Bicycle Mechanics - Downtube shifter heyday?

This question isn't really important at all, but what years were downtube shifters "the" shifters that were stock on most common road bikes?

I know there must be some of you out there who worked at shops during this time and remember it. :thumb:

pre 80's for non indexing

I don't know when they first appeared(1920's?) but I know they were still in common use on factory bikes at least through the early 90's. My 1992 Trek 1420 had 7-speed indexed downtube levers.

By then, STI brifters (both Dura Ace and Ultegra 8-speed) were being used on the higher line models but downtube shifters continued for several years on mid and lower-line road bikes.

So their "heyday" was likely from the 1950's through the early 1990's

Donwtube shifters are STILL available on some low cost bikes made by good manufactures. The shop I work in even has one on the floor.

STI shifters debuted in Dura-Ace in 1990, I think, and worked their way down Shimano's product line over the next few years. Campagnolo was a year or two behind Shimano in offering their initial Ergopwer shifters.


Donwtube shifters are STILL available on some low cost bikes made by good manufactures. The shop I work in even has one on the floor.
kycycler: I'm very curious what is the model. I know that Shimano and Campagnolo, at least, still produce down-tube shifters (but mainly for the high-end gruppos, I thought) and I've seen Wal-Mart-ish bikes with indexed stem-shifters, but a stock bike from a reputable manufacturer with down-tube shifters is a surprise to me. Can you get back to us with this info next time you're in the shop?


I like the concept of down-tube shifters. They're simple, almost never break, and require very little cable housing. A significant down-side for tall riders (I'm 6'5") is that down-tube shifters are harder to reach than they are for shorter riders. Because as the rider and frame get larger, the rider is sitting further and further above the ground, but the down-tube shifter location stays in basically the same location.

I still use them.....

This question isn't really important at all, but what years were downtube shifters "the" shifters that were stock on most common road bikes?

I know there must be some of you out there who worked at shops during this time and remember it. :thumb:

I have Frank Berto's book on derailers at home but I don't have access to it right now. I'm pretty sure it's in there somewhere.

From what I can find, Simplex introduced the cable actuated derailer in 1938. Downtube shifters were used around that time with the heaviest use occurring in the 1970's bike boom until STI was introduced in 1990. Downtube shifters were the shifter of choice for several years after the introduction of STI because of the cost and time it takes for Shimano to trickle the technology down to lower levels.

I still use them also. 8sp on the Heron road and 7sp half-step on the Heron tourer.

A significant down-side for tall riders (I'm 6'5") is that down-tube shifters are harder to reach than they are for shorter riders. Because as the rider and frame get larger, the rider is sitting further and further above the ground, but the down-tube shifter location stays in basically the same location.
A significant down-side to downtube shifters for riders of any height is that they can't be reached while standing (bar-ends are nearly as bad) and are awkward to reach even while seated if you are working hard and need to keep your hands on the bars.

If you ride, as I do, in hilly areas and like to climb standing you better have the right gear selected before the climb as you won't be able to do anything about it afterward. In unfamilair areas where you don't know how steep the hill really is or what's around the next bend, this can be a real problem.

STI/Ergo brifters let you shift anytime, anyplace and, to me, that's a huge advantage and far overcomes their cost and mechanical complexity issues.

You can still get a good downtube shifter bike today from Specialized.

http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=45678&eid=4350

Not sure how long this bike will be around though. My LBS sales people did not know it existed when I stopped by to try and see one.

You can still get a good downtube shifter bike today from Specialized.

http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=45678&eid=4350

Not sure how long this bike will be around though. My LBS sales people did not know it existed when I stopped by to try and see one.

my type of ride

Down tube shifter got really popular in the late 80's after click shift came into being. The great thing about them was the mechanical simpliisity. They only needed a couple of short cable guides, so there was little drag in the system, and the shorter cable had less to stretch, and therefore stayed in adjustment longer. Other positive things were a much cleaner bike without the cables floping around on the handle bars, with less weight and drag because of them.

Down tube shifter got really popular in the late 80's after click shift came into being. The great thing about them was the mechanical simpliisity. They only needed a couple of short cable guides, so there was little drag in the system, and the shorter cable had less to stretch, and therefore stayed in adjustment longer. Other positive things were a much cleaner bike without the cables floping around on the handle bars, with less weight and drag because of them.

They were popular long before that. Even necessary. Shifters on road bikes before STI...and after rod shifters...fell into 3 types: downtube mounted, stem mounted and barend mounted. Stem mounted were available on only the lest expensive of bikes. There were, and are, a ton of them around but they are on the lowest of any bicycle line. Barend mounted shifters were usually found on touring bikes. Downtube shifters were far and away the most common shifter available from the late 1960 to 1990.

Down tube shifter got really popular in the late 80's after click shift came into being.
dt shifters were popular in the late 80's with the advent of indexed shifting, but this didn't cause a rise in their popularity.
rather, as cyclocommute notes, they were the norm for all higher-end road bikes for a long time prior to indexed shifting, because the only other options were stem shifters (cheap bikes) and bar-end shifters (mainly popular for touring bikes).

as HillRider explains, the convenience of being able to shift from nearly any position on the bike with brifters basically spelled the end of downtube shifters.
although if I weren't so tall, I would still have at least one bike with DT shifters. Probably a bike that I keep somewhere that I don't live (e.g., for if I visit one of my siblings) and thus don't use very often and don't want to expend much on upkeep.

I appreciate the replies! I personally like them a lot and was just wondering...that's all.

I was mostly asking this question as a "historical question of interest" and did not want to get into the merits of DT vs. STI, or anything like that. I had a road bike with STI and liked it just fine.....and I totally see the benefit when quick shifting from almost every rider position is required...no argument.

Just wanted to get that out of the way ;).

..and after rod shifters.

I've heard of these, are these the ones that were operated on the seat tube?

On my bike the routing of the cables runs the normal way, under the bottom bracket on that plastic guide mount. I imagine there were a lot of other weirder ways this was done back then?

I've heard of these, are these the ones that were operated on the seat tube?

On my bike the routing of the cables runs the normal way, under the bottom bracket on that plastic guide mount. I imagine there were a lot of other weirder ways this was done back then?

Look here (http://www.campyonly.com/history/paris-roubaix.html) for a 1951 Bianchi with rod shifters. They operated on the seat stay.

Look here (http://www.campyonly.com/history/paris-roubaix.html) for a 1951 Bianchi with rod shifters. They operated on the seat stay.
IIRC, I saw a bike with a rod shifted front deraileur also. Theshift lever was banded to the seattube with the operating rod running parallel to the seattube down to the fd.

The 1999 to 2005 Tour de Frances were won using a down tube shifter on some stages! On mountainous stages, Lance Armstrong was known to prefer having a down-tube shifter for the front derailleur and an STI lever to operate the rear derailleur. The single down-tube shifter results in about 100 grams weight savings. You can see a photo of him riding with this setup in the '05 tour here (http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Lance-Armstrong-and-Ivan-Basso-2005-Posters_i1359891_.htm) and here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lance_Armstrong_2005.jpg), plus a discussion and picture (from earlier than '05 I believe) here (http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=171229).

The Trek Madones came with down tube mounts until the 2007 models, 2008 and more recent models have got rid of these, and it is extremely hard to find a high-end road bike that has them now. Lance did not use this setup during his 2009 comeback , but there are several possible reasons for this. It could be because the Madone frames no longer have the mount, it could be because the component sponsor SRAM don't make the shift and brake levers needed for the setup, or it could be because it is now easy to reach the UCI 6.8kg weight limit without using this setup (although that was already the case back in 2005, I believe).

I use this setup (down tube for front shifter, STI for rear shifter) on all of my bikes where the frame will allow it, which includes a 2007 Madone (the other two have a bar-end shifter for the front, and STI for the rear, which is a heavier set-up). As well as the weight saving, it has the advantage of continuous control over the front derailleur, making trim adjustments easy and making it easier to get the chain back onto the chainrings without stopping if it does happen to derail. I'm not sure whether Lance also valued these qualities, maybe not since he didn't use this setup on most of the flatter stages.

Although I love the down-tube shifter for the front derailluer, I'd never use anything but an STI for the rear shifter. This choice is also related to your choice of gearing - I choose my gearing so that I don't need to do a lot of shifting with the front derailleur: I use a super-compact combination of 46 and 28 tooth chainrings on my road bike, and 42/26 on the cyclocross, touring, and commuting bikes, with 10-speed cassettes of either 11-26 or 12-28.

I was working at a shop in San Diego when the first STI came out and I will admit I completely missed the boat on this one.

My reaction, and that of most of the shop dogs who were all racers too, was:
This is heavier than a downtube setup, there is no problem with a downtube setup. Feeling particularly smug, we opined this was just like biopace and would see an equally quick and inglorious death.

Needless to say, this points up why I was a poor, college student making $5 per hour and why the Shimano product managers were making considerably more.

-Z

My recollection is that Lance used the one-down-tube-shifter setup mainly on mountainous stages. And my thought on that has always been, "maybe the slight weight savings is worth it for slight advantage on grueling mountain stages, but I certainly wouldn't want to deal with the discomfort or asymmetrical annoyance of differently-shaped brake hoods." If Lance had been riding Campy, he could have used Tektro brake levers that matched the shape of Campy Ergo levers, but he was using all Shimano stuff and their standalone brake levers haven't been redesigned to have a comparable shape to STI levers.

My recollection is that Lance used the one-down-tube-shifter setup mainly on mountainous stages. And my thought on that has always been, "maybe the slight weight savings is worth it for slight advantage on grueling mountain stages, but I certainly wouldn't want to deal with the discomfort or asymmetrical annoyance of differently-shaped brake hoods." If Lance had been riding Campy, he could have used Tektro brake levers that matched the shape of Campy Ergo levers, but he was using all Shimano stuff and their standalone brake levers haven't been redesigned to have a comparable shape to STI levers.
I'm not sure of this but I seem to recall that the downtube shifter for the front derailleur was paired with a gutted (and therefore lighter) STI brifter so the hoods were the same shape.

Also, the UCI weight limit was passed in 2000 and I believe first applied to racing bike for the 2001 season. By then building a sub-6.8 kg bike was getting pretty routine so there was little incentive to use a dt shifter for weight savings. I think LA used the dt/STI pairing only for the 2000 TdF and, as you noted, only in the high mountain stages.

Just looking at one specific company's catalogs, Cannondale had downtube shifters on all of their road bikes in 1990. In '91 they started putting grip shifters and brifters on some of their road models.

Check out Vintage Cannondale (http://www.vintagecannondale.com/) for more info.

I'm not sure of this but I seem to recall that the downtube shifter for the front derailleur was paired with a gutted (and therefore lighter) STI brifter so the hoods were the same shape.

Also, the UCI weight limit was passed in 2000 and I believe first applied to racing bike for the 2001 season. By then building a sub-6.8 kg bike was getting pretty routine so there was little incentive to use a dt shifter for weight savings. I think LA used the dt/STI pairing only for the 2000 TdF and, as you noted, only in the high mountain stages.

Sorry, but you're wrong on both counts, look at this photo (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lance_Armstrong_2005.jpg) that I linked to already!

He used a regular Shimano brake lever, not a gutted STI, which can be easily seen in the photo (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lance_Armstrong_2005.jpg). I agree, the hood shape of the Shimano dedicated brake levers is very old-fashioned and not so comfortable, I use the Tektro/Cane Creek model myself, but Lance was Shimano's golden boy at the time, so he had to use their's.

He was using the setup in 2005, which the first photo is dated as - if you don't believe the photo's date, just consider the fact that he's wearing Discovery channel clothing in that photo and this one (http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Lance-Armstrong-and-Ivan-Basso-2005-Posters_i1359891_.htm), which means that it has to be from 2004 or 2005.

My recollection is that Lance used the one-down-tube-shifter setup mainly on mountainous stages. And my thought on that has always been, "maybe the slight weight savings is worth it for slight advantage on grueling mountain stages, but I certainly wouldn't want to deal with the discomfort or asymmetrical annoyance of differently-shaped brake hoods." If Lance had been riding Campy, he could have used Tektro brake levers that matched the shape of Campy Ergo levers, but he was using all Shimano stuff and their standalone brake levers haven't been redesigned to have a comparable shape to STI levers.

Maybe he liked it for the infinite trim adjustment.

I ride about 1500 of my 7500 miles per year on a DT shifter bike, 1973 Raleigh Competition, good old fashioned 10 speed with friction shifting Huret Jubilee derailleurs. My muscle memory for shifting is so ingrained from 35 years with that bike that with a flick of my right hand I can shift both the front and rear derailleurs simultaneously. I'm always surprised when I ride somebody else's DT shift bike and those same double shifts don't come off as planned.

I don't understand the "double shifting" thing..? I have never needed to shift both front and rear deraillers simultaneously...what is this?

Sorry, but you're wrong on both counts, look at this photo (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lance_Armstrong_2005.jpg) that I linked to already!

He used a regular Shimano brake lever, not a gutted STI, which can be easily seen in the photo (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lance_Armstrong_2005.jpg). I agree, the hood shape of the Shimano dedicated brake levers is very old-fashioned and not so comfortable, I use the Tektro/Cane Creek model myself, but Lance was Shimano's golden boy at the time, so he had to use their's.

He was using the setup in 2005, which the first photo is dated as - if you don't believe the photo's date, just consider the fact that he's wearing Discovery channel clothing in that photo and this one (http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Lance-Armstrong-and-Ivan-Basso-2005-Posters_i1359891_.htm), which means that it has to be from 2004 or 2005.
Thanks for the clarifications. As I said; "IIRC" and apparently I didn't. :(

I am surprised he was still using the DT shifter by 2004 - 2005 since by then Trek (and nearly everyone else) was actually having to add ballast to their bikes to make the UCI minimum weight so the extra weight of an STI shouldn't have been an issue. Perhaps RaleighComp's comment is correct and he just wanted the infinite trim capability.

I don't understand the "double shifting" thing..? I have never needed to shift both front and rear deraillers simultaneously...what is this?

with most 70's "wide-ish" ratio 10 speeds the next higher or lower gear ratio is on the other Chainring, with the exception of your two lowest gears and your two higher gears. Typically 1,2,4,6,8 when on the small chainring, 3,5,7,9,10 on the Large chainring. If I were to go all the way up through my gears it would be like this:

1 rear change to
2 rear change to
4 (because 3 is a bad cross-chain, so we skip it) double change to
5 double change to
6 double change to
7 rear change to
9 (skipping the cross chain 8) rear change to
10

I will occasionally use the cross chain 8. It's not so bad an angle as the cross chain 3, but requires a little front derailleur trim. This would be a rare condition like a very long flat stretch with a tailwind or drafting in a group.

Leaving out the cross-chains you have 3 uphill gears, 2 downhill gears, and 3 everything else gears. For the most part I'm always double shifting between 5,6, and 7 and shifting down to 4 if I have to stop at a light or stop sign.

Thanks for the clarifications. As I said; "IIRC" and apparently I didn't. :(

I am surprised he was still using the DT shifter by 2004 - 2005 since by then Trek (and nearly everyone else) was actually having to add ballast to their bikes to make the UCI minimum weight so the extra weight of an STI shouldn't have been an issue. Perhaps RaleighComp's comment is correct and he just wanted the infinite trim capability.

Also you do the lion's share of your serious braking with the front, maybe he felt the single purpose brake lever gave him better feel or modulation braking before a turn.

with most 70's "wide-ish" ratio 10 speeds the next higher or lower gear ratio is on the other Chainring, with the exception of your two lowest gears and your two higher gears. Typically 1,2,4,6,8 when on the small chainring, 3,5,7,9,10 on the Large chainring. If I were to go all the way up through my gears it would be like this:

I still don't get this. Are you saying that "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10" is "lowest-highest"? Why would you try to avoid the cross chain from little chainring to 3rd largest cog, then later shift so that your little chainring is aligned with your 5th or 6th cog? The cross chain there would have to be worse than from little to 3rd..?

Let's say your rings are 52 X 42t. Your 5 spd freewheel is 14-28t. Can you (or someone) map out the shifts with this? I can't visualize it correctly.

I might understand this situation if I am shifting to smaller cogs on the cassette and starting to run a cross chain, and then I immediately shift the little ring to the big ring to avoid this......is this double shifting?

Still, I've never had to do it simultaneously. I've read a lot about people shifting both levers at once, and I've just never done that....sounds weird to me ;).

[QUOTE=timcupery;10148223]STI shifters debuted in Dura-Ace in 1990, I think, and worked their way down Shimano's product line over the next few years. Campagnolo was a year or two behind Shimano in offering their initial Ergopwer shifters.


kycycler: I'm very curious what is the model. I know that Shimano and Campagnolo, at least, still produce down-tube shifters (but mainly for the high-end gruppos, I thought) and I've seen Wal-Mart-ish bikes with indexed stem-shifters, but a stock bike from a reputable manufacturer with down-tube shifters is a surprise to me. Can you get back to us with this info next time you're in the shop?

The bike is a FUJI Newest 4.0. Here is a link to the spec sheet. http://www.fujibikes.com/Road/Sport/Newest-4-0.aspx

I still don't get this. Are you saying that "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10" is "lowest-highest"? Why would you try to avoid the cross chain from little chainring to 3rd largest cog, then later shift so that your little chainring is aligned with your 5th or 6th cog? The cross chain there would have to be worse than from little to 3rd..?

Let's say your rings are 52 X 42t. Your 5 spd freewheel is 14-28t. Can you (or someone) map out the shifts with this? I can't visualize it correctly.

On an old ten speed the next highest or lower gear ratio is not a single shift away. Gear ratio is what you feel in your legs and what you calculate on paper or computer. If I took my front derailleur off my bike and left the chain on my small chainring I could still shift through 5 gears with my rear, but they are not 1,2,3,4,5 in ratio, they are 1,2,4,6,8. I could still ride comfortably all day and there are only two higher gears I couldn't get to, namely 52-17 and 52-14. If the next day I manually put the chain on the big chainring, I could use a different set of 5 gears to ride comfortably all day, those gears I think of as 3,5,7,9 & 10 and if I needed to go up a steep hill, there are only two lower gears on the bike that I couldn't get to, namely 42-24 and 42-28. Here's your map from lowest to highest:

1st 42-28
2nd 42-24
3rd 52-28 (cross-chain, bad)
4th 42-20
5th 52-24
6th 42-17
7th 52-20
8th 42-14 (cross-chain, not quite as bad)
9th 52-17
10th 52-14

Double shifts (either sequentially or, if you were coordinated enough, simultaneously) were needed for "half-step" gearing.

In the days of 5 and 6-speed freewheels/cassettes, the gearing steps between adjacent cogs were often quite wide, particularly if a wide range freewheel was used, say 13x28. To provide smaller steps, two closely spaced chainrings were used, typically 46/42 or 52/47. That way a chainring shift gave a gear about half way between two cogs. So to operate ithis gearing system, every second shift required shifting both derailleurs.

I see. That actually makes a lot of sense now.

Thanks to both of you for explaining that ;)

I see. That actually makes a lot of sense now.

Thanks to both of you for explaining that ;)

I tried the half step gearing that HillRider references at one time. I never could do a double shift. Never really liked the pattern either. Without the double shift, you ended up in too low a gear if you shifted on the back and not the front and if you shifted the front first, you were in too high a gear. Plus you were shifting all the time and, with the shifters on the downtube, that meant a lot of time without your hands on the bars:eek: or, at the very least, tinkering with the shift levers. Bleeck!

A much better pattern...for me, anyway...was a crossover (not to be confused with cross chaining:thumb:). Starting with the largest cog on the rear and the smallest in the front, the pattern would go 1,2,3. At that point you would shift up on the front chainring or 'crossover' to the high range and continue on to the higher gears. There were lots of duplicate gears but the pattern is really easy to shift. For a wide range freewheel...like a 13-34 5 speed...the steps between the first four gears were relatively close...13-15-17-21-24...which allowed for relatively easy shifts. The 34 (or, in the case of a Suntour Alpine AG freewheel, 38:eek:) was a bailout gear and the huge jump didn't make that much difference because when the low gear was needed, it was needed now! A crossover gear system also requires the proper chainwheel selection. A 10 to 12 tooth difference between the front rings (not including granny) is key to the pattern working well.

The current wide range cassettes are slightly modified crossovers when paired with the proper crank. If you run the numbers on Sheldon Brown's gear calculator, you'll see that at the 3 or 4 cog, you can make the shift on the front chainwheel and have a relatively progressive shifting system. It doesn't matter what the size of the chainrings are as long as the difference is between 10 and 12 teeth.

Many prefered the Suntour DT shifters in the early 1980's. Reason: They didn't loosen-up during a ride as the Campagnolo were prone to. For me, tightening the rings on the Campy's were as natural to me as breathing. Hence it didn't bother me. So I used Campagnolo DT shifters. Still do on my vintage PUCH racer. Bought in 1982 - the shifters are just as good today.

There are many others out there - each with both fans and detractors. Use what you love!

Many prefered the Suntour DT shifters in the early 1980's. Reason: They didn't loosen-up during a ride as the Campagnolo were prone to. For me, tightening the rings on the Campy's were as natural to me as breathing. Hence it didn't bother me. So I used Campagnolo DT shifters. Still do on my vintage PUCH racer. Bought in 1982 - the shifters are just as good today.

There are many others out there - each with both fans and detractors. Use what you love!
I had a set of Campy Record dt friction shifters on a bike for a while in the late '80's and their spontaneous loosening was a constant PITA. If I didn't tighten them every couple of days, they'd surprise me with an unwanted "ghost" upshift, usually in the middle of a hard hill. :(

I replaced them with a set of Sun Tour Power Ratchet shifters which cured the problem permanantly.

The pros of that era often replaced their Campy dt shifters with Simplex Retrofrictions for thew same reason, even on teams sponsored by Campy.

A much better pattern...for me, anyway...was a crossover (not to be confused with cross chaininghttp://www.bikeforums.net/../images/smilies/thumb.gif

This is pretty much my set up, with a 48/38 crankset with 13-34t cassette. I find that the larger chainring is able to engage all but the 34t cog...and since I rarely use it, I tend to stay in the 48 chainring most of the time. I get plenty of gears for the terrain I ride, so it works. If I were touring with my LHT I would probably opt for a triple, but this works fine for my commuting.

I had a set of Campy Record dt friction shifters on a bike for a while in the late '80's and their spontaneous loosening was a constant PITA. If I didn't tighten them every couple of days, they'd surprise me with an unwanted "ghost" upshift, usually in the middle of a hard hill. :(

I replaced them with a set of Sun Tour Power Ratchet shifters which cured the problem permanantly.

The pros of that era often replaced their Campy dt shifters with Simplex Retrofrictions for thew same reason, even on teams sponsored by Campy.

This is just what I mean. Many people were annoyed by this situation with the Campys. I am one of the ones who were/are not. I tighten them daily and it feels as natural for me to do so as to put on my helmet.

To each their own.

Maybe we should go back to riding with down tube shifters, you cant reach over and shift youre riding partners STI's like you could when they were on the down tube.

This is just what I mean. Many people were annoyed by this situation with the Campys. I am one of the ones who were/are not. I tighten them daily and it feels as natural for me to do so as to put on my helmet.

To each their own.

+1
I feel the same way about my Huret Jubilee shifters. You get so used to them that even when they're holding the gears you can feel that there wasn't enough friction on your last shift so you just flip out the d-ring give it a twist.

I go back and forth between my Campy DT equipped classic steel and my Chorus equipped carbon. I'll reach down to shift my Chorus and start pressing the brake sideways on my steelie. Switching to either one for more than a spin around the park though and I get used to it pretty fast either way. I have the DT bike set up with a 10sp rear cassette and it works great, with crisp silent shifts. Just a light touch on the lever makes it shift, not like the old clunky 6 speed.

I have the DT bike set up with a 10sp rear cassette and it works great, with crisp silent shifts. Just a light touch on the lever makes it shift, not like the old clunky 6 speed.
For that you can thank index shifting. The ramps, pins, shaped teeth and shaped sideplates on the cogs, chainrings and chains that make index shifting fast and reliable also make friction shifting a lot better.

For that you can thank index shifting. The ramps, pins, shaped teeth and shaped sideplates on the cogs, chainrings and chains that make index shifting fast and reliable also make friction shifting a lot better.

If we had those things with friction shifters in the first place we probably wouldn't have needed indexed shifting. I find I have no preference anymore, both of my bikes shift well.

Maybe we should go back to riding with down tube shifters, you cant reach over and shift youre riding partners STI's like you could when they were on the down tube.

Ha! That was funny. I vividly remember dueling with my buddies up Torrey Pines hill trying to slam each others shifter to the small cogs. Funny.

It seems to be a lost art now and the effect isn't as great with STI. I was on a ride last month and one of the dudes was grabbing seat posts, etc... Fun Time. I rolled up next to him and dropped his bike into the small ring in front. Took him a bit to figure it out and catch back up.

Not as fun as dropping someone to the high gears on a hill, but its the best we got now...

-Z

Ha! That was funny. I vividly remember dueling with my buddies up Torrey Pines hill trying to slam each others shifter to the small cogs. Funny.

It seems to be a lost art now and the effect isn't as great with STI. I was on a ride last month and one of the dudes was grabbing seat posts, etc... Fun Time. I rolled up next to him and dropped his bike into the small ring in front. Took him a bit to figure it out and catch back up.

Not as fun as dropping someone to the high gears on a hill, but its the best we got now...

-Z

As teens we used to not only shift each other's DT shifters up, we used to give each other "Michelin Rubs". I don't know why we named it that, but we used to ride up on our buddy's rear wheel and touch tires with our front wheel on their rear. It made a neat, high-pitched "zzzZZZTTT!" sound. I'm guessing my current club friends would not see the humor in such tom-foolery.

I tried the half step gearing that HillRider references at one time. I never could do a double shift. Never really liked the pattern either. Without the double shift, you ended up in too low a gear if you shifted on the back and not the front and if you shifted the front first, you were in too high a gear. Plus you were shifting all the time and, with the shifters on the downtube, that meant a lot of time without your hands on the bars:eek: or, at the very least, tinkering with the shift levers. Bleeck!

Half step is a breeze with STI's, just whack both levers at once for the double shift. A 9sp 11-34 cassette and 24-39-42 chainrings makes a great loaded touring setup.

On downtube shifters, yeah, I prefer a crossover.

Half step is a breeze with STI's, just whack both levers at once for the double shift. A 9sp 11-34 cassette and 24-39-42 chainrings makes a great loaded touring setup.

On downtube shifters, yeah, I prefer a crossover.
+1

My foul weather commuting bike only has a 42-11 top gear, with 26" tires. Even though my commute is pretty hilly, I never find myself hating riding that bike because it doesn't have a tall enough top geear. 42-11 *is* probably a great top end for loaded touring.

Perhaps RaleighComp's comment is correct and he just wanted the infinite trim capability.

LA has been interviewed on that specific issue. It was for weight savings.