Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

Campy - keep 10s or go 11?

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

Campy - keep 10s or go 11?

Old 11-28-13, 06:21 PM
  #26  
Voice of the Industry
 
Campag4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Bob Dopolina
That sounds good on paper but, in reality, the number of any tools. Sold will be very, very small and will not be items that generate real revenue.

As an example, Novatec has a ratchet ring tool. We wanted some for our consumer site. Novatec didn't have any. They didn't have any in production and no one was assigned to get it done. So we made the drawing, found the vendor and supplied the tool to them. We also ordered more than they did.

Even when I worked for a company that distributed Campagnolo this was the case. In five years we never sold a single Campagnolo tool kit. We had the UT bearing tools in our service center but only a handful of shops even invested in them. I don't know if any consumer ever did.

Now speciality companies like Park or Hosan might be selling these tools but that isn't making a dime for any of the bike companies.
I said, I didn't completely buy into the notion that specialty tools was contrived as part of a revenue stream, but there are some notable examples. Maybe the most conspicuous is the Campy chain tool which was or is a complete rip off for those that indulge. I don't. I don't even ride Campy chains with Campy...but I believe there is a pretty good following for that pricey chain tool. But again, I don't think it is at the root of any fiscal calculus, but it doesn't hurt. I do own a lot of Park tools and btw the Campy UT bearing tool because it just isn't easy to pluck bearings from Campy UT spindles without one. I have the one made by Park. As it turns out, there aren't a lot of specialty tools for a bicycle...a few come in handy however.
Campag4life is offline  
Old 11-28-13, 06:33 PM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,075
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
I'm not saying anyone needs or should buy a Campagnolo chain tool, but when compared to standard tools, it is in another league. Comparing a park chain tool to a Campagnolo chain tool is like comparing super record to shimano tourney. Tourney does the job but the fit, finish, materials and precision don't match "expensive stuff."
thirdgenbird is offline  
Old 11-28-13, 06:40 PM
  #28  
Mr. Dopolina
 
Bob Dopolina's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,217

Bikes: KUUPAS, Simpson VR

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Liked 117 Times in 41 Posts
The Campagnolo chain tool wasn't conceived as a product to sell, it was designed out of necessity. When they developed the 11 spd chain, existing tools couldn't peen as was needed. Now there are other chain tools, that come in at a much lower price, that can do the job.

Frankly, a quality chain tool is one tool worth investing in regardless of which group you use. I put it on a short list with chain whips and a lockring tool as essentials.
__________________
BDop Cycling Company Ltd.: bdopcycling.com, facebook, instagram



Bob Dopolina is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 05:17 AM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Shimano and Sram did not sign up for it. WE as consumers sign up for these things..... they call it advancement..... 6sp shifted amazingly well, in dirt/ rain/ shine/ rusty chain..... to me 10sp is/ was the limit of shifting performance/ durability/ tolerance. But don't worry, 12/13/14sp is just around the corner....

Originally Posted by Campag4life
Another poster argued that 11s shifts better than 10. Since 11s uses the same freehub as 10 and has tighter spacing between cogs, then statistically you are probably right...the same (as 10s) magnitude of derailleur misalignment likely manifests greater shifter error i.e. pulley to cog centerline misalignment as you say. This seemed to be reported early on more than it is today as 11s has been out quite a while now and I am not aware of any sweeping changes though likely there have been incremental refinements. It is also one of the reasons Shimano didn't even try to put 11 cogs on their shorter freehub and opted for a fractionally longer freehub than Campy even though for all intents, cassette cogs line right up from 1 to 11 between all manufacturers now. So in effect, Shimano and Sram both signed up for the shifter error you say is less than ideal. See below.
soulbike is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 06:25 AM
  #30  
Voice of the Industry
 
Campag4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by soulbike
Shimano and Sram did not sign up for it. WE as consumers sign up for these things..... they call it advancement..... 6sp shifted amazingly well, in dirt/ rain/ shine/ rusty chain..... to me 10sp is/ was the limit of shifting performance/ durability/ tolerance. But don't worry, 12/13/14sp is just around the corner....
You don't get it. If Shimano and Sram engineers and their management, didn't think that identical tooth spacing to Campy wouldn't shift flawlessly or close to, they wouldn't have released this design. They wouldn't have based their companies' futures on this decision. Yes there was marketing pressure for both Shimano and Sram to change their groupset design to one more cog to compete with Campy which has been 11s for three years now. If you put the collective of engineers of all three companies, in a room, they would agree to one thing. That support of more cogs in back promotes a wider dropout width, i.e. 135mm. No doubt the market will embrace this change at some point with growing cogs in back for tighter gear spacing and advent of disk brakes on road bikes. As the poster stated previously, craming more cogs in the same lateral space mandates a narrower chain and theoretically greater shift error for the same level of derailleur maladjustment/misalignment. A wider freehub/cassette and narrower hub in the same dropout width, creates a higher dish and less stable rear wheel. If you ever sat in meetings where these things are hashed out, it is clear that there is no clean decision because there is no such thing. Shimano would have liked to see the industry morph to 135mm drop out spacing prior to releasing 11s to make room for 12s. This was likely part of their wait and see calculus of going 11s btw...not unlike their wait and see posture on BB30...seeing if it is here to stay or a passing trend. What every tech company struggles with is....a wait and see shift in technology...or lead the charge, versus the marketing fallout of not having a competitive product and losing revenue. This is always a deliberate decision and not arbitrary based upon opportunity cost and potential loss in revenue versus having a product perform less than perfectly when making a design change with compromised performance...which does happen. The Power Torque Campy crank in fact falls in this category. An inferior design to UT, that many will find still acceptable, that because of patents and manufacturing cost, Campy will make greater profit and have an opportunity to diversify their product mix in the hope of upselling to higher price groupsets and having a lower cost alternative to compete with more bread and butter groupsets.

So the poster that said, in his experience that the tighter cog spacing of 11s with narrower chain is a more finicky groupset...is likely correct. But to others, this small difference doesn't matter versus the benefit of having another cog in back. The point is Shimano and Sram finally jumped on the bandwagon of 11s with the same spacing as Campy and the engineers at all three companies fully understand the tradeoffs...and they exist for sure.
Campag4life is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 08:02 AM
  #31  
Senior Member
 
jr59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: the 904, Jax fl
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Back on point.

If I was being frugal, I would buy the Athena, with Chorus shifters. This set up allows the multi shifts and bumps you to 11 speed, at a much lower cost than full Record or Chorus.

It also works great.
jr59 is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 08:12 AM
  #32  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Saddle Bunch Key
Posts: 17

Bikes: the 2 wheeled kind

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Unless you anticipate drastic improvements coming from that eleventh cog, I'd stick with the 10. pretty good deals to be had on 10 as many need to have the next new thing, regardless of price or actual benefit.

I have Daytona (Centaur) 10 on a 2001 Bianchi and Record 10 on my 2010 Lynskey. There is a difference, but not a dramatic difference. I think if I had it to do again, I'd go Chorus on the Lynskey. Just replaced the Record cassette with Chorus. The ti cogs seemed to wear a lot quicker than normal. Chorus, to me, seems to be the sweet spot now with Campagnolo, price to benefit wise.
Black Beer is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 09:21 AM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by Campag4life
This was likely part of their wait and see calculus of going 11s btw...not unlike their wait and see posture on BB30...seeing if it is here to stay or a passing trend.
All true. The interesting thing is that Shimano isn't just waiting to see what happens with press-fit BBs, to decide which way they want to go. They are actively trying to discourage the development. They must have a preference. Which is it, yea or nay? Well let's see. They have the marketing power to solidify the success of press-fit BBs of one design or another. To make their preferred embodiment a success, all they have to do is adopt it, and the deal is done. But ironically they don't have the power to singlehandedly kill it. Nevertheless by not adopting it, they are sending a clear message: "We don't want it and are hoping our reticence helps to kill it." It will be interesting to see how long it takes them to get the message that they should have just gotten on board and made life easier for themselves and others right from the start. A classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
rpenmanparker is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 10:18 AM
  #34  
Voice of the Industry
 
Campag4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
All true. The interesting thing is that Shimano isn't just waiting to see what happens with press-fit BBs, to decide which way they want to go. They are actively trying to discourage the development. They must have a preference. Which is it, yea or nay? Well let's see. They have the marketing power to solidify the success of press-fit BBs of one design or another. To make their preferred embodiment a success, all they have to do is adopt it, and the deal is done. But ironically they don't have the power to singlehandedly kill it. Nevertheless by not adopting it, they are sending a clear message: "We don't want it and are hoping our reticence helps to kill it." It will be interesting to see how long it takes them to get the message that they should have just gotten on board and made life easier for themselves and others right from the start. A classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
BB30 isn't dying for a reason Robert. It has many positive virtues. As discussed, no single design is all encompassing or optimizes every performance parameter, from weight to stiffness, to serviceability to cost to Q factor etc. If a value analysis is performed BB30 beats external threaded. Campy has just joined the fray and believe Shimano will in 2015....just a guess. Campy was more motivated because their press fit spindle bearings are very problematic to adapting to BB/PF30 which pretty much all top end race frames are now. So Campy had more incentive. Shimano cranks adapt well to BB30 for what they are.

There is a bit more. If you take a BB30 crank off of a bicycle, assemble it and consider the design, it is the most simple and elegant crank ever devised since the inception of the bicycle. Many take exception to Loctite bearings and delrin bushings etc, but look what is happening there. Companies like Praxis and C-bear are coming out with PF30 alternative. So if you step back a bit and consider the excellence of a BB30 crank merging with a refinement to a PF30 BB which precludes press in bearings...this will likely be more of the future...or at least that will be a popular option to gluing in bearings which many find repugnant.

Other thing comparing the two different BB types is...and this resonates with me....the co-axiality of a threaded BB will never match the machined ID bores of BB30 when a CNC machine head works off a single datum. There is more tolerance in the lack of center shared by two separate threads. What this does is introduce more bearing drag because for English threaded, each side of the BB doesn't share the same centerline compared to BB30. Hence a straight crank spindle, also with tolerance and runnout won't spin as freely on an English threaded BB where centerlines of each side are determined by cut or rolled threads on each side. But this is incremental and only a matter of degree. So yet another check on the benefit side of why BB30 and PF30 are going to be around for a while. I believe there will be continued refinement of the integrated BB itself and even more options to connect the bearings to the BB shell as an alternative to Locite. This is already in evidence with an expanding collet BB like Praxis and even integrated bearings into bushings like C-bear with a long press that takes a lot of the variation out of PF30 because the bearings can't squirm around in Delrin bushings and there is only one interface to deal with bushing pushed into through bore pure carbon hole. I admit to being surprised that PF30 hasn't completely obsoleted BB30 but we will see over time. Given a choice of frameset, I would prefer PF30 because of all the great BB options already on the market. Even regular PF30 can be made to work just fine with proper set up. As to crank, BB/PF30 cranks are excellent and check all the boxes.

Last edited by Campag4life; 12-01-13 at 05:08 AM.
Campag4life is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 10:24 AM
  #35  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sorry I don't get it, and sorry I can't read the minds of other people like you..... no one can say with certainty why companies make the decisions they do, I wouldn't pretend to know why I do what I do everyday let alone why people do what they do.... and yes I have sat in meetings where these things hashed out.... and no, many decisions are based on simpler reasons and less over-analysis.

The answer is still stick with Campy 10sp.

Originally Posted by Campag4life
You don't get it. If Shimano and Sram engineers and their management, didn't think that identical tooth spacing to Campy wouldn't shift flawlessly or close to, they wouldn't have released this design. They wouldn't have based their companies' futures on this decision. Yes there was marketing pressure for both Shimano and Sram to change their groupset design to one more cog to compete with Campy which has been 11s for three years now. If you put the collective of engineers of all three companies, in a room, they would agree to one thing. That support of more cogs in back promotes a wider dropout width, i.e. 135mm. No doubt the market will embrace this change at some point with growing cogs in back for tighter gear spacing and advent of disk brakes on road bikes. As the poster stated previously, craming more cogs in the same lateral space mandates a narrower chain and theoretically greater shift error for the same level of derailleur maladjustment/misalignment. A wider freehub/cassette and narrower hub in the same dropout width, creates a higher dish and less stable rear wheel. If you ever sat in meetings where these things are hashed out, it is clear that there is no clean decision because there is no such thing. Shimano would have liked to see the industry morph to 135mm drop out spacing prior to releasing 11s to make room for 12s. This was likely part of their wait and see calculus of going 11s btw...not unlike their wait and see posture on BB30...seeing if it is here to stay or a passing trend. What every tech company struggles with is....a wait and see shift in technology...or lead the charge, versus the marketing fallout of not having a competitive product and losing revenue. This is always a deliberate decision and not arbitrary based upon opportunity cost and potential loss in revenue versus having a product perform less than perfectly when making a design change with compromised performance...which does happen. The Power Torque Campy crank in fact falls in this category. An inferior design to UT, that many will find still acceptable, that because of patents and manufacturing cost, Campy will make greater profit and have an opportunity to diversify their product mix in the hope of upselling to higher price groupsets and having a lower cost alternative to compete with more bread and butter groupsets.

So the poster that said, in his experience that the tighter cog spacing of 11s with narrower chain is a more finicky groupset...is likely correct. But to others, this small difference doesn't matter versus the benefit of having another cog in back. The point is Shimano and Sram finally jumped on the bandwagon of 11s with the same spacing as Campy and the engineers at all three companies fully understand the tradeoffs...and they exist for sure.
soulbike is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 11:25 AM
  #36  
Voice of the Industry
 
Campag4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by soulbike
Sorry I don't get it, and sorry I can't read the minds of other people like you..... no one can say with certainty why companies make the decisions they do, I wouldn't pretend to know why I do what I do everyday let alone why people do what they do.... and yes I have sat in meetings where these things hashed out.... and no, many decisions are based on simpler reasons and less over-analysis.

The answer is still stick with Campy 10sp.
Nothing to be sorry about. People can't help what they are really. Good luck with your simple view.
And, no surprise, you are wrong about sticking with 10s as well.

OP...
on a shoe string...buy Campy separates new off ebay or UK.

Athena 11s front and rear derailleur...silver or black.
Athena cassette..or cheapest Campy 11s cassette you can find with the ratios you like
Any 2006 or later Ultra Torque crank. As I stated earlier, if you have BB30, you don't want to ride a Campy crank...or others are easier to adapt.
Chorus shifters.
KMC 11s chain with missing link

You will have the benefit of Ultra Torque crank and multiple shift capability. Hard to find 2010 Centaur multiple shift 10s shifters and you can't have mine.
Campag4life is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 11:38 AM
  #37  
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I have both campy record 10 and 11, to be honest both work perfectly. Other than an extra gear, not a whole lot of difference to me. Both have been trouble free, except one shifter rebuild on the 10, but after 6 years it deserved a little love.
chuck r is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 11:44 AM
  #38  
Senior Member
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865

Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times in 1,417 Posts
Another vote for sticking with Campy 10.
caloso is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 05:31 PM
  #39  
Senior Member
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by Campag4life
BB30 isn't dying for a reason Robert. It has many positive virtues. As discussed, no single design is all encompassing or optimizes every performance parameter, from weight to stiffness, to serviceability to cost to Q factor etc. If a value analysis is performed BB30 beats external threaded. Campy has just joined the fray and believe Shimano will in 2015....just a guess. Campy was more motivated because their press fit spindle bearings are very problematic to adapting to BB/PF30 which pretty much all top end race frames are now. So Campy had more incentive. Shimano cranks adapt well to BB30 for what they are. There is a bit more. If you take a BB30 crank off of a bicycle, assemble it and consider the design, it is the most simple and elegant crank ever devised since the inception of the bicycle. Many take exception to Loctite bearings and delrin bushings etc, but look what is happening there. Companies like Praxis and C-bear are coming out with PF30 alternative. So if you step back a bit and consider the excellence of a BB30 crank merging with a refinement to a PF30 BB which precludes press in bearings...this will likely be more of the future...or at least that will be a popular option to gluing in bearings which many find repugnant.
The other thing I read comparing the two BB's is...and this resonates with me....the co-axiality of a threaded BB will never match the machined ID of BB30 when a CNC machine head works off a single datum. There is more tolerance in the lack of center shared by two separate threads. What this does is introduce more bearing drag because each side of the BB does share the same centerline compared to BB30 and hence a straight crank spindle, also with tolerance and runnout won't spin as freely. So another reason. BB30 and PF30 are going to be around for quite a while because of many reasons. But what you will see is refinement of the BB itself and different options to connect the bearings to the BB shell. BB30 cranks are excellent and check all the boxes.
I do agree with everything you said regarding technical superiority and desirability of BB30 as well as the likely improvements down the road. I'm not sure you understood my intent. I never suggested press fit BBs were disadvantaged in the marketplace and likely to die off. Rather I was just saying that Shimano's stance signals more than just a desire to wait and see. It appears to me to have been an active attempt to kill the development. I don't think a company like Shimano can be neutral about a thing like this. Somebody smaller, yes, but a behemoth like Shimano, not so. Considering that Shimano's adoption of one type of press fit BB could have firmly established the dominance of that design (such is Shimano's market dominance, volume wise, not necessarily desirability-wise), their rejection of that position must be an active attempt to kill them all. In other words, Shimano as a leader, not a follower, could have picked the winner. By not doing so it sent a clear message that no winner was desired. At least that is my guess.
rpenmanparker is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 05:48 PM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
mapeiboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto , Ontario , Canada
Posts: 542

Bikes: Colnago EP with Campy chorus

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I have 10 and 11 campy on my bikes . I really can not tell the difference when it comes to shifting . I bought both 10 and 11 speed chain tool so I can replace the chain every 2000 miles . Those tools are not cheap !
mapeiboy is offline  
Old 11-29-13, 05:51 PM
  #41  
Senior Member
 
halfspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SE Minnesota
Posts: 12,275

Bikes: are better than yours.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by mapeiboy
I have 10 and 11 campy on my bikes . I really can not tell the difference when it comes to shifting . I bought both 10 and 11 speed chain tool so I can replace the chain every 2000 miles . Those tools are not cheap !
They are also completely unnecessary.
__________________
Telemachus has, indeed, sneezed.
halfspeed is offline  
Old 11-30-13, 06:40 AM
  #42  
Voice of the Industry
 
Campag4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
I do agree with everything you said regarding technical superiority and desirability of BB30 as well as the likely improvements down the road. I'm not sure you understood my intent. I never suggested press fit BBs were disadvantaged in the marketplace and likely to die off. Rather I was just saying that Shimano's stance signals more than just a desire to wait and see. It appears to me to have been an active attempt to kill the development. I don't think a company like Shimano can be neutral about a thing like this. Somebody smaller, yes, but a behemoth like Shimano, not so. Considering that Shimano's adoption of one type of press fit BB could have firmly established the dominance of that design (such is Shimano's market dominance, volume wise, not necessarily desirability-wise), their rejection of that position must be an active attempt to kill them all. In other words, Shimano as a leader, not a follower, could have picked the winner. By not doing so it sent a clear message that no winner was desired. At least that is my guess.
Sorry, but I just don't agree with this. Shimano doesn't have much of a vote. In fact, they are complicit in the proliferation of yet another integrated BB design. Their wait and see posture isn't really a function of press fit, either bushing or bearing into carbon shell, but rather crank length. BB30/PF30 takes on many forms...not so much in bearing to shell interface but in spindle length. Both Trek and Cervelo...have long BB shells in an effort to widen chainstay interface to the BB making this junction stiffer and more efficient for energy transfer...and also reduce weight by thinning out chainstay wall thickness by increasing section. So BB30/PF30 is complex because of all the forms it now takes on bikes.

A notable example of Shimano's support of an integrated BB. Scott and Shimano working together came up with the BB83/BB86, often referred to as the 'Shimano system'...but not by Shimano. It accepts Shimano's std. 24 X 90mm road crank or 24 x 95mm mtb crank spindle. The shell is 86.5mm long with a 41mm I.D. hole. Bearings used are 37mm OD similar to external bearing OD however are 'pressed into' a nylon bushing with companion 41mm OD that are pressed into the BB shell. Each bushing has a 1.75mm lip that brings total BB width to 90mm to match Shimano crank length...hence the BB90 name.

In summary, Shimano supports press fit, 'when it serves their purposes' of not tooling another crank. They have no power to kill press fit bearing BB's and by the example above have promoted yet another iteration. As stated, press fit BB's aren't going anywhere because their benefits outweigh their downside. So Shimano isn't waiting as much for press in bearing BB's to disappear...they know they won't...but rather if the industry moves more toward a wider BB shell like Trek and Cervelo and Scott. The wider trend has value because of rear triangle stiffness and all it does is move bearing normally positioned outside the BB shell with English threaded BB's to being pressed into a wider shell....bearings same width apart.
Campy for example is embracing more traditional BB30 and PF30 shell width of 68mm. I would not be surprised to see either company release a 30mm dia spindle with length of 90mm to match wider shell bikes which are popular noted above.

Last edited by Campag4life; 11-30-13 at 06:46 AM.
Campag4life is offline  
Old 11-30-13, 07:17 AM
  #43  
Senior Member
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by Campag4life
Sorry, but I just don't agree with this. Shimano doesn't have much of a vote. In fact, they are complicit in the proliferation of yet another integrated BB design. Their wait and see posture isn't really a function of press fit, either bushing or bearing into carbon shell, but rather crank length. BB30/PF30 takes on many forms...not so much in bearing to shell interface but in spindle length. Both Trek and Cervelo...have long BB shells in an effort to widen chainstay interface to the BB making this junction stiffer and more efficient for energy transfer...and also reduce weight by thinning out chainstay wall thickness by increasing section. So BB30/PF30 is complex because of all the forms it now takes on bikes.

A notable example of Shimano's support of an integrated BB. Scott and Shimano working together came up with the BB83/BB86, often referred to as the 'Shimano system'...but not by Shimano. It accepts Shimano's std. 24 X 90mm road crank or 24 x 95mm mtb crank spindle. The shell is 86.5mm long with a 41mm I.D. hole. Bearings used are 37mm OD similar to external bearing OD however are 'pressed into' a nylon bushing with companion 41mm OD that are pressed into the BB shell. Each bushing has a 1.75mm lip that brings total BB width to 90mm to match Shimano crank length...hence the BB90 name.

In summary, Shimano supports press fit, 'when it serves their purposes' of not tooling another crank. They have no power to kill press fit bearing BB's and by the example above have promoted yet another iteration. As stated, press fit BB's aren't going anywhere because their benefits outweigh their downside. So Shimano isn't waiting as much for press in bearing BB's to disappear...they know they won't...but rather if the industry moves more toward a wider BB shell like Trek and Cervelo and Scott. The wider trend has value because of rear triangle stiffness and all it does is move bearing normally positioned outside the BB shell with English threaded BB's to being pressed into a wider shell....bearings same width apart.
Campy for example is embracing more traditional BB30 and PF30 shell width of 68mm. I would not be surprised to see either company release a 30mm dia spindle with length of 90mm to match wider shell bikes which are popular noted above.
Good points. Maybe two sides of the same coin. Let's leave it here.
rpenmanparker is offline  
Old 11-30-13, 05:55 PM
  #44  
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I didn’t mean to pose a question then disappear for a while. Got busier than I expected and there is no Thanksgiving or Black Friday here. First, thank you all for taking the time to offer your advice. I didn’t expect this question to get as long and lively as it did…


I think jr59’s (and Campy4life) advice to go with the Chorus shifter then use Athena for the rest is very interesting. My main concern was buying new 10s stuff then the multi-shift shifters crapping out on me. So I need to look into Drew Eckhardt’s info that Campy sells replacement shift mechanisms. If that is the case, then I’ll gladly keep my 10s. Still gonna get rid of that FSA Gossamer crank though. Carpediemracing, I did think about replacing the rings, but the FSA BB bearings haven’t been widely known for reliability either (although mine have been fine). Hammering the spindle onto a Shimano BB also doesn’t sound worthwhile. Especially when I could just get a Centaur crank for not much more money.


Campy4life: I agree Shimano and SRAM parts are good. I have both on my mountain bikes. But the few times I had a warranty problem, Shimano and the bike maker blew me off. Campy cheerfully replaced parts practically no questions asked. Thus, my next round goes to Campy.


My BB is a regular 68 English (no BB30). So I’d prefer an UltraTorque too, as it seems easiest to service. Although, as I said, my FSA has been ok, unlike some others I've read about.


I am not on a shoestring, I want value for my money - not buying just for bling. So thank you to those of you who reinforced my thought that Chorus 11 is the best value. I may just go that route (with an Athena cassette as a nod to my stingy nature).
alfmil is offline  
Old 11-30-13, 06:31 PM
  #45  
Voice of the Industry
 
Campag4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by alfmil
I didn’t mean to pose a question then disappear for a while. Got busier than I expected and there is no Thanksgiving or Black Friday here. First, thank you all for taking the time to offer your advice. I didn’t expect this question to get as long and lively as it did…


I think jr59’s (and Campy4life) advice to go with the Chorus shifter then use Athena for the rest is very interesting. My main concern was buying new 10s stuff then the multi-shift shifters crapping out on me. So I need to look into Drew Eckhardt’s info that Campy sells replacement shift mechanisms. If that is the case, then I’ll gladly keep my 10s. Still gonna get rid of that FSA Gossamer crank though. Carpediemracing, I did think about replacing the rings, but the FSA BB bearings haven’t been widely known for reliability either (although mine have been fine). Hammering the spindle onto a Shimano BB also doesn’t sound worthwhile. Especially when I could just get a Centaur crank for not much more money.


Campy4life: I agree Shimano and SRAM parts are good. I have both on my mountain bikes. But the few times I had a warranty problem, Shimano and the bike maker blew me off. Campy cheerfully replaced parts practically no questions asked. Thus, my next round goes to Campy.


My BB is a regular 68 English (no BB30). So I’d prefer an UltraTorque too, as it seems easiest to service. Although, as I said, my FSA has been ok, unlike some others I've read about.


I am not on a shoestring, I want value for my money - not buying just for bling. So thank you to those of you who reinforced my thought that Chorus 11 is the best value. I may just go that route (with an Athena cassette as a nod to my stingy nature).
My advice based upon what you wrote since you aren't on a shoestring but want value...I have the same view btw....ebay your current groupset...sell the parts separately on ebay...and buy a complete Chorus 11s groupset out of the UK. You will have no regrets. UT + multiple shifting is the way to go...especially since you have a threaded BB. Chorus or Record is functional art and you will enjoy it for many years to come. UT crank blows that FSA crank away, not only in beauty but function and serviceability. One further tip is...don't mess with the Campy or Park chain tool and rivet the chain together. Instead, get a KMC Missing link for 11s which works fine with the Campy chain. After you wear out the Campy chain, consider a KMC 11s chain if you can't find a real good deal on a Campy chain. KMC link is much easier to deal with and you don't need a special chain tool. Btw, Park makes chain master link pliers that make removal of the Missing link a literal snap...versus using needle nose.
Have fun.

Last edited by Campag4life; 12-01-13 at 04:52 AM.
Campag4life is offline  
Old 12-01-13, 06:20 PM
  #46  
Senior Member
 
tony2v's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: National City, CA
Posts: 590

Bikes: 1975 Albert Eisentraut, 1992 Bill Davidson, 2006 Moots Compact, 2007 KHS Solo-One, 2010 Van Dessel Drag Strip Courage, 2013 Alchemy Xanthus, 2016 Breadwinner Lolo, 2018 Moots VaMoots RSL, 2019 Chapter2 Tere Disc, 2020 Chapter2 Ao Limited Edition

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked 32 Times in 16 Posts
I don't think Campy makes an Athena 11 speed cassette. I use Veloce 10sp cassettes on my Campy 10sp setup. The cheapest Campy 11 I use is Chorus on my Record 11 setup. Campy shows Chorus sprockets on the Athena groupset.
tony2v is offline  
Old 12-01-13, 06:24 PM
  #47  
Senior Member
 
eja_ bottecchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,791
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1020 Post(s)
Liked 463 Times in 293 Posts
Originally Posted by tony2v
I don't think Campy makes an Athena 11 speed cassette. I use Veloce 10sp cassettes on my Campy 10sp setup. The cheapest Campy 11 I use is Chorus on my Record 11 setup. Campy shows Chorus sprockets on the Athena groupset.
You are right about this.
eja_ bottecchia is offline  
Old 12-01-13, 07:08 PM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
tony2v's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: National City, CA
Posts: 590

Bikes: 1975 Albert Eisentraut, 1992 Bill Davidson, 2006 Moots Compact, 2007 KHS Solo-One, 2010 Van Dessel Drag Strip Courage, 2013 Alchemy Xanthus, 2016 Breadwinner Lolo, 2018 Moots VaMoots RSL, 2019 Chapter2 Tere Disc, 2020 Chapter2 Ao Limited Edition

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked 32 Times in 16 Posts
But us Campy 11sp users can now use a Shimano/SRAM 11 sp wheel.
So what's the cheapest Shimano/SRAM cassette option?
tony2v is offline  
Old 12-02-13, 09:43 AM
  #49  
Voice of the Industry
 
Campag4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by tony2v
But us Campy 11sp users can now use a Shimano/SRAM 11 sp wheel.
So what's the cheapest Shimano/SRAM cassette option?
If you go this route, I would opt for an Ultegra 6800 cassette. Shimano tends to have a better rep for cassettes compared to Sram. They also aren't that expensive and certainly more cost effective than a Chorus 11s cassette which tend to run around $150 or about 50% more than a Veloce or Centaur 10s cassette. Of course you have to have the new 11s Shimano freehub wheelset...or rear wheel.
I admit to being slightly shocked that 11s cog spacing is so close now between top three groupset makers. Especially when Shimano had a significant opportunity to stay different 'enough' from Campy but didn't. I believe 130mm drop out spacing forced this because Shimano didn't want to go any more wheel dish than they already did.
Campag4life is offline  
Old 12-02-13, 10:05 AM
  #50  
Senior Member
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by thirdgenbird
I'm not saying anyone needs or should buy a Campagnolo chain tool, but when compared to standard tools, it is in another league. Comparing a park chain tool to a Campagnolo chain tool is like comparing super record to shimano tourney. Tourney does the job but the fit, finish, materials and precision don't match "expensive stuff."
I completely disagree. I have used both the Campy 11 speed chain tool and the Park. I find them both well made and completely competent. For either the home or professional mechanic the Campy tool would be a total waste of money IMO. Much more expensive with no benefit in return. Dressing it up to look more expensive in no way makes it better.
rpenmanparker is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.