Originally Posted by
seypat
So, pick your drivetrain. A double in front and whatever you want in back. You are hammering down a hill on your big/small combo. At the bottom you come to an up that sends you to your small/big combo, or close to it. You top that hill and back to your big/small combo. Each time you are hitting those STIs to move that drivetrain however many cogs it takes. All of those other 2-3 cog shifts as well.
Same situations with friction, you move 1 or both levers 1 time each to get to the gear you want. Over the course of a long ride, that is a lot less moving of the shifting levers. I know what the advantages of STIs/indexing are, and have tried them. For the riding I do I prefer friction.
Originally Posted by
joejack951
I have never desired to go from big/small to small/big as one change, and I ride some pretty hilly terrain. If I ever even need to downshift the front without going up a few cogs in the rear I'd guess that I was totally sleeping/ignoring the signs that I should have been shifting long ago.
This. The movement of the derailleurs needs to be the same in both cases. I don't see how having friction prevents a dropped chain or poor reaction. If anything its easier because as you carry your momentum into the 10% hill you can shift while standing easily with STIs and continue to bang out gears without missing a beat. I've ridden friction plenty and never felt like either was limiting, and I've never felt at the end of a ride that I spent too much time shifting, usually just too much time suffering. I know steep hills with poor run ins. I ride and commute in seattle and the greater PNW.