Campagnolo 12sp chain on 11sp drivetrain

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

MauriceBrocco
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2022 9:38 am

by MauriceBrocco

Bobbyc123 wrote:
Thu May 18, 2023 2:40 pm
I think Graeme mentioned on another thread, while it might work, it could result in accelerated wear on chainrings and cassettes due to sizings not being optimal.
Thx for the feedback.
I can only assume that I stumbled upon a particularly bad working combination. The chainrings are from TA Specialites in France and seem to be of good quality. They worked absolutely flawlessly with an 11sp Centaur drivetrain. Now with Record 12sp I get a skipping chain on the small chainring when applying high torque, mostly when on the bigger cogs in the rear. And yet on the big chainring, no matter how bad I'm cross chaining, it doesn't happen. The chain stays put. I can see the marks on the small ring. I'll replace it with a slightly used Super Record 12sp ring that I sourced.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



graeme_f_k
Shop Owner / Manufacturer
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

by graeme_f_k

MauriceBrocco wrote:
Thu May 18, 2023 7:50 pm
Bobbyc123 wrote:
Thu May 18, 2023 2:40 pm
I think Graeme mentioned on another thread, while it might work, it could result in accelerated wear on chainrings and cassettes due to sizings not being optimal.
Thx for the feedback.
I can only assume that I stumbled upon a particularly bad working combination. The chainrings are from TA Specialites in France and seem to be of good quality. They worked absolutely flawlessly with an 11sp Centaur drivetrain. Now with Record 12sp I get a skipping chain on the small chainring when applying high torque, mostly when on the bigger cogs in the rear. And yet on the big chainring, no matter how bad I'm cross chaining, it doesn't happen. The chain stays put. I can see the marks on the small ring. I'll replace it with a slightly used Super Record 12sp ring that I sourced.
That I did.

There's lots of things *will work* in a narrower range of circumstances than the design parameters that are set by the manufacturer, when they are doing the basic design work. That narrower range can include a lot of things - it might mean
  • Function is available but is not optimal (slow shift, say, or requires far more care in assembly or maintenance than is considered "normal" by the maker).
  • Function is available but only within certain physical parameters (I have 11-34 working "OK" on an 11s EPS RD with 39/53 but the characteristics of frame and hanger mean that the bike I have it working on, is the only one in my stable it *will* work on).
  • It might mean that whilst something will work with all new parts, with wear and tear, function and / or relative durability is compromised (accelerated wear of one part relative to the others occurs, for instance, outside of expected parameters).
  • It might mean that there is a potential negative effect on the physical ability of a part to continue doing it's job relative to the expected life of that part (I know that the stress on the above-noted EPS11s RD upper spring housing significantly exceeds the design parameter ... the loading will almost certainly shorten the service life of the derailleur and could result in catastrophic failure).
There are other elements to this - but generally, it's fair to say that the more steps a mechanic takes away from the OEM spec, the greater the likelihood of problems in function or durability. So, 11s chainrings on the 12s system - we do it on the teams sometimes in very specific circumstances (TTs) and swallow the known problems of accelerated chainring tooth wear and the knock-ons for chain and cassette wear. Now take athird party chainring & you add a further layer of possible problem. Were you to add a third party chain, that would be another layer - abuse the capacity of the derailleur and it all gets even more unpredictable.
A Tech-Reps work is never done ...
Head Tech, Campagnolo main UK ASC
Pls contact via velotechcycling"at"aim"dot"com, not PM, for a quicker answer. Thanks!

graeme_f_k
Shop Owner / Manufacturer
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

by graeme_f_k

graeme_f_k wrote:
Fri May 19, 2023 11:17 am
MauriceBrocco wrote:
Thu May 18, 2023 7:50 pm
Bobbyc123 wrote:
Thu May 18, 2023 2:40 pm
I think Graeme mentioned on another thread, while it might work, it could result in accelerated wear on chainrings and cassettes due to sizings not being optimal.
Thx for the feedback.
I can only assume that I stumbled upon a particularly bad working combination. The chainrings are from TA Specialites in France and seem to be of good quality. They worked absolutely flawlessly with an 11sp Centaur drivetrain. Now with Record 12sp I get a skipping chain on the small chainring when applying high torque, mostly when on the bigger cogs in the rear. And yet on the big chainring, no matter how bad I'm cross chaining, it doesn't happen. The chain stays put. I can see the marks on the small ring. I'll replace it with a slightly used Super Record 12sp ring that I sourced.
That I did.

There's lots of things *will work* in a narrower range of circumstances than the design parameters that are set and published by the manufacturer, for general consumption, when they are doing the basic design work. The design has to encompass a general range of characteristics that are common to a very high percentage of the available frames in the market. It may not include all - some frames have very short rear triangles, for instance. The gear system may work in these circumstances but function may not be exactly as intended. 10s QS on Cervelo S3s and S5s for instance. The chain will rub when fully crossed on the big chainring because the rear triangle is so short that the gate on the FD isn't wide enough for it to be set up to work as intended.

So, one can see that the narrower range of circumstances can include a lot of things - it might mean
  • Function is available but is not optimal (slow shift, say, or requires far more care in assembly or maintenance than is considered "normal" by the maker).
  • Function is available but only within certain physical parameters (I have 11-34 working "OK" on an 11s EPS RD with 39/53 but the characteristics of frame and hanger mean that the bike I have it working on, is the only one in my stable it *will* work on).
  • It might mean that whilst something will work with all new parts, with wear and tear, function and / or relative durability is compromised (accelerated wear of one part relative to the others occurs, for instance, outside of expected parameters).
  • It might mean that there is a potential negative effect on the physical ability of a part to continue doing it's job relative to the expected life of that part (I know that the stress on the above-noted EPS11s RD upper spring housing significantly exceeds the design parameter ... the loading will almost certainly shorten the service life of the derailleur and could result in catastrophic failure).
There are other elements to this - but generally, it's fair to say that the more steps a mechanic takes away from the OEM spec, the greater the likelihood of problems in function or durability. So, 11s chainrings on the 12s system - we do it on the teams sometimes in very specific circumstances (TTs) and swallow the known problems of accelerated chainring tooth wear and the knock-ons for chain and cassette wear. Now take athird party chainring & you add a further layer of possible problem. Were you to add a third party chain, that would be another layer - abuse the capacity of the derailleur and it all gets even more unpredictable.
A Tech-Reps work is never done ...
Head Tech, Campagnolo main UK ASC
Pls contact via velotechcycling"at"aim"dot"com, not PM, for a quicker answer. Thanks!

MauriceBrocco
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2022 9:38 am

by MauriceBrocco

graeme_f_k wrote:
Fri May 19, 2023 11:17 am
There are other elements to this - but generally, it's fair to say that the more steps a mechanic takes away from the OEM spec, the greater the likelihood of problems in function or durability. So, 11s chainrings on the 12s system - we do it on the teams sometimes in very specific circumstances (TTs) and swallow the known problems of accelerated chainring tooth wear and the knock-ons for chain and cassette wear. Now take athird party chainring & you add a further layer of possible problem. Were you to add a third party chain, that would be another layer - abuse the capacity of the derailleur and it all gets even more unpredictable.
Thx, Graeme!
I sourced a set of Record/Super Record 12sp chainrings 52/36 teeth. Am I correct in assuming that these will fit my H11 crankset, because the spider is basically the same shape as on the Record 12sp crank?

I did closely investigate the issue I have with my 11sp rings. I got a used set of original Record 11sp rings in 50/34 and the tooth profile and ramping does look slightly different on the aftermarket chainrings. So I guess that this, combined with the fact that I'm running 12sp on 11sp rings is enough to cause chain skipping under high torque. Again, only on the small ring.

MauriceBrocco
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2022 9:38 am

by MauriceBrocco

12 speed chainrings fixed my issue. All good now. So I guess my aftermarket 11sp rings were definitely not really compatible with 12sp chains.

robertbb
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:35 am

by robertbb

MauriceBrocco wrote:
Fri May 26, 2023 7:50 pm
12 speed chainrings fixed my issue. All good now. So I guess my aftermarket 11sp rings were definitely not really compatible with 12sp chains.
Which itself is strange, considering the chainline and spacing in between rings are different between 11sp and 12sp Campy.

Is the front shifting good? Any drops?

MauriceBrocco
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2022 9:38 am

by MauriceBrocco

Well the H11 crankset has the same chainline as the 12sp cranks IIRC. Also, the spacing between chainrings on these cranks is defined by the chainrings and their respective shaping and offset. So it should be as intended by the manufacturer. Hopefully. Front shifting is smooth. No chain drops.

robertbb
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:35 am

by robertbb

MauriceBrocco wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 6:13 am
Well the H11 crankset has the same chainline as the 12sp cranks IIRC. Also, the spacing between chainrings on these cranks is defined by the chainrings and their respective shaping and offset. So it should be as intended by the manufacturer. Hopefully. Front shifting is smooth. No chain drops.
I *think* the H11 cranks are designed/intended to work with H11 shifters only (the pull ratio of the left shifter I believe differs from the non-disc versions of 11sp).

There's not much in it to be sure, 1mm chainline difference and from memory 0.4mm difference in ring spacing.

Anyway, if it works it works!

MauriceBrocco
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2022 9:38 am

by MauriceBrocco

Seems like you know better than me 😄.
I have obviously never used an actual 12sp crankset. So I can't compare. The chainline with these is ever so slightly further outboard. But only because I had to spacer the 11sp rings from Specialites about .5mm inboard to make them work with this crankset. So I had to slightly readjust the 12sp Record FD. The chain runs noticeably quieter on the original 12sp rings even when cross chaining. And unlike before, I cannot make the chain skip on the inner ring even if I deliberately try to make it. So I'm happy with that.
Last edited by MauriceBrocco on Sat May 27, 2023 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

MauriceBrocco
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2022 9:38 am

by MauriceBrocco

Also, the H11 cranks came out when 12sp did not exist yet. I'd like to get my hands on an actual 12sp crank to compare. But I think that other than the hole in the middle where the spindle is, they are pretty much identical.

jih
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:54 pm

by jih

How many remember the 10s era when campag users started using shimano 10s chains because they're narrower, and then campag made their 10s chains "ultra-narrow"?

Generally speaking, narrower works better so long as it isn't so narrow that it can go between the chainrings

Nickldn
Posts: 1868
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:35 am

by Nickldn

jih wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 12:13 pm
How many remember the 10s era when campag users started using shimano 10s chains because they're narrower, and then campag made their 10s chains "ultra-narrow"?

Generally speaking, narrower works better so long as it isn't so narrow that it can go between the chainrings
Look, narrower chains make front shifting harder to set up right, as there's less room for error for the FD and the chain is more likely to overshoot, resulting in a drop.

This is one reason why SRAM was plagued by chain drops on AXS and Campy 12s front shifting is harder to set up perfectly. Only exception is Shimano, who are armed with a load of patents for FDs, as a result their front shifting is industry leading.

Once we get to 13s/14s chains will need to be very narrow and 1x might be the only option, unless FDs are totally re-imagined.
Giant Propel Advanced SL Red Etap 11s Easton EC90 wheels CeramicSpeed BB Zipp SL70 bars 6.5kg

Vitus ZX1 CRS Campy Chorus 12s Bora WTO 45 disk brake wheels Zipp SL70 bars 7.5kg

SL8 build with Craft CS5060 Wheels in progress

graeme_f_k
Shop Owner / Manufacturer
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

by graeme_f_k

jih wrote:
Sat May 27, 2023 12:13 pm
How many remember the 10s era when campag users started using shimano 10s chains because they're narrower, and then campag made their 10s chains "ultra-narrow"?

Generally speaking, narrower works better so long as it isn't so narrow that it can go between the chainrings
Late comment, I know - but for info ...
The main reason was that the Shimano chains ran quieter.
When measured, the "pocket" that the teeth sat in was slightly wider than the original Campag chain - so Campagnolo, in developing the UD chain, took the opportunity to re-shape the inner links, as well as reduce width to (eventually) allow them to dispense with any trim requirement on the big chainring (QS onwards).
A Tech-Reps work is never done ...
Head Tech, Campagnolo main UK ASC
Pls contact via velotechcycling"at"aim"dot"com, not PM, for a quicker answer. Thanks!

graeme_f_k
Shop Owner / Manufacturer
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

by graeme_f_k

MauriceBrocco wrote:
Sat May 20, 2023 9:13 pm
graeme_f_k wrote:
Fri May 19, 2023 11:17 am
There are other elements to this - but generally, it's fair to say that the more steps a mechanic takes away from the OEM spec, the greater the likelihood of problems in function or durability. So, 11s chainrings on the 12s system - we do it on the teams sometimes in very specific circumstances (TTs) and swallow the known problems of accelerated chainring tooth wear and the knock-ons for chain and cassette wear. Now take athird party chainring & you add a further layer of possible problem. Were you to add a third party chain, that would be another layer - abuse the capacity of the derailleur and it all gets even more unpredictable.
Thx, Graeme!
I sourced a set of Record/Super Record 12sp chainrings 52/36 teeth. Am I correct in assuming that these will fit my H11 crankset, because the spider is basically the same shape as on the Record 12sp crank?

I did closely investigate the issue I have with my 11sp rings. I got a used set of original Record 11sp rings in 50/34 and the tooth profile and ramping does look slightly different on the aftermarket chainrings. So I guess that this, combined with the fact that I'm running 12sp on 11sp rings is enough to cause chain skipping under high torque. Again, only on the small ring.
Sorry for the late reply ...

For reference, we have fitted 12s rings to 11s cranks without issues & that has ben the recommendation on Power"Max cranks, for instance, when used on 12s systems.

Differences in effective chainring spacings have been managed on the chainrings themselves for some time - it's usually a question of where in the guage of the material the teeth are milled and / or a stepping / dishing of the surface of the chainring in one direction or the other to change effective ring spacing.

Differences in chain width are also to some extent managed, in the context of front shifting, by the exact shaping of the back of the outer chainring - not just the ramps and pins but also, the shaping of the surface that the ramps are milled into - it's fairly clearly visible if you compare, say, 11s post 2015, 11s HO and 12s rings.
A Tech-Reps work is never done ...
Head Tech, Campagnolo main UK ASC
Pls contact via velotechcycling"at"aim"dot"com, not PM, for a quicker answer. Thanks!

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply