bar-end shifters

"JJ" writes:

Broken record, repetitive twisting of posts.

It's not like you've said anything new to respond to, JJ. You've got
one point you keep making- the shift levers are right under your hands
when your hands are on the brake levers. On this you base your whole
argument for the superiority of brifters. Other than that, you dodge
and weave, cast aspersions and innuendo, offer vague assertions and
pulled-out-of-your-ass "predictions."

Pat Lamb wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
I like the fact that Ergo is serviceble, etc., and that it does not use
indexed front shifting. I also like that the brake lever does not serve
two functions.

That said, for me, both Ergo and STI are an answer to a question I'm
not asking. I find indexed barends perfectly convenient for
recreational riding and like their simplicity, flexibility and
day-to-day-reliability (even though you can service Ergo, a latched up
Ergo lever is a PITA in the middle of a ride). If the choice were only
between indexed DT shifters vs. Ergo/STI, I'd pick Ergo first, STI
second and DT levers third because the "downsides" of the brifters are
offset by the greatly improved convenience. But, indexed barends *do*
exist, and I find them the perfect answer.

If I may interrupt the on-going flame war with an on-topic question -

Is a left/front bar-end shifter _indexed_, like STI, or ratcheting, like
Ergo?


On Shimano barends, the left (front) shifter is a well-designed, pure
friction lever. IMO, indexed front shifting, with all it's limitations,
is one of the worst aspects of STI.


I like the non-indexed Ergo front shifting, too, but I've been
thinking about a new bike that might have bar-ends. Would that
constrain me to Shimano road derailers, and (big) Shimano chainrings?


IME, you have pretty wide freedom to mix/match FDs and chainrings, so
long as the chainring combo is within the capacity of the FD.

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Pat Lamb wrote:

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

I like the fact that Ergo is serviceble, etc., and that it does not use
indexed front shifting. I also like that the brake lever does not serve
two functions.

That said, for me, both Ergo and STI are an answer to a question I'm
not asking. I find indexed barends perfectly convenient for
recreational riding and like their simplicity, flexibility and
day-to-day-reliability (even though you can service Ergo, a latched up
Ergo lever is a PITA in the middle of a ride). If the choice were only
between indexed DT shifters vs. Ergo/STI, I'd pick Ergo first, STI
second and DT levers third because the "downsides" of the brifters are
offset by the greatly improved convenience. But, indexed barends *do*
exist, and I find them the perfect answer.

If I may interrupt the on-going flame war with an on-topic question -

Is a left/front bar-end shifter _indexed_, like STI, or ratcheting, like
Ergo?



On Shimano barends, the left (front) shifter is a well-designed, pure
friction lever. IMO, indexed front shifting, with all it's limitations,
is one of the worst aspects of STI.

Ditto to that, and thanks for the info!

I like the non-indexed Ergo front shifting, too, but I've been
thinking about a new bike that might have bar-ends. Would that
constrain me to Shimano road derailers, and (big) Shimano chainrings?



IME, you have pretty wide freedom to mix/match FDs and chainrings, so
long as the chainring combo is within the capacity of the FD.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
"JJ" writes:

"David Damerell" wrote in message
...

Quoting JJ :

"David Damerell" wrote in message

Quoting JJ :

I predict that at least 90% of the road bikers out there who have
experience using bar ends prefer integrated shifters.

I'd feel ashamed about a tiny sample size except you don't
actually have any sample size at all; we'd need a doctor with a
flashlight to see where that "90%" came from. When I go out with
the Reading CTC, more than 10% of the riders have
bar-ends. Manifestly your assertion is not true of this group.

Well, since you are quantifying that and you were there to observe,
what is "more than 10%?" 10.1%? 99.99%?

Why does that matter? You're wrong either way. Of course, if you'd
said "most" rather than pulling an exaggerated figure out of thin
air, it wouldn't be completely trivial to disprove it.

That's not the question I asked. Further, my "figure" was a
prediction, not a statement of fact like your figure which, one
would imagine, is based on an actual number because you were there
to witness the "more than 10%."

Predictions are always compared to facts, JJ. That's how we find out
if they are correct. If you're going to make predictions, someone is
going to compare them to the facts.

Exactly, and the OP did just that, only he neglected to reveal his results.

Tip of the day: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Look everybody, it's yet another Tim McNamara declaration of "I/We won, so
give up." Thanks, Tim, I'll keep that in mind.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
"JJ" writes:

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
"JJ" writes:

Heine would hardly be an objective source for anything
non-vintage.

LOL. Again you are treating your assumptions as if they were
facts. The acid test for Jan is useability for his purpose, not
vintage. You crack me up, man!

Who are you trying to fool? Mr. Heine is editor and publisher of
"Vintage Bicycle Quarterly." Hardly a promoter of STI, one would
imagine.

Your imagination seems to he the source of your problems. Have you
read VBQ, or read Jan's description of how he thinks about and
assesses bicycles? Don't be misled by the "vintage" in the title.
The most recent bike they tested in VBQ was a 2005 Weigle randonneur
and they gave it top marks- the equal of Rene Herse or Alex Singer.
And it had Ergo.

Gasp! A brifter setup? On, my....


Granted, he and Jaye Haworthe *did* finish first in the mixed tandem
category at Paris-Brest-Paris in 2003... on a 50 year old Rene Herse
tandem that helped them to outperform all but one other tandem in the
event. They were flying when they blew by me. And Jan has set the
fastest times over 200, 300 and 400 km brevets in Seattle on Herse and
Singer bikes from the 40s to the 60s.

You should get a little more educated about "vintage," JJ. Apart from
the aesthetic aspect, some of those old guys were pretty smart.
Indexed derailleurs in the 1930s, brifters in the 1940s, fully
equipped fendered randonneur bikes weighing under 20 lbs in the 1940s,
telescopic suspension forks in the 50s, systems where you could remove
the rear wheel and never have to touch the chain, direct-pull (V
brakes) in the 50s, etc., etc.

Les bicyclettes, les fromages et les vins- those French knew their
stuff!

Certainmont and still do.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
"JJ" writes:

Broken record, repetitive twisting of posts.

It's not like you've said anything new to respond to, JJ. You've got
one point you keep making- the shift levers are right under your hands
when your hands are on the brake levers. On this you base your whole
argument for the superiority of brifters.

Once again, Mr. Twister, the brifters aren't superior for everyone
neccessarily, but they are for my purposes.

Other than that, you dodge
and weave, cast aspersions and innuendo, offer vague assertions

Bwaaahahaha....! Please quote me. Oops, sorry, I forgot, you don't have the
time. So do please continue to make it up as you go along. It's a real
*timesaver* for you.

and
pulled-out-of-your-ass "predictions."

It was obvious so why are you complaining? Or you just don't get itt?

"Ozark Bicycle" wrote in message
ups.com...

Pat Lamb wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
I like the fact that Ergo is serviceble, etc., and that it does not use
indexed front shifting. I also like that the brake lever does not serve
two functions.

That said, for me, both Ergo and STI are an answer to a question I'm
not asking. I find indexed barends perfectly convenient for
recreational riding and like their simplicity, flexibility and
day-to-day-reliability (even though you can service Ergo, a latched up
Ergo lever is a PITA in the middle of a ride). If the choice were only
between indexed DT shifters vs. Ergo/STI, I'd pick Ergo first, STI
second and DT levers third because the "downsides" of the brifters are
offset by the greatly improved convenience. But, indexed barends *do*
exist, and I find them the perfect answer.

If I may interrupt the on-going flame war with an on-topic question -

Is a left/front bar-end shifter _indexed_, like STI, or ratcheting, like
Ergo?


On Shimano barends, the left (front) shifter is a well-designed, pure
friction lever. IMO, indexed front shifting, with all it's limitations,
is one of the worst aspects of STI.

I rather liked the friction shift on the fdr. The STI is ok for the front,
but I wouldn't plan on any speed shifting running a triple.



I like the non-indexed Ergo front shifting, too, but I've been
thinking about a new bike that might have bar-ends. Would that
constrain me to Shimano road derailers, and (big) Shimano chainrings?


IME, you have pretty wide freedom to mix/match FDs and chainrings, so
long as the chainring combo is within the capacity of the FD.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

I am puzzled why you feel the need to ascribe to marketing what seems
to be a simple fact based on the functionality of the product.

"Seems" is subjective. There are a lot of people here to whom it does not
seem that way. What seems clear to *me* is that the ratio here of people
who prefer barcons to those who prefer integrated shifters is far higher
than the ratio of barcon equipped bikes to STI equipped bikes on display in
any LBS I've been into. I don't know how the ratio of vocal participants
is biased relative to those who remain silent; however, it is an extremely
good indication to me that marketing forces are biased towards integrated
shifters in spite of relative merits rather than because of them.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly

"Benjamin Lewis" wrote in message
...
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

I am puzzled why you feel the need to ascribe to marketing what seems
to be a simple fact based on the functionality of the product.

"Seems" is subjective. There are a lot of people here to whom it does not
seem that way. What seems clear to *me* is that the ratio here of people
who prefer barcons to those who prefer integrated shifters is far higher
than the ratio of barcon equipped bikes to STI equipped bikes on display
in
any LBS I've been into. I don't know how the ratio of vocal participants
is biased relative to those who remain silent; however, it is an extremely
good indication to me that marketing forces are biased towards integrated
shifters in spite of relative merits rather than because of them.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly

There has to be how many road bike riders in the world? 100,000? 500,000? A
million? And a handful have posted here to this thread. The sample is way
too small to come to any conclusion.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 01:29:43 GMT, Benjamin Lewis
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

I am puzzled why you feel the need to ascribe to marketing what seems
to be a simple fact based on the functionality of the product.

"Seems" is subjective. There are a lot of people here to whom it does not
seem that way. What seems clear to *me* is that the ratio here of people
who prefer barcons to those who prefer integrated shifters is far higher
than the ratio of barcon equipped bikes to STI equipped bikes on display in
any LBS I've been into.

True now. But what about the period before STI was available and
barcons were? That period of time -- and the transition to STI and
Ergo being super-popular -- tell us a lot about the popularity (or
lack of it) of barcons.

If you think a bunch of blowhards like Ozark and Cole are at all
representative of a normal cross-section of cyclists, you're way off.
At least when I use obscure stuff myself, I don't try to paint it as
useful for any significant portion of the cycling community and I
recognize that.

JT

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