Originally Posted by
Andy_K
-snip-
1. The average rider in hilly terrain wasn't strong enough to live with a 52-39 crankset and the 12-27 cassette that had become the de facto maximum wide-range for 8/9/10-speed road bikes.
2. Indexed triple shifting always worked sporadically when set up by average mechanics and not maintained by riders.
3. Compact doubles were introduced to give non-heroic riders the wide gear range that they needed while simplifying the front shifting set up.
4. Indexed double shifting isn't generally superb, but it is generally acceptable. The move to compact doubles nudging shifting quality down a bit and led to more dropped chains.
5. The jump in gear between a 50T chainring and a 34T chainring leads to unsatisfactory shift patterns.
6. With the advent of 10-speed cassettes it became possible to create wider range cassettes while still maintaining reasonable spacing between gears. This is even more true with 11-speed.
7. With 11-34 cassettes available, it became possible to provide a good range of gears with a simple shift pattern using a 1x10/11 setup.
-snip-
I agree with the post above mine. A lot of good points here. But one thing I don't get is this.
When was indexed front shifting considered unsatisfactory? Both... actually... ALL of my indexed front shifting bikes (2 roads, 2 mtn) work fine. Both of the roads shifts are snappy and the one mountain is... ok, but I wouldn't want to try friction on the mountain when I need to drop a chainring in a hurry. Sometimes (because the bike is involved in many falls) the front shifting gets off, but a bit of adjustment brings it back. I certainly wouldn't COMPLAIN about it, even with the cheap parts I'm using.
I never knew people considered indexed front shifting bad? I mean, sure, I LOVE friction front shifting, but indexed isn't... bad, by any means. Provided it's kept in adjustment.