Re: Modified Parts (Re: [CR](CR) Campy barcon quality)

(Example: Framebuilding:Tubing:Falck)

From: <NortonMarg@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:27:42 EST
Subject: Re: Modified Parts (Re: [CR](CR) Campy barcon quality)
To: monkeylad@mac.com, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org


In a message dated 1/15/03 11:04:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, monkeylad@mac.com writes:


> Add me to that list too. I wouldn't be surprised if Campagnolo made them
> poorly on purpose to make people go back to downtube shifters. Someone
> mentioned a bunch of modifications you could do to the shifters to make
> them work better. I've done most of them at one time or another and they do
> help. I prefer to judge parts in their unmodified state since most parts
> can be made better with some modification.
>

I know you're kidding! Everyone knows that Campy made their "levers for handlebars" BEFORE they made downtube levers. I'm not sure when exactly that was, but I think it was 1949 or 1950, and the design has been unchanged since (until they made the 8 speed ones). There is a principle here: simple mechanism = complicated set up, complicated mechanism = simple set up. The Campy parts couldn't be simpler. If you don't do the complicated set up, they'll stink. The SunTour bar control is a complicated part (just try to buy spare parts) that installs easily and works very well for those who like them. Sometimes it's just preference. However, the Campagnolo controls are not poorly made. That original question had to do with how the forging flash was ground off the levers and that they didn't look as "finished" as the average Campy part. Remembering that Tullio was a working "Team Mechanic", the switch to downtube levers likely had a lot more to do with the amount of work it took to care for a Team's worth of bikes. Favorite part that doesn't require modification? OMAS bottom bracket! Super reliable and works great with Campy cranks.
Stevan Thomas
Alameda, CA