TommyBing

So there's always the inevitable Campy question here pertaining to lighter gearing, the mechanical limits of Campy rear mechs, and the obligatory "does Campy make a cog bigger than 29?"

However, unfortunately, since the "best" cyclists in the world are 134 lbs, they are surely not generating their 10-15 minute thresholds on epic climbs using 39 x 23, not 39 x 27, or 34 x 27, or even 34 x 29. There is evidence from such grandiose genius figures like Durianrider and ole' Lenny Zinn showing pictures of Contador and Froome and Ten Dam and Dombrowski and many, many others riding 34 x 32 with Wi-Fli or otherwise longer rear mechs.

It's not 1976 anymore, and anyone who rides a 53/42 is stuck in a time warp, sucks on climbs, does no climbing, is Belgian, or all of the above.

Campy sponsors Vaconsoleil, Lotto, Astana, Movistar, Team Europcar, AG2R, and tons others. There's ZERO chance ANY of those elite climbers are riding up crazy climbs spinning 34 x 29. So does Campy have magic derailleurs and 32 tooth cogs that will never be released to the public because that will go against the hardman image of the 53/42 x 11-23 cassettes that only sadists who spend 20 hours a week on the bike can ride? They have to have this gear, right? Or do they just use SRAM/Shimano when they get to epic stages/climbs?

Everyone in America is fat, doesn't Campy know that? Doesn't Campy know that they could sell a 12-32 cassette for $275 and everyone would buy it? It's just crazy. Contador needs the 34 x 32 to climb a mountain, but me a man, me needs 39 x 25 or my fat friend thinks me just dumb.

The lack of logic in the bike business is astounding. 80% of Americans are under 6' 0", yet 80% of the bikes in Any Bike Shop, U.S.A. are all above 58cm.

Bigger. Tougher. Stronger. 'Murica. Sucks.

FBinNY 

Do you have a question, or is this simply venting?

acrowder

I was interested to see if you were right about height distribution, according to the 2008 census it's actually correct. Now I feel pretty good about being six feet tall. So, thanks for that.

Not going to respond to the rest of this unhinged rant, though.

FBinNY 

You might take another look at the census. The average height increases with every generation, so it's possible that the average height for men in the prime cycling ages is above 6 feet. It's oldsters like myself who hold the average down.

acrowder

They didn't think to include age, unfortunately. I'm sure it's been going up over time. Also, somehow I suspect that the manufacturers and shops would notice if they had too many large frames. That's the kind of thing that people in business tend to put a lot of effort into, you know?

ThermionicScott 

The ignorance is astounding, but it's not on Campy's part.

https://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/groupset/catid_8.jsp

TommyBing

Wow, I think I'm just naturally an a$$hole. It was more of a questioning exasperation.

Let me try my most genuine and Fredly version.

"Will Campagnolo ever make available to the public the same products that are made available to the pros? I'm most curious about gearing options. The entire Movistar team at the TDF had gearing in the Pyrenees and Alps which anecdotally was much larger than the company's 29 tooth current maximum rear cog. Why don't they make such products available to retail buyers already when the other manufacturers moved in that direction many years ago? Thanks!"

TommyBing

Yeah, no Chief, I love how Voeckler rocks the triple. All those guys love their triples. Contador, especially. He rides triples.

Your Aunt Diane rides triples.

thirdgenbird

There is this:

And then there is the fact that Campagnolo sponsored teams Movistar, Astana, and Europecar have had an impressive year in the mountains and they all appear to be running standard Campagnolo gear. (And not the above triples)

acrowder

Will Johnson & Johnson ever make available the proper ointment for this burn?

gsa103

What makes you think that they aren't in a 34/29?

Shimano setups don't go bigger than 12/30, and that's only with Ultegra cassettes. The Dura-Ace doesn't go past 28. The majority of pro cyclists spin at 80-100 rpm. At their climbing speeds if you're climbing at 12 mph @ 80rpm that's a 34x18. Contador may like the big gears because he likes to spin really fast, but the rest of the Peloton doesn't need them.

Those large gears are for us mortals who climb at 5-6 mph.

thirdgenbird

Do you have any evidence to support this?


Stage 19 of the 2012 Giro was called "brutal by even pro rider's standards" by cycling news and Marzio Bruseghin still only used a 27t rear cog with his 34t ring.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...-the-mountains

https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...untains/224388

Kimmo 

Lately I've been rocking a 50/40 (hated the 34t) on a 9s 12-23 and I like it a lot. A 14t or 16t gap between rings I find a PITA; a few redundant gears are useful for avoiding front shifts (I'd rather cross-chain than go back and forth between rings), and obviously I don't have much climbing to do.

FBinNY 

UCI rules are pretty clear on the point that the equipment used has to be the same as that offered for sale to the general public (custom frames aside). It's entirely possible that sponsored riders might switch from the sponsors hardware at one place or another such as cranks, but no manufacturer is making special cranks or chainrings just for their sponsored teams.

Drew Eckhardt 

Campagnolo still sells triple cranks with a 74mm inner ring. 26x26 or 26x25 is like 34x34 and still yields 1-tooth jumps to the 19 cog with a 13 starting (10 speeds) or 12 starting (11).

If you want a really low gear you can run 50-39-24x12-30 and crawl up as if you had a 34x43.

cxwrench

Zero chance? More like 100% for sure. You do realize that every pro at that level can acutally climb pretty well, at a level that would make your head spin. Hell, most local Cat 3 racers would probably make your head spin going uphill. Not everyone needs the same gear you apparently do, most definitely not ProTour level riders.

thirdgenbird

No kidding.

The last few years, I haven't been in good enough shape to hang with the local team but I was still able to get my 39x23 up a climb that had a 19% grade in the middle. Oh, and I was seated with one hand pushing my wife. (who made it using a campy triple)

cxwrench

Damn! I'd be in my 28 for sure!

fietsbob

the <C> company dropped out of the MTB parts biz .. I got some stuff on closeout in the 80's

that's what I have on my Touring bike .. 110-74 crank and Euclid FD & RD ..

thirdgenbird

I was fortunate that the climb only averaged 6%. My wife only needed assistance for the real steep section in the middle. When I had to sit and push it felt like my legs were going to explode. A 28 would have been welcome.

HillRider

I guess my LBS didn't get the memo. I'll have to tell them to get rid of all of the 56, 53, and even smaller frames they stock.

Erwin8r

Yeah, I'd like to call BS on that too... Just browse any classified section and you'll note that most men are looking for, or selling, bikes in the 54 - 57 cm range. Or so it would seem.

FBinNY 

If you go back a few decades seatposts were only 250mm or so, & top of saddle to top to top tube distances were rarely more than 6 or 7". Also stems couldn't go more than a few inches above the headset (top tubes were level).

We were importing Italian ace bikes, and 55 and 57cm were considered fairly large by the maker. We convinced them to make a 59, then we still had people we couldn't fit abnd convinced them to make some 61s. Still not enough so I telexed to ask about the possibility of a 64cm, and I still remember their answer (translated from the Italian) "What do you have over there -- a race of giants?). However they eventually got their tub supplier to make tube sets that long, and for a few years we were about the only place where folks over 6'6" could get a bike that fit.

Erwin8r

Yes, I remember, and still have fond memories of learning on my dad's 60cm "ten speed" by slipping my leg THROUGH the frame...

Bike "fashion" was a bit different then... today, and in spite of moving from the sloping top tubes to a great extent, I believe us "'Murricans" are a lot more realistic about frame size and actually prefer to ride bikes that fit well... so, the proliferation of "right-sized" bikes; by and large, that probably means most of us fit in the 53 - 57cm range...

FBinNY 

There's a great number of Americans over 6' these days. And there's no way anyone 6" tall will properly fit a square 57cm frame. Even with extended seat masts, and rising stems, there's still the issue of top tube length. If you take a look around at the number of people with lots of spacers under their HB stems, and using rising stems to boot, you'll see that many riders are struggling to get their position right within the limitations of their frames. (even with sloping top tubes).

When I say proper fit, I don't mean proper fit for a racer, I mean proper fit for they type of riding most people actually do.