Campy (thumb) vs. SRAM (2 tap) vs. Shimano (2 lever)

Just curious your thoughts on which shifting function you prefer? I had thumbs on Sora/Tiagra a couple years ago which I liked but now with 105 I have the more traditional 2-lever set up. I'd like to try Campy or SRAM.

SRAM has really disrupted things for the big two it seems. It will be interesting to see what Campy and Shimano roll out to counteract. Perhaps multitap thumb?

 

SRAM. It beats Shimano in lever design (except I miss something to 'grab'), shifting crispness and, at least in the rear derailleur, looks. I wasn't a fan of the feel of campy, but I liked their levers (though that is all subjective, and so is this...) and they easily look the best.

 

Right now im using shimano sora, the the thum shifters...

I cant wait till SRAM comes out with something to compete say between tiagra and 105...Id buy the whole group (well i have brakes and crank that work just fine) for my bike for sure! SRAM mountain shifters have always been easy to set up and use from the limited experience i have with them.

 

I'm currently on Campy now and I agree with bobbyOCR in that the shifting is nice and easy but the feel of Campy is just too clunky sometimes and rough. Shimano is known for the smoothness and Campy for more of a rough, but durable group. I have no experience with Sram but from what I hear, people like it. I'm interested to see the many people who bought Sram this year to see if they keep it for next year. Many people bought it because it's not the normal Shimano or Campy. But to see if they really did like it and will keep it. Note that I will be switching to Shimano next year.

 

Im currently using the SORA i like the thumb shifting because when im riding around town im not always in the drop position so it makes it easier with hands on top.

 

First, Sora thumb shifting ain't like Campy thumb shifting at all.

Having used Shimano and Campy, I much prefer my Campy Record, thanks. The effort required to shift is about is low as effort can get, and I happen to dig the feel. It feels "precise." "Rough" is definitely not a word I'd associate with its performance or function.

 

Absolutely agree 100%. Campy is fantastic. Can't beat the thumb shift and the ability to drop multiple cogs with one motion. Not to mention it's beautiful to look at.

 

I just went from Ultegra to Rival and I am in love! I find it much smoother and easier to use, but it may have to do with the fact that I am a girl. For me, I had a really hard time getting from small->big ring and vice versa with the ultegra. The double tap on the rival is effortless, I never have an issue, I have now been converted into a SRAM fan.
I have not ridden anything Campy, so I can not compare to it, but I do like it better than any of the Shimano line(I have ridden ultegra and dura-ace).

 

Can anything top the multi-gear changes achieved by a single sweep of a Campy lever or push of a button?

It's fast. It's efficient. It's durable. It's re-buildable. And those 'clunks' tell my brain just how many gears I've changed without need of an ergobrain or glance rearward.

Best of all, it's from Vicenza, of course!

 

Is multi-gear shifting really helpful and something used often? It must be as a lot of people seem to like it. But I see two issues: 1. I would hardly ever use it 2. Doesn't it mess up cadence?

 

jsull14,

Multi-gear changes are important to me. I live in the land of many, many short, steep hills. Banging two, three or four gears off the top of a steep drop off is a daily occurance.
Likewise, hammering a stout gear right into the base of a wall and then dropping three gears to match the pitch of the hill is something I do several times per training ride.
With the close ratio cluster i can jump multiple gears without getting outside my rpm band at all. And sometimes it's nice to thumb-button to the small ring with one hand while thumbing out on the cluster a couple-three cogs with the other hand.
I do doubt that flatlanders and crit-only racers would ever need or want such abilities, but i enjoy having the spread in gear changing only a fingertip (or thumb tip) away.

Regards,
Campybob

 

Campy is good, but they all have their positives. For SRAM it is definitely the lever shape, ingenious positioning system, but their shifting isn't a 'wow' change. It's in-between the feel of Shimano and Campy. One thing though, the derailleur tension spring must be extremely tight because it throws the chain onto the next cog. Very American style. Campy, if it were French, would be a case of shunning the chain to the side because of cultural differences hence making it infeerior, though its Italian, so I can't comment. All I know is the chain ends up leaping across the cogs, while Shimano is a gentle glide (worst feeling if its not adjusted). Dunno what you may like, but Campy and Shimano are both lacking in the ergonomics stakes.

And Campy have a much better crank design. If they made an alloy record UT, I'd be on it. Shimano cranks are a performance first, but looks second. SRAM just make crap cranks.

And for reference, a Campy Chorus UT crankset....without BB....weighs 722g. For a carbon crankset of that price, thats pretty heavy. With cups that makes it about the same weight as ultegra (maybe a little bit lighter...the Chorus was including plastic spindle protectors)

 

As a Shimano user, can't say I've ever missed having a multi-upshift. I find that as you come over a crest you've got plenty of time to tap that upshift lever a few times, and the transition is smoother if you space them out a bit. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Campag, but I think that to regard the absence of multi-upshift as a Shimano deficiency is spurious.

 

As all would know from the recent bike mag review, with cranksets Shimano wins on an amalgam of weight, cost and stiffness, although one could argue the point with regard to the weighting of each factor.
With aesthetics, either you like the Hollowtech II look or you don't, and you like the DA chainring, or you don't. I like both and think that Campag looks a little old school - no doubt that's exactly why others prefer it.

 

I wouldn't necessarily say that not having multi-upshift is a Shimano deficiency, but it certainly isn't a Campy benefit that I'm not willing to give up. It's really nice when it comes to shifting up to the big ring, which usually--depending on the gearing--requires shifting down 2 or 3 cogs in the rear.

 

Don't forget that Shimano does have a multi-downshift - I agree, it would be a pain in the arse changing to the big ring without this feature.

 

Yeah, that I know. I'm not too impressed with Shimano's design ethic, what with the insect antennae out front and the lack of rebuildability. I know my Campy brifters ain't the cheapest to rebuild, but from an environmental and consumption point of view, I just don't see why Shimano can't make their brifters rebuildable. That alone keeps me from seriously considering them.

 

It makes the shifters completely proprietary, like all Shimano parts. The antennae are something that I won't miss. It makes the cockpit look cleaner.
You very rarely have to re-build a shifter, and I hear campy shifters are a PITA to re-build. And there are many other things that affecft the environment in much more detrimental ways than STI levers.

Regarding cranks, I think Shimano hollowtechs look great, especially with black rings. The campy design has great potential, and a narrow Q-factor, which they need to translate to a track crank. Currently it is no-where near its full potential, so give it a few years.

 

The one thing I like about the external cable route is you can slip a couple of inline barrel adjusters on the cable. If you use a neutral spare wheel for example a little tweak on the fly and you're running smooth.

--brett

 

I prefer Shimano, then Campy, then SRAM. I really hate the price of SRAM Force shifters at $569, when bike shops get them for $319 (saw their price book).

At first I was only a Shimano guy, but my CF Soloist came Campy and I stuck with it because it's costly to change. At least Campy is so blingy with its CF.