campagnolo 53 x 36...any firsthand experience?

[one60]

Wondering if anyone has experience with the new 4-arm Campagnolo cranks & REv+ front derailleur shifting between 53t and 36t chainrings. Have a 53x39 but might want to move to the smaller 36t if its not a big compromise in shift quality.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by one60

Wondering if anyone has experience with the new 4-arm Campagnolo cranks & REv+ front derailleur shifting between 53t and 36t chainrings. Have a 53x39 but might want to move to the smaller 36t if its not a big compromise in shift quality.

I don't but the standard front der is 'rated' at a 16t difference(50/34), the above is 17t...so...I think if you adjust front der well, and reduce pedal pressure when you shift. Hopefully the chain won't drag on front der cage when in small ring and smallish cogs..

[jamesdak]

I would think it'll work just fine if your FD is adjusted properly.

I've been running a 53/34 combination on one bike for years. It's using Wickwerks Chainrings which are amazingly good for shifting due to a unique ramp system that lifts whole sections of the chain vs just one link on a pin.

I'm running just a standard Dura Ace FD to do this with and once the FD was dialed in it worked perfectly. In fact I still consider it my best shifting front end. I'll cleanly be shifted from the 34 to the 53 before I even finish pushing the lever over, never misses.

[vincenz]

I had the same question a while ago when getting a bike with 4 arm campy 11 with 53/39. I was on the verge of getting a 36 to try it, but never did it.

Any others with experience would be nice.

[gfk_velo]

It's been tested extensively with the teams and in the Campy Tech Lab alongside of 52/34.

The general finding is that upshifting is significantly pooerer especially under load and the loadings placed on the Fd and LH shift lever are considerably increased.
The design of the chainrings and the relative placement of the shift zones in relation to the teeth of the inner chainring are both contributors to the problem.

In downshifting, the control of the chain is not as good and downsifts, especially with larger bottom sprockets on frame specs towards the two extremes of the "envelope" that Campagnolo recommend for relative seat / chainstay angles are compromised. Again, shifting under load is far from as predictable as it is with the designed chainring combs of 50/34, 52/36 and 53/39, especially on wider range cassettes.

If it was as simple as just mixing and matching the rings, all manufacturers would probably invite end users to do so - as it is, Shimano, SRAM and Campagnolo all advise against because they are all seeking a system that shifts well and predictably under reasonable loads with as wide arange of cassette sizes as is practical and in as wide a range of frame geometries as possible.

[vincenz]

Thanks for all that! Lot of details there to advise against it. Gotta just push those big boy gears.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by vincenz

Thanks for all that! Lot of details there to advise against it. Gotta just push those big boy gears.

Well, I'd try it..that one tooth isn't a deal breaker and as said, DON'T shift to big ring under YUGE load/pedal pressure and it'll probably be fine.
The 'official' recs say I shouldn't be using an aftermarket 36 and 48t with my EPS..but zounds, I do and it works just fine.

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by gfk_velo

It's been tested extensively with the teams and in the Campy Tech Lab alongside of 52/34.

The general finding is that upshifting is significantly pooerer especially under load and the loadings placed on the Fd and LH shift lever are considerably increased.
The design of the chainrings and the relative placement of the shift zones in relation to the teeth of the inner chainring are both contributors to the problem.

In downshifting, the control of the chain is not as good and downsifts, especially with larger bottom sprockets on frame specs towards the two extremes of the "envelope" that Campagnolo recommend for relative seat / chainstay angles are compromised. Again, shifting under load is far from as predictable as it is with the designed chainring combs of 50/34, 52/36 and 53/39, especially on wider range cassettes.

If it was as simple as just mixing and matching the rings, all manufacturers would probably invite end users to do so - as it is, Shimano, SRAM and Campagnolo all advise against because they are all seeking a system that shifts well and predictably under reasonable loads with as wide arange of cassette sizes as is practical and in as wide a range of frame geometries as possible.

Look into these chainrings if you want to fix your shifting issues. I've been running the 53/34 setup for several years on one of my Lemonds. I honestly feel it is my best shifting front end of all the 25+ bikes I have. I've yet to experience any mis-shift with them. The shift up from small to large is amazingly fast and clean. I know a ton of cross folks are using various Wickwerk rings overseas with great success.

https://wickwerks.com/products/road-...ra-wide-53-34/



Explaination of the tech behind these rings.

https://wickwerks.com/technology/chainrings/

[C40_guy]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

DON'T shift to big ring under YUGE load/pedal pressure and it'll probably be fine.

That's easy...I haven't been able to generate YUGE load/pedal pressures in years.

(Probably before compact cranksets were available on road bikes!)

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by gfk_velo

It's been tested extensively with the teams and in the Campy Tech Lab alongside of 52/34.

The general finding is that upshifting is significantly pooerer especially under load and the loadings placed on the Fd and LH shift lever are considerably increased.
The design of the chainrings and the relative placement of the shift zones in relation to the teeth of the inner chainring are both contributors to the problem.

In downshifting, the control of the chain is not as good and downsifts, especially with larger bottom sprockets on frame specs towards the two extremes of the "envelope" that Campagnolo recommend for relative seat / chainstay angles are compromised. Again, shifting under load is far from as predictable as it is with the designed chainring combs of 50/34, 52/36 and 53/39, especially on wider range cassettes.

If it was as simple as just mixing and matching the rings, all manufacturers would probably invite end users to do so - as it is, Shimano, SRAM and Campagnolo all advise against because they are all seeking a system that shifts well and predictably under reasonable loads with as wide arange of cassette sizes as is practical and in as wide a range of frame geometries as possible.

Well, it is really a matter of degrees. Is 53/36 (17 tooth gap) as sure as 52/36 (16 tooth gap)? No. 53/36 is a little slower and less precise than 52/36. And by the same token, is 52/36 as sure as 53/39 (14 tooth gap)? No again. 52/36 is a little slower and less precise than 53/39. More closely spaced chainrings always give better shifting performance. But that's not really the question here. The question is, is 53/36 shifting acceptable? It depends on the situation. If you're doing high level racing on a rolling course with many transitions between steep ascents and descents, then the shifting with 53/36 will probably not be acceptable. But if you are doing more casual cycling, or your route has fewer transitions between ascents and descents, then the small extra time to perform a smooth shift* between the large chainring differential may not matter. For full disclosure, the bike I use for long rides in the mountains (long climbs and long descents) has 52/34 chainrings (18 tooth gap), and it provides more than adequate performance for this usage.

*I haven't used electronic shifting with large chainring differentials, but I suspect that mechanical shifting may provide better performance with large chainring gaps, because the rider can directly control the speed and force on the front derailleur as necessary for different chainring size combinations.

[NHAero]

Good info, thanks.
Can you say more about the downshift? No chain drops?

Originally Posted by jamesdak

Look into these chainrings if you want to fix your shifting issues. I've been running the 53/34 setup for several years on one of my Lemonds. I honestly feel it is my best shifting front end of all the 25+ bikes I have. I've yet to experience any mis-shift with them. The shift up from small to large is amazingly fast and clean. I know a ton of cross folks are using various Wickwerk rings overseas with great success.

https://wickwerks.com/products/road-...ra-wide-53-34/



Explaination of the tech behind these rings.

https://wickwerks.com/technology/chainrings/

[rain dogs]

I have this exact setup 53/36 on my bike now and have been using it without any problems for over a year.

Record 10 speed. Hollowgram SI cranks, Rotor No Q Rings.

That setup has never shifted as well as all campagnolo even with 53/39 but we're talking a difference of 100% perfect and 99,5% perfect. It's splitting hairs really.

But the difference between 53/39 and 53/36 I don't notice at all. Still 99,5% perfect.

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by NHAero

Good info, thanks.
Can you say more about the downshift? No chain drops?

Not a one. I've just "upgraded" another Lemond to Dura Ace yet selected to use a set of Triples I got from them for the crank. Have only put about 40 miles on those as I recover from a health issue but so far no problems with them either.

I think the best praise for them is how many pro CX racers are using them. As a hint, look at past pictures for Katie Compton and in a lot of those shots you'll see Wickwerks rings on the otherwise factory equipment. As is often the case Wickwerks is used in the background to avoid upsetting sponsors like Shimano.

Some shots from her bike:

[Mark McM]

Compton's bike is probably not a good example. The photos of her bike shows only a 10 tooth difference between chainrings - even old-fashioned non-ramped chainrings easily handled 10 tooth gaps. Besides which, Shimano doesn't even make a 44 tooth chainring to fit these cranks, so an aftermarket brand had to be used in any case.

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Compton's bike is probably not a good example. The photos of her bike shows only a 10 tooth difference between chainrings - even old-fashioned non-ramped chainrings easily handled 10 tooth gaps. Besides which, Shimano doesn't even make a 44 tooth chainring to fit these cranks, so an aftermarket brand had to be used in any case.

Oops, that's actually a response to a little side hijack I accidentally took the thread. Not the OP's original question.