J
Jon Isaacs
Guest
Ok so we've been through the fact that STI is "not a big deal" (or why it is a big deal), the
various theories about why STI was developed and why it became popular.
Pretty much every knows where everyone stands so I believe it is time to move on.
I say that this group has a potential to actually make some contribution to the advancement of
cycling, more than just helping out the occasional newbie and then mostly just arguing the
unarguable. I think that this group has a great many resources, people like to Andrew Muzi, Sheldon,
Mike J., Jobst, and many others (sorry if I forgot your name.) We have riders, racers, bike shop
people, engineers, a great pool of talent here that could hash this thing out and at least provide
some creative thinking and potential solutions.
So I say lets hash the future of shifting out right here and in a responsible and reasonable manner.
I suggest we move away from the current technology. I would like to move past brand allegiances and
address this problem from the stand point of coming up with a new design that supercedes the current
existing designs. Certainly a new design can encorporate the features of the old designs and may
even be based on older technology.
But the lineage can be broken.
To address this problem, I ask the following question:
What would define the "ideal" shifting system, what are the basic goals here. I suggest the
following.
1. Shifter for rear derailleur would be indexed.
2. Shifter for the front derailleur would be quasi-friction, ie continuously adjustable.
3. Reasonably lightweight.
4. Simple and/or Repairable (hopefully by the owner.)
5. Durable
6. Reliable
7. Economical
8. Mounted on the handle bars and allow shifting from the hoods, drops and tops of the bars.
9. Friction bail out mode.
10. Capable of large shifting several cogs with one motion, hopefully all of them if needed.
11. Easy to shift.
I am sure others can add more. But I also hope that this does not deteriorate into a bunch of
petty arguments about, for example, whether it is really necessary to be repairable of whether
the front derailleur needs to be "quasi friction" or not. The fact is that the ideal system would
be repairable and it is clear from the Shimano experience that a quasi friction front derailleur
is superior.
I have been considering the previously available options, STI, Ergo, Barends and Command Shifters
(CS) and will now repeat my list, however this time, I will include along side the shifting systems
which currently have these features:
12. Shifter for rear derailleur would be indexed. (STI, Ergo, CS, Barends)
13. Shifter for the front derailleur would be quasi-friction, ie continuously adjustable. (Ergo,
CS, barends)
14. Reasonably lightweight. (STI, Ergo, CS, Barends)
15. Simple and/or Repairable (hopefully by the owner.) (Ergo, CS, Barends)
16. Durable (STI, Ergo, CS, barends)
17. Reliable (STI, Ergo, barends)
18. Economical (CS and Barends)
19. Mounted on the handle bars and allow shifting from the hoods, drops and tops of the bars. (CS)
20. Friction bail out mode. (Barends, CS)
21. Capable of large shifting several cogs with one motion, hopefully all of them if needed.
(CS, barends)
22. Easy to shift, (STI, Ergo, Barends)
--------------------------
So coming out the bottom it is interesting to see that of the qualities I have suggested, that the
Suntour Command shifters actually seems to have the most things going for them, only the stiff
shifting and the fact their questionable compatibility made them unreliable shifting, at least in my
experience.
Could a new design indeed be based on an improved Suntour design, one that actually was properly
executed??
Or Is there something about the brake lever/shifter combination that makes it superior to the
Command shifter type approach?
Anyway, I am just throwing this out there, I hope it is taken in the spirit it is given, this is a
challenge to work as a group and avoid entanglements and flame wars.
Jon Isaacs
various theories about why STI was developed and why it became popular.
Pretty much every knows where everyone stands so I believe it is time to move on.
I say that this group has a potential to actually make some contribution to the advancement of
cycling, more than just helping out the occasional newbie and then mostly just arguing the
unarguable. I think that this group has a great many resources, people like to Andrew Muzi, Sheldon,
Mike J., Jobst, and many others (sorry if I forgot your name.) We have riders, racers, bike shop
people, engineers, a great pool of talent here that could hash this thing out and at least provide
some creative thinking and potential solutions.
So I say lets hash the future of shifting out right here and in a responsible and reasonable manner.
I suggest we move away from the current technology. I would like to move past brand allegiances and
address this problem from the stand point of coming up with a new design that supercedes the current
existing designs. Certainly a new design can encorporate the features of the old designs and may
even be based on older technology.
But the lineage can be broken.
To address this problem, I ask the following question:
What would define the "ideal" shifting system, what are the basic goals here. I suggest the
following.
1. Shifter for rear derailleur would be indexed.
2. Shifter for the front derailleur would be quasi-friction, ie continuously adjustable.
3. Reasonably lightweight.
4. Simple and/or Repairable (hopefully by the owner.)
5. Durable
6. Reliable
7. Economical
8. Mounted on the handle bars and allow shifting from the hoods, drops and tops of the bars.
9. Friction bail out mode.
10. Capable of large shifting several cogs with one motion, hopefully all of them if needed.
11. Easy to shift.
I am sure others can add more. But I also hope that this does not deteriorate into a bunch of
petty arguments about, for example, whether it is really necessary to be repairable of whether
the front derailleur needs to be "quasi friction" or not. The fact is that the ideal system would
be repairable and it is clear from the Shimano experience that a quasi friction front derailleur
is superior.
I have been considering the previously available options, STI, Ergo, Barends and Command Shifters
(CS) and will now repeat my list, however this time, I will include along side the shifting systems
which currently have these features:
12. Shifter for rear derailleur would be indexed. (STI, Ergo, CS, Barends)
13. Shifter for the front derailleur would be quasi-friction, ie continuously adjustable. (Ergo,
CS, barends)
14. Reasonably lightweight. (STI, Ergo, CS, Barends)
15. Simple and/or Repairable (hopefully by the owner.) (Ergo, CS, Barends)
16. Durable (STI, Ergo, CS, barends)
17. Reliable (STI, Ergo, barends)
18. Economical (CS and Barends)
19. Mounted on the handle bars and allow shifting from the hoods, drops and tops of the bars. (CS)
20. Friction bail out mode. (Barends, CS)
21. Capable of large shifting several cogs with one motion, hopefully all of them if needed.
(CS, barends)
22. Easy to shift, (STI, Ergo, Barends)
--------------------------
So coming out the bottom it is interesting to see that of the qualities I have suggested, that the
Suntour Command shifters actually seems to have the most things going for them, only the stiff
shifting and the fact their questionable compatibility made them unreliable shifting, at least in my
experience.
Could a new design indeed be based on an improved Suntour design, one that actually was properly
executed??
Or Is there something about the brake lever/shifter combination that makes it superior to the
Command shifter type approach?
Anyway, I am just throwing this out there, I hope it is taken in the spirit it is given, this is a
challenge to work as a group and avoid entanglements and flame wars.
Jon Isaacs