JohnDThompson 

Longer than that, actually. Sturmey-Archer 3-speed hubs had indexed shifting starting in 1903. Modern, derailleur-based indexed shifting is much newer, as you note, and has become pretty reliable, albeit more complex, and potentially more expensive and difficult to service than friction shifting (getting a frayed cable out of an STI lever can be a challenge, and replacing a worn unit is often more cost effective than rebuilding it, and some grip-shift units are not worth bothering trying to service). Friction vs indexed is analogous to manual vs automatic transmission in automobiles. There is a learning curve in achieving quick, reliable friction shifting, but as my music teacher daughter put it, it's like learning to play the trombone: practice enough and your hand eventually learns where it has to stop.

RCMoeur 

Sheesh. Someone starts a thread on shifting, and the next thing we get is the plot of a Manilow song.

(but such a song would have been popular during the Days of Friction, so it's all good)

ShannonM

Can we at least all agree that indexed front shifting, especially on doubles, is stupid?

Even when it works well, which it often does, it's pointless. GripShift and older Campy Ergopower show this clearly.

As to the larger question:

Indexed shifting is fine. Friction shifting is fine. I have, and have had, bikes with each. I have, and have had, no desire to spend any money to change any bike from one to the other.

Also, get off my lawn!

--Shannon

Atlas Shrugged

No we can not! The fact we are still discussing friction shifting is ridiculous. This is like defending the use of hand cranking starting cars after the implementation of the electric starter.

By the way triples have ended up in the dustbin of history as well.

ShannonM

Triples have ended up in the dustbin of marketing and manufacturing, not the dustbin of history.

They still exist, you can still buy them, and they still make just as much sense as they ever did, for the use cases for which they've always made sense.

Namely, those use cases for which overall gearing range needs to be maximized, and gaps between gears need to be minimized. Given the limitations of bicycle drivetrains, the only way to optimize both of those constraints is to add gears at both ends of the drivetrain. You pay a cost in mechanical complexity and ease of use, but.... TANSTAAFL.

And, to return to the argument I was actually making, what is the advantage of front indexed shifting on a 2 speed crankset? Or even a triple? I've had it on many bikes over the years, and it always worked reasonably well, (except for Shimano's why-in-the-hell-did-they-do-that road/ mtb front shifting incompatibility,) and I've never once thought that it was of any use whatsoever. There has literally never been a single front shift that I have ever made, or failed to make, in almost 40 years of riding multi-speed bicycles, where the presence or absence of an indexed front shifter would have made any difference.

At the rear end, there's an argument to be had.

But up front?

Nope.

--Shannon

PeteHski

I had indexed DT shifters on my road bike in the mid 80s through to early 90s. They worked fine and although they had the option to work in friction mode I never used that mode. I think mine was 6-speed Shimano 105. Had a Biopace 105 chainset too, lol

PeteHski

I never had these issues, even on my mountain bikes. So reliability for me is a moot point. My current main road bike doesn't even have any cables.

There are currently no advantages in DT shifting that would even remotely interest me. I'm old enough to have gone through all the developments in gear shifting from friction DT 5-speed onward. At no point along that 50 year journey have I ever wished to return to DT shifters or friction shifting.

RCMoeur 

"Cold dead fingers" and all that. Interestingly, I've been setting up several bikes as low-range-front doubles such as 40-24 or 36-22, as with 11-12s high cogs in back you don't need much in the front. Rather happy with the results. Typically put a cut-down worn-out chainring in the outer position as a chainguard.

(looks at my hoarded pile of neatly stored triple cranks, breathes a sigh of relief)

smd4

FIFY. Also, you could still get Dura Ace DT shifters for the 7900 group in 2008...

rsbob 

When this Campy index shifter first came out, it was a game changer. Then came the Ergo shifters on my other bike, and now Ultegra brifters on my other.

smd4

How was it a "game changer" when the game had already changed?

Atlas Shrugged

My recent adventure rig setup is 11 speed, 46-30 and 11-40, which is more range than legacy triples, indexes perfectly and is evenly spaced. Triples made sense decades ago when the derailleur technology of the time could not manage large ranges or gear differentials.

genejockey 

Yeah, that's why I said 1986 or so. I knew it was around then but I couldn't be arsed to look it up. I do know that my 1985 Centurion Ironman originally came with 6207 friction shifters, and that those were replaced in 1986 or 1987 by 6208 indexed shifters. Indeed, when I got it, the Ironman had 6208 shifters and RD, but as was common, all the tangs had broken off in the shifter so it only sorta indexed. I replaced them with 6207s, including the RD because the "slop" in the Centeron upper pulley wheel that works great for indexed shifting sometimes causes autoshifting or skipping under load when used with friction. Nothing quite like being in one gear, then standing on the pedals and suddenly being in another!

EDIT: Oh, yeah - DT shifters were available as late as that, but you'd have been hard pressed to find a new bike with them. I feel lucky to have a set of 8 speed RX100 DT shifters from 1995, because they were already going the way of the Dodo by then. I have them on a mid-90s Cannondale, and that big aluminum downtube amplifies the *clik!* sound wonderfully.

Wildwood

My apologies for not reading every post - especially if this point has been raised. My opinion coming from a shifting perspective of friction, Ergo and Di2 w/discs all in my current riding group - and simpatico with each technology.

Once you get used to any or all styles of shifting (given the 'needs of your ride' requirements) - I find it to be just as much a matter of hand comfort on the hoods, as the actual shifting itself. Narrowest hoods on friction, wider on integrated, widest (on many groupsets) on integrated with hydraulic disc.

I change hand positions a lot throughout most rides - so while (brake) hood size/shape isn't directly a shifting issue - it may be a consideration affected by the tech one selects. IMHO


I prefer narrow. Not a necessity for every ride, but...


Levers are always prettier in silver, fwiw.

DonkeyShow

With the indexed dt shifters do they click once then go back to center?

smd4

What do you mean? Like how integrated shift levers click and move back to where they were? If so, then no. DT levers click and stay. With my nine-speed, you pull the lever pretty far back--through eight separate clicks--to get it to the lowest gear.

genejockey 

Nope. The click once and stay where you put them. Indexed DT levers simply have detents for each gear, and the lever directly pulls the cable, rather than a pair of levers turning or releasing an internal ratchet wheel that pulls the cable.

It's an interesting idea - a lever that you push one direction to up shift and the other direction to downshift, but the lever returns to the same place. But a lot of us who ride with DT shifters like to be able to look quickly at the shifters to see what gear we're in. With brifters, it doesn't matter as much because you can shift while braking for a stop, or even shift while standing on the pedals, while with DT shifters you have to take one hand off the bars to shift, so you have to plan ahead.

smd4

In my eBay travels, just looking for random Dura Ace stuff I was surprised to see them for sale. For a long time I honestly thought my 7700 shifters were the last generation of DT shifters. Oops!

rsbob 

Game changer for me, since Ergo had yet to be invented and it was the precursor to modern shifting. For you, probably not so much. If you would like to debate it, knock yourself out.

delbiker1 

No, manually moved up or down to the next click to make the shift,

genejockey 

Because Shimano was still an upstart back then, and Campy dominated. Now? There was ONE team in the Giro d'Italia with Campy this year, IIRC.

smd4

Yikes! How the mighty have fallen!

Dura Ace was an upstart in 1973. By 1984 Dura Ace was just the writing on the wall for Campy. Campy didn't come out with its poorly-functioning Syncro until 3 years later...

genejockey 

I really like the Dura Ace stuff from the 80s and 90s. My first "serious" road bike was a Ritchey with 7410 DA that I bought in 1997, right after 7700 came out. I loved how it just worked. I kept the 7410 on the Ritchey till 2019. It's now a mix of 7410 with 7800 STIs and RD - too old and fat for 39x25 as my lowest gear!

Then I got a 1982 Lotus Supreme with 7200 DA, and started looking into the history. DynaDrive pedals, the freehub, the whole AX group, then SIS, then 7 and then 8 speeds, then STIs and dual pivot brakes. So much innovation in just a few years!

phughes

Works just fine with my nine speed cassette.

smd4

The 7400 stuff was my first love. As for the earlier DA, I've thought about purchasing a few pieces, just to collect and admire. Their AX stuff was way ahead of its time. Now all anyone can talk about is "aero." Shimano practically invented the concept.