Campy compact front dérailleur - does it help w/ limited braze-on adjustment?

Hi,

I am considering a move to a campy compact crankset (50x34) on an
existing bike (2002 colnago c40) which has a braze-on front dérailleur.
Looking at where the dérailleur is for my current setup (53x39), there
does not seem to be much if any room on the braze-on to mount a new
dérailleur lower. My question is: Does anything about the design of the
compact specific campy front dérailleur help compensate for this
possible limitation or am I simply SOL if the braze-on is too short and
does not allow that much adjustment?

Thanks in advance,

MQ

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 23:07:04 -0700, MQ "mquetel at comcast dott
nett" wrote:

My question is: Does anything about the design of the
compact specific campy front dérailleur help compensate for this
possible limitation or am I simply SOL if the braze-on is too short and
does not allow that much adjustment?

Don't get the Campy CT, it's crap and doesn't work properly. It will
hang no lower. Use your existing front derailleur first and see if it
goes low enough. Chances are it will shift fine too.

Regular Campy front derailleurs do ok with 50t rings. You can file a
bit off the bottom of the hanger to get the front derailleur lower.
If the front derailleur is 5 mm above the chainring and the shifting
is good, forget about the problem.

The IRD Compact works better than the Campy CT.

MQ wrote:
Hi,

I am considering a move to a campy compact crankset (50x34) on an
existing bike (2002 colnago c40) which has a braze-on front dérailleur.
Looking at where the dérailleur is for my current setup (53x39), there
does not seem to be much if any room on the braze-on to mount a new
dérailleur lower. My question is: Does anything about the design of the
compact specific campy front dérailleur help compensate for this
possible limitation or am I simply SOL if the braze-on is too short and
does not allow that much adjustment?

Thanks in advance,

MQ

Not SOL at all. A little time with a round file to make the brazeon tab
slot lower will allow the use of any front der with a compact.

Paul Kopit wrote:


Don't get the Campy CT, it's crap and doesn't work properly. It will
hang no lower. Use your existing front derailleur first and see if it
goes low enough. Chances are it will shift fine too.

Regular Campy front derailleurs do ok with 50t rings. You can file a
bit off the bottom of the hanger to get the front derailleur lower.
If the front derailleur is 5 mm above the chainring and the shifting
is good, forget about the problem.

The IRD Compact works better than the Campy CT.

Well, I don't like the Campagnolo CT front der all that well when onto
a FSA compact using a Wipperman chain BUT using a Campagnolo CT crank
and Campagnolo chain, it works wonderfully. Try that before you paint
it as 'crap'.

See what happens with your current FD. If it is too high, try filing
the braze-on slot. (Warranty? Rumor has it Colnago has serious issues
honoring their own warranties...) I have two bikes with compact cranks
- an FSA and an El Cheep-O Nashbar. Both shift great with a current
(non CT!) Centaur.

MQ wrote:
Hi,

I am considering a move to a campy compact crankset (50x34) on an
existing bike (2002 colnago c40) which has a braze-on front dérailleur.
Looking at where the dérailleur is for my current setup (53x39), there
does not seem to be much if any room on the braze-on to mount a new
dérailleur lower. My question is: Does anything about the design of the
compact specific campy front dérailleur help compensate for this
possible limitation or am I simply SOL if the braze-on is too short and
does not allow that much adjustment?

Thanks in advance,

MQ

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 13:49:58 GMT, richard
wrote:

I have two bikes with compact cranks
- an FSA and an El Cheep-O Nashbar. Both shift great with a current
(non CT!) Centaur.

Same chainrings on Nashbar and FSA. Look at the code numbers on the
back of the ring. It's a number like WSS ???.

On 2 Jul 2005 06:38:48 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
wrote:

Well, I don't like the Campagnolo CT front der all that well when onto
a FSA compact using a Wipperman chain BUT using a Campagnolo CT crank
and Campagnolo chain, it works wonderfully. Try that before you paint
it as 'crap'.
Chains: IRD, Campy, Wipperman, and Shimano. Performance is not
better than Centaur, etc. Campy. IRD CT works better but not better
than Campy regular derailleurs. Campy regular hangs lower with a
braze than the CT. Stupid.

"richard" wrote in message
news:aYwxe.112285$_o.88816@attbi_s71...
See what happens with your current FD. If it is too high, try filing the
braze-on slot. (Warranty? Rumor has it Colnago has serious issues
honoring their own warranties...) MQ wrote:
Hi,

there does not seem to be much if any room on the braze-on to mount a new
dérailleur lower. .... am I simply SOL if the braze-on is too short and
does not allow that much adjustment?
MQ

I've said this before (and Sheldon Brown has said many times that braze- on
front der's are the work of the devil) but it worth putting it out there
again- a Mavic front braze on front derailure has enough material on the
mounting bracket to drill and tap another mounting hole on top of the
factory hole.
I've got a drawer full of Mavic front braze-ons if any one needs one.

Gary Jacobson
Rosendale, NY

I didn't find the IRD to be any good in my case. It would not hold its
position on the big ring. The spring tension on the IRD was too high for the
ergo levers and pulled the cable out. Also the cage did not mount low enough
so the chain would derail on shifting up to the big ring.

I ended up using a modified Record compact derailleur. I had to dremel some
metel off the pivots to allow the cage to move in enough to clear the chain
when it is on the largest 2 cogs on the rear. I have a 34/50 rings and the
setup works OK but I find the shifts to the big ring slow, needing a full
sweep of the egro lever, compared to an old DuraAce 8 speed with 38/53
rings. But maybe that is to be expected for the large size differences in
the chainrings. I find the lower and wider gear range to be very nice for
hills, but the setup needs getting used to for quick shifts when changing
chainrings. To avoid the extreme ratio changes neccessitates a double shift
that I find hard to do with the slow action of shifting the front.

cel



"Paul Kopit" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 23:07:04 -0700, MQ "mquetel at comcast dott
nett" wrote:

My question is: Does anything about the design of the
compact specific campy front dérailleur help compensate for this
possible limitation or am I simply SOL if the braze-on is too short and
does not allow that much adjustment?

Don't get the Campy CT, it's crap and doesn't work properly. It will
hang no lower. Use your existing front derailleur first and see if it
goes low enough. Chances are it will shift fine too.

Regular Campy front derailleurs do ok with 50t rings. You can file a
bit off the bottom of the hanger to get the front derailleur lower.
If the front derailleur is 5 mm above the chainring and the shifting
is good, forget about the problem.

The IRD Compact works better than the Campy CT.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 22:23:34 -0700, wrote:

I didn't find the IRD to be any good in my case. It would not hold its
position on the big ring. The spring tension on the IRD was too high for the
ergo levers and pulled the cable out. Also the cage did not mount low enough
so the chain would derail on shifting up to the big ring.

I didn't have this problem. The tension is no greater than using a
Shimano front derailleur. You have to get the cable over the little
tab in the back not under it.


I ended up using a modified Record compact derailleur. I had to dremel some
metel off the pivots to allow the cage to move in enough to clear the chain
when it is on the largest 2 cogs on the rear. I have a 34/50 rings and the
setup works OK but I find the shifts to the big ring slow, needing a full
sweep of the egro lever, compared to an old DuraAce 8 speed with 38/53
rings. But maybe that is to be expected for the large size differences in
the chainrings. I find the lower and wider gear range to be very nice for
hills, but the setup needs getting used to for quick shifts when changing
chainrings. To avoid the extreme ratio changes neccessitates a double shift
that I find hard to do with the slow action of shifting the front.

The Record CT was very smooth to move but it just didn't lift the
chain onto the big ring.

The test I use is to shift to the big ring w/o rotating the cranks and
then rotate the cranks to see how well the front derailleur does. It
is common that the front Ergo shifter has to use all it's throw to
move from a 34 to a 50 with a good working Campy 10 derailleur. It
does much better with a 36/52. I theorize that the inner plate
catches the 36 better and lifts faster.

A normal Campy front derailleur can shift to rings w/o pins too. I
use a Sugino ring that just has a bevel up and the shift to it from 34
is ok.