Re: Upgrade 20 Year Old Trek 400 Road Bike?

[[email protected]]

Steve Sr. wrote:
> Bike gurus,
>
> I have a friend with about a 20 year old Trek 400 Road bike. I am
> guessing at the age so here are some more clues. The crank is a Sakae
> SX with 52-42 eliptical chainrings. The drive train is 6 speed in the
> rear with down tube friction shifters. The front der is Shimano
> FD-Z204. I didn't get a close look at the cluster or rear der but I
> suspect it is also Shimano.
>
> The first thing I would like to do is replace the eliptical chain
> rings with regular round ones as my friend claims knee problems from
> the eliptical ones which is why she has stopped riding it. I think
> this should be relatively easy to find a set of 52-39 rings with 130
> BCD for the existing crank.
>
> However, I have a question concerning the fact that the original drive
> train was 6 speed. I doubt that I will be able to find 6 speed rings
> and maybe even 7 speed rings. What will work best with this
> combination? How about what chains will fit the wider cogs in the
> rear? I couldn't find any 6 speed chains in my last trip to
> Performance. Any suggestions?
>
> I would like to take any upgrading slowly as I suspect that if I can
> solve the knee problem with the existing bike it would be much easier
> to convince her to spring for a newer bike that may be a bit more
> ergonomic and probably fit better.

New bike time. I am pretty sure the good quality Trek frames from that
time period all started with 600 or 700 numbering. Your frame is a run
of the mill chromoly frame. Fine enough frame. But not worth spending
money on. What you need is all new components. Ergo/STI, triple
crankset, dual pivot brakes that are easy for smaller hands to squeeze.
By the time you buy all of these parts, you might as well get a new
bike.

But since you are wanting to spend money.

52 is $25, 39 is $13
http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=81&subcategory=1032&brand=&sku=9279&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=

$8 for chain. Actually only $4 per chain if you get the double length
recumbent 8 speed chain.
http://www.nashbar.com/results.cfm?subcategory=1099&category=76&browse=&storetype=&estoreid=&brand=&searchbox=&start=1&orderby=price1&pagename=

Modern 6 speed freewheel. $20. 14-28 to get a lower gear. Although I
am sure you could put on a 7 speed freewheel too.
http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=87&subcategory=1109&brand=&sku=11695&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=

Nashbar dual pivot long reach calipers. $30. Easy to squeeze.
http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=69&subcategory=1014&brand=&sku=11499&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=

[maxo]

wrote:

> New bike time. I am pretty sure the good quality Trek frames from that
> time period all started with 600 or 700 numbering. Your frame is a run
> of the mill chromoly frame. Fine enough frame. But not worth spending
> money on. What you need is all new components. Ergo/STI, triple
> crankset, dual pivot brakes that are easy for smaller hands to squeeze.
> By the time you buy all of these parts, you might as well get a new
> bike.


Can you explain to us in layman's terms how new brifters and dual-pivot
brakes are going to help knee pain?

The OP didn't mention that the drivetrain was worn out, just inquired
about switching out the oval rings.

"upgrading" within reason would be cheap:

New chain: $20
New 7 spd freewheel: $20 (as they're almost always on sale)
Fresh Tektro brake levers, as the hoods are most likely shot: $15
Some cables: $10
Some sale tires: $20
Fresh brake shoes: $10

And so on.

With a modern chain and hyperglide freewheel, that bike should shift
better than new. A hundred bucks of bits and bobs should make a heck of
a difference.

[D'ohBoy]

Russell wrote:

> Your frame is a run of the mill chromoly frame.

531 is run of the mill? Certainly wasn't then. Still better than most
made, considering the entirety of road bike production.

But regarding upgrade costs to Ergo/STI, yah, wouldn't be cheap.

D'ohBoy

[Rick]

wrote:
> Steve Sr. wrote:
> > Bike gurus,
> >
> > I have a friend with about a 20 year old Trek 400 Road bike. I am
> > guessing at the age so here are some more clues. The crank is a Sakae
> > SX with 52-42 eliptical chainrings. The drive train is 6 speed in the
> > rear with down tube friction shifters. The front der is Shimano
> > FD-Z204. I didn't get a close look at the cluster or rear der but I
> > suspect it is also Shimano.
> >
> > The first thing I would like to do is replace the eliptical chain
> > rings with regular round ones as my friend claims knee problems from
> > the eliptical ones which is why she has stopped riding it. I think
> > this should be relatively easy to find a set of 52-39 rings with 130
> > BCD for the existing crank.
> >
> > However, I have a question concerning the fact that the original drive
> > train was 6 speed. I doubt that I will be able to find 6 speed rings
> > and maybe even 7 speed rings. What will work best with this
> > combination? How about what chains will fit the wider cogs in the
> > rear? I couldn't find any 6 speed chains in my last trip to
> > Performance. Any suggestions?
> >
> > I would like to take any upgrading slowly as I suspect that if I can
> > solve the knee problem with the existing bike it would be much easier
> > to convince her to spring for a newer bike that may be a bit more
> > ergonomic and probably fit better.
>
> New bike time. I am pretty sure the good quality Trek frames from that
> time period all started with 600 or 700 numbering. Your frame is a run
> of the mill chromoly frame. Fine enough frame. But not worth spending
> money on. What you need is all new components. Ergo/STI, triple
> crankset, dual pivot brakes that are easy for smaller hands to squeeze.
> By the time you buy all of these parts, you might as well get a new
> bike.

Poppycock. The 400 is a fine bike. My daily commuter is a 1988 model,
about 5000 of my 8000+ miles this year have been on this bike. Th OP
just needs a few, inexpensive updates to make a go at having this old
Trek be a useful bike.

> But since you are wanting to spend money.
>
> 52 is $25, 39 is $13

I got new Shimano 105 rings for less than that off E-Bay. I can find
Vuelta,Willow, Sugino, etc for equally low prices if I look.

>http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=81&subcategory=1032&brand=&sku=9279&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=
>
> $8 for chain. Actually only $4 per chain if you get the double length
> recumbent 8 speed chain.
> http://www.nashbar.com/results.cfm?subcategory=1099&category=76&browse=&storetype=&estoreid=&brand=&searchbox=&start=1&orderby=price1&pagename=
>
> Modern 6 speed freewheel. $20. 14-28 to get a lower gear. Although I
> am sure you could put on a 7 speed freewheel too.

Unless the freewheel is worn, why? The 400 of that era came with a
nice Shimano 14-28 freewheel. A 7sp would fit, but I bet he has SIS
shifters and would have to switch the right to friction mode if he went
with a 7 sp rear. But what would be the purpose; adding more gears in
the same range only makes sense if one is racing; no advantage for your
average rider to having 7 over 6 (or even 10 over 6 if the range is the
same).

>http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=87&subcategory=1109&brand=&sku=11695&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=
>
> Nashbar dual pivot long reach calipers. $30. Easy to squeeze.

Why? The single-pivots on the 400 are fine, maybe just some new pads.
KoolStop Continentals at < $10 a set would add stopping power
sufficient for most needs.

Why are you so blithe to throw away a useful bike, then equally blithe
at throwing away money on useless upgrades. New rings and a chain are
all the OP needs for now unless the teeth on the freewheel are too
worn.

BTW, my 18 year old 400 still has the original calipers, brake levers,
shifters (moved to bar-end), derailleurs, headset, and crankset. I
have the original platform pedals and use them occasionally. Just
replaced the cup and cone BB with a UN-52 to lower maintenance issues
in the winter. I replaced the stem and bars (bars needed replacing,
stem still OK just needed a longer one) a couple of years back. The
original freewheel died a little over a year ago due to the lockring
coming loose spilling tiny bearings all over the road. The new 6sp
Shimano 14-28 is supposedly the replacement, but not as nice as the
original I have the original hubs and one of the original rims, but my
1979 Phil Wood hubs are better so I use them instead.

- rick

[[email protected]]

maxo wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > New bike time. I am pretty sure the good quality Trek frames from that
> > time period all started with 600 or 700 numbering. Your frame is a run
> > of the mill chromoly frame. Fine enough frame. But not worth spending
> > money on. What you need is all new components. Ergo/STI, triple
> > crankset, dual pivot brakes that are easy for smaller hands to squeeze.
> > By the time you buy all of these parts, you might as well get a new
> > bike.
>
>
> Can you explain to us in layman's terms how new brifters and dual-pivot
> brakes are going to help knee pain?

Ergo/STI will reduce knee pain considerably because people actually
shift their gears when they can do it so easily. 20 years ago people
complained all the time about knee pain. Now you rarely ever hear that
complaint. Why? Ergo/STI makes shifting so much easier that everyone
shifts when they need to. No more grinding away in too hard of a gear
because the downtube shifters are so unfriendly to shift. And there
are bigger cogs available now days and triples too. 20 years ago it
was a rare, rare bike with a triple. And the biggest cog anyone had
was a 28 tooth. Modern bicycle parts have made biking far more
enjoyable for people.

>
> The OP didn't mention that the drivetrain was worn out, just inquired
> about switching out the oval rings.
>
> "upgrading" within reason would be cheap:
>
> New chain: $20

!!!!!!!! WOW. You are wasteful. Go over to Nashbar and get a chain
for $8 like I put in my post. Why would you spend that kind of money
on a friction shifting 6-7 speed chain?

> New 7 spd freewheel: $20 (as they're almost always on sale)

See my original post. $20 from Nashbar for 6 or 7 speed freewheel.

> Fresh Tektro brake levers, as the hoods are most likely shot: $15
> Some cables: $10
> Some sale tires: $20
> Fresh brake shoes: $10

You forgot to add the $40 for new rings from Nashbar, as I posted in my
original reply.

$150 plus someone with the knowledge to put the parts on and overhaul
the bike.


>
> And so on.
>
> With a modern chain and hyperglide freewheel, that bike should shift
> better than new.

Yes, but still downtube shifters that are the reason many people don't
like old bikes. Or ride old bikes and just leave them parked in the
garage, unridden, like this 20 year old Trek.


A hundred bucks of bits and bobs should make a heck of
> a difference.

[[email protected]]

D'ohBoy wrote:
> Russell wrote:
>
> > Your frame is a run of the mill chromoly frame.
>
> 531 is run of the mill? Certainly wasn't then. Still better than most
> made, considering the entirety of road bike production.

Trek used Reynolds 531 on 400 series bikes? The 600 and 700 yes. But
on the 400? Do you have links or some proof this bike used Reynolds
531? The way the person described the bike with a mix/mash of Shimano
and SR, it does not sound like a high enough bike to warrant Reynolds
531.


>
> But regarding upgrade costs to Ergo/STI, yah, wouldn't be cheap.
>
> D'ohBoy

[[email protected]]

Rick wrote:
> wrote:
> > Steve Sr. wrote:
> > > Bike gurus,
> > >
> > > I have a friend with about a 20 year old Trek 400 Road bike. I am
> > > guessing at the age so here are some more clues. The crank is a Sakae
> > > SX with 52-42 eliptical chainrings. The drive train is 6 speed in the
> > > rear with down tube friction shifters. The front der is Shimano
> > > FD-Z204. I didn't get a close look at the cluster or rear der but I
> > > suspect it is also Shimano.
> > >
> > > The first thing I would like to do is replace the eliptical chain
> > > rings with regular round ones as my friend claims knee problems from
> > > the eliptical ones which is why she has stopped riding it. I think
> > > this should be relatively easy to find a set of 52-39 rings with 130
> > > BCD for the existing crank.
> > >
> > > However, I have a question concerning the fact that the original drive
> > > train was 6 speed. I doubt that I will be able to find 6 speed rings
> > > and maybe even 7 speed rings. What will work best with this
> > > combination? How about what chains will fit the wider cogs in the
> > > rear? I couldn't find any 6 speed chains in my last trip to
> > > Performance. Any suggestions?
> > >
> > > I would like to take any upgrading slowly as I suspect that if I can
> > > solve the knee problem with the existing bike it would be much easier
> > > to convince her to spring for a newer bike that may be a bit more
> > > ergonomic and probably fit better.
> >
> > New bike time. I am pretty sure the good quality Trek frames from that
> > time period all started with 600 or 700 numbering. Your frame is a run
> > of the mill chromoly frame. Fine enough frame. But not worth spending
> > money on. What you need is all new components. Ergo/STI, triple
> > crankset, dual pivot brakes that are easy for smaller hands to squeeze.
> > By the time you buy all of these parts, you might as well get a new
> > bike.
>
> Poppycock. The 400 is a fine bike. My daily commuter is a 1988 model,
> about 5000 of my 8000+ miles this year have been on this bike. Th OP
> just needs a few, inexpensive updates to make a go at having this old
> Trek be a useful bike.

Only 8000+ miles? All internet bicyclists ride at least 10,000 miles a
year. The person does not want to ride an old bike. The person wants
a new bike to bring back the fun of riding.


>
> > But since you are wanting to spend money.
> >
> > 52 is $25, 39 is $13
>
> I got new Shimano 105 rings for less than that off E-Bay. I can find
> Vuelta,Willow, Sugino, etc for equally low prices if I look.

Do you really think a non-bicyclist or friend of bicyclist is going to
monkey around finding the cheapest parts over the next several years to
put on an old bike they don't ride?


>
> >http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=81&subcategory=1032&brand=&sku=9279&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=
> >
> > $8 for chain. Actually only $4 per chain if you get the double length
> > recumbent 8 speed chain.
> > http://www.nashbar.com/results.cfm?subcategory=1099&category=76&browse=&storetype=&estoreid=&brand=&searchbox=&start=1&orderby=price1&pagename=
> >
> > Modern 6 speed freewheel. $20. 14-28 to get a lower gear. Although I
> > am sure you could put on a 7 speed freewheel too.
>
> Unless the freewheel is worn, why? The 400 of that era came with a
> nice Shimano 14-28 freewheel. A 7sp would fit, but I bet he has SIS
> shifters and would have to switch the right to friction mode if he went
> with a 7 sp rear. But what would be the purpose; adding more gears in
> the same range only makes sense if one is racing; no advantage for your
> average rider to having 7 over 6 (or even 10 over 6 if the range is the
> same).
>
> >http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=87&subcategory=1109&brand=&sku=11695&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=
> >
> > Nashbar dual pivot long reach calipers. $30. Easy to squeeze.
>
> Why? The single-pivots on the 400 are fine, maybe just some new pads.
> KoolStop Continentals at < $10 a set would add stopping power
> sufficient for most needs.

NO. Single pivot brakes are not easy to squeeze for women. Period. I
always get a chuckle out of men with huge hands saying how easy it is
to use single pivot brakes. For women, particularly old ones, they
cannot brake from the hoods at all. Only from the drops. Why would
you put squealing Kool Stop pads on a bicycle? To drive the person
away from biking even more?


>
> Why are you so blithe to throw away a useful bike, then equally blithe
> at throwing away money on useless upgrades.

The person wants to spend money. I personally think its foolish to
upgrade this bike for a non-bicyclist. If you are a hardcore biker
with several bikes and still wear hairnets and ride 10,000+ miles a
year, then upgrade it for fun. But not for a person who wants to start
riding again. Get a nice modern bike with convenient easy to use
shifters and gears and brakes and let them ride and have fun. Not
monkey around with downtube shifters and too hard to squeeze brakes.
My recommendation is to sell the bike to some bike nut who wants to
upgrade the bike. Take the money and add lots and get a nice bike.

New rings and a chain are
> all the OP needs for now unless the teeth on the freewheel are too
> worn.
>
> BTW, my 18 year old 400 still has the original calipers, brake levers,
> shifters (moved to bar-end), derailleurs, headset, and crankset. I
> have the original platform pedals and use them occasionally. Just
> replaced the cup and cone BB with a UN-52 to lower maintenance issues
> in the winter. I replaced the stem and bars (bars needed replacing,
> stem still OK just needed a longer one) a couple of years back. The
> original freewheel died a little over a year ago due to the lockring
> coming loose spilling tiny bearings all over the road. The new 6sp
> Shimano 14-28 is supposedly the replacement, but not as nice as the
> original I have the original hubs and one of the original rims, but my
> 1979 Phil Wood hubs are better so I use them instead.

I had a 1981 Schwinn I rode for many years. It still had the original
crank and bottom bracket and headset. I changed out the derailleurs,
freewheel, shifters, bars due to breakage or upgrades back in the
early/mid 1980s. I restored/overhauled the bike back in 1999. I rode
it once. It was fun. I then donated it away. Ergo shifters and
modern bikes are so much nicer. But it was fun to relive the
nostalgia. But more enjoyable to ride a nice bike.


>
> - rick

[Rick]

wrote:
> Rick wrote:
..
> >
> > Poppycock. The 400 is a fine bike. My daily commuter is a 1988 model,
> > about 5000 of my 8000+ miles this year have been on this bike. Th OP
> > just needs a few, inexpensive updates to make a go at having this old
> > Trek be a useful bike.
>
> Only 8000+ miles? All internet bicyclists ride at least 10,000 miles a
> year.

The pretenders and poseurs claim to rid 10K+; I have documentation.

> The person does not want to ride an old bike.

And where did you get that non-fact?

>The person wants
> a new bike to bring back the fun of riding.

And old bikes can do that. Most new bikes are a big yawn.

>
> >
> > > But since you are wanting to spend money.
> > >
> > > 52 is $25, 39 is $13
> >
> > I got new Shimano 105 rings for less than that off E-Bay. I can find
> > Vuelta,Willow, Sugino, etc for equally low prices if I look.
>
> Do you really think a non-bicyclist or friend of bicyclist is going to
> monkey around finding the cheapest parts over the next several years to
> put on an old bike they don't ride?

One time task. All they need is one set of chainrings. If they do
that once, the bike will be good for years.
> >
> > Why? The single-pivots on the 400 are fine, maybe just some new pads.
> > KoolStop Continentals at < $10 a set would add stopping power
> > sufficient for most needs.
>
> NO. Single pivot brakes are not easy to squeeze for women. Period.
> always get a chuckle out of men with huge hands saying how easy it is
> to use single pivot brakes.

Unlike your dataless opinion, I have facts - my wife and friends who
ride single pivots with no problems.

> Why would
> you put squealing Kool Stop pads on a bicycle? To drive the person
> away from biking even more?

Don't squeal if you install them correctly. I have them on 4 bikes.
I have experience with them, which you apparently do not.

> > Why are you so blithe to throw away a useful bike, then equally blithe
> > at throwing away money on useless upgrades.
>
> The person wants to spend money. I personally think its foolish to
> upgrade this bike for a non-bicyclist. If you are a hardcore biker
> with several bikes and still wear hairnets and ride 10,000+ miles a
> year, then upgrade it for fun. But not for a person who wants to start
> riding again. Get a nice modern bike with convenient easy to use
> shifters and gears and brakes and let them ride and have fun. Not
> monkey around with downtube shifters and too hard to squeeze brakes.
> My recommendation is to sell the bike to some bike nut who wants to
> upgrade the bike. Take the money and add lots and get a nice bike.

Bike will only bring $100-200, at best. I deal in these. Not much
towards one of those overpriced, soulless, ugly plastic and beer can
models gracing most shops. And a lot more fun to ride. On my Trek
400 I can best most of my riding partners climbing the local hills -
them on their lightweight wonders and 10-20 years younger than I. Fun
to leave all these youngsters in the dust while they play with shifting
far too often.

> nostalgia. But more enjoyable to ride a nice bike.

So why don't you get one? Maybe the OP will sell you the 400 so you
can have one ...

- rick

[catzz66]

wrote:
>
>
> Trek used Reynolds 531 on 400 series bikes? The 600 and 700 yes. But
> on the 400? Do you have links or some proof this bike used Reynolds
> 531? The way the person described the bike with a mix/mash of Shimano
> and SR, it does not sound like a high enough bike to warrant Reynolds
> 531.
>
>

maxo provided this link earlier for a "400T"

http://www.vintage-trek.com/images/trek/1987/87Trek13.jpg

[[email protected]]

wrote:
>
> Ergo/STI will reduce knee pain considerably because people actually
> shift their gears when they can do it so easily. 20 years ago people
> complained all the time about knee pain. Now you rarely ever hear that
> complaint.

I don't know that either of those statements is true.

> And there
> are bigger cogs available now days and triples too. 20 years ago it
> was a rare, rare bike with a triple.


20 years ago, touring bikes were more popular than they are now, and
they almost always came with triples. Ours certainly did - bought in
1986. I think you're confusing fashion with availability.

> And the biggest cog anyone had
> was a 28 tooth.

Wrong again. I started using SunTour freewheels with 34 tooth cogs in
about 1975, IIRC. The touiring bikes we bought in '86 had 32 teeth in
back (and 28 in front, hard to find now).

I agree with those who say the OP's bike is worth keeping.

In fact, a very good friend of ours has a top-of-the-line Trek touring
bike from about the same era. She tells me the bike shop keeps telling
her it's antique, worth nothing, and should be replaced. But that's a
lie. She loves the bike and it suits her needs perfectly. The only
problems she's had came when the shop replaced some original parts with
"modern" stuff that worked badly for her - like a Mega-Range freewheel
(or some such thing) with a huge jump between the two biggest cogs.
Fortunately, I was able to repair their ... um, repairs.

Her riding style doesn't require lightning fast shifts, or
super-sensitive brakes, or over-skinny tires, or low-spoke-count
wheels, or integrated headsets, or carbon-fiber witchcraft.

Come to think of it, neither does mine.

- Frank Krygowski

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Ergo/STI will reduce knee pain considerably because people actually
> shift their gears when they can do it so easily.

Probably true, interesting perspective.

> And there are bigger cogs available now days and triples too. 20 years ago it
> was a rare, rare bike with a triple. And the biggest cog anyone had was a 28 tooth.

I don't know where you were cycling 20 years ago but here on planet
Earth triples and 34 tooth freewheel cogs were not "rare, rare". The
first quality bike I bought (in 1982 for $370) had 52-42-28 chainrings
and a 13-34 6-speed freewheel. In shopping around I found similarly
geared bikes by Trek, SR, Centurion, and Bridgestone. I don't think
triple geared road bikes were any more or less common than today.

(Just mentioning those brand names brings back memories).

Tom

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Ergo/STI will reduce knee pain considerably because people actually
> shift their gears when they can do it so easily.

Probably true, interesting perspective.

> And there are bigger cogs available now days and triples too. 20 years ago it
> was a rare, rare bike with a triple. And the biggest cog anyone had was a 28 tooth.

I don't know where you were cycling 20 years ago but here on planet
Earth triples and 34 tooth freewheel cogs were not "rare, rare". The
first quality bike I bought (in 1982 for $370) had 52-42-28 chainrings
and a 13-34 6-speed freewheel. In shopping around I found similarly
geared bikes by Trek, SR, Centurion, and Bridgestone. I don't think
triple geared road bikes were any more or less common than today.

(Just mentioning those brand names brings back memories).

Tom

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Ergo/STI will reduce knee pain considerably because people actually
> shift their gears when they can do it so easily.

Probably true, interesting perspective.

> And there are bigger cogs available now days and triples too. 20 years ago it
> was a rare, rare bike with a triple. And the biggest cog anyone had was a 28 tooth.

I don't know where you were cycling 20 years ago but here on planet
Earth triples and 34 tooth freewheel cogs were not "rare, rare". The
first quality bike I bought (in 1982 for $370) had 52-42-28 chainrings
and a 13-34 6-speed freewheel. In shopping around I found similarly
geared bikes by Trek, SR, Centurion, and Bridgestone. I don't think
triple geared road bikes were any more or less common than today.

(Just mentioning those brand names brings back memories).

Tom

[Mike Kruger]

"D'ohBoy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Russell wrote:
>
> But regarding upgrade costs to Ergo/STI, yah, wouldn't be cheap.
>
What about bar ends? Aren't those cheaper?

[Ozark Bicycle]

Mike Kruger wrote:
> "D'ohBoy" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Russell wrote:
> >
> > But regarding upgrade costs to Ergo/STI, yah, wouldn't be cheap.
> >
> What about bar ends? Aren't those cheaper?


Yes, much cheaper, and preferred by some of us. And they offer better
front shifting v. STI. Kelly TakeOffs are another option for bringing
the shift levers off the downtube without busting the budget.

[Ozark Bicycle]

wrote:
> wrote:
> > Ergo/STI will reduce knee pain considerably because people actually
> > shift their gears when they can do it so easily.
>
> Probably true, interesting perspective.
>

IMO, people began shifting more often when shifting became very
accurate and predictible; IOW, with the advent of Shimano SIS (indexed
rear shifting) in 1984-85. Unless you are a racer, STI is really a
non-essential gilding-of-the-lily, IMHO. It brings with it high cost,
non-serviceable shifters, a lack of a friction option and compromised
front shifting.

Now, did more frequent and convienient shifting result in reducing knee
pain? Perhaps, but no more so than advent of clipless pedals with
float, which led to the death of slotted cleats and tight straps.


> > And there are bigger cogs available now days and triples too. 20 years ago it
> > was a rare, rare bike with a triple. And the biggest cog anyone had was a 28 tooth.
>
> I don't know where you were cycling 20 years ago but here on planet
> Earth triples and 34 tooth freewheel cogs were not "rare, rare". The
> first quality bike I bought (in 1982 for $370) had 52-42-28 chainrings
> and a 13-34 6-speed freewheel. In shopping around I found similarly
> geared bikes by Trek, SR, Centurion, and Bridgestone. I don't think
> triple geared road bikes were any more or less common than today.
>
> (Just mentioning those brand names brings back memories).
>
> Tom

[Ozark Bicycle]

wrote:
> wrote:
> > Ergo/STI will reduce knee pain considerably because people actually
> > shift their gears when they can do it so easily.
>
> Probably true, interesting perspective.
>

IMO, people began shifting more often when shifting became very
accurate and predictible; IOW, with the advent of Shimano SIS (indexed
rear shifting) in 1984-85. Unless you are a racer, STI is really a
non-essential gilding-of-the-lily, IMHO. It brings with it high cost,
non-serviceable shifters, a lack of a friction option and compromised
front shifting.

Now, did more frequent and convienient shifting result in reducing knee
pain? Perhaps, but no more so than advent of clipless pedals with
float, which led to the death of slotted cleats and tight straps.


> > And there are bigger cogs available now days and triples too. 20 years ago it
> > was a rare, rare bike with a triple. And the biggest cog anyone had was a 28 tooth.
>
> I don't know where you were cycling 20 years ago but here on planet
> Earth triples and 34 tooth freewheel cogs were not "rare, rare". The
> first quality bike I bought (in 1982 for $370) had 52-42-28 chainrings
> and a 13-34 6-speed freewheel. In shopping around I found similarly
> geared bikes by Trek, SR, Centurion, and Bridgestone. I don't think
> triple geared road bikes were any more or less common than today.
>
> (Just mentioning those brand names brings back memories).
>
> Tom

[Ozark Bicycle]

wrote:
> wrote:
> > Ergo/STI will reduce knee pain considerably because people actually
> > shift their gears when they can do it so easily.
>
> Probably true, interesting perspective.
>

IMO, people began shifting more often when shifting became very
accurate and predictible; IOW, with the advent of Shimano SIS (indexed
rear shifting) in 1984-85. Unless you are a racer, STI is really a
non-essential gilding-of-the-lily, IMHO. It brings with it high cost,
non-serviceable shifters, a lack of a friction option and compromised
front shifting.

Now, did more frequent and convienient shifting result in reducing knee
pain? Perhaps, but no more so than advent of clipless pedals with
float, which led to the death of slotted cleats and tight straps.


> > And there are bigger cogs available now days and triples too. 20 years ago it
> > was a rare, rare bike with a triple. And the biggest cog anyone had was a 28 tooth.
>
> I don't know where you were cycling 20 years ago but here on planet
> Earth triples and 34 tooth freewheel cogs were not "rare, rare". The
> first quality bike I bought (in 1982 for $370) had 52-42-28 chainrings
> and a 13-34 6-speed freewheel. In shopping around I found similarly
> geared bikes by Trek, SR, Centurion, and Bridgestone. I don't think
> triple geared road bikes were any more or less common than today.
>
> (Just mentioning those brand names brings back memories).
>
> Tom

[bfd]

"Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> IMO, people began shifting more often when shifting became very
> accurate and predictible; IOW, with the advent of Shimano SIS (indexed
> rear shifting) in 1984-85. Unless you are a racer, STI is really a
> non-essential gilding-of-the-lily, IMHO. It brings with it high cost,
> non-serviceable shifters, a lack of a friction option and compromised
> front shifting.
>
I agree in part, STI may be all that, but perhaps the more important
consideration is that STI, or Ergo if you want a serviceable shifter that
DOES NOT compromise front shifting, makes riding *easier* for the average
person. In the old days of downtube friction shifters, shifting was this
strange thing that frustrated many. The easy hand on the hood access of STI
or Ergo makes shifting a joy and allows them to concentrate on enjoying
riding. Hey, IF that gets people riding, then its worth it.

[Dave Larrington]

In article om>,
) wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ergo/STI will reduce knee pain considerably because people actually
> > shift their gears when they can do it so easily. 20 years ago people
> > complained all the time about knee pain. Now you rarely ever hear that
> > complaint.
>
> I don't know that either of those statements is true.

Quite. I think I'm the only person on my commuting route who actually
changes down before coming to a halt and accelerates through the gears.
Everyone else is standing on the pedals heaving away from the lights.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
My only hope in life is to die before I get my comeuppence.

[Ozark Bicycle]

bfd wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> >> IMO, people began shifting more often when shifting became very
> > accurate and predictible; IOW, with the advent of Shimano SIS (indexed
> > rear shifting) in 1984-85. Unless you are a racer, STI is really a
> > non-essential gilding-of-the-lily, IMHO. It brings with it high cost,
> > non-serviceable shifters, a lack of a friction option and compromised
> > front shifting.
> >
> I agree in part, STI may be all that, but perhaps the more important
> consideration is that STI, or Ergo if you want a serviceable shifter that
> DOES NOT compromise front shifting, makes riding *easier* for the average
> person. In the old days of downtube friction shifters, shifting was this
> strange thing that frustrated many.

I'm not talking about friction shifting but rather about reliable,
accurate indexed shifting where the shifters are in different locations
(DT, barends, etc) without the downsides of STI/Ergo. One of the
problems in today's bike market is that consumers are not given a
choice; virtually everything has brifters. (As an example, I have
indexed barends on my bikes. People are always asking "what are those
things?" and "where are your shifters?". When I explain, the response
is very often "Wow, I never knew about those" and "Is that something
new?", etc.)



> The easy hand on the hood access of STI
> or Ergo makes shifting a joy and allows them to concentrate on enjoying
> riding. Hey, IF that gets people riding, then its worth it.


Hmm, I wonder, did it (the hood access of STI) get more people riding?
IMO, the recent increase in road bike sales and use is the function of
the marketing pendulum swinging back toward road bikes, the "Lance
Factor" (road bikes are cool, Lance rides one!), and maybe some other
forces.

[D'ohBoy]

<snip Russell's questioning of my assertion of 531 on a Trek 400>

Note, in the link provided in catzz66's post, that they explicitly
state (at the top of the image) 531.

D'ohBoy

[Bill Sornson]

D'ohBoy wrote:
> <snip Russell's questioning of my assertion of 531 on a Trek 400>
>
> Note, in the link provided in catzz66's post, that they explicitly
> state (at the top of the image) 531.

We'll get right on that!

ROTFL

Bill "what I really need is a ROLLING EYES emoticon" S.

[bfd]

Ozark states:

<I'm not talking about friction shifting but rather about reliable,
accurate indexed shifting where the shifters are in different locations

(DT, barends, etc) without the downsides of STI/Ergo. One of the
problems in today's bike market is that consumers are not given a
choice; virtually everything has brifters. (As an example, I have
indexed barends on my bikes. People are always asking "what are those
things?" and "where are your shifters?". When I explain, the response
is very often "Wow, I never knew about those" and "Is that something
new?", etc.) >

I guess the question is do these "consumers" really need a choice? How
many people will buy a bike without STI/Ergo shifters? If you go
touring, then I would think that model would sell with bar-end or dt
shifters. However, most people who try STI/Ergo don't care to ride
without it. Some even think its a "safety" factor to combine the
shifters with the brake levers as you don't have to take your hands off
the handlebar to shift.

A good example is Trek. They sell a touring bike called the 520. The
520 has bar-end shifters. Our resident Trek dealer has stated that
there are some dealers who cannot sell this bike. It basically sits on
the showroom floor and rots. In contrast, others can't get enough. Do
you think that first type of dealers are going to stock a bunch of 520s
just so people can have a "choice?"

As for increasing ridership, yes, the Lance factor is and always will
be a big reason why alot of people start cycling. However, if STI/Ergo
levers can make things easier for beginners/newbies to ride, why not?
Further, with Americans becoming more and more obese, do you think
these people are going to want to bend over and reach for a shifter?
That was one reason why mt bikes took off, people could sit up right
and reach their brakes and shifters easily. Get real, we Americans want
the easiest way to do something. STI/Ergo does that!

[Ozark Bicycle]

bfd wrote:
> Ozark states:
>
> <I'm not talking about friction shifting but rather about reliable,
> accurate indexed shifting where the shifters are in different locations
>
> (DT, barends, etc) without the downsides of STI/Ergo. One of the
> problems in today's bike market is that consumers are not given a
> choice; virtually everything has brifters. (As an example, I have
> indexed barends on my bikes. People are always asking "what are those
> things?" and "where are your shifters?". When I explain, the response
> is very often "Wow, I never knew about those" and "Is that something
> new?", etc.) >
>
> I guess the question is do these "consumers" really need a choice?

IMO, from a consumer's POV, choice is always a good thing.


> How
> many people will buy a bike without STI/Ergo shifters?

Let's ask Grant Peterson or Bruce Gordon, to name two.



> If you go
> touring, then I would think that model would sell with bar-end or dt
> shifters. However, most people who try STI/Ergo don't care to ride
> without it.

I know many serious riders who would disagree.



Some even think its a "safety" factor to combine the
> shifters with the brake levers as you don't have to take your hands off
> the handlebar to shift.

Some of the alternatives to STI/Ergo, such as indexed barends and Kelly
TakeOffs allow the same convenience and "safety".
>
> A good example is Trek. They sell a touring bike called the 520. The
> 520 has bar-end shifters. Our resident Trek dealer has stated that
> there are some dealers who cannot sell this bike. It basically sits on
> the showroom floor and rots. In contrast, others can't get enough. Do
> you think that first type of dealers are going to stock a bunch of 520s
> just so people can have a "choice?"



A Trek 520 is a hard sell to anyone but a savvy commuter or experienced
tourer, but not because it lacks STI. The steel frame ("heavy and so
yesterday, man" chirp the kiddies behind the counter at the LBS) and
the sensible, 36 spoke rims ("non-aero, heavy and so slow" the kiddies
chirp) go against all the current hot trends at the LBS and make it
hard to have anything to "talk up".


>
> As for increasing ridership, yes, the Lance factor is and always will
> be a big reason why alot of people start cycling. However, if STI/Ergo
> levers can make things easier for beginners/newbies to ride, why not?
> Further, with Americans becoming more and more obese, do you think
> these people are going to want to bend over and reach for a shifter?

See comments re: barends and TakeOffs above.

[Pat Lamb]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> bfd wrote:
>>A good example is Trek. They sell a touring bike called the 520. The
>>520 has bar-end shifters. Our resident Trek dealer has stated that
>>there are some dealers who cannot sell this bike. It basically sits on
>>the showroom floor and rots. In contrast, others can't get enough. Do
>>you think that first type of dealers are going to stock a bunch of 520s
>>just so people can have a "choice?"
>
>
> A Trek 520 is a hard sell to anyone but a savvy commuter or experienced
> tourer, but not because it lacks STI. The steel frame ("heavy and so
> yesterday, man" chirp the kiddies behind the counter at the LBS) and
> the sensible, 36 spoke rims ("non-aero, heavy and so slow" the kiddies
> chirp) go against all the current hot trends at the LBS and make it
> hard to have anything to "talk up".

I have to wonder how much of this is the attitude "behind the counter."
The guys at most of the LBSs I checked look at my (Fuji) tourer now
with some respect, maybe because they've sneaked a look at the odometer.
They know the good points of the tourer -- at least one LBS person (at
one of three LBSs) has pointed out the benefits of: wide gearing; drop
bars; road-bike-like rolling resistance; all-terrain tires, the Wow!
Brooks saddle. But go into a shop incognito (that is, in non-cycling
street clothes) and I get pointed to "stiff" aluminum frames,
"responsive" steering, "comfortable" carbon fork, "light, aero" 24-28
spoke wheels, etc. ad nauseum. If the same people could somehow start
selling the adaptability, versatility, comfort, and reliability of the
520, those bikes would be rolling out the door.

I also wonder how many of these "kiddies" ride their bikes in town.
Many "kiddies" seem to have to drive 50, 100, or 250 miles away to an
"event" or a "location" to ride. With a tourer, maybe some of them
COULD ride down to the local Starbucks for a latte or espresso.

(Oh, and the chirping "kiddies" aren't all young, either.)

>>As for increasing ridership, yes, the Lance factor is and always will
>>be a big reason why alot of people start cycling. However, if STI/Ergo
>>levers can make things easier for beginners/newbies to ride, why not?
>>Further, with Americans becoming more and more obese, do you think
>>these people are going to want to bend over and reach for a shifter?

(A) I expect road bike sales to drop off in the next year because Lance
won't be getting the coverage, and so road cycling won't be the in thing.

(A1) Doubt if the number of miles ridden on road bikes will drop off as
steeply, though.

(B) As Grant says, "Raise dat stem!" Down-tube shifters are out of my
reach for another 60 pounds, but I was surprised to find out bar-end
shifters are reasonable even for me, if the bars are up high enough.

Pat

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
Dave Larrington > wrote:

> In article om>,
> ) wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Ergo/STI will reduce knee pain considerably because people actually
> > > shift their gears when they can do it so easily. 20 years ago people
> > > complained all the time about knee pain. Now you rarely ever hear that
> > > complaint.
> >
> > I don't know that either of those statements is true.
>
> Quite. I think I'm the only person on my commuting route who actually
> changes down before coming to a halt and accelerates through the gears.
> Everyone else is standing on the pedals heaving away from the lights.

I do not change gears at traffic stops. I find that
changing gears while leaving a traffic stop is enervating
because of the abrupt cadence changes. It is not the same
as changing gears while rolling mile after mile without
stopping. In traffic I pick a gear and ride it. The gear
is typically a fairly high gear so that I do not spin out.
Leaving the traffic stop is not hard. Slight push with one
foot on the ground, stand on the pedal, and I'm turning
the crank. Low cadence, low power is very efficient on the
absolute scale. Spinning away from every traffic stop is a
waste of energy. When I want to burn energy is on long,
uninterrupted rides.

--
Michael Press

[bfd]

I agree that barends, dt and takeoffs are viable options. However, will
they sell to the masses? However, I disagree with your statement that
"the steel frame ("heavy and so yesterday, man" chirp the kiddies
behind the counter at the LBS)" are a hard selling point. Richard Sachs
and Rivendell have like 3 year wait list for one of their steel frames.
In fact, Rivendell regularly sells out all the
Atlantis/Rambos/Roms/Gloria/Wilbury/Saluki and Quickbeams they import.
All of those bikes are steel and could arguably be considered even
"heavier" because they have lugs! Further, Surly, Soma, and Kogswell
sell low price steel frames and they don't seem to have much problem.

I think the problem is your LBS. Yes, maybe 36 spoke wheels may be
"old-school", but people who tour or ride know it ain't the wheels that
are slow. I also doublt DT/bar-ends and Kelly things are going to be
stuff that will be "talked up" at the LBS. Sorry, neither of those
things will be used to encourage newbies to ride. Face it, STI/Ergo
levers are here to stay. At least until "electronic" shifting is
developed.....

[bfd]

Pat states:

< But go into a shop incognito (that is, in non-cycling
street clothes) and I get pointed to "stiff" aluminum frames,
"responsive" steering, "comfortable" carbon fork, "light, aero" 24-28
spoke wheels, etc. ad nauseum. >

My favorite - carbon rear ends/stays are NEEDED as they increase
comfort!

< the same people could somehow start
selling the adaptability, versatility, comfort, and reliability of the
520, those bikes would be rolling out the door. >

Agree, and that's where Grant P./Rivendell is a genius! He saw years
ago that this market was missing and jumped on it. He does go over
board with his push of 603mm (still in the dreampipe stage), centerpull
brakes and 650B (584mm) wheels, but you know, if it can help
distinguish his products, more power!

As I have aged, I too have followed Grants advice and "raise dat stem."
However, I prefer Campy ergo levers over all other type shifters.
Since fit is arguably the most important part of cycling, one factor is
what type of shifter do you like. Be it Ergo, STI, bar-ends, dt or none
(as in the case of fixies and single-speeds), that should be a big
criteria in fitting someone to allow to see which one they like.

[Ozark Bicycle]

bfd wrote:
> I agree that barends, dt and takeoffs are viable options. However, will
> they sell to the masses? However, I disagree with your statement that
> "the steel frame ("heavy and so yesterday, man" chirp the kiddies
> behind the counter at the LBS)" are a hard selling point. Richard Sachs
> and Rivendell have like 3 year wait list for one of their steel frames.
> In fact, Rivendell regularly sells out all the
> Atlantis/Rambos/Roms/Gloria/Wilbury/Saluki and Quickbeams they import.

I'm confused by this. In an earlier post, you postulated the the Trek
520 would "sit and rot" on the floor _because_ it didn't have STI. Now,
you point to the sucess of Grant Peterson's Rivendell company, who not
only are *not* pro-STI, but tend to recommend _friction_ shifting. Care
to clarify?


> All of those bikes are steel and could arguably be considered even
> "heavier" because they have lugs! Further, Surly, Soma, and Kogswell
> sell low price steel frames and they don't seem to have much problem.
>
> I think the problem is your LBS. Yes, maybe 36 spoke wheels may be
> "old-school", but people who tour or ride know it ain't the wheels that
> are slow. I also doublt DT/bar-ends and Kelly things are going to be
> stuff that will be "talked up" at the LBS. Sorry, neither of those
> things will be used to encourage newbies to ride. Face it, STI/Ergo
> levers are here to stay. At least until "electronic" shifting is
> developed.....


Electronic shifting! Yeah....they could call it "Zap"..... or maybe
"Mektronic". Pretty catchy, eh? ;-)

[Ozark Bicycle]

bfd wrote:
> Pat states:
>
> < But go into a shop incognito (that is, in non-cycling
> street clothes) and I get pointed to "stiff" aluminum frames,
> "responsive" steering, "comfortable" carbon fork, "light, aero" 24-28
> spoke wheels, etc. ad nauseum. >
>
> My favorite - carbon rear ends/stays are NEEDED as they increase
> comfort!


"NEEDED"?? And you know this _how_, exactly? Done any blind frame
tests, using the same frame/same equipment, where the *only* variable
is the seat stays/chain stays (covered/painted to eliminate visual
clues and the resulting expectation effects, of course)?


>
> < the same people could somehow start
> selling the adaptability, versatility, comfort, and reliability of the
> 520, those bikes would be rolling out the door. >
>
> Agree, and that's where Grant P./Rivendell is a genius! He saw years
> ago that this market was missing and jumped on it. He does go over
> board with his push of 603mm (still in the dreampipe stage), centerpull
> brakes and 650B (584mm) wheels, but you know, if it can help
> distinguish his products, more power!
>
> As I have aged, I too have followed Grants advice and "raise dat stem."
> However, I prefer Campy ergo levers over all other type shifters.
> Since fit is arguably the most important part of cycling, one factor is
> what type of shifter do you like. Be it Ergo, STI, bar-ends, dt or none
> (as in the case of fixies and single-speeds), that should be a big
> criteria in fitting someone to allow to see which one they like.



How does shifter preference effect frame fit?

[bfd]

<I'm confused by this. In an earlier post, you postulated the the Trek
520 would "sit and rot" on the floor _because_ it didn't have STI. Now,

you point to the sucess of Grant Peterson's Rivendell company, who not
only are *not* pro-STI, but tend to recommend _friction_ shifting. Care

to clarify? >

Yes, I was responding to YOUR statement that "steel frame ("heavy and
so yesterday, man" chirp the kiddies
behind the counter at the LBS)" are a hard selling point." If you look
at the success of Richard Sachs, Rivendell and many other custom
builders, they're not. The fact that SOME Trek dealers has trouble
selling the 520, may be due to the fact that its not a fancy lugged
steel AND that it has bar-ends. Take a look around, I bet STI/Ergo
outsells bar-ends 10-1, if not alot more! In fact, go to Rivendell's
gallery, guess what? You'll see Rivendell bikes WITH STI/ERGO on them,
wow!

As another poster stated, if shops started "selling" bikes like the
features of the 520 like "adaptability, versatility, comfort, and
reliability," more people would look closer at them. However, what
sells is "racing!" Its probably due to the old "race on Sunday, sell on
Monday" mentality. Everybody wants to "be like Lance!"

[Rick]

wrote:
> D'ohBoy wrote:
> > Russell wrote:
> >
> > > Your frame is a run of the mill chromoly frame.
> >
> > 531 is run of the mill? Certainly wasn't then. Still better than most
> > made, considering the entirety of road bike production.
>
> Trek used Reynolds 531 on 400 series bikes? The 600 and 700 yes. But
> on the 400? Do you have links or some proof this bike used Reynolds
> 531? The way the person described the bike with a mix/mash of Shimano
> and SR, it does not sound like a high enough bike to warrant Reynolds
> 531.

Sheesh, get a life and buy a few facts. Yes indeed, 531 was used on
the 400 in some years. Other years it was Tange Mangalloy. Others it
was True Temper RC 4130 Cromoly. You seem to have some preconceived,
dataless biases; I suggest a bit of research and education would keep
you from looking so uneducated. And FWIW, not much wrong with the RC
4130 cromoly.

- rick

[Peter Cole]

bfd wrote:
> I agree that barends, dt and takeoffs are viable options. However, will
> they sell to the masses? However, I disagree with your statement that
> "the steel frame ("heavy and so yesterday, man" chirp the kiddies
> behind the counter at the LBS)" are a hard selling point. Richard Sachs
> and Rivendell have like 3 year wait list for one of their steel frames.
> In fact, Rivendell regularly sells out all the
> Atlantis/Rambos/Roms/Gloria/Wilbury/Saluki and Quickbeams they import.
> All of those bikes are steel and could arguably be considered even
> "heavier" because they have lugs! Further, Surly, Soma, and Kogswell
> sell low price steel frames and they don't seem to have much problem.
>
> I think the problem is your LBS. Yes, maybe 36 spoke wheels may be
> "old-school", but people who tour or ride know it ain't the wheels that
> are slow. I also doublt DT/bar-ends and Kelly things are going to be
> stuff that will be "talked up" at the LBS. Sorry, neither of those
> things will be used to encourage newbies to ride. Face it, STI/Ergo
> levers are here to stay. At least until "electronic" shifting is
> developed.....
>

The bike business is fashion-driven, whether it is "high tech" or
"retro" that's being sold. The downside of this is that many good
products will be displaced, most without ever being experienced. I guess
all that is inevitable, the only thing I find galling is when bogus
arguments are used to lure the ignorant. In any case, the damage is
usually superficial, people spend a little too much and get bikes that
don't exactly suit their needs -- hardly a tragedy considering how
little most of them get ridden.

[bfd]

> Pat states:

> < But go into a shop incognito (that is, in non-cycling
> street clothes) and I get pointed to "stiff" aluminum frames,
> "responsive" steering, "comfortable" carbon fork, "light, aero" 24-28
> spoke wheels, etc. ad nauseum. >

I responded JOKINGLY:
>> My favorite - carbon rear ends/stays are NEEDED as they increase comfort!


OZARK asks:

<"NEEDED"?? And you know this _how_, exactly? Done any blind frame
tests, using the same frame/same equipment, where the *only* variable
is the seat stays/chain stays (covered/painted to eliminate visual
clues and the resulting expectation effects, of course)? >

Come on, its a JOKE! Of course, carbon rear ends don't do anything.
However, read the various mail order catalogs and listen to some shops
and they'll try to make you THINK it does. Marketing, what a great
concept!

<How does shifter preference effect frame fit? >

As I stated in my post, it should be ONE FACTOR in fitting a person.
For example, say you don't like bar-end shifters. You find them awkward
and clumsy. At the same time you're getting "fitted" and the shop
*insist* this is the right shifter for you? Are you truly getting
*fitted*? As you keep insisting, choice is good. Choice in frame
material - be it steel, carbon, ti or alumium, or shifters -
STI/Ergo/DT/bar-end or none at all, its all part of the same process -
getting a bike that fits YOU!

[Rick]

bfd wrote:
> I agree that barends, dt and takeoffs are viable options. However, will
> they sell to the masses?

Sometimes, yes, esp. the bar-ends. Was just over a year ago that
bar-ends were in such short supply that the prices were double and, in
cases, triple the normal. I fought back the urge to profit, and sold
my spares for the pre-shortage price to those who appreciate nice
shifters. Remember, bar-ends are the favorites of a lot of cycle
tourists, triathletes, and time trialists.

- rick