Campy Record 2008

[I Want Sachs?]

Does anyone know whether the "upgrade" on the 2008 Record front derailer is really better? Any real life experience?

http://campagnolo.com/pressrel.php?nid=113

[Grant McLean]

I haven't had a chance to get one to try, but I'm pretty certain that the real
reason they have changed the derailleur is to reduce sku's, since the new ones
will replace separate std and compact versions.

When Campaganolo launched the "quick shift" version last year,
you wouldn't believe (maybe you would?) how many of the old version
derailleurs were on close out lists from suppliers.

Adding up the total sku count of Doubles, triples, and compact, each
in 28.6, 32, 35, and b/o versions, there were 12 record front derailleur skus
alone. Multiply that by the total number of different models of grouppos....
oh boy.

Campagnolo pulled the triple groups out of the line, creating a separate line
for those, and then they discontinued the 28.6 clamp front ders, due to
'lack of sales' of those skus. Basically, culled the herd. This new derailleur
is sku control, and nothing more.

g

[I Want Sachs?]

Thanks. That explains it. They try to make it as if this one is better, but I guess we can save more by buying the old 2007 derailers. :)

[Grant McLean]

There are definitely deals to be had when these type of changes occur.
Those aluminum record cranks were practically being given away last fall.

The reason I'm skeptical that shifting performace is enhanced by the derailleur
is that it's mostly the job of the rings and chain to execute the shift.
The derailleur just pushes the chain over, until the pins in the rings grab
the chain, and the shift actually takes place. I guess it's sexy to think
that the expensive derailleurs shift better, but as most people's experience
will show, the derailleurs don't actually have much effect on shifting performance,
they all get the job done. That's why even the mighty dura ace front derailleur
shifts like crap on some FSA cranks. (hey stevep, mark this day on your iCal)

-g

[big shanty]

I got a screaming deal on an '06 Record alloy crank last December. It was ridiculous.

[Avispa]

Now, I prefer the looks of the 2007 QS than the new 2008, this is why: The 07 seems to have a smaller inner plate than the 08. I wonder if there is any benefit for a non-compact crankset to have the larger, inner size plate?

[Grant McLean]

I wonder if there is any benefit for a non-compact crankset to have the larger size plate?

I think the longer inside plate is there for shifting the greater difference
between the two rings with the compact set up.
The original compact design was like that too.

50-34 = 16
53-39 = 14

-g

[cadence90]

I think the longer inside plate is there for shifting the greater difference
between the two rings with the compact set up.
The original compact design was like that too.

50-34 = 16
53-39 = 14

-g
Exactly.
Everything Grant has said in this thread is spot-on, imo.

Including the undue attention on the role of the FD in shifting: I have a standard ('03 or '04) Record FD on a compact crankset (50-36, so it is only a 14t difference, not 16) and have never had any issues. My crankset isn't even Campa. Compact cranksets came out before "compact-specific" FDs did, iirc. When the compact FDs came out I worried that I was missing something...for about 5 seconds. I think it's pretty much a non-issue, if one's set-up is correct.

[Avispa]

I think the longer inside plate is there for shifting the greater difference between the two rings with the compact set up.
The original compact design was like that too....

The BOLD part, I understand. But I guess, my question remains. No need for the larger size inner plate other than added weight if you do not have a compact, right? Sometimes, this is what I hate when companies decide to make one solution to all (non-existent) problems! Oh well... ;)

....This new dérailleur is sku control, and nothing more....

A.

[Grant McLean]

No need for the larger size inner plate other than added weight if you do not have a compact, right? Sometimes, this is what I hate when companies decide to make one solution to all (non-existent) problems! Oh well... ;)

A.

The weight should be very similar. I bet it's less than 5 grams difference.
In the photo, it looks like the cage is lower, not really that much bigger,
just repositioned.

I just hope the new version still works with on a 10 tooth gap, since I roll 52/42
on all my bikes.
The inner plate looks like it might hit the small ring with only the small gap,
otherwise you'd have to raise the derailleur to clear it.

g

[michael white]

I was just looking at those photos with carbon outer plates thinking, jeez, what a totally absurd use of a material!

[Avispa]

...The weight should be very similar. I bet it's less than 5 grams difference....

I was just looking at those photos with carbon outer plates thinking, jeez, what a totally absurd use of a material!

Hey Guys,

You realize that 5 grams is not acceptable for me, do you? Do you know how much all that weight is going to slow me down in Florida's monumental overpasses!!! Ha ha ha!!!! :D :D


I just hope the new version still works with on a 10 tooth gap, since I roll 52/42 on all my bikes.
The inner plate looks like it might hit the small ring with only the small gap,
otherwise you'd have to raise the dérailleur to clear it.


I am actually a spinner... I run 53/39 even in Flat Swamp Kingdom! So, hopefully this new toy will be, as per Campagnolo: "...the system is much more rigid and produces higher shifting performance, especially when shifting up with force from the smallest sprocket to the largest, i.e. at the most critical moment."

A. :)

[davids]

I was just looking at those photos with carbon outer plates thinking, jeez, what a totally absurd use of a material!
Yeah, me too. I don't get it - Why would you use plastic (over the carbon) in a place like that? Or is is just a cosmetic cover (horrors!)?

[stevep]

I haven't had a chance to get one to try, but I'm pretty certain that the real
reason they have changed the derailleur is to reduce sku's, since the new ones
will replace separate std and compact versions.
g

i thk g hit the nail on the head.
front derailleurs are a real money sink throughout the industry.
multiple sizes, multiple models, non interchangeable function, rapid obsolescence.
yeccch.
a lot of dollars tied up in a part that pretty much doesn't break all that often.

[davids]

a lot of dollars tied up in a part that pretty much doesn't break all that often.
So, is that why they're making this one out of carbon? Better breakage?

[Grant McLean]

I was just looking at those photos with carbon outer plates thinking, jeez, what a totally absurd use of a material!

It's really not a big deal. The part of the cage that does the work of shifting
down to the small ring is the same plastic insert that the steel cage versions have.
The insert is replaceable, although i've haven't been able to wear one out.
The inside of the carbon cage has a steel skid plate, so the chain never contacts
the carbon.

The first photo is the older steel version, the other pictures are of the carbon cage.
I've not had any issues with either version.

-g