Campa Chorus triple bb (111mm )with 2006 Centaur compact double?

junkmaildok@gmail.com

Hi,

I believe that the new Chorus (square taper) triple (111mm) is
symmetrical. Would it be a problem to use it together with a 2006
Centaur compact double, which also requires 111mm bb? I don't like the
way the Centaur 111mm double bb looks and thought the Chorus triple
might work.

A R:nen

junkmaildok@gmail.com writes:

> I believe that the new Chorus (square taper) triple (111mm) is
> symmetrical.

It's not. The midpoint of the axle is about 1 mm off that of the
BB shell.

russellseaton1@yahoo.com

On May 15, 10:23*am, junkmail...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe that the new Chorus (square taper) triple (111mm) is
> symmetrical. Would it be a problem to use it together with a 2006
> Centaur compact double, which also requires 111mm bb? I don't like the
> way the Centaur 111mm double bb looks and thought the Chorus triple
> might work.

Campagnolo makes two different 111mm square taper bottom brackets.

Record and Chorus 111mm square taper bottom brackets are for Record
and Chorus triple cranksets. The Record and Chorus 111mm bottom
bracket is either symmetrical or asymmetrical, one of the two.
Doesn't really matter because it works right with the Record or Chorus
triple crankset.

Centaur, Veloce, Mirage and previous Athena, Daytona 111mm square
taper bottom brackets are for Centaur, Veloce, Mirage, Athena, Daytona
double or triple cranksets. They go by the names of AC-H, AC-S, SC-S,
etc. Depending on seattube size supposedly. The Centaur, Veloce,
Mirage 111mm bottom bracket is the opposite of the Record/Chorus as
far as being symmetrical or asymmetrical. Doesn't really matter
because the Centaur, Veloce, Mirage bottom brackets work right with
Centaur, Veloce, Mirage cranksets, double or triple.

You idea of mixing the Chorus bottom bracket with the Centaur crankset
will result in the crankarms not being evenly spaced arond the bottom
bracket shell and your chainline being off. Too far inward or too far
outward. Hard to say if you would notice this or not since we are
talking about a few millimeters one way or the other. But mixing them
like you are planning will not be right.

A Muzi

> junkmail...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I believe that the new Chorus (square taper) triple (111mm) is
>> symmetrical. Would it be a problem to use it together with a 2006
>> Centaur compact double, which also requires 111mm bb? I don't like the
>> way the Centaur 111mm double bb looks and thought the Chorus triple
>> might work.

russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> Campagnolo makes two different 111mm square taper bottom brackets.
>
> Record and Chorus 111mm square taper bottom brackets are for Record
> and Chorus triple cranksets. The Record and Chorus 111mm bottom
> bracket is either symmetrical or asymmetrical, one of the two.
> Doesn't really matter because it works right with the Record or Chorus
> triple crankset.
>
> Centaur, Veloce, Mirage and previous Athena, Daytona 111mm square
> taper bottom brackets are for Centaur, Veloce, Mirage, Athena, Daytona
> double or triple cranksets. They go by the names of AC-H, AC-S, SC-S,
> etc. Depending on seattube size supposedly. The Centaur, Veloce,
> Mirage 111mm bottom bracket is the opposite of the Record/Chorus as
> far as being symmetrical or asymmetrical. Doesn't really matter
> because the Centaur, Veloce, Mirage bottom brackets work right with
> Centaur, Veloce, Mirage cranksets, double or triple.
>
> You idea of mixing the Chorus bottom bracket with the Centaur crankset
> will result in the crankarms not being evenly spaced arond the bottom
> bracket shell and your chainline being off. Too far inward or too far
> outward. Hard to say if you would notice this or not since we are
> talking about a few millimeters one way or the other. But mixing them
> like you are planning will not be right.

I commend you, Russel. Pithy composition and exactly right!

(ACH111 and 115 are symmetric, REC/CHR triple spindles are asymmetric
and Phil Wood supplies literally every permutation)

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

Hank

On May 15, 5:10 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

> (ACH111 and 115 are symmetric, REC/CHR triple spindles are asymmetric
> and Phil Wood supplies literally every permutation)
>

One would think that the symmetrical/asymmetrical thing would be a non-
issue with shoulderless mounting rings. Your could just move the whole
thing over a couple of threads to fine-tune the chainline however you
need it.

A Muzi

> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> (ACH111 and 115 are symmetric, REC/CHR triple spindles are asymmetric
>> and Phil Wood supplies literally every permutation)

Hank wrote:
> One would think that the symmetrical/asymmetrical thing would be a non-
> issue with shoulderless mounting rings. Your could just move the whole
> thing over a couple of threads to fine-tune the chainline however you
> need it.

You'd think so.
The 'low-Q' mavens will have the last word on that.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

A R:nen

"russellseaton1@yahoo.com" <russellseaton1@yahoo.com> writes:

> You idea of mixing the Chorus bottom bracket with the Centaur crankset
> will result in the crankarms not being evenly spaced arond the bottom
> bracket shell and your chainline being off. Too far inward or too far
> outward. Hard to say if you would notice this or not since we are
> talking about a few millimeters one way or the other. But mixing them
> like you are planning will not be right.

The first and immediately noticeable problem may be that the existing
gap between the left crank and the BB cup (or imitation thereof) is so
small that taking that ~1 mm away from it for asymmetricity may make
the two scrub against one another either all the time or at least when
pushing teh kilowatts. At least in my Chorus triple setup the gap is
clearly well under 2 mm to begin with, but of course it may be bigger
in the Centaur double.

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com

On May 15, 9:23*am, junkmail...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe that the new Chorus (square taper) triple (111mm) is
> symmetrical. Would it be a problem to use it together with a 2006
> Centaur compact double, which also requires 111mm bb? I don't like the
> way the Centaur 111mm double bb looks and thought the Chorus triple
> might work.

Chorus and Record triple/BBs(last made in 2006 BTW) are not
symmetrical BUT I have used a Centaur BB(which is) with the Record/
Chorus triple crank. The idea with the matched BBs is tpo have the
left and right crank arms the same distance from the BB/frame.

junkmaildok@gmail.com

On May 16, 9:56*am, oronk...@ling.helsinki.fi (A R:nen) wrote:
> "russellseat...@yahoo.com" <russellseat...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > You idea of mixing the Chorus bottom bracket with the Centaur crankset
> > will result in the crankarms not being evenly spaced arond the bottom
> > bracket shell and your chainline being off. *Too far inward or too far
> > outward. *Hard to say if you would notice this or not since we are
> > talking about a few millimeters one way or the other. *But mixing them
> > like you are planning will not be right.
>
> The first and immediately noticeable problem may be that the existing
> gap between the left crank and the BB cup (or imitation thereof) is so
> small that taking that ~1 mm away from it for asymmetricity may make
> the two scrub against one another either all the time or at least when
> pushing teh kilowatts. At least in my Chorus triple setup the gap is
> clearly well under 2 mm to begin with, but of course it may be bigger
> in the Centaur double.

Well, that is a shame. I have an old Athena BB that is getting old and
I need a replacement soon. I don't see a need to switch to UT, but
want a good BB that won't be obsolete in the next five years. I guess
it will have to be the Centaur BB

russellseaton1@yahoo.com

On May 15, 10:43*pm, Hank <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
> On May 15, 5:10 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> > (ACH111 and 115 are symmetric, REC/CHR triple spindles are asymmetric
> > and Phil Wood supplies literally every permutation)
>
> One would think that the symmetrical/asymmetrical thing would be a non-
> issue with shoulderless mounting rings. Your could just move the whole
> thing over a couple of threads to fine-tune the chainline however you
> need it.

The Symmetric/asymmetric issue should be a non issue with Phil Wood
bottom brackets because they have no lip on the fixed cup. Maybe he
just makes the same spindle and puts whatever label a customer asks
for on it. Symmetric/asymmetric, doesn't matter. But Campagnolo
bottom brackets have a lip on the fixed cup. So the spindle has to be
symmetric or asymmetric to fit the crankset right.