Raison d'etre for STI

[Suzy Jackson]

"The Pomeranian" <[email protected]> wrote

> One racer of the '70s even told me back then that some racers didn't want BarCons because a
> competitor could easily reach over and shift your gears.

I think there was more to it than that. I remember stem and bar end shifters from the period always
felt gooey and imprecise, whereas downtube shifters were much more direct. This probably had a lot
to do with the cables used between the downtube stops and the stem (or bar end) shifters. Back then
brake cable style spiral outers were used, which had a lot of spring in them.

When Shimano introduced indexed gears, they used compressionless outers, which preserved the crisp
feel even with integrated shifters and bar end shifters.

So I guess that back in the 70's, bar end shifters really were inferior to downtube shifters. It
took indexing and STI before the problems with bar end shifters were sorted, but by then of course
they were pretty much doomed anyway, as they had a bad rep from the spongy spiral cable days.

Just my take on events.

Regards,

Suzy

--
---
Suzy Jackson [email protected] http://www.suzyj.net

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:11:43 -0500, The Pomeranian wrote:

> I agree. However, they do sometimes fail or get destroyed in crashes. In this case it would be
> cheaper to switch to bar-ends and "normal" brake levers (under $100). I suspect people replace
> brifters w/ brifters, so that means people are *choosing" them despite the higher cost.

Possibly, but at least Ergo are servicable. Barring a crash, I don't think I will have to replace
the brifters (which I got from a swap meet for $40) for a long time. The biggest arguments against
these things apply mostly to STI, which are not servicable, and wear out after something like 10K
miles. They also have limited trim adjustment for the front.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a _`\(,_ | conclusion. --
George Bernard Shaw (_)/ (_) |

 

[A Muzi]

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

Campy even sold relabelled bar end
> shifters made by Sun Tour.

Hmmm. Sure about that? I've done a good amount of business in Campagnolo equipment for along time
and I've never seen such a thing. I liked the Record 1012/3 bar-end controls but the Suntour "power"
ratcheting lever was much easier to use as it didn't need frequent adjustment to prevent slipping.
--
Andrew Muzi http://www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April 1971

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>, The Pomeranian
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I would like it if someone could show me where a major rag has really blasted a product (based on
> concept or quality) of a major advertiser and manufacturer.

Dirt Rag.

 

[Jim H.]

"The Pomeranian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >
>
> > What would it be nice to see more of? Well, I wish Bicycling (who seem to be the only
> > widely-distributed road-oriented rag) did more investigative tech articles. They should just
> > steal the ideas of Willet, Rinard, and Brandt wholesale, do the experiments, and publish the
> > results.
>
>
> Do you think they (the rags) have got the balls to give a major manufacturer/advertiser a bad
> review? I don't. They usually restrict bad reviews to industry nobodys, where no one will complain
> or notice that the nobody, with only one or two products, got killed off from the bad review. I
> quit reading Bicycling because they became so weak technically. (I think that retard Zap E. writes
> for them too.) I don't think Zinn and Pelky (and VeloNews) have the guts to skewer a _major_
> manufacturer for goofy products (it is usually limited to a tempered "dislikes" paragraph). I
> would like it if someone could show me where a major rag has really blasted a product (based on
> concept or quality) of a major advertiser and manufacturer. Then I could drop my cynicism and be
> happier.

Last year zap and co. trashed the darling of rock shox fork line, got into some trouble, but showed
the world some integrity, ang gained in reader confidence.

 

[Mark McMaster]

**** Durbin wrote:
> [email protected] wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>anonymous writes:
>>
>>
>>>>I am wondering if other riders share Jobst's opinion on the reason that most riders switched to
>>>>STI or Ergo shifters.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>His opinion has no technical merit in this case. It was simply a successful troll, as evidenced
>>>by the existance of this thread.
>>
>>I think this puts the cart before the horse. STI was a final step in a development that started
>>with Click-shift, freewheeling chainrings, and wobbly derailleur idler to enable pre-shifting with
>>only one hand on the bars while not pedaling. Riding with only on hand on the bars was scary but
>>that, AND pedaling terrified new middle-aged users.
>
>
> Keep in mind, though, that STI was not marketed to or accepted first by terrified, middle-aged
> users. It was the racers, folks who had no problem shifting with DT shifters, that first adopted
> STI. I'm not talking about the pros either. I'm talking about the local racers and A Group riders
> who paid big bucks for the added advantage of quicker shifting.

I think you missed Marketing 101. The reason that the Pros used them first is because their sponsors
told them to. The reason the sponsors told them to was to try to convince consumers to buy them. The
consumers who are most influenced by what equipment the Pros use are the local racers.

Given how STI was introduced and marketed, I would have beeen more surprised if the local racers
were _not_ the first consumers to buy and use them.

Mark McMaster [email protected]

 

[Jay Beattie]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> **** Durbin writes:
>
> >>>> I am wondering if other riders share Jobst's opinion on the reason that most riders switched
> >>>> to STI or Ergo shifters.
>
> >>> His opinion has no technical merit in this case. It was simply a successful troll, as
> >>> evidenced by the existance of this thread.
>
> >> I think this puts the cart before the horse. STI was a final step in a development that started
> >> with Click-shift, freewheeling chainrings, and wobbly derailleur idler to enable pre-shifting
> >> with only one hand on the bars while not pedaling. Riding with only on hand on the bars was
> >> scary but that, AND pedaling terrified new middle-aged users.
>
> > Keep in mind, though, that STI was not marketed to or accepted first by terrified, middle-aged
> > users. It was the racers, folks who had no problem shifting with DT shifters, that first adopted
> > STI. I'm not talking about the pros either. I'm talking about the local racers and A Group
> > riders who paid big bucks for the added advantage of quicker shifting.
>
> So what does "racers" have to do with it? I know plenty of racers who are afraid to ride with one
> hand, especially while pedaling. You say all that as though rapid and frequent shifting were an
> essential part of competition. This seems to be the perception of most riders these days from what
> I observe. These folks are constantly shifting to keep themselves in some prescribed cadence, as
> if it mattered. Just the same, STI and ERGO were promoted mainly by sponsored teams, not by
> magazine advertising.

Ah, well, rapid and frequent shifting is part of racing -- and I can think of a lot of courses I
raced in your 'hood back in the bad old days where I wish I had STI (or even SIS) -- including the
Cat's Hill. Around here, the old Mt. Tabor criterium was a shift-fest, and many of the hilly road
races had fast-start-becoming-long-grind hills where you started in a 53/13 and ended in a 39/21.
Sure, there are lots of crits you can do on a fixed gear, but I would hate to be the guy grinding
the 53/12 out of the finishing corner, trying to wind it up enough to compete for the sprint. STI
was a big improvement for racing. Of course, that is just my opinion, and I was often beaten by a
guy who was still riding on NR friction and toe-clips -- but then, he was a genetic freak and could
have beaten me (and everyone else) on a Stingray. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

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

> In article <[email protected]>, The Pomeranian
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I would like it if someone could show me where a major rag has really blasted a product (based
> > on concept or quality) of a major advertiser and manufacturer.
>
> Dirt Rag.

I've found both Mountain Bike Action and Mountain Biking to be pretty honest. Seriously. They may
say stupid things occasionally, and don't cover much that I'm interested in, but I can't say the
reviews are particularly biased. David and Goliath expose stories may be good for a cheap thrill,
but the truth is that major bike companies usually don't produce stuff that's especially bad. Almost
by definition, it's average -- it doesn't suck, it's just not that great, compared to what else is
available. Reviewers usually do point out the lackluster products, and nitpick where it's
appropriate. Readers are often so pre-victimized by advertising anyway that they're convinced Brand
X is bad and Brand Y is good. When that doesn't hold up under objective scrutiny, they say the
review sucks.

OTOH, Buycycling still writes about frames being "compliant" and gives 5 star reviews to plastic
mini-pumps that couldn't pump up a party balloon.

Matt O.

 

[Dick Durbin]

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> So what does "racers" have to do with it? I know plenty of racers who are afraid to ride with one
> hand, especially while pedaling. You say all that as though rapid and frequent shifting were an
> essential part of competition. This seems to be the perception of most riders these days from what
> I observe. These folks are constantly shifting to keep themselves in some prescribed cadence, as
> if it mattered. Just the same, STI and ERGO were promoted mainly by sponsored teams, not by
> magazine advertising.

Since I have never been a racer, I don't know how necessary STI is in racing and I did not claim
that it was. My statement was that STI was first adopted, not by terrified middle-aged users", but
by hard-core riders who were used to shifting downtube shifters.

I don't recall a great hue and cry from riders looking for something better than downtube or bar end
shifters. It seems that someone decided that shifting could be done without removing the hands from
the bars, some engineering types figured out how to make it work, and the cycling public embraced
the idea which has become the standard for new road bikes.

My Ergo shifters allow me to be in an optimal gear more easily and quickly. Safety is not a
big concern. After nearly thirty years of riding road bikes, I know how to shift a downtube
shifter safely.

**** Durbin

 

[Jon Isaacs]

>How about a combination of ease, quickness, and safety. In other words, a utilitarian and
>successful technological advancement that v ritually everybody (except retrogrouches and Lance on
>the front derailleur of his climbing bike a few TDF's ago) uses, so end of discussion. --dt

I got my first pair because I thought they looked neat and I wanted to try them. Yeah, I like em, it
is nice to be able to shift standing or to flick the lever and shift when working at full power.

But when I choose a bike to ride on a particularily nasty day and want something that I consider to
be the "safest" possible ride, whether or not the bike has STI is of no importance. Brakes that stop
in the rain, tires that are strong and larger than 700C x23s, fenders, good lights.

These are the things I look for. But when I shift is a decision I make, if I am approaching a hill,
I can shift to the right gear before I need it and nothing is lost. If I am approaching a turn, I
can shift either before or after, it really doesn't matter.

Yeah, STI is nice, but DT shifters are nice too and so are barends. Each have their place and the
advantages of one over the other are minor.

Shifting is just not a big part of riding safely. Awareness and preparedness are and often riding
more cautiously is a big part too. Running stop signs and stop lights is bad form with either DT
shifters or STI.

Jon Isaacs

 

[Qui Si Parla Ca]

taylor-<< In other words, a utilitarian and successful technological advancement that v ritually
everybody (except retrogrouches and Lance on the front derailleur of his climbing bike a few
TDF's ago)

And most of Once(2002), and Jalabert and Hampsten and most of Telecom(2001/2)...and a lot of others.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> One problem is that while brifteur units are pricey, that's a price for a combined brake and
> shifter. When you look at the total cost of brake levers and separate shifters (DT or Barcon), the
> cost difference isn't that much.

Sure, if you compare Dura-Ace bar end shifters with Shimano Sora.

> This leaves you with a small cost for a noteworthy difference in feel: even with barcons, you have
> to move your hands.

I like moving my hands. In fact, it's perfectly possible to shift with both hands on the bars, if
you're that paranoid. Furthermore, since most shifting is in the rear, you can do so with your left
hand on the (front) brake lever.

Moving your hands in order to signal turns is *much* more inconvenient than moving your
hand to shift.

> This leaves the reliability issue. It _may_ be important for you and other randonizers, but for
> everyone else, the slight difference in reliability between barcons and brifteurs (especially
> considering that in most cases, failure of either leaves you with a rideable but unshiftable
> bicycle) is probably about the same as the safety difference between barcons and brifteurs.

I doubt it. I bet there have actually been more observed cases of brifteur failure than there
have of bar end failure. I bet any "safety difference", if any exists at all, is orders of
magnitude smaller.

However, I don't think the "reliability issue" with brifteurs is likely to be significant either.

> I ride all-friction DTs, and as you know well, lust after brifteurs. The DTs work, but I do find
> shifting a distraction in the heavy traffic I do most of my riding in, and both indexing and
> brifting would probably help (though a Hyperglide freewheel made a shocking difference in the
> precision and ease of shifting; I replaced another bicycle's worn freewheel with a twist-tooth
> (Uniglide) unit, and the difference between shifting the two drivetrains, both with fresh chains
> and cogs, was dramatic.
>
> Also, as head of an organization devoted to style and training, I must speak in favour of
> brifteurs.

Hey, I've never claimed there were *no* advantages to brifteurs . . .

--
Benjamin Lewis

Asking a working writer what he thinks about critics is like asking a lamp-post how it feels about
dogs. -- Christopher Hampton

 

[Meccanico Di Bi]

"Mike S." <mikeshaw@coxDOTnet> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> snip <To be competitive? No> Heaven forbid you came out of the last corner of a crit in the wrong
> gear with DT shifters! If you come out of the corner to accelerate, you needed to sit down, shift,
> then reaccelerate. If you came out in the top end gear, you were forced to turn over this huge
> gear till you got the speed back up again.
>

I suppose, but it never proved to be a problem for me, even after half the guys out there had
brifters. Now that everyone and their brother has 'em, maybe it would be a disadvantage. Reason 694
why I don't race anymore ;-)

 

[M-Gineering Imp]

kapers wrote:

> There seems to be a myth circulating around that Barcon's are unsafe because you can accidently
> trigger them with your knees..... That may have contributed (a little) to their falling out of
> favour. (except, why are they still spec'd on quite a few Touring bikes???? seems like a
> miss-shift would be more of a concern to someone with 100lbs of gear split 60/40 on front and rear
> racks going down a lengthy grade.....than a racer with lightning fast reflexes....

The only misshift you're likely to make is to knock it into second when you're pushed to make it up
the grade. You could fall over.

But it is also an advantage that barcons share with downtube shifters, try shifting STI while
holding a sandwich
--
Marten

 

[Spoking]

W K posted...

snip>
> Not always. When you get used to a bike you don't look down.
>
> Although after much summer touring on a tandem I discovered that it has the bottle in more or less
> the same place as my other bike has front spokes.
>
> STIs are hard to use when covered in blood BTW.
>
>
>

Ouch.

--
Spoking <^> _|_

 

[Mike S.]

That's what the track is for: no shifting, no braking, just ride fast and turn left!

Mike "Meccanico di Bici" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike S." <mikeshaw@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > snip <To be competitive? No> Heaven forbid you came out of the last
corner
> > of a crit in the wrong gear with DT shifters! If you come out of the
corner
> > to accelerate, you needed to sit down, shift, then reaccelerate. If you came out in the top end
> > gear, you were forced to turn over this huge
gear
> > till you got the speed back up again.
> >
>
> I suppose, but it never proved to be a problem for me, even after half the guys out there had
> brifters. Now that everyone and their brother has 'em, maybe it would be a disadvantage. Reason
> 694 why I don't race anymore ;-)

 

[David Damerell]

Paul Kopit <[email protected]> wrote:
>Barends aren't cheaper. If you add the cost of brake levers and shifters, you'll find that you can
>buy offerings by Campy and Shimano that are cost effective. The brifers will likely not live as
>long as barends and brake levers.

If it costs the same to buy one set (an assertion I do not necessarily agree with) and they last
less long, how are they not more expensive?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!

 

[David Damerell]

David L. Johnson <David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:48:11 -0500, David Damerell wrote:
>>I was wondering if anyone was going to mention bar ends. They're cheaper, they're not as fiddly,
>>you can maintain them,
>Ergo shifters are not "fiddly" and you can maintain them, even upgrade them to handle more cogs.

I think they are fiddly compared to bar-end shifters, if not compared to STI.

>>they have a friction option (especially important in front when compared with Shimano's offering),
>Ergo has a ratcheting left shifter that trims nicely.

This is why I singled out Shimano for special annoyance.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!

 

[Paul Kopit]

You can buy a set of Mirage Ergo for $75. After thousands of miles, you will likely need to replace
about $10 in parts. I have not worn out a set of Ergo shifters since '96, when I started using them.

Downtube shifters seem not to wear at all.

On 13 Jan 2003 13:28:09 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Kopit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Barends aren't cheaper. If you add the cost of brake levers and shifters, you'll find that you can
>>buy offerings by Campy and Shimano that are cost effective. The brifers will likely not live as
>>long as barends and brake levers.
>
>If it costs the same to buy one set (an assertion I do not necessarily agree with) and they last
>less long, how are they not more expensive?

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 00:48:01 -0500, Mike S. wrote:

> That's what the track is for: no shifting, no braking, just ride fast and turn left!

Oh, so that's what I missed! I knew about the turn-left bit, but didn't know I was supposed to ride
fast. No wonder I never did all that well on the track.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass. _`\(,_ | What are you on?"
--Lance Armstrong (_)/ (_) |