[CR] Now: '52 Sport derailleur Was: Different <> Campy #1010 dropouts?


Example: Racing:Jacques Boyer

In-Reply-To: <45322220.3040401@cox.net>
References: <45322220.3040401@cox.net>
From: Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:47:41 -0700
To: Classic Rendezvous Bike List <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: [CR] Now: '52 Sport derailleur Was: Different <<early>> Campy #1010 dropouts?

Harvey Sachs wrote:
> The small hole a few mm above the derailleur socket was a spring
> anchor, as you surmise. No mystery, though: it was required for the
> Campgag "Sport" derailleur. That ugly varmit had only one pivot,
> and only 1 roller. It was rated for sprockets from 16 th all the
> way to 22. Other than having a parallelogram design and
> construction like the Gran Sport (and later steel Record of the
> early 1960s), it is generally considered an object of scorn,
> something to be kept as an example of stupid Campy designs. Yeah,
> we know the rationalizations, but let's get real. Most of the cost
> of the Gran Sport, and little of the performance. Maybe in the
> early 1980s, I bought two, NOS, @ $5 each. One still graces my
> campy parts box. The other went on a framed plaque I gave a good
> biking friend when he completed his M.E. PhD. Sort of an ironic
> symbol of lousy designs.
>
> harvey sachs
> mcLean va

I never thought of the '52 Campagnolo Sport derailleur as an example of "stupid Campy designs." It was a lower priced derailleur for 1950s city bikes and sport bikes at a time when single pulley derailleurs were prevalent. Just part of engineering a product line in the early fifties.

Chuck Schmidt South Pasadena, Southern California United States of America http://www.velo-retro.com (reprints, t-shirts & timelines)