bar-end shifters



In article <[email protected]>,
The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:

> 3) Those who really do not car one way or another

^^^
That's me :)


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
Tim McNamara wrote:

> Les bicyclettes, les fromages et les vins- those French knew their
> stuff!


So tell me - Why do you hate America? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski
 
Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >
> > I am puzzled why you feel the need to ascribe to marketing what seems
> > to be a simple fact based on the functionality of the product.

>
> "Seems" is subjective. There are a lot of people here to whom it does not
> seem that way. What seems clear to *me* is that the ratio here of people
> who prefer barcons to those who prefer integrated shifters is far higher
> than the ratio of barcon equipped bikes to STI equipped bikes on display in
> any LBS I've been into....


We must be more cultured and intelligent than the average cyclist,
then. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
 
Jim wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I was reading the Trek Web site, and found the 520 comes with bar-end
> shifters.
> What benefits do the Shimano Dura-Ace bar-end shifters offer, compared
> with
> modern integrated shifters? Is the 520 the only modern bicycle equipped
> with
> bar-end shifters?
>
> Thanks in advance.


It is only January, but I nominate this post for "Inadvertent Troll of
the Year".

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
 
"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jim wrote:
>> Hello there,
>>
>> I was reading the Trek Web site, and found the 520 comes with bar-end
>> shifters.
>> What benefits do the Shimano Dura-Ace bar-end shifters offer, compared
>> with
>> modern integrated shifters? Is the 520 the only modern bicycle equipped
>> with
>> bar-end shifters?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.

>
> It is only January, but I nominate this post for "Inadvertent Troll of
> the Year".
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley


LOL! I second...
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 01:29:43 GMT, Benjamin Lewis
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>
> >> I am puzzled why you feel the need to ascribe to marketing what seems
> >> to be a simple fact based on the functionality of the product.

> >
> >"Seems" is subjective. There are a lot of people here to whom it does not
> >seem that way. What seems clear to *me* is that the ratio here of people
> >who prefer barcons to those who prefer integrated shifters is far higher
> >than the ratio of barcon equipped bikes to STI equipped bikes on display in
> >any LBS I've been into.

>
> True now. But what about the period before STI was available and
> barcons were? That period of time -- and the transition to STI and
> Ergo being super-popular -- tell us a lot about the popularity (or
> lack of it) of barcons.
>


To most people, indexed shifting was the *prime* feature. Indexed
barends were only available for a year prior to the introduction of
road STI. So they never really had a chance in the marketplace before
the Shimano STI marketing blitz began.

IMO, if indexed barends had been introduced in, say, 1987, they very
likely would have enjoyed much wider acceptance in the marketplace by
the time road STI was introduced.


> If you think a bunch of blowhards like Ozark



Let's see, I got you to stop saying I was dishonest/less-than-honest,
so now you call me a blowhard. Tell ya, what. Show where I've been a
blowhard. And be specific, Google citations and all that good stuff. Or
just cut the BS.


<remaining blather snipped>
 
"JJ" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Broken record, repetitive twisting of posts.

>>
>> It's not like you've said anything new to respond to, JJ. You've
>> got one point you keep making- the shift levers are right under
>> your hands when your hands are on the brake levers. On this you
>> base your whole argument for the superiority of brifters.

>
> Once again, Mr. Twister, the brifters aren't superior for everyone
> neccessarily, but they are for my purposes.


And yet you still don't *quite* get the point, eh?

>> Other than that, you dodge and weave, cast aspersions and innuendo,
>> offer vague assertions

>
> Bwaaahahaha....! Please quote me. Oops, sorry, I forgot, you don't
> have the time. So do please continue to make it up as you go
> along. It's a real *timesaver* for you.


Heh. Why should I bother, JJ? I don't for a moment think that you
are going to learn from having your own words quoted back to you, if
you didn't get it when you wrote them.

>> and pulled-out-of-your-ass "predictions."

>
> It was obvious so why are you complaining? Or you just don't get
> itt?


LOL! I suppose it's just too tempting, you know? All those easy
targets.
 
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!
 
"JJ" <[email protected]> writes:

> There has to be how many road bike riders in the world? 100,000?
> 500,000? A million? And a handful have posted here to this
> thread. The sample is way too small to come to any conclusion.


On this we can agree.
 
[email protected] wrote:

>
> "Benjamin Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>
>>> I am puzzled why you feel the need to ascribe to marketing what seems
>>> to be a simple fact based on the functionality of the product.

>>
>> "Seems" is subjective. There are a lot of people here to whom it does
>> not seem that way. What seems clear to *me* is that the ratio here of
>> people who prefer barcons to those who prefer integrated shifters is far
>> higher than the ratio of barcon equipped bikes to STI equipped bikes on
>> display in any LBS I've been into. I don't know how the ratio of vocal
>> participants is biased relative to those who remain silent; however, it
>> is an extremely good indication to me that marketing forces are biased
>> towards integrated shifters in spite of relative merits rather than
>> because of them.

>
> There has to be how many road bike riders in the world? 100,000? 500,000?
> A million? And a handful have posted here to this thread. The sample is
> way too small to come to any conclusion.


Maybe, but there have been many other barcon related threads in this
newsgroup, and I see the same thing pretty much everywhere I look, *except*
for among the racer crowd. Actually, the majority of road bikes I see in
Vancouver are equipped with stem shifters -- for a large percentage of
cyclists, cost is a much bigger issue than seems to have been dealt with
here.

It's certainly true that the regulars here are not representative of the
general cycling population, but I think one of the differences is that the
average cyclist here is better informed -- just about every cycling opinion
you can think of is espoused and discussed here.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly
 
On 17 Jan 2006 20:19:52 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>To most people, indexed shifting was the *prime* feature. Indexed
>barends were only available for a year prior to the introduction of
>road STI. So they never really had a chance in the marketplace before
>the Shimano STI marketing blitz began.


What was this blitz? I read VeloNews and a little Bicycling magazine,
but was it some super-hyped up marketing activitity, or are all ads
"blitzes" to you? If so, that really says a lot.

To me, seeing the things in person sold me. I guess seeing the
product is the result of marketing, huh?

>IMO, if indexed barends had been introduced in, say, 1987, they very
>likely would have enjoyed much wider acceptance in the marketplace by
>the time road STI was introduced.


Right. STI offered such a big profit margin that poor old bar-ends
were wiped out by marketing. It's not about functionality. It's
marketing, plus the weak-minds of the buying public.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:52:35 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The condescension drips off your last sentence,
>hence why this stupid thread continues.


He who smelt it dealt it.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>>>>I predict that at least 90% of the road bikers out there who have
>>>>>experience using bar ends prefer integrated shifters.
>>>>When I go out with the Reading CTC, more than 10% of the riders have
>>>>bar-ends. Manifestly your assertion is not true of this group.
>>>Well, since you are quantifying that and you were there to observe, what
>>>is "more than 10%?" 10.1%? 99.99%?

>>Why does that matter? You're wrong either way. Of course, if you'd said
>>"most" rather than pulling an exaggerated figure out of thin air, it
>>wouldn't be completely trivial to disprove it.

>That's not the question I asked. Further, my "figure" was a prediction,


Yes. And we find out if a prediction is right by comparing it with the
facts. This prediction is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Quit weaselling.

>a statement of fact like your figure which, one would imagine, is based on
>an actual number because you were there to witness the "more than 10%."


Concievably I have been out with my local branch of the CTC on more than
one occasion and as such this observation is not based on an actual
number, singular.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Tuesday, January.
 
Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>I predict that at least 90% of the road bikers out there who have
>>>>>>>experience using bar ends prefer integrated shifters.

>>Predictions are always compared to facts, JJ. That's how we find out
>>if they are correct. If you're going to make predictions, someone is
>>going to compare them to the facts.

>Exactly, and the OP did just that, only he neglected to reveal his results.


I did not. All that is necessary to explode your ridiculous hyberbole is
"more than 10%", and that's a result. Perhaps if you confine yourself
to more sensible predictions you'll get better answers in future.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Tuesday, January.
 
Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>Who are you trying to fool? Mr. Heine is editor and publisher of
>>>"Vintage Bicycle Quarterly." Hardly a promoter of STI, one would
>>>imagine.

>>The most recent bike they tested in VBQ was a 2005 Weigle randonneur
>>and they gave it top marks- the equal of Rene Herse or Alex Singer.
>>And it had Ergo.

>Gasp! A brifter setup? On, my....


Oh, my, my "name" is JJ and I am trying to weasel out of admitting I was
flat wrong about VBQ. Ooops!
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Tuesday, January.
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Broken record, repetitive twisting of posts.
>>>
>>> It's not like you've said anything new to respond to, JJ. You've
>>> got one point you keep making- the shift levers are right under
>>> your hands when your hands are on the brake levers. On this you
>>> base your whole argument for the superiority of brifters.

>>
>> Once again, Mr. Twister, the brifters aren't superior for everyone
>> neccessarily, but they are for my purposes.

>
> And yet you still don't *quite* get the point, eh?
>
>>> Other than that, you dodge and weave, cast aspersions and innuendo,
>>> offer vague assertions

>>
>> Bwaaahahaha....! Please quote me. Oops, sorry, I forgot, you don't
>> have the time. So do please continue to make it up as you go
>> along. It's a real *timesaver* for you.

>
> Heh. Why should I bother, JJ? I don't for a moment think that you
> are going to learn from having your own words quoted back to you, if
> you didn't get it when you wrote them.


Why should you? It's more like "Why should you not?" Because it will show
how you continually revise what others write.


>>> and pulled-out-of-your-ass "predictions."

>>
>> It was obvious so why are you complaining? Or you just don't get
>> itt?

>
> LOL! I suppose it's just too tempting, you know? All those easy
> targets.


No, more like you don't get it.
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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!


This thread would have died long ago except for your continuing repetitive
and inane commentary. Proof would be for you to just shut up and watch how
fast it ends.
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:NYw*[email protected]...
> Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>I predict that at least 90% of the road bikers out there who have
>>>>>>experience using bar ends prefer integrated shifters.
>>>>>When I go out with the Reading CTC, more than 10% of the riders have
>>>>>bar-ends. Manifestly your assertion is not true of this group.
>>>>Well, since you are quantifying that and you were there to observe, what
>>>>is "more than 10%?" 10.1%? 99.99%?
>>>Why does that matter? You're wrong either way. Of course, if you'd said
>>>"most" rather than pulling an exaggerated figure out of thin air, it
>>>wouldn't be completely trivial to disprove it.

>>That's not the question I asked. Further, my "figure" was a prediction,

>
> Yes. And we find out if a prediction is right by comparing it with the
> facts. This prediction is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Quit weaselling.
>
>
>>a statement of fact like your figure which, one would imagine, is based on
>>an actual number because you were there to witness the "more than 10%."

>
> Concievably I have been out with my local branch of the CTC on more than
> one occasion and as such this observation is not based on an actual
> number, singular.
> --
> David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
> Today is Tuesday, January.


Fine. My prediction is, in your opinion, wrong, I would assume, because it
failed by "comparing it with the
facts." So let me ask my original question: Well, since you are quantifying
that and you were there to observe, what is "more than 10%?" 10.1%? 99.99%?
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cky*[email protected]...
> Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>>Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>>I predict that at least 90% of the road bikers out there who have
>>>>>>>>experience using bar ends prefer integrated shifters.
>>>Predictions are always compared to facts, JJ. That's how we find out
>>>if they are correct. If you're going to make predictions, someone is
>>>going to compare them to the facts.

>>Exactly, and the OP did just that, only he neglected to reveal his
>>results.

>
> I did not. All that is necessary to explode your ridiculous hyberbole is
> "more than 10%", and that's a result. Perhaps if you confine yourself
> to more sensible predictions you'll get better answers in future.
> --
> David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
> Today is Tuesday, January.


You don't mind if I check up on you, do you? Once again, how much over 10%
was it?
 
JJ wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Pat Lamb wrote:


<snipped>

> >>
> >> If I may interrupt the on-going flame war with an on-topic question -
> >>
> >> Is a left/front bar-end shifter _indexed_, like STI, or ratcheting, like
> >> Ergo?

> >
> >
> > On Shimano barends, the left (front) shifter is a well-designed, pure
> > friction lever. IMO, indexed front shifting, with all it's limitations,
> > is one of the worst aspects of STI.

>
> I rather liked the friction shift on the fdr. The STI is ok for the front,
> but I wouldn't plan on any speed shifting running a triple.
>
> >


In fact, indexed front shifting was the first indication that road STI
*wasn't* going to be put on my #1 bike back in '93. Among other things,
it meant replacing my perfectly fine, three year-old Campy Record FD
Record for no good reason. Furthermore, it was a warning sign of the
limitations and "closed" nature of the Shimano technology. Instead, I
fitted a set of 8SP indexed barends (I had been using a 7SP set on
another bike for two years) and happily rode on, free to use the
components of *my* choice. And I never looked back!
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
20
Views
525
Cycling Equipment
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
J