Hill Climbing & Gear Shifting

[dhk2]

alfeng, let me try and respond to just a few points you've made. I'll try not to be verbose or bloviating.

1. You're using your own derogatory nickname to refer to Alienator, but I didn't know that before your clue. I didn't always agree with him, and certainly didn't appreciate his abrasive and abusive style. But I fail to see how agreeing with another forum member "even once" constitutes "bloviating"......that would be " speaking or writing verbosely or pompously" in standard English usage.

2. Yes, I would have a different view of the issue if as few as 10 people here agreed with you. Fact is, I can't think of one who ever has. Perhaps you can list a few, using their real screen names?

3. Concerning your beloved "blue table", your conclusion that I am "apparently amongst the multitude who cannot decipher a simple matrix" presents a broad-stroke negative assumption about forum members. It's as if you know you are smarter than the rest of us, and have undertaken the tireless task of repeating yourself until all us village idiots nod in agreement. I choose to ignore the table because I'm not at all interested in swapping out my Shimano shifters for Campy ones, despite a table which shows they will kind of work with the rest of my Shimano drivetrain.

4. No one aggressively marketed Shimano to me. When I ordered my custom frame 10 years ago, I had the choice of Campy vs Shimano build kits, both at great OEM prices. I strongly considered Campy then because it was different and Italian. The reason I picked Shimano DA then was because of the cost and availability of replacement spares, cassettes and the wider availability of wheelsets.

5. FYI, I have nothing against Campagnolo components. When I was riding a DeRosa a few years ago in Italy, I had no problem using Campy Record, and enjoyed the fact that it shifted differently. But in all the mountain riding and shifting I did then, never once noticed the lack of "dwell", or any superior ability to shift under load. I do recall liking the multiple shifts out/down the cassette available just by holding down the thumb button. But certainly didn't come back home wanting to replace the Shimano DA 9 speed on my own bike.

6. If you prefer the shift action of Campy over Shimano, that's great. I have a few friends that ride Campy, and SRAM, and they've never touted the superiority of their choice. If you came on here every week and posted that you preferred Campy because you like the way it works, that's great. Instead, you choose to come up with bogus negatives about Shimano, managing to slyly insult the intelligence of those of us who use them.

7. Can you send a link to that Park Tool page which defines the "dwell" in Shimano shifting? Perhaps they can explain it in terms my simple mind can understand.

 

[oldbobcat]

All I know is, anyone who uses Shimano shifters with their Shimano derailleurs is going to die because they can't shift into the big ring standing up.

 

[AyeYo]

Shifts into the 27 fine for me standing up, just feels like the chain is going to explode. Hasn't happened yet though.

 

[oldbobcat]

Originally Posted by dhk2

7. Can you send a link to that Park Tool page which defines the "dwell" in Shimano shifting? Perhaps they can explain it in terms my simple mind can understand.

I think this is the quote you're looking for:
Quote: Modern indexing shift levers use dwell, which is a hesitation between movements in the lever. These hesitations are timed to match the movements of the derailleur and the spacing in the rear sprockets. The design of some derailleur and shift lever brands requires more of a push (or twist) of the lever to complete the shift. The amount of extra push or twist is not consistent between manufacturers and each rider must learn the particular attributes of his or her system.
From this page: http://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/rear-derailler-adjustments-derailleur

Evidently Campagnolo is superior because it has less of it.

Park Tool also uses dwell to describe the slight automatic overshift that is performed by Di2 electronic systems. Maybe this is inferior to something made by Campagnolo, too.

I've also heard alfeng rail against the little bit of sideways play in Shimano jockey pulleys. I think this might make Shimano a little more tolerant than SRAM of small hanger misalignments, but don't quote me on it.

Actually, I've shifted on the cassette in both directions standing up, with Shimano and SRAM, and I didn't die. But the chain was turning at a pretty good clip. 40 years of riding tells me it's more about moving the chain than the design of the shifters.

 

[dhk2]

OBC, thanks for that quote from Park Tool. I do notice the dwell in my shifter when pushing in the small lever, to release cable and shift out to a smaller gear. Basically, their is a small "preload" click, but shift doesn't complete as long as the lever is held in. Once it's released, the shift is quick, bang, providing the chain is moving fast enough. This must be the "dwell" alfeng is always talking about, as there is no similar dwell on the outer lever: it just pulls cable from the start, after a slight free play movement is taken up.

Campy of course uses the thumb button to release cable and allow for shifts outwards to smaller cogs. If I recall my Italy experience with the DeRosa hire bike, you can just hold the button down and let the chain walk out the cassette one cog at a time, all the way out if you want. It was a great feature I thought at the time. But, obviously there is a dwell or delay built into the shifter, otherwise the cable would dump all at once out to the smallest cog. If I recall correctly, took about 2 seconds for the shifter to ratchet thru 5 cogs. Nothing wrong with that dwell at all.

Wait, there's more: On a too-hot 50 miler this morning, and tried shifting my Shimano DA 9 speed under load, specifically going in to bigger cogs (using the long lever). To my surprise, the shifts were easy, even when standing at about a 30-40 cadence on a moderate 5% grade. Just not a problem at all, no delays. In fact, using a complete sweep of the lever to go in three cogs was no problem. Shifts out to smaller cogs with the small lever were just as easy under load.

I was surprised, as I'd been avoiding shifting while standing, maybe due to my coming up back in the day of Simplex 10 speeds. Still, I don't think it's good practice, as it puts more load on everything to complete the shift. With a bit of thought, I don't see the need to do much shifting under load for my recreational riding. Even in our Weds sprints, I try to pick the gear du jour before the fun starts.

Also PS to AyeYo: The eccentric-cam action I was guessing to explain above can't be a factor on a single shift in (to a larger cog), because the lever allows us to sweep in 3 cogs at a time using one full sweep. Doing that this morning, I couldn't see any apparent non-linearity, but perhaps it is there. At any rate, it's got nothing to do with "dwell" because the cable is moving smoothly the whole time you're sweeping in the lever.

 

[oldbobcat]

Originally Posted by dhk2

OBC, thanks for that quote from Park Tool. I do notice the dwell in my shifter when pushing in the small lever, to release cable and shift out to a smaller gear. Basically, their is a small "preload" click, but shift doesn't complete as long as the lever is held in. Once it's released, the shift is quick, bang, providing the chain is moving fast enough. This must be the "dwell" alfeng is always talking about, as there is no similar dwell on the outer lever: it just pulls cable from the start, after a slight free play movement is taken up.

I've noticed that, too. Sort of like a Microsoft Windows mouseclick--nothing happens until you release the button. I didn't mention it because I didn't have a Shimano-equipped bike to confirm it on.

Regarding standing while shifting, it's pretty darned difficult when your shifters are on the down tube and you have to let go of the bar. Maybe some old bar-con guys can relate their experiences. And then I know some guys who can pedal standing up with no hands, but they're not shifting gears, too.

 

[AyeYo]

Originally Posted by dhk2


Also PS to AyeYo: The eccentric-cam action I was guessing to explain above can't be a factor on a single shift in (to a larger cog), because the lever allows us to sweep in 3 cogs at a time using one full sweep. Doing that this morning, I couldn't see any apparent non-linearity, but perhaps it is there. At any rate, it's got nothing to do with "dwell" because the cable is moving smoothly the whole time you're sweeping in the lever.

That's a good point. I hadn't thought of that because I never shift like that. I always make individual shifts.

 

[alfeng]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dhk2
alfeng, let me try and respond to just a few points you've made. I'll try not to be verbose or bloviating.

1. You're using your own derogatory nickname to refer to Alienator, but I didn't know that before your clue. I didn't always agree with him, and certainly didn't appreciate his abrasive and abusive style. But I fail to see how agreeing with another forum member "even once" constitutes "bloviating"......that would be " speaking or writing verbosely or pompously" in standard English usage.


Oh, where to begin? Did it really matter who the DB to whom I was referring is if you don't think that you were bloviating? BTW. I think that other than the "boy" part of the "Dystopian Boy" nickname, there is nothing derogatory about an adjective which objectively describes not only his avatar, but also his apparent outlook on life. Originally Posted by dhk2
2. Yes, I would have a different view of the issue if as few as 10 people here agreed with you. Fact is, I can't think of one who ever has. Perhaps you can list a few, using their real screen names?


On the other hand, can you list ANYONE other than swampy1970 who has indicated that they once had Campagnolo shifters, but now use another brand?

Has ANYONE ever inquired about "upgrading" their Campagnolo shifters to something else?

Does ANYONE inquire about "upgrading" their SRAM shifters to something else?

Again, would SRAM have been so readily embraced if cyclists where happy with their Shimano drivetrains OR do you think that it was simply a matter of a lot of people wanting some shiny, new component option?

While the number of current Shimano & ex-Shimano users is legion, there may not be 10 people who frequent this Forum who use Campagnolo shifters ... and, of those who do, some/many may never have used Shimano shifters.

Supposing that if swampy1970 and I are the only two who have used both brankds THEN that means that 50% perceive a positive difference in Campagnolo shifting (or, negative shifting with Shimano shifting if you prefer); so then, if you were to extrapolate out then numbers then (to misuse statistical analysis) you can suppose that if there are 100 riders who have used both brands, then 50 would agree with me ...

THAT'S more than 10 people!!!

Originally Posted by dhk2

3. Concerning your beloved "blue table", your conclusion that I am "apparently amongst the multitude who cannot decipher a simple matrix" presents a broad-stroke negative assumption about forum members. It's as if you know you are smarter than the rest of us, and have undertaken the tireless task of repeating yourself until all us village idiots nod in agreement. I choose to ignore the table because I'm not at all interested in swapping out my Shimano shifters for Campy ones, despite a table which shows they will kind of work with the rest of my Shimano drivetrain.



YOU have every prerogative to NOT be interested in changing your shifters ...

YOU have chosen to ignore that my declarations have been in response to people who have encountered what I-but-not-you have found that Shimano shifters & derailleurs can balk when under a load. Maybe not every time, but often enough (IMO, more than once is too many times since there are alternatives which do not balk unless the 'wrench' makes a mistake!) and pretend that what you perceive to be "bogus negatives" have never occurred to anyone else and that they are purely a figment of my imagination DESPITE the periodic recommendations from multiple sources that a person who uses Shimano shifters can often resolve any shifting issues by soft pedaling before the shift ...

WHY IS THERE A SOLUTION FOR A PROBLEM WHICH YOU DO NOT THINK EXISTS?!?
​

I believe that while "soft pedaling" could be done with ANY shifter, it is only offered as a recommendation when people as about improving the shifting with their Shimano shifters. WTF?

Regardless, MY comments are to assure riders who are often newbies that there may not be anything wrong with their technique BUT rather with the design of the shifters whose foibles are not replicated with at least one other brand of shifters ... if not all the others.

Contrary to your conclusion that I think I have made the "broad-stroke" about the denizens of this Forum, it is YOU who have done so because the "blue table" has been re-posted BECAUSE it is objective information related to compatibility whose information I believe is VERY accessible ...

• further, NOT everyone one is a long time reader of this Forum
• and, few people use the "search" function
• so, repetition is better (IMO) than telling people to go to this-or-that thread when it is easy-enough to simply re-post the matrix

BTW. YOU should probably have been interested in the "blue table" in the past OR now because by analyzing the table will confirm or refute YOUR impression that I am blowing-smoke-or-something/whatever OR that there might be something THERE ...

OTHERWISE, you would agree with me if only because the non-MSRP cost is lower for a pair Campagnolo shifters means that they would therefore be a better option than new Shimano shifters (which will typically be a higher index number which ALSO means a new front derailleur + a new Cassette + a new chain) OR SRAM shifters which would mean in addition to the Shifters + Cassette + Chain that the individual would also need to buy BOTH front and rear derailleurs VERSUS just a pair of Campagnolo shifters (okay, maybe new cables & housing which would then be needed for the other options, too).

The bottom line is that IF I am smarter, it may only be because I apparently realize that it costs less to spend $150+ than two-to-three times that amount for a Shimano or SRAM upgrade OR 10x that amount for a Di2 to achieve shifting whose description is comparable to what I (and other Campagnolo users, of course) already achieve.

Originally Posted by dhk2 .
4. No one aggressively marketed Shimano to me. When I ordered my custom frame 10 years ago, I had the choice of Campy vs Shimano build kits, both at great OEM prices. I strongly considered Campy then because it was different and Italian. The reason I picked Shimano DA then was because of the cost and availability of replacement spares, cassettes and the wider availability of wheelsets.



Campagnolo consumables ARE ridiculously expensive when compared with Shimano's consumables + there ARE many more Cassette/etc. options ...

And, THAT is why knowing that ANYONE can use Shimano components with Campagnolo should be embraced rather than rebuked!

In other words, your observation "of the cost and availability of replacement spares, cassettes and wider availability of wheelsets" reinforces my stance that the "blue table" which you seem to disdain has tremendous value which should be repeated MORE OFTEN than I have posted it BECAUSE it objectively demonstrates ...

1. Campagnolo users can use a Shimano drivetrain ...
2. so, people with Shimano drivetrains can use Campagnolo shifters.

BTW. Some Really Aggressively Marketed shifters are NOT made by Shimano ...

Originally Posted by dhk2 .
5. FYI, I have nothing against Campagnolo components. When I was riding a DeRosa a few years ago in Italy, I had no problem using Campy Record, and enjoyed the fact that it shifted differently. But in all the mountain riding and shifting I did then, never once noticed the lack of "dwell", or any superior ability to shift under load. I do recall liking the multiple shifts out/down the cassette available just by holding down the thumb button. But certainly didn't come back home wanting to replace the Shimano DA 9 speed on my own bike.



Good for you!!!

Luck must follow you OR ...
Originally Posted by dhk2 .
6. If you prefer the shift action of Campy over Shimano, that's great. I have a few friends that ride Campy, and SRAM, and they've never touted the superiority of their choice. If you came on here every week and posted that you preferred Campy because you like the way it works, that's great. Instead, you choose to come up with bogus negatives about Shimano, managing to slyly insult the intelligence of those of us who use them.



IMO, the shift paddle motion & thumb motion of Campagnolo shifters is just a bonus added to their cleaner shifting ...

If Campagnolo shifters had "dwell" then I would NOT use Campagnolo shfiters.

If Shimano shifters did not have "dwell" then I would use them.

There are NO "bogus negatives" about Shimano ...

I did not cause other riders to have less than clean shifts with their drivetrains (I'm not their Wrench).

Again, since many are comparative newbies, it seems to me that they think that the fault is their's rather than the equipment's.

I am not the one who espouses "soft pedaling" which may-or-may-not eliminate the problem which has been described in this thread as "rough" or "slow" shifting when the drivetrain is under a load ...

BUT RATHER, I recommend a sure fix which is to simply install a pair of Campagnolo shifters ...

The fact that YOU feel that you have never encountered "dwell" which requires "soft pedaling" to ensure a clean shift when the drivetrain is under a load suggest that ...

1. you are soft pedaling unconsciously
2. you are using a 12-23 or 12-25 or tighter Cassette whose Cog-to-Cog tooth step is comparatively small compared to the wussy 12-34 & 11-34 Cassettes which I have devolved to using ​
   • while oldbobcat has regarded the pictures of MY bikes as outtakesfrommyphotoalbum, part of the point of inclusion is to illustrate that there is nothing wrong with a pie-plate Cssette on a Road bike (which was definitely NOT fashionable prior to SRAM's 1x10 & 1x11 drivetrains -- once I abandoned the 52/42 + 13-19 5-speed Freewheel, my ego as suitably crushed to the point where it wasn't/isn't a big deal for me to use a Mega-range Cassette)
3. you just don't know how much better what you pervceive to be good can be improved upon if you choose not to know ...

BTW. Because you say that you know other riders with both Campagnolo AND SRAM shifters, then if any of them are close to your height, why don't you ask them if you-and-they can swap bikes for a ride-or-two ...

Originally Posted by dhk2 .
7. Can you send a link to that Park Tool page which defines the "dwell" in Shimano shifting? Perhaps they can explain it in terms my simple mind can understand.



THANKS to oldbobcat for posting the link which YOU could have looked at before since I had included it at least one prior post ...

• NO. I do not expect you to have read everything that I have posted I certainly do not read all of the posts that you or others write
• and, I suppose that there are some sub-Forums which I only occasionally look at during the course of the year
• but, your lamentation about the numerous inclusions of the "blue table" suggests that you might have also seen-and-ignored the www.parktool.com link

Now, if the TWO OF YOU were on your game, then one of you would have noted that the person who wrote the Park Tool website copy indicated that "modern indexing shift levers use dwell" with the inference which you could have drawn-and-stated that if Campagnolo (and Sram & MicroShift) shifters lack "dwell" then they may NOT qualify as being modern!?!

Unfortunately, despite the Park Tool explanation, YOU still do not seem to understand that the actual "hesitation" that the on-the-page description translates as delaying the chain's lateral motion rather than the slack which may be present prior to when the derailleur actually moves inward (or, outward in the case of the front derailleur cage, of course).

REGARDLESS, based on what you have indicated regarding YOUR shifting between specific Cogs, I now realize that you are either someone with a very deft hand OR that you are probably have an STI friendly 12-25 (or, 12-23 OR 12-20) Cassette for which the lateral demands on the chain are minimal whereas I (and, some others) often place greater demands on the shifter/derailleur/chain can handle smoothly by using a Cassette which has w-i-d-e-r tooth counts.

As oldbobcat has noted, I have repeatedly included what he considers to be out-takes-from-my-family-album ... other than my Giant Nutra which had a "compact" FSA crank + 12-25 Cassette + some Single Speed bikes, ALL of the (other) "Road" bikes were set up with wussy 12-34 or 11-34 Cassettes.

The problem of inconsistent chain motion has been observed to occur with a 9-speed Ultegra 12-27 Cassette (vs. the presumably more tightly spaced tooth count of the 11-speed Cassette which AyeYo test rode) on one friend's bike which still has 9-speed Ultegra shifters ... and, can occur with a 9-speed 12-27 DA Cassette & DA 7703 shifters on another friend's bikes. Their bikes were set up & serviced by an LBS; so, the problem cannot be attributed to my wrenching (in case you were wondering).

I suppose that it could be suggested that I (and, others) have asked much toooooo much of the Shimano shifters which I have had (I do have a pair of NOS 6600 shifters which have been gathering dust for several years but which will be paired with an XT Rapid Rise rear derailleur if I ever choose to use them in what will amount to be a "retro" build!) compared with shifting over close-to a corn-cob stacked Cassette.

Too bad about "dwell" because I love the Shimano Corporation & almost all their components OTHER than their shifters.

 

[dhk2]

alfeng, you previously instruct me to read a Park Tool quote, which you said supports your position. After OBC helpfully posted the quote, I read and agreed with it. I acknowledged that my Shimano shifters have "dwell" designed into the function of the small lever, but none associated with the long brake lever action. I also stated that the last time I used a Campy shifter years ago, I recall it had a definite dwell in the action of the thumb button. So yes, I agree with the Park Tool citation.

But now, you are backing away from the quote that you recommended I read: "Now, if the TWO OF YOU were on your game, then one of you would have noted that the person who wrote the Park Tool website copy indicated that "modern indexing shift levers use dwell" with the inference which you could have drawn-and-stated that if Campagnolo (and Sram & MicroShift) shifters lack "dwell" then they may NOT qualify as being modern!?! "

Apparently now you're willing to admit that the quote is only partially true, that it applies to Shimano, but not Campy.....because, well, Campy just may not qualify as "modern". That's one far-out leap of logic....congrats on inventing that one!

Not sure if you're using intentional misdirection, or just love to make up convoluted arguments, but either way, claiming that Campy must not a be a modern shifter fails the smell test. You fail to understand that it's necessary to have some "dwell" designed into the shifter. Funny thing is that it doesn't matter because in the real-world both of them function without any meaningful delay.

 

[AyeYo]

Originally Posted by alfeng
The problem of inconsistent chain motion has been observed to occur with a 9-speed Ultegra 12-27 Cassette (vs. the presumably more tightly spaced tooth count of the 11-speed Cassette which AyeYo test rode) on one friend's bike which still has 9-speed Ultegra shifters ... and, can occur with a 9-speed 12-27 DA Cassette & DA 7703 shifters on another friend's bikes. Their bikes were set up & serviced by an LBS; so, the problem cannot be attributed to my wrenching (in case you were wondering).

Why are we talking about 9 speed Ultegra though? That group is from ages ago. Even if we assume you're right, how is it relevant anymore if the newer 10 and 11 speed systems that are currently in production don't experience the preceived "issue"? My CX bike has a full 6600 group with a 12-27 cassette and the downshifting is flawless while not only under load, but covered in mud and getting banged around over tree roots. My 5700 road bike (also with a 12-27 and at one time 12-30) doesn't sound pretty when making downshifts under load, but it does complete them without issue. The only notable quirk is the more vague and less precise feeling of the big lever vs. 6600/6700/6800, which can sometimes lead to user error shift issues, but that's not a flaw, it's just why Ultegra costs more.

 

[alfeng]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dhk2 .
alfeng, you previously instruct me to read a Park Tool quote, which you said supports your position. After OBC helpfully posted the quote, I read and agreed with it. I acknowledged that my Shimano shifters have "dwell" designed into the function of the small lever, but none associated with the long brake lever action. I also stated that the last time I used a Campy shifter years ago, I recall it had a definite dwell in the action of the thumb button. So yes, I agree with the Park Tool citation.

But now, you are backing away from the quote that you recommended I read: "Now, if the TWO OF YOU were on your game, then one of you would have noted that the person who wrote the Park Tool website copy indicated that "modern indexing shift levers use dwell" with the inference which you could have drawn-and-stated that if Campagnolo (and Sram & MicroShift) shifters lack "dwell" then they may NOT qualify as being modern!?! "

Apparently now you're willing to admit that the quote is only partially true, that it applies to Shimano, but not Campy.....because, well, Campy just may not qualify as "modern". That's one far-out leap of logic....congrats on inventing that one!

Not sure if you're using intentional misdirection, or just love to make up convoluted arguments, but either way, claiming that Campy must not a be a modern shifter fails the smell test. You fail to understand that it's necessary to have some "dwell" designed into the shifter. Funny thing is that it doesn't matter because in the real-world both of them function without any meaningful delay.


Actually, I was just trying to humor you by pretending that the others shifters are not "modern."

Either I did not correctly recall how the writer of the Park Tool web page wrote that, or s/he subsequently changed it ...

Regardless, s/he (and you) is/(are) using it in a way that is clearly (in my mind) seems to be talking about some slack which I do not believe needs to be account for any more than it would with vintage friction shifters ...

I am STILL referring to the slowed (you know, I am not using the phrase "slightly retarded" only because THAT would have some context which I am NOT trying to infer even though I think it is a bad design) lateral motion of the derailleur's parallelogram.

The change in text OR my errant memory OR poor-or-a-lapse-in literacy was not meant as a canard ... so, SORRY for citing it.

I don't know what more to say since you will never be convinced that there is an inconsistent motion which I think unnecessarily impedes how well MY experience has been with Shimano driveetrains.

You just need to think about WHY soft pedaling is recommended at all to remedy down shifting problems which some people have recommended for other people to use ...

AND, why paid reviewers gushed about how great the shifting is with Di2 (which I already think I have with Campagnolo shifters + Shimano derailleurs/Cassette with the efficiency which they described) if THAT is also what you feel that you already achieve with your 7700 group.

 

[alfeng]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dhk2
alfeng, you previously instruct me to read a Park Tool quote, which you said supports your position.



BTW. Just as point of clarification, although I had hoped you would look up the reference, I did not directly "instruct" you to read the Park Tool quote ...

BUT, I am AGAIN very sorry for EITHER having mis-read it in the past OR their (possible) use of the word changing (that is, I thought it still read the way I remembered when I referred to it ... ) ...

AND SUBSEQUENTLY, my presumption was that they were still (?) using the word with the same denotation that I use it.

Again, mea culpa.

 

[alfeng]

Originally Posted by AyeYo

Why are we talking about 9 speed Ultegra though? That group is from ages ago. Even if we assume you're right, how is it relevant anymore if the newer 10 and 11 speed systems that are currently in production don't experience the preceived "issue"? My CX bike has a full 6600 group with a 12-27 cassette and the downshifting is flawless while not only under load, but covered in mud and getting banged around over tree roots. My 5700 road bike (also with a 12-27 and at one time 12-30) doesn't sound pretty when making downshifts under load, but it does complete them without issue. The only notable quirk is the more vague and less precise feeling of the big lever vs. 6600/6700/6800, which can sometimes lead to user error shift issues, but that's not a flaw, it's just why Ultegra costs more.

Uh-oh!

People have typically been asking about improving their downshifting with their 8-and-9-speed Shimano shifters/derailleurs ....

The reason I am mentioning 9-speed Ultegra is because that is my last, active point of reference with Shimano's STI shifters ...

And, dhk2's point of reference is his 9-speed Dura Ace drivetrain ...

• again, I am glad for people who are content with how their Shimano drivetrains function
• the point was that as good as you feel that 105 & Ultegra are (when you apparently soft pedal before shifting)
• and, as good-or-better as you dhk2 feels that his Dura Ace is apparently, the paid reviewers felt that Di2 was even better
• but, their description echoes a description of what Campagnolo mechanical shifters achieve 24/7/365.25 without soft pedaling.

Regardless, I am now compelled to show you the "blue table" because even though dhk2 has seen it too often (hey, maybe you & he will take the few seconds/minutes/whatever it takes to actually examine its contents) because the 11-speed Campagnolo shifters can also be indexed to 10-speed Shimano STI drivetrains ...

​

​

The chart presumes an 8-/9-speed Shimano rear derailleur ...

Despite NOT being interpolated, a person could possibly-or-probably use the 11-speed Campagnolo shifters with an 11-speed Shimano STI drivetrain ...

In theory, recent SRAM's Road rear derailleurs are interchangeable with Campagnolo's ... so, Campagnolo shifters could be used on a SRAM equipped bike if a person decided that they did not like the Double-Tap OR if their SRAM shifters died and needed to be replaced if cost is an issue OR for whatever reason ...

 

[AyeYo]

So a set of these will shift my 10 speed 105 FD and RD without indexing issues? Why would you want to use 11 speed? Wouldn't that leave you with an extra click or you adjust that out of the low side with cable position?

http://www.wiggle.com/campagnolo-record-11-speed-ultrashift-ergopower-levers/

 

[alfeng]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyeYo .
So a set of these will shift my 10 speed 105 FD and RD without indexing issues? Why would you want to use 11 speed? Wouldn't that leave you with an extra click or you adjust that out of the low side with cable position?

http://www.wiggle.com/campagnolo-record-11-speed-ultrashift-ergopower-levers/



Well, in light of everyone else saying that the 10-speed Shimano (Road) rear derailleurs are interchangeable with the 8-/9-speed Shimano rear derailleurs, yes, the 11-speed Campagnolo shifters will mate without indexing issues (you don't have to use Record shifters ... FWIW, I recommend Chorus OR a pre-2011 V3 shifter which has the Ultra Shift mechanism EVEN THOUGH the Xenon-based V3 shifters are certainly acceptable ... ) ...

Chris Juden's Matrix does not take into account the benefits of RAMPED Cogs which greatly benefits ALL shifting ...

• an extreme (?) test that I tried was using a non-compatible-according-to-the-Matrix 9-speed Shimano wheel/Cassette with 9-speed Campagnolo Mirage shifters ... the very mis-matched combination resulted in ONE of the intermediate Cogs being skipped over ... basically, giving me access to 8-of-the-9 Cogs.
• so, it was non-compatible because each Cog on the Cassette was not engaged BUT, the combination was nonetheless usable & the shifting did not seem any worse than with 10-speed Campagnolo shifters & a hubbub'd rear derailleur cable..

• I tried a 10-speed Shimano-compatible IRD Cassette with 10-speed Chorus shifters, and it worked with the bike on the workstand ... THAT's certainly, partly due to the benefit of Ramping
• I am sure it would have worked on-the-road, too, BTW.

There is NO EXTRA CLICK because the rear derailleur's Stops will prevent the cable pull from engaging the "extra" indexing "click"/indent ...

• that is, if you were to lock one-or-both of the Stops on your rear derailleur so that it only uses the middle three Cogs, then your shifter would not be able to pull more cable to allow the next indexing "click" to be engaged UNLESS you are a real brute and capable of destroying something along the way between the shifter & derailleur OR the cable housing "collapses" ...

BUT, if you are truly content with your Shimano STI shifters, then it's moot.

 

[oldbobcat]

My guess is there must be short latency in SRAM shifters, the period between the first click, which would release cable and shift to a smaller cog, and the second click that says, Nope, wait a split second, we're going in the other direction. This is not a handicap. I like using the same lever to shift in either direction.

I selected Force for my Madone out of no dissatisfaction with Shimano. The Force version came with nicer wheels. I wanted a bike that was a little different. Everybody else runs Ultegra, and Dura-Ace was out of my budget. I like the fact that the whole kit is lighter than Ultegra (6700), especially the levers. I'd heard so many horror stories about SRAM and I wanted to prove it was the mechanic, not the mechanism. And I wanted to live by my "ride what you brung" philosophy, that it's not about the brand of tool that you use, it's about how skillfully you use it and take care of it. And so far, so good.

In my experience, you have to pry the levers out of the cold dead fingers of the guys who run 6500 and 6600, especially the ones with triples. If those guys had a complaint, it was that the rear derailleur didn't go to 30 or 32 teeth. 5600 had a bad reputation, mainly because Shimano assumed it could use triple front shifters for doubles by just locking out the third ring with the limit screw. Shimano backpedaled on this pretty fast, but too many bikes were out the door and back into the shops before riders and mechanics knew why they were breaking front shifters. 5700 users were probably the most satisfied. They had something they perceived as damned close to Ultegra for a lot less money.

Dura-Ace 7700 and 7800 were the high-performance workhorses. This was especially true of 7800, given the teething problems with 7900. The only complaint I ever heard from 7800 users was about its appearance, the knobby barrels with the external cables coming out the ends. Well, sometime I pinched my fingers releasing the brakes, and the front lever tended to chew the cable just behind the head. If you ever wondered why high trim stopped working, it was probably because you needed a new cable.

Most riders I've talked to, who've wanted to upgrade their Shimano kit, wanted only a higher grade of Shimano. Reasons were weight, crisper performance, and the idea they were missing out on something. Usually, after I adjusted their gear (often replacing cables and housings), they changed their mind. Riders' response to degradation of controls, I decided, is a lot like cooking a live frog. If you heat the water slowly enough, the frog gets too comfortable to jump out of the pot.

Shimano is the mainstream brand. It's what's on most new bikes, so it's safe to assume that most inexperienced or casual riders are using Shimano. These are the riders who don't ride with clubs, don't understand that cables, chains, and cassettes need to be replaced from time to time, don't understand that you're supposed to wash your bike from time to time (and oil the chain and pivots and wipe off the excess), and have too many "expert" friends who say things like, 105 (or Tiagra, or Sora) is ****, you need to upgrade to Ultegra at least.

I don't know who is saying they need to get Campagnolo shifters.

 

[alfeng]

Originally Posted by oldbobcat
My guess is there must be short latency in SRAM shifters, the period between the first click, which would release cable and shift to a smaller cog, and the second click that says, Nope, wait a split second, we're going in the other direction. This is not a handicap. I like using the same lever to shift in either direction.

I selected Force for my Madone out of no dissatisfaction with Shimano. The Force version came with nicer wheels. I wanted a bike that was a little different. Everybody else runs Ultegra, and Dura-Ace was out of my budget. I like the fact that the whole kit is lighter than Ultegra (6700), especially the levers. I'd heard so many horror stories about SRAM and I wanted to prove it was the mechanic, not the mechanism. And I wanted to live by my "ride what you brung" philosophy, that it's not about the brand of tool that you use, it's about how skillfully you use it and take care of it. And so far, so good.

In my experience, you have to pry the levers out of the cold dead fingers of the guys who run 6500 and 6600, especially the ones with triples. If those guys had a complaint, it was that the rear derailleur didn't go to 30 or 32 teeth. 5600 had a bad reputation, mainly because Shimano assumed it could use triple front shifters for doubles by just locking out the third ring with the limit screw. Shimano backpedaled on this pretty fast, but too many bikes were out the door and back into the shops before riders and mechanics knew why they were breaking front shifters. 5700 users were probably the most satisfied. They had something they perceived as damned close to Ultegra for a lot less money.

Dura-Ace 7700 and 7800 were the high-performance workhorses. This was especially true of 7800, given the teething problems with 7900. The only complaint I ever heard from 7800 users was about its appearance, the knobby barrels with the external cables coming out the ends. Well, sometime I pinched my fingers releasing the brakes, and the front lever tended to chew the cable just behind the head. If you ever wondered why high trim stopped working, it was probably because you needed a new cable.

Most riders I've talked to, who've wanted to upgrade their Shimano kit, wanted only a higher grade of Shimano. Reasons were weight, crisper performance, and the idea they were missing out on something. Usually, after I adjusted their gear (often replacing cables and housings), they changed their mind. Riders' response to degradation of controls, I decided, is a lot like cooking a live frog. If you heat the water slowly enough, the frog gets too comfortable to jump out of the pot.

Shimano is the mainstream brand. It's what's on most new bikes, so it's safe to assume that most inexperienced or casual riders are using Shimano. These are the riders who don't ride with clubs, don't understand that cables, chains, and cassettes need to be replaced from time to time, don't understand that you're supposed to wash your bike from time to time (and oil the chain and pivots and wipe off the excess), and have too many "expert" friends who say things like, 105 (or Tiagra, or Sora) is ****, you need to upgrade to Ultegra at least.

I don't know who is saying they need to get Campagnolo shifters.

Let me REPEAT myself (clipped from above ... so the "you" refers to AyeYo ... treat it as "generic")...

• again, I am glad for people who are content with how their Shimano drivetrains function
• the point was that as good as you feel that 105 & Ultegra are (when you apparently soft pedal before shifting)
• and, as good-or-better as you dhk2 feels that his Dura Ace is apparently, the paid reviewers felt that Di2 was even better
• but, their description echoes a description of what Campagnolo mechanical shifters achieve 24/7/365.25 without soft pedaling.

Let me add, that I am glad for people who are content with their SRAM drivetrains, too ...

• How many SRAM riders migrate to Shimano STI (mechanical) shifters/derailleurs; particularly, if they had been Shimano users in the past? Have YOU used Shimano STI shifters on more than a parking lot ride? by my recollection, you had previously indicated that your previous bike(s) did not have ANY indexed shifting, so you would have had zero miles with Shimano's STI shifters and would therefore have no personal dissatisfaction.

[*]Was a Campagnolo equipped bike even available from the Trek shop you work at?
[*]Have YOU ever used Campagnolo shifters on a ride which takes you along one of your typical routes?

While you were looking for something different (nothing wrong with THAT ... again, YOU apparently had no point of reference at the time as far as whether-or-not there were any issues with the shifters ... and certainly, if you were aware of soft pedal when shifting, why worry about it?), I was looking for something that worked better ...

I'm going to toss out an analogy which will EITHER make sense OR be completely meaningless based on what a person already knows ...

• IMO, soft pedaling is like double-clutching with a manual transmission on a car (i.e., pre-synchromesh)... if you don't need to perform an additional action when shifting, then why do it?

• I have said more than one time that I think that the Double-Tap design is elegant ... but, I think the additional sweep of the lever (obviously, THAT is not necessary if one knows the "trick") to access the release is comparatively cumbersome vs. the simple, short-stroke thumb release

It seems too obvious to say this, but those who don't know, don't know ...

IMO, the reluctance to use something other than the de facto standard is not that different from when people persisted in using Nuovo Record & Campagnolo's derivative derailleurs AFTER SunTour & Shimano became widely available.

I suppose that now that Campagnolo shifters were on the winning TdF bike that some of the wannabees who drop into your shop will be coming in looking for Campagnolo --- THAT's the way of the World!

 

[AyeYo]

Originally Posted by alfeng

• IMO, soft pedaling is like double-clutching with a manual transmission on a car (i.e., pre-synchromesh)... if you don't need to perform an additional action when shifting, then why do it?

Actually, I think it's a lot more like using the clutch or at least easing off the gas while slamming the next gear home without the clutch. Any mechanically driven vehicle with a transmission that cannot engage multiple gears at once is going to shift more smoothly if power is not being applied through the shift and that applies to bikes as well. Dwell or no dwell, preceived delay or not, putting down power while the chain is only partially engaged on the driving cog is putting unnecessary strain on the drivetrain. It takes literally a fraction of a second to ease up on the torque to the crank while the chain is between cogs - and, bam, you're in the new gear without any drama.

 

[alfeng]

Originally Posted by AyeYo


Actually, I think it's a lot more like using the clutch or at least easing off the gas while slamming the next gear home without the clutch. Any mechanically driven vehicle with a transmission that cannot engage multiple gears at once is going to shift more smoothly if power is not being applied through the shift and that applies to bikes as well. Dwell or no dwell, preceived delay or not, putting down power while the chain is only partially engaged on the driving cog is putting unnecessary strain on the drivetrain. It takes literally a fraction of a second to ease up on the torque to the crank while the chain is between cogs - and, bam, you're in the new gear without any drama.

Let me REPEAT myself, yet again ...

• again, I am glad for people who are content with how their Shimano drivetrains function
• the point was that as good as you feel that 105 & Ultegra are (when you apparently soft pedal before shifting)
• and, as good-or-better as you dhk2 feels that his Dura Ace is apparently, the paid reviewers felt that Di2 was even better
• but, their description echoes a description of what Campagnolo mechanical shifters achieve 24/7/365.25 without soft pedaling.

AND ...

... those who don't know, don't know ...

 

[alfeng]

Originally Posted by AyeYo
Actually, I think it's a lot more like using the clutch or at least easing off the gas while slamming the next gear home without the clutch. Any mechanically driven vehicle with a transmission that cannot engage multiple gears at once is going to shift more smoothly if power is not being applied through the shift and that applies to bikes as well. Dwell or no dwell, preceived delay or not, putting down power while the chain is only partially engaged on the driving cog is putting unnecessary strain on the drivetrain. It takes literally a fraction of a second to ease up on the torque to the crank while the chain is between cogs - and, bam, you're in the new gear without any drama.

BTW. I think that I addressed this already by noting that Shimano's Di2 drivetrain apparently does not replicate the motion of their STI shifters.

• if having "dwell"/whatever is such a good idea then WHY NOT replicate it in the Di2 shifters/derailleurs?

Regardless, I really cannot say this often enough, if you are not disappointed with your shifters, then why change them?

• THAT is the correct attitude to have ... because it is silly to buy a replacement if there isn't a perceived problem!

• Why eat Ice Cream if you think that Ice Milk tastes good to you?