Actually, up until the QS series, the inner mechanical parts were identical from Veloce through Record.

And for the record, I ride both Shimano and Campy having two bikes with each. I prefer Campy first because of the shifter mechanism, second because I can service it, and third, because it has a long and interesting tradition. I enjoy riding both groups and I buy Shimano when it makes more sense for the bike I am on. I just enjoy riding Campy a little more. For the same reasons, all my saddles are Brooks, first because they fit me perfectly, but second, because they are made out of leather in England by a company over 100 years old with traditional workmanship.

For some of us, tradition and history and workmanship count as part of the calculation when a purchase is made. For others it is not the case. Neither is right or wrong, it is just part of our individual differences, the same as color choice. If the most comfortable custom made Colnago at half price is the wrong color, some of us would never enjoy it. If I could get my hands on the original Raleigh 3 speed I rode as a kid, it would be the most enjoyable bike I would ever ride again, regardless of how limited the gear train and how heavy the weight. Part of what I enjoy about biking is the tradition and history and the harkening back to my childhood. But the best part is riding.

I must not be putting my bikes through enough trials and tribulation

I have yet to have problems with any of my Shimano components even after some pretty serious crashes (some components now have some cosmetic issues) and many hours of riding in heavy rain with the result of grit working its way into the components. Apart from the usual maintenance of tuning, changing cables, chains and such it seems like the best life for any group set is keeping the components clean the best you can.

I suppose we have different points of view. I have no loyalties, but have yet had a desire to put Campy on my bikes. Perhaps some day I will as I have no real partiallity to any brand name. Shimano has worked well for me and now I am trying SRAM Red and though I have just a few hundres miles on the Red equipped bike I really like it. I am still adjusting to the double tap shifiting I really like that as well. I am finding that depending on which bike I select for the day I am able to instinctively switch from Shimano shifting to SRAM shifting without much thought.

I haven't really thought much about service to the components. I figure that I have put enough hard miles on the Shimano components that I have got my money's worth out of the components. If they were to fail for some reason I would just throw it/them in the garbage and buy new ones.

I suppose we all have different perspectives.

__________________
My Blog

alfeng, admit I'm in the habit of not shifting under load. Perhaps it's something I learned growing up with Simplex But today tried just the opposite with DA 9 sp/Ultegra cassette. On my home hill 12% grade, popped down to the 30 ring, and banged shifts down from the 19 to the 27 and then back without letting up pedal pressure at all. The shifts were quick and crisp, absolutely no problem. Obviously you have different experience with Shimano, but on my DA 7700, loaded shifts work.

Regardless of the group, don't think this is smart practice for long-term drivetrain life due to the shock loading involved.

I don't think I've ever seen a post about problems shifting under load with Shimano, let alone hear anything. Dura-Ace shifted fine for me on a 22% grade, and drive train loading was certainly high. No easing up to shift. Results were the same with Record, and I'm sure they'd be the same with SRAM. Being able to shift under load would be one primary focus for any company designing a gruppo.

__________________
"I am two lesbians in a man's body."
--Eddie Izzard

Okay, thanks for the results of your field test. Your positive shifting experience would explain where the DA 7700 shifters' supposedly stiffer feel comes from ... i.e., there is a sight difference in the mechanism between the Dura Ace shifters and the Ultegra-and-below.

Sadly, or not, for me, I have only used Ultegra & 105 shifters. Too bad there was a differenece in the (earlier) DA & Ultegra mechanisms.

There have been threads in this Forum ... again, with non-DA, Shimano shifters.

well that's pretty clever. you make a statement about a shifting difficulty then in the next sentence make another one based on your first statement. what if your first assumption is wrong? all of a sudden there is no design inefficiency and the "problem" you imagine then doesn't exist.

which is my experience.

The shifting problem DOES exist on non-DA, 8-and-9-speed Shimano shifters [presumably, with the 10-speed Ultegra-and-below shifters since supposedly the design did not change] when going uphill & attempting to shift while the drivetrain is actually under load (vs. unloaded) ... so, if it seems as though I contradicted myself on the point, then it is a miscommunication on my part.

While some of the riders who have commented in this thread haven't had a problem when downshifting with THEIR Shimano shifters, shifting BEFORE the ascent has been discussed by others elsewhere in this Forum as their work around for balky downshifting with Shimano shifters ... downshifting onto a granny comes to mind as another suggestion, too. So, because the balky shifting has been discussed in other threads, it must be a problem which exsits beyond my personal experience -- or, is it an illusion for them, too?

FWIW. While 'I' have never used Shimano's DA STI shifters & my experience has been limited to Ultegra & 105 shifters, several years ago, I did ask ONE rider who has DA 7700 shifters w/ a full DA group (12-27 cassette) if he ever experienced a balking downshift, and he said that he had ...

I rarely ride with him, but I know that most of his riding in the past few years has been on his older bike which only has downtube shifters. Since I haven't asked him why he doesn't ride the bike with the DA 7700 shifters, until/unless I ask him, I can only speculate he wants to avoid the occasional, balky downshift ... and, I would put money on that speculation ... maybe, I would lose that bet ... maybe, not.

I don't know how flat the part of Australia is-or-isn't that you ride on ... my rides generally start at 6500 feet & end at 9000 feet. Others whom I know begin their rides at 5500 feet (where I will also start) and end at 11000+ feet. Basically, it's ALL climbing OR descending with a few false flats which only look flat because they are so long that there truly isn't any perspective ...

So, if YOUR experience echoes that of others who say that they have not experienced ANY problem downshifting with their Shimano shifters, then I say 'great' ...

BUT, this begs the question as to why the Di2 reviewers + 'new' owners are so seemingly ecstatic about the way that the Di2 shifts effortlessly regardless of the situation ... which suggest (to me) that there have been SOME occasions with Shimano's mechanical, STI shifters when the shifting wasn't effortless ... whereas, MY experience has been that Campagnolo's ERGO shifters do shift effortlessly regardless of the situation ...

Now, perhaps it could be suggested that I am such a klutz that being able to make a non-DA Shimano balk when downshifting is something exclusive to me & rarely happens with other riders (other than those few who have expressed a problem downshifting) ...

If that is what you-or-others choose to believe, then that is your prerogative ...

AND, 'I' remain steadfast in my belief that Shimano will rectify this situation (i.e., balky downshifts when under load) in the future by employing their Rapid Rise derailleurs in a future generation of ROAD groups -- from my lips to Shimano's ears.

Interesting watching all of this to-ing and fro-ing using single-sample subjective statistics. They are incredibly convincing.
Time for me to weigh in with some meaningless drivel - I've ridden Campy Nuovo Record, Super Record, DA (Biopace Chainrings, anybody? - They're the way of the future) since the 1970's.
This single-sample statistic still rides fixed (Aaah, Suntour - No problems shifting under load - just a problem applying sufficient load). I checked with myself on ethics, aesthetic taste, maintenance, etc, and found the following:

1) Getting T-boned by a taxi did not affect the Suntour's shiftability (in facxt it shifted a whole lane).
2) The coefficient of lard in my **** is inversely proportional to the sickle's maximum speed.

Therefore everybody should stop riding what they want / can afford / are comfortable with, and continue their foray into discussing the merits of gruppo's that are likely to be much more proficient than the riders who use them.

Gears, hmm? Sounds like an interesting concept... What will they think of next?

Oh, and another piece of hearsay, one-off sample-taking - my 10 year old daughter crashed her Campy Mirage the other night (after running up the bum of my fixie), and wiped out the whole LH lever / housing doohickey... Suntour 1 / Campy 0. Does that prove anything? Not really, since I had to pay for the replacement.
Despite a decent piece of ashphalt-eating action, she didn't cry, and continued the uphill ride home, so she may have a little Suntour in her...

Anyway, carry on with your impressive ethical standoffs, while the rest of us go out for a ride.

Crappy wet and windy day here, by the way.
Cheers,
Eoin

Wow. You're my hero. Can you spin some more inspiring yarns about fixies and Suntour? I got a chuckle out of your "gear" comment. Oooo doggie, you are a card.

__________________
"I am two lesbians in a man's body."
--Eddie Izzard

Maybe your frame flexes so much under load that the cable is effectively shortening just enough for the gears to jump

That's an interesting suggestion and would be a good insight ...

But, I have never had a problem with ERGO shifters under the same, presumably-high loads with the same/(various) frames ... other than not having a larger cog to shift on to.

BUT, I suppose it could be suggested that some of those loads to which I have alluded are somehow higher than those which some others who use Shimano have encountered ... or, not!?!

alfeng, surprising to me that you doubt Shimano knows just as well as Campagnolo how to make cogs and chains which shift under load. Do you actually believe Campy uses some "secret technology" that allows them to do something that Shimano can't? If they in fact had any design advantage, don't you think Shimano would have found a way to copy it by now?

NEWS FLASH! The superior chainring & cog design developed by Shimano (i.e., ramping and/or pinning) are a direct consequence of the dodgy shifting of their inferior STI shifter design ...

The original STI design is one reason that the pre-7900 -shifters are so large (by comparison to Campagnolo & SRAM) & the shifting mechanism has so many "moving parts" AND probably the driving force behind Shimano's ever-evolving ramping-and-pinning development.

The development of the new (CN-7900?) chain design can be attributed as an attempt to further mitigate the effects of the in-built "dwell" which the Shimano shifters have been saddled with through their original design.

As I've stated many times before, I 'love' Shimano -- I think that Shimano's CUSTOMER SERVICE in North America is excellent and, other than their pre-7900 shifters, I think that Shimano's ROAD products are generally superior.

FYI. There is nothing secret about the Campagnolo design which makes it work better ... rather, the Shimano engineer(s) who first worked on the original STI design went out of his/her/their way to unintentionally make the shifter dodgy because someone in the design team must have embraced the notion of "dwell" facilitating the shifting process.

Supposedly, SRAM does not suffer from downshifting problems ... and, I would suggest that it is because the SRAM engineers did not incorporate "dwell" in their shift mechanism.

I would speculate that the reason Shimano has been slow to abandon the original STI design is a consequence of bean counters & lawyers who are "protecting" the STI design patents ...

Besides, if the majority of people were/have-been/are willing to buy the emperor's-new-clothes, why change it?

Campagnolo & SRAM (et al) have benefitted greatly from Shimano NOT enforcing their patent rights with regard to ramping & pinning, BTW.

So, the truth of the matter is that Shimano has designed better chainrings, cogs, and (now) chains than anyone else.

FWIW. After deducing that Campagnolo shifters were superior in heavy downshifting situations, I further tested their capability by installing an older NON-ramped/pinned (e.g., 7-/8-speed) chainring on one of my cranks -- subjectively, I would say that the shifting onto a larger ring with the Campagnolo shifter was-and-is superior to the shifting with Shimano shifters WITH ramped-and-pinned chainrings (even than with Shimano chainrings) -- I have never experienced any shifting hesitation with any of the older/thinner, un-ramped/pinned chainrings with the Campagnolo Ergo shifters ...

I doubt (m)any STI users would be willing to use the an 8-or-9-speed chainring with their 10-speed STI shifters -- or, an 8-speed-or-earlier chainring with their 9-or-10 speed STI shifters -- if they have a choice.

The development of the stiffer 7900 chainring is undoubtedly a further attempt to overcome the in-built "dwell" of earlier shifters (and possibly, the 7900 since I recall reading that Shimano indicated that there wasn't a change in the mechanical design other than re-routing the derailleur cable).

Shimano shifters DO work well in most circumstances when mated with other Shimano components ... they just don't work as flawlessly as Campagnolo shifters in all circumstances.

Just two quick questions on this:

- I assume when you guys talk about shifting problems under load, you mean shifting on the front derailleur only, right? For the rear derailleur, the shifting process occurs on a part of the chain that is decoupled from the load, so load shouldn't matter for rear derailleur shifting, right?
- The (alleged) issues with Shimano shifting only occur with the STI shifters, not the downtube shifters, right? For the downtube shifters, the shifting motion should be more direct, without any dwell or any other gimmicks.

I'm just curious here; myself, I've been happy to stick with Campagnolo