.

[oliver1850]

.

[CNY rider]

Peter White has some good info on his website.
I think it answers some if not all of your questions.
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/bottombrackets.asp

[Ralph]

The recent Chorus and Record triples used the 111 asymetrical BB.

Centaur used the 111 symetrical BB for a triple with 28.6 seat tube. I use the 111 symetrical Centaur BB with a Centaur triple with a 32 MM seat tube with no problems and plenty of clearance. Chainline OK. The less my right leg sticks out the better I like it.

Phil Wood makes ISO 111 asymetrical and symetrical BB for Campy triples with some side to side adjustability. That makes the most sense to me. When my current BB bites the dust, going to get one. I like near even Q both sides. You can even it up some with side to side cleat adjustment, and spacers between pedal and crank arm. My Look pedals have extra long crank arm bolts to make room for .5 MM pedal washers (or washer).

[Dave]

Having an asymmetrical spindle does not mean that the pedal mounting faces are not centered on the frame.

[Ralph]

Having an asymmetrical spindle does not mean that the pedal mounting faces are not centered on the frame.

Correct.....With symetrical 111 Centaur BB and Centaur triple, I measured the drive side crank "out" from seat tube center about 3/16" more than other side. Some of this could be variation in tolerances I suppose. Never measured the Record/Chorus 111 asymetrical set up. I suspect it's out some also on drive side. It would be interesting to know if the low profile nature of those cranks with a 111 allowed engineers to put the offset on the non drive side to allow centering of the arms, and still keep overall Q within reason....150-155 MM.

I'm pretty sure the 115 Centaur BB for large seat tubes pushes the drive side on Centaur triples out a good bit.

[Dave]

The 115.5mm spindle increases the chainline by 2.5mm from 45mm to 47.5mm, so it should move the left crank out by 2mm. The reason is that the FD may refuse to shift to the little ring with the larger seat tubes, because the FD hits the seat tube, preventing it from moving far enough to the left.

http://www.campagnolo.com/repository/documenti/en/7225254_Crankset-07-05.pdf

[Ralph]

Thanks...that gives clear facts about chainline for the two triples. Looks like the Centaur triple with symetrical 111 puts the chain line out a little less than the Chorus/Record. For me personally....I don't mind if the middle ring of the triple lines up a little inboard of the center of the cassette, if that helps keep the crank arms centered on frame. I still think maybe the Phil Wood ISO is the way to go. With it's side to side adjustment. It also doesn't cost any more than a Campy 111 Record BB.

I would like to measure how the arms center on the Record /Chorus triple. Knowing chainline doesn't tell you Q factors. The cranks (Centaur based and Chorus/Record) are made different.

Dave....have you measured a REcord/Chorus triple?

[oliver1850]

.

[oldpotatoe]

Were the 111mm bbs for Chorus and Record triple cranks symetrical?
Will one of these work with Centaur double cranks?
Will it work with Centaur triple cranks?
Or is it only for use with Chorus and Record triples?

thanks

No, asymmetrical
It will 'work' but the chainline isn't optimum
Samo..crank gets really close to the LH cup since it is bulged..use 111 Chorus, still easy to get
Yes, ideally

[oldpotatoe]

Correct.....With symetrical 111 Centaur BB and Centaur triple, I measured the drive side crank "out" from seat tube center about 3/16" more than other side. Some of this could be variation in tolerances I suppose. Never measured the Record/Chorus 111 asymetrical set up. I suspect it's out some also on drive side. It would be interesting to know if the low profile nature of those cranks with a 111 allowed engineers to put the offset on the non drive side to allow centering of the arms, and still keep overall Q within reason....150-155 MM.

I'm pretty sure the 115 Centaur BB for large seat tubes pushes the drive side on Centaur triples out a good bit.

Actually not that far since some of the additional 4.5mm is on the left hand side also, most on RH side tho.

[Dave]

Dave....have you measured a REcord/Chorus triple?

Sorry, I haven't. I used Campy triple drivetrains for several years, but always used FSA cranks. I want a 53/39/30 or 53/39/28 setup that Campy doesn't offer.

[oliver1850]

.

[Mike748]

With the Phil BB not only can you position the BB left-right with the cups but you can also move the spindle within the bearings as it is just press fit in there. Down side is you can drive yourself nuts like I did trying to get the chain line just so.

[oldpotatoe]

Dave, would the upshift from the middle ring not work well if you replaced the big ring of a 30/40/50 Campy crank with a 53? I know that Campy's big rings are labeled to be used with a specific smaller ring, but I would think the shifting would still be reasonable with a 30/40/53.

Not Dave but the FD is the issue. The 'bumps' for shifting off the middle to the small is optimized
for 52(3) and 42, not 39. 50/40 works fine also but the 'bump on the cage to get the chain to the small ring is too short/too high when you raise the FD to accomodate the 52 or 53t ring.

If you put a 53 and 40 need to have a deeper FD, like DA, 6703, etc.

[Ralph]

Also....In the FWIW department.....I have two Triple Campy front derailleurs. One sold as a Racing T for 8 speed, before 9 came out, but believe identical to 9 Racing T. And newer (unused actually) 2006 Record triple FD.

They are identical....except the FD for 10 is just a tad narrower. I believe, Like oldpotatoe has said, you could use either OK with 10's chain. They are that close to being the same. If anyone goes shopping for one.

And I've been thinking about making one of my triple cranks a 28-39 (or 40)-50. Using a TA ramped ring for middle. I've tried shifting up from a 28 to Campy middle 40, it doesn't shift so good. That would work with the Campy FD.

For my mountain riding I like triples. I like where they position the rings. I like the fact that the 40-50 grams in weight they add (to an alloy double) can be mostly saved using smaller cogs on cassette. I think Campy is making a mistake not continuing to offer them. I do understand why racers don't use a triple.

[Dave]

I had no problems using Campy FDs with a 53/39/28. I once tried a DA triple FD and couldn't get the thing to work well at all.

[veloduffer]

I'm going to convert one of my bikes to a Campy triple. Is there any problem using an Athena 11 FD?

[Dave]

A narrow double 11 speed FD (athena) won't work with a triple. You need to buy a current model Comp triple FD or some other Campy triple FD.

This one looks just like my 2003 Record triple FD.

http://www.campagnolo.com/jsp/en/groupsetdetail/item_derCOMpTRIPLE_catid_8.jsp

[oldpotatoe]

I had no problems using Campy FDs with a 53/39/28. I once tried a DA triple FD and couldn't get the thing to work well at all.

I think it depends on the seatube diameter and how much inward travel the FD has. On a few Serottas(HUGE seatube diameter) I have problems even with 52(3) and 42, not possible with a 52(3) and 39 or 40. In addition, if I can get a lot of inward FD travel, often it requires a chainwatcher of some sort, particularly on smaller frames. I have used shimano Fders made for a 39t middle ring on ERGO with good results but YMMV I guess.

[Dave]

My frames all had 32mm seat tubes and the FSA chainline was 46mm. The only time I had a minor problem was when the 5.9mm chain width came out in 2007. It made just enough difference that the FD would not shift to the little ring. A little squeeze on the cage with a pair of padded pliers narrowed it enough to make it work.

[dana_e]

I sure like the campy triple compared to a compact

With the compact I am always cross chained, lots of flat around here, and then hills

I like the 42 middle ring for the flat.

I am sure it has been discussed to death

D