John Forrest Tomlinson <
[email protected]> writes:
> True now. But what about the period before STI was available and
> barcons were?
That's an interesting question. I think that there are several
reasons. One of them relates to the Shimano innovation that made
reliable indexing with STI possible- SIS cable housing. Prior to
that, we have just spiral wound housing, which resulted in imprecise
shifting. For STI to work well, Shimano needed a way to have a stiff
contant-length cable housing- which also improves the performance of
bar-end shifters noticeably.
Prior to STI, DT shifters were more common. DT shift levers felt a
bit crisper and more accurate, and also were more popular with racers
because of this and the weight issue. However, a number of famous
racers used bar ends, including climbers such as Charly Gaul and
sprinters like Abjujaparov (sp?). Not to mention thousands of pro
'cross racers (many of whom still use bar-end shifters rather than
brifters) and many tourists.
> If you think a bunch of blowhards like Ozark and Cole are at all
> representative of a normal cross-section of cyclists, you're way off.
> At least when I use obscure stuff myself, I don't try to paint it as
> useful for any significant portion of the cycling community and I
> recognize that.
Just when it seems like you are getting it, you ****** defeat from the
jaws of victory. The condescension drips off your last sentence,
hence why this stupid thread continues. I will have to content myself
with being insignificant in the cycling community, I guess. Thank you
for teaching me my place in the grand scheme of things, O Most Wise
One.
ROTFL!