bar-end shifters

[David Damerell]

Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Quoting John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>:
>>>Yes, most bikes come with them. But take a new rider, who has never
>>>really thought about bar-ends and integrated shifters, and see what
>>>they pick. It's clear.
>>Obviously that could not possibly be a result of the advantage of ready
>>access from the brakes being more obvious than the disadvantage of
>>fragility and unmaintainability.
>Maybe they'll come out with a very cheap disposable field replaceable
>brifter, because at present, apparently, they have a lifespan of only a week
>or so (in perfect weather only).

If you can't argue with what I wrote, it's much easier to make something
up and argue with that, isn't it?

I notice you don't actually dispute that brifters are more fragile and
less maintainable.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Monday, January.

 

[David Damerell]

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.
>>I'd feel ashamed about a tiny sample size except you don't actually have
>>any sample size at all; we'd need a doctor with a flashlight to see where
>>that "90%" came from.
>>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.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Monday, January.

 

[gds]

Egads! I would never have thought that this subject could get as ugly
as the helmet threads.
I was wrong!

 

[Sorni]

gds wrote:
> Egads! I would never have thought that this subject could get as ugly
> as the helmet threads.
> I was wrong!

Next week: internal cable routing!

Bill "provocateur" S.

 

[JJ]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c-d*[email protected]...
> Quoting JJ <[email protected]>:
>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>Quoting John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>:
>>>>Yes, most bikes come with them. But take a new rider, who has never
>>>>really thought about bar-ends and integrated shifters, and see what
>>>>they pick. It's clear.
>>>Obviously that could not possibly be a result of the advantage of ready
>>>access from the brakes being more obvious than the disadvantage of
>>>fragility and unmaintainability.
>>Maybe they'll come out with a very cheap disposable field replaceable
>>brifter, because at present, apparently, they have a lifespan of only a
>>week
>>or so (in perfect weather only).
>
> If you can't argue with what I wrote, it's much easier to make something
> up and argue with that, isn't it?
>
> I notice you don't actually dispute that brifters are more fragile and
> less maintainable.

I did, actually.

> --
> David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
> Today is Monday, January.

 

[JJ]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Cti*[email protected]...
> 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.
>>>I'd feel ashamed about a tiny sample size except you don't actually have
>>>any sample size at all; we'd need a doctor with a flashlight to see where
>>>that "90%" came from.
>>>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, not
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%."


> --
> David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
> Today is Monday, January.

 

[JJ]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> gds wrote:
>> Egads! I would never have thought that this subject could get as ugly
>> as the helmet threads.
>> I was wrong!
>
> Next week: internal cable routing!
>
> Bill "provocateur" S.

How about andonizing does or does not cause rim failure? Wait a minute...
Hold it... Sorry, already covered in another NG.

 

[Tim McNamara]

"JJ" <[email protected]> writes:

> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Cti*[email protected]...
>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>I'd feel ashamed about a tiny sample size except you don't
>>>>actually have any sample size at all; we'd need a doctor with a
>>>>flashlight to see where that "90%" came from. 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, not 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%."

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.

Tip of the day: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

 

[Pat Lamb]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> I like the fact that Ergo is serviceble, etc., and that it does not use
> indexed front shifting. I also like that the brake lever does not serve
> two functions.
>
> That said, for me, both Ergo and STI are an answer to a question I'm
> not asking. I find indexed barends perfectly convenient for
> recreational riding and like their simplicity, flexibility and
> day-to-day-reliability (even though you can service Ergo, a latched up
> Ergo lever is a PITA in the middle of a ride). If the choice were only
> between indexed DT shifters vs. Ergo/STI, I'd pick Ergo first, STI
> second and DT levers third because the "downsides" of the brifters are
> offset by the greatly improved convenience. But, indexed barends *do*
> exist, and I find them the perfect answer.

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? I like the non-indexed Ergo front shifting, too, but I've been
thinking about a new bike that might have bar-ends. Would that
constrain me to Shimano road derailers, and (big) Shimano chainrings?

Pat

 

[Tim McNamara]

"JJ" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Heine would hardly be an objective source for anything
>>> non-vintage.
>>
>> LOL. Again you are treating your assumptions as if they were
>> facts. The acid test for Jan is useability for his purpose, not
>> vintage. You crack me up, man!
>
> Who are you trying to fool? Mr. Heine is editor and publisher of
> "Vintage Bicycle Quarterly." Hardly a promoter of STI, one would
> imagine.

Your imagination seems to he the source of your problems. Have you
read VBQ, or read Jan's description of how he thinks about and
assesses bicycles? Don't be misled by the "vintage" in the title.
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.

Granted, he and Jaye Haworthe *did* finish first in the mixed tandem
category at Paris-Brest-Paris in 2003... on a 50 year old Rene Herse
tandem that helped them to outperform all but one other tandem in the
event. They were flying when they blew by me. And Jan has set the
fastest times over 200, 300 and 400 km brevets in Seattle on Herse and
Singer bikes from the 40s to the 60s.

You should get a little more educated about "vintage," JJ. Apart from
the aesthetic aspect, some of those old guys were pretty smart.
Indexed derailleurs in the 1930s, brifters in the 1940s, fully
equipped fendered randonneur bikes weighing under 20 lbs in the 1940s,
telescopic suspension forks in the 50s, systems where you could remove
the rear wheel and never have to touch the chain, direct-pull (V
brakes) in the 50s, etc., etc.

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

 

[Tim McNamara]

"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. Other than that, you dodge
and weave, cast aspersions and innuendo, offer vague assertions and
pulled-out-of-your-ass "predictions."

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Pat Lamb wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > I like the fact that Ergo is serviceble, etc., and that it does not use
> > indexed front shifting. I also like that the brake lever does not serve
> > two functions.
> >
> > That said, for me, both Ergo and STI are an answer to a question I'm
> > not asking. I find indexed barends perfectly convenient for
> > recreational riding and like their simplicity, flexibility and
> > day-to-day-reliability (even though you can service Ergo, a latched up
> > Ergo lever is a PITA in the middle of a ride). If the choice were only
> > between indexed DT shifters vs. Ergo/STI, I'd pick Ergo first, STI
> > second and DT levers third because the "downsides" of the brifters are
> > offset by the greatly improved convenience. But, indexed barends *do*
> > exist, and I find them the perfect answer.
>
> 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 like the non-indexed Ergo front shifting, too, but I've been
> thinking about a new bike that might have bar-ends. Would that
> constrain me to Shimano road derailers, and (big) Shimano chainrings?
>

IME, you have pretty wide freedom to mix/match FDs and chainrings, so
long as the chainring combo is within the capacity of the FD.

 

[Pat Lamb]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Pat Lamb wrote:
>
>>Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>>>I like the fact that Ergo is serviceble, etc., and that it does not use
>>>indexed front shifting. I also like that the brake lever does not serve
>>>two functions.
>>>
>>>That said, for me, both Ergo and STI are an answer to a question I'm
>>>not asking. I find indexed barends perfectly convenient for
>>>recreational riding and like their simplicity, flexibility and
>>>day-to-day-reliability (even though you can service Ergo, a latched up
>>>Ergo lever is a PITA in the middle of a ride). If the choice were only
>>>between indexed DT shifters vs. Ergo/STI, I'd pick Ergo first, STI
>>>second and DT levers third because the "downsides" of the brifters are
>>>offset by the greatly improved convenience. But, indexed barends *do*
>>>exist, and I find them the perfect answer.
>>
>>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.

Ditto to that, and thanks for the info!

>>I like the non-indexed Ergo front shifting, too, but I've been
>>thinking about a new bike that might have bar-ends. Would that
>>constrain me to Shimano road derailers, and (big) Shimano chainrings?
>>
>
>
> IME, you have pretty wide freedom to mix/match FDs and chainrings, so
> long as the chainring combo is within the capacity of the FD.
>

 

[JJ]

"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:Cti*[email protected]...
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd feel ashamed about a tiny sample size except you don't
>>>>>actually have any sample size at all; we'd need a doctor with a
>>>>>flashlight to see where that "90%" came from. 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, not 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%."
>
> 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.

> Tip of the day: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Look everybody, it's yet another Tim McNamara declaration of "I/We won, so
give up." Thanks, Tim, I'll keep that in mind.

 

[JJ]

"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:
>>>
>>>> Heine would hardly be an objective source for anything
>>>> non-vintage.
>>>
>>> LOL. Again you are treating your assumptions as if they were
>>> facts. The acid test for Jan is useability for his purpose, not
>>> vintage. You crack me up, man!
>>
>> Who are you trying to fool? Mr. Heine is editor and publisher of
>> "Vintage Bicycle Quarterly." Hardly a promoter of STI, one would
>> imagine.
>
> Your imagination seems to he the source of your problems. Have you
> read VBQ, or read Jan's description of how he thinks about and
> assesses bicycles? Don't be misled by the "vintage" in the title.
> 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....

>
> Granted, he and Jaye Haworthe *did* finish first in the mixed tandem
> category at Paris-Brest-Paris in 2003... on a 50 year old Rene Herse
> tandem that helped them to outperform all but one other tandem in the
> event. They were flying when they blew by me. And Jan has set the
> fastest times over 200, 300 and 400 km brevets in Seattle on Herse and
> Singer bikes from the 40s to the 60s.
>
> You should get a little more educated about "vintage," JJ. Apart from
> the aesthetic aspect, some of those old guys were pretty smart.
> Indexed derailleurs in the 1930s, brifters in the 1940s, fully
> equipped fendered randonneur bikes weighing under 20 lbs in the 1940s,
> telescopic suspension forks in the 50s, systems where you could remove
> the rear wheel and never have to touch the chain, direct-pull (V
> brakes) in the 50s, etc., etc.
>
> Les bicyclettes, les fromages et les vins- those French knew their
> stuff!

Certainmont and still do.

 

[JJ]

"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.

> 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.

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

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

 

[JJ]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Pat Lamb wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> > I like the fact that Ergo is serviceble, etc., and that it does not use
>> > indexed front shifting. I also like that the brake lever does not serve
>> > two functions.
>> >
>> > That said, for me, both Ergo and STI are an answer to a question I'm
>> > not asking. I find indexed barends perfectly convenient for
>> > recreational riding and like their simplicity, flexibility and
>> > day-to-day-reliability (even though you can service Ergo, a latched up
>> > Ergo lever is a PITA in the middle of a ride). If the choice were only
>> > between indexed DT shifters vs. Ergo/STI, I'd pick Ergo first, STI
>> > second and DT levers third because the "downsides" of the brifters are
>> > offset by the greatly improved convenience. But, indexed barends *do*
>> > exist, and I find them the perfect answer.
>>
>> 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.

>
>
>> I like the non-indexed Ergo front shifting, too, but I've been
>> thinking about a new bike that might have bar-ends. Would that
>> constrain me to Shimano road derailers, and (big) Shimano chainrings?
>>
>
> IME, you have pretty wide freedom to mix/match FDs and chainrings, so
> long as the chainring combo is within the capacity of the FD.
>

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

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.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly

 

[JJ]

"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.
>
> --
> Benjamin Lewis
>
> Now is the time for all good men to come to.
> -- Walt Kelly

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.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

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.

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.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************