Search results for:

This is a very old Vento, dating from the 1990s, I think. It looks like a Vento HPW16 from the look of the hub & the fact that it's an 8s cassette body.

You are probably going to struggle to get a spoke for this - Campagnolo in Italy have not had stock for several years.

The original spokes were made specifically for Campagnolo (by Sapim, IIRC) and are of a different material and profile (yes, they are stainless, it's true, but there are a lot of different forms of stailness steel and they don't all behave the same) to any after market spokes that we have ever tracked down. The spoke head shape is also proprietory.

Probably your best bet is www.campoldy.co.uk - have a chat with Nigel Scott, the owner there - as he may have odd spokes for these wheels. Another possibility is a donor wheel from ebay.

As a back-up plan, you could replace all the spokes on the side with the damaged spoke - a Sapim straight pull spoke head is more-or-less the same dimensions as the Campagnolo item and through your LBS, Sapim's UK importer can (we were told recently) supply cut-to-length Sapim spokes in various formats. The closest for looks would be Sapim CX:

http://www.sapim.eu/spokes/aero/cx

HTH
Graeme
Velotech Cycling Ltd
Campagnolo main UK SC

Hi Thomas JB

The C9 chain runs fine on Campagnolo 8s systems.

HTH
Graeme
Velotech Cycling Ltd
Campagnolo Main UK Service Centre

Send the shifter you have to us, if you like - we can probably get the cable out and refurb the internal workings of the shifter - we do the "stuck cable" thing all the time with Shimano cables used in Campagnolo levers - the nipple sizes are different ...

THT
Graeme
Velotech Cycling Ltd, Campagnolo main SC, UK.

Self-servicing of these units is not too much of a problem - Campagnolo have video that applies to more recent models on their website & YouTube channel - the internals, whilst not identical, are very similar, so if you have good enough mechanical skills to want to delve inside, using the videos even just as a reference for these early version levers should work for you ...

If you need parts, we hold stock.

If you need advice, we'll do our best to help.

As an alternative, if you are not all that confident with the allen keys , send them to us and we can service them for you, no problem.
Turnaround is about 4 wd at present.

The info above with regard to double and triple compatibility is not strictly accurate - on newer ErgoPower Shifters, there are distinctions between "double" and "triple" but they don't apply to shifters of the same vintage as yours.

Graeme King
Head Tech
Velotech Cycling Ltd | Main UK Campagnolo Service Centre

Assuming that with the brake removed from the bike and with no cable in, when you squeeze it, it should spring open.

If it doesn't and if, when you disconnect the spring (pop it out of it's channel, don't loose the little plastic sleeve it runs in) the pivots move freely, then it's the spring - we can post you one of those.

On the other hand, in some of these cases we find it's the cable itself, so it's generally worthwhile fitting a new inner (don't just unclamp the inner and pull it backwards through the sheath, the part that gets spread by the pinchbolt will score the teflon outer cable liner, cut it between the adjuster and pinch bolt).

HTH
Graeme
Velotech Cycling Ltd | Campagnolo main Service Centre (UK)

Hi all

Just a note of caution ...

You need to be careful about using the Campagnolo road BBs with the Pista cranks ... although even we have struggled to get absolutely definitive advice from the factory, we do know that some Campagnolo Pista chainsets do not mate well with the road BBs as there is a difference in the crank tapers relative to the BB axles. They will always mate correctly, however, with the Pista tapers.

The issue is that some cranks "bottom out" on the road BB axle tapers and this can lead to cracking of (normally) the LH crank.

If these cranks and BB have been used together a lot, it's not likely to be a problem in this particular case but knowing a lot of fixie riders frequent these pages (of course ...!) and seeing that these parts might end up split, I thought I'd mention it for posterity!

HTH
Graeme, Velotech Cycling Ltd (main UK Service Centre, Campagnolo)

The pic in post #2 looks fine, so I would be surprised if the spacer is the issue. There should be a spacer under the cassette body and it does protrude slightly, to provide the clearance between the back of the cassette body and the face of the d/s bearing.

The best course of action is:

1. Slide the cassette body all the way home on the axle (as shown in post #2 and check to see if the body "rocks" on it's bearings in this situation. It shouldn't. If it does, the bearings in the cassette body are foobar.

2. If the bearings are foobar, we can likely replace them. It's not an easy home job because the inner bearing is not designed to be replaced - we have a method of extracting it, though, in 95% of cases - there are one or two very old bodies where we can't though. There is no replacement cassette body that is compatible any more.

3. If the bearings are OK, assemble the hub (without the pawls, initially) and without the o-ring seal around the vase of the cassette body - does the assembly fit together with no rock now? If so, the o-ring is getting rolled and lifted / kinked against it's location in the hub body as you are struggling to get the pawls into the hub body and that's preventing the cassette body from going all the way home - hard to spot, but pretty common.

4. If it is the o-ring, strip the hub apart again, re-locate the pawls and springs, hold down with either the rubber band method, or, if you can find one (hens teeth these days) the wire spring clip that used to come with every pair of hubs of this design, and reassemble the cassette body on the spindle back into the hub, paying close attention to both the pawls AND the o-ring ... the o-rings do tend to swell in contact with mineral oils and get to be a slack fit on the hub (it is 15 years old now, after all ...) so you have to pay attention that it doesn't get rolled out of it's channel.

That should fix it.

You appear to have all of the other parts that you should ... and they all look correct from your images.

PM me or mail me via our website if you get stuck.

HTH
Graeme
Velotech Cycling Ltd
Main UK Campagnolo Service Centre
www.velotech-cycling.ltd.uk

At the risk of being over-commercial in a posting here, it sounds as if you might be best advised to send both shifters to us and we can have a look for you.

Normally the 4mm head bolts will move readily enough - it may be that:

1. the central securing bolt in shifter #1 had been replaced with a Torx head bolt from a Record lever at some point (they are interchangeable) but using a (normally 3mm) key may have damaged the socket ...
   
2. you have a very old Chorus unit in which the central securing bolt is LH threaded - in that case it will be a 4mm allen-key headed bolt.
   
   

If trying to rotate the allen bolt in your Veloce unit caused the return spring to "unhook" from the body, it was incorrectly fitted in the 1st place - the lever will still have worked but the action will have tended to be heavy.

We can correct any / all of the above problems.

Best PM me, or drop a mail via our website to organise if you'd like us to help.

ATB
Graeme
Velotech Cycling Ltd
Main UK Campagnolo Service Centre
www.velotech-cycling.ltd.uk

Hi jsabine, the body that you need is discontinued unfortunately - we haven't been able to buy them for a couple of years, now. We had some stock left but it's all used unless there is anything lurking about that I haven't got on our stock list.

I can have a look and see if we have any second-hand levers that we can strip to find you a body, but I'd not be super-optimistic. I will check at the workshops for you tomorrow.

Another possibility s EC-RE201, which is the complete LH lever body with all of the internals - we can possibly still get these from the factory & we would be happy to strip out the internals and send you the body shell and central pivot (this part is the Chorus / Record lever body and the central pivot runs on ball-bearings not bushings, so it is slightly different) ... that'll be a couple of weeks. Obviously we'd just charge for the parts that we send you, we'll use the other parts in the workshops here.

Cheers
Graeme
Velotech Cycling Ltd
Main UK Campagnolo Service Centre

As Mr Bump says, the outer two BCDs are the same double and triple.

Middle triple rings are differently profiled and ramped / pinned to help the chain up off the granny to the middle ring, though, so are triple-specific - plus a 40T was done on triples for the 30-40-50 combo. It wasn't available as a ring option on the doubles.

We have some steel triple rings in stock & I have checked the campag stocklist in Italy for alloy - but they are showing no remaining stock. I have mailed them to ask if they have anything not shown on the stocklist for you (it occasionally happens) but I'd be surprised TBH.

Depending on the design / range of your chainset, you "may" with a bit of shimming (required due to thickness differences in the rings), be able to use the current Centaur Triple rings, if your chainset is Record Triple and has the "hidden" bolt behind the RH crank. Because the ring is supported on both faces in this case, the ring thickness is important - hence the possible shimming.

HTH

Graeme
Velotech Cycling Ltd
Campagnolo Main UK Service Centre

Several things you have to be careful of ...

The current 10s RDs are different to the one that you picture - the current versions are designed to work with all Campagnolo chainring combinations and up to a 30T max, so long as you pay attention to total tooth differences F & R and the rear stay length is within Campag's recommended range and the rear dropout / hanger fulfills the spec shown in Campag's current tech manual.

The older versions like the one that you picture will handle up to a 27 and may be "persuaded" to handle bigger (it's partially dependant on gear hanger / dropout spec which the Branford Bike notes referred to don't make mention of) BUT it's not a great idea to try to exceed 27T ... unless you are using a close range (and therefore non-standard) ring combination at the front, the RD won't be able to wrap enough chain - so you'll either end up with chain hanging loose when cross-chaining small to small) not generally a disaster, (but can cause something that looks a bit like chain suck occasionally), or you'll end up without enough chain to do big-to-big, which is a really bad idea - select it by accident and it will probably cost you a RD, a hanger, maybe a chain and cassette and if you are unlucky a rear wheel, too. I have seen it scrap a frame in the past (though that customer was really unlucky).

HTH

Graeme
Velotech Cycling Ltd
Campagnolo Main UK Service Centre.

Admission up front of bias - I run Campagnolo's main UK Service Centre.

"found it a bitch on a couple of steel frames-carbon was fine. Think it's just BB shell width variance that allows the axle to shift creating a clicking when you pedal under load (yes I got the BB shell faced before install etc.) I read a lot of other folk had the same problem."

It's not normally a problem unless the BB shell width is a lot under tolerance - if the face-to-face width is less than the design minimum of 67.2 mm, then yes, the wavy washer can't take up the end float.

I have several UT bikes that are ridden year-round and have had worse bearing life than with square taper but that is also true of other "outboard" and "oversize" (BB30 etc) systems that I have tried and that my customers have fitted. It's a consequence of taking something initially developed for competition and using it in ways that it wasn't really originally destined for. That's what a large sector of the market demands ... I am not saying that it makes any sense, mind ...

Skinny - the point of the PT design was to keep the pedal width ("Q factor") the same as with the square taper BB designs but at a more aggressive price-point than UT.

UT did this by building end-float adjustment into the cup, rather than using the cumbersome (and rather poor, in engineering terms) solution that Shimano have adopted. This was the point of the Hurth joint - not simply difference for the sake of it. PT is a variation on the same. Unfortunately, to maintain ankle clearance it wasn't possible to build in a self-extractor.

Pulling PT has also attracted a lot of comment, but in fact it's easy IF you use the right puller (Facom U.301) and if you remember to remove the washer under the head of the bolt ... we have had a lot of cranks back that mechanics have said were "impossible to pull" but in general have found the remains of the washer squished in there. The remainder have been fitted dry when the technical docs do say that the crank should be greased.

There are several things it could be - broken G springs, cracked spring mount ring, failed location for the return spring (also part of the spring mount ring) or failed return spring. You can return it Velotech Cycling Ltd, the main UK Campag Service Centre for a strip, clean and rebuild - costs are advised ahead of completion once it's stripped to see where he problem is but typically you'd be looking at around £40.00 - £45.00

If you are looking at doing it yourself, and found broken G springs, we'd recommend replacement of the spring mount ring in any case - often, that's the next tghing to fail & in any case, when the lever has been in use for some while, the G springs form a small indent at the point where they meet the mount ring, so become less likely to hold the gear, especially on the last few clicks towards bottom (easiest) gears.

Make sure (if you want to TIG) that the tube set is specc'd for it - some materials don't take at all kindly to the very localised, high temps of TIG (or any other kind of welding).

If you are lug-building, you'll need to silver-solder or braze. Silver solder is safeset as it's lowest temperature, but you have to buy good quality, high siver rod - the cheap stuff doesn't run so well. Brass brazing is higher temp (you have to be careful not to overdo it and so weaken the tube) but it's lot cheaper in rod material.

Use good flux - a lot of builders try and save money on rod & flux and it costs them in poor joint integrity in the end.

In both cases (TIG and lugged) you'll need to mitre the tubes to one another accurately, but if you whizz over to frameforum.net, there are a bunch of guys who can help with providing templates for that.

Hi, here's what you need to do ...

Get thee down to a good bike shop. There, they can accurately measure the external diameter of the flange on the fork crown that you want to fit your lower race to. If they are really a good, old-school bike shop, they'll have a fork crown race cutter, and if the fork crown is oversize relative to your crown race, they can accurately & concentrically (so the headset bearing runs properly) shave material off to the right, slightly oversize diameter. The crown race should be no more than 0.2mm greater external diameter than the internal diameter of the crown race - this is the generally accepted degree of "interference" required in this type of interference fit.

Don't just try and whack the thing on with a heavy tube hammer / crown race fitting tool (or let anyone else try the same) as there's a fair chance they'll split the race, and then you will be in schtuk ... Shimano don't provide any headset parts, so far as I am aware, as spares.

The Italians by the way, ain't awkward, there are, and always have been, a variety of standards in the cycle industry which have come about as cycles were developed a long time before we all got globalised ... in fact the Italian standard for this was still widely used, even on some A-Head systems, until we all decided suddenly (or rather, the industry in which I have earned my keep for the last 25+ years decided ...) that we needed 1 1/8" steerers and that bred a whole new bunch of standards!