Phantoj

"This term was coined by Bruce Frech."

https://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_bo-z.html#brifter

Fox Farm

I switched from down tube to Campy Ergo levers in 1992 and have never looked back. The only advantage I can think MIGHT be for the front derailure to use a downtube friction shifter for fine adjustment, but I think that if the front derailure is set up correctly, that is less of an issue, particularly with 10 speed drive trains. Other than the potential cost savings, which is real money, why would you want to use down tube shifters? I could see the need for lever shifters on a time trial set of bars or a Tri bike, but otherwise, dual control levers are better, and probably safer as you keep your hands on the bars all the time.

Reynolds 

I have Ergos in one of my bicycles and 105 DT in the other. The Ergos are easier to use, but I like the crispness and "feeling" of DT shifters. It's because they use shorter and straighter cables, I think.

cshell

badass looking!

angelo

Generally, you can't beat the convenience of well-maintained ergo (brifter, or whatever you call them) shifters.

Downtube shifters are best if you have an old bike and are using a friction-mode shifting system. The relatively short, straight run of cable to the derailleurs from a downtube shifter makes the shifting crisp, fast, and easy to maintain. I find that I can't get the same level of performance from friction-mode bar-ends (perhaps I haven't tried hard enough?). Also, it is possible to literally feel the shifting action through your finger tips on downtube levers this makes the shifting very precise IMHO.

Another reason to use these is if you have a bike with a very old school "half step" gearing system. The idea was to use chainrings that are very close in tooth count, and to shift the front derailleur every other time when going up or down the gears. I'm sure that could theoretically be done with other shifters, but I've only seen it on bikes with downtube shifters.

unterhausen

You called?

grolby

Downtube shifters < bar-end shifters < integrated controls. No question. That said, that doesn't mean that DT shifters actually suck that bad compared to integrated shifters. When people are used to integrated controls, they make a big deal (like some people in this thread) about how DT shifters are "unsafe," or "obsolete." Well, that depends. I think the safety claim is way overblown. Handlebar-mounted shifters are definitely more convenient, but I can't think of any instances where I've felt unsafe because of the DT shifters. There have been a few instances where I don't make a shift that I would with integrated shifters, but generally, when I choose not to shift it's a matter of convenience, not safety.

A lot depends upon the terrain where you're riding, IMO. Where I was riding, the Connecticut River Valley in Massachusetts, there are plenty of hills and such, but terrain is fairly discrete, i.e. most climbs that are long enough or steep enough to require shifting have a reasonably steady gradient, and flats tend to be long enough that you don't need to shift too much. Basically, there's plenty of climbing and elevation change to be had, but you don't need to be shifting constantly to maintain a comfortable rhythm. DT shifters are perfectly acceptable under these circumstances, only slightly less convenient than shifters on the handlebars. On the other hand, where I'm living now, it seems like the grade is constantly changing. I'm constantly either climbing or descending a hill, and there are few true flats that last very long. On this kind of terrain, DT shifters are quite irritating. I feel like I'm constantly reaching down to shift. It's difficult to maintain a steady effort, and though I will actually do less climbing than I would on a typical ride in Massachusetts, in terms of feet ascended, there are a lot more hills to get up and over. Even bar-end shifters are a large improvement in convenience, and they don't cost much more than DT shifters. Having to reach down and swing your knee out to shift gets distracting, and I often end up not shifting even when I really should. The 6-speed cassette doesn't help the situation, either.

The nice thing about DT shifters is their immediacy and feel. Indexed DT shifters especially have a snappy, crisp feel that you just don't get from most integrated shifters, and even bar-end shifters feel a lot less lively. Under the right circumstances, they're a lot of fun, a refreshing change from the videogame-like feel that you can get from brifters. But brifters are popular for a reason. They're great, and I wouldn't trade my SRAM levers for anything on my race bike. That said, I've raced my old bike with DT shifters, and it's not that big a deal on a flattish course without rapid changes in gradient. The 6-speed cassette on that bike is a considerably greater problem than the shifters.

Still, I am almost certainly going certainly going to replace those shifters with bar-ends. They're not nearly as expensive as brifters, but they're a definite leap in convenience over DT shifters. It's also a great, affordable way to go to a modern 9 or 10-speed drivetrain with shifting at (or near) your fingertips.

But I can't be too harsh on downtubes. They've worked brilliantly for decades, and they have a simplicity and aesthetic appeal that can be hard to match with other shifting systems. That's the power of tradition, I guess.

trelhak

I would never allow something as simple as a different shifting system from preventing me from buying a bike I liked.
I have both a Campy Ergo-equipped bike and a Campy 7-speed friction-shifting bike. Granted, the downtube-shifter bike weighs about four pounds more than the carbon one and has no aero amenties at all, so I'm slower on it. I don't think it's the shifting that makes it slower.

A coach on my team was of the opinion that riding old-style friction shifting makes you a better rider by teaching you to learn to shift. The large jumps that a 6-7 speed freewheel offers and the longer time it takes to shift means you have to pick just the right moment and the right cadence to shift to conserve as much momentum as possible. After mastering that, then a rider can take advantage of the quicker shifts and less-abusive jumps in ratio.

grolby

Of course, if modern shifters and drivetrains render this skill largely irrelevant (which they do), one has to wonder how becoming a better rider in this sense actually makes someone, well, a better rider, anymore.

John C. Ratliff

The only disadvantage not mentioned above about DT shifters is having to reach all the way down to do the shifting. This is why the "Ergo" shifters got their name--no long reach. A reach means greater reaction time, and that can cause problems in races (which I have not done). I had DT shifters for years, and the one-handed shifting was not a problem. That was an advantage, I thought. I have since changed them out to bar end shifting, which I like much more, but has a greater amount of wire, tubing, etc. so maintenance is not quite so nice. But for me, it was simply the reach that I did not like.

John

grolby

Well then, how would you know? Like I said, I've raced with them. It greatly depends upon the course. I've won a field sprint (for 5th, mind you) with DT shifters. Integrated shifters are definitely better, but smart tactics and good legs are a lot more important. Of course, it is best by far to have all three.