masmojo said index shifting is indispensable for mountain biking, but said he doesn't like trigger shifters.
What do you use on your mountain bike(s) if you don't use trigger shifters? Grip shift? Bill Lindsay El Cerrito, CA On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 1:55:08 PM UTC-8, masmojo wrote: > > Well, I love Grant and he's right a lot of the time about a lot of things, > but it's my personal belief is index shifting ain't one of them. > I really don't think index shifting was intended for "lazy" people. I > never really appreciated index shifting until I started riding mountain > bikes; and honestly in that context especially, it's indispensable. When > you drop down into a gully or a roller and you need a lower gear to get > out then what you used to get in, you've got to RAPIDLY move through the > gears to get to the one you need! There's no time to feel it through. > Additionally, if you can have index shifting, then why wouldn't you? I > have plenty of bikes with friction shifting and in a general sense it's > fine, but it's a tool to shift gears; very simple that. Index or not why is > it even a talking point? Last night I changed the Dia Compe friction > shifter off my Atlantis & installed a new MicroShift bar con. So now I have > index; yeah! > This wasn't so much to get index as it was to get a bar con, because the > old shifter was down tube mounted which I find to be a pain most of the > time. > OK, that said where does one draw the line. Problem is shifting quickly > went from 7 speed thumb shifters to the push-push trigger monstrosities. > Those I absolutely don't dig very much! Why, because they don't really > bring anything to the game, they don't improve anything, in fact they > create problems, because they are fragile, wear quickly & break! But, maybe > that's the idea? Planned obsolescence. > > Second, I think this whole long wheelbase thing is getting completely out > of hand. I agree that a super short wheelbase is sort of overkill, but > there's no reason a Clem should have the wheelbase it does. In fact all > sorts of reasons it shouldn't. I can say that, not as someone whose never > ridden a long wheelbase Rivendell, but as someone who owns two! (Formerly > three!) Unfortunately, I have no way to make a head to head comparison, > but I feel pretty safe postulating that I'd love my Medium Clementine more > if the chainstays were 3/4 shorter. Which I should add; would still be > considered long. > I am sorry if I come off contrarian; I am not in favor of change for > changes sake and there's loads of "technical Improvements" in the bike > industry that make me ask why? But in the last 10 years I've probably > bought 10 bikes; the Only ones that didn't have threadless > stearers/headsets, Disc Brakes, etc. Have been Rivendells; I didn't buy the > Rivendells because they didn't have those things, but in spite of them not > having those things. As a former bike mechanic and person who wrenches my > own bikes, I recognize an improvement over pointless gadgetry. I've > recently bought not one, but two bikes with thru-axles and I can honestly > say I dig'em a lot! Prior to that a good vertical drop out was my favorite, > but these thru-axles are undoubtedly an improvement. > Anywayz, I realize I'm tilting at windmills here, but there's a certain > amount of catharsis. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/530754be-06cd-4b11-a35e-7b04d8a967fc%40googlegroups.com.
