RE: [CR]Now: Mavic vs. Simplex & Campagnolo Was: Derailleur question

From: "Mark" <rena.cutrufelli@comcast.net>
To: "'jerrymoos'" <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: RE: [CR]Now: Mavic vs. Simplex & Campagnolo Was: Derailleur question
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:49:03 -0500
In-Reply-To: <00e001c3f74d$c96b70f0$efddfea9@mooshome>

So much for how well they shifted . Which of the 3 was the most durable mech- the longest lasting?

Mark Cutrufelli Laurel,MD

-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of jerrymoos Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:07 PM To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Re: [CR]Now: Mavic vs. Simplex & Campagnolo Was: Derailleur question

Wow, I agree with every word Chuck just said here. How often does that happen? Maybe Mavic is the magic middle ground on which the Campy fans and the Francophiles can agree.

Regards,

Jerry Moos
Houston, TX

----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Schmidt
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:41 AM
Subject: [CR]Now: Mavic vs. Simplex & Campagnolo Was: Derailleur

question

> kim klakow wrote:
> >
> (cut)
> > But to side with the francophiles, what about the mavic derailleurs?
>
> The Mavic was the easiest to service since everything is held together
> with circlips. The pulley cage could be raised and lowered to get the
> upper pulley as close to the cogs as possible so it had that advantage
> over the Campagnolo. It used the Simplex Retrofriction shifters which
> worked better. But it didn't have a sprung upper pivot like the
> Simplex. I'd put its shifting ability below Simplex and above
> Campagnolo.
>
> Chuck Schmidt
> South Pasadena, Southern California
>
> .