trashion

Are shifter and brake cable housing interchangeable? That is, if I buy some advertised "brake cable housing" to replace both the brake and shifter cable's current housing, that will be ok? I know the cable itself isn't, just wondering about the housing.

Mondoman

Nope; aside from being designed for different diameter cables, the shifter housing (assuming you are using index shifting) is "compressionless" for precise shifting, while the brake housing is designed for strength. Thus, using brake housing on a shifter cable will likely lead to sloppy index shifting.

trashion

Well, drat. Thanks.

Mondoman

Buying another bike is an excellent way to use up extra brake housing...

trashion

Oh I wish! Parents are already mad about the 3 I have.

Retro Grouch 

Actually, that's a question that has a changing answer.

Back in the days when men were men and bike frames were steel, brake and shifter housing were interchangable.

When index shifting came out, the minor compression that common housing allowed screwed up the shifting. Consequently compressionless shift housing was required. Brakes, on the other hand, required more robust housing so different products were required. Until recently, that would have been the only correct answer.

Today cable operated disc brakes are changing that. Disc brakes don't like cable housing to compress. Consequently, if you look for it, you can find compressionless housing that works equally well for shifters or brakes.

Sixty Fiver

With the old friction systems one could use the same housing but indexed housing will not stand up to the compression that braking forces generate as it's strength is more linear in nature.

If you look at indexed housing it has many small strands of wire running lengthwise and an inner plastic liner while basic brake housing has a heavier steel banding and no liner.

Apply braking forces to a shifter housing over time and it can weaken and come apart / explode which could be catastrophic.

Mr. Fly

That term "compressionless" is a terrible misnomer. These type of housing are really not strong along the length of the housing. They should be called "constant length" housing since what they do provide is a constant end-to-end length, even when flexed, so that the inner cable is not affected by any flex and therefore does not actuate a shift. If brake housing was used for shifters, every time the housing is flexed, the inner cable will move relative to the housing and shifter adjustment will be off.

A brake housing is much more "compressionless" than the so-called "compressionless" shifter housing when any significant force is applied, such as when one wants to actuate a brake.

[Ref]

zacster

You CAN use brake housing for shifters, but not the other way around. Don't use shifter housing for brakes. If you do use brake housing for shifters though, what everyone says is true, the shifting won't be great. Back in the old days of downtube friction shifters it didn't matter because the length of housing was short, just one loop from the stop to the derailleur.

I wonder if some of the newer hi tech brake housing would be better. That stuff is tough and I can't see how it would compress.

xenologer

I use brake cables for both and it's fine.
Not interested in having shifter cables burst when they get old, plus brake cables are a lot easier to cut cleanly when installing.

kycycler

Brake housing is spiral wound. Shift cable is straight. Look at the end of the housing without the end cap on. You will see that the brake cable has the steel lining is wound and on the shift cable you will see the strands are straight.

operator

Let me guess, you don't actually own any bikes past 7 speed.

Garthr

Friction shifting takes some actual brain input and skill to do.... yes? I've used the Shimautomatic shifting ...... and went back to friction. It's great being able to use the same cable for shifting and brakes. It's great being able to use any shifter/derailleur/cassette/freewheel/crankset/BB. I've used friction for anywhere from 6 to9 speeds, but man..... 9 is wasteful. With a 7 speed 26/44/48 I get 17 distinct, usable gears. With a 9 speed cassette on the same crank I get the same 17! Why bother? I went back to the 7, super strong wheels(only a touch of dish w/135mm spacing), and I don't have to crank the shifters so much.

joejack951

True dat! I just love shifting chainrings in the middle of a steep climb

xenologer

Of course not.
9 speeds use wimpy chains that can't reuse pins, and their shifting is less tolerant of the housing compression. I like my bikes to be bulletproof.
Range is more important that the number of gears anyway, just mix and match the cassete for what you want.

HillRider

So does a car with a non-synchronized manual transmission. Do you drive one of those?

mike_s

So how well is that Autobike holding up for you?