Cyclocross Magazine

Cyclocross Community, Forums, Classifieds, Photos and Videos

So, I've got several somewhat conflicting setup issues, and limited resource$ of course.

I'm switching my road bike over to Ergopower 10-speed this summer, due to the limited availability of 9sp Ergo, time marches on, whatever.

The new setup will inevitably make it onto my cross bike this fall, since 'cross is way more fun than road riding. This is where the setup issues lie.

I've decided to start with a Compact chainring setup to start, which means a 50/34 in front. A variety of 10sp and even 9sp conversion options exist in the back that are intended to work with a Campy system. However, will the bolt circle diameter on a Campagnolo 10sp compact crank permit the use of any other chainrings more conducive to cross racing? Like, how do I get to a 42x12? Or should I forego the Campy system and get something else like FSA or Ritchey for the cranks instead?

Just wondering if anyone else out there in CXMAG land has a similar setup. Thanks.


Views: 1564

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Interesting. Thanks for the reply. I ran a 50/34 setup last year (my first season), and I definitely want to modify that this year. I'm running a Campy 10-sp drivetrain with a Truvativ Stylo crankset. I'm trying to decide whether I should just buy new rings or just buy a whole new 36/46 crankset. For the price of two chainrings I feel like I might as well 'upgrade' at the same time. :)

The Rotor cranks are totally beautiful, but they're probably a little fancy for my needs. :) For the price of the crankarms & standard bb I can get a set of higher-end fsa/truvativ cranks with chainrings. I'd love to stick with Campy, but the weirdo compact bcd is off-putting, and I prefer the idea of having smaller chainrings and a tighter cassette.
Hi...I was wondering if this new chainring company has made the new rings for cyclocross available?
I ride Campy 9 sp Chorus on my CX bike and found a deal to switch out to an FSA compact 110 BCD crankset. That's the way I went.

I'm not a great wrench, but there shouldn't be any trouble in going to smaller rings, you should just need to take the links out of the chain to make it tight. Maybe you want both rings to be the same MFG just so the ramps all work the same.
Just tried the new carbon QS Centaur Ergos on my "A" bike (just minutes ago, no kidding) and it TOTALLY SUCKS ASS! Tiny shifts, not positive at all. I can just see getting blown off the back at the start with this junk waiting for it to make one-step shifts (it takes it's time about doing it too). Took it off and put the old stuff back on. Much, much better. With all the changes Campy is making to its line (11 speed and ugly shifters and much higher prices) plus dropping the lower end stuff, and ruining its best features with QS (Quasi-Shit - which is all you can get new now unless you buy the top end) it looks like when my current supply of Campy is done, so am I, I hate to say. Think about that when you start going down the Campy road and collecting a barn full of Campy hub wheels like I've got!

Whoever is designing Campy now has ruined the brand, and practically overnight - and this is from a confirmed Campy rider who uses it on everything ...
Don't take this personally but the problems you are experiencing are more than likely setup instead of Campy's poor shifting. Campy front derailleurs like their Record ones for many years require a lot of physical manipulating to acquire a good shift. Also cable housing setup will more often than not be a factor in the poor shifting. However, I run Shimano front ders. on the bike because they shift better under load compared to the Campy ones (something they reckon they are working on for 09)

Shimano are changing their spring tension due to cable drag issues affecting their shifting meaning the smallest dirt in the housing or cable drag greatly affects their shift quality. There's a reason why all those pros in Belgium have shiny housing on their bikes... it's constantly being replaced after every other race.
Oh and we get to thank Lance for the goofy brake lever design on the Shimano levers
Don't worry, I appreciate any suggestions or any criticism of my crazy ideas you have the time to share. I know, I ain't the best wrench on the block so I thought I just routed something "kinky" so I switched back to the old ergos (same cables, housing) and everything was dropping rock solid. (But maybe the new QS is more demanding about routing?) And the problem wasn't with the FD- that actually worked okay, it was the lack of ability to jump down gears with the RD that I found disturbing. It's just the way that thing works, I guess, unless there's some way to pull out the "stops". I think what Campy has done is try to get that easy "clicky" shifting of Shimano instead of the higher-resistant yet more positive "wham-bam-thank-you-mam" campy shift. I think they gave up a good thing. Are you using the QS stuff?

Also: I switched to a Shimano FD from the Campy FD a couple of years ago because I also found it finicky. Again, I thought that might have been my ham-fisted wrenching, but glad to hear there's actually something to it.

Thanks for the input Kiwi, you're always a big help ...

(Speaking of goofy design what is your take on the new Ergo 11 /Super Record hoods?!?!?!?)
hey surly,

fyi, the lack of ability to jump down gears on centaur and lower is the "escape" mechanism on the shifters. sad, cuz that was one of the best things I liked about campy shifters. thus, the older centaur/veloce stuff is better IMHO than the newer stuff. If you can afford chorus/record, then that should be the same.

The QS is for the front derailleur...which from what I've heard, seems to be a good thing, but the Escape stuff sucks.

FYI, I do have a buddy selling his 10s centaur stuff from a few years back... I'll get him to post on the classifieds...
Thanks Andrew. Exactly what I thought about the "Escape". So now is it's Chorus/Record to get that old-style campy performance at a little, err, lot higher price. I've always liked to stay with a little more "disposable" group for cross. Call me cheap but planting carbon Record Ergos in mud, sand, or dirt seems a little extravagant when it's coming out of my pocket ...

Didn't even get to enjoy the QS feature since I needed a QS front mech, apparently, to make it work "Quicker". Let me calculate how much that would cost for each fraction of a second saved for the two chainring shifts I make every lap ... hmmmm. Gee haven't seen numbers like that since calculating the cost/speed ratio of ceramic bearings ...
There's plenty of 9 speed available.
I don't know the size on Campy Compact rings - is it 110? I run all Campy gear on my bikes and opted to go with FSA and some other brand cranks. They are easier to get chainrings for. I don't use compact so with a standard 130 I can go as small as a 38 on the inner. With a 135 Campy you can only go down to 39. Plus Campy rings and stuff are more expensive, etc. You just don't need a Campy crank is what I'm saying ...
Campy Compact Rings = 112 (as I learned nearly two years ago, on this very thread!) I've been using the FSA Energy cranks with 36/46 and 12-25 Campy Chorus for the rest for the past two seasons, and its still rolling well.
actually, to be super specific, there's one hole on the campagnolo compact crank that's 112, and the others are 110. So, ring modification could make it work.


Sold something in our classifieds? Find this site valuable?

Consider a donation to the cause. We're cheaper than eBay fees, and it helps us here at CXM keep the lights on!

Enter any amount below, and click on the cow for some good karma. Thanks!




© 2023   Created by Cyclocross Magazine.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service