[Classicrendezvous] Other Campy Mysteries

Example: Framebuilding:Restoration

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:15:38 -0600
From: "John" <velostuf@qwest.net>
To: "Tom Dalton" <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>, " Richard Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>, " Classic Rendezvous" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <20001124192425.11450.qmail@web901.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: [Classicrendezvous] Other Campy Mysteries

Dear CR- I've discovered a new participant for our group. I will work to get him signed up. We have been talking about this 1st gen Campy SR thing, and some other things...

Tom- See my comments scattered throughout-

Tom Dalton wrote:
> For the record, I think you did just the right thing.
> When you're bidding $400 on a rare Campy derailleur
> sold as NIB there should not be any replacement parts
> on it. I am virtually certain that those pulley cages
> were added. Like you said, there are a lot of campy
> mysteries, but I'd be shocked to learn that 2nd gen
> cages ever were bolted to 1977 derailleurs. Having
> worked in shops for years, I am all too familliar with
> parting out a component and ordering replacement parts
> down the road.
> As for Campy mysteries, you didn't give me the scoop
> on the SL seatpost. I've heard of those, but I have
> never seen one (that I noticed). Is there a hole
> through the pivot where the cradle attaches? Is the
> post beveled at the top of the cylindrical portion?
> Are there alloy parts in place of steel? Inquiring
> minds want to know.

The only differences that I can tell are that the bore from the bottom-up goes about 1.5 cm further on the SL, and the cradles are alloy. Otherwise the wall thickness is the same, and everything else seems to be the same. The cradle pivot looks the same. The NR post weighs 330 gm and the Superleggera weighs 275 gm!
> Another Campy mystery. I have a 1979 SR rear that has
> some interesting features that I belive to be
> origional; I have seen one or two others like it.
> Both of the main bolts are aluminum alloy rather than
> titanium. The pulley cages are shaped like the second
> generation type, but the inner cage is threaded to
> take a NR style pulley bolt rather than being
> countersunk (see Campy's "Olympic" catalog). I
> consider it to be a pretty rare and exotic derailleur
> prmarilly because alloy bolts are far more rare than
> titanium. It would never command the price that the
> first generation ones do but I think it's pretty cool
> in a subtle way.

I have seen several 1979 only 2nd gen SR rears that have the aluminum main bolts. I heard 2 explanations, only one of which sounds plausible. Also, for the record, the alloy and Ti bolts are NOT interchangeable in my experience. They have slightly different diameters... A friend and I talked at length about how both the 1st and 2nd gen inner cages came 2 ways: with an embedded steel hex nut and without. Is there a correlation here?

Explanation #1 The Russians have a death grip on most of the worlds supply of titanium this year, and it's a strategic metal- tough/expensive to get. As you will recall, precious metals went through the roof in late '79.

Explanation #2 Bianchi spec'd the SR rears this way this year(s) (??)
> A couple of other questions:
> Do you know when the alloy bolts were used on SR
> derailleurs? I have seen 1st generation SRs with
> alloy mounting bolts and titanium pulley cage pivot
> bolts as well some with two titanium bolts. I have
> seen 2nd gen models with two alloy bolts and with two
> ti bolts.

My only experience with aluminum main bolts is on 2nd generation 1979's
> Why are 1st gen SR derailleurs so rare? I realize that
> they were only made for 4 years as opposed to about 7
> years for the 2nd gen. And of course being older
> means that they have had more time to become trashed.
> Still I have only ever seen a handfull, even back when
> I was racing in the early 80's. I'd say there are at
> least 25 second generation ones for every 1st gen
> posted on Ebay. Did Campy only make small amount of
> SR in the first few years? Were people reluctant to
> use it because it was new and NR was proven? Was the
> price way out of line compared to NR?

Your guesses are as good as mine. I am copying the Classic Rendezvous group with this, and perhaps we will hear from them. I am also sending you info on how to sign up...
> And another thing....
> Did Campy ever make SR brake levers that had the same
> shape as the pre-CPSC NR levers? I think I have seen
> an Illustration in a catalog, but that was the catalog
> that showed a bunch of black anodized parts and
> titanium hub axles, which for all intents never got
> made.

Again, let's see if the discussion group can help. I'll forward comments to you until you get signed up.
> Finally, how do I get to the discussion group you
> mentioned?

Talk with you later, Tom

John Barron