S2-system on Campagnolo front derailleur

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5758
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

That's what I did. I think it's silly that they offered both a non S2 version and an S2 version. From a business and Sku stocking standpoint it's gotta be much more efficient to have just the S2 version and then have the option of using the support arm or just leaving it off. I actually only had the option of ordering the S2 version for my C60, but received the non S2 version. I didn't care since I knew I wouldn't need the support arm anyway, and without the bolt it's a little cleaner looking.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

by Weenie


Herb5998
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:24 am

by Herb5998

@sleepless, even against the rivet, that should provide some stabilization

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5758
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Point is, it is redundant on @Sleepless's frame (C60) because the brazeon tab and the tube it is riveted to has no significant flex in that particular spot. The support arm is only relevant on frames where there is excessive flex in that area. You'll see that more on aero type frames where the frame surface that the brazeon is attached to is often a lot flatter and inherently more likely to flex with the force that a front derailleur exerts on it. And derailleur tabs themselves are not all created equal either.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post