View Single Post
Old 09-16-15 | 12:01 AM
  #9  
gaucho777's Avatar
gaucho777
Senior Member
Titanium Club Membership
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,726
Likes: 4,191
From: Berkeley, CA

Bikes: 72 Cilo Pacer, 72 Gitane GT, 72 Peugeot PX10, 73 Speedwell Ti,l, 75 Peugeot PR-10L, 80 Colnago Super, 81 Zinn, 85 ALAN Cross, 85 De Rosa Pro, 86 Look 753, 86 Look KG86, 89 Parkpre Team, 90 Parkpre Team MTB, 90 Merlin

Originally Posted by J.Oxley
It's as if the braze-on version of this derailleur is missing a critical piece of its anatomy. No clamp, so no channel to guide the cable behind the tube. Separate piece maybe?
Good call. I hadn't noticed the lack of channel. Surely Shimano must have thought of this, no? Further, I notice sloar's braze-on unit is different from the one in the video in some subtle ways. Notice the topmost rounded part of the front derailleur that contacts the frame braze-on (I wish I knew the proper nomenclature), it's different from the rounded section of the clamp-on unit where it meets the clamp (more angled round at the end). If designing a braze-on mounted FD, wouldn't Shimano account for the cable routing? Have you tried simply running it through that gap between the fixed fd body (below the limit adjuster screw) and the swivel arm below it, then out & around the pinch bolt?

Also, you say the arm strikes the braze-on tab. Maybe a picture of that contact point? Just a thought: If you start with the lower limit lower, will it give you extra range on the high end? Also, failing the rest, it's possible some judicious filing can gave a bit of necessary clearance to get int he big ring.

@carbomb:follow? (not sure I'm helping either, to be honest.)
gaucho777 is offline  
Reply