View Single Post
Old 01-23-15 | 03:30 PM
  #30  
Tim_Iowa's Avatar
Tim_Iowa
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 6
From: Cedar Rapids, IA

Bikes: 1997 Rivendell Road Standard 650b conversion (tourer), 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10 (gravel/tour), 2013 Foundry Auger disc (CX/gravel), 2016 Cannondale Fat CAAD 2 (MTB/winter), 2011 Cannondale Flash 29er Lefty (trail MTB)

Originally Posted by Airburst
I'd add my vote to these as well - setting up triples with indexed shifting is a complete PITA, and front friction shifting would allow you to completely eliminate that.
Agree. Especially if you are changing the rings from the stock size.

Modern Shimano front index shifters don't move as much on each shift (compared to campy, or most older triple setups). They partly rely upon the ramps and pins on the chainrings to "pull" the chain. And those ramps and pins are designed for a specific combo of rings (which is why some rings are labeled 50/39 or 39/30).

This means that you should stick with the stock ring sizes, which are all 50/39/30 for their modern offerings.

Alternatives:
Campagnolo -- front shifters aren't indexed; you click till you get what you want. But they still are happiest with the stock ring combos.
Friction -- bar-ends, thumb shifters, downtube, or Gevenalle. Shift as much or as little as you want, trim on the fly, etc. Perfectly happy with any ring combo you can come up with. MTB/Touring triples offer combos like you describe.

You are correctly worried about Shimano's triple offerings. They've hamstrung their front STI shifters so much that people don't want what they offer. Instead of improving the product so people want it, they just stop offering it.

Personally, I use bar-ends / Campy 8 speed Ergos on my 2 triple-equipped bikes.
Tim_Iowa is offline  
Reply