[CR]Re: retrofriction shifter installation


Example: Framebuilders:Pino Morroni
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:01:12 -0800 (PST)
From: "Tom Dalton" <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
To: Lee Berg <lberg@ventoux.com>
Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <3C5EC48E.990FFB24@ventoux.com>
Subject: [CR]Re: retrofriction shifter installation

I was talking to (pestering) a memeber of the Campy travelling circus (Either Bill Woodul or John Sipay) at the National Capitol Open in 1987. He saw my shiny new retrofrictions and unscrewed them to check the assembly. The washers were "concave-together" and he seemed satisfied / surprised that I had "got it right," despite what the directions depicted. It seemed like he was on a mission to remedy the results of the incorrectly published diagram, one bike at a time.

When I first had the levers, I set them up with the washers nested. As I recall, the motion of the shifter wasn't any different, it was just easier to get the tension correct when assembled the other way. They do work fine either way. When you think about it though why wouldn't campy have just used one really thick spring washer unless they wanted them to flex relative to one another?

Tom Dalton


--- Lee Berg wrote:


> Tom,

\r?\n>

\r?\n> What is your basis for stating that the concave

\r?\n> sides of the washers

\r?\n> should face each other? I have installed the

\r?\n> washers ("spooned")

\r?\n> according to this diagram and they work fine (as a

\r?\n> stiff spring).

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Lee Berg

\r?\n> Palo Alto

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Tom Dalton wrote:

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > This is the illustration I referred to as

\r?\n> erroneous.

\r?\n> > Seeing it again, after all these years, I now

\r?\n> remember

\r?\n> > now that it is more vague than incorrect. Looking

\r?\n> at

\r?\n> > it you would think the cupped washers nest

\r?\n> together

\r?\n> > like spoons in a drawer. They really should be

\r?\n> > arranged so that the concave faces of are facing

\r?\n> > each other. What you end up with is something

\r?\n> that is

\r?\n> > linticular in profile, that is, it looks like a

\r?\n> lens

\r?\n> > from the side. This squishy little package ends

\r?\n> up

\r?\n> > working as a spring to keep tension along the

\r?\n> > shifter's axis.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > Tom Dalton

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > --- Lee Berg <lberg@ventoux.com> wrote:

\r?\n> > > Hi, Tom,

\r?\n> > >

\r?\n> > > Which direction do the concave sides of the cup

\r?\n> > > washers face (away or

\r?\n> > > toward the frame)? Is this illustration

\r?\n> correct?:

\r?\n> > >

\r?\n> > > http://www.ventoux.com/retrofric.jpg

\r?\n> > >

\r?\n> > > Lee Berg

\r?\n> > > Palo Alto