Road Cycling - New Shimano STI in the works?

I've just been watching the 2003 TdF (again) over lunch, and I've noticed Lance doesn't have a front STI shift lever in these mountain stages. Was he just using an old downtube mounted shifter to save weight, or is there maybe something new in the works? I'm sure this is an old topic, but I was just curious and too lazy to search the archives.

It would be nice if Shimano could drop the weight of their levers, but as Shimano is a forging company, it might be a while before we see any carbon from them. I guess either way it was a clever setup - I might even consider doing it myself. :rolleyes:

I've just been watching the 2003 TdF (again) over lunch, and I've noticed Lance doesn't have a front STI shift lever in these mountain stages. Was he just using an old downtube mounted shifter to save weight, or is there maybe something new in the works?

Nope... you pretty much guessed it... no new STI there... just a downtube shifter for the front. Lance has been doing that for a while. My mechanic runs a similar setup but with Campy... has been doing it for years too. Actually his left brake lever is just the hoods... no lever. He only runs a front brake and has it acuated from the right lever.

Nope... you pretty much guessed it... no new STI there... just a downtube shifter for the front. Lance has been doing that for a while. My mechanic runs a similar setup but with Campy... has been doing it for years too. Actually his left brake lever is just the hoods... no lever. He only runs a front brake and has it acuated from the right lever.

Is that setup illegal by UCI standards? Reason being, I would guess more pros would ditch one of the brakes to save a little weight is they could (perhaps during time trials).

-mark

It's a pretty cool setup. Unfortunately I haven't got downtube bosses ( Mine are on the head tube ), and a barcon/regular brake lever setup is no lighter than a left STI lever. Using a regular brake lever with a front downtube shifter will instantly save you 52g. Not that I give a ***** about weight, but at least it's a weight saving that makes some real world sense.

Shimano D/A Sti for front hifter is notorious for not being the best for the $$.
After 3,800 miles of using D/A Sti on our custom tandem got fed up with it and switched to barend shifters. More reliable, simpler, less mechanical 'gee whiz' stuff, costs only 1/5th price, and just as light/heavy, but it works flawlessly!
Hi tech is not always better!

Is that setup illegal by UCI standards?

I dunno. Probably. But as he doesn't race, it's not an issue for him.

I've just been watching the 2003 TdF (again) over lunch, and I've noticed Lance doesn't have a front STI shift lever in these mountain stages. Was he just using an old downtube mounted shifter to save weight, or is there maybe something new in the works? I'm sure this is an old topic, but I was just curious and too lazy to search the archives.

It would be nice if Shimano could drop the weight of their levers, but as Shimano is a forging company, it might be a while before we see any carbon from them. I guess either way it was a clever setup - I might even consider doing it myself. :rolleyes:

Actually the focus shouldn't be on the shifter - rather the bike as a complete unit.

UCI doesn't microregulate things like shifters - it cares more about the complete bike unit weight and the geometry of the bike/saddle/pedaling position.

Why lance used downtube? It isn't because of reliability - he uses regular STI during flat stages. When he uses the downtube - it is because the Trek 5900 he's riding on with the components he's using is still above UCI regulation weight, so changing out a STI lever for a downtube saves some grams.

Well, once you get over the bike 'as a complete unit', you then focus on individual choices that people make in regards to component selection. That's what I find interesting. I can scope a complete bike in 10 seconds and know about the complete package - then it's onto breaking the thing down. Call me weird, but that's how I do it. *rollseyes*

Also, I think any reasonable person know's it not a reliability issue. If one wears out, sponsored riders get a new one. If you're not sponsored, then this component choice gives you the double bonus - less weight and less moving parts to wear out, with no real perfomance downside. i think it's pretty clever. I rarely say that about any thing in the road scene. :)

Also, I don't think we should hypothesise about what the UCI does or does not 'care' about. That's not something we can really speculate on without sounding like a pack of unknowledgeable kowtowing bureaucrats. I for one don't care less about the UCI, and I don't think that the 99% of the cycling population who dont come under the auspices of them care much either.

Plus, that's not what this thread is about :)