Original Record Derailleur - Reassembly and set up.

Hello,

Was servicing an original Record derailleur - Velobase: Campagnolo 1020, Record.. When putting back together I noticed that on the back of the front derailleur cage there are three small holes that fit the end of the spring. I'm wondering which to use, and what difference these could have on the derailleur's performance? My first presumption is that these could effect chain tension as the rotation of the cage in relation to the body would be changed? Catalogue image below highlights what I mean, it's a different model but assembly is same in this regard.

This leads to my second question, in that I'm having a problem with chain tension. Set up is 44/52 and with a 14/15/16/17/18 freewheel, Record 151 BCD crankset, NOS 3/32 Everest chain, NOS Regina Freewheel. The problem is the chain binds a little too much on the larger ring. Have set this up with normal chain length method - wrapped chain round large/large combo and gave an extra two links (one inch), and also then tried added another extra link. Still binds. Do older derailleurs need more chain links - should I just keep lengthening the chain? I'm using modern Jockey wheels in case that could be a problem? These have correct number of teeth, but not sure if these are larger or smaller in diameter, or if that would even matter? Picture of setup also below.

Any advice or help appreciated as always!

Daniel

The chain length is too short on that picture, I like my front mech close to the rings but that looks a little too close even for me, maybe it's the picture.

The non-slant pantograph / short cage campag mechs were pretty much pants and even with the best will in the world the chain will be slack on the small ring/small cog They were designed in the day when the double chainrings at the front would have been 47/52.

Yep, the 3 holes decide on the chain tension, the exploded pic looks like a Valentino and not a Record though.


Shaun

Midlife":rmg5xbcz said:

The chain length is too short on that picture, I like my front mech close to the rings but that looks a little too close even for me, maybe it's the picture.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is close. About two mm, but front does shift very well. Is there a problem it could still cause, even if it isn't intefering with rings?

Midlife":rmg5xbcz said:

The non-slant pantograph / short cage campag mechs were pretty much pants and even with the best will in the world the chain will be slack on the small ring/small cog They were designed in the day when the double chainrings at the front would have been 47/52.

Click to expand...

Okay. That makes sense. I was going to lengthen chain but was thinking I'd get a lot of slop on the small ring. It actually shifts really nicely on the small ring. Just need to replicate that on the 52t and accept the slackness on the 44t ring then.

So what derailleur were the smaller 151BCD rings made for? Or would they have just been for a closer combo large ring?

Midlife":rmg5xbcz said:

Yep, the 3 holes decide on the chain tension, the exploded pic looks like a Valentino and not a Record though.

Click to expand...

So which hole is best! Which one does what in terms of tension. If I use the hole that moves the cage backwards away from the front rings, will that increase tension? And does it have much effect?

And many thanks Shaun. You always give helpful answers. Much appreciated.

The way to set the correct chain length is by running the chain on the smallest sprocket (12/13) & on the inside front chainring. The chain should JUST start to take up the rear Derailleur tension.

Thanks for the reply. Yes, just working on that right now!

Added enough links to the chain earlier to not bind using the large ring, but to still retain tension on the smallest ring to the smallest sprocket is proving tricky. Trying tiny adjustments of the position of the wheel in the rear dropouts seems the only way. Moving the wheel back enough to just start to take up rear derailleur tension in the small to small combination. Then I'm checking the large to large to ensure no binding in that combination.

Whatever I do it seems rather noisy on the larger ring. Also, moving the wheel back seems to have an effect on shifting? Or maybe that is just in my mind! Definitely think Shaun's comment earlier on the old Record derailleur not totally happy with the 44t and 52t ring combination is spot on. Going to search for a 151BCD 47t.

ps. the other problem, of course, is I have no idea what performance to expect out of derailleurs of this vintage!

Cheesedisease":3f24hijr said:

Thanks for the reply. Yes, just working on that right now!

Added enough links to the chain earlier to not bind using the large ring, but to still retain tension on the smallest ring to the smallest sprocket is proving tricky. Trying tiny adjustments of the position of the wheel in the rear dropouts seems the only way. Moving the wheel back enough to just start to take up rear derailleur tension in the small to small combination. Then I'm checking the large to large to ensure no binding in that combination.

Whatever I do it seems rather noisy on the larger ring. Also, moving the wheel back seems to have an effect on shifting? Or maybe that is just in my mind! Definitely think Shaun's comment earlier on the old Record derailleur not totally happy with the 44t and 52t ring combination is spot on. Going to search for a 151BCD 47t.

Click to expand...

I have a 1978 Nuovo Record rear gear working perfectly across a 6 speed block 13-22 with a 42/52 front chain wheel. BUT I do use 7/8 speed KMC silver chains.

For an accurate gear change you need the top tension roller as close to the cogs as you can get it. Remove the horizontal stop screw when you adjust the tension. We always set the gear lever about 30 degrees back for the high (small) cog, so that you get your hand over the top of it, rather than use finger and thumb.
Keith

I've got a modern SRAM PC850 chain. Was recommended it as being good on 5/6 speed blocks. Might try that for comparison. As I said, I'm just not sure what I should consider perfectly!

It's shifting from low (large) to high (small) cog pretty close to perfectly. Shifting back up from small to large is less perfect. Quite hard to get it in gear just right, a bit 'grindy' feeling. Could just be my shifting! And in both directions it often seems to want to skip the second smallest cog. Oh well, keep tinkering tomorrow I guess.

keithglos":3chm1a57 said:

For an accurate gear change you need the top tension roller as close to the cogs as you can get it. Remove the horizontal stop screw when you adjust the tension. We always set the gear lever about 30 degrees back for the high (small) cog, so that you get your hand over the top of it, rather than use finger and thumb.
Keith

Click to expand...

What do you mean "the horizontal stop screw"? The one that stops the cage just spinning right round?

I'm actually using bar end shifters. Was finding I need to set the lever at about 10 degrees short of pointing straight down when adjusting cable tension to get it about right.