Touring bikes: Index or friction shifting?



On Apr 17, 12:54 am, still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:33:36 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I rode across the US on a bike with 5sp friction bar end shifters --
> >and I much prefer my modern STI. And after all these years, STI has
> >never crapped out in the middle of nowhere or anywhere. I have index
> >bar ends on my commuter and don't like them because I have gotten so
> >used to being able to shift while standing and climbing. If I were
> >outfitting a touring bike, there is no question that it would use STI/
> >Ergo -- and if I were neurotic about it failing, then I would pack a
> >two ounce DT shifter just in case. -- Jay Beattie.

>
> Real men like a little friction!
>
> That said, and noting that my bikes are all retro-grouch friction, if
> I was riding cross country I would likely choose something that I
> could find replacement parts for in the majority of modern shops.


My coast-to-coast a couple years ago was done with friction bar end
shifters. When touring, I seldom (if ever) feel a need for a "right
NOW!" shift while standing and climbing. It's a tour, not a race.

On that same trip, my daughter had STI. She had consistent, but
minor, trouble shifting to the largest rear cog. She ultimately
learned to always double-hit the shifter to make that shift. This may
have been because we were pushing the envelope on rear cog size.
(Sorry, I don't recall the tooth count or derailleur model right
now.) But I certainly prefer my setup to hers.

IME, index shifting is stable and reliable on "normal" bikes. Still,
I have no interest in carrying an assembly of unrepairable wristwatch
parts inside my brake levers. I think bar end index, with a friction
option, make the most sense. (I also think you don't need as many
gears as are currently fashionable.)

BTW, I find index to be less reliable on a folding bike. Whenever
it's unfolded, the cables seem to need to go through their "settling
in" routine for the first, oh, ten or fifteen miles at least. During
that time, I can't count on one click generating one shift. And the
more complex cable runs make index a bit less consistent even when the
bike has not been folded for a while.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 17, 12:54 am, still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:33:36 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I rode across the US on a bike with 5sp friction bar end shifters --
>>> and I much prefer my modern STI. And after all these years, STI has
>>> never crapped out in the middle of nowhere or anywhere. I have index
>>> bar ends on my commuter and don't like them because I have gotten so
>>> used to being able to shift while standing and climbing. If I were
>>> outfitting a touring bike, there is no question that it would use STI/
>>> Ergo -- and if I were neurotic about it failing, then I would pack a
>>> two ounce DT shifter just in case. -- Jay Beattie.

>> Real men like a little friction!
>>
>> That said, and noting that my bikes are all retro-grouch friction, if
>> I was riding cross country I would likely choose something that I
>> could find replacement parts for in the majority of modern shops.

>
> My coast-to-coast a couple years ago was done with friction bar end
> shifters. When touring, I seldom (if ever) feel a need for a "right
> NOW!" shift while standing and climbing. It's a tour, not a race.


For most people it has nothing to do with racing. It is more convenient.

>
> On that same trip, my daughter had STI. She had consistent, but
> minor, trouble shifting to the largest rear cog. She ultimately
> learned to always double-hit the shifter to make that shift. This may
> have been because we were pushing the envelope on rear cog size.
> (Sorry, I don't recall the tooth count or derailleur model right
> now.) But I certainly prefer my setup to hers.
>
> IME, index shifting is stable and reliable on "normal" bikes.


It is stable and consistent off road in the worst circumstances in my case.


Lou
 
On Apr 16, 2:28 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> bfd <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> However.... back 15 years ago when I did have a bike
> >> and lost of riding, I remember friction shifting.....
> >> and when things were not quite aligned I could manually
> >> make that small adjustment so that it was.

>
> >Try adjusting the barrel adjuster behind the rear der. Turning it like
> >1/4 turn clockwise until the chain runs smoothly.

>
> How can I reach that while riding tho?


You don't. You adjust the rear der when you are off the bike. This can
be done anywhere. If you don't have a stand, have some one hold the
bike up and turn the crank. Then as you hear chain out of alignment,
try turning the barrel adjuster on the rear der, about a 1/4 turn at a
time until things quiet down. Try it, it actually works! Good Luck.
 
In article
<rcousine-EA177A.21571216042008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

> Experiments with other non-indexed bikes have suggested that
> friction-shifting a 7-speed cluster, even with Hyperglide teeth, is
> mildly tricky.


I do not find this to be the case on a seven-gear 14-32
Hyperglide, down-tube friction shifter bicycle. Seven
positions over 120 deg of throw is easy to discern.

> I'd prefer to use a 6-speed cluster on a
> friction-shifting bike, though the Mega-7 freewheels might tip the
> balance in a particular application owing to their bail-out cog and nice
> internals.


--
Michael Press
 
On Apr 17, 7:08 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
>  Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I rode across the US on a bike with 5sp friction bar end shifters --
> > and I much prefer my modern STI.

>
> Tastes are different.  I adopted STI in 1992 and then switched to Ergo
> because I didn't like STI's laterally moving brake lever.  I used those
> through 2005 when I went back to downtube friction shifting on my bikes.  
> I just like it better.  It's nice there are options.


Absolutely. Now that I am riding with my leg in a splint, I pretty
much stay seated anyway, and my shift mechanism doesn't matter that
much. It's only for climbing out of the saddle and racing that I
strongly prefer STI/Ergo. -- Jay Beattie.
 
Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:

>I rode across the US on a bike with 5sp friction bar end shifters --
>and I much prefer my modern STI. And after all these years, STI has
>never crapped out in the middle of nowhere or anywhere. I have index
>bar ends on my commuter and don't like them because I have gotten so
>used to being able to shift while standing and climbing. If I were
>outfitting a touring bike, there is no question that it would use STI/
>Ergo -- and if I were neurotic about it failing, then I would pack a
>two ounce DT shifter just in case. -- Jay Beattie.


OK thanks Jay!!
 
[email protected] wrote:

>I have no interest in carrying an assembly of unrepairable wristwatch
>parts inside my brake levers.


Are the insides of those combo brake and shifter levers
THAT complex?

serious question. That many parts in there?
 
[email protected] wrote:

>
>BTW, I find index to be less reliable on a folding bike. Whenever
>it's unfolded, the cables seem to need to go through their "settling
>in" routine for the first, oh, ten or fifteen miles at least. During
>that time, I can't count on one click generating one shift. And the
>more complex cable runs make index a bit less consistent even when the
>bike has not been folded for a while.


Thanks or that info Frank!!

A I have been thinking abt buying a Bike Friday NWT
soon!!

Sounds like I better stick with friction shifting on it
huh?

If yes....what system do you advise?
 
On Apr 18, 11:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >I have no interest in carrying an assembly of unrepairable wristwatch
> >parts inside my brake levers.

>
> Are the insides of those combo brake and shifter levers
> THAT complex?
>
> serious question. That many parts in there?


Not literally as many as a mechanical wristwatch. But yes, there are
_many_ parts in there. Enough that they are generally considered
unrepairable. See http://picasaweb.google.com/Martin.Borsje/Ultegra02?authkey=Y7ukVgKEiPA

They work fine for most people. But things like a shift cable
partially frayed within the lever can make them nearly useless. They
sometimes develop reluctance to shift from dried lubricant or
contamination, and require long, patient flushing with WD-40. And
significant impact in a crash could leave you with no option but total
(and expensive) replacement.

On a long tour, you could carry a spare downtube shifter, as one
person suggested, provided your bike has a boss for it or can accept a
clamp. But I prefer to avoid the issue. IMO, excessive complexity is
best avoided.

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Apr 18, 11:36 am, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >BTW, I find index to be less reliable on a folding bike. Whenever
> >it's unfolded, the cables seem to need to go through their "settling
> >in" routine for the first, oh, ten or fifteen miles at least. During
> >that time, I can't count on one click generating one shift. And the
> >more complex cable runs make index a bit less consistent even when the
> >bike has not been folded for a while.

>
> Thanks or that info Frank!!
>
> A I have been thinking abt buying a Bike Friday NWT
> soon!!
>
> Sounds like I better stick with friction shifting on it
> huh?
>
> If yes....what system do you advise?


I went with Shimano indexed bar ends. They have a friction option,
which I've used from time to time until the shifting settled down
after unfolding. Compared to STI, the bar-ends are lighter, simpler,
more reliable, more rugged, more repairable if broken, and less
expensive.

The downside is, I have to move my hand nearly 8" to shift gears. Oh,
the humanity! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> I can understand wanting to use shifters with a friction *option*
> (e.g., DT shifters or barends) as a backup in case of difficulties
> whilst on a tour. But why, oh why, would anyone, save for a Hobbit,
> want to use a friction *only* shifter??


I honestly do not miss indexing when I don't have it, and enjoy the
flexibility of throwing any combination of parts together and having it
work well. Indexing is overrated.

--
Work and recreation are not often effected at the same time.
One using a bicycle in business makes an exception to the rule.
- Dr. Edgar H. Earl, Rochester. (~1892)
 
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:18:10 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:

>The downside is, I have to move my hand nearly 8" to shift gears. Oh,
>the humanity! ;-)


And another whole 8" gets you to downtube shifters, with increased
accuracy and feel.
:0
 
[email protected] wrote:
> bfd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> However.... back 15 years ago when I did have a bike
>>> and lost of riding, I remember friction shifting.....
>>> and when things were not quite aligned I could manually
>>> make that small adjustment so that it was.
>>>

>> Try adjusting the barrel adjuster behind the rear der. Turning it like
>> 1/4 turn clockwise until the chain runs smoothly.

>
> How can I reach that while riding tho?


Many bikes have such adjustments on the downtube where downtube shifters
would have attached in the past, which can be adjusted while riding.

That said, I like friction shifting.

--
Work and recreation are not often effected at the same time.
One using a bicycle in business makes an exception to the rule.
- Dr. Edgar H. Earl, Rochester. (~1892)
 
On Apr 18, 3:14 pm, Rex Kerr <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > I can understand wanting to use shifters with a friction *option*
> > (e.g., DT shifters or barends) as a backup in case of difficulties
> > whilst on a tour. But why, oh why, would anyone, save for a Hobbit,
> > want to use a friction *only* shifter??

>
> I honestly do not miss indexing when I don't have it, and enjoy the
> flexibility of throwing any combination of parts together and having it
> work well.  Indexing is overrated.
>


Gotta agree with this. After working on bikes all day, last thing I
want to do is work on my bike. I think lever mounted shifting is
'essential' for racers, beginners and mountain bikes that are actually
ridden in the rough..for all others, it is firmly in the 'nice to
have, but not essential' catagory. IMHO, of course.
 
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote:


> I think lever mounted shifting is
> 'essential' for racers, beginners and mountain bikes that are actually
> ridden in the rough..
>


I recently watched an old TdF video of Greg Lemond on YouTube. It was
quaint to see him reach down to shift!

Art Harris
 
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> On Apr 18, 3:14 pm, Rex Kerr <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> I can understand wanting to use shifters with a friction *option*
>>> (e.g., DT shifters or barends) as a backup in case of difficulties
>>> whilst on a tour. But why, oh why, would anyone, save for a Hobbit,
>>> want to use a friction *only* shifter??

>> I honestly do not miss indexing when I don't have it, and enjoy the
>> flexibility of throwing any combination of parts together and having it
>> work well. Indexing is overrated.
>>

>
> Gotta agree with this. After working on bikes all day, last thing I
> want to do is work on my bike. I think lever mounted shifting is
> 'essential' for racers, beginners and mountain bikes that are actually
> ridden in the rough..for all others, it is firmly in the 'nice to
> have, but not essential' catagory. IMHO, of course.



True, but it is also silly to scare people away from them because of
reliability issues.

Lou