Changing Groupset Make

Hank said:

On Jun 12, 5:34 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tough sometimes to match group to group but Centaur is roughly on the
same lever as ultegra, little lighter. Veloce to 105.

...and Mirage to Tiagra and Xenon to Sora...In terms of materials and
features, those are pretty close parallels. Especially the Xenon/Sora
comparison, both having plastic knuckles on the RD. And until 2007,
both had different brifter mechanisms than their older sibling groups.

This is my reasoning... Essentially, Campy and Shimano have, more-or-
less, a duopoly on the market; so it would seem sensible to compete
head-to-head at each price-point, across their respective ranges.
That's why, in my previous post, I was comparing based on value.

What value? You buy it, it gets cheaper, you take it out of the box,
it gets cheaper, you put it on your bike, it gets cheaper, you ride
with it, it gets cheaper.

(Of course if you throw it in a box and wait 20 years, suddenly Ebay
gets very attractive.)

You might want to think about what you are gaiing by such total and
expensive change - nice shiny similar parts is a prefectly reasonable
goal, but the only one apparent...

JG

I applaud the OP's decision.

I used to have Shimano stuff, and really believed that the only thing the
Italians could do better than the Japanese was women. (Apologies for being
non-PC.)

But then, on the previous Klein, I wore out two Ultegra brifters and one Dura
Ace in nine years. Of course, they couldn't be repaired as per normal Shimano
policy.

On the Habanero, I bit the bullet with Campy. And I've worn the brifters out
once. I was intimidated about repairing them, despite being a decent mechanic
- couldn't take the risk of missing a ride - so the local pro shop did it.
And I was back on the road.

I think this is a reasonable selling point for Campy. And I personally like
not having stuff that everyone else has - the same reason I wouldn't purchase,
say, a Trek or Canondale machine even if they're perfectly decent bicycles.

Art

(Arthur Shapiro) said:

I used to have Shimano stuff, and really believed that the only thing the
Italians could do better than the Japanese was women.

Maybe a little different. Not "better".

Quoted message said:

But then, on the previous Klein, I wore out two Ultegra brifters and one Dura
Ace in nine years. Of course, they couldn't be repaired as per normal Shimano
policy.

On the Habanero, I bit the bullet with Campy.  And I've worn the brifters out
once.  I was intimidated about repairing them, despite being a decent mechanic
- couldn't take the risk of missing a ride - so the local pro shop did it. 
And I was back on the road.

I think this is a reasonable selling point for Campy.  And I personally like
not having stuff that everyone else has - the same reason I wouldn't purchase,
say, a Trek or Canondale machine even if they're perfectly decent bicycles..

To me it just comes down to what you like, and/or maybe what you're
used to. I'm a long-time Campy fan, have three road bikes that are
Record/Chorus/Centaur, got the wife Centaur for her new Guru, etc.
etc., but Ultegra/Dura-Ace def. does not have cooties, no matter how
many people use it.

BTW, by the time you pay a shop $50 or more per lever to replace the g-
springs (and the lever retractor springs, while you're at it; a step I
skipped with my Records and they started rattling immed. after) some
several times (not wishing this upon you by any means) over the *next*
nine years, we could wonder how close you'd get to paying for a shiny
new set of Ultegrur-aces. Which would be shiny, and new, and maybe 11-
or 12-speed, too <g>.

More important than quibbling: can you get the crank length you want?
And in a Triple, or Compact? Hub drillings? Campy is minimum 32 now.
How about cassette tooth counts? Do the levers fit your hands in the
first place, and are they comfortable to ride?

That stuff first, then price, and then who cares who made the parts?
--D-y

Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
designs. There is something impure about a clockwork shifter
mechanism that must be replaced in full, but then, most of us now have
sealed bottom brackets.
Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
you quickly find that nobody actually has them, and nobody actually
wants them, because the newer stuff does more and works better.
Sure, in theory it's great that you can buy a single derailleur plate
to replace the one you broke. But who breaks a plate without bending
the cage and scraping the finish off the mounts... And when you add
it all up, it's cheaper to buy a new derailleur. Why do they still
make chainring bolts? a full set of Campy rings is more expensive
than a new triple. When you grind the small ring to dust, you can buy
a steel after-market version, but when the large rings go, it's time
to get rid of those scratched up arms too. And there's no need for
different sizes anymore because the cassettes have so much range and
the front derailleurs are optimized for specific rings.
Finally, according to others, the simple, more common parts, like cogs
and cassettes are not all that widely available. In the end it's all
economics and you actually end up spending more for the privilege of
being thrifty by rebuilding...

JG

JG said:

Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
designs. There is something impure about a clockwork shifter
mechanism that must be replaced in full, but then, most of us now have
sealed bottom brackets.
Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
you quickly find that nobody actually has them, and nobody actually
wants them, because the newer stuff does more and works better.

<snip>

actually, the question is why some of these parts are needed in the
first place.

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/fatigued_campy_shift_mech.jpeg

this is a known and frequent failure - and it's a design issue because
of the stress riser where the break happens. it shouldn't happen and it
would take about 5 minutes to re-design so it never recurred.

yes, you'll see lots of stories of broken shimano shift mechanisms, but
personally, i've never experienced one*. i've experienced two of the
above, and i dropped campy because of it.

* the design error imo is that the "up" and "down" shift levers are not
only close, but both move in the same direction - i believe all problems
therefore stem from people accidentally pushing both levers at the same
time, and if they don't get the shift they want, they just keep on
pushing until something gives. should the shifters be redesigned to
allow for "mistakes" like this? perhaps. but used with dexterity,
shimano shifters will just keep on going - unlike campy where their
design means breakage is inevitable, regardless of usage.

JG said:

Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
designs. There is something impure about a clockwork shifter
mechanism that must be replaced in full, but then, most of us now have
sealed bottom brackets.
Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
you quickly find that nobody actually has them, and nobody actually
wants them, because the newer stuff does more and works better.
Sure, in theory it's great that you can buy a single derailleur plate
to replace the one you broke. But who breaks a plate without bending
the cage and scraping the finish off the mounts... And when you add
it all up, it's cheaper to buy a new derailleur. Why do they still
make chainring bolts? a full set of Campy rings is more expensive
than a new triple. When you grind the small ring to dust, you can buy
a steel after-market version, but when the large rings go, it's time
to get rid of those scratched up arms too. And there's no need for
different sizes anymore because the cassettes have so much range and
the front derailleurs are optimized for specific rings.
Finally, according to others, the simple, more common parts, like cogs
and cassettes are not all that widely available. In the end it's all
economics and you actually end up spending more for the privilege of
being thrifty by rebuilding...

http://www.yellowjersey.org/srk.html
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

A Muzi wrote:
<snip for clarity>

Quoted message said:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/srk.html

genius!

JG said:

Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
designs.
Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
you quickly find that nobody actually has them

Dude, you're harshing on my mellow.

jim beam said:

JG said:

Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
designs. There is something impure about a clockwork shifter
mechanism that must be replaced in full, but then, most of us now have
sealed bottom brackets.
Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
you quickly find that nobody actually has them, and nobody actually
wants them, because the newer stuff does more and works better.

<snip>

actually, the question is why some of these parts are needed in the
first place.

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/fatigued_campy_shift_mech.jpeg

this is a known and frequent failure - and it's a design issue because
of the stress riser where the break happens. it shouldn't happen and it
would take about 5 minutes to re-design so it never recurred.

yes, you'll see lots of stories of broken shimano shift mechanisms, but
personally, i've never experienced one*. i've experienced two of the
above, and i dropped campy because of it.

* the design error imo is that the "up" and "down" shift levers are not
only close, but both move in the same direction - i believe all problems
therefore stem from people accidentally pushing both levers at the same
time, and if they don't get the shift they want, they just keep on
pushing until something gives. should the shifters be redesigned to
allow for "mistakes" like this? perhaps. but used with dexterity,
shimano shifters will just keep on going - unlike campy where their
design means breakage is inevitable, regardless of usage.

re: Campagnolo
Uh, that piece has been carbon for years now. You may know something
about that material; failure rate has vaporized. The carbon carrier with
springs is cheaper than a gear cable set.

re:Shimano
Are you basically saying 'blame the rider'? That was your criticism of
Jobst's comments three hours before you wrote this.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Quoted message said:

A Muzi wrote:
<snip for clarity>

Quoted message said:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/srk.html

jim beam said:

genius!

Thanks. If one man laughs it was worthwhile.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

A Muzi said:

jim beam said:

JG said:

Th "Campy is rebuildable" is a point in their favor, but it's also
generally overstated. The older generation thinks nostogically about
when we could, in principle, take apart every piece of a bicycle and
put it back together, and the ultimate was the eternal Campy NR
designs. There is something impure about a clockwork shifter
mechanism that must be replaced in full, but then, most of us now have
sealed bottom brackets.
Campy has catalogues with exploded diagrams and parts numbers, but if
you go back to the '90's and try to actually get one of those parts,
you quickly find that nobody actually has them, and nobody actually
wants them, because the newer stuff does more and works better.

<snip>

actually, the question is why some of these parts are needed in the
first place.

http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/fatigued_campy_shift_mech.jpeg

this is a known and frequent failure - and it's a design issue because
of the stress riser where the break happens. it shouldn't happen and
it would take about 5 minutes to re-design so it never recurred.

yes, you'll see lots of stories of broken shimano shift mechanisms,
but personally, i've never experienced one*. i've experienced two of
the above, and i dropped campy because of it.

* the design error imo is that the "up" and "down" shift levers are
not only close, but both move in the same direction - i believe all
problems therefore stem from people accidentally pushing both levers
at the same time, and if they don't get the shift they want, they just
keep on pushing until something gives. should the shifters be
redesigned to allow for "mistakes" like this? perhaps. but used with
dexterity, shimano shifters will just keep on going - unlike campy
where their design means breakage is inevitable, regardless of usage.

re: Campagnolo
Uh, that piece has been carbon for years now. You may know something
about that material; failure rate has vaporized. The carbon carrier with
springs is cheaper than a gear cable set.

that's good to know - i guess. but it's a fudge to throw an exotic
material at a design "error".

Quoted message said:

re:Shimano
Are you basically saying 'blame the rider'? That was your criticism of
Jobst's comments three hours before you wrote this.

you have another explanation? i don't since the mechanism has no
obvious flaws [other than lever proximity as said before]. the
materials used are good. any machine can be broken by ignorance and
brute force. and you can be sure the person bringing it into the shop
isn't going to admit their error if they think they can get something
replaced.

jobst's shimmy "theory" neither adequately explains nor properly cures -
blaming the rider for a serious condition like that, one that is
potentially life threatening in extremis, is b.s. "shivering"? that's
a joke - it doesn't explain the same phenomenon in motorcycles or even
some old types of car. both of the latter have been cured by addressing
stiffness and dynamics. as indeed have a lot of modern bicycles. all
my oversize tube aluminum frames simply refuse to shimmy. that's not
exactly coincidence.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Christopher Harrison" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
news:[email hidden]...

Interestingly,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you seem to imply that Centaur is about equivalent to
105. From what I've researched, Centaur is about the equal of Ultegra
(or better, depending what you read). Naïvely, they're about the same
price; but would you guys concur?

Welllllll - operationally the Centaur is about equal to Ultegra.
However, Ultegra is better finished in my opinion.

i don't agree with that statement. The finnish of centaur is equal to
Chorus/Record.
Centaur is lighter than Ultegra(SL) and very close to DureAce 7800 in
terms of weight.

--
mvh. Morten Reippuert Knudsen

"Besides, if you can't get a decent kernal panic
or two in a month, what's the point of living?"