campagnolo triple bottom brackets
#1
coffeeeeee
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: somewhere in Pennsyl-tucky
Posts: 238
Bikes: all that I ride
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
campagnolo triple bottom brackets
Anybody know if the current iteration of the centaur bottom bracket (recommended for triple cranksets by campagnolo) is symmetrical or asymmetrical?
I want to put a record triple 10spd crankset on my bike and have been having a devil of a time sourcing the appropriate 111mm bb.
thanks
Matt
I want to put a record triple 10spd crankset on my bike and have been having a devil of a time sourcing the appropriate 111mm bb.
thanks
Matt
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 33,656
Bikes: '96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '20 Surly Midnight Special, All are 3x10. It is hilly around here!
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2026 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,096 Times
in
742 Posts
Square taper Centaur/Veloce/Mirage bb were symetrical and 111 mm for a double or a triple if limited to a 28.6 mm seat tube and 115.5 mm for the triple used on frames with 31.8 or 35 mm seat tubes.
Chorus/Record bottom brackets were asymetrical and 102 mm for a double and 111 mm for the triple for all seat tube diameters.
Edit: You didn't look hard enough. Licktons in Chicago has all of the square taper Campy bottom brackets including the Centaur 111mm. Look here:
https://www.lickbike.com/productpage....B='0205-13'
Chorus/Record bottom brackets were asymetrical and 102 mm for a double and 111 mm for the triple for all seat tube diameters.
Edit: You didn't look hard enough. Licktons in Chicago has all of the square taper Campy bottom brackets including the Centaur 111mm. Look here:
https://www.lickbike.com/productpage....B='0205-13'
Last edited by HillRider; 01-11-11 at 09:03 PM.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
A simple question, why to use triple when u can use compact? My main concern with triple is that u have gears redundancy everywhere, many of the gears combinations are almost epeated 2 to 3 times. With compact you avoid crossing the chain big time also.
Good luck
Good luck
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 33,656
Bikes: '96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '20 Surly Midnight Special, All are 3x10. It is hilly around here!
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2026 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,096 Times
in
742 Posts
I don't know where you live or what kind of terrine you ride in but a compact can never provide the same low gear as a triple. Despite their current fashion, a compact isn't the answer to everything.
#5
coffeeeeee
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: somewhere in Pennsyl-tucky
Posts: 238
Bikes: all that I ride
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
thanks Hill, for both your answers.
and thanks for the Lickton's site; indeed, I'd forgotten about that one.
and thanks for the Lickton's site; indeed, I'd forgotten about that one.
#6
Senior Member
Gear redundancy is only an issue for those who don't understand how to shift a triple. When you get to the middle ring and next to largest cog and need a lower gear, all you do is shift to the little ring, then 2-3 cogs smaller, just like you do when shifting to the middle ring. There is absolutely nothing to keep track of. so the redundancy is much ado about nothing.
Less redundancy makes the shifting process more difficult. With a compact crank, you always shift one more cog after shifting between the chainrings (3-4 instead of 2-3) due to the reduced redundancy. In the worst case, you could make a 53/27 with no redundancy and then you'd have to shift through all 9 cogs after every chainring shift. Wouldn't that be fun?
Less redundancy makes the shifting process more difficult. With a compact crank, you always shift one more cog after shifting between the chainrings (3-4 instead of 2-3) due to the reduced redundancy. In the worst case, you could make a 53/27 with no redundancy and then you'd have to shift through all 9 cogs after every chainring shift. Wouldn't that be fun?
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mountain View, CA USA and Golden, CO USA
Posts: 6,341
Bikes: 97 Litespeed, 50-39-30x13-26 10 cogs, Campagnolo Ultrashift, retroreflective rims on SON28/PowerTap hubs
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 550 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times
in
226 Posts
The triple gets a combination of more range, closer spacing between gears in your cruising range, less shifting rings, and a better chainline.
That's good. You can put it in a ring and leave it there for less front shifting. When you need a double shift it can be a three cog change (a single right lever activation with Campagnolo) instead of five (two when moving to a bigger cog and smaller ring).
I made the mistake of switching a triple for a compact with the same range and wouldn't do it again.
In the 8 speed era I ran 50-40-30 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 in Boulder, CO so I had perfect gears for rides east (plains) or west (mountains) - like a low gear of 42x28 and straight block without changing freewheels. With that cassette discontinued I switched to 9 speeds with a 23 on the end, and swapped the front for a 50-34 after wearing out the chain rings because 34x23 is the same as 30x21 and everyone knows two rings are better than three.
Disregarding the extreme big/big and small/small combinations there's only one gear of overlap (50x21 and 34x14).
Any terrain/wind/fatigue combinations which involve speed fluctuating below 15 and above 17 miles an hour leads to a lot of double shifts with a five cog change each time.
With 50-40-30x13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 the middle ring is good for comfortably cruising at 12-20 MPH when you avoid the biggest and smallest cogs.
My chainline is worse with the compact. If I want to go 16 MPH it's the second largest cog at 50x21 or second smallest at 34x14. On the triple I could run 40x16 or 40x17 in the middle of the cassette.
My main concern with triple is that u have gears redundancy everywhere
I made the mistake of switching a triple for a compact with the same range and wouldn't do it again.
In the 8 speed era I ran 50-40-30 x 13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21 in Boulder, CO so I had perfect gears for rides east (plains) or west (mountains) - like a low gear of 42x28 and straight block without changing freewheels. With that cassette discontinued I switched to 9 speeds with a 23 on the end, and swapped the front for a 50-34 after wearing out the chain rings because 34x23 is the same as 30x21 and everyone knows two rings are better than three.
Disregarding the extreme big/big and small/small combinations there's only one gear of overlap (50x21 and 34x14).
Any terrain/wind/fatigue combinations which involve speed fluctuating below 15 and above 17 miles an hour leads to a lot of double shifts with a five cog change each time.
With 50-40-30x13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23 the middle ring is good for comfortably cruising at 12-20 MPH when you avoid the biggest and smallest cogs.
, many of the gears combinations are almost epeated 2 to 3 times. With compact you avoid crossing the chain big time also.
Last edited by Drew Eckhardt; 01-12-11 at 03:21 PM.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mountain View, CA USA and Golden, CO USA
Posts: 6,341
Bikes: 97 Litespeed, 50-39-30x13-26 10 cogs, Campagnolo Ultrashift, retroreflective rims on SON28/PowerTap hubs
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 550 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times
in
226 Posts
Unless you're a bike company. Once you convince people that compacts are an alternative to triples you can make and stock fewer crank, rear derailleur, front derailleur, shifter, and bike variants. That's good for the bottom line.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 33,656
Bikes: '96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '20 Surly Midnight Special, All are 3x10. It is hilly around here!
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2026 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,096 Times
in
742 Posts
All too true. SRAM seems to have taken this to the extreme and doesn't offer a road triple of any kind and is trying to get away from MTB triples.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bikelovers
Bicycle Mechanics
13
11-20-13 08:46 AM
Bingo Blingo
Fifty Plus (50+)
3
05-17-12 06:27 AM