Author Topic: Campag nolo compatability  (Read 642 times)

Campag nolo compatability
« on: October 16, 2020, 06:59:20 am »
My bike has 2005 Campag centaur groupset. After a falling off my rear mech  was irreparable damaged so I replaced it with a new Veloce rear mech. The shifting was not great I couldn't seem to get the indexing right so resorted to Rivendell bar end shifters. Ideally I'd prefer to use ergo shifters. Is the pull ratio different between older 2005 Centaur and 2019 Veloce. The bike is a  steel frame Longstaff and the gear hanger is part of the frame. It appears undamaged and aligned OK. Does anyone have experience of this?

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2020, 07:16:53 am »
Pull ratio and rear mech shape changed in 2011.  There is a compatibility chart in the Campag Tech Specs of that year (I imagine that is where you will find it, I have a pdf copy) which shows that 2011 10 speed rear mechs are not compatible with pre 2011 10 speed Ergo levers.  I suggest that eBay or elsewhere might source a suitable mech.

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2020, 08:00:07 am »
Thanks Tatana. Explains a lot. Stupid Campag. I'll sell my triple centaur ergos and make do with the bar ends.
They do work although a bit agricultural. No good in a group ride but on a solo my ears are on full alert for any clicking. Still miffed though

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2020, 08:23:33 am »

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2020, 09:12:43 am »
You’d be much worse off with Shimano, compatibility between versions is much more of an issue with their parts.
There are lots of older Campag parts on EBay, and people like Universal Cycle Centre ( Dave Marsh) have pretty good stocks, and lots of knowledge.

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2020, 10:56:40 am »
Pull ratio and rear mech shape changed in 2011. 

it is not as simple as that; see post from gfk-velo here;

https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=91451&p=832637&hilit=compatibility#p832637

cheers

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2020, 01:16:53 pm »
Pull ratio and rear mech shape changed in 2011. 

it is not as simple as that; see post from gfk-velo here;

https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=91451&p=832637&hilit=compatibility#p832637

cheers

Well, I can see why you linked rather than explaining that yourself! Who said Shimano is more complex?

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2020, 03:37:07 pm »
If I’m reading it correctly, Velotech are saying that all 10 speed are compatible in terms of cable pull, but not spring balance between ergo lever and rear mech?
So maybe a rear mech of Centaur or above flavour could solve the OPs issue ( together with a careful check of cable run and rear hanger alignment using an alignment tool).
Ergo lever springs are an area of some discussion at times. A friend, who trained at Campagnolo in Italy, always strengthens the springs when doing repairs.
Campag did produce a run of levers with stronger than normal springs, at the request of some pro teams. These were not generally available to the public, and are identified by red rather than white graphics.

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2020, 04:04:09 pm »
Mercian show both standard and strong G springs in their spares.  I recently bought some standard ones from them, and other bits.  https://www.merciancycles.co.uk/product-category/campagnolo-ergospares/

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2020, 04:33:49 pm »
A mine of information here. I read the  links regarding compatability and stronger springs etc. For me, I just CBA fettling internal gubbins of 15 year old ergos. The bar ends do work very well, so I'll carry on with them. Funny thing is some young cycling buddies have never seen bar end shifters. I'll clean the ergos and ebay them. Thanks all.

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2020, 10:35:23 pm »
There are lots of older Campag parts on EBay...
+1. Especially derailleurs.

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2020, 03:18:02 pm »
Pull ratio and rear mech shape changed in 2011.  There is a compatibility chart in the Campag Tech Specs of that year (I imagine that is where you will find it, I have a pdf copy) which shows that 2011 10 speed rear mechs are not compatible with pre 2011 10 speed Ergo levers.  I suggest that eBay or elsewhere might source a suitable mech.

Not quite accurate.
Pull ratio did not change.
As noted elsewhere in the thread, spring strengths in the RD did. In Centaur's case, the spring tension was reduced to that of the current Veloce, in Model Year (MY) 2006.

Confusion arises because in late 2009 / 2010 Campagnolo produced a specifc run on Veloce and Centaur RDs where the spring tension was "upped" to work with 10s UltraShift levers. This also allowed these RDs to work better with older ErgoPower levers of the non-"Escape" design. These mechs were discontinued in MY2011 when PowerShift was introduced and the "current" Veloce and Centaur RDs were introduced.

In fact, RDs designed to work with Escape 10s / PowerShift 10s (the requirements are the same) can work "OK" with older full ErgoPower designs and UltraShift designs but they are not optimal and the combinations are subject to a lot of provisos - cable runs need to be carefully executed and external. Metal ferrules (standard campag spec anyway), Campag inners and outers (in the spec anyway), care to cut the outers very square (in the spec anyway) no cable route through the 'bars ... in these circumstances, the shifting, if correctly set up, works fine but the longevity of the set up in the face of dirt, corrosion, wear and tear is less. The further one moves away from avery standardised set-up, though, the less well / predictably the system works.

I run Centaur UltraShifts with a Centaur RD for Escape, on my turbo-trainer / training bike... however, my chainrings are 53/39, my cassette is 12-25 and my frame is 73.5 seat angle, 407mm chainstays, 130mm rear end and Campag short road dropouts. So about as conventional as it comes. Other people with different arrangements, frame geometries might not find that the shifting works as well.

When Campag spec compatibilities (like Shimano and SRAM) they do so on the basis of averagely-good mechanical practice, a range of frame specs and an assumed rate of wear and tear on components, so their view of compatibility tends towards the conservative.

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2020, 03:25:37 pm »
If I’m reading it correctly, Velotech are saying that all 10 speed are compatible in terms of cable pull, but not spring balance between ergo lever and rear mech?
So maybe a rear mech of Centaur or above flavour could solve the OPs issue ( together with a careful check of cable run and rear hanger alignment using an alignment tool).
Ergo lever springs are an area of some discussion at times. A friend, who trained at Campagnolo in Italy, always strengthens the springs when doing repairs.
Campag did produce a run of levers with stronger than normal springs, at the request of some pro teams. These were not generally available to the public, and are identified by red rather than white graphics.

Yes, basically that is a correct interpretation of my post.

For context, Velotech Cycling Ltd. have been Campagnolo's main technical resource in the UK since 2008 and my own relationship in technical matters with Campag, as MD and head tech at Velotech goes back to 1997, I'm factory trained and assessed on a regular (in a normal year, at least twice-yearly) basis. I'm responsible, through Velotech, for oversight of all technical matters including warranty and technical training of teams, wholesalers, OEMs, the ProShop network and other, independent technicians.

The "Red" levers in the Record range didn't actually have stronger springs. The springs were the same - they simply used a more rigid spring mount ring to give "harder" index points, since the small amount of flex in the composite spring mount rings introduced in 2007 softened the action slightly.

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2020, 03:30:08 pm »
Thanks Tatana. Explains a lot. Stupid Campag. I'll sell my triple centaur ergos and make do with the bar ends.
They do work although a bit agricultural. No good in a group ride but on a solo my ears are on full alert for any clicking. Still miffed though

You just have to follow the published advice which is freely available at the Campagnolo website. "RTFM".

Comanies go to enormous lengths to make information available. It is generally reliable. It's true that it tends to be slightly conservative and it is also based around performance to specification, where the specification may exceed what consumers need, practically - it's also written, these days, with a view to liability issues - however, for that very reason, it is generally more reliable than 90% of what one reads on the interweb ...

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2020, 03:36:46 pm »
Pull ratio and rear mech shape changed in 2011. 

it is not as simple as that; see post from gfk-velo here;

https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=91451&p=832637&hilit=compatibility#p832637

cheers

Well, I can see why you linked rather than explaining that yourself! Who said Shimano is more complex?

Trust me, Shimano can be more complex.
I may specialise in Campagnolo but I work on all systems, generally at the (sometimes very) high end with consumers and with professional teams, some of the World Tour.

The thing is, what "works" is subtly different to what "works to spec" but if you stray out of "works to spec", part of the spec is about durability as well as function and what one customer considers adequate in either sphere, may not be the same as what another customer thinks is adequate.

I have had customers who think downshifting two cogs then upshifting one is perfectly OK to hit the gear that they want, for instance. I'd not let that out of my workshop ... but they're happy.

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #15 on: October 17, 2020, 05:32:30 pm »
Pull ratio and rear mech shape changed in 2011. 

it is not as simple as that; see post from gfk-velo here;

https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=91451&p=832637&hilit=compatibility#p832637

cheers

Well, I can see why you linked rather than explaining that yourself! Who said Shimano is more complex?

Trust me, Shimano can be more complex.
I may specialise in Campagnolo but I work on all systems, generally at the (sometimes very) high end with consumers and with professional teams, some of the World Tour.

The thing is, what "works" is subtly different to what "works to spec" but if you stray out of "works to spec", part of the spec is about durability as well as function and what one customer considers adequate in either sphere, may not be the same as what another customer thinks is adequate.

I have had customers who think downshifting two cogs then upshifting one is perfectly OK to hit the gear that they want, for instance. I'd not let that out of my workshop ... but they're happy.

Thanks for taking the time to post. I was being slightly tongue in cheek with my Shimano comment - in the last few months I’ve had ‘fun’ with internally routed cabling on Shimano 10 speed and with di2 on a short (405mm) but wide (142mm) rear end. I like one gear shift for each and every lever click and a silent drivetrain - normal expectations?

I saw your first post back in 2013 answered another question I resolved this year - the need for a Pista BB with a Pista chainset. Reading back would have saved me a bit of time.

Re: Campag nolo compatability
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2020, 12:07:12 am »

….The thing is, what "works" is subtly different to what "works to spec" but if you stray out of "works to spec", part of the spec is about durability as well as function and what one customer considers adequate in either sphere, may not be the same as what another customer thinks is adequate.....


might I suggest for an encore that you might explain the reasoning behind the current 'alphbetti spaghetti' approach to Campag compatibility?  Most of the older campagnolo compatibility charts admit to only limited compatibility between different groupsets, even though that isn't strictly the case.  The 'new system' with letter marks appears just another way of saying the same kind thing, and there is no reasoning given.

 We don't live in a perfect world and as you have pointed out cyclists vary in their expectations of shift quality and durability. Often it is as simple as sorting out your bike on a Saturday so that you can ride on sunday; 'perfection' is not on the (realistic) wish list, just wanting something that will work reasonably well, temporarily, often is.

In Sutherland's manual it used to give 'B' grade fits for part compatibility. In shimano's EV techdocs it gives 'B' grade part compatibility where the function is perfect but the appearance is different.  However no manufacturer has consistently given indications of 'B' grade compatibility between parts in shifting systems, despite the fact that comparatively few riders stick with a single manufacturer (leave alone a single gruppo)  for every single part of their drivetrain.

[In shimano 9s for example, shimano have never really admitted that their MTB mechs use the same shift ratio as their road mechs, so didn't list 'road' STIs as being compatible with MTB mechs or cassettes. [Everyone ignored them and used this combination anyway.]  I think I finally figured out why a while back; in shimano 9s  MTB and road shifters have one longer cable pull in the middle of the shift sequence, but in a different place. This (I think) arose because of the way shimano built 9s cassettes; there have to be transitions (or 'breaks') within the cassette (eg from 2-ramp sprockets to 3-ramps sprockets) and if this occurs where the guide pulley gap is also larger than normal the shift quality Is affected unless the cable pull is slightly different on that shift. Shimano 9s MTB cassettes have the 'break' in a different place (but similarly sized sprockets) to shimano 'road' cassettes, something like between 4-5 in road and 5-6 in MTB.  In practice most people don't even notice this effect when they use a mismatch.  IMHO Shimano could have done the World a favour by indicating that such combinations would work, but imperfectly perhaps, rather than not mention them at all in their compatibility charts. Other manufacturers could do likewise; not every cyclist is an idiot or has unrealistic expectations when they mix and match parts. In this day and age a lot of riders need a good reason for buying particular kit and I think the manufacturers have largely missed a trick here; mostly they have emphasised increasing non-compatibility rather than increased compatibility, even if that compatibility is imperfect. If it was clearer what might work with what, some manufacturers might sell more kit not less.

So it would be really helpful if instead of just saying 'NO' in those little compatibility table boxes, there was a reason given too.   Who knows, if 'real' compatibility information is made more widely available, it might no longer be the case that 'most of the information on the internet is wrong'.

cheers