Originally Posted by
KonAaron Snake
Without STI hyperglide's advantages are minimal. In fact, I'd argue non-existent since they require more maintenance.Your argument fails because the Trek is still an older bike without a clear component advantage. We're not comparing single pivot to dual, we're not comparing steel rims to alloy. The differences between these bikes are, besides actual street value (where the Trek loses), the frames and the type of ride the OP is looking for. If he wants a faster, stiffer frame with a sportier feel...and that will transmit road sensation through his bones...the Trek is his choice. If he's looking for a bike to enjoy riding, capable of taking on paths, able to carry books and supplies...it's the Univega.
As for the art of friction shifting, I think this "art" is seriously over stated. It takes a few weeks, maximum, to get proficient with them. It's not a big deal. It took me a couple of days, and I'm an uncoordinated oaf. The difficulty of using friction shifters is seriously exaggerated.
FFS. More crap.
You want to talk about painful maintenance? I'll take indexed shifting over bloody stupid cantis anyday.
HG's advantages can be felt through a friction shifter; don't be a dolt. The chain does not disengage from the sprockets during a shift. Massive advance. The Trek is a significantly younger bike with an
incontrovertible (except to C&Vers, evidently) component advantage.
That frame isn't an arse-hammerer either (I've ridden one). Look at the size of the tubes.
I said it was a pain to (friction) shift
plain cogs. That let the chain jump under power during a shift.
Why pretend there's no such thing as progress? It's unadulterated idiocy.