I can confirm this. I have replaced 105 derailleurs with campy CD on both doubles (48/34) & (44/30) & a triple (48/34/26) and have gotten significantly improved shifting. The campy feels a little slow on the tandem(50/36/24) but there is a lot more stress on the chain with a tandem.
Michael On Jun 19, 11:50 am, David Faller <dfal...@charter.net> wrote: > > I don't know from experience, but I've read that Campy > FD's are one of the more forgiving derailleurs. > > On 6/18/2010 9:12 PM, XO-1.org Rough Riders wrote: > > > > > Hi: > > > I've never gotten suitable shifting with a TA Pro 5 Vis crankset with > > 32/46 rings. This is mated with Shimano 9-speed on the rear (11x34) > > and bar-end shifters (Shimano 9 also). First I had it set up with a > > Suntour Superbe Pro front derailleur and it wanted to overshift once > > every 25 to 50 shifts, no matter how I adjusted the derailleur. > > > The local bike guru, who knows stuff old and new, suggested a modern > > front derailleur, as they are designed to shifter narrower 9/10-speed > > chains, whereas the old Suntour derailleur was meant for 6/7-speed > > chains. The thought being: Maybe the "old" derailleur's cage is wider > > because the chains for which it was intended were wider; now that > > wider cage made it throw a narrow chain too far. That make some > > sense. > > > Well, I've installed a brand new Ultegra 10-spd front derailleur and > > it seems to keep the chain on either one ring or the other, and it > > downshifts fine, but it takes a major tug on the shifter to get it to > > move the chain to the big ring. In fact, when I upshift, what it's > > trying to do is shove the chain between the rings, into the hole > > between the five arms of the right crank, in the sizable vertical gap, > > or hole, created by the 14 tooth difference in ring size. Of course, > > modern rings, with their ramps and pins, would probably toss that > > chain right up onto the big ring instantaneously. But I like the low Q- > > factor of these TA arms (this is actually my GF's bike I am talking > > about; she's 5'4" and prefer the narrower tread even more than I do), > > plus the ring sizes available are preferable to a "compact" design. > > > Yes, the derailleur is mounted as low as possible abov the top rights. > > In fact, the front derailleur cage is so long, it almost hits the > > right chainstay down at the bottom. I find that odd since a 46 tooth > > big ring is not small, at all. I don't see how this could work on a > > crank with a smaller big ring. > > > Any thoughts or suggestions? > > > BTW, sorry I don't seem to have a good shot of the bike, or especially > > its drivetrain online, though you can see her with the bike (gold 1974 > > Williams converted to 650B wheels) in front of the Nate Harrison Grade > > sign near the bottom of this post: > > >http://www.xo-1.org/2008/12/rough-riding-northern-san-diego-county.html > > > We're headed out to Ramona / Black Canyon tomorrow and I'll get some > > shots of the parts in question then, in case that might help any of > > you help me assay the situation. Here's the blog report of a semi- > > similar version of the riding we're doing tomorrow: > > >http://www.xo-1.org/2009/01/rough-riding-north-eastern-san-diego.html > > > Thanks. > > > - Chris Kostman > > La Jolla, CA > >http://www.adventurecorps.com > >http://www.XO-1.org > >http://www.the508.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
