Ergo versus bar cons on touring bike

[Lee]

Okay, so I'm ready to build up my Cannondale touring bike. Frame is a T1000
frame, about 10 years old. I'm running Campy racing triple, and will mostly
ride unloaded. Will do some light to moderate touring.

So the question is, should I set it up with 9 speed ergo levers or barcons?

I've got both sets, ran barcons for many years so I'm familiar with
them...in fact I only switched from Nuovo Record with barcons about 5 years
ago for Record 9.

Anyway, thoughts appreciated. I run ergos on all of my other bikes, even the
'cross bike (except the fixxie, of course).

Pros and cons of each for a touring and commuting bike?

Lee

 

[Jay Beattie]

"Lee" <lee_AT_SHOES_wheelman_DOT_com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Okay, so I'm ready to build up my Cannondale touring bike.
Frame is a T1000
> frame, about 10 years old. I'm running Campy racing triple, and
will mostly
> ride unloaded. Will do some light to moderate touring.
>
> So the question is, should I set it up with 9 speed ergo levers
or barcons?
>
> I've got both sets, ran barcons for many years so I'm familiar
with
> them...in fact I only switched from Nuovo Record with barcons
about 5 years
> ago for Record 9.
>
> Anyway, thoughts appreciated. I run ergos on all of my other
bikes, even the
> 'cross bike (except the fixxie, of course).
>
> Pros and cons of each for a touring and commuting bike?

ERGO
Pros: I much prefer Ergo/STI shifters. Bar ends can get in the
way. Cons: Getting cantis to work well with Ergo/STI shifters
is hard. Mine never have worked well, even with a wide cable
stradle and years of fussing. I have a 17 year old T1000, and I
am considering just throwing on some old NR brakes.

BAR ENDS

Pros: Simple, cheap, can be used on friction or index mode. Can
use standard brake lever for cantis. Cons: They can get in the
way; no shifting while standing, have to change hand position to
shift.

-- Jay Beattie.

 

[daveornee]

Okay, so I'm ready to build up my Cannondale touring bike. Frame is a T1000
frame, about 10 years old. I'm running Campy racing triple, and will mostly
ride unloaded. Will do some light to moderate touring.

So the question is, should I set it up with 9 speed ergo levers or barcons?

I've got both sets, ran barcons for many years so I'm familiar with
them...in fact I only switched from Nuovo Record with barcons about 5 years
ago for Record 9.

Anyway, thoughts appreciated. I run ergos on all of my other bikes, even the
'cross bike (except the fixxie, of course).

Pros and cons of each for a touring and commuting bike?

Lee

I agree with Jay, but add one little positive to bar ends = you can feel what gear you are in by lever position.

 

[Lee]

"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lee" <lee_AT_SHOES_wheelman_DOT_com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Okay, so I'm ready to build up my Cannondale touring bike.
> Frame is a T1000
>> frame, about 10 years old. I'm running Campy racing triple, and
> will mostly
>> ride unloaded. Will do some light to moderate touring.
>>
>> So the question is, should I set it up with 9 speed ergo levers
> or barcons?
>>
>> I've got both sets, ran barcons for many years so I'm familiar
> with
>> them...in fact I only switched from Nuovo Record with barcons
> about 5 years
>> ago for Record 9.
>>
>> Anyway, thoughts appreciated. I run ergos on all of my other
> bikes, even the
>> 'cross bike (except the fixxie, of course).
>>
>> Pros and cons of each for a touring and commuting bike?
>
> ERGO
> Pros: I much prefer Ergo/STI shifters. Bar ends can get in the
> way. Cons: Getting cantis to work well with Ergo/STI shifters
> is hard. Mine never have worked well, even with a wide cable
> stradle and years of fussing. I have a 17 year old T1000, and I
> am considering just throwing on some old NR brakes.
>

Agreed on the Ergo/cantis. I went through three sets of cantis on my 'cross
bike before I found a set that would work (Paul's) well. I also found, btw,
that my builder needed to reposition the canti blocks on my frame. I ride a
50 cm 'cross bike and the blocks were set up for a larger bike. Took me
quite a while to figure that out!


> BAR ENDS
>
> Pros: Simple, cheap, can be used on friction or index mode. Can
> use standard brake lever for cantis. Cons: They can get in the
> way; no shifting while standing, have to change hand position to
> shift.
>

I love to shift while I'm standing...that's one of the things I really enjoy
about Ergos.

Lee

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Lee" <lee_AT_SHOES_wheelman_DOT_com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Okay, so I'm ready to build up my Cannondale touring bike. Frame is a
> T1000 frame, about 10 years old. I'm running Campy racing triple, and will
> mostly ride unloaded. Will do some light to moderate touring.
>
> So the question is, should I set it up with 9 speed ergo levers or
> barcons?

Barcons. They are in just about every way superior for everything except
racing on the road. What's more, if you stretch a cable or have one of those
gear sets that just never gets quiet you can switch it into friction mode
and have a QUIET ride. Something that is quite rare in these days of Ergo
Shifters.

Another advanatage is that they aren't nearly as convenient for shifting as
the Ergos and so you aren't shifting all the time in the hills. You just
stick it in your climbing gear and leave it there. On the lesser grades you
then find yourself looking around at the scenary instead of trying to get
that last little erg out of your body while staring at your front wheel.

 

[Marvin]

Lee wrote:
> Okay, so I'm ready to build up my Cannondale touring bike. Frame is a
T1000
> frame, about 10 years old. I'm running Campy racing triple, and will
mostly
> ride unloaded. Will do some light to moderate touring.
>
> So the question is, should I set it up with 9 speed ergo levers or
barcons?
>
> I've got both sets, ran barcons for many years so I'm familiar with
> them...in fact I only switched from Nuovo Record with barcons about 5
years
> ago for Record 9.
>
> Anyway, thoughts appreciated. I run ergos on all of my other bikes,
even the
> 'cross bike (except the fixxie, of course).

I'd say the difference is small enough that you might as well stick
with what's on all your other bikes, makes spares and so on that much
easier.

> Pros and cons of each for a touring and commuting bike?

Point for a commuting bike: ergos let you shift while keeping the
brakes firmly covered. Dunno how much of an urban assault course you
have to deal with, but if it's anything like mine you don't want to
budge your hands an inch from the brake levers.

The point about cantis is well made though. Personally I'd just go
with a decent set of dual-pivots, but that's a whole other discussion.

 

[pinnah]

"Lee" <lee_AT_SHOES_wheelman_DOT_com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Okay, so I'm ready to build up my Cannondale touring bike. Frame is a
> T1000 frame, about 10 years old. I'm running Campy racing triple, and will
> mostly ride unloaded. Will do some light to moderate touring.


Another vote for barcons.

1) By all accounts, they are more reliable and easier to repair. This
almost entirely trumps all other arguements, imo. However, this may
not be so much of deal if trips are short and you only travel in
places where replacement of broken brifters isn't a big hassle.

2) Depends on the set up of the bike and your riding style when fully
loaded. I keep my bars high enough to be able to ride the drops when
riding on the flats. Pesonally, I'm more likely to need to adjust my
gearing when grinding out long distances on the flats due to changing
winds and rolls on the road. On the other hand, the only time I'm
standing when loaded (ahem, don't quote this out of context) is when
I'm climbing and this is usually just for short periods to stretch the
legs and back. I certainly don't need or want to shift while standing
in this mode. I can see the desire for ergo for general riding or
commuting if most of your time is spend riding the hoods. But for
loaded touring, I *want* to shift off of the drops. YMMV.

 

[Richard Riley]

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> ERGO
> Pros: I much prefer Ergo/STI shifters. Bar ends can get in the
> way. Cons: Getting cantis to work well with Ergo/STI shifters
> is hard.

Strange. When I moved to ergo chorus to pull my Shimano rsx cantis it
all "just worked". In fact, the levers are supposed to work with cantis
- its V Brakes that dont work with ergo levers.

 

[Richard Riley]

Lee wrote:
> Okay, so I'm ready to build up my Cannondale touring bike. Frame is a T1000
> frame, about 10 years old. I'm running Campy racing triple, and will mostly
> ride unloaded. Will do some light to moderate touring.
>
> So the question is, should I set it up with 9 speed ergo levers or barcons?
>
> I've got both sets, ran barcons for many years so I'm familiar with
> them...in fact I only switched from Nuovo Record with barcons about 5 years
> ago for Record 9.
>
> Anyway, thoughts appreciated. I run ergos on all of my other bikes, even the
> 'cross bike (except the fixxie, of course).
>
> Pros and cons of each for a touring and commuting bike?
>
> Lee
>
>


I moved from bar-end to ergo levers and never looked back. Far, far
easier to use when pedalling under load. Less "worry" if bike falls - I
never liked the bar-ends sticking out even if they never actually broke ...

Some like to point out that in "remote places" if the ergo indexing
fails then you are in a real rut : but what are the real chances for this?

 

[Richard Riley]

Tom Kunich wrote:


> Barcons. They are in just about every way superior for everything except
> racing on the road. What's more, if you stretch a cable or have one of those
> gear sets that just never gets quiet you can switch it into friction mode
> and have a QUIET ride. Something that is quite rare in these days of Ergo
> Shifters.


Oh rubbish. If its just a stretched cable you have a simple barrel
adjuster to compensate.

 

[[email protected]]

Lee wrote:
> Okay, so I'm ready to build up my Cannondale touring bike. Frame is a
T1000
> frame, about 10 years old. I'm running Campy racing triple, and will
mostly
> ride unloaded. Will do some light to moderate touring.
>
> So the question is, should I set it up with 9 speed ergo levers or
barcons?
>
> I've got both sets, ran barcons for many years so I'm familiar with
> them...in fact I only switched from Nuovo Record with barcons about 5
years
> ago for Record 9.
>
> Anyway, thoughts appreciated. I run ergos on all of my other bikes,
even the
> 'cross bike (except the fixxie, of course).
>
> Pros and cons of each for a touring and commuting bike?

How much "touring" are you going to do and how much just riding around
are you going to do with this bike?

For official loaded touring, carrying 50 pounds in panniers or pulling
a trailer, I prefer bar cons. Maybe because I use half step gearing on
my touring bike and the front derailleur is shifted frequently. Easier
and faster to do with bar cons than Ergo. I have Ergo on two bikes.
But if you are really going to use this bike for touring, then
Campagnolo's largest rear 9 speed cog of 28 teeth isn't low enough to
me. Even with a 24 inner ring. And for loaded touring, Shimano parts
are more readily available in all bike shops you will come across. Not
sure I would recommend Campagnolo for true loaded touring.

If this bike is going to be mostly a ride around bike, then Ergo. Its
great.

But why not go with bar con just for a difference? No need to have
every bike identical. Differences can be fun.

 

[Sheldon Brown]

An anonymous poster wrote:

> Another vote for barcons.
>
> 1) By all accounts, they are more reliable and easier to repair.

That's not correct. Barcons may be reliable, but they generally can't
be repaired as far as I know, while Ergos can.

> This almost entirely trumps all other arguements, imo.

Then, by extension, fixed gear bikes are even better for touring... ;-)

Sheldon "Cogito, Ergo Ergo" Brown
+-------------------------------------------------+
| What is good for you is what is good for you. |
| --Peter Chisholm |
+-------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[pinnah]

pinnah wrote:
>> Another vote for barcons.
>> 1) By all accounts, they are more reliable and easier to repair.


Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>That's not correct. Barcons may be reliable, but they generally can't
>be repaired as far as I know, while Ergos can.

Given the rate of barcon failures, it is almost true vacuously. ;^)

That said, I could jury rig a long cable of about any sort to work in
a barcon in friction mode pretty easily. No clue how you could do
that with Ergos. What parts would you suggest carrying as backups for
Ergo repairs. That might shed light for me.

Now that we're on the topic, what kind of failure modes are there for
barcons? Could lose indexing, in which case you move to friction. The
only other failures I can think of are related to loosing or breaking
screws.

>> This almost entirely trumps all other arguements, imo.
>
>Then, by extension, fixed gear bikes are even better for touring... ;-)

Apples/Oranges.

The OP was asking about 2 choices that offer similar functionality
(multiple gear selection). For touring, I think the more reliable is
almost always the better choice. Do you disagree?

 

[Jay Beattie]

"pinnah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> pinnah wrote:
> >> Another vote for barcons.
> >> 1) By all accounts, they are more reliable and easier to
repair.
>
>
> Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> >That's not correct. Barcons may be reliable, but they
generally can't
> >be repaired as far as I know, while Ergos can.
>
> Given the rate of barcon failures, it is almost true vacuously.
;^)
>
> That said, I could jury rig a long cable of about any sort to
work in
> a barcon in friction mode pretty easily. No clue how you could
do
> that with Ergos. What parts would you suggest carrying as
backups for
> Ergo repairs. That might shed light for me.

2oz DT shift lever, like an old Campy NR (I have a small box full
of them) and a spare cable, which I would bring anyway.

Also, I am not aware that STI/Ergo levers have an unusual failure
rate. People ride them thousands of miles a year, and I see no
reason why they would explode merely because one attaches
panniers to his/her bike and goes on tour. I would like to hear
from people who have used STI or Ergo on tour and who have
actually had a problem, i.e., people who have been "stranded in
the middle of nowhere" and who wished they had had barcons. --
Jay Beattie.

 

[Sheldon Brown]

A shy person wrote:
>
>>>Another vote for barcons.
>>>1) By all accounts, they are more reliable and easier to repair.
>
I demurred:
>
>>That's not correct. Barcons may be reliable, but they generally can't
>>be repaired as far as I know, while Ergos can.
>
> Given the rate of barcon failures, it is almost true vacuously. ;^)
>
Vacuously?

> That said, I could jury rig a long cable of about any sort to work in
> a barcon in friction mode pretty easily. No clue how you could do
> that with Ergos. What parts would you suggest carrying as backups for
> Ergo repairs. That might shed light for me.

I wouldn't carry any parts for either, but on a major tour I would carry
a spare gear cable. Easily replaceable in either case.

> Now that we're on the topic, what kind of failure modes are there for
> barcons?

Hey, you're the one who said they were "easier to repair."

> Could lose indexing, in which case you move to friction.

Could lose friction too.

>>>This almost entirely trumps all other arguements, imo.
>>
>>Then, by extension, fixed gear bikes are even better for touring... ;-)
>
> Apples/Oranges.

Actually, apples and oranges have a lot in common. They're both sweet,
tree growing fruit, of similar size and similar color. ;-)

> The OP was asking about 2 choices that offer similar functionality
> (multiple gear selection). For touring, I think the more reliable is
> almost always the better choice. Do you disagree?

Ease of repair and general functionality would also enter into it.
Personally, I don't much like the ergonomics of barcons (though when I
rode a borrowed Rambouillet that had 'em with one of Shimano's new
low-normal rear derailers, I liked them better than previously with
high-normal jumpers.

I'd be more likely to use my bike with the Rohloff Speedhub for any
serious touring, but wouldn't rule out a fixed/free flip-flop rig.

Sheldon "Different Folks For Different Folks" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Oh, my ways are strange ways and new ways and old ways, |
| And deep ways and steep ways and high ways and low, |
| I'm at home and at ease on a track that I know not, |
| And restless and lost on a road that I know. |
| --Henry Lawson |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[Lee]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> But if you are really going to use this bike for touring, then
> Campagnolo's largest rear 9 speed cog of 28 teeth isn't low enough to
> me. Even with a 24 inner ring. And for loaded touring, Shimano parts
> are more readily available in all bike shops you will come across. Not
> sure I would recommend Campagnolo for true loaded touring.
>
> If this bike is going to be mostly a ride around bike, then Ergo. Its
> great.

Most of my riding will not be loaded touring. Hmm. Actually, with a whole
bunch of other bikes in my stable, maybe this bike *will* be used mostly for
touring. It is the only bike that has fenders, other than my trainer rat.
Don't ask why my trainer bike has fenders!

And my touring will be 1 week or so per year. Perhaps it will be used more
often for unloaded local riding. Shoot, I should set it up and see if I
*like* the darn bike. But first I have to set up my C40

>
> But why not go with bar con just for a difference? No need to have
> every bike identical.

True. True.

> Differences can be fun.

That's what I keep telling my wife

Lee

 

[pinnah]

>A shy person who has met 6'9", 280 pyschopaths from usenet wrote:
>>>>Another vote for barcons.
>>>>1) By all accounts, they are more reliable and easier to repair.

>I demurred:

[chortle] ok, demured...

>> Given the rate of barcon failures, it is almost true vacuously. ;^)
>>
>Vacuously?

As in satisfied by the empty set. My point being, that barcon
failures are so rare that they almost form an empty set and thus are
trivially easier to repair (as in you don't have to).

>> Now that we're on the topic, what kind of failure modes are there for
>> barcons?
>
>Hey, you're the one who said they were "easier to repair."

Indeed. I should have said, "easier to field maintain". If I'm
sitting by the side of the road after 6 weeks of rain and diesel smoke
and dust and needed to tune up the bike, I would rather deal with the
simple barcon. I conceed the point that the rachet mechanism on the
barcon could fail and there is no fixing it. But this happens far
less frequently than brifter failures, no? Or am I mistaken about
that?

>Personally, I don't much like the ergonomics of barcons (though when I
>rode a borrowed Rambouillet that had 'em with one of Shimano's new
>low-normal rear derailers, I liked them better than previously with
>high-normal jumpers.

Like I said in my first post to this thread, I think the decision
between brifters and barcons has a lot to do with the OP's set up and
riding style. Repeating, I end up on my drops a lot on the flats and
this is where I want to shift from. For me, I would prefer DT
shifters to brifters for touring, but to each his or her own.

>I'd be more likely to use my bike with the Rohloff Speedhub for any
>serious touring, but wouldn't rule out a fixed/free flip-flop rig.

I'll stop by to try the demo bike some day. Need to talk about Brooks
saddles too.

 

[Sheldon Brown]

[email protected] wrote:

> For official loaded touring, carrying 50 pounds in panniers or pulling
> a trailer, I prefer bar cons. Maybe because I use half step gearing on
> my touring bike and the front derailleur is shifted frequently. Easier
> and faster to do with bar cons than Ergo. I have Ergo on two bikes.
> But if you are really going to use this bike for touring, then
> Campagnolo's largest rear 9 speed cog of 28 teeth isn't low enough to
> me. Even with a 24 inner ring. And for loaded touring, Shimano parts
> are more readily available in all bike shops you will come across. Not
> sure I would recommend Campagnolo for true loaded touring.

I like Ergo shifters a lot, but I'm also a big fan of Shimano hubs,
cassettes and derailers.

I've got two Ergo-equipped bikes, both 9-speed with Shimano hubs. The
Hetchins has a custom 12-28 cassette, 50-28 double chainring, some
random Campagnolo long cage rear derailer.

The Brown has an 11-32 cassette, running a Shimano LX rear derailer with
a Jtek Shift Mate, and 52-42-28 Biopace triple crank. Works great.

There's a photo at http://harriscyclery.com/shiftmate

I do agree that Campagnolo _hubs_ are not a great choice for loaded touring.

Sheldon "Best Of Both" Brown
+----------------------------------------+
| Cyclists fare best when they act and |
| are treated as drivers of vehicles. |
| -- John Forester |
| http://www.johnforester.com/ |
+----------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "pinnah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > pinnah wrote:
> > >> Another vote for barcons.
> > >> 1) By all accounts, they are more reliable and easier to
> repair.
> >
> >
> > Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >That's not correct. Barcons may be reliable, but they
> generally can't
> > >be repaired as far as I know, while Ergos can.
> >
> > Given the rate of barcon failures, it is almost true vacuously.
> ;^)
> >
> > That said, I could jury rig a long cable of about any sort to
> work in
> > a barcon in friction mode pretty easily. No clue how you could
> do
> > that with Ergos. What parts would you suggest carrying as
> backups for
> > Ergo repairs. That might shed light for me.
>
> 2oz DT shift lever, like an old Campy NR (I have a small box full
> of them) and a spare cable, which I would bring anyway.
>
> Also, I am not aware that STI/Ergo levers have an unusual failure
> rate. People ride them thousands of miles a year, and I see no
> reason why they would explode merely because one attaches
> panniers to his/her bike and goes on tour. I would like to hear
> from people who have used STI or Ergo on tour and who have
> actually had a problem, i.e., people who have been "stranded in
> the middle of nowhere" and who wished they had had barcons. --
> Jay Beattie.

Who are these people who don't know how to use limit screws? If both
shifters fail, you are stuck with, at worst, a one-speed, and you pick
the gear. In practice, possibly exceptin high-mileage Shimano STI,
shifters are boringly durable.

Carrying chain tools in case your rder pretzels and you have to shorten
the chain makes some sense. But I would carry a spare brake lever before
I'd worry myself with even a stopgap DT/cable. I mean, if you insist,
the load isn't much, but it seems to me so far down on the spares list
that I envision this tourist with an entire saddlebag full of spares and
tools.

As Sheldon pointed out, if you distrust your drivetrain that much, it's
probably not the right choice for that tour.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

 

[[email protected]]

Sheldon:

What kind of crank takes a 50-28? I was thinking of doing a 52-28 using
my 110/74 triple and putting the 52 in the middle slot. Do you think
that this would work?

Thx,

Andres