Bar end shifters for touring bike ?

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Jacques, Nov 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:14:25 +0000, David wrote:
    >
    >
    > > .....Noted that Shimano has made significant progress in hybriding mountain and road parts
    > > together, so you can swap out gears and cranks you don't want with relative ease. I guess, it's
    > > a question of where to find them in quantity or in expediency that deters people from upgrading
    > > or even the general knowledge that you CAN actually get lower gears than 11-23 & 52-42-30 give
    > > you is lacking in some cyclists.
    >
    > That was another question I was about to ask. Can you use mountain bike rear and front derailleurs
    > with 105 levers ? Can you use cantilever brakes with 105 levers ? If you have v-brakes, what
    > levers can you use that would

    I know nothing about the V-Brake question, but my Fuji comes with Tiagra shifters and front der,
    Deore (mtb) rear der, an 11-32 cluster, and cantilever brakes. Works great, and I would expect 105
    would be at least as good.

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     


  2. In article <[email protected]>,
    Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:

    > [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > > [email protected] (Rick Warner) wrote in message
    > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > >>
    > >> Why in the world would one ever need to shift both derailleurs at once? Not a functionality I
    > >> have ever needed, or perceive I will ever need. BTW, I do have bikes with STI, barcons, and DT
    > >> shifters, so I am very familiar with all of them.
    > >>
    > >> - rick
    > >
    > > When I shift chainrings, it jumps the equivalent of 2 rear cogs. So very often I "counter-shift"
    > > one cog at the same time. I do it all the time with the STI on my road bike and my mountain
    > > bike, as I did it all the time with my previous road bike with downtube shifters (the 2 levers
    > > being so close from each other, it was easy to do both moves with the same hand).
    > >
    > > Ok, it is not "simultaneous" shifting strictly speaking (as it might jam), but both moves are
    > > done so close to each other that you couldn't do it by (a) moving the left hand (b) shifting (c)
    > > bringing the left hand in place (d) moving right hand (e) shifting etc...
    > >
    > > I am just surprised that this sounds so uncommon !?
    >
    > I often shift both at approximately the same time. I have bar-end shifters; I don't understand
    > what the difficulty is. I don't use the same hand for both shifters, of course, but why would I
    > need to?

    It's not a difficulty, really, especially if you're not trying to win a sprint, which is one place
    where brifteurs really come into their own.

    This sort of shifting (both levers at the same time) is traditionally known as an "alpine" shift,
    and that's where you might have to make this sort of dramatic gearing adjustment.

    It has occurred to me that one benefit of the easy simultaneous shifts with brifteurs is that the
    concept of half-step gearing could usefully return.

    Half-step gearing involves having 2 closely-spaced front rings (often with a third, much lower
    granny ring that is not part of the half-step pattern). The front rings are chosen such that the
    gearing difference between them is half as great as the gearing difference between cogs on the rear.
    Ideally, this means your rear cogs are a bit wider ratio than usual, though you can get away with a
    lot less if you have a granny ring.

    The trick is to then use the front "half-shifts" to fine tune your way through the gears, thus
    making almost every gear combo useful.

    For simplicity, imagine a half-step front with four rear cogs. innermost gears are called "1".

    Front: 1 2 Rear: 1 2 3 4

    Your lowest gear is 1-1, then it goes 2-1*, 1-2, 2-2, 1-3, 2-3, 1-4*, 2-4 (gear combos with a "*"
    may not be usable due to extreme cross-up)

    These gears are all evenly spaced, but note that every second shift is a double, or alpine shift.
    (eg 2-2 to 1-3 or vice versa).

    This gearing concept fell out of favour as rear ends got to 6+ cogs, but the speed and ease of
    shifting with modern Hyperglide/STI (or Ergo) setups makes alpine shifting possible. The other nice
    thing about alpine gearing is that the front rings are so close in ratio (and thus size) that the
    shift goes from being the most problematic gear change on the bike to one of the easiest.

    My father's serendipitously half-step bike has something like 53/48 front rings.

    A good tandem-oriented page on half-step:

    http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~arpepper/Cycling/halfstep/halfstep.html

    --
    Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
     
  3. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:30:55 +0100, "jacques" <[email protected]> from Bluewin AG wrote:

    >On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:05:52 +0000, Kevan Smith wrote:
    >
    >> On 27 Nov 2003 03:46:12 -0800, [email protected] (jamtmp) from http://groups.google.com wrote:
    >>
    >>>I currently ride a Bianchi road bike and never ride on drops. There are 2 reasons.
    >>
    >> I ride a Bianchi and never ride on drops, either. I don't have any. And, what's a shifter?
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com I guess you guys got BIG MUSCLES from doing too
    >> much STUDYING!
    >
    >By "shifter" I mean the lever that allows you to shift gears. Perhaps it is not proper english, but
    >everybody on this thread seems to understand what I am talking about. I am making the effort of
    >writing in english. I could also use french, make no mistakes, and see if you can do better.

    Vitesses ? Je ne comprends pas des vitesses. Mon vélo n'a pas des vitesses.

    --
    real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com Yow! Are we laid back yet?
     
  4. David

    David Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, jacques <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:14:25 +0000, David wrote:
    >
    >
    > > .....Noted that Shimano has made significant progress in hybriding mountain and road parts
    > > together, so you can swap out gears and cranks you don't want with relative ease. I guess, it's
    > > a question of where to find them in quantity or in expediency that deters people from upgrading
    > > or even the general knowledge that you CAN actually get lower gears than 11-23 & 52-42-30 give
    > > you is lacking in some cyclists.
    >
    > That was another question I was about to ask. Can you use mountain bike rear and front derailleurs
    > with 105 levers ? Can you use cantilever brakes with 105 levers ?

    Yes you can with a MTB rear derailleur (long cage ok) and canti brakes from Avid (they are nice).
    You can not index a front MTB front derailleur with your 105STI. The only way to index a compact
    crankset (46-38-24) or (44-32-22) properly is to get a special RSX front derailleur road version
    from Harris Cyclery. This will work with your 105STI.. Apparently, I was told that my RSX front
    derailleur (stock with the bike) won't work with a compact crankset because my bike came originally
    with a 52-42-30 setup. But this derailleur works nonetheless with my current 42-32-22 setup, so I
    guess I lucked out!?!?

    Right now, I have a Campy Ergo indexing (or trimming) it and it works better -- Ergo trimming allows
    me to use some special gear combo so the chain does not rub the front derailleur cage anymore, which
    it did with my triple dead RSX STI.

    > If you have v-brakes, what levers can you use that would fit on drop handlebars ? I know Shimano
    > does not "recommend" doing any of these, but is there reliable information somewhere to be found ?
    >

    You need a QBP travel agent to make STI levers work with V-brakes but with so so results. I have
    Tektro Mini V-brakes on my touring bike and they work great without any adapter. I can also place
    fenders on the bike with these on too.. You do need to use much thinner and narrower road fenders
    available from Planet Bike though, the idea came from Marinoni since they equipped their 99' Turismo
    touring bike with these Mini Vs.
     
  5. Jacques

    Jacques Guest

    On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:58:40 +0000, Kevan Smith wrote:

    >>
    >>By "shifter" I mean the lever that allows you to shift gears. Perhaps it is not proper english,
    >>but everybody on this thread seems to understand what I am talking about. I am making the effort
    >>of writing in english. I could also use french, make no mistakes, and see if you can do better.
    >
    >
    > Vitesses ? Je ne comprends pas des vitesses. Mon vélo n'a pas des vitesses.
    >

    Hmmm. Not too bad. My apologies.

    Jacques
     
  6. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "jacques" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:p[email protected]...

    > I've seen that the Trek 520, like many others in this category, has bar end shifters. I've never
    > used such things, and I was wondering why they seem to be popular for touring. More specifically:
    > with more standard shifters (be they new new brake lever shifters or old frame tube shifters), it
    > is very easy to shift both front and rear gears at the same time. But how can you do this with
    > the bar end shifters, unless you use the lowermost handlebar position (which I never do on my
    > road bike) ?
    >
    > Any hands-on experience appreciated....

    I think it's unfortunate that combined brake-shift levers came along so soon after indexed shifting
    that bar-end shifters never really got that popular and have been relegated mostly to the touring
    niche. I have had bar-end (Ultegra) shifters on my primary road bike for 7 years or so, and I do
    about every kind of cycling except touring. Currently, I have 2 bikes with bar-ends, and I set up my
    son's bike with them as well. I have used all kinds of indexed shifters, and bar-ends are really my
    favorites. I find the shifting to be crisp and predictable, and the shifters to be reliable and
    virtually maintenance free. I do a lot of fast club paceline riding, and see a fair amount of
    sketchy shifting on bikes with STI/Ergo brifters, including complete failure during very cold
    weather (0-10F).

    Bar-ends are set up with friction front and indexed rear. I don't do a lot of double shifts, but
    with today's 9+ speed rears, it's not too big a deal. Even indexed fronts are only semi-indexed in
    that they usually require trimming. Most riders seem to have their bikes set up so that riding in
    the drops is uncomfortable enough to be avoided, so reaching for a bar-end might be considered
    awkward. I don't see the point in setting up a bike this way -- why have drop bars at all if you
    don't use the lower part?

    The benefit of bar-ends over downtube shifters is that you shift bar-ends (at least I do) with your
    pinky, sliding your hand back a little, so you're still gripping the bar. That way if you hit a bump
    while shifting (not uncommon in a paceline), maintaining control is easier. Although your hand is
    off the brake, since most of your shifting is done with the right hand, you're still on the brake
    with the much more important left hand.
     
  7. Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
    : Although your hand is off the brake, since most of your shifting is done with the right hand,
    : you're still on the brake with the much more important left hand.

    not for me or anyone else with right-front. i'd rather have my hand on the hoods when i shift. any
    way you look at shifting with bar-ends means moving your hand somewhere it would not otherwise be.
    even when i'm riding in the drops i'm forward of where the shifters are and i have to move
    backwards.

    is it mostly a reliability or cost thing? i can't see there being a functional reason to use
    bar-ends over ergo in particuliar.
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  8. David Reuteler wrote:

    > Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Although your hand is off the brake, since most of your shifting is done with the right hand,
    >> you're still on the brake with the much more important left hand.
    >
    > not for me or anyone else with right-front. i'd rather have my hand on the hoods when i shift. any
    > way you look at shifting with bar-ends means moving your hand somewhere it would not otherwise be.

    So?

    Pedaling means pushing your foot to somewhere it would not otherwise be -- better get a scooter!

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    Mausoleum: The final and funniest folly of the rich. -- Ambrose Bierce
     
  9. David Reuteler wrote:

    > Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> David Reuteler wrote:
    >>> the hoods when i shift. any way you look at shifting with bar-ends means moving your hand
    >>> somewhere it would not otherwise be.
    >>
    >> So?
    >>
    >> Pedaling means pushing your foot to somewhere it would not otherwise be -- better get a scooter!
    >
    > good one benjamin. too bad it's not relevant.
    >
    > i don't really think it's a big deal to move your hand back to shift either, but the fact that you
    > do isn't a selling point of bar-end shifters

    true . . .

    > it's a detriment.

    Not in my experience.

    > that's why so. whatever else you say about brifters your hands are already there. and
    > that's a plus.

    Why is that a plus (for a non-racer?) I don't experience *any* inconvenience. I can't see any
    benefit that not having to move my hands would give me. If you experience some inconvenience then
    it's a disadvantage for you, but I don't see any objective disadvantages.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    Mausoleum: The final and funniest folly of the rich. -- Ambrose Bierce
     
  10. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
    > : Although your hand is off the brake, since most of your shifting is done with the right hand,
    > : you're still on
    the
    > : brake with the much more important left hand.
    >
    > not for me or anyone else with right-front. i'd rather have my hand on the hoods when i shift.

    I think I'd switch my shifters if I switched my brakes. I guess you can't do that with STI/ERGO.

    > any way you look at shifting with bar-ends means moving your hand somewhere it would not
    > otherwise be. even when i'm riding in the drops i'm forward of where the shifters are and i have
    > to move backwards.

    I don't think moving the hand is a big deal, particularly if it doesn't leave the bars.

    > is it mostly a reliability or cost thing? i can't see there being a functional reason to use
    > bar-ends over ergo in particuliar.

    It's both, and both are a consequence of simplicity. I guess that's what I like less about brifters
    -- the (unnecessary) complexity.
     
  11. Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
    : David Reuteler wrote:
    :> the hoods when i shift. any way you look at shifting with bar-ends means moving your hand
    :> somewhere it would not otherwise be.
    :
    : So?
    :
    : Pedaling means pushing your foot to somewhere it would not otherwise be -- better get a scooter!

    good one benjamin. too bad it's not relevant.

    i don't really think it's a big deal to move your hand back to shift either, but the fact that you
    do isn't a selling point of bar-end shifters it's a detriment. that's why so. whatever else you say
    about brifters your hands are already there. and that's a plus.

    now if you had to disengage your foot from your pedal and stick your leg out every 20 revolutions of
    your stroke in order to acomodate your new clipless pedals you might have a good analogy.
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  12. Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
    :> i don't really think it's a big deal to move your hand back to shift either, but the fact that
    :> you do isn't a selling point of bar-end shifters
    :
    : true . . .
    :
    :> it's a detriment.
    :
    : Not in my experience.

    it is a detriment. to you it may not be much of one. we're quibbling over matters of degree. i don't
    even think it's much of one but it is one.

    :> that's why so. whatever else you say about brifters your hands are already there. and that's
    :> a plus.
    :
    : Why is that a plus (for a non-racer?) I don't experience *any* inconvenience.

    i'm not a racer .. but i do tour "fast" & i do appreciate being able to shift while climbing or
    otherwise out of the saddle. people tour in vastly different ways, in probably more ways than they
    commute. to me it's not a 15mph affair.

    : I can't see any benefit that not having to move my hands would give me.

    you don't. i do. i find brifters much more convenient than bar-end shifters (shifteurs ryan?).

    : If you experience some inconvenience then it's a disadvantage for you, but I don't see any
    : objective disadvantages.

    well, i believe they are objective differences. just not to a degree to make the trade off for
    whatever it is you like about bar-ends shifters worthwile. eg, having your hands on the brakes while
    shifting is an objective advantage. how much that really increases safety is arguable (and i will
    not be going there in this thread).
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  13. Frkrygow

    Frkrygow Guest

    Peter Cole wrote:

    > "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > [P.C.] I don't think moving the hand is a big deal, particularly if it doesn't leave the bars.
    >
    >>[D.R.] is it mostly a reliability or cost thing? i can't see there being a functional reason to
    >> use bar-ends over ergo in particuliar.
    >
    > It's both, and both are a consequence of simplicity. I guess that's what I like less about
    > brifters -- the (unnecessary) complexity.

    I agree strongly about the complexity. On various rides and tours, I've fixed almost every part of a
    bike. (Thankfully, it's usually been someone else's bike.) I've even had to repair a friend's
    freewheel innards on one long tour.

    It bothers me to have something on the bike that's simply not repairable. It seems like it goes
    against the philosophy of cycling.

    Admittedly, STI is nice at certain times: one, for shifting when sprinting; two, for shifting while
    climbing out of the saddle. But neither situation is important enough to me, to put up with the
    non-repair issue.

    The shifters on my favorite bike are still perfect after more than 15 years. I don't think I could
    say that if they were STI.

    --
    Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]
     
  14. frkrygow <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote:
    : I agree strongly about the complexity. On various rides and tours, I've fixed almost every part of
    : a bike. (Thankfully, it's usually been someone else's bike.) I've even had to repair a friend's
    : freewheel innards on one long tour.

    i've been relatively lucky compared to that. :)

    : It bothers me to have something on the bike that's simply not repairable. It seems like it goes
    : against the philosophy of cycling.
    :
    : Admittedly, STI is nice at certain times: one, for shifting when sprinting; two, for shifting
    : while climbing out of the saddle. But neither situation is important enough to me, to put up with
    : the non-repair issue.

    i agree enuf to bring along a spare rear down-tube shifter with me when i tour. weighs a few grams
    and takes care of all those concerns.

    : The shifters on my favorite bike are still perfect after more than 15 years. I don't think I could
    : say that if they were STI.

    probably not.
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  15. Velocio

    Velocio New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    <I currently ride a Bianchi road bike and never ride on drops. There are 2 reasons.>

    I just got 2003 Veloce triple , and was thinking that I should have purchased the San Remo as I too found it uncomfortable.
    But I remembered that the Stem is reversible.
    After I flipped it over and remounted the bars it made a tremendous difference!

    One of the reasons I bought the Veloce triple over the San Remo was that I knew I wanted to do century rides and have a reliable road bike to go long distances with. But I also knew I would not be going anywhere with a tent and saddle bags anytime in the next year or two, if ever. I opted for something a little zippier than the San Remo but still not a "Racing Bike" Now I am fast and comfortable. I put on some SPD pedals and considering slightly fatter tires, wider bars and if needed upping the cogs from 13-26 to 13-29.
    Think about what you are going to be doing with the bike, and decide from there what you need.
     
  16. Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

    : I think it's unfortunate that combined brake-shift levers came along so soon after indexed
    : shifting that bar-end shifters never really got that popular and have been relegated mostly to the
    : touring niche.

    While bar-end shifters may seem awkward with drop bars (well my personal experience is zero) they
    seem just the natural shifter for recumbents with underseat steering. I've had them on my trike for
    a few months and they seem a splendid invention, and doubly so, reading this thread...

    Some pictures for illustration:
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/Kuvat/bikes/viper/viperP8240011b.jpg
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/Kuvat/bikes/viper/viper0610.jpg
    http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/sm/gt/details_e.html

    The friction mode shifting is much easier to set up than STI. Bar-ends are also very nice for a
    tightly spaced cassette (mine is 11-23), as I can go over several cogs in a single swing when a
    downhill changes into an uphill.

    --
    Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi
     
  17. David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote:

    : is it mostly a reliability or cost thing? i can't see there being a functional reason to use
    : bar-ends over ergo in particuliar.

    Maybe bar-ends are easier to operate when you are wearing mitts for cold weather?

    --
    Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi
     
  18. [email protected] wrote:
    : Maybe bar-ends are easier to operate when you are wearing mitts for cold weather?

    i've never toured in weather cold enuf to require mitts. but that is a good point .. but i ride a
    fixed when it gets that cold anyway.
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  19. David

    David Guest

    > >
    > >>[D.R.] is it mostly a reliability or cost thing? i can't see there being a functional reason to
    > >> use bar-ends over ergo in particuliar.
    > >
    > > It's both, and both are a consequence of simplicity. I guess that's what I like less about
    > > brifters -- the (unnecessary) complexity.
    >

    After installing the Dura-Ace bar ends on both of my bikes to replace the dead RSX STIs, it took me
    just 2 days to get used to them shifting. By day 3, I was able to ride with a fast peloton and not
    miss a shift. By week's end, I was so proficient with bar ends that I actually liked it more than my
    Ergo shifter (I run half Ergo and half bar end) on 2 of my bikes.

    > It bothers me to have something on the bike that's simply not repairable. It seems like it goes
    > against the philosophy of cycling.
    >
    > Admittedly, STI is nice at certain times: one, for shifting when sprinting; two, for shifting
    > while climbing out of the saddle. But neither situation is important enough to me, to put up with
    > the non-repair issue.

    I noticed that all the talk about STI failures revolves around the Ultegras and the Dura-Aces. But
    these shifters do not account for the majority of shifter sales. In my opinion, lower end STIs
    account for the majority of the shifter sales. I think what happens is that, people get upset when
    their expensive toy broke down and am unwilling to downgrade to something heavier and more
    durable. Instead, I kept hearing people saying that a few grams weight savings on the Ultegras or
    the Dura-Aces really matters like a few grams with light wheel sets are going to make you climb
    hills faster.

    I also think we put way too much confidence in touring cyclists being self sufficient.
    Unfortunately, I had met my fair share of so called touring cyclists who hadn't a clue how to even
    use basic tools. Or even worse, tour with the wrong pump (carry mountain bike pump for their road
    touring bike). They couldn't figure out why the pump couldn't pump up any higher than 50 psi on
    their 80-120psi tires.

    In my many years of touring, I had only seen one STI failure and that was caused by a crash. But
    then, I was scanning eBay a weeks ago for Campagnolo stuff and found that their shifters and
    derailleurs also do not fare too well on crashes either. People are selling dead shifters and broken
    derailleurs for parts. You can't simply repair a mangled rear derailleur or a cartridge BB. You need
    to replace them with new parts and that holds true with any bike part maker.
     
  20. "Dennis Johnston" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > > ....... Why in the world would one ever need to shift both derailleurs at once? Not a
    > > functionality I have ever needed, or perceive I will ever need. BTW, I do have bikes with STI,
    > > barcons, and DT shifters, so I am very familiar with all of them.
    > >

    It used to be a good useful trick when we had half-step plus granny. A typical set up was
    14-17-20-24-28-(34) and 28-42-46, so when riding on the flats, one would alternate between both
    large rings to fine-tune one's gear. For instance, one could ride in 42/17, then if the wind eased a
    bit go to 46/17, then to 42/14... Not so useful anymore with modern gearing. For better or for
    worst, that's another debate.

    Many other good reasons were highlighted so far. Let me add a few.

    I have a high short-reach stem, so the tops are about 2 cm higher than the saddle... and I ride from
    the drops 80-90% of the time. It allows better stability, especially in cross winds, but it also
    allows very quick access to bar-end shifters and to the brakes.

    I also place tilt the handlebars, so the drops are not horizontal, but rather point down to the rear
    axle (or slightly above it). I know it negates the effect of the short-reach stem, but it allows
    better wrist angle... and more long-term comfort.

    I also have the brakes lower than most, and a bit lower than the recommended position in the
    Barnett's handbook. The position was actually the recommended one back in the days I used
    non-anatomic handlebars (such as found on my older bike), with the lowest part of the lever about
    level with the drop. The brakes are still usable from the tops (for the rare times I use that
    position), and riding from the hoods is not that comfortable, but I have never liked the position
    anyways, as I feel a lack of control and stability, especially on bumpy streets.

    One other factor many suggested: bar-end shifters are a problem for out-of-the-saddle efforts.
    That's less of a problem with wider 45-46 cm handlebars than it used to be with 38-40 cm handlebars
    used 20 years ago. Besides, not too many tourers ride out of the saddle!
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...