Replacing Campagnolo front derailleur (not removing chain)

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

highdraw

by highdraw

AJS914 wrote:Threadlocker is so easy to re-apply and much easier than breaking and putting a new pin in a Campy chain. You haven't convinced me.

Totally agree with what you wrote. I think you will find a correlation between those that don't opt to unscrew the cage and those who hate the Campy pin and tool and opt for KMC Missing Link. Two schools.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



uraqt
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:53 am

by uraqt

Don't quote me, but I am 85% sure that I have read a campy doc someplace years ago, that says that is why the screw is there, and the front derailleur is designed to be bent to remove the chain.

C

highdraw

by highdraw

uraqt wrote:Don't quote me, but I am 85% sure that I have read a campy doc someplace years ago, that says that is why the screw is there, and the front derailleur is designed to be bent to remove the chain.

C

Um...aside from manufacturing feasibility...forming the cage as a single piece when manufactured, bending and securing it with a single screw...why else would the screw be there other than to remove the FD without separating the chain?
If considering design intent...Campy makes it quite difficult to separate the chain once riveted together with their proprietary rivet. The landscape for many however is different because many like myself who have ridden Campy for decades opt not to use a rivet to connect the chain but rather a master link which have been used for over 50 years way back to I was a kid connecting chains together. In the case of the KMC missing link, it is far easier to unclasp that master link than it is to undo the screw, bend the cage and then reverse using Loctite thread locker. That is what it comes down to. For those that do use the rivet and own the Campy rivet tool, it does make perhaps more sense to undo the screw. Of all the Campy front derailleurs I have owned for too many years to think about, I have never undone that screw and I have installed and removed too many FD's to remember.

graeme_f_k
Shop Owner / Manufacturer
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

by graeme_f_k

The derailleur cage can be split, the chain will pass through with care, as stated by many above. Loctite 247 on the screw on reassembly is a good idea - as a corrosion barrier as well as to lock the assembly.

Depending on your degree of fussiness, you may wish to avoid loosing the washer as these spacers are, I am informed, not all exactly the same width ... I haven't physically checked myself but R and D at the factory told me some time ago (so this may be subject to change) that they use slightly differing spacer widths sometimes to control errors in tolerance in the carbon outer plates.

The differences were quoted to me as only being in the 1/10ths of a mm range, so I am not sure how much difference that might make in practical terms, but ...

They're not available as a spare part either and given that what I have said above is true and given the wish to replace exactly like-for-like, you may and may not be able to cull one from a "break-for-spares" FD ...

The debate on quick links is interesting ... we've seen them fail but I can hand on heart say that in the UK, we have not seen an 11s chain, correctly joined, fail - we have replaced a small number since 2009 on a goodwill basis due to errors in joining but I don't recall and can find no documentation in our records, arising from a failure of a fully and correctly rivetted and peened Campagnolo 11s chain.

If you join a Campag chain correctly, every part of the chain should finish up within tolerance. If you use a joining link from a 3rd party, you are relying (if that tolerance matters to you) on the tolerance that the 3rd party uses being the same as Campagnolo (or Shimano) ... either party might change that spec and they are not obliged to inform the other, so there are risks - small but measurable.

KMC have recently changed the spec on their 11s chains for example (or so I am informed), to work better with 1 x 11 and Thick-Thin rings ... but Campagnolo have made no recent changes to their tooth profiles that necessitate a change to their chain. So if cross-brand tolerances were optimal before and the info on KMC I have is correct, now they will be, by definition, sub-optimal.

I'm not saying that will or won't make a difference, I am just pointing up one very obvious engineering reason (never mind the marketing) why manufacturers in general tend to prefer that you don't intermix with 3rd party items, and why consequential loss warranties are not usually offered by third party manufacturers - so if a 3rd party joining link does fail in some way causing other damage, I don't think I'd generally expect the link-maker to rush to replace all the parts that you might damage as a result.

Additionally, with some joining links (and some third party "compatible" chains) at Velotech we have seen damage to the inner rub-plate on both mechanical and more noticeably, on electronic front derailleurs. I've personally certainly seen it more on Campag than Shimano (probably because, although I see a lot of Di2, I don't work on it as often as I do on EPS by virtue of what the higher percentage of my working life is spent doing) and the damage appears to be caused by the squarer leading edges on the outer link plates that many joining links have - it's quite characteristic though and any failure it causes is not covered by warranty ...

HTH
Graeme
A Tech-Reps work is never done ...
Head Tech, Campagnolo main UK ASC
Pls contact via velotechcycling"at"aim"dot"com, not PM, for a quicker answer. Thanks!

Post Reply