Campy 2006 or 2007 groupset?

Ted Boniface said:

Hi,

As I've written in another post, I'm considering building up a bike with
Campy Centaur (compact). I'm able to get either 2006 or the 2007 version,
which is a major revision in many areas. I've read through enough tech
specs and promo-vertising but would appreciate opinions on the pros and
cons of one over the other. Given that price isn't a consideration, which
is better?

TIA,

Ted

Ted,

One of the best features of Campagnolo brifters has been the ability to
shift over multiple cogs in either direction. I understand that this
feature has been deleted from the all the 2007 ergopowers other than
Chorus and Record. I hope someone replies who has had an experience
of the 2007 Ergos as I have not, but this alone would keep me with
pre-2007. Also the hubs are being downgraded; they were functionally
identical to Chorus/Record, now they're much closer to Veloce with the
cartridge bearings. In this department one would stay with the pre-07
hubs unless they are MUCH MUCH cheaper and for commute or tour wheels,
not racing or competitive group rides. I think the one component that
'07 Centaur has that can be argued to be superior is the integrated
Crank/BB, but the "Centaur" square taper BB was really fine, as were
the cranks. My feeling is that if price *really* isn't a
consideration, go Chorus all around. If price is actually somewhat of
a consideration and you're racing, go '06 Centaur for all but *maybe*
the crank/BB. If the latter and you're *not* racing, go '06 Centaur
Crank, BB, and hubs, and '06 Veloce for all else.

best

Al

"Alstead" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

One of the best features of Campagnolo brifters has been the ability
to shift over multiple cogs in either direction. I understand that
this feature has been deleted from the all the 2007 ergopowers other
than Chorus and Record. I hope someone replies who has had an
experience of the 2007 Ergos as I have not, but this alone would keep
me with pre-2007.

To date, my understanding (based upon hearsay) is that of all post-2006
groups, only Record retains the "multiple shifts" feature. I agree that
this is a major let-down should it be true even if Chorus is left
untampered. One of the major benefits of Campy over Shimano is this "one
click, many shifts" feature.

Quoted message said:

Also the hubs are being downgraded; they were
functionally identical to Chorus/Record, now they're much closer to
Veloce with the cartridge bearings. In this department one would stay
with the pre-07 hubs unless they are MUCH MUCH cheaper and for commute
or tour wheels, not racing or competitive group rides.

I'm inclined to agree but since hubs are not included in most groupset
packages these days, the point is moot for me. Besides, I'm almost
certain to be using a pre-built wheelset.

Quoted message said:

I think the
one component that '07 Centaur has that can be argued to be superior
is the integrated Crank/BB, but the "Centaur" square taper BB was
really fine, as were the cranks. My feeling is that if price
*really* isn't a consideration, go Chorus all around. If price is
actually somewhat of a consideration and you're racing, go '06 Centaur
for all but *maybe* the crank/BB. If the latter and you're *not*
racing, go '06 Centaur Crank, BB, and hubs, and '06 Veloce for all
else.

Thanks for your advice. I should have qualified my initial post about
price not being a consideration. Price isn't a consideration *relatively
speaking*. I've no experience on whether the new integrated Crank/BB
system is better than square taper cranks which are the subject of
another concurrent thread so I'm definitely interested in more learned
opinions via this newsgroup.

Ted

Ted Boniface said:

Hi,

As I've written in another post, I'm considering building up a bike with
Campy Centaur (compact). I'm able to get either 2006 or the 2007 version,
which is a major revision in many areas. I've read through enough tech
specs and promo-vertising but would appreciate opinions on the pros and
cons of one over the other. Given that price isn't a consideration, which
is better?

TIA,

Ted

'Better' is not applicable, IMO. DIFFERENT is a better word. Different
crank/BB, lighter brakes, different ERGO design that is actually less
functional than 2006(on 'higher' or smaller cog at a time), heavier
hubs. Tough to say, tough to determine what is important to you.

Ted Boniface said:

"Alstead" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

One of the best features of Campagnolo brifters has been the ability
to shift over multiple cogs in either direction. I understand that
this feature has been deleted from the all the 2007 ergopowers other
than Chorus and Record. I hope someone replies who has had an
experience of the 2007 Ergos as I have not, but this alone would keep
me with pre-2007.

To date, my understanding (based upon hearsay) is that of all post-2006
groups, only Record retains the "multiple shifts" feature.

Record and Chorus.

I agree that

Quoted message said:

this is a major let-down should it be true even if Chorus is left
untampered. One of the major benefits of Campy over Shimano is this "one
click, many shifts" feature.

Quoted message said:

Also the hubs are being downgraded; they were
functionally identical to Chorus/Record, now they're much closer to
Veloce with the cartridge bearings. In this department one would stay
with the pre-07 hubs unless they are MUCH MUCH cheaper and for commute
or tour wheels, not racing or competitive group rides.

I'm inclined to agree but since hubs are not included in most groupset
packages these days, the point is moot for me. Besides, I'm almost
certain to be using a pre-built wheelset.

Too bad.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think the
one component that '07 Centaur has that can be argued to be superior
is the integrated Crank/BB, but the "Centaur" square taper BB was
really fine, as were the cranks. My feeling is that if price
*really* isn't a consideration, go Chorus all around. If price is
actually somewhat of a consideration and you're racing, go '06 Centaur
for all but *maybe* the crank/BB. If the latter and you're *not*
racing, go '06 Centaur Crank, BB, and hubs, and '06 Veloce for all
else.

Thanks for your advice. I should have qualified my initial post about
price not being a consideration. Price isn't a consideration *relatively
speaking*. I've no experience on whether the new integrated Crank/BB
system is better than square taper cranks which are the subject of
another concurrent thread so I'm definitely interested in more learned
opinions via this newsgroup.

Outside bearings were a solution to the problems of splined BBs,
Octalink and ISIS..Octalink and ISIS were NOT a solution to any
problems with square taper. Campag changed because they weren't selling
any carbon cranks with square taper, marketing driven type decision,
NOT functionality. Another example of how the cycling public has been
snowed about a bike 'things'. Other examples-Threadless, 1 1/8inch
headtubes, compact frames, carbon 'plug-ins', oversized handlebars,
wheelsouttaboxes, etc.

get the 2007 unless you can get a huge discount on 2006...why not...

Quoted message said:

Ted

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Ted Boniface said:

Hi,

As I've written in another post, I'm considering building up a bike with
Campy Centaur (compact). I'm able to get either 2006 or the 2007 version,
which is a major revision in many areas. I've read through enough tech
specs and promo-vertising but would appreciate opinions on the pros and
cons of one over the other. Given that price isn't a consideration, which
is better?

TIA,

Ted

'Better' is not applicable, IMO. DIFFERENT is a better word. Different
crank/BB, lighter brakes, different ERGO design that is actually less
functional than 2006(on 'higher' or smaller cog at a time), heavier
hubs. Tough to say, tough to determine what is important to you.

Wait! How is the new Centaur Ergo less functional? I'd say it's a
draw, if anything. That short thumb button throw allows you to hit it
quickly and successively to achieve the same amount of shifts as the
longer throw, just as fast. One side benefit is that you never
accidentally push the thumb button too far and end up in too high a
gear, requiring a shift in the other direction.

It is curious, but I don't know why they put a convex thumb button on
the new Centaur brifters.

Robin Hubert

Robin Hubert said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Ted Boniface said:

Hi,

As I've written in another post, I'm considering building up a bike with
Campy Centaur (compact). I'm able to get either 2006 or the 2007 version,
which is a major revision in many areas. I've read through enough tech
specs and promo-vertising but would appreciate opinions on the pros and
cons of one over the other. Given that price isn't a consideration, which
is better?

TIA,

Ted

'Better' is not applicable, IMO. DIFFERENT is a better word. Different
crank/BB, lighter brakes, different ERGO design that is actually less
functional than 2006(on 'higher' or smaller cog at a time), heavier
hubs. Tough to say, tough to determine what is important to you.

Wait! How is the new Centaur Ergo less functional?

more to do to get the same result? An 'indexed' FD and a one click per
push RD..how is that a 'draw'?

I'd say it's a

Quoted message said:

draw, if anything. That short thumb button throw allows you to hit it
quickly and successively to achieve the same amount of shifts as the
longer throw, just as fast.

balderdash.

One side benefit is that you never

Quoted message said:

accidentally push the thumb button too far and end up in too high a
gear, requiring a shift in the other direction.

I guess you like your shimano stuff then.

Quoted message said:

It is curious, but I don't know why they put a convex thumb button on
the new Centaur brifters.

Robin Hubert

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Outside bearings were a solution to the problems of splined BBs,
Octalink and ISIS..Octalink and ISIS were NOT a solution to any
problems with square taper. Campag changed because they weren't selling
any carbon cranks with square taper, marketing driven type decision,
NOT functionality. Another example of how the cycling public has been
snowed about a bike 'things'. Other examples-Threadless, 1 1/8inch
headtubes, compact frames, carbon 'plug-ins', oversized handlebars,
wheelsouttaboxes, etc.

Bike shops are really pushing these outboard bearings....saying that
riders wouldn't consider Campy anymore because the outboard bearings
were so much better at transmitting torque, etc. etc. I didn't believe it.
But the ultra-torque design does seem to be lighter, and maybe easier
to maintain.

Arthur Ogus said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Outside bearings were a solution to the problems of splined BBs,
Octalink and ISIS..Octalink and ISIS were NOT a solution to any
problems with square taper. Campag changed because they weren't selling
any carbon cranks with square taper, marketing driven type decision,
NOT functionality. Another example of how the cycling public has been
snowed about a bike 'things'. Other examples-Threadless, 1 1/8inch
headtubes, compact frames, carbon 'plug-ins', oversized handlebars,
wheelsouttaboxes, etc.

Bike shops are really pushing these outboard bearings

Noit all of them are. Some still speak about genuine goods and others
of this new 'standard'.

.....saying that

Quoted message said:

riders wouldn't consider Campy anymore because the outboard bearings
were so much better at transmitting torque, etc. etc. I didn't believe it.

Mostly distributors were specing Campagnolo groups with FSA carbon
cranks rather than Campagnolo..cheaper for the distributor and
marketing issues.

Quoted message said:

But the ultra-torque design does seem to be lighter, and maybe easier
to maintain.

Lighter, less expensive when comparing Chorus and below. It's here, one
wonders what will happen 'next'.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ted Boniface said:

To date, my understanding (based upon hearsay) is that of all post-2006
groups, only Record retains the "multiple shifts" feature. I agree that
this is a major let-down should it be true even if Chorus is left
untampered. One of the major benefits of Campy over Shimano is this "one
click, many shifts" feature.

Not true. I recently installed 2007 Chorus shifters and can shift
multiple gears. Unless we are talking about different things.
--

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Robin Hubert said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Ted Boniface wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I've written in another post, I'm considering building up a bike with
> Campy Centaur (compact). I'm able to get either 2006 or the 2007 version,
> which is a major revision in many areas. I've read through enough tech
> specs and promo-vertising but would appreciate opinions on the pros and
> cons of one over the other. Given that price isn't a consideration, which
> is better?
>
> TIA,
>
> Ted
'Better' is not applicable, IMO. DIFFERENT is a better word. Different
crank/BB, lighter brakes, different ERGO design that is actually less
functional than 2006(on 'higher' or smaller cog at a time), heavier
hubs. Tough to say, tough to determine what is important to you.

Wait! How is the new Centaur Ergo less functional?

more to do to get the same result? An 'indexed' FD and a one click per
push RD..how is that a 'draw'?

I'd say it's a

Quoted message said:

draw, if anything. That short thumb button throw allows you to hit it
quickly and successively to achieve the same amount of shifts as the
longer throw, just as fast.

balderdash.

Fine answer, Peter. Just how is that nonsensical? Do you disagree that
shifts can't be made as easily or quickly, or less accurately?

Quoted message said:

One side benefit is that you never

Quoted message said:

accidentally push the thumb button too far and end up in too high a
gear, requiring a shift in the other direction.

I guess you like your shimano stuff then.

That displays your ignorance and narrow mindedness, as usual. Why must
you always be so contentious and small minded?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is curious, but I don't know why they put a convex thumb button on
the new Centaur brifters.

Robin Hubert

Robin Hubert

Arthur Ogus said:

Bike shops are really pushing these outboard bearings....saying that
riders wouldn't consider Campy anymore because the outboard bearings
were so much better at transmitting torque, etc. etc.

Makes me wonder if anyone could tell the difference if they were put on two
otherwise identical bikes and not allowed to look at the cranks.

I'd guess not, but then I've just bought a new square taper chainset so I
probably just want that result.

--
Jim

Robin Hubert said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Robin Hubert said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Ted Boniface wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As I've written in another post, I'm considering building up a bike with
>> Campy Centaur (compact). I'm able to get either 2006 or the 2007 version,
>> which is a major revision in many areas. I've read through enough tech
>> specs and promo-vertising but would appreciate opinions on the pros and
>> cons of one over the other. Given that price isn't a consideration, which
>> is better?
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> Ted
> 'Better' is not applicable, IMO. DIFFERENT is a better word. Different
> crank/BB, lighter brakes, different ERGO design that is actually less
> functional than 2006(on 'higher' or smaller cog at a time), heavier
> hubs. Tough to say, tough to determine what is important to you.
>
Wait! How is the new Centaur Ergo less functional?

more to do to get the same result? An 'indexed' FD and a one click per
push RD..how is that a 'draw'?

I'd say it's a

Quoted message said:

draw, if anything. That short thumb button throw allows you to hit it
quickly and successively to achieve the same amount of shifts as the
longer throw, just as fast.

balderdash.

Fine answer, Peter. Just how is that nonsensical? Do you disagree that
shifts can't be made as easily or quickly, or less accurately?

Quoted message said:

One side benefit is that you never

Quoted message said:

accidentally push the thumb button too far and end up in too high a
gear, requiring a shift in the other direction.

I guess you like your shimano stuff then.

That displays your ignorance and narrow mindedness, as usual. Why must
you always be so contentious and small minded?

Thanks Robin, once more getting personal. You can just kiss my
ass...how's that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is curious, but I don't know why they put a convex thumb button on
the new Centaur brifters.

Robin Hubert

Robin Hubert

Quoted message said:

Makes me wonder if anyone could tell the difference if they were put on two
otherwise identical bikes and not allowed to look at the cranks.

Doesn't this go for about 95% of bike gear: that's why there is no
double blind, randomized testing and evaluation of bike gear. Once a
person can control fit geometry, seat, and tire pressure most of the
rest is imagination - Id love to see the $1200 Trek beating the $5000
Look or Seven in such testing which I'm sure would happen. You are
then left with longevity, reliability, and cost which do vary among
brands and gruppos and can be measured.

Chris

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Makes me wonder if anyone could tell the difference if they were put on two
otherwise identical bikes and not allowed to look at the cranks.

Doesn't this go for about 95% of bike gear: that's why there is no
double blind, randomized testing and evaluation of bike gear. Once a
person can control fit geometry, seat, and tire pressure most of the
rest is imagination - Id love to see the $1200 Trek beating the $5000
Look or Seven in such testing which I'm sure would happen. You are
then left with longevity, reliability, and cost which do vary among
brands and gruppos and can be measured.

Chris

Sure it is, it's all different, not necessarily better. No real
innovations, improvements for decaeds, in spite of what some MO hinges
say.

WAY too much emphasis on gadgets, not nearly enough on riding,
training, bike fit, rider fitness, etc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Makes me wonder if anyone could tell the difference if they were put on
two otherwise identical bikes and not allowed to look at the cranks.

Doesn't this go for about 95% of bike gear: that's why there is no
double blind, randomized testing and evaluation of bike gear. Once a
person can control fit geometry, seat, and tire pressure most of the
rest is imagination - Id love to see the $1200 Trek beating the $5000
Look or Seven in such testing which I'm sure would happen. You are
then left with longevity, reliability, and cost which do vary among
brands and gruppos and can be measured.

I'd love to see a double-blind ABX test of Mirage vs Record with the
groupsets disguised on otherwise the same bike - the results would be very
interesting 🙂

--
Jim

I just priced the Record Campy 2007 groupset. Over $2400,
vs. $1800 or so for 2006. I'm still in shock.

In article <2006101016232016807-arthurogusnopam@maccom>,

Arthur Ogus said:

I just priced the Record Campy 2007 groupset. Over $2400,
vs. $1800 or so for 2006. I'm still in shock.

Surely there's a depreciation factor with that 2006 stock. I am sure
this time next year, that 2007 would have a similar differential with
the 2008 groupset.
--

In article <[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

WAY too much emphasis on gadgets, not nearly enough on riding,
training, bike fit, rider fitness, etc.

How does Trek, Campy, Shimanooo and like make money out of that? They
have to tow that gadget/technology line to support riders' ego. No?
--

Artoi said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

WAY too much emphasis on gadgets, not nearly enough on riding,
training, bike fit, rider fitness, etc.

I agree. After all is said and done, it always comes back to the
engine.

Smokey