|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why has shifting improved?
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:16:31 +0000, Ed Culp wrote:
I have seen the experts here reminisce that shifting has improved greatly over the years. I recently replaced the rear derailleur on a 20 year old bike. The freewheel has 6 strait tooth cogs, without the ramps found on modern ones. The bike shifts with a satisifing kachunka sound. My relatively new 9 cog bike shifts usually silently but not more reliably. So except for sound I see no difference. Is that because of the new derailleur? What shifting quality has improved? Well, the kachunk might translate to no shift at all under load. Modern systems are far easier due to indexed shifting (click into each gear rather than moving -- about -- the right distance), levers that are part of the brake lever, and better-designed derailleurs. The combination has added up to a real improvement. -- David L. Johnson __o | You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but _`\(,_ | what canst thou say? -- George Fox. (_)/ (_) | |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why has shifting improved?
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:00:24 +0950, DiabloScott wrote:
In 1983 (20 years ago) virtually all road bikes had downtube friction shifters - cheap bikes had "stem" shifters. There was no indexing beyond a few failed prototypes so your bike would not have gone "kachunka". Shifting a bike 20 years ago was done well ahead of when one needed the new gear, from a seated position, and with a coaxing hand maneuver. You could get fast at it but it would never go "kachunka". Sure it would. Kachunka, ping, rattle-rattle-rattle, clickity-click. Indexing (derailleur/shifter interface) and ramped tooth profiles are what make shifting fast these days. Integrated shifters and brake levers make it more convenient. Combined, these improvements allow for shifting under load while standing - something I'll wager precious few people ever attempted 20 years ago. Try none. I can't imagine anyone being able to reach down to the downtube while standing, for one, and the derailleur would just not have shifted. -- David L. Johnson __o | I don't believe you, you've got the whole damn thing all wrong. _`\(,_ | He's not the kind you have to wind-up on Sundays. --Ian (_)/ (_) | Anderson |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why has shifting improved?
"David L. Johnson" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:00:24 +0950, DiabloScott wrote: In 1983 (20 years ago) virtually all road bikes had downtube friction shifters - cheap bikes had "stem" shifters. There was no indexing beyond a few failed prototypes so your bike would not have gone "kachunka". Shifting a bike 20 years ago was done well ahead of when one needed the new gear, from a seated position, and with a coaxing hand maneuver. You could get fast at it but it would never go "kachunka". Sure it would. Kachunka, ping, rattle-rattle-rattle, clickity-click. Indexing (derailleur/shifter interface) and ramped tooth profiles are what make shifting fast these days. Integrated shifters and brake levers make it more convenient. Combined, these improvements allow for shifting under load while standing - something I'll wager precious few people ever attempted 20 years ago. Try none. I can't imagine anyone being able to reach down to the downtube while standing, for one, and the derailleur would just not have shifted. Nope, there was one guy I remember who did it all the time. I have an old picture of him, but it's not the best. http://tinyurl.com/gz6s |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why has shifting improved?
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:16:31 +0000, Ed Culp wrote:
What shifting quality has improved? Spinal Tap compatibility: Soon, it's going to go up to 11... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|