Shimano Seven Speed RSX History



Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Grenouil

Guest
Someone must know the answer to this....

While eight speed Shimano RSX was made in double and triple versions - ST-416 shifters, FC-416
crankset, FD-416 FDR for doubles, and ST-417 shifters, FC-417 crankset, FD-417 FDR for triples, I've
only been able to find references to ST-410 shifters and an FD-410 FDR for seven speed RSX. (Seven
speed cranksets are identified as FC-410 double, and FC-413 triple).

So were the ST-410 shifters and FD-410 FDR used on both double and triple setups?
 
G

Graham

Guest
"Grenouil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Someone must know the answer to this....
>
> While eight speed Shimano RSX was made in double and triple versions - ST-416 shifters, FC-416
> crankset, FD-416 FDR for doubles, and ST-417 shifters, FC-417 crankset, FD-417 FDR for triples,
> I've only been able to find references to ST-410 shifters and an FD-410 FDR for seven speed RSX.
> (Seven speed cranksets are identified as FC-410 double, and FC-413 triple).
>
> So were the ST-410 shifters and FD-410 FDR used on both double and triple setups?
>
>
Yes AFAIK my LeMond Reno had RSX and was a bit fiddly to set up on the front mech, because the
lever was for double and triple.

Graham
 
M

Matt O'Toole

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

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

> > Someone must know the answer to this....
> >
> > While eight speed Shimano RSX was made in double and triple versions - ST-416 shifters, FC-416
> > crankset, FD-416 FDR for doubles, and ST-417 shifters, FC-417 crankset, FD-417 FDR for triples,
> > I've only been able to find references to ST-410 shifters and an FD-410 FDR for seven speed RSX.
> > (Seven speed cranksets are identified as FC-410 double, and FC-413 triple).

Thanks for looking that up.

> > So were the ST-410 shifters and FD-410 FDR used on both double and triple setups?

This is what I was asking in that other thread. I thought Sheldon mentioned that all RSX left
shifters were double *and* triple compatible. I still don't have a definitive answer, but...

> Yes AFAIK my LeMond Reno had RSX and was a bit fiddly to set up on the front mech, because the
> lever was for double and triple.

I've been looking at a couple of different RSX bikes with doubles. However, if the RSX cranks are
indeed 110/74, as someone mentioned, then I might not need a triple. It sure would be nice to have
the option though...

If either of you find these answers, definately post them...

Matt O.
 
S

Sheldon Brown

Guest
Matt O'Toole wrote:

> This is what I was asking in that other thread. I thought Sheldon ment=
ioned
> that all RSX left shifters were double *and* triple compatible. I stil=
l don't
> have a definitive answer, but...

I wasn't quite correct in that. I've looked it up in my old dealer=20 manuals, and here's the ****:

All _7-speed_ RSX STIs were "double/triple" This is the model SL-A410 7-speed RSX groups used a 46
tooth large chainring.

7-speed RSX was made from the 1995 through the 1998 model years.

For the 1999 model year, RSX was completely revamped, became 8-speed and =

used full sized (52 tooth) chainrings.

The 8-speed version was listed with both a double (SL-A416) and a triple =

(SL-A417) STI unit.

8-speed RSX was only made for the 1999 model year, and didn't sell well, =

so the parts are much less common than the 7-speed version. I don't=20 recall ever seeing a bike
with an RSX 2 x 8 system.

RSX was replaced by SORA in 2000.

Sheldon "Likes Sora Better" Brown +--------------------------------------------------------+
| I met a traveler from an antique land | Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone | Stand in
| the desert. Near them, on the sand, | Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, | And
| wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, | Tell that its sculptor well those passions read, |
| Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, | The hand that mocked them, and the heart
| that fed, | And on the pedestal these words appear: | "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: |
| Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!=94 | Nothing beside remains. Round the decay | Of
| that colossal wreck, boundless and bare | The lone and level sands stretch far away. | -Percy
| Bysshe Shelley |
+--------------------------------------------------------+ 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
 
M

Matt O'Toole

Guest
"Sheldon Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I wrote:

>> This is what I was asking in that other thread. I thought Sheldon mentioned that all RSX left
>> shifters were double *and* triple compatible. I still
don't
>> have a definitive answer, but...

> I wasn't quite correct in that. I've looked it up in my old dealer manuals, and here's the ****:

Thanks! And thanks to Roger G, for looking this up as well.

> All _7-speed_ RSX STIs were "double/triple" This is the model SL-A410 7-speed RSX groups used a 46
> tooth large chainring.

That's actually double-good -- I can get the gearing I need either way -- with a triple, or the 110
double. I would have settled for the dual mode shifter!

After playing with your neato gear calculator, I discovered a 34-48 double and a 12-28 7sp cassette
gives almost the same range as most triples, plus, it works out to an almost-perfect half-step
system. I like this...

> 7-speed RSX was made from the 1995 through the 1998 model years.

So they're all probably 130mm dropout spacing -- nice strong wheels with a 7sp hub...

> For the 1999 model year, RSX was completely revamped, became 8-speed and used full sized (52
> tooth) chainrings.

> The 8-speed version was listed with both a double (SL-A416) and a triple (SL-A417) STI unit.

So *those* lefts are probably *not* double/triple compatible...

> 8-speed RSX was only made for the 1999 model year, and didn't sell well, so the parts are much
> less common than the 7-speed version. I don't recall ever seeing a bike with an RSX 2 x 8 system.

> RSX was replaced by SORA in 2000.

> Sheldon "Likes Sora Better" Brown

Yeah, but used RSX bikes are cheap! And the 7sp versions are apparently very versatile... I think
I'll buy one.

You know, I want to like Sora -- I bet it actually "works" better than, say, 8 year old Dura-Ace.
The newer STIs, even the cheap ones, all have the same crisp, light action. And the brifters are
much more elegant than they used to be. Some of the older STI units were pretty clunky.

Sora's one lever, one button design is very sleek and elegant. However, I hate how you can't reach
the release button from the drops, unless you have thumbs like Uma Thurman in that Tom Robbins
movie. This really sticks in my craw. First, because it would have been so easy to just make it
right. Second, the cynic in me says it's a carefully contrived ploy to sell people *another* bike,
after they've been riding awhile, and using the drops more. Other than that, Sora is really good
stuff. It seems to have brought the price of a "real road bike" down a notch or so -- Sora-ly
needed, IMO.

Cheers,

Matt O.
 
S

Sheldon Brown

Guest
I wrote:

>>7-speed RSX was made from the 1995 through the 1998 model years.

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> So they're all probably 130mm dropout spacing -- nice strong wheels with a 7sp hub...
>
Right, with 110/74 cranks.
>
>>For the 1999 model year, RSX was completely revamped, became 8-speed and used full sized (52
>>tooth) chainrings.

i.e. 130/74 triple, 130 double.

>>The 8-speed version was listed with both a double (SL-A416) and a triple (SL-A417) STI unit.
>
> So *those* lefts are probably *not* double/triple compatible...
>
The _SL-A416_ was double only.

I don't believe it is physically possible to make a "triple" shifter that won't also work with a
double chainring setup, so I would consider the SL-A417 to be a switch hitter.

>>Sheldon "Likes Sora Better" Brown
>
> You know, I want to like Sora -- I bet it actually "works" better than, say, 8 year old Dura-Ace.
> The newer STIs, even the cheap ones, all have the same crisp, light action. And the brifters are
> much more elegant than they used to be. Some of the older STI units were pretty clunky.
>
> Sora's one lever, one button design is very sleek and elegant. However, I hate how you can't reach
> the release button from the drops, unless you have thumbs like Uma Thurman in that Tom Robbins
> movie. This really sticks in my craw.

I like the fact that it's a different motion, with different digits, to upshift than to downshift.
That's why I recently replaced the 105 STIs on my Hetchins with Veloce Ergos...with the 105s I was
constantly getting confused which way to shift, since it was the same motion up or down, with just a
slight differenece in finger position.

With the Ergos I find it also a bit awkward to upshift (rear) or downshift (front) from the drops,
but not as awkward as with bar end shifters, and not nearly as awkward as down tube levers. I find
this to never be a serious problem, since I almost never have occasion to shift in that direction
from the drops.

> First, because it would have been so easy to just make it right.

That's not at all clear to me. Might have interfered with the unique Sora feature, adjustable brake
lever reach. While all decent straighg bar shifters offer this, Sora is the _only_ drop bar shifter
that I've ever seen with a reach-adjustment screw, a huge benefit for folks with short fingers.

> Second, the cynic in me says it's a carefully contrived ploy to sell people *another* bike,
> after they've been riding awhile, and using the drops more. Other than that, Sora is really good
> stuff. It seems to have brought the price of a "real road bike" down a notch or so -- Sora-ly
> needed, IMO.

Sheldon "Shimagnolo" Brown +-------------------------------------------------------+
| It is better to be victimized occasionally, | than to go through life filled with suspicion. |
| --Elbert Hubbard |
+-------------------------------------------------------+ 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
 
J

Jean

Guest
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
|
| So they're all probably 130mm dropout spacing -- nice strong wheels with
a 7sp
| hub...

Not really - the 1997 RSX rear hub was available in both 130mm and 126mm OLN spacing (...my bike has
the 126mm version).

Jean
 
T

Thomas Reynolds

Guest
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Sora's one lever, one button design is very sleek and elegant. However, I hate how you can't reach
> the release button from the drops, unless you have thumbs like Uma Thurman in that Tom Robbins
> movie. This really sticks in my craw. First, because it would have been so easy to just make it
> right. Second, the cynic in me says it's a carefully contrived ploy to sell people *another* bike,
> after they've been riding awhile, and using the drops more. Other than that, Sora is really good
> stuff. It seems to have brought the price of a "real road bike" down a notch or so -- Sora-ly
> needed, IMO.
>
This was a good thread. I have a 1995 RSX system and I had no idea that the left shifter was both
double and triple.

I agree with you about Sora's button. Except I would prefer the two lever design. I have four bikes
with STI on them. Only one, my tandem, has Soras and I am forever reaching for an inside lever that
isn't there.

Tom
 
G

Grenouil

Guest
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Sheldon Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> I wrote:
>
> >> This is what I was asking in that other thread. I
thought Sheldon mentioned
> >> that all RSX left shifters were double *and* triple
compatible. I still
> don't
> >> have a definitive answer, but...
>
> > I wasn't quite correct in that. I've looked it up in my
old dealer
> > manuals, and here's the ****:
>
> Thanks! And thanks to Roger G, for looking this up as
well.
>
> > All _7-speed_ RSX STIs were "double/triple" This is the
model SL-A410
> > 7-speed RSX groups used a 46 tooth large chainring.
>
> That's actually double-good -- I can get the gearing I
need either way -- with a
> triple, or the 110 double. I would have settled for the
dual mode shifter!
>
> After playing with your neato gear calculator, I
discovered a 34-48 double and a
> 12-28 7sp cassette gives almost the same range as most
triples, plus, it works
> out to an almost-perfect half-step system. I like this...
>
> > 7-speed RSX was made from the 1995 through the 1998
model years.
>
> So they're all probably 130mm dropout spacing -- nice
strong wheels with a 7sp
> hub...
>
> > For the 1999 model year, RSX was completely revamped,
became 8-speed and
> > used full sized (52 tooth) chainrings.
>
> > The 8-speed version was listed with both a double
(SL-A416) and a triple
> > (SL-A417) STI unit.
>
> So *those* lefts are probably *not* double/triple
compatible...
>
> > 8-speed RSX was only made for the 1999 model year, and
didn't sell well,
> > so the parts are much less common than the 7-speed
version. I don't
> > recall ever seeing a bike with an RSX 2 x 8 system.
>
> > RSX was replaced by SORA in 2000.
>
> > Sheldon "Likes Sora Better" Brown
>
> Yeah, but used RSX bikes are cheap! And the 7sp versions
are apparently very
> versatile... I think I'll buy one.
>
> You know, I want to like Sora -- I bet it actually "works"
better than, say, 8
> year old Dura-Ace. The newer STIs, even the cheap ones,
all have the same
> crisp, light action. And the brifters are much more
elegant than they used to
> be. Some of the older STI units were pretty clunky.
>
> Sora's one lever, one button design is very sleek and
elegant. However, I hate
> how you can't reach the release button from the drops,
unless you have thumbs
> like Uma Thurman in that Tom Robbins movie. This really
sticks in my craw.
> First, because it would have been so easy to just make it
right. Second, the
> cynic in me says it's a carefully contrived ploy to sell
people *another* bike,
> after they've been riding awhile, and using the drops
more. Other than that,
> Sora is really good stuff. It seems to have brought the
price of a "real road
> bike" down a notch or so -- Sora-ly needed, IMO.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt O.
>
Small point on the eight speed RSX double shifters - I suspect they have a trim function (an
in-between click) like the eight speed Shimano 105 double. (There appears to be no real difference
between RSX, RX-100, and eight speed Shimano 105 except the finish). The Shimano 105 triple doesn't
have a trim, just the three required clicks.
 
G

Gwhite

Guest
Matt O'Toole wrote:
>

> After playing with your neato gear calculator, I discovered a 34-48 double and a 12-28 7sp
> cassette gives almost the same range as most triples, plus, it works out to an almost-perfect
> half-step system. I like this...

It may have sandwiched gears, but that doesn't make it a "half-step." It is a N-and-a-half-step (N
is two here; the term "Alpine gearing" got distorted from its original meaning to mean
N-and-a-half-step to some people) for people who go for that sort of lingo. These suffer from holes
at the high end and a rather nasty shift sequence (I'll bet you'll just end up shifting crossover).
It you don't mind, then that's cool.

Here's yours: 34 48 12 75.083 106.000 14 64.357 90.857 16 56.313 79.500 18 50.056 70.667 21 42.905
60.571 24 37.542 53.000 28 32.179 45.429

Here's a half-step (no holes): 43 47 12 94.958 103.792 14 81.393 88.964 17 67.029 73.265 20 56.975
62.275 24 47.479 51.896 29 39.293 42.948 35 32.557 35.586

Here's your step sizes in percent:
>> gears=sort(bikegfnc([48 34],[12 14 16 18 21 24 28],26.5)); [a,b, c,stepSize] =
>> cogstepmean(gears:)));100*stepSize
ans =
15.4303
16.3631
17.7166
18.7030
19.7166
20.0634
21.2923
22.0634
23.3560
24.0634
25.7166
26.3631
27.4303

Here's the half-step step sizes in percent:
>> gears=sort(bikegfnc([47 43],[12 14 17 20 24 29 35],26.5)); [a,b, c,stepSize] =
>> cogstepmean(gears:)));100*stepSize
ans =
28.8977
29.9145
30.8977
31.0337
32.8977
33.3408
34.8977
35.3588
36.8977
37.5257
38.8977
39.5215
40.8977

Obviously the half-step spacing has much less variance. (I'm not suggesting you should use
half-step.)

> Yeah, but used RSX bikes are cheap! And the 7sp versions are apparently very versatile... I think
> I'll buy one.

Sounds good to me. There is nothing wrong with RSX/Sora.
 
R

Ritch

Guest
Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... [snip]
> For the 1999 model year, RSX was completely revamped, became 8-speed and
>
> used full sized (52 tooth) chainrings.
>
> The 8-speed version was listed with both a double (SL-A416) and a triple
>
> (SL-A417) STI unit.
>
> 8-speed RSX was only made for the 1999 model year, and didn't sell well,
>
> so the parts are much less common than the 7-speed version. I don't recall ever seeing a bike with
> an RSX 2 x 8 system.
>
> RSX was replaced by SORA in 2000.
>
> Sheldon "Likes Sora Better" Brown

For the first time, I feel like my bike is somewhat exclusive: a 1999 Giant Peleton with RSX
8-speed, 52/42 chainrings... and I thought it was just a mass produced entry level model...

Ritch
 
G

Grenouil

Guest
"Ritch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [snip]
> > For the 1999 model year, RSX was completely revamped,
became 8-speed and
> >
> > used full sized (52 tooth) chainrings.
> >
> > The 8-speed version was listed with both a double
(SL-A416) and a triple
> >
> > (SL-A417) STI unit.
> >
> > 8-speed RSX was only made for the 1999 model year, and
didn't sell well,
> >
> > so the parts are much less common than the 7-speed
version. I don't
> > recall ever seeing a bike with an RSX 2 x 8 system.
> >
> > RSX was replaced by SORA in 2000.
> >
> > Sheldon "Likes Sora Better" Brown
>
> For the first time, I feel like my bike is somewhat
exclusive: a 1999
> Giant Peleton with RSX 8-speed, 52/42 chainrings... and I
thought it
> was just a mass produced entry level model...
>
> Ritch

For the record - can you confirm if it has a trim position on the FDR?
 
A

Andrew Webster

Guest
Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
><cut>
>
> With the Ergos I find it also a bit awkward to upshift (rear) or downshift (front) from the drops,
> but not as awkward as with bar end shifters, and not nearly as awkward as down tube levers. I find
> this to never be a serious problem, since I almost never have occasion to shift in that direction
> from the drops.
>
<cut>

In what way are down-tube shifters awkward? I prefer them on my bikes that have them to my tiagra
STI setup.

It is a short reach from the drops which I find more instinctive than STI, it also enables me to use
either hand to shift either front or rear depending on what I am doing at the same time (e.g.
braking, eating a sandwich etc.). With STI the wrist movement required to change to larger cogs is
rather hard to achieve from the drops too, I end up having to change my whole riding position just
to change gear in this way.

STI less awkward? I don't really think so, and certainly less flexible.

IMHO STI (as with indexed shifting) has been vasty over-hyped for general road use (though I see the
advantages of both on bumpy tracks or when racing). I am primarily a commuter/tourer/leisure
cyclist, doing about 9000 miles a year, I do about half on an STI equipped bike, the other half on
non-indexed DT shifting machines (plus a bit on a hub gear bike). For me the bikes with non-indexed
DT shifting do the job just as well as indexed STI.

Andrew Webster
 
D

David

Guest
> Small point on the eight speed RSX double shifters - I suspect they have a trim function (an
> in-between click) like the eight speed Shimano 105 double. (There appears to be no real difference
> between RSX, RX-100, and eight speed Shimano 105 except the finish). The Shimano 105 triple
> doesn't have a trim, just the three required clicks.
>
>
I have the 1999 RSX triple version on my touring bike and there is absolutely "no trim" function
on the SL-A417 lever. The reason I knew that for the fact is that, I converted my 52-39-24 chain
ring setup to a 42/32/22 compact chain ring setup controlled by a RSX derailleur (1999 genre I
suppose) that was claimed not supposed to work with the compact chain ring set up at all. It
ofcourse works, but not perfectly with the RSX triple STI shifter since the chain would grind
against the cage of the RSX FD in some gear combinations. I solved that problem by running a
Campagnolo Ergo left shifter as it offers very good trimming option than any Shimano STI shifters
that I have used so far.
 
R

Ryan Cousineau

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Andrew
Webster) wrote:

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

> In what way are down-tube shifters awkward? I prefer them on my bikes that have them to my tiagra
> STI setup.
>
> It is a short reach from the drops which I find more instinctive than STI, it also enables me to
> use either hand to shift either front or rear depending on what I am doing at the same time (e.g.
> braking, eating a sandwich etc.). With STI the wrist movement required to change to larger cogs is
> rather hard to achieve from the drops too, I end up having to change my whole riding position just
> to change gear in this way.

You know, the hoods are closer to the drops than the downtube. Further, Tiagra STI is designed
to be shiftable from the drops. That's what the long lever is for, as opposed to Sora or Campy
Ergo designs.

> STI less awkward? I don't really think so, and certainly less flexible.

But also faster, and if you are on the hoods or the drops, more intuitive.

> IMHO STI (as with indexed shifting) has been vasty over-hyped for general road use (though I see
> the advantages of both on bumpy tracks or when racing). I am primarily a commuter/tourer/leisure
> cyclist, doing about 9000 miles a year, I do about half on an STI equipped bike, the other half on
> non-indexed DT shifting machines (plus a bit on a hub gear bike). For me the bikes with
> non-indexed DT shifting do the job just as well as indexed STI.

I can agree with this. I got an STI-equipped bike (right side only; be like Lance) primarily because
I wanted to start racing. It makes a big difference there. What surprised me was it was also nicer
for commuting (my other big use) because I could bang off faster shifts in stoplight sprints and
other situations where I needed to go a little quickly.

DT non-indexed is certainly good enough. I have an eccentric friend who prefers indexed barcons.
Nothing wrong with that. But for most riders, I think brifteurs are the way to go. Shifting where
your hands are.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
R

Ritch

Guest
"Grenouil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Ritch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > For the first time, I feel like my bike is somewhat exclusive: a 1999 Giant Peleton with RSX
> > 8-speed, 52/42 chainrings... and I thought it was just a mass produced entry level model...
> >
> > Ritch
>
> For the record - can you confirm if it has a trim position on the FDR?

It has trim on the FDR (and RDR)

Ritch
 
A

Andrew Webster

Guest
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... <cut>
>
> But also faster, and if you are on the hoods or the drops, more intuitive.
>
<cut>

Yesterday took a trip to my LBS with a wheel for repair. Carried the wheel in my right hand and
used the left to control both shifters. Easy riding a DT shifter bike, but I'd like to see it
done with STI!

Also easier to brake and change gear at the same time with DT setup (I am in the UK where right hand
front brake setup is the norm) - I find it impossible to use the levers to brake hard and to shift
at the same time.

I stick by the statement that DT shifters are more flexible, though I grant that STI may give
quicker shifting and obviates the need to take hands off the bars. Like so many things cycling there
is not one "best" solution for all people and all styles of riding, it comes down to what your
priorities are and personal preference.

My priorities are a simple, cheap, reliable shifting mechanism. I only have STI on one bike
because that is what it came with, I tried to get a discount for swapping the STI for bar end
levers, but failed.

Andrew Webster

[email protected]
 
A

Andrew Webster

Guest
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... <cut>
>
> But also faster, and if you are on the hoods or the drops, more intuitive.
>
<cut>

Yesterday took a trip to my LBS with a wheel for repair. Carried the wheel in my right hand and
used the left to control both shifters. Easy riding a DT shifter bike, but I'd like to see it
done with STI!

Also easier to brake and change gear at the same time with DT setup (I am in the UK where right hand
front brake setup is the norm) - I find it impossible to use the levers to brake hard and to shift
at the same time.

I stick by the statement that DT shifters are more flexible, though I grant that STI may give
quicker shifting and obviates the need to take hands off the bars. Like so many things cycling there
is not one "best" solution for all people and all styles of riding, it comes down to what your
priorities are and personal preference.

My priorities are a simple, cheap, reliable shifting mechanism. I only have STI on one bike
because that is what it came with, I tried to get a discount for swapping the STI for bar end
levers, but failed.

Andrew Webster

[email protected]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.