Campagnolo Front Derailleur Question

[matty]

I am after some advice in order to switch from a old school Campagnolo Record Carbon Ultra Torque 10 speed 53/39 chainset to a newer 11 speed Record 52/36 or Over Torque 50/34 that I can use.

I understand people can use 11 speed chainset with 10 speed gearing from what I have read. My only concern is with front derailleur as in the old days it seems they did a seperate compact from derailleur but now it seems the newer front mechs have a higher capacity so work on either normal or compact.

I need a band on and it seems most newer mechs are braze on and need a band adapter to fit. Then there is S2 and all that. Not really sure what this is.

Lastly and difference in cable pull so will a 11 speed front mech still work with my 10 speed shifters?

Thanks in advance for any help on here.

Regards,

Matt

[dj97223]

Campag sells a cheap band on front der for 10 speed (I think it is Veloce). I used it with a 2006 Record setup and a 50/34 11 speed chainset circa 2012. It worked fine until it didn't; the limit screws didn't seem to hold or the cage was too flex, allowing chain drop, which led to a bent cage. The item gets good reviews, but it didn't work for me. I went back to my 2006 CT Record front der and it works great. Those CT FD's can still be found on eBay, though they aren't cheap.

On my 2015 11 speed Chorus bike, 34/50. the S2 FD works great.

[matty]

Thanks.

What is this s2 as from what I can see it is some sort of lever? Front mech is on a titanium frame so do I even need s2?

I guess all that matters is total capacity of 16T rather than the 14T my current record front mech has.

[bikerjulio]

There's nothing wrong with a braze-on FD plus adapter clamp. It's the most versatile setup.

It's not clear to me why you think you need a new FD at all. Especially if you are keeping 10-speed shifters.

Just changing the crankset is not in itself a reason to change.

Campy FD's have been universal (compact and regular) for quite a long time now - 7 years or more? Just buy Veloce if you need a new one. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them.

More information about the year of the components you are proposing to use is really needed.

ps. Ultra-torque is not "old school" by most standards.

[Daniel1975]

S2 is the name for the 'lever' they use for extra stabilization if you have a weak frontderailleur-tab. If you use a clamp, no need for S2. Clamp still best IMHO.

[dj97223]

Calnago has a good explanation and pic of S2 in one of his recent build threads.

[matty]

Thanks for all the replies.

The reason for change is current from gear has 14T capacity. I am using very early Campagnolo record 10 speed ultra torque cranks that at the time only came in few sizes, in this case 53/39. Think I actually got them on here from someone who wanted the old alloy version and my Lemond being a 2002 frame was bought a couple of years last with 10 speed record, but car accident and other things got in the way and I only got it all together 2 years ago and got a bike fit to make sure I was ok getting back into my cycling.

Wanting to change cranks as I do not need a 53 I have at similar cost options 11 speed record in 52/36 or over torque comp ultra in 50/34. Either way my current front gear has a total capacity of 14T and for either of these new cranks I need 16T capacity, hence the need for new front gear.

Current is FD7-RE2C2 according to box

[Calnago]

Calnago has a good explanation and pic of S2 in one of his recent build threads.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=142391&start=75#p1299367

[graeme_f_k]

There's nothing wrong with a braze-on FD plus adapter clamp. It's the most versatile setup.

It also gives the most stable arrangement that mis-shifts least, if correctly set up.

It's not clear to me why you think you need a new FD at all. Especially if you are keeping 10-speed shifters.

No new FD required provided the OPs FD has enough capacity. Even then, depending on the rear cassette and frame geo, the full capacity of the FD may not be needed.

Just changing the crankset is not in itself a reason to change.

See above

Campy FD's have been universal (compact and regular) for quite a long time now - 7 years or more? Just buy Veloce if you need a new one. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them.

The "universal" type FD came in in model year 2007 ... the CT type prior to that works well with the correct lever ... the current 10s FD will work "OK" with the OPs levers but works better with a 2009-2014 UltraShift lever.

More information about the year of the components you are proposing to use is really needed.

Yes and no - the basic problem is that mixing a 10s chain and an 11s crankset, especially a Compact, is a bad idea.
Reasons -
The chainrings are effectively closer together, so you hit two problems - first the predictability of downshift from big to small ring is less - it's easy for the chain to overshoot and trickier for the FD to control this (although a dog-fang or similar *can* be employed) ... second, and the shorter the wheelbase, the bigger the problem, the wider 10s chain tends to fould the back of the big ring when cross-chained - and whilst we all "know" we shouldn't run big ring to biggest two sprockets and small ring to smallest two - most of us will grab those geras at need. If the chain catches the back of the big ring in some circumstances, an an effect like chainsuck ensues. At least, this will damage the surface finish of the stay. At worst, it can damage the stay, the chain and the inner chainring - so it's to be avoided.
There is a FD mis-match - the 10s derailleur struggles to control the chain well given the narrower inter-ring gap and front shifting is compromised. Changing the FD for an 11s item as a workaround is alo not a great plan as the gate is too narrow for the 10s chain and there is a lot of faffing required to get an FD position and cable tension that will allow clean chain passage - and trimming will almost certainly be required when using the biggest two (maybe 3 depending on cassette sizes and frame geo) at the rear on the big ring, and the smallest two (or matbe 3) on the small ring.

Personally, I'd avoid it and either look for a NoS UT 10s chainset in compact (there are some out there, still), or mount 10s rings on an older 11s crankset, as the ring spacing is actually managed on the rings, not the crank spider tabs.

ps. Ultra-torque is not "old school" by most standards.

[matty]

Cheers Graeme.

Reading up and think a front derailleur is quite simple I realise cable throw etc had changed on more modern 2015 onwards so will look for an older 10 speed if possible. I am guessing that would be the best compromise seeing as I already have the 11 speed cranks, prefer the dark colour chain rings to the silver on my old 10 speed and hope the slightly narrower chainring will be ok, if it is narrower as I thought internal width of chains stayed same from 10 to 11 speed and it is outside width that is thinner.

I could be wrong of course!

[bikerjulio]

Graeme is always right, but this is the first time ever, since 11-speed came out, that I have seen it definitively stated that the chainring (or tooth) spacing differs from 10-speed. It's something that is not easy to measure, and we are presumably only talking in small fractions of a mm difference.

All that being said, several years ago I wanted a compact crank and bought an 11-speed 50/34 that got swapped between 10 and 11-speed drivetrains without me noticing any problems until I wore out the teeth.

Of course if I had read Graeme's comments back in 2010 I would have never done such a thing.

[Calnago]

Graeme is always right, but this is the first time ever, since 11-speed came out, that I have seen it definitively stated that the chainring (or tooth) spacing differs from 10-speed. It's something that is not easy to measure, and we are presumably only talking in small fractions of a mm difference.

I don't think Graeme made any statement at all as to the differences between 11 and 10sp chainring spacing. What he said was that using a 10sp chain on an 11sp crank "effectively" makes the rings closer. In the same way that using an 11sp chain on 10sp crank would "effectively" make the rings farther apart. There's a big difference. Whether there is an actual difference between 11sp chainring spacing and 10sp chainring spacing is quite irrelevant here. There is very little wiggle room (like next to non-existent) between the 11sp chain and the inside of the big ring when the 11sp system is crossed (small chainring/smallest cog) using an 11sp chain. Thus, throwing a wider 10spd chain into the mix would most likely result in rubbing on the inside of the big ring under the small/small combo, and potentially cause the fouling of the large chainring, chainsuck, etc.

[bikerjulio]

ring spacing is actually managed on the rings, not the crank spider tabs.

Graeme was very clear I thought. Saying that the tooth spacing was managed by the chainrings. Campy don't machine the teeth central to the body of the ring, they are offset. And Graeme was saying that they are offset a little more on an 11-speed ring.

That's what he meant by "effective spacing".

Go back and read his whole segment again.

[Calnago]

Pretty sure what he said was that using a 10sp chain on an 11sp crank (with 11sp rings), will "effectively" make those very same chainrings act like they are spaced closer together than they are (even though they're not) and thus it is a bad idea.

His final suggestion is to either use a 10sp crankset OR, mount 10sp rings on a pre 2015 11sp crankset. The reason mounting the 10sp rings on the 11sp crankset will work is because, as he said the spacing is actually managed by the rings themselves. The width of the spider arms where the rings are attached is the same.

[dj97223]

I'm not disagreeing with anyone, but I've been using a 50/34 11 speed Chorus UT crank (circa 2012) with an otherwise 2006 10 speed Record group and 10 speed Campag chain for a number of years, on two different bikes, with no problem and no apparent unusual wear issues. I think the chain stays on both bikes where I have/had this setup are 41cm. And I have been known to cross chain now and then in both directions without any chainring rubbing. That's just my experience.