Harold74

Thanks. I agree that the Ti looks small. She's showing a lot of seat post and cockpit riser voodoo. In a way, it's sort of an optical illusion though. With the sloped top tube, the seat post still measures 58 cm to the clamp. And the effective top tube measures 60 cm. And that's about spot on for me at 6'-1.5" and 32" inseam with slightly long arms. I'd say that the only way in which the bike truly "doesn't' fit" is with respect to the shortness of the top tube. The stack to reach ratio is low in a way that is not compatible with my level of flexibility and postural aggressiveness.

I very nearly sold the bike a couple of years ago when it still had the triathlon setup. I knew that I wouldn't get squat for it though and we'd had some good times together. So I figured that, before I sold her, I'd see if I could make her comfortable if I pulled out all of the stops with respect to cockpit adjustment. And, low and behold, that worked. So now I'm very committed to a fine fitting, somewhat goofy looking bike. A bike with a rare, 1" threadless steerer tube no less. I just bought a new Ritchey Comp fork for it partly because I crashed it (no discernable damage) and partly just in case something happens in the near future when there are no more decent 1" threadless forks available.

I often wonder who the target rider was that the Ti bike was designed for. Some very aero conscious, long torso-ed, short legged fellow.

Harold74

There is no difference in cable clearance. As I mentioned previously, both setups have the cable bumping into the dust cover thing in a similar fashion. The difference is that the contact affects the performance of my downtube shifters but does not seem to affect the performance of brifter setup at all.

shelbyfv

Will you continue circling the bowl with this idea, regardless? All you really know is that combo of FD, shifters and your setup doesn't work as you think it should. The discovery that the derailleur works fine with others shifters (and has for the 25+ years it's been in use) does nothing to support your notion. You've learned something about setup in this thread, now try the shifters with another FD or another set of downtube shifters with your FD.

Harold74

I'm not circling the bowl. I was satisfied with what I learned here some time ago and have only continued the conversation to answer questions folks have asked me. That last one was yours. Is that not proper decorum in an online forum?

No, I now know a great deal more than that. I know that:

1) The setup doesn't work as I think it should.

2) Someone else with the same group set has experienced the same contact issue and was similarly put off by that.

3) The contact issue does not affect the performance of brifter setups.

4) I likely have not set the derailleur or cabling up incorrectly.

5) The contact issue does not appear to be a design flaw.

6) I know a bunch of common factors that might lead to an improper setup that would tend to cause contact.

7) I've learned that not all cranks are compatible with all front derailleurs but mine are.

8) FD cables need naught be taut and, perhaps, ought not be taut.

.... a bunch of other stuff that I don't have time to list for you needlessly.

It wasn't my notion. It was Crankycrank's. And I thought it polite to return to his comment to let him know that he was correct.

Thanks. I'm glad to have your permission to resort to trial and error. I never would have thought of that.

shelbyfv

Systematic troubleshooting is not the same as trial and error. Most people understand this. However, either is more likely to solve a problem than noodling/ sounds good to me.

Harold74

Alright. So, how do I systematically troubleshoot the method that you described below without just "trying stuff". What is the grand strategy that I should employ? And how do I figure out what that should be without doing some of that "noodling" that you clearly disdain?

Obviously, I don't understand as well as "most people". Feel free to speak to me as you would a child.

What I learned about the setup was, primarily, that I set it up correctly from the get go. So not much of a teachable moment there. No new lever to pull on that front.

tFUnK

Interesting comparison with the second bike. So we learned that the tension introduced by the cable/roller contact is a non-issue with indexed shifting but enough to be a problem for friction shifting.

smd4

Then the only conclusion is that the integrated shifter must relax the cable slightly more when the chain is on the small ring, compared with the friction DT lever.

tFUnK

I see it differently: I think the index ratchet overcomes the force imparted by the cable/roller contact, preventing further relaxation of the cable, whereas the friction force within the friction shifter is subject to slipping from the tension caused by the cable/roller contact.

smd4

But what I think he’s saying is the tension on the cable, in contact with the spring dust cover, is forcing the FD to the right. Tightening a friction lever won’t stop this from happening. The same cable tension, using an integrated shifter, will not keep the FD from moving, if it is in fact the tension of the cable that is moving the FD.

tFUnK

Yes we agree that the tension on the cable introduced by the contact can be making the FD move right. My thought is that the ratchets inside the indexed STI shifter prevents the FD from moving despite this tension, but in friction shifting, the friction force is not strong enough to prevent the FD movement.

shelbyfv

Or.... Note that OP has yet to establish that his shifter works properly by trying it with a different derailleur. OP started with the presumption that the cable/roller contact was causing some sort of irresistible tension due to faulty design and this has persisted through the thread. That's despite multiple cable friction points being identified and OP admitting that he used some untoward method of adding even more tension to the cable. The problem, if it actually exists, will not be solved by speculation. Again, OP will have to systematically establish if his purported problem lies with the shifter or the derailleur. The process isn't complicated and that OP seems to be resistant to actually testing anything is strange. My take is OP is being deliberately obtuse for reasons of his own, so I'm gone.

tFUnK

It could well be that this was a known design risk but the intended use is for the FD to work with STI brifters, not friction. Were the bar end front shifters of that era friction or indexed?

smd4

Any tension on the cable, while the DT shifter is fully forward, won’t pull the shifter backward, no matter how loose it is.

There’s one pivot (of four) on the FD that is an Allen bolt. The rest are riveted. I wonder if tightening that pivot will tighten up the motion just enough to prevent the cable tension from moving the FD.

Harold74

This bike was set up with bar end shifters (triathlon) when I first started riding it in 2002. The front was not indexed and I do not recall it producing the same ghost shifting effect that I see now on the downtube shifters. That said, my impression of Shimano bar end shifters is that they are much less "light action" than one wants a downtube shifter to be. It is also possible for me to tighten the mounting bolt on my Dura Ace downtube shifter sufficiently to stop the ghost shifting. But, again, that reduces the light action feel unacceptably in my opinion. I have several friction downtube FD setups on non-indexed bikes and I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of what the actuation force ought to feel like.

Harold74

Interesting but doesn't one want the derailleur cage to be a feely moving as possible?

smd4

It could be overly loose. Do you want it to keep moving because a tensioned cable rests against it?

Do you want to solve the problem? Did you remove the dust cover as initially suggested? Try tightening the bolt?

smd4

I’ve explained earlier why your shifter tightness has nothing to do with your problem. Look elsewhere.

Harold74

Understand why you say this but there is, I believe, a complicating factor. One that, in retrospect, I should have mentioned before.

When the FD does its ghost shifting to the right, the shifter moves as well. They both migrate a new equilibrium position. This, logically, leads me to wonder if the shifter resting its move might also result in the FD not moving. This is speculation, of course, but is why I still feel that the tightness of the shifter remains in play as relevant information.

smd4

Then your shifter isn't resting on its forward stop. Once it's in the fully-forward position, all the cable tension in the world isn't going to move it forward any further.

All this discussion leads me to believe you are doing something wrong. Did you tighten that Allen pivot yet??

maddog34

i found the problem.

Harold74

Yes, but much less so in the aftermath of this thread. Now that I no longer feel that the problem is improper setup, I find that I'm more tolerant of the problem. Additionally, I'm deliberately riding at a lower cadence this season than I was previously. One of the consequences of that is that I'm using my larger gears more and my smaller gears less. There's a lot more big ring for me these days and the problem does not manifest itself there. The problem only really manifests itself on my lowest couple of gears.

Baring a solution that has not yet come to light, I plan do deal with this issue in the winter one of two ways:

a) Get over it and leave it as it is.

b) Swap the FD the a 10s unit. I have one on one of my other bikes and the structure of it is such that cable contact is geometrically impossible.

As I mentioned earlier, I am happy with what I've learned here and would be satisfied leaving things as they stand. That said, I would like to fix the problem while retaining the existing derailleur if that is possible. And I remain interested in any additional discussion that others are willing to have with me on this. That said, if anyone is experiencing fatigue on this, I certainly would not begrudge their exiting stage right to alleviate that.

Firstly, I don't believe that tightening the bolt in question would restrain movement of the dust cap. So that is not my concern with your solution.

My concern with your solution is that, from my perspective, it sounds radical. My understanding has been that derailleurs ought to be free moving and any resistance to motion should come from the shifter. And everything that I've seen on derailleur maintenance has these things in common.

1) It ends with a lubrication exercise of some sort.

2) No mention is ever made of tightening things up to increase friction within the derailleur.

That said, I'm entirely open to the possibility that you may be right. I might just need a little time to come around to your way of thinking.

No, neither of those. The bike in question is my primary training bike and I ride it 4-6 time each week. And Canadian summers are short. To the extend that I may engage swapping parts or physically modifying exiting parts, intend to leave that until the snow flies in order to avoid any interference with my riding. Yeah, these are minor modifications that I could surely execute and undo quickly. That said, I'm a busy guy and even a minor thing can disrupt my riding for a few days. Just last week, my cadence sensor died and I did a couple of rides indoors that I could have done outside because I hadn't gotten around to changing out the battery. And the weather was overcast, if still dry.

Harold74

How is that the problem? How could anything that I offer up as diagnosis here not be speculation? If I new the answer then, rationally, there would be no need for this thread and it wouldn't exist.

Is your expectation of me that I not assist in speculation regarding the problem in my own thread? Seriously?

Harold74

I am under no obligation to do this, just because you suggested it. I haven't done it because:

1) I take it as a self evident that this wouldn't be a problem with some different derailleur. I may eventually switch to a 105 10s FD for which it appears geometrically impossible for cable contact to occur.

2) As I mentioned above, this bike is my primary training bike at the moment. I'll not risk anything that puts it in jeopardy of being out of commission until the snow flies. At that time, I may entertain strategic trial and error exercises.

Why would I abandon that as a possible cause when nothing has been presented that would exclude it as a possible cause? You seem to think that I'm obligated to abandon my own ideas simply because you have different ideas. I feel no such obligation.

Harold74

Yes, your typical, dramatic exit in protest of some imagined slight. Will you not also threaten to add me to your ignore list? And then fail to follow through on that threat despite my encouragement to do so?

Seriously, please add me to your ignore list and refrain from contributing to any more of my threads. I'll miss your expertise but you clearly do not enjoy conversing with me. And, on my end, the value of your expertise is grossly outweighed by all the needless drama and angst. It's no bargain for me.

There's no need for everybody to chime in on every thread here. There's plenty to go 'round. Just avoid my threads and spare yourself the head banging. Please, do both of us this favor. Get me on that ignore list.