Campy chainring specs
- From: "Chris M" <chrismcreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 May 2006 13:22:13 -0700
I have chainrings from 2002 and 2003 with "UD" on the big ring but I
think they are each before the most recent "EPS" and anti-friction
treatment (maybe that is what EPS is?) and I would like to know if
there are any revisions in the ramps and pins to assist upshifts in the
front. I have a 50 tooth ring for winter training so I know I will be
fine with a compact crankset (50* 12 is fine for nearly all terrain)
and the only concern is the jump from 34 to 50 teeth. I thought I
remembered reading that there are now 8 ramps and pins for the
chainrings but I can't remember when or even if this applies to current
production Campy cranks. If they are still made with the same 6 of
each, I might be better off with a 36 * 50 but I really want to have a
34 so that I can tighten up the middle of the rear cogs. A 12-23
cassette with a straight block between 12 and 19 and then a 21 and 23
with that compact cranks would work for me all year and no matter what
the terrain. The biggest problem I have now with my 39 * 53 is that
with a 12-25 (all of my 10V cassettes are the same) I can't spin as
high as I want when climbing erratic inclines that have sections of
between 10 and 18% for a few minutes at a time. It is do-able, but I
feel that those few minutes of cranking that hard contributes to a
disproportionate amount of leg fatigue in subsequent days. With a 12-23
or 12-25 and a compact crank, I know I can make it through any climbs
in the Sierras while seated and pedaling with supple efforts.
I have not heard from anyone that has used a compact crank and it seems
like the experienced riders are either ignoring this option or avoiding
talking about it because (as most of us know) there is a stigma
attached to using small (development) cogs.
BTW, I know next to nothing about triple cranks and have never
considered one because they are so much heavier and I never thought I
would need anything smaller than a 39 * 21 or 23. The compact option
makes it even less likely that I would need a triple but when I
research something I try to look at everything possible. It occured to
me that a triple with 8 or 9 cogs in a straight block configuration
might be worthwhile. I am thinking of (is available) a 56/44/32. This
would give me the ideal gears for any terrain and any situation. A 56 *
13 would be great for a top gear because the gap between the 14 and 13
is obviously a smaller change than the current 13 to 12 jump I have to
make and it has always been something I had hoped to resolve. I often
keep using the 13 when I know would be better off shifting but the
change is so much and at a point where there is not a lot of headroom
left in the engine that more often than not I can't quite get on top of
it and shift back to the 13. That is the only single tooth gap that
feels that way to me. At the other end, I have similar feelings when
shifting on steep climbs but that can be resolved with the straight
block. I have never had the luxury of using an even numbered cog above
a 16. An ideally configured triple would be the best possible solution
if I can find cone that is not too bulky and has the chainrings as
stated or at least close. I normally use the big ring 100% of the time
on the flat roads and then shift to the small ring when I drop below
about 15 mph. With the tripleI spec'ed, I forsee using the center ring
on solo rides and other than rides in the hills (ascending and
descending) with the chain spending the majority of time with a near
ideal chain alignment.
In summary:
1) How many pins are on the current production Campy chainrings ( I
think I looked everywhere on the Campy web site).
2) What is the closest I can get to a triple with 56/44/32 chainrings?
TIA
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Under the 'seen it all now' catagory
- Next by Date: Re: Under the 'seen it all now' catagory
- Previous by thread: Aluminum ferrule cable casing from IRD (Nokon, etc.)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
