reburns

When our T2000 was new in 2005 it came equipped with an ultegra 9 speed drivetrain using Shimano 53/42/30 rings and an ultegra FD. I installed a jump stop and backed out the low limit screw on the FD, and life was good: crisp shifts up or down through all 3 rings.

The last time we wore out the middle ring, I had to choose between a Shimano 39T or some other brand 42T as a replacement. I decided to stick with Shimano. Shifting was still "okay" but FD adjustment was definitely more finicky, and we would sometimes get some grinding on the middle to big ring shift. I replaced the ultegra FD with a Dura Ace made for that combo in triple from that era, which was an improvement. But one day we were accelerating to catch up with friends and we still ground the 39-53 shift until we backed off the power.

One day with too much time on my hands I decided to splurge on the Wickwerks 53/39/30 triple which they occasionally have available. The good news: wow, the 39-53 shift is immediate every time. Same with the 30-39 up shift. The bad news: we couldn't downshift from the middle to the granny unless we spun faster and then backed off the power. It seems like the ramps on the Wickwerks middle just wouldn't let go of the chain. Also, although a smaller issue, when riding in the middle ring, the chain would grind against the ramps of the big ring when the RD is in the smallest 3 cogs.

I've now replaced the Wickwerks 39T middle with the Shimano 39T and now it seems like I have probably the best of all worlds. I can once again drop into the granny while under moderate power, and both up shifts are still immediate and flawless. No need to coddle FD shifts or for extra communication with the stoker. I still rub the Wickwerks big ring with the chain when in the smallest 3 cogs, but that's a combo I don't need to use if I'm aware of what's happening.

I'm still not a fan of the 53-39 transition; although it always works quickly, I often double shift with the RD as the jump feels too big. Now that I've ended up with a brand mixture anyway, I might try a 42T middle from TA or FSA and see if I can retain the shifting perfection we currently enjoy. The other experiment I might consider is moving to a 28T granny.

Carbonfiberboy 

Cool. We run 53-39-26 with Ultegra 9-speed shifters. I do have to call the middle to granny shift so Stoker can back it off, or just get it done early before the hill steepens much. Otherwise, the chain just stays on the middle ring. I also have to call for us to "spin it up", then back off to get from granny to middle. None of that bothers me. I love the gearing. We have no problems middle-to-big or the reverse.

marciero

Was exactly the problem I was having that I described in the other thread, though is 10sp. in my case. IME 9 speed much simpler to work with. I have DA 7703 9speed triple on my CoMotion and have gotten good results with 54-44-26 and now 54-41-28. Those were FSA and now FSA-TA-Sugino (big-to-small). With the 10 sp setup on our C-dale, I also swapped to Wickwerx. The FSA was fine except for the occasionally (once every three or four rides) not shifting into the big. I finally got the Wickwerx to work acceptably by bending the outer plate in. But am now considering just swapping back the middle ring. We never had problem small to middle shift. Did not occur to me that those ramps were contributing to the problem.

oldacura

I have no experience with STI on a tandem. Our old bike is 3x8 Ultegra with bar-end shifters. 54t/44t/30t. The front shifter is friction (rear is indexed). For the most part, front shifts are pretty smooth. Rear shifts are immediate. I still find it helpful (sometimes necessary) to call out "shift". It may be possible to shift under load but still not a good idea. Shifting under load is hard on most everything (derailleurs, cogs & chain).

Our new Calfee is 2x11 Ultegra Di2. We adopted this because everyone that has it raves about it. I'm still getting used to it. My current view is that Di2 may be a solution to STI on a tandem - but not "better" than bar-end shifters.

Di2 would probably work well if one is willing to live with limited gear range. It doesn't work without compromises on our setup: 34f x 36r (low) to 52f x 11r (high). While it is possible to shift without informing my stoker, it doesn't work that great and still puts a lot of stress on the drivetrain.

Rudy & Kay have a lot of miles on their bar-end equipped tandem. They swear by it. Many here wouldn't think of going bar end but I can see how it may provide the best shifting for a wide gear range.

This is another case of: There is no "best" - only compromises that work best for each of us.

zonatandem

Yup, still using bar end shifters!
Several years back we test rode the new Shim DI-2 and after less than 2,000 miles (after some issues) went back to a triple setup and bar end shifters.
DI-2 system has been improved, but hey,the old mechanical stuff works great!
Pedal on TWOgether!
Rudy and Kay/zonatandem

Photo os us in 2015 during our 3-month sojourn in Logan, UT

twocicle

Are you finding the shifting not good, or just don't like the gear combos?
Which mfr/model rings and chain are are installed?

Carbonfiberboy 

STI is kinda nice, in that one is never tempted to hold an unfavorable gear because shifting is a tiny hassle. The bigger thing is being able to shift out of the saddle, which we do all the time on our mechanical STI 3X9 speed, though never the front ring. That's really the big reason to go STI IME.

Monoborracho

We have just spent two weeks cycling in Solvang, Pebble Beach, and Geyserville/Sonoma area on our tandem. The second day of our vacation the 6703 left/front shifter quit working. This was my second time to experience this and the shifter was pretty new, less than a year and no more than 1000 miles. It gave it up just like the first time, sticky shifting for a few times, the just nothing. So that's my SECOND shifter to quit. The first time we were stuck in the TX hill country, 10 miles out of town, in the big ring. So I cut the cable to put it in the granny and get home. This time we were about 5 miles south of Solvang and stuck in low gear, so we pedaled on in. Neither shifter EVER shifted with the crispness and quickness of the 9 speed Ultegra I had on our old Burley.

I repurposed my bar end shifter, usually used for the third brake on the rear rim, and used it for the front D/R the rest of our trip.

I like it. It's smooth, I never have to look down or ask the stoker which ring I'm in, and it's simple.

We're headed through Moab for a one day ride on Tuesday and then on to CenTX. I'm seriously, really, thinking of changing the front permanently, maybe with set of Rivendell shifters and forget the STI. I ran bar ends on one or another bike for 20 years.

zonatandem

Old school mechanical ****ing works great, so we stick with it.
R & K, zonatandem

twocicle

We had similar "sticky" 6703 shifter issues. The internals are a bit finicky especially if grime is present or insufficiently lubed (sometimes by over doing the wash/spray routine). Salty air is another possible problem. I resolved our shifter issue by liberally spraying the internals with teflon lube. That action washed out grime and presto, the shifters worked fine thereafter.

FWIW, maybe consider disconnecting the cable from the FD rather than cutting it. You did have a 5mm hex key (allen wrench) handy, correct?

oldacura

As I gain more experience with Di2 I'm liking it better. However, because we wanted a big range, the jump between the front rings is big (52x34). I think that if we could live with a smaller range, I would like it better.

If Shimano can do a 3x11 for Di2 XTR, I don't see any reason they couldn't do 3x11 Di2 Ultegra.

waynesulak

I think that they could make a 3x11 Ultegra (or XT or whatever) but haven chosen not to because they do not feel it is the way to make the most money. Looking at low customer demand for triples, Shimano has decided that the marketing of wide range doubles, user desire for electronic shifting, and a lack of electronic triple competition will keep them from loosing customers. There is really no need from their perspective to incur the expense of supporting another product.

I have been hoping for a lower grade group electronic triple but sadly those of us that want triples are left with maintaining older mechanical systems or XTR. The decision to not move the mountain electronic triple down to other groups makes me expect that it might be dropped altogether soon.

Too bad, electronic shifting if it is as good as described on this forum it means there is little reason not to have more closely spaced triple rather than a double. The arguments of a triple's added complexity and degraded shifting evaporate if Di2 works well.

twocicle

Sorry, I just don't understand Shimano's mindset on why they would offer a XTR Di2 triple and not offer a triple in any other level for Mtn and none for any Road Di2 whatsoever. They just released the XT Di2 and no triple. This is really irking me.

Shimano has proven the XTR Di2 triple works fine, so it seems there is no good excuse not to offer it as a Road triple too. My reasoning for this statement is that these days there are very few Mtn bikes, if any, offering a triple setup. Walk into any modern, non-dept store bike shop that sells decent stuff and you will find the vast majority of those Mtn bikes are 1x rings only. By "vast majority", I'm seeing like 90%, with very few multi-rings on the floors.

Looking at the Road bike market, not only do you have the pavement bikes, but also gravel grinders and the trekking people too. IMO the market for a Road triple is far larger than whatever might still exist in the Mtn format.

oldacura

I agree entirely. I can see how killing the front derailleur has merit. A front derailleur has always been & will always be a crude device. I has to shift the tension side of the chain and no one has come up with an elegant way to do this. However, it is about the only way to get a wide gear range. New mountain bike rear cassettes can deliver a 4:1 range (10x40 cassette) and I have heard that a 10x50 can be found. However, I'm not sure that a rear derailleur shifting this wide a range would be a better solution than a more modest rear range in combination with multiple rings.

On our old mechanically shifted bike, we had more than a 5:1 range (54x44x30 front) with 11x32 rear with no big jumps. Trying to achieve that with 2 rings up front is pretty difficult whenever I want to shift the front.

The vast majority of Shimano's market is single bikes so they think they can deliver an acceptable range without a front derailleur.

However, if one accepts the compromise of a front derailleur, whether it is 2x or 3x would seem to affect the performance (and cost) very little.

mtseymour

Shimano is just responding to market demand. Why would it offer a Di2 triple if it's not profitable?

IMHO, Shimano XTR Di2 was only offered as a triple to showcase Synchro shifting, and regain the momentum from Sram 1x11. Those who can afford XTR Di2 would typically use 2x11 (for racing) or 1x11 for freeriding. For technical singletracks (or even moderately challenging terrain), a triple drivetrain is not desirable because of the potential for mis-shifts or dropped chain. Most mtn bikers can spin over a wide range of cadence, and are not obsessed about close-ratio gearing. It's much more important to get reliable downshifts to avoid the dreaded walk up a technical climb. Another reason is that a 1x11 drivetrain allows the rear suspension to be optimized for efficiency and suspension travel. A granny tends to make a full-suspension bike "bob" under hard pedaling, and removing the front derailleur provides room for better pivot locations (eg. Santa Cruz VPP linkage). So Shimano would sell far more XT Di2 in 2x11 or 1x11 than in 3x11.

Most roadies who are willing to pay for Di2 want to avoid triple cranks due to the higher weight and less reliable shifting. These keen roadies are also fit enough that they don't need a triple. They will take spin classes (using Powermeters) over the winter or do group training for century rides. Gravel grinders are a small niche group, and seem to be happy with mechanical 2x11 drivetrain using larger cassettes (34 of 40T). Ask any LBS about the demand for Di2 road triple and the response will be lukewarm at best.

fietsbob

Mix it Up ,, put the electronics on the rear , mechanical on the front..

the Tandem market is too small to merit the special kit, be made for it.

waynesulak

I am disappointed as well not to have a triple available at a reasonable price. Companies are always looking for ways to cut the number of models without loosing sales. It just save costs on supply chain inventory and support. For example you are irked but what are your options? SRAM?, Campy ? there are no electronic triple options so Shimano still sells you a brand new Di2 system gets the revenue and save costs at the same time.

I am stocking up on Campy shifter parts to keep rebuilding for quite a while. I would buy a mid level electronic road or mtn triple if it could be made to shift 50/36/24 rings well but it does not look like that will be available.

oldacura

I agree. We are a niche market: tandem application, older demographic who need low gearing to climb hills and want high gearing to speed down hills. We are likely not a big enough market to bother with.

I am also a member of another niche group: Alpine Snowboarding. Think carving turns on a groomed run on a snowboard. Similar demographics. Mostly old guys. However there are a few North American suppliers who cater to this small niche (boards, bindings & boots).

I think that Shimano could meet our (my) needs but it just may not be worth their while.

fietsbob

Perhaps, drop By the Osaka HQ and chat them up.

mtseymour

A Di2 road triple is definitely feasible, but I doubt that it's viable from a business point of view. The bike industry is mature with slowing growth, esp in the premium market. In 2015, US bike sales dropped by 2%. Cannondale's recent quarterly profit decreased by 50% from 2015. As a result, more LBS are stocking urban bikes, e-bikes and affordable road bikes (Ultegra or 105 level). Shimano's shareholders will be understandably unhappy if it launches the Di2 road triple and can't break-even.

twocicle

Well, maybe e-bikes are the new triple. Seeing a surprising number around downtown Coeur d'Alene.

I can sort of see the argument that roadie single bikes needing a triple are just not cool these days. E-bikes aren't exactly the hipster thing to do either (pref to single speeds), but then riding with earbuds they can't hear me mutter derogatory comments as we skinny past.

Can't be bothered to think about business models these days. My mind is badly fragmented with e-trash and gizmo noise like how a Shoka might actually make any money. I'd estimate a total sales volume of about 5 worldwide.

Forget the triples they say. What this world really needs is a Strava Toilet category.

reburns

An update on my decade old Shimano STI drivetrain. I replaced the 39T FC 5603 chain ring with a 42T from FSA. I prefer the 53-42 shift because often when I shift from 53-39, I end up immediately up shifting the RD to keep a comfortable cadence. The DA FD 7703 I'm using is specified for a minimum 14T jump between middle and outer chain rings, and I can see why. The inner cage just barely clears the teeth of the 42T ring when the height is adjusted for the outer cage to just barely clear the outer ring. But that makes the shifts work really well despite the violation of the spec. The downside is touchier trimming when in the middle ring. I can switch back to my ultegra FD 6503 which can be setup for almost no trimming necessary when using a 42T middle, but the shifts are not as quick or crisp as with the Dura Ace FD.

I can understand the appeal of a barcon for the FD. Front derailleurs are necessarily a mix of art and science and a bit of a kludge with their specialized and unique cage profiles. What I am running now almost acts like a combination brifter/barcon with the trimming characteristics. I think the brifter action may help shift quicker, which maybe reduces the need to lighten pedal pressure.

I've never had any problem with shifting the XT RD that couldn't be fixed with basic maintenance and adjustment, so I guess I still don't quite get the appeal of DI if you're after a drivetrain with a dynamic range >5.