#21
|
|||
|
|||
Groupsets
|
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Groupsets
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 9:34:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 10:31 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 12:30:27 AM UTC-7, Dennis Davis wrote: Perhaps (6) is better replaced by: (6) Requires levels of skill not present in modern cyclists. Really? So one should buy DT shifters to develop a useless skill? At least that should translate into some performance advantage, which it doesn't. Perhaps the "useless skill" is the ability to ride with (gasp!) only one hand on the bars? I do know several cyclists who hate taking a hand off the bars. They stop every time they want to swig from a water bottle. My son has never touched DT shifters, and he was going 40mph down Mirror Lake Highway no-hands, waiving his arms like a bird. Freaked me out. Sagan has probably never touched DT shifters and he wheelies up hill, waiving an arm ala rodeo cowboy. Are you saying DT shifts are necessary for learning other skills -- like typing is necessary to learn piano? BTW, great ride: https://bbrelje.wordpress.com/2013/0...ghway-cycling/ I ride with many younger, skilled riders who have never been in the same room as a DT shifter. They can ride one-hand, no hands, bunny hop, wheelie and do single track on a road bike at incredible speeds. All race CX and would laugh at DT shifting. I doubt anyone in the pro peleton has used DT shifters. Dopes who can't handle a water bottle won't be saved by DT shifters. They just won't shift. And I recall the article linked here a few years ago, where several young racers did a comparison test, riding a long climb on current bikes vs. vintage (1980s?) racing bikes. At least one complained about feeling insecure having to move a hand to shift - poor baby! Well he could certain drink from a bottle and climb, so that's either misremembered or perhaps more nuanced. The testers were racers and capable of riding no hands up hill at speeds we could not attain. I raced for decades on DT shifters along with my cohorts -- who then ****-canned them because they were clearly inferior to STI. No more pack wobble going into or out of high speed corners on a rolling course as riders reached down for gears, no more sitting to shift while climbing out of the saddle, no wrong gear when sprinting because riders could just shift -- and shift a lot. Yes, if I were racing, I'd want STI. But bicycling =/= racing; there are other ways to ride. If someone prefers the simplicity or light weight of downtube shifters over the convenience, complexity, non-repairability and heavier weight of STI and its clones, I don't think it's a terrible choice. Me, I like bar ends - a sort of middle ground, in my view. And friction had all of its problems with missed shifts and shifters that would loosen and ghost shift. And I couldn't imagine friction shifting a modern 11sp cassette, but I'm sure more than five gears is somehow wrong or unnecessary. You've changed the subject. Downtube does not preclude index - or at least, it once didn't. (I don't diligently follow the market.) About more than five gears - well, I agree with Tom (!!!) that eight was about optimum. Yes, in my view, more are unnecessary. Again, those kid racers climbing on old bikes posted times indicating that _only_ the bike weight made a difference. There was no apparent benefit from micro-adjusting cadence. Lab data shows the same thing. The curve for power output vs. cadence is very flat. I used to do a local hill climb TT on a fixed gear because it was light. If you have the right gear for the grade, you don't need ten others. An abundance of gears is great for rides with mixed terrain where you are trying to maintain speed. If you don't care about speed and have no need to keep up, you can live your life in a 68" gear. ...I'm planning to put some Simplex Retrofriction downtube levers on my next bike... I'm buying a musket for hunting! I have two good friends who hunt using black powder, and one friend who is a bowhunter. You may not understand their choices, but they probably don't care. I don't care either, but at least with bows and muzzleloaders, you get access to different seasons and game than you might with a modern rifle. Bow versus rifle is also bike versus unicycle and not DT versus brifter. -- Jay Beattie. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Groupsets
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 9:48:34 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 4:31:19 PM UTC+2, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 12:30:27 AM UTC-7, Dennis Davis wrote: In article , jbeattie wrote: ... I think that the curmudgeon handbook, chapter six, has a lengthy discussion of the benefits of DT friction shifters. IIRC, they a (1) slow and imprecise shifting, (2) missed shifts, (3) conspicuous contrarianism, (4) longevity like an incurable skin condition, (5) inconvenient location, and (6) conspicuous contrarianism. Clearly superior to any STI/Ergo like system. A double dose of "conspicuous contrarianism" ("3" and "6"). Isn't that overkill? Perhaps (6) is better replaced by: (6) Requires levels of skill not present in modern cyclists. Really? So one should buy DT shifters to develop a useless skill? At least that should translate into some performance advantage, which it doesn't. I raced for decades on DT shifters along with my cohorts -- who then ****-canned them because they were clearly inferior to STI. No more pack wobble going into or out of high speed corners on a rolling course as riders reached down for gears, no more sitting to shift while climbing out of the saddle, no wrong gear when sprinting because riders could just shift -- and shift a lot. And friction had all of its problems with missed shifts and shifters that would loosen and ghost shift. And I couldn't imagine friction shifting a modern 11sp cassette, but I'm sure more than five gears is somehow wrong or unnecessary. ...I'm planning to put some Simplex Retrofriction downtube levers on my next bike... I'm buying a musket for hunting! I had Simplex DT shifters on my '69 PX10 which is thankfully long gone along with all of its odd-ball French metric components. My 26.6 Simplex seat post was heavy enough to use for home defense. And the bike came with the AVA death stem -- ah, the good old days. -- Jay Beattie. Gee Jay you still bother to respond? That is admirable but useless. By the way yesterday was a glorious day: after multiple f*ck ups my gravel bike frame arrived at the LBS just (a couple of days) within half a year from the initial order (december 7 2019)! The last f*ck up was that they didn't include the right documents so the frame couldn't clear customs and was stuck at the Fedex depot for more than a week 18 km from the LBS. Unbelievable... Woohoo! I hope it rides well. Are you going with Simplex DT friction shifters and a reliable 5 speed drive train? The Prestige is an awesome RD. I have Cambio Corsa on my gravel bike because it is super reliable and is a more authentic riding experience. Cables are an unnecessary modern invention. -- Jay Beattie. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Groupsets
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Groupsets
On 6/4/2020 1:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 9:34:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/4/2020 10:31 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 12:30:27 AM UTC-7, Dennis Davis wrote: Perhaps (6) is better replaced by: (6) Requires levels of skill not present in modern cyclists. Really? So one should buy DT shifters to develop a useless skill? At least that should translate into some performance advantage, which it doesn't. Perhaps the "useless skill" is the ability to ride with (gasp!) only one hand on the bars? I do know several cyclists who hate taking a hand off the bars. They stop every time they want to swig from a water bottle. My son has never touched DT shifters, and he was going 40mph down Mirror Lake Highway no-hands, waiving his arms like a bird. Freaked me out. Sagan has probably never touched DT shifters and he wheelies up hill, waiving an arm ala rodeo cowboy. Are you saying DT shifts are necessary for learning other skills -- like typing is necessary to learn piano? BTW, great ride: https://bbrelje.wordpress.com/2013/0...ghway-cycling/ I ride with many younger, skilled riders who have never been in the same room as a DT shifter. They can ride one-hand, no hands, bunny hop, wheelie and do single track on a road bike at incredible speeds. All race CX and would laugh at DT shifting. I doubt anyone in the pro peleton has used DT shifters. Dopes who can't handle a water bottle won't be saved by DT shifters. They just won't shift. Right, but that's not the point. A certain percentage of STI fans tout the safety advantage of always having both hands on the handlebars. They must be terrified about signaling a turn, let alone scratching their nose. And I recall the article linked here a few years ago, where several young racers did a comparison test, riding a long climb on current bikes vs. vintage (1980s?) racing bikes. At least one complained about feeling insecure having to move a hand to shift - poor baby! Well he could certain drink from a bottle and climb, so that's either misremembered or perhaps more nuanced. I don't remember the water bottle remark in that article; and I'm afraid it might take a ton of digging to find it again. The testers were racers and capable of riding no hands up hill at speeds we could not attain. No doubt they were faster than me. But that wasn't the point. At least one of them was insecure about taking his hands off the bars to shift. That amazed me. I always sought to be competent on the bike. FWIW, I'm able to remove a jacket while riding, ghost-ride another bike, push another person up a hill, etc. On occasion I've taken off a sweater or other garment that had to be pulled over my head. Back when we lived where dogs were a real problem, I was pretty good at throwing rocks and hitting dogs while riding. Now we worry about moving a hand to shift?? I raced for decades on DT shifters along with my cohorts -- who then ****-canned them because they were clearly inferior to STI. No more pack wobble going into or out of high speed corners on a rolling course as riders reached down for gears, no more sitting to shift while climbing out of the saddle, no wrong gear when sprinting because riders could just shift -- and shift a lot. Yes, if I were racing, I'd want STI. But bicycling =/= racing; there are other ways to ride. If someone prefers the simplicity or light weight of downtube shifters over the convenience, complexity, non-repairability and heavier weight of STI and its clones, I don't think it's a terrible choice. Me, I like bar ends - a sort of middle ground, in my view. And friction had all of its problems with missed shifts and shifters that would loosen and ghost shift. And I couldn't imagine friction shifting a modern 11sp cassette, but I'm sure more than five gears is somehow wrong or unnecessary. You've changed the subject. Downtube does not preclude index - or at least, it once didn't. (I don't diligently follow the market.) About more than five gears - well, I agree with Tom (!!!) that eight was about optimum. Yes, in my view, more are unnecessary. Again, those kid racers climbing on old bikes posted times indicating that _only_ the bike weight made a difference. There was no apparent benefit from micro-adjusting cadence. Lab data shows the same thing. The curve for power output vs. cadence is very flat. I used to do a local hill climb TT on a fixed gear because it was light. If you have the right gear for the grade, you don't need ten others. An abundance of gears is great for rides with mixed terrain where you are trying to maintain speed. If you don't care about speed and have no need to keep up, you can live your life in a 68" gear. I don't disagree on any of that. I think our disagreement is one of degree - that is, what qualifies as "an abundance of gears"? Personally, I like six (in back) better than five, but I still ride five on some bikes. I don't like nine better than eight. The differences are too small. I see no need for 11. Then there's the new trend of one front sprocket, cutting one's "abundance of gears" in half or in thirds. Fashion is weird and powerful. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Groupsets
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 8:17:24 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 12:52 PM, wrote: On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 6:34:48 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/4/2020 10:31 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 12:30:27 AM UTC-7, Dennis Davis wrote: Perhaps (6) is better replaced by: (6) Requires levels of skill not present in modern cyclists. Really? So one should buy DT shifters to develop a useless skill? At least that should translate into some performance advantage, which it doesn't. Perhaps the "useless skill" is the ability to ride with (gasp!) only one hand on the bars? No you stubborn dinosaur. There are situations (traffic, road conditions or riding in a pack) even you don't want to take one hand of the handlebar and in that case you can't shift with down tube shifters period. That is the deal. Whoa! Traffic and road conditions? Is that why I had so many crashes in my ~33 years of bike commuting? And pack riding - like my 30 years of club riding? No, wait - I didn't crash. Heck, I even rode some in the Netherlands with one or two hands off the bars. So what's the source of this fear mongering? That is not I said. You just choose when to ride one hand or no hands. That is not the same. I remember someone here once saying pedals older than some certain age were a safety hazard. You're beginning to sound like him, Lou. It's not that scary out there. If you are comfortable to ride no hands or with one hand cornering at speed on coblestones Paris Roubaix style than hat off. Lou |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Groupsets
On 6/4/2020 11:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 10:31 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 12:30:27 AM UTC-7, Dennis Davis wrote: Perhaps (6) is better replaced by: (6) Requires levels of skill not present in modern cyclists. Really? So one should buy DT shifters to develop a useless skill? At least that should translate into some performance advantage, which it doesn't. Perhaps the "useless skill" is the ability to ride with (gasp!) only one hand on the bars? I do know several cyclists who hate taking a hand off the bars. They stop every time they want to swig from a water bottle. And I recall the article linked here a few years ago, where several young racers did a comparison test, riding a long climb on current bikes vs. vintage (1980s?) racing bikes. At least one complained about feeling insecure having to move a hand to shift - poor baby! I raced for decades on DT shifters along with my cohorts -- who then ****-canned them because they were clearly inferior to STI. No more pack wobble going into or out of high speed corners on a rolling course as riders reached down for gears, no more sitting to shift while climbing out of the saddle, no wrong gear when sprinting because riders could just shift -- and shift a lot. Yes, if I were racing, I'd want STI. But bicycling =/= racing; there are other ways to ride. If someone prefers the simplicity or light weight of downtube shifters over the convenience, complexity, non-repairability and heavier weight of STI and its clones, I don't think it's a terrible choice. Me, I like bar ends - a sort of middle ground, in my view. And friction had all of its problems with missed shifts and shifters that would loosen and ghost shift. And I couldn't imagine friction shifting a modern 11sp cassette, but I'm sure more than five gears is somehow wrong or unnecessary. You've changed the subject. Downtube does not preclude index - or at least, it once didn't. (I don't diligently follow the market.) About more than five gears - well, I agree with Tom (!!!) that eight was about optimum. Yes, in my view, more are unnecessary. Again, those kid racers climbing on old bikes posted times indicating that _only_ the bike weight made a difference. There was no apparent benefit from micro-adjusting cadence. Lab data shows the same thing. The curve for power output vs. cadence is very flat. ...I'm planning to put some Simplex Retrofriction downtube levers on my next bike... I'm buying a musket for hunting! I have two good friends who hunt using black powder, and one friend who is a bowhunter. You may not understand their choices, but they probably don't care. It's nice to have the skill to shift a straight cut gearbox but synchromesh is really an improvement all around. It's nice to have the skill to shift DT or BC friction levers while noting that modern click shift systems really do work better. In neither case is shift response the limiting factor for me. The world's a big place, use what you like. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Groupsets
On 6/4/2020 11:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 10:48 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 7:12:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: Adjusting pads is sort of a side issue, since I was talking only about force on the controls. Although to me, not needing to adjust hydraulic disc pads is kind of balanced by needing to prissily clean things with cotton swabs when replacing pads. I don't clean my disc calipers with cotton swabs. I just drop in a set of pads. Admittedly, I haven't done it because I don't use those brakes. But these guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQXFFgRButo seem to say it's important to get the Q-tips out. See about 2:20 and about 3:20 onward. Is that only for super grungy brakes? No Q-tips on shop time. We use auto disc brake cleaner (which is dirt cheap) in refillable sprayers with a clean wiper, compressed air to finish. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Groupsets
On 6/4/2020 2:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2020 11:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/4/2020 10:31 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 12:30:27 AM UTC-7, Dennis Davis wrote: Perhaps (6) is better replaced by: (6) Requires levels of skill not present in modern cyclists. Really?Â* So one should buy DT shifters to develop a useless skill?Â* At least that should translate into some performance advantage, which it doesn't. Perhaps the "useless skill" is the ability to ride with (gasp!) only one hand on the bars? I do know several cyclists who hate taking a hand off the bars. They stop every time they want to swig from a water bottle. And I recall the article linked here a few years ago, where several young racers did a comparison test, riding a long climb on current bikes vs. vintage (1980s?) racing bikes. At least one complained about feeling insecure having to move a hand to shift - poor baby! I raced for decades on DT shifters along with my cohorts -- who then ****-canned them because they were clearly inferior to STI. No more pack wobble going into or out of high speed corners on a rolling course as riders reached down for gears, no more sitting to shift while climbing out of the saddle, no wrong gear when sprinting because riders could just shift -- and shift a lot. Yes, if I were racing, I'd want STI. But bicycling =/= racing; there are other ways to ride. If someone prefers the simplicity or light weight of downtube shifters over the convenience, complexity, non-repairability and heavier weight of STI and its clones, I don't think it's a terrible choice. Me, I like bar ends - a sort of middle ground, in my view. And friction had all of its problems with missed shifts and shifters that would loosen and ghost shift.Â* And I couldn't imagine friction shifting a modern 11sp cassette, but I'm sure more than five gears is somehow wrong or unnecessary. You've changed the subject. Downtube does not preclude index - or at least, it once didn't. (I don't diligently follow the market.) About more than five gears - well, I agree with Tom (!!!) that eight was about optimum. Yes, in my view, more are unnecessary. Again, those kid racers climbing on old bikes posted times indicating that _only_ the bike weight made a difference. There was no apparent benefit from micro-adjusting cadence. Lab data shows the same thing. The curve for power output vs. cadence is very flat. ...I'm planning to put some Simplex Retrofriction downtube levers on my next bike... I'm buying a musket for hunting! I have two good friends who hunt using black powder, and one friend who is a bowhunter. You may not understand their choices, but they probably don't care. It's nice to have the skill to shift a straight cut gearbox but synchromesh is really an improvement all around. It's nice to have the skill to shift DT or BC friction levers while noting that modern click shift systems really do work better. In neither case is shift response the limiting factor for me. The world's a big place, use what you like. Yep. But discussion groups are places we're supposed to discuss advantages and disadvantages. The first car I had was a goofy little 1960 Fiat sedan, four speed on the column, non-synchro first gear. I amazed my friends with my double clutching. But I wouldn't want to go back to that. The advantage in those days might have been $10 lower retail price. I'd pay way more for synchromesh. But AFAIK, no car has a synchromesh reverse gear. So not every technical possibility is worth adopting. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Groupsets | sam[_9_] | Racing | 5 | March 24th 11 06:08 PM |
Groupsets | Ryan Cousineau | Racing | 0 | March 21st 11 04:56 PM |
Groupsets | Ryan Cousineau | Racing | 7 | March 21st 11 09:21 AM |
Groupsets | Ryan Cousineau | Racing | 0 | March 19th 11 05:13 PM |
Shimano groupsets | Chris Walters | UK | 8 | April 26th 04 08:33 PM |