bar-end shifters

The Wogster wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:

"bfd" writes:


Can you explain why "brifters" are less *less flexible" than
bar-ends or dt shifters?



"Brifters"

1. Indexed only, and only for one gearing configuration (e.g.,
7/8/9/10 speed depending on age). If you never have to change
wheels for any reason, probably not an issue.

2. Little tolerance for bent derailleur hanger after a crash.

3. Location makes damage to shifting mechanism more vulnerable in a
crash. I saw an Ergo lever smashed to smithereens in such a
situation, leaving the rider unable to shift or brake on that
side.

4. In the case of Shimano, not serviceable.

5. As a function of indexing, not tolerant of having to replace the
derailleur with a different make (or sometimes different model) in
the event of damage.

6. As a function of indexing, vulnerable to shifting problems related
to cables getting gunked up.

Bar-end shifters:

1. None of the above limitations.

2. Less convenient in racing situations.

3. Broader choice of brake lever shapes to fit larger or smaller
hands.


So issues, 1, 2 ,5 and 6 are indexing related, rather then brifter
related, IOW these are problems any indexed shifting mechanism would
have even the old 3speed T-shift can have these issues, the trigger
shift MTB mechanisms also have these issues.

I think the point is that bar-cons can be had in models that do *both*
index and non-index. AFAICT, there are no brifters that can do
non-index, at least not in the rear. Because of this, the issues are
*not* separable as you suggest - it's "buy brifters, get indexing only".

Mark

Tom Keats wrote:

I like the day/month/year format because it's in
ascending order (of size of each interval) -- it
follows a pattern. Month/day/year just seems
so randomly arranged.

Commie.

..

..

..

eg

G.T. wrote:
P K wrote:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message
news
I read this thread and am amazed at the number of riders who are in
such remote, mission critical situations with their bikes that the
added reliability of bar-ends over integrated brake/shifters is a big
factor. Wow, are you guys all doing unsupported tours across Societ
Central Asia or something?

JT


Of coarse , cycling from Mubia to Goa in Feb. At the moment I am
suffering I,ll explain

New Years eve daughter arrives with the 2 grandchildren her Temp is
104.6 deg F they stay for 5 days

Monday 03/01/06 wife starts with a temp of 103.7 deg F. Both have been
very poorly


March 1st? Are you from the future?


Only if your in the United States, other countries use other date forms,
I think the UK (and here in Canada, where the US form is sometimes
found) it's dd/mm/yy, Europe often sees yy.mm.dd although that usually
uses a period as a separator. Computer wise, if sorting an alpha date
(as opposed to an integer date or floating point date), yy.mm.dd and
dd/mm/yy will always sort properly where as mm/dd/yy often will not, if
crossing a month or year boundry. One place I worked, officially used
only the form d-MMM-yyyy, which would translate the above as 3-Jan-2006
so as to be unconfusing.

W

In article ,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

In article ,
"G.T." writes:

Monday 03/01/06 wife starts with a temp of 103.7 deg F. Both have
been very poorly


March 1st? Are you from the future?

Greg


No, he's from the UK.


Is the UK living in the future?

Greg

PS: Yes, I know, it's just that people need to be clear when dealing
with and international audience.


I like the day/month/year format because it's in
ascending order (of size of each interval) -- it
follows a pattern. Month/day/year just seems
so randomly arranged.

01/06/06 is a poor format.

I prefer 2006-01-06 because alpha-numeric sort gives
chronological sort, and because it is easier to infer the
day and month fields.

Actually, I write always write it out: 6 January 2006.

--
Michael Press

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:32:56 -0800, Mark Janeba
wrote:

The Wogster wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:

"bfd" writes:


Can you explain why "brifters" are less *less flexible" than
bar-ends or dt shifters?



"Brifters"

1. Indexed only, and only for one gearing configuration (e.g.,
7/8/9/10 speed depending on age). If you never have to change
wheels for any reason, probably not an issue.

2. Little tolerance for bent derailleur hanger after a crash.

3. Location makes damage to shifting mechanism more vulnerable in a
crash. I saw an Ergo lever smashed to smithereens in such a
situation, leaving the rider unable to shift or brake on that
side.

4. In the case of Shimano, not serviceable.

5. As a function of indexing, not tolerant of having to replace the
derailleur with a different make (or sometimes different model) in
the event of damage.

6. As a function of indexing, vulnerable to shifting problems related
to cables getting gunked up.

Bar-end shifters:

1. None of the above limitations.

2. Less convenient in racing situations.

3. Broader choice of brake lever shapes to fit larger or smaller
hands.


So issues, 1, 2 ,5 and 6 are indexing related, rather then brifter
related, IOW these are problems any indexed shifting mechanism would
have even the old 3speed T-shift can have these issues, the trigger
shift MTB mechanisms also have these issues.

I think the point is that bar-cons can be had in models that do *both*
index and non-index. AFAICT, there are no brifters that can do
non-index, at least not in the rear. Because of this, the issues are
*not* separable as you suggest - it's "buy brifters, get indexing only".

Yeah

But it's also worth pointing out that with some of the problems Tim
described, it's not like the bike becomes unrideable -- it just works
a little worse. What I don't understand is how come the "I need more
reliablity" crowd can't deal with some flawed shifting for an or so to
complete their commute or whatever. It's just riding.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 11:01:27 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson writes:

I broke one when I weighed 140 pounds (alloy rails -- mistake we
agree) and one with solid steel rails when I weighed 150-155. I
think I broke another with non-alloy rails at that weight too but am
not sure if they were solid or what.

I'm wondering whether the saddle clamp on the seat post might have
contributed. Some have a very short clamping surface, and I have
wondered if those contribute to bending or breaking the saddle rails.

I think that was part of the problem in one case and it's something to
watch out for.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
(Tom Keats) wrote:


In article ,
"G.T." writes:


Monday 03/01/06 wife starts with a temp of 103.7 deg F. Both have
been very poorly


March 1st? Are you from the future?

Greg


No, he's from the UK.


Is the UK living in the future?

Greg

PS: Yes, I know, it's just that people need to be clear when dealing
with and international audience.


I like the day/month/year format because it's in
ascending order (of size of each interval) -- it
follows a pattern. Month/day/year just seems
so randomly arranged.


01/06/06 is a poor format.

Agreed, but most here in the USA say it's January 6th, 2006, so it
follows natural speech.


I prefer 2006-01-06 because alpha-numeric sort gives
chronological sort,

Definitely. Any files, such as photos, that I put a date in the name I
do this way.

and because it is easier to infer the
day and month fields.

Unless the day is 13 or over it's still got ambiguity. The above could
be January 6 or June 1.


Actually, I write always write it out: 6 January 2006.


Yes, the pretty much eliminates any ambiguity.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:20:49 -0800, Jim wrote:

I was reading the Trek Web site, and found the 520 comes with bar-end
shifters.
What benefits do the Shimano Dura-Ace bar-end shifters offer, compared
with
modern integrated shifters? Is the 520 the only modern bicycle equipped
with
bar-end shifters?

No, there are several, mostly bikes intended for touring, commuting, or
cross. Surly, for instance. These days people are using some pretty
fancy stuff for cross though.

Barends (and classic downtube shifters, and MTB thumbshifters) are
cheaper, simpler, and arguably more reliable than brifters. In practice,
brifters are very reliable, but if they break in the middle of nowhere
you're in trouble. Barends have a failover friction mode if something
goes wrong. This is why so many tourists, MTB'ers, commuters, etc.,
prefer the older units. A lot of MTB'ers still use thumbshifters.

Matt O.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 18:41:52 -0800, Jim wrote:


Thanks for the replies clarifying things for me.

The economics is wicked. Bar-end shifters are supposed to be cheaper than
integrated shifters, but the bar-end-shifters-equipped (boutique) bicycles
are more expensive. I think even the 520 is over-priced.

I thought DA barends were about $70. Even Sora brifters are over $100.
Not to mention all the older units you can pick up on eBay.

It is also interesting the Portland commuter from Trek is not spec'd
with bar-end shifters. I think they are not as marketable as "new and
better" integrated shifters.

Brifters are still pretty reliable, and most people actually do prefer them.

Matt O.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 18:24:48 +0000, P Kl wrote:

For a touring bike it makes very little difference what position on your
bike you change gear from as long as the gear selects efficiently . It
is The law of diminishing returns you pay a lot of money for a very
little return .

Terrain makes a difference too. The main advantage of brifters is that
it's easier (or possible, for some people) to shift while standing.
Experienced riders are more able to plan their shifts ahead.

Matt O.