Greetings, I'm thinking of purchasing the Campagnolo Centaure Compact Crank 50/34t. It's compatible with my Campy 111mm bottom bracket. Anyone here use the compact crank? Will I have to change my front derailleur to clear the chain? I'm using a 53/39 with an older Campy Super Record front derailleur. thanks, -tom

"Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote in message news:evdh3i$jsm$1@news.Stanford.EDU... > Greetings, > I'm thinking of purchasing the Campagnolo Centaure Compact > Crank 50/34t. It's compatible with my Campy 111mm bottom bracket. > Anyone here use the compact crank? > Will I have to change my front derailleur to clear the chain? > I'm using a 53/39 with an older Campy Super Record front derailleur. > thanks, > -tom I think it should work. I am currently using a C-Record ft der with my Sweet Wings compact crank. The first thing to ask is whether your ft der is mounted on a braze on tab or is it a clamp on. If its a clamp on, which is what I have on my Calfee, then it is just a matter of moving the clamp around to clear the chainring. But, if you frame uses a braze on ft der tab, then the question is whether it can be lowered enough to clear the chainring. Going from a 53t to a 50t should be too bad, so I bet it will work. If you have to change your ft der, then take a look at the one made by IRD, I bet its cheaper than the campy ct ft der. Brewster

"bfd" <bfd853@comcast.net> wrote in message news:GPudnawK1L10yIfbnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote in message > news:evdh3i$jsm$1@news.Stanford.EDU... >> Greetings, >> I'm thinking of purchasing the Campagnolo Centaure Compact >> Crank 50/34t. It's compatible with my Campy 111mm bottom bracket. >> Anyone here use the compact crank? >> Will I have to change my front derailleur to clear the chain? >> I'm using a 53/39 with an older Campy Super Record front derailleur. >> thanks, >> -tom > I think it should work. I am currently using a C-Record ft der with my > Sweet Wings compact crank. The first thing to ask is whether your ft der > is mounted on a braze on tab or is it a clamp on. If its a clamp on, which > is what I have on my Calfee, then it is just a matter of moving the clamp > around to clear the chainring. > > But, if you frame uses a braze on ft der tab, then the question is whether > it can be lowered enough to clear the chainring. Going from a 53t to a 50t > should be too bad, so I bet it will work. > > If you have to change your ft der, then take a look at the one made by > IRD, I bet its cheaper than the campy ct ft der. Brewster I't s a clamp-on front derailleur, not a problem clearing the 50t chainring, Let me try to clear up my question asked: When the chain is in the 34t chainring of the crank, will the front derailleur housing clear the chain when using the smaller gears on the cassette? -tom

"d p chang" <pchang@mediabolic.com> wrote in message news:m2d52dqyhz.fsf@yoyodyne.local... > "Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> writes: > >> When the chain is in the 34t chainring of the crank, will the front >> derailleur housing clear the chain when using the smaller gears on the >> cassette? > > i didn't respond to the original posting since i don't have the exact > parts, but i have a sugino compact crank (49:36) w/o any problems w/ a > dura-ace front derailler and 9 speed 12:21 (hmmm maybe 11:21) rear > > \p > > --- > Truth never comes into the world but like a bastard, to the ignominy of > him that brought her birth. --- John Milton Great thanks, I think it's going to be close, not sure how far down I can go on the cogs, thinking I'll limit out before I get to the 14t. -tom

>> I use and love compact cranks, and have used them on many bikes with >> different cranks and fders. It very well might go smaller but I wouldn't >> expect it to go beyond the 14. When you need smaller it's time to shift >> to the 50 tooth up front. >> >> > > Wait -- why is this? > > First, if you remove 4 teeth from your front chainrings, that's going to > reduce the number of teeth engaged by the chain by approximately 2, so > shorten the chain by one link-pair. > > Then, obviously you need to lower the front derailleur, back to within > approx 1mm of the now-smaller big ring where the derailleur outer plate > passes over the chainring. > > Then I don't see why the full range of gears, including cross-gears, > shouldn't be accessible. > > Dan The greater tooth differential (even though it's only a couple) makes it more likely the chain is going to clip the large chainring when you're in the small/small combo. This is a pretty common issue, and generally rules out small/small. All others remain fair game, although large/large may try to peel the chain off the large chainring and possibly toss it onto the frame, rather than simply drop it down to the smaller chainring. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message news:iDASh.1215$2v1.1171@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... > >> I use and love compact cranks, and have used them on many bikes with >> different cranks and fders. It very well might go smaller but I wouldn't >> expect it to go beyond the 14. When you need smaller it's time to shift >> to the 50 tooth up front. >> >> > > Wait -- why is this? > > First, if you remove 4 teeth from your front chainrings, that's going to > reduce the number of teeth engaged by the chain by approximately 2, so > shorten the chain by one link-pair. > > Then, obviously you need to lower the front derailleur, back to within > approx 1mm of the now-smaller big ring where the derailleur outer plate > passes over the chainring. > > Then I don't see why the full range of gears, including cross-gears, > shouldn't be accessible. > > Dan Dan, I think what he might be saying is; with the 34t chainring in the 14t cog would give me 65.6 gear inches but with a possible chain rub on the front derailleur cage. By shifting up to the 50t chainring and into the 21t cog, the gear inches would be 64.3 and not a chance of chain rub on the cage of the front derailleur. Does make sense to me. -tom

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message news:461BA213.6070508@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m... > Tom Nakashima wrote: > >> Dan, >> I think what he might be saying is; with the 34t chainring in the 14t cog >> would give me 65.6 gear inches but with a possible chain rub on the front >> derailleur cage. By shifting up to the 50t chainring and into the 21t >> cog, >> the gear inches would be 64.3 and not a chance of chain rub on the >> cage of the front derailleur. Does make sense to me. >> -tom > > I understood. However, in competitive situations, it's nice to not have > to cross-shift so often. Agree, and I do remember the 52/42 days. > > Mike writes: > >> The greater tooth differential (even though it's only a couple) makes it >> more likely the chain is going to clip the large chainring when you're in >> the small/small combo. > > Okay. I know that many riders don't have a clue about chain length and > derailleur position. I would remove at least 1 link-pair from the chain, > 2 link pairs if I were reducing my large rear cassette by at least 3 teeth > as well, in addition to reoptimizing the derailleur position and shift > cable tension. But if the problem is unavoidable, then it sounds like a > good reason to go to a compact-specific front derailleur, like SRAM Rival. > Dan What about a long cage rear derailleur? ...but a front derailleur would be cheaper. -tom

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message news:5tQSh.13970$JZ3.6475@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... > Tom Nakashima wrote: > >> What about a long cage rear derailleur? >> ...but a front derailleur would be cheaper. >> -tom > > Well, if derailleur load isn't increased (ie front big + rear big - front > small - rear small), then increasing cage length on the rear shouldn't > help. > > Typical compact set-up might be 34-50 w/ 11-25 as opposed to 39-53 with > 12-28. I run the latter w/ Dura-Ace 9, no problem, so the rear should be > able to handle the former. The compact would then give me comparable to a > 53/39 w/ an 11.66-28.68, a slight gain on both ends. Good thought, Currently I'm running a 53/39 with a 12-27. Maybe it's not worth the bucks going with the compact set-up for a slight gain. -tom

Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in news:5tQSh.13970$JZ3.6475@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net: > Tom Nakashima wrote: > >> What about a long cage rear derailleur? >> ...but a front derailleur would be cheaper. >> -tom > > Well, if derailleur load isn't increased (ie front big + > rear big - front small - rear small), then increasing cage > length on the rear shouldn't help. > > Typical compact set-up might be 34-50 w/ 11-25 as opposed > to 39-53 with 12-28. I run the latter w/ Dura-Ace 9, no > problem, so the rear should be able to handle the former. > The compact would then give me comparable to a 53/39 w/ an > 11.66-28.68, a slight gain on both ends. I think I'm begining to understand the popularity of fixed gear <grin>

"Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> writes: >Dan, >I think what he might be saying is; with the 34t chainring in the 14t cog >would give me 65.6 gear inches but with a possible chain rub on the front >derailleur cage. By shifting up to the 50t chainring and into the 21t cog, >the gear inches would be 64.3 and not a chance of chain rub on the >cage of the front derailleur. Does make sense to me. >-tom If you spend a lot of time in that gear, the 14t cog will wear out a lot faster than the 21t cog. Since you have downtube friction shifters, you might also consider half step + granny. I rode 50-47-36 13-24 (6spd)i for many years. A 50-46-34 12-27 would probably be nice. The 46-34 shift would be significantly nicer than 50-34 and not needed as often. -- Diesel exhaust stinks. John P. Serafin | Operating a bicycle is more like driving than riding. jps at pobox com | Operating an automobile is more like riding than driving.

>> I'm guessing (and hoping, since I just had an FSA 50/34 installed this >> week, replacing a stock Ultegra 53/39 9-spd) that my LBS would have told >> me that I should probably also replace my f-der or modify my cassette to >> make everything run properly. >> Am I missing something here? > > This is discussed here: > http://www.fullspeedahead.com/fly.aspx?layout=tech&cid=66 > > Interesting suggestion: the front derailleur should be run more like 2 mm > above the chainring, instead of the usual 1 mm, sacrificing slower > shifting for reduced tendency to toss the chain. Even at 2mm above the chainring, STI shifting (which isn't what the OP is using; he should have no trouble in this regard) will still try to throw the chain, particularly with a non-Shimano crankset. It's interesting that the Shimano compact crank, only available in an Ultegra-equivalent, virtally refuses to toss a chain. NO OTHER CRANKSET comes close to matching them. We have a lot of experience with FSA compacts; that's what I use myself. They are not in the same league. Sad, but true. Shimano really seems to understand chainrings, with a few notable exceptions (the notorious chain-sucking STX mountain bike crankset, and the dreadful DuraAce 9-speed triple, where the chain would love to ride off the middle sprocket and dump itself onto the small one, without reason). --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Rick" <CyclistRick@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176933354.017030.238640@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 9, 7:03 am, "Tom Nakashima" <t...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote: >> Greetings, >> I'm thinking of purchasing the Campagnolo Centaure Compact >> Crank 50/34t. It's compatible with my Campy 111mm bottom bracket. >> Anyone here use the compact crank? >> Will I have to change my front derailleur to clear the chain? >> I'm using a 53/39 with an older Campy Super Record front derailleur. >> thanks, >> -tom > > You miss a few days on-line and .... > > Before you plan too far ahead, better make sure that you can find a > 2006 Centaur Compact crank, not a 2005 and not a 2007. Both the 2005 > and 2006 models use the 111mm square taper bottom bracket, but the > 2005 model had the odd bolt pattern with 4 bolts at 110BCD and 1 at > about 112BCD; the general effect appears to be to prevent you from > using standard 110BCD chainrings. The 2007 model is 'Ultra-Torque', > Campy's version of the external BB cups with spindle integrated with > the crank arms. > > - rick Thanks Rick, I already ordered before I saw your post, the crank should be here this week. I ordered it through Texas Cyclesport, should be correct. They only had two left. http://txcyclesport.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=CA-CEN -CR-CT&Category_Code= My BB is also compatible with the CT crank coming. -tom

"Rick" <CyclistRick@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177003504.015010.127670@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > Hey Tom, > > Congrats on finding a 2006 model; I had a dealer trying to locate one > and all the distributors had the 2007 model, only, with the integrated > spindle. I think the move to the integrated spindle is a bunch of > marketing hogwash; one of the major benefits they tout is > weightsavings, but for the Centaur CT setup the weight difference > (crankset+BB) is a mere 2g out of almost 900g total .... whoopee. Let > us know how you like it; I am going to go to CT soon since the > standard double is a bit tough on these aging legs on the steeper > climbs. > - rick > Thanks Rick, Yes, the weight savings was not a concern. And I agree about the newer 2007, especially the price difference between the '06 & '07. I figure if anyone wanted to save weight, go with the composite cranks. I'll write a report after I put the Centaur CT to the test. -tom