[CR]RE: 52 Sport derailleur and Gran Sport Stupid?


From: hersefan@comcast.net
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:05:27 +0000
Subject: [CR]RE: 52 Sport derailleur and Gran Sport Stupid?

But maybe we should save some scorn for Campy's top model the Gran Sport as well. Had the lower pivot been in line with the upper pulley wheel, a unit with much better shifting could have resulted. The mistake Campy made plagued the company for years. Our beloved NR/SR units always had to be teased onto the small cog in the rear (when on the big ring) because Campy never got the chain gap thing right.

Sure, for straight blocks or half step arrangements it works - but it could have been so much better.

At least the sport model was a budget unit for different applications as Chuck mentions. The Gran Sport design was just off.

Mike Kone in Boulder CO


-------------- Original message --------------
From: Chuck Schmidt

> Harvey Sachs wrote:

\r?\n>

\r?\n> > The small hole a few mm above the derailleur socket was a spring

\r?\n> > anchor, as you surmise. No mystery, though: it was required for the

\r?\n> > Campgag "Sport" derailleur. That ugly varmit had only one pivot,

\r?\n> > and only 1 roller. It was rated for sprockets from 16 th all the

\r?\n> > way to 22. Other than having a parallelogram design and

\r?\n> > construction like the Gran Sport (and later steel Record of the

\r?\n> > early 1960s), it is generally considered an object of scorn,

\r?\n> > something to be kept as an example of stupid Campy designs. Yeah,

\r?\n> > we know the rationalizations, but let's get real. Most of the cost

\r?\n> > of the Gran Sport, and little of the performance. Maybe in the

\r?\n> > early 1980s, I bought two, NOS, @ $5 each. One still graces my

\r?\n> > campy parts box. The other went on a framed plaque I gave a good

\r?\n> > biking friend when he completed his M.E. PhD. Sort of an ironic

\r?\n> > symbol of lousy designs.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > harvey sachs

\r?\n> > mcLean va

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n> I never thought of the '52 Campagnolo Sport derailleur as an example

\r?\n> of "stupid Campy designs."

\r?\n> It was a lower priced derailleur for 1950s city bikes and sport bikes

\r?\n> at a time when single pulley derailleurs were prevalent. Just part

\r?\n> of engineering a product line in the early fifties.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Chuck Schmidt

\r?\n> South Pasadena, Southern California

\r?\n> United States of America

\r?\n> http://www.velo-retro.com (reprints, t-shirts & timelines)