Source for Campy CT chainrings?

Gary Young wrote:

Campy might be able to argue that the offset bolt is a quality-control
measure -- maybe it ensures that the ramps and pins line up properly
between the big and small chainring. That way Campy doesn't have to deal
with complaints from consumers who don't know how to install the
chainrings properly. I'm not saying that is the real reason (for one
thing, I don't use Campy cranks -- the 135mm bolt circle is enough to put
me off), but it's a possibility that no one here seems to have considered.

given the complexity of their chain installation procedures I don't
think making things easy was on their mind
--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

"D'ohBoy" wrote
I hope you are aware that the Chorus and Record CT cranksets (and
possibly the new Centaur Carbon CT) have one offset chainring bolt
(112 mm bcd) making off the shelf non-oem chainrings an impossible
fit.

Dave Mayer wrote:
Correct, and the Centaur CT crankset also has custom rings. 4 of
the bolts are 110mm BCD. The fifth, that connects to the crankarm,
is 112mm. I know: bad, bad behaviour by Campagnolo. Normally I do
not buy anything from a company that goes out of its way to develop
pointless proprietary standards.

M-gineering wrote:
TA offers Nerius chainrings for CAmpagnolo compact in 34, 36, 38 & 39
and 48. 49,50 & 52T

Lou Holtman wrote:
There you go. Complaining about nothing. If the installed base is
large enough third parties will offer replacement to make some profit
to. So people buy Campy CT cranksets. Do it for Tom ;-)

Tom Sherman wrote:
Even if third parties offer compatible rings, that means that additional
tooling, stocking and distribution costs. Therefore, these particular
chainrings (or chainrings in general) are more expensive to the consumer
than they need to be for a given quality. Availability will also be
poorer, since it mean another item for seller's to stock and tie up
funds in - just what the LBS does NOT need.
The only legitimate reason for a manufacturer to deviate from a standard
is if that deviation provides substantial advantages elsewhere.
Offsetting one (1) chainring bolt does not meet that criterion.

Or maybe it's to assure manufacturer's designed position of ramps/pins?

And hey, 110mm cranks are not exactly exotic animals. If you don't like
the carbon 110/112, there are a gazillion 110 aluminum cranks out there.
Choice is good. So for riders who intend a 38-44, maybe a Campagnolo
Carbon CT isn't a great choice. If you intend 36-50 why worry?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In article
,
Lou Holtman wrote:

M-gineering wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
Dave Mayer wrote:
"D'ohBoy" wrote in message
...

Hi, John -

I hope you are aware that the Chorus and Record CT cranksets (and
possibly the new Centaur Carbon CT) have one offset chainring bolt
(112 mm bcd) making off the shelf non-oem chainrings an impossible
fit.

Correct, and the Centaur CT crankset also has custom rings. 4 of the
bolts are 110mm BCD. The fifth, that connects to the crankarm, is
112mm. I know: bad, bad behaviour by Campagnolo. Normally I do not
buy anything from a company that goes out of its way to develop
pointless proprietary standards.


TA offers Nerius chainrings for CAmpagnolo compact in 34, 36, 38 & 39
and 48. 49,50 & 52T



There you go. Complaining about nothing. If the installed base is large
enough third parties will offer replacement to make some profit to. So
people buy Campy CT cranksets. Do it for Tom ;-)

That is third party singular. TA makes their business
manufacturing high quality chainrings for all configurations;
as well as cranksets.

--
Michael Press

"D'ohBoy" wrote in message
...
John Verheul wrote:
Is anyone aware of a source (online, retail) for Campy compatible compact
chainrings? I think TA makes some that are much cheaper than Campy, but I
can't find them anywhere (I pretty much only need a 36t).

Thanks in advance for any help.

Hi, John -

I hope you are aware that the Chorus and Record CT cranksets (and
possibly the new Centaur Carbon CT) have one offset chainring bolt
(112 mm bcd) making off the shelf non-oem chainrings an impossible
fit.

It doesn't seem too hard to drill a single hole in a regular old (e.g - FSA
36t ring) compact ring that's 1mm farther from the center. The result would
make one existing hole look slightly "8" shaped.

Anyone think that's a crazy idea? Certainly seems worth a try...

"M-gineering" wrote in message
...
TA offers Nerius chainrings for CAmpagnolo compact in 34, 36, 38 & 39 and
48. 49,50 & 52T

Wonderful, where does one find these animals?

Tom Sherman wrote, in part:

Why does "Big C" get a pass, when "Big S" does not on these matters?


Despite my knowledge of the 112 bcd bolt on the Campagnolo cranks, I
have purchased two of them and haven't looked back.

Yah, they got ya by the short hairs for chainrings but they ARE quite
nice and durable (and expensive).

D'ohBoy

On 2008-01-13, jim beam wrote:
Tom Ace wrote:
On Jan 13, 7:47 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Remember who introduced 10-speed systems, which are much more expensive
for no real benefit for most riders?

I love this line from a car review: "Remind me again why Lexus needs
an eight speed transmission? Oh yes; Mercedes has a seven speed."
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/reviews/lexus-ls-460/


wow, the disillusionment and paranoia on this group is spectacular.
particularly when fed by insufficient understanding.

the truth is, engines are fuel efficient in relatively narrow rev
ranges. if you want better fuel economy, use more gears.

the extreme example is continuously variable transmission [cvt] -
something very popular for small cars in countries outside north
america. [why it's not popular inside north america is a whole
different topic.] it's even been sold on some cars here, subaru and
honda spring to mind, and is very reliable. the 96-2000 honda civic hx
for example can routinely achieve 55mpg, somewhat better than the
current honda civic hybrid.

The hybrid probably also has a kind of CVT, assuming it has a system
similar to that on the Prius, which uses its two electric
motor/generators in clever ways to achieve CVT without the use of rubber
belts.

It's a single planetary gear system basically set up for top gear.
Engine is connected to the planet-carrier, the road wheels and one MG
(motor/generator) to the crown wheel, the other MG to the sun. To lower
the gear ratio you spin up the sun wheel with an electric motor which is
drawing power from the generator on the crown wheel. Something like that
anyway, the details are easy to get wrong.

Various combinations of bump-starting, electric reversing (reversing is
always electric-only on the Prius) are possible by changing the
directions of things in clever ways.

[it achieves this by keeping revs very
narrowly confined and varying the transmission ratio by tiny increments
to match speed.]

for higher torque associated with big heavy luxury cars however, cvt
doesn't measure up, hence a higher number of conventional gears.

That's why hybrid luxury cars are quite an interesting option-- because
you can have CVT on them without the problem of too much torque for the
rubber belts. And you get pretty good acceleration running the V6 and
electric motor in parallel.

"jim beam" wrote:
Tom Ace wrote:
On Jan 13, 7:47 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Remember who introduced 10-speed systems, which are much more expensive
for no real benefit for most riders?

I love this line from a car review: "Remind me again why Lexus needs
an eight speed transmission? Oh yes; Mercedes has a seven speed."
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/reviews/lexus-ls-460/


wow, the disillusionment and paranoia on this group is spectacular.
particularly when fed by insufficient understanding.

the truth is, engines are fuel efficient in relatively narrow rev
ranges. if you want better fuel economy, use more gears.

the extreme example is continuously variable transmission [cvt] -
something very popular for small cars in countries outside north
america. [why it's not popular inside north america is a whole
different topic.] it's even been sold on some cars here, subaru and
honda spring to mind, and is very reliable. the 96-2000 honda civic hx
for example can routinely achieve 55mpg, somewhat better than the
current honda civic hybrid. [it achieves this by keeping revs very
narrowly confined and varying the transmission ratio by tiny increments
to match speed.]...

butbutbut, the standard manual transmission is much more fun on a Honda
Civic! I find that I shift more than necessary for the heck of it - the
way the lever moves into the next gear with perfect rpm matching during
a double-clutch shift is addictive.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Ben C wrote:
On 2008-01-13, jim beam wrote:
Tom Ace wrote:
On Jan 13, 7:47 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Remember who introduced 10-speed systems, which are much more expensive
for no real benefit for most riders?
I love this line from a car review: "Remind me again why Lexus needs
an eight speed transmission? Oh yes; Mercedes has a seven speed."
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/reviews/lexus-ls-460/

wow, the disillusionment and paranoia on this group is spectacular.
particularly when fed by insufficient understanding.

the truth is, engines are fuel efficient in relatively narrow rev
ranges. if you want better fuel economy, use more gears.

the extreme example is continuously variable transmission [cvt] -
something very popular for small cars in countries outside north
america. [why it's not popular inside north america is a whole
different topic.] it's even been sold on some cars here, subaru and
honda spring to mind, and is very reliable. the 96-2000 honda civic hx
for example can routinely achieve 55mpg, somewhat better than the
current honda civic hybrid.

The hybrid probably also has a kind of CVT, assuming it has a system
similar to that on the Prius, which uses its two electric
motor/generators in clever ways to achieve CVT without the use of rubber
belts.

It's a single planetary gear system basically set up for top gear.
Engine is connected to the planet-carrier, the road wheels and one MG
(motor/generator) to the crown wheel, the other MG to the sun. To lower
the gear ratio you spin up the sun wheel with an electric motor which is
drawing power from the generator on the crown wheel. Something like that
anyway, the details are easy to get wrong.

that would be an interesting way of doing it. the honda and subaru
cvt's are similar to the ones i believe you had in europe back in the
70's & 80's with daf & volvo - two variable cones and a belt.



Various combinations of bump-starting, electric reversing (reversing is
always electric-only on the Prius) are possible by changing the
directions of things in clever ways.

[it achieves this by keeping revs very
narrowly confined and varying the transmission ratio by tiny increments
to match speed.]

for higher torque associated with big heavy luxury cars however, cvt
doesn't measure up, hence a higher number of conventional gears.

That's why hybrid luxury cars are quite an interesting option-- because
you can have CVT on them without the problem of too much torque for the
rubber belts.

honda and subaru use steel belts. don't euro-ford and fiat have cvt
with steel belts too?


And you get pretty good acceleration running the V6 and
electric motor in parallel.

you can get great acceleration just on the electric motors!

"John Verheul" writes:

Is anyone aware of a source (online, retail) for Campy compatible compact
chainrings? I think TA makes some that are much cheaper than Campy, but I
can't find them anywhere (I pretty much only need a 36t).

Sugino + $20 Dremel at Kmart Campy $$$$$$

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA, USA