On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 12:17:11 -0800, Mark Janeba
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>Sheldon Brown wrote:
>> An apprentice cephalopod wrote:
>>
>>> Why do Campy rear derailleurs have such a more direct, stronger, more
>>> effective return spring that overcomes cable friction far better than
>>> Shimano rear derailleurs? Is it to overcome cable/housing friction
>>> from the housing wrapped under the bartape? Shimano's springs are
>>> always so weak in comparison with that big, high-turn-number accordion
>>> spring. It makes upshifting slow and unresponsive as it ages.
>>
>>
>> Shimano has always placed a premium on providing a "light action" to
>> their controls.
>
>Interesting. I had always thought that "light action" referred to the
>shift *levers*, not the derailleurs - IIRC, first (modern) generation
>Shimano indexing levers were very stiff and loud (yes, LOUD); I thought
>the "light action" idea was to soften the clicks in the indexing. Was I
>completely wrong?
My experience with the older Shimano stuff would support the "easier
via less spring tension" hypothesis. Many older midrange and low-end
bikes I've seen with the traditional friction shifters would simply
not say put unless the shifter friction setting was rather high. And
with gripshifts it was worse, if anything; the amount of force needed
to shift the stiff-spring units against the combination of cable drag,
gripshift friction and detents, and spring tension was enough to make
me swear off ever having another gripshift...despite the fact that the
more modern setups are significantly less egregious. (I still don't
use them on my own bikes, though.)
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.