General Discussion / Re: Woodrup 1979 Vintage Campagnolo Super
« on: June 04, 2020, 09:09:00 am »As John said, take the money plus the money you would have spent to modernize it and buy a proper newer touring bike.
Your username and password for these discussion forums are unique to the forums. Your forum login information is separate from your My Adventure Cycling login information. Also, please note that your login information for the forums is not connected to your Adventure Cycling membership number. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
We have blocked registrations from several countries because of the large quantities of spam that originate there. If the forum denies your legitimate registration, please ask our administrator for an exception. Send an email to webmaster@adventurecycling.org and we will follow up with you.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
......and most of the failures are at the Air Valve connector.....First, carefully inspect the valve holes in your rims. Be sure there are no burrs and that the rim tape protects the edges. Second, you can reenforce the base of the valve stem by cutting a small square of duct tape, punching a valve-stem size hole in the middle and pushing it over the stem and down around the base. It gives an extra layer of protection from both flexing and sharp edges.
What are peoples opinions on square taper vs octolink V1? My long term goal is distance touring and easy service/parts.Square taper bottom brackets and cranks were the standard for decades and decades until Octalink and ISIS appeared in the mid-1990's and external bearing designs in the early 2000's but are still available even now. However, good quality cartridges are hard to find and Shimano only makes their lower lines now. Loose bearing square taper bottom brackets are pretty much an NOS or used item.
Do you think just a tooth to 38 or should I go lower? and will any ring with a 130BCD work or do I need specific rings......With a 130 mm BCD, a 38T chainring is the absolute smallest you can go and these are not common. The 39 is almost universal so you are probably stuck just getting a direct replacement. If possible, the new middle ring should be matched to your big ring but I don't know of a 46/39 OEM ring set.
rear gears with a range of 11-36, and a chainrings should be 44/32/24. Those gear ranges are suited for carrying a load on a bike up mountain roads while maintaining a high cadence, they're not that great for top speed, but while touring you won't be concerned about that anyways.That gearing does indeed give a very low low gear (24x36 assuming a 700c wheel) of 18 gear-inches. The high gear isn't all that bad (44x11) at 108 gear-inches, which is the same as the high gear of 52x13 which Steven Roche used when he won the Tour de France in 1987.
I just wonder how many bike shops would have any parts for a Gevenalle shifter on hand? The Gevenalle is a very unusual shifter rarely seen in the real world. Again it would be easier to repair bar end shifters.The Gevenalle "shifters" are just bar end levers or downtube levers mounted on small, very tough aluminum brackets bolted to Tektro brake levers. If you happened to break one, any bike shop with a pair of bar end or downtube shifters could replace them in a minute. An accident bad enough to damage one of them would obliterate any brifter.
Personal preference may weigh pretty heavily in the choice. I'll go pretty far to avoid bar end shifters myself. I like brifters or even down tube shifters just fine, but never got comfortable with bar ends. Others may strongly prefer bar ends. Quite a few decades ago I had them on my primary bike for a few years and hated them. I kept thinking I'd get used to them. Never did.Agree completely. I tried bar end shifters three different times on different bikes. One bike came with them and two others I tried them on as a lower cost option. I also thought would get used to them. I never did and replaced them after a reasonable trial.
Probably the majority care less about weight and aero advantages on a touring bike, but there are a few of us who do and even a few who find a low more aero position more comfortable than a more upright one. My rationale is that on tour, I am spending all day in the saddle for weeks or months at a time and am about as acclimated to the bike as I ever get, so the low position which is already pretty comfortable for me becomes even more so. Also riding alone with days of head winds the benefits are real. I'd advise folks to experiment and see what works best for them, maybe even trying to ease into a lower posture slowly over time just to see how it works for them. Doing it all at once probably guarantees failure for most.Well, you are a bit of an outlier among tourists in that you practice ultralight packing and performance is a real consideration. For most riders not coming from a performance background an upright position is more comfortable and they pay the price on a windy day.
I agree that not all that many tourists feel that way and the majority set their bikes up with a more upright posture, but I am sure I am not completely alone either. Maybe as I get older I will change my tune but I am coming up on my 69th birthday and haven't done so yet.
1" headsets are in fact easily found: e.g., IRC, Richey, Velo Orange, Chris King. I just put one on my new Waterford Rando.Oh yeah, 1" threaded headsets are easily found but 1" threadless headsets are less common. A couple of years ago I converted a '96 Litespeed from 1" threaded to 1" threadless when I replaced the fork. The only reasonably priced 1" threadless headset I could find was a Cane Creek 40.
If in good shape and it fits you well, the 2003 Trek 520 is a fine touring bike. Its specs aren't that far off modern touring bikes. Parts for 9-speed bikes are readily available. In fact, the modern Trek 520s are still 9-speed. One difference is that many modern bikes have disk brakes, and the 2003 has rim brakes. But that's not a big deal, especially if the rims on the bike you're looking at aren't all concave. Another significant difference is that in 2003, Trek was still using a 52/42/30 crankset, whereas they have been using 48/36/26 since 2010. So you won't get as low of gearing. That's a bigger issue the older you are, the more gear you tour with, and how hilly your tour will be. Hint: all tours are hilly. If you find the 52/42/30 too high, you can swap it out.The 2003 520 has a 1-1/18" threadless steerer and headset so you are good in that regard as older 1" forks and headsets, particularly threaded headsets, are getting hard to find.
.....when touring most prefer bar end shifters because they won't break should the bike fall over, and they're easier to maintain. So I would change to bar end shifters, they're cheap to buy and easy to put on.The mechanical Gevenalle shifters the OP mentioned are every bit as durable, fall-proof, easy to maintain and even easier to install than barends and far more convenient to shift with. Having used barends, once I discovered Gevenalle shifters I would never consider going back. That said, unless he is anxious to spend money, keeping the SRAM shifters makes the most sense.
For lokking at how the rear carrier is mounted on the Sutra - that would be a no go for because the carrier attachment is through a "hole" in the downward tube intead of by braze on.Looking at the web site picture of the bike I believe the rear rack attaches to a threaded fitting in the seat stay. It is not just a hole in that tube and should be as reliable as a braze on.