problems with ultegra 6600 STI shifter (right hand)



alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
252
63
Quote: Originally Posted by alienator .

You clearly don't understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative evidence. I go don't care about your "qualitative" facts, because they are subject to human bias, the thing which which generally doesn't affect measurements. What you feel when you do your "comparisons" is irrelevant. Feel free to do some reading about how human bias influences qualitative observations and how susceptible humans are to bias. Another related term you should look up is "confirmation bias."

I suspect you are unable to do perform an unbiased experiment.

That you are unable to shift Shimano drivetrains under a load is irrelevant. Many people can without issue. Perhaps if you practiced you might be able to do so one day.

Oooh!

Look at you!

Drawing your own conclusions about Shimano shifters & "dwell" without more than a parking-lot-test-ride AND YET declaring your experience to be a universal truth!



Let me know when you have spent REAL road time with an all-Shimano, mechanical drivetrain BECAUSE then you can be tabulated amongst the throng of riders who have experienced dodgy shifting with their all-Shimano drivetrains.

Flail away ...
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
252
63
Quote: Originally Posted by alienator .


Sorry, you've yet to provide any evidence that your "if-then" statement is valid. Hell, you haven't even defined what "better" means your mind.

I notice that you can't respond on point.

I have responded, but you were not able to comprehend.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
I didn't draw any conclusions. I did state that there are many folks who have no issues with shifting (be it under load or not) on Shimano systems. Practice reading, alfeng.
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
252
63
Quote: Originally Posted by alienator .


Sorry, you've yet to provide any evidence that your "if-then" statement is valid. Hell, you haven't even defined what "better" means your mind.

I notice that you can't respond on point.

Quote: Originally Posted by alienator .

I didn't draw any conclusions. I did state that there are many folks who have no issues with shifting (be it under load or not) on Shimano systems. Practice reading, alfeng.

UMmm. Where is YOUR evidence "that there are many folks who have no issues with shifting ... on Shimano systems" ...?

"Show me the numbers."

OR are you exempt for your own requirements for evidence?

BTW. If you don't have your daughter sequestered in a "Skinner Box" then maybe you can have her read through these posts so that she can explain the discourse BECAUSE if you can't discern that something which doesn't balk is "better" than something that balks then how can you apply "reason" or apply any level of "critical thinking" to anything which you are reading-or-observing?

IF you think that numbers will make a presentation "on point" then you probably need to re-evaluate the so-called scientific method which YOU are hold so near-and-dear to your hear because you have (as might be inferred by your suggestion that a prior example was "political") demonstrated that you cannot discern a valid data sample from an invalid data sample (e.g., the Keeling Curve) NOR are you apparently willing to acknowledge when admittedly falsified data has been used to promulgate a hoax (i.e., so-called "Global Warming").

That is, numbers are only meaningful if they are not falsified, the model is not skewed, the accumulated data can be properly interpreted, etc.

Hey, did YOU know that people were burning things for Millennia before someone came up with the First Law of Thermodynamics?

How could that be?!?

Could that have been an if-then situation exclusive of numbers?

Heck, people were probably burning things BEFORE numbers were even created.

How could that be?!?

I know someone who is a white-knuckle rider because he can't wrap his mind around a two wheeled vehicle being capable of being propelled down the road without it falling over ...

Do YOU know the math as to how a bike can be propelled by the rider down the road without it falling over?

Do YOU have the formulas?

Did YOU need them before your first-or-last ride?

Did-or-will YOU explain the math to your daughter before she goes for her first/next ride?

If not, then why not?

Besides, when you were given numbers, recently, you pooh-poohed them as not being significant ...

THAT could certainly be suggested to be just another example of how hollow your request for "on point (numbers)" is UNLESS the request which you made is simply made to mask another example of your screaming-in-your-own-way that you don't understand a concept!

BTW2. YOU may want to spend a few minutes looking up what an "Empirical Observation" is rather than shooting-from-the-lip & hoping no one calls you out on your ignorance.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
I'm sorry, alfeng, you've not given any numbers for this, and the burden of proof lies with you. You are the one who claimed:
alfeng said:
AND all models of Campagnolo shifters will function better with your Shimano drivetrain ...
So, as per the standard, the extraordinary claim is the one that bears the burden of proof. Yours is the extraordinary claim, alfeng. Keeling curve? You really can't stay on point, can you?
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
252
63
Quote: Originally Posted by alienator .

I'm sorry, alfeng, you've not given any numbers for this, and the burden of proof lies with you. You are the one who claimed:
So, as per the standard, the extraordinary claim is the one that bears the burden of proof. Yours is the extraordinary claim, alfeng.

Keeling curve? You really can't stay on point, can you?

Well, Troll ...

There you go again!

I don't know why you want numerical data when you have demonstrated that you are incapable of processing it + when you can you then dismiss it if it contradicts YOUR world view ...

Regardless, obviously unless YOU perform the test, you won't believe it ...

So, why the repetition of your hollow mantra?!?

AND, despite your self-exemption, YOU are not exempt from adhering to the same standards which you establish for others to follow ...

So, while you pretend that you are exempt, I say "show me the numbers" behind any of your statements!

My observation only seems "extraordinary" to you because you have apparently never taken more than a parking-lot-ride on an all-Shimano equipped bike.

Regardless, not only do you not know the difference between an Empirical Observation & the Scientific Method ...

Apparently, you do not know that it is YOU-as-the-denier who has to disprove my easily replicated observations by using more than a repetition of your hollow "show me the numbers" mantras ...

  • if you really do not already know what a drivetrain under a load is, then try down shifting to a larger Cog with an all-Shimano on a 10º +/- incline at a speed under 10mph without unweighting the drivetrain just as a starting point because you will surely want to try the test with steeper-and-shallower inclines & using other speeds ... ​try the same incline(s) with either Campagnolo or SRAM shifters with the same technique where you don't unweight the drivetrain ... both the Campagnolo & SRAM shifters should be able to handle the downshift without balking unless the rider deliberately chooses to abort the shift halfway through the motion of the shift paddle or the SRAM rider does something ham-fisted with the Double-Tap mechanism ...
  • the same cannot be said for an all-Shimano mechanical Road drivetrain
[*]capability is BETTER than inability for 99.99% of the World ... ​

  • ​​if YOU persist in thinking that the inefficient shifting which is the consequence of "dwell" is better than clean shifts, then you are living in a World without logic, reason, or critical thinking.

FYI. Again, YOU have to perform the tests which disprove what MY observation which you apparently feel is an "extraordinary claim."

AGAIN, the proof is the ability of Campagnolo shifters to execute a shift under circumstances where "dwell" causes Shimano shifters to balk ...

Again, capability is BETTER than inability for 99.99% of the World ...

BTW. My mentioning the Keeling Curve IS relevant ...

It is apparently only irrelevant to you because it illustrates the potential flaw in collected data which you seem to embrace despite your apparent inability to comprehend data when it is presented to you and/or your dismissal of it when you deem it to contradict something you have stated.

Of course, for those "useful idiots" who insist on "man made Global Warming" hoax I guess deflection & denial are easier than facing reality because the falsified data LOOKS GOOD until it is revealed to have been falsified.

If you were capable of reasoning & critical thinking then you might realize that it is actually you who needs to LEARN TO READ & comprehend what analogies are + to LEARN TO DIFFERENTIATE between a basis for comparison & the comparison being made.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
Actually, the extraordinary claim is yours. Your lack of understanding of science and the method is astounding. Surely, someone such as yourself would have no issue at all setting up a simple, repeatable experiment that produces real data, not the subjective **** you've given so far. Bring data, alfeng. Your subjective observations are not data. I'll wait while you calm down and collect data.
 

heguli

New Member
Sep 21, 2013
6
0
0
CAMPYBOB said:
[COLOR=181818]Keep offering your opinion, Alf. It is appreciated.[/COLOR] [COLOR=181818]OP, I found no pictures of the 6600 10-speed guts that showed the spring clearly.[/COLOR]
It`s hard to believe that` nobody doesn`t have pictures from inside of shifter..
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
heguli said:
It`s hard to believe that` nobody doesn`t have pictures from inside of shifter..
It's likely because Shimano doesn't really offer any repair options for their shifters. They don't sell replacement parts for the shifter's innards, so that means that there's no real reason for repair videos or pictures of the inside of the shifters. If there are any pictures out there, I suspect you'll have to search for a very long time.
 

Volnix

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2011
2,883
281
63
Parts for shimano components can be found by code on their website. Once you locate the code of the part you can order it from your LBS. Availability is an issue though. I have a couple of Shimano 2300 shifters. When I managed to brake the lever on the point where it pulls the wire I had to replace the whole shifter because Shimano doesnt offer a replacement lever for their 2300 line of shifters. They do for Ultegra but not for 2300.

If you need a specific part I found this shop in Germany that sells parts:

http://bicikli.de/shop/SHIMANO-spare-parts

Yes this is a link to a shop. Not spamming, just posting it to check...

When I searched for a repair for my 2300 shifter, there was only one part available that could fix the problem and it was "the front assembly" part, which basically was the whole front part of the shifter, basically everything except the clamp that attaches it to the handlebar. Cant remember the part code. It costed 40 euros. Plus another 10 to ship from Germany. I finally just replaced the whole shifter plus a couple of cables at the LBS for 55euro.

I am so definitely getting an SRAM Apex group once I get to replace the 2300 group...
 

alfeng

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
6,723
252
63
Quote: Originally Posted by alienator .

Alfeng, anytime you want to discuss physics, let me know.

Show me numbers that say front shifting on Campagnolo is better than that on Shimano. Numbers. Those are verifiable. Opinions, such as yours, are not verifiable. That's why they're opinions. I'm not interested in what you "think", what Leonard Zinn "thinks", or what anyone else "thinks". I want to see repeatable measurements that show that Campy front shifting is "better". We can discuss "better" once you do that. Note that just because you like the way something works on one of your Rube Goldberg bikes doesn't make your preference the universal one.

dhk2 correctly recognized that "p" is the commonly accepted variable for momentum. He also correctly pointed out that understanding formulas and their physical meanings also requires understanding those formulas when they are written differently. Read a 1950's textbook on quantum physics and then read one from the last 20 years and you'll see such notational differences. You'll note the same in optics texts, statistical mechanics texts, and texts in many other disciplines in physics, as well as other sciences in general.

Note that your use of Q.E.D failed because your "proof" is only your opinion. You didn't demonstrate in any fashion that any shifters are better than any others.

I'll note that you have failed so show a single numerical proof of anything.

Lastly, you should read about the scientific meaning of empirical proof as that is what counts because that is what I do. No numbers, no proof. I guess you'll have to accuse Wikipedia for also rewriting definitions because this is what they have to say about empirical evidence with respect to science
Quote: Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.

Note I've never read anything in which dhk2 said he worked for NASA or a NASA contractor.
Well, Troll ...

So many errors ... where to begin?!?

Some groundwork of understanding needs to be established ...

Your previous dismissal of one of my comments regarding "Global Warming" as being "political" in an earlier thread suggests that you believe it is a valid scientific conclusion.

Is that still true?

OR, are you now a "denier" (as proponents of "Global Warming" refer to those who aren't)?
 

Similar threads