Changing Groupset Make

Tom Kunich

"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-6CC5A7.15000111062008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <3bKdnQ50X42yYtPVnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Jobst HATES low gears by the way. Climbing a straight up road in anything
>> lower than a 48-15 is sissy stuff to him. Not knocking him mind you -
>> just
>> trying to give you some idea of why his tastes are radically different
>> from
>> most people's.
>
> 46/25

He rode by me while I was climbing Kings Mountain Rd. and his gear was so
big that I couldn't see how he could turn it over.

A Muzi

> In article <3bKdnQ50X42yYtPVnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Christopher Harrison" <SpamFactory@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:274a1829-aef2-429d-8ef9-da8c0fa540b0@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> I am very tempted to upgrade my entire groupset, however I was
>>> wondering if I could please ask for a bit of advice?
>> The Centaur is a good group. About as good as the 105. The Centaur works a
>> little better in some things and not quite as well in others. The 105 shifts
>> smoother and quieter. The Centaur lets you know with a solid CLACK that it
>> has changed gears. (BTW, I prefer the Campy)
>>
>> There is a difference in the rear cassette spacing between Shimano and
>> Campagnolo for most of their groups so if you're planning on changing out
>> the rear wheel as well you won't have any problems.
>>
>> As I recall, the Shimano brakes feel better, the Campy shifters are more to
>> my tastes and the this is a spectacular deal on the Centaur Compact cranks :
>> http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?...20Road%20Cranks
>>
>> Jobst HATES low gears by the way. Climbing a straight up road in anything
>> lower than a 48-15 is sissy stuff to him. Not knocking him mind you - just
>> trying to give you some idea of why his tastes are radically different from
>> most people's.

Michael Press wrote:
> 46/25

Almost.
Jobst rides a seven speed 13~26 cassette
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Qui si parla Campagnolo

On Jun 11, 8:19*am, Christopher Harrison
<SpamFact...@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks, all
>
> I had forgotten what an "interesting" mix you find on Usenet! However,
> you've certainly answered my questions; for which I'm grateful. (One
> can never be too sure of Wikipedia!) Spero che io parli Campagnolo
> presto!
>
> I've had a closer look at my bike and it was the other way around: It
> seems to have a Tiagra chainset, hubs and brakes; with a 105 rear
> mech; and the standard Trek/Bontranger crank and [presumably] BB. As
> such, moving to Centaur level would be the upgrade I'm looking for;
> particularly as most of my components are ready for a change (due to
> wear). I was going to get some new wheels too, so hubs aren't an
> issue.
> Interestingly, 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?

Tough sometimes to match group to group but Centaur is roughly on the
same lever as ultegra, little lighter. Veloce to 105.
>
> Apologies for my novice questions, but one has to start somewhere!
>
> Thanks;
> Christopher

dustoyevsky@mac.com

On Jun 11, 5:10*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> He rode by me while I was climbing Kings Mountain Rd. and his gear was so
> big that I couldn't see how he could turn it over.

It's a trick, like touching your nose with a sledge hammer. --D-y

Hank

On Jun 12, 5:34 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <pe...@vecchios.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 11, 8:19 am, Christopher Harrison
>
>
>
> <SpamFact...@chrisharrison.co.uk> wrote:
> > Thanks, all
>
> > I had forgotten what an "interesting" mix you find on Usenet! However,
> > you've certainly answered my questions; for which I'm grateful. (One
> > can never be too sure of Wikipedia!) Spero che io parli Campagnolo
> > presto!
>
> > I've had a closer look at my bike and it was the other way around: It
> > seems to have a Tiagra chainset, hubs and brakes; with a 105 rear
> > mech; and the standard Trek/Bontranger crank and [presumably] BB. As
> > such, moving to Centaur level would be the upgrade I'm looking for;
> > particularly as most of my components are ready for a change (due to
> > wear). I was going to get some new wheels too, so hubs aren't an
> > issue.
> > Interestingly, 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?
>
> 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.

Christopher Harrison

On 12 Jun, 20:26, Hank <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 5:34 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <pe...@vecchios.com>
> wrote:
> > 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.

JG

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

Arthur Shapiro

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

dustoyevsky@mac.com

On Jun 13, 11:19*am, art.shap...@unisys.com (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:

> 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".

> 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

JG

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

jim beam

JG wrote:
> 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/...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.

A Muzi

JG wrote:
> 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 **

jim beam

A Muzi wrote:
<snip for clarity>

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


genius!

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:05:30 -0700 (PDT), JG <jchg@cox.net> wrote:

>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.