifters do work well for most people but when you get
to be close to 60 years old and your hearing is not what it used to be, it is
difficult hear if the bike is fully in gear. This does not happen with ERGO
shifting. I also like having gears that are much closer spaced. The big jumps
of the 6 speed freewheels are hard on old legs. The safety of not having to
reach down to shift is also a benefit. If the technology is there, why not use
it?

Neal
 
S

Sheldon Brown

Guest
I wrote:
>
>>Don't get so attached to your old parts that they prevent you from
>>having the gears you need.

>

Andy Muzi replied:
>
> That oughta be on a plaque. >><BR><BR>
>

Peter Chisholm asked:
>
> How did those old farts do it?? Ya know, ride and race on all the tall tall
> mtns in Europe during the major tours with that antiquated stuff??


Those guys were young strong farts back then, and rode for a living,
hundreds of kilometers per week.

It's really sad to see an old fat guy riding a bike that is set up as it
would be for a lean 20-something racer.

I see it a lot, as aging, overweight baby-boomers can now afford the
bike they dreamed of in their impoverished youth, but they want it to
look the way it would have looked back in 197*, when they were young and
strong and svelte.

Most of the folks I deal with are not actual racers, even though many of
them like to ride racing bikes.

http://sheldonbrown.com/pain

Sheldon "Appropriateness" Brown
+-------------------------------------------------+
| What is good for you is what is good for you. |
| --Peter Chisholm |
+-------------------------------------------------+
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