Tandem Cycling - Triple FD for Campy?

What front derailleur is best to use with Campy shifters?
I only one I can find is 2008 Comp Triple Derailleur.
Will this work with the newer Centaur Ultra Shift levers?
What clamp size would fit a Calfee 32mm, 35mm or braze on?
Will it work with 52/39/28 rings?

Thanks

Front Derailleur - Campy Record 10 with a four" cage. Completely adjustable to accommodate your triple. Should work fine with your shifters. You have to get a clamp-on front derrailleur, unless you specified a front braze-on. (I don't think Craig recommends braze-on.) Size is 35mm.
Yes, the setup will work perfect with a 52/39/28. However, having said that, you must prepare to drop from the 39 to the 28 way before you need it. Do it by being in your biggest rear cog (29 on mine) and spinning slowly under no pressure. It generally takes me about four clicks on my Record 10 shift levers to drop to the 28. You can then pick the appropriate rear cog for your terrain. If you try to shift under pressure, and you are in position 7-9 on your cassette, either you will not be able to shift to your 28, or you will throw the chain too far. It will end up between your bottom bracket and your 28.

That sounds less than ideal.
I will have an 11-28 on the back.
Would like to shift down from the 39 to the 28 while on the top 3 or 4 cogs in the back.
I will have a jump stop to prevent the chain from coming off.
I am going to start with a 30 on the front since that is what comes with the crankset.
If 30/28 isn't low enough then I will try 28/28

When I tell you to shift before you need the 28, do so before you are on the hill. When you shift from your 52 to your 39, to climb a small hill, you are still rolling 13-18 mph. You won't scrub speed off as quickly. However, when you need to go to your 28, you are generally either going into a major hill transition, or the hill you are on begins to get steeper. Therefore, can't hold your speed in your 39 and are forced to downshift to your 28. Either way, you are more than likely to already be in your 28, and can therefore keep on rolling and do not even come close to a stop. Just common sense that you won't put undue stress on your equipment.
We ride mostly hills up to 16º with a 28/29. We tried the 30, but changed to a 28 because it wasn't enough for us to climb big hills.
Good luck

I use a Record Triple front derailleur. I have used a 55-42-28 but currently use a 53-42-28. My cassette is a 12-25 and we live on a hill that is 14 degrees. We have used a 11-28 but I find I like the closer range of the 12-25. The front derailleur would not shift to the 28 if we are under a large load without some unloading of the chain. Other than that we have no issues. We do use a chain watcher and we have had no chain dropping issues since installing it.

I tried this question on the Weight Weenie forum (http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=63004), and I'm not sure I learned much besides that the non-Quick Shift (QS) 2006 Record FD should work with the 2009 QS shifters. My bike just got back to Calfee, where this can be looked into some more.



The tandem I've built (http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=62954) has a triple and Super Record.

Surprisingly, the 11 spd RD shifts fine, (a triple usually would require a medium cage RD, which Campy no longer offers).

Things aren't working so well with the FD, which is 2006 Record (the last year of a Record triple).

2006 Record Triple FD:
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/7057/2006recordtriplefd.png


In 2007 Campy introduced Quick Shift (QS) (http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/campagnolo-new-2007-groups-all-10-speed-all-the-time), and the 2006 FD doesn't like the 2009 11spd QS. According to Campy (http://www.campagnolo.com/repository/documenti/en/Front_derailleur_QS_UK-04-09.pdf):


QS Ergopower controls with the non-QS front derailleurs could require a higher force to effect shifting
Since 2007, Campy has offered the QS COMP TRIPLE™ front derailleur (http://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/groupsetdetail/item_derCOMpTRIPLE_catid_8.jsp), which aspires to Centaur level, and has plated steel rather than an aluminum cage. It would solve my FD shifting woes, but would appear out of place on my otherwise SR equipped tandem. At 98 grams (vs. 72 for SR, and 89 for 2006 Record) it isn't particularly light either (this is WW).

2009 COMP Triple FD:
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/9629/compfrontder.jpg

I've thought of possible solutions, but I do not know their feasibility. Maybe WW could help me out.

* Just use a new COMP TRIPLE™ (simplest option!)
* Modernize the 2006 Record FD with whatever internal bits make it QS.
* Tune the COMP TRIPLE™ FD with bits from the 2006 Record (e.g. the aluminum cage).
* Put the 2006 Triple Record cage on a 2010 SR FD [image below](if it will fit, and if the throw on the double SR FD can be made sufficient).

2009 Super Record FD:
http://www.jensonusa.com/product/fd/FD292B00BCA_32.0_11SP.jpg

Since 2007, Campy has offered the QS COMP TRIPLE™ front derailleur, which aspires to Centaur level, and has plated steel rather than an aluminum cage. It would solve my FD shifting woes, but would appear out of place on my otherwise SR equipped tandem. At 98 grams (vs. 72 for SR, and 89 for 2006 Record) it isn't particularly light either (this is WW).

:roflmao: You're riding a tandem and you're worried about 26 grams. That's less than one ounce.

:roflmao: You're riding a tandem and you're worried about 26 grams. That's less than one ounce.

Context is so important. This was posted on the Weight Weenie forum (http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=ad27f5ae2879eb7140e227ee501cf94d), where saving 26 grams is more a cause to rejoice than to ridicule.

[Sigh] I'll try to explain. If you substitute a 72 gram component for one of 98 grams, you save 27% on that piece. If you save 27% on every component on your bike, your 30 lb. tandem now weighs 21.9 lbs, and no one is laughing then.

I will be fine with the 98g derailleur just as long as it works right.

:roflmao: You're riding a tandem and you're worried about 26 grams. That's less than one ounce.

:roflmao: You don't even own a tandem and you're in here ridiculing people that do??!! That's less than intelligent.

Context is so important. This was posted on the Weight Weenie forum (http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=ad27f5ae2879eb7140e227ee501cf94d), where saving 26 grams is more a cause to rejoice than to ridicule.

[Sigh] I'll try to explain. If you substitute a 72 gram component for one of 98 grams, you save 27% on that piece. If you save 27% on every component on your bike, your 30 lb. tandem now weighs 21.9 lbs, and no one is laughing then.
poor logic.
the design constraints of say a fd versus a frame or wheels is very different, it's doubtful that you easily remove 27% of the weight of a well designed and constructed frame or wheel without risking failure

poor logic.
the design constraints of say a fd versus a frame or wheels is very different, it's doubtful that you easily remove 27% of the weight of a well designed and constructed frame or wheel without risking failure
I started with a 47lb tandem and after a total rebuild is now at 35lbs. It can be done. But I did not start with some mega dollar tandem.

poor logic.
the design constraints of say a fd versus a frame or wheels is very different, it's doubtful that you easily remove 27% of the weight of a well designed and constructed frame or wheel without risking failure

One way to do it with a frame is to use a different type of carbon fiber. The Calfee Dragonfly is significantly lighter that a Tetra.

poor logic.
the design constraints of say a fd versus a frame or wheels is very different, it's doubtful that you easily remove 27% of the weight of a well designed and constructed frame or wheel without risking failure

This isn't about removing weight from a component, but selecting amongst well-designed components of varying weights. There is plenty of variation in weight in both frames and wheels.

For example, WheresWaldo's Rugamer carbon frame in large weighed 5.91 lbs (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=532952&highlight=ruegamer). A Habanero titanium tandem frame in medium weighs 7.7 lbs (http://www.habcycles.com/tandem.html). Figure a large weighs 7.9 lbs. 5.91/7.9 = 75%, or a 25% difference. So, you can 'remove' nearly 27% of the weight of a well designed and constructed frame by selecting a frame that is lighter. Better PM Whereswaldo, to warn him he is risking frame failure.

Same goes for wheels. Topolina tandem wheels weigh 1480 grams (http://www.precisiontandems.com/topolinotandemwheels.htm) (although aerodynamically they are bricks). A Shimano Velocity DYAD tandem rear wheel weighs 1328 grams (http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=29052), and a front wheel 1065 grams (http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=29051), for a total of 2393 grams. 1480/2393 = .62, or 38% weight savings.

So, logic schmogic. Only by attention to detail on each component to the point to bring on uninformed ridicule, weight savings can add up so that the end result is a very light tandem.



One way to do it with a frame is to use a different type of carbon fiber. The Calfee Dragonfly is significantly lighter that a Tetra.

Anyone know the weight of a Tetra? My unpainted Dragonfly in L/M weighed 2930 grams (6.46 lbs).

Anyone know the weight of a Tetra? My unpainted Dragonfly in L/M weighed 2930 grams (6.46 lbs).

Well, my custom (close to a M/S) weighs 4793 g. However, it has couplers -- about 1000 g total for four.

Anyone know the weight of a Tetra? My unpainted Dragonfly in L/M weighed 2930 grams (6.46 lbs).

Calfee told me 6.75 lbs for a Tetra size small.

Calfee told me 6.75 lbs for a Tetra size small.

My weight of 4793 g must be way off if this is true.

Geez, this thread has veered a bit off topic. Well, here's more contribution to that.


Calfee told me 6.75 lbs for a Tetra size small.

What a frame manufacturers tell you might tend towards the optimistic.


With a frame weight of less than 6 pounds (http://www.calfeedesign.com/tandem.htm), the Dragonfly Tandem weighs in as the world's lightest tandem!

The Dragonfly frame is neither less than 6 pounds, nor is it the world's lightest tandem. My large/medium Dragonfly frame weighed 6.45 lbs unpainted, and (more relevant) 7.07 lbs. painted. Both Rugamer carbon frames, and Paketa magnesium frames weigh less.

If we find an actual weight on a Tetra, it will likely be more than 6.75 pounds in size small.

What front derailleur is best to use with Campy shifters?
I only one I can find is 2008 Comp Triple Derailleur.
Will this work with the newer Centaur Ultra Shift levers?
What clamp size would fit a Calfee 32mm, 35mm or braze on?
Will it work with 52/39/28 rings?

Thanks

Because you're talking front, you are not limited to Campy. I've Campy shifters and Shimano XT front triple der. Find whatever works well with the size rings you want, whether it's Campy or Shimano. Unless you are really looking for pure Campy, which does limit your choices of rings, since they don't do mountain bike gearing, and many non-mountain tandems use mountain gearing.

I had thought Shimano could work but not sure if the pull ratio is compatible with Campy.
Unless there is a problem with the Campy triple der I would prefer to use it.

I had thought Shimano could work but not sure if the pull ratio is compatible with Campy.
Unless there is a problem with the Campy triple der I would prefer to use it.

Works fine in the front (many of us use that combo). For the back, you need a JTek shiftmate (or don't mix). The great thing about the Campy brifters for the front is that it's (if I recall correctly) three clicks from chainring to chainring, so you get to use the other two for trim.

I don't know that there is a problem - I'm running 24-36-48 on the front, and am told that the Campy front will not support that. Yours is less extreme. The Campagnolo website has the specs on their derailleurs, in terms of the number of teeth difference between rings - although it may be harder to find anything more than a year old that way.