So we are writing the cycling tech bible! Silly me. The authoring process should provide you with plenty of pissing contests.Originally posted by boudreaux
Define 'less reliable shifting'.
How about we define reliable shifting? I'd say -- and this is just me, so when you engrave your dogma into this book you're writing, be sure to lay all kinds of disclaimers on this passage as being 'NOT GOSPEL' -- reliable shifting inspires higher confidence in the rider that a simple, easy action in the shifter assembly will be met with a quick, smooth, and predictable response in the corresponding derailleur. Reliable shifting doesn't leave the rider concerned that his/her shifter action will result in a slow shift, or a half-shift, an over-shift, or a non-shift, or place the chain in a position where it does no good at all.
Alright, captain. Now where are we, aside from clearly engaged in a pissing contest? The fact is, a concept like "reliable shifting" is purely relative. As for where any piece of machinary falls on a scale like this one is up for either scientific statistical analysis, OR the subjective experiences of folks like yourself and yours truly. In my experience, Tiagra and Sora satisfy the above definition to a lesser degree than 105. It's all relative.
I wouldn't asses Tiagra as an unreliable drivetrain, (which should be ridiculously clear by now) because a) the relative nature of the term wouldn't allow it, and b) I don't have a problem with Tiagra -- something I've stated countless times. Now stop acting like a punk kid, and start acting like a grouchy old man again. Sheesh.