We had an early 70s French something in a couple months ago with a 4sp freewheel. Gearing limitations were the least of its problems...
It's not accurate to describe Silver shifters as "friction". They are more of a ratchet mechanism than a friction mechanism. Unlike true friction, which, for all its drawbacks, has more or less infinite range of shift positions, the ratchet shifters shift to a finite number of ratchet clicks - it's not really possible for the shifter to be at rest between two ratchet clicks. Usually works fine with 5, 6, 7, and 8-speed freewheels and cassettes, since the cogs are far enough apart that the shifter being a fraction off doesn't initiate a shift. With 9sp and 10sp, the ratchet clicks start to almost mimic indexing, and there are usually a couple cogs that are hard to use (or at least noisy). Some people have told me that they use 9sp with Silver shifters with no problems. I believe that these people are: a) lucky, b) simply not hearing the rattling noises, or more likely, not actually using all nine cogs (to reduce noise, always trim-shifting away from the cogs that don't happen to align with the ratchet). My personal opinion: Component manufacturers add more gears, often while quietly making more important innovations, because "how many gears?" is a question frequently asked by people who buy bikes. I have had many bikes with 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and (recently) 10-speed drivetrains. They are all fine. I am not a huge fan of Silver shifters (or any friction shifters), and I don't have much interest in trolling ebay for vintage parts to keep my rig on the road. If 10sp is what is going to be widely available for the foreseeable future, I probably won't be going out of my way to build a bike around a 6-sp freewheel or 6-sp Uniglide cassette or any other obsolete drivetrain. 10-sp works fine, and is now available with a dizzying array of gearing options, a variety of shifter styles, etc. That said, unless they request otherwise, anybody who buys a bike from me will most likely be getting 8sp or 9sp, simply because it saves them a few bucks on chains and cassettes. I don't foresee replacement chains and cassettes becoming any more limited in selection than they already are, at least not for quite a few years. Hoarding at this point is probably premature. Not that you should let that stop you :) On Oct 24, 8:03 pm, EricP <ericpl...@aol.com> wrote: > My first 6 speed was on the old 5 spacing. On early mountain bikes it > was unreliable (I broke chains). > > Four speeds in back wasn't common, but would occasionally see them at > the shop where I hung out. Then again, the Twin Cities had a number > of distributors/wholesale places. Probably was easier to get parts. > Cycle Goods was a store in front, distributor in back. > > Then again, I actually don't remember "regular" 6 speed. Everything I > saw seemed to be for use on 5 speed hubs. (1984 to 1986) > > Strangely enough, really don't miss 5 speed. At least never had an > inkling of interest to put one on the Sam Hillborne. > > Eric Platt > St. Paul, MN > > > > > Uniglide 7 speed was not very precise, and SunTour and Campagnol > > indexing were terrible. When Hyperglide came out, there were many > > instances of chains breaking, perhaps in part because Hyperglide let you > > shift under load, so people did - and sometimes chains broke. > > > I don't recall anyone ever being unwilling to risk 6 speed, although > > whatever they called the 6 that took up the same space as 5 didn't shift > > very well. And I never saw a 4 speed freewheel. Not once. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
