jonwvara 

You might need a new chain, too, if you're going from a short-cage to a long-cage derailleur. When I'm installing new chainrings I almost always replace the chain at the same time so that things wear evenly. Other than that I think you mentioned everything. I don't think I've ever had a problem using any double front derailleur with a triple. An NR rear supposedly has a total capacity of 26 teeth. Some people say it will handle up to a 28 tooth cog, but a depending on the derailleur hanger it may not handle anything bigger than 26 teeth, and possibly not even that. You can install a long aftermarket cage made for the NR--there was a separate thread on this not long ago--but the shifting performance is said to be so-so at best. But in my experience, that's true of all older Campagnolo stuff--it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Bad Lag

Thanks for the advise on a new chain. The one I have is almost new. I have spare links for it, too, if I needed to lengthen it for some reason.

As both of you have misunderstood my question, I must have mis-stated it in some way.

The Nuovo Record rear derailleur capacity I would like to know is not the largest cog (although that is good info, I remembered that tidbit) but the maximum difference in number of teeth it can accommodate and still keep the chain taught.

I would really like to stay with these derailleurs, I love them. We are old friends and have no interest in parting ways. I am currently using a 42 X 52 up front and a 14 - 24T, 5 speed freewheel in the rear. This is totally adequate for my needs, even for the climb up the hill as I head inland from the beach to home.

I'm just wanting to figure out if I can derive some benefit from a Triplizer without needing a whole new drivetrain. So far, it does not look too good.

If I needed a new PHIL bottom bracket the change would be even more expensive (~$100). The only good thing I can say about this potential change is it would be almost invisible.

I do have a wide range "touring" derailleurs for the front and rear but do not plan to use them. IIRC, they are Deore XT.

Whit51 

Could I use this thing to create a "touring double" ' say a 46/28' or some kind of microdrive setup (assuming of course the FD can handle it)?

jonwvara 

I think I understood the question, but you may have misunderstood my answer. The 26-tooth "total capacity" figure I quoted is the maximum difference in the number of teeth to keep the chain taut. That's what "total capacity" means. The 26- or 28-tooth maximum cog size is not the same thing as the total capacity--it's a coincidence that 26 teeth applies to both.

jonwvara 

You could do that if I made a 46-tooth triplizer, but I don't. Maybe someday, but I don't see enough demand for it right now. I don't like to exceed a difference of 16 teeth in the front for a wide-range double. I believe that you could put together a super-compact 42-26 double, but you'd probably want an 11-tooth cog in back to give you a reasonable high gear, which would more or less rule out a freewheel rear wheel--you'd need a cassette hub. Unless someone did make a freewheel with an 11-tooth cog and I don't know about it.

pastorbobnlnh 

@jonwvara, I recently rebuilt two Regina corn cobs. One was a 5 speed, 12-13-14-15-16 and the other a 6 speed, 11-12-13-14-15-16. I never knew that Regina actually made one with this low of gearing.

So a 11T vintage freewheel is a possibility. It was a surprise to me.

jonwvara 

11-tooth freewheel cogs? Wow, who knew? I'm glad I left the door open on their possible existence. I should have asked you first.

Bad Lag

Cool, thanks for the clarification.

So, keeping the same rear 14-24 freewheel (10T), I could go 52-42-36 or 52-45-36 (16T). Well, I will have to play with the gear ratios to see what would work best.

jonwvara 

That's about right, but in practice you could probably go significantly smaller than 36 teeth. That's because total capacity figures specified by derailleur manufacturers tend to be conservative--you can usually exceed them by a tooth or two. I'd guess (though my experience with NR derailleurs is limited; maybe someone else will chime in) that you could probably use a 34-tooth small ring with your 14-24 freewheel without having your chain go too slack in the 34-14 combination.

Also, manufacturers assume that riders will use every possible gear combinations, including the maximally cross-chained small-to-small combinations which there's no good reason ever to use. If you pay attention to your shifting and don't use the small-small combination, you can go down another couple of teeth on the granny ring. For example, say that the smallest freewheel cog you will ever use with the granny ring is the 16-tooth one (I'm assuming that your freewheel is a 14-16-18-21-24). That gives you a difference in back of 8 teeth, rather than 10. Since you still have the same total capacity of 28 (remember, we already cheated it up from 26), you can have a difference in front of 20 teeth, since 20+8=28. If you keep the original 52-tooth big ring, you could go as small as a 32-tooth granny and still come out fine. And if you never use anything smaller than the 14-18 combo, you reduce the difference in back to 6 teeth, and could use a granny ring as small as a 30.

Does that make sense? I'm not sure I've explained it clearly.

The key thing is to make sure that your chain is long enough to handle the big-big combination of 52-24. You shouldn't use that gear ordinarily, either, but if you should ever shift onto it by mistake with a too-short chain you can make a bunch of shredded metal and possibly cause a crash. Accidentally shifting onto the small-small combination with a chain that's a little too long, on the other hand, is unlikely to cause any damage as far as I know. You'll typically hear the chain rubbing on the derailleur cage at which point you can just shift into the next larger cog with no harm done.

top506

I'm really not concerned with slack in the small/small combination as the granny gear is a last resort bail-out for me. If there's enough tension on the chain in the 30-28 combo I'm good to go.

Top

old's'cool

Since this is a Triple-izer thread I certainly agree, considering that all the Triple-izers are invariably set up for a "granny" inner chainring. For doubles and more traditional narrow range triples, some might disagree. Speaking for myself, I would never set up a triple bike with intentional use of the small-small combo, or large-large, for that matter. Some of my double bikes have a usable, though infrequently used, small-small combo.

RaleighSport

Now that sounds interesting! Just goes to show you learn something new every day, or at least I do.

dbakl

I'd be interested in a 144 depending on price. Is it similar to the TA design?

pastorbobnlnh 

@jonwvara modeled the Red Clover version directly off of my TA 144BCD triplizer, so it should look very close to what is pictured below.

jimmuller 

I thought about this on my commute yesterday. It (the thought, not the commute) was prompted by an event on the way in to work.

I rarely use the small cog, and when I do it is invariably when I'm on the big ring already. There is one downhill where I can hit 30 without trying. I know because there is an installed radar unit w/display near the bottom approaching a school entrance. Beyond that is about 150yds of run-off to a stoplight, plenty of time to downshift and decelerate. Yesterday on the Masi (it's got a double but the issue is almost the same) I just coasted down that hill; the radar display flashed 36mph in red, but I suspect that was for the car behind me! When I was about 50yds from the entrance the hired rent-a-crossing-guard guy held up a stop sign and waved a car out of the school driveway. I slammed on the brakes as did the car behind me. (The guard gave me a cursory nod and grunt acknowledging his error - he hadn't seen me at all, not the first time he's been unfocused).

When he finally waved us through, had I been on the big-little combination I would have just picked the bike up onto the sidewalk to restore sanity to the gearing. Instead I had been coasting precisely because I'd downshifted and stopped pedaling further up the hill. It had occurred to me at that time that for a quick unexpected downshift I typically hit the front lever. At that kind of speed it's easier to keep the bike steady than shifting the rear. Had I shifted the front I would have gone to the little-little combination, one I tell myself I would never use on purpose.

The point is, expect the unintended. The unexpected will take care of itself. The unintended can surprise you though.

bikemore 

I have a bunch of 144 cranks that I was thinking of dumping, because I like the small front. A triplizer would make a big difference.

SJX426 

That looks good!

jonwvara 

Today at 4:51 PM






I've had a lot of family stuff to attend to for the past two weeks, so have not updated my web site lately--I hope to do that over the weekend. But here are two photos of the first batch of newly-polished 144 triplizers--a front view and a back view. (That's my yard in the background--I think there's some red clover mixed in there somewhere.) The third photo shows the triplizer installed on the Red Clover Components test bike, which our research staff uses at our extensive proving grounds in Lower Cabot. It may be the only Univega Viva Sport in the world equipped with a 144 BCD Campy crankset. I'm virtually sure it's the only one set up with a triplized half-step 46-42-32 front combined with a custom 14-17-21-26-32-38 freewheel. Shifting performance is excellent. The ring on the bike is unpolished but otherwise identical to the pictured polished rings.

As you can see by comparing my ring to Pastor Bob's original TA, mine is very similar. There's one possibly important difference, though: On the TA version, the slots that accommodate the crankset "ledges" fit Record and Nuovo Record cranks, but were reportedly too small to allow them to fit on 144 BCD Gran Sport cranks, which have slightly beefier ledges. I upsized the openings a bit to allow them to fit GS cranks as well, though I haven't yet had a chance to try one on a GS crank.

I don't want to violate the rule on not mentioning prices. I'll update my site with the price now that I know what it is--if you go there before I've made that change you can always PM me.

inkandsilver

Looks great. May I ask why you say on your site to only use these with 6-7-8spd chains? I am under the impression that 9 speed chains will work fine with pretty much any vintage chainring.

pastorbobnlnh 

Jon,



Great work! I know a great deal of C&V enthusiasts will be very pleased. One tip: Add a link to Red Clover in your signature line. As you can see I've gotten away with this for several years.

jonwvara 

I don't know that 9-speed chains won't work, but I'm being somewhat cautious. Since 9-speed chains are a little narrower than 5/6/7/8-speed, there's some chance that the chain could become lodged between chainrings on a crankset with ring spacing designed for wider chains. I don't know how often that might happen--or if it would ever happen--but I would just as soon avoid it altogether.

Does anyone have any direct experience with 9-speed chains on old Campagnolo or Stronglight chainsets? Maybe I'm worrying about a problem that doesn't really exist.

top506

I can't wait for the first batch to sell out. I'll hold the 'I told you so' until then.

Top