# Which friction shifters do I want?



## JP (Feb 8, 2005)

Hey, building up a bike that will sometimes have campy 10 and other times have Shimano 9. I know! 

My question to you is, which friction shifters have the most "pull?" 

I remember shifting 10 speed campy before with old campy shifters, and it took a whole lotta movement to get the last cog. 

Do Shimano or Rivendell silvers pull any more cable? 

Thanks.


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

Are you looking for "Index/Syncro" capabilities or pure friction/manual adjustment?

If you go 10 Campy, using a Shimano Dura Ace 7700 in friction should be ok and then when you drop in a Shimano wheel, you can turn the ring to Index mode and go. Although the limit range between the cassettes may be different so it might take some limit screw adjustments. Does Campy have a DT shift lever these days?


----------



## FBinNY (Jan 24, 2009)

Since you're operation in the friction world, any lever will work. 

To answer your question, go by the diameter of the "drum" the cable winds around at the base of the lever. The larger the drum the more cable movement for a given arc of lever travel.


----------



## JP (Feb 8, 2005)

FBinNY said:


> Since you're operation in the friction world, any lever will work.
> 
> To answer your question, go by the diameter of the "drum" the cable winds around at the base of the lever. The larger the drum the more cable movement for a given arc of lever travel.


I'm with you on that. I'm asking if anyone knows who might make a larger drum.


----------



## JP (Feb 8, 2005)

Kuma601 said:


> Are you looking for "Index/Syncro" capabilities or pure friction/manual adjustment?
> 
> If you go 10 Campy, using a Shimano Dura Ace 7700 in friction should be ok and then when you drop in a Shimano wheel, you can turn the ring to Index mode and go. Although the limit range between the cassettes may be different so it might take some limit screw adjustments. Does Campy have a DT shift lever these days?


I thought about that, but this silly combo I am trying will have a Campy derailleur because it can handle a shimano 32 when I need it. Otherwise, I'd be all over that. 

I'm thinking friction all the time.


----------



## FBinNY (Jan 24, 2009)

In down tube levers from back in the day, I believe SunTour were the largest. Campy's were relatively smaller, until Synchro, but that's index.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

You want a small drum, not a large one. Since you'll be dealing with closely spaced cogs, you'll want to move your fingers a relatively long way while the cable doesn't move much. That means small diameter cable pull drum.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Those silver shifters from VO or Rivendell work really well.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Downtube or Bar End?

In either case, the obvious answer is current-model Shimano Dura-Ace. Either is made to pull enough for 10 speed, and they both have friction mode.

For older bar-ends, SunTours work great.


----------



## JP (Feb 8, 2005)

Down tube. 

I kind of like the idea of dura ace. That way if my experiment fails I can just switch back to Shimano 9 index

I'm hesitant with the Velo Orange ones. I got a pair for another bike that didn't work. When I took them off, the insides on the busted one flew apart and little bits went flying. When I tried to return them, they wouldn't refund my money because they were missing the bits that flew all over the garage. I try to like them, but that experience turned me off.

I suppose Rivendell would be safe.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Down tube. I kind of like the idea of dura ace_


Haven't seen them in person, but I don't think the Dura-Ace SL-7900 downtube shifters and BS-79 bar end shifters offer friction rear shifting—indexed only.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

JP said:


> Down tube.
> 
> I kind of like the idea of dura ace. That way if my experiment fails I can just switch back to Shimano 9 index
> 
> ...


I believe the Riv shifters are the same Diacompe ones Velo sells. They have a reputation for one of the plastic washers falling apart. Rivendell is hilarious - they sell the DT shifters for $42, the barcon adapters for $34 and combine them for $92! That's just $16 extra for getting them together!

Old Suntour retrofriction would be the best for a big barrel, but hard to find. Sachs made a nice shifter that was retro on the left and micro-click on the right (with index option). Lot's of cable pull. I bought a pair recently on Ebay from a French vendor. Mavic apparently made a friction shifter that looked identical to their 8 speed index shifter, with more pull than the old Simplex retrofriction that was everyone's darling. Gipiemme also made a retrofriction model, but it probably isn't any bigger than the Simplex or C-Record retros.

Really, a basic pair of regular friction Suntours is going to be dirt cheap and shift nicely.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

wim said:


> Haven't seen them in person, but I don't think the Dura-Ace SL-7900 downtube shifters and BS-79 bar end shifters offer friction rear shifting—indexed only.


Looks like you're correct. I hadn't noticed that. That's too bad.

Dura-Ace 9 speed bar ends are still available at the moment, so that's good, at least.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*Good news, bad news*

The "good news" is that the new SRAM shifter pulls a TON of cable, to shift their doubletap stuff.

The bad news is that it's index-only, so you'd have to find a way to defeat the indexing. I'm sure creative types could get it done, but that ain't me, babe.

I've used d/a 7700 barcons (who hasn't?) and they worked fine on Shimano 9, Shimano 10, but I never put a campy 10 wheel in there. And, you and all of us already know that.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

PlatyPius said:


> That's too bad.


Thanks for confirming, I wasn't absolutely certain. Lots of internet ads for those 7900-series shifters still use the old boilerplate phrase "works in friction and index mode." The tech doc exploded shows that the feature is gone, as do a few updated ads.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

For downtube, the best was Simplex Retrofriction. They look pricey on Ebay now though.


----------



## Bike Poor (Sep 17, 2009)

Don't know how they compare with others but these are what I purchased over the summer.
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/dia-compe-bar-end-gear-shifter-set/


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Bike Poor said:


> Don't know how they compare with others but these are what I purchased over the summer.
> http://www.wiggle.co.uk/dia-compe-bar-end-gear-shifter-set/


Same ones the OP broke, same ones Riv sells. There is only one retrofriction shifter currently being made, and this is it.

The Simplex shifters are going to be practically pointing at the ground by the time you shift to the lowest gear with a Shimano derailleur. Using mine with a Mavic friction derailleur it was designed for puts it well past perpendicular to the DT with 8 cogs.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> Same ones the OP broke, same ones Riv sells. There is only one retrofriction shifter currently being made, and this is it.


What is 'retrofriction', exactly? AFAIK, the Rivs/Dia-Compes are ratcheting shifters, but is that really the same thing as what the Simplex/Mavics do? :confused5:



> _The Simplex shifters are going to be practically pointing at the ground by the time you shift to the lowest gear with a Shimano derailleur. Using mine with a Mavic friction derailleur it was designed for puts it well past perpendicular to the DT with 8 cogs._


That kinda sucks. But, on the 'sorta good news side', a 9- or 10-spd cassette is only very slightly physically wider than an 8-spd (due to the narrower cog spacing and thinner cogs), so the problem doesn't get any worse than what you experienced, really.

IIRC, the 'big' cassette width jump is when you go from 7-spd to 8/9/10-spd:

*http://www.sheldonbrown.com/cribsheet-spacing.html*
.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> What is 'retrofriction', exactly? AFAIK, the Rivs/Dia-Compes are ratcheting shifters, but is that really the same thing as what the Simplex/Mavics do? :confused5:
> 
> 
> A 9- or 10-spd cassette is only very slightly physically wider than an 8-spd, due to the narrower cog spacing and thinner cogs.
> ...


I wasn't saying that 8 was narrower - just that at 8 with a small cable pull derailleur the Simplex shifters were nearly maxed out, and a Shimano would likely be worse.

Retrofriction is just ratcheting, but sometimes ratcheting is mistaken for microclicks. The point of Retrofriction is that there is only friction in one direction - holding against the derailleur spring. When you're pulling the derailleur against the spring there is no resistance in the lever, just light pawl clicks. The derailleur offers resistance one way, and the lever offers resistance only in the opposite way, so the shifter feels smoother than one that is friction both with and against the spring.

Microclick "ratcheting" is more like what you would find on some front Gripshifters and Campy front systems, as well as on the friction mode of certain DT index shifters. That's just a notchy kind of friction.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> I wasn't saying that 8 was narrower - just that at 8 with a small cable pull derailleur the Simplex shifters were nearly maxed out, and a Shimano would likely be worse.


You could be right. My point was that a 9 or 10 won't really be any worse in terms of absolute lever travel than an 8 is. In for a dime, in for a dollar as it were.

What could be a bigger problem is the 'fine-tuning' with a 9 or 10spd cluster... but that's where a small-barrel friction shifter like the Simplexes would shine. They pull less cable, so they should be easier to 'trim' correctly with a narrowly-spaced cogset.



> _Retrofriction is just ratcheting, but sometimes ratcheting is mistaken for microclicks. The point of Retrofriction is that there is only friction in one direction - holding against the derailleur spring. When you're pulling the derailleur against the spring there is no resistance in the lever, just light pawl clicks._


I'm still not sure about this. I recall hearing that true 'retrofriction' levers like the Simplexes have a balancing spring working against the main spring (which allows you to set them up with less tension and be smoother), while shifters like the Dia-Compes/Rivendells _are_ actually dependent on a ratcheting system and a 'clutch' of sorts, and operate significant differently. 

Is probably a question for the RBR Retro-Classic forum. 

But it hardly matters that much in practice- both give a better shift 'feel' out on the road than reg'lar friction shifters, which is most of what anyone cares about. 
.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> You could be right. My point was that a 9 or 10 won't really be any worse in terms of absolute lever travel than an 8 is. In for a dime, in for a dollar as it were.
> 
> What could be a bigger problem is the 'fine-tuning' with a 9 or 10spd cluster... but that's where a small-barrel friction shifter like the Simplexes would shine. They pull less cable, so they should be easier to 'trim' correctly with a narrowly-spaced cogset.
> 
> ...


No need to ask on another forum - I already said I own the Simplex shifters. They don't have springs in them.

The spring shifters you're thinking of were like the first generation Ultegra shifter from '89. The front shifter was spring loaded against the spring pressure of the FD. If you detached the cable the shifter popped back and pointed toward the rear wheel.


The 8 vs. 9/10 thing misses the point - he's not going to be using it with a short pull RD. The Simplex used with a Shimano RD is going to go through 180 degrees of arc to run the range of the freehub. That would suck.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Which derailleurs are you using - Campag or Shimano?

If you have a 10 speed Campag mech it will work on any 10 speed cassette. I am running Record 10 mechs with Centaur Ultrashift Ergos on a Sram 1070 cassette with zero problems.

A 10 speed shimano/Sram cassette will fit on any 8/9/10 HG hub other than 7800.

So find a set of 10 speed Campag DT levers and a 10 speed 105 cassette and you're all good.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> No need to ask on another forum - I already said I own the Simplex shifters. They don't have springs in them.


There seems to be some disagreement about this... for example, this was on Velo Orange (the latter guy runs/owns VO):


andrew karre:
I agree with your assement of the joys of downtube shifting, but you've got an important particular wrong. Simplex Retrofriction shifters do not ratchet (I've got them on all my bikes, except our tandem, which has Riv's Silver shifters). The shifters contain a spring that pulls against the derailleur's spring, allowing you to set the screw tension lower and get that wonderful smooth action. They're great, and so are Suntour's Power Ratchet shifters, but they are mechanically different.

(And I did a doubletake when I first read your post. It made it look like you had Simplex Retrofriction shifters for sale. I almost injured myself looking for my credit card.)

Thanks for everything!
Andrew

11/13/06 3:03 PM
chris kulczycki:
Hi Andrew, Yes, you are right. The Simplex version acomplishes the same thing, but uses a diffrent mechanism. I'll fix the description. I also use and love Simplex retro friction shifters and we've been looking for a NOS stash of them.​


Btw, I wasn't thinking of the '89 Ultegra shifters, because I never owned 'em/knew they had that aspect to 'em.


*edit:* a-ha! This may be the actual truth:


Contrary to what many people say, the "spring" you see inside the [Simplex] lever is not a torsion spring resisting the force of the derailleur spring. *It is a one-way clutch that decouples the lever from its internal friction mechanism when you pull back*, just as the ratchet does in an old SunTour lever.​

Not a ratchet, and not a spring, then. Mystery solved?




> _The 8 vs. 9/10 thing misses the point - he's not going to be using it with a short pull RD. The Simplex used with a Shimano RD is going to go through 180 degrees of arc to run the range of the freehub. That would suck._


Maybe I'm thinking too much like a 'Retro-Classic' guy, but, assuming his RD doesn't work well with it, and if you have something as nice and rare as the Simplexes, wouldn't you try to get a RD that _would_ work well with it (like some old Campys, which caused less lever travel)? Or at least kluge the shifters with something like a cable sleeve and a thru-hold cable end cap (to hold it there), so the levers pulled more cable?

They're that good, and worth the trouble. Just sayin'.
.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Or at least kluge the shifters with something like a cable sleeve and a thru-hold cable end cap (to hold it there), so the levers pulled more cable?


Sometimes experimenting with how the cable attaches to the derailleur works. In other words: you don't change the amount of cable pull, but rather how much the derailleur swings for a given amount of cable pull.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

wim said:


> Sometimes experimenting with how the cable attaches to the derailleur works. In other words: you don't change the amount of cable pull, but rather how much the derailleur swings for a given amount of cable pull.


Hmm... any more on this? Sounds interesting.
.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> There seems to be some disagreement about this... for example, this was on Velo Orange (the latter guy runs/owns VO):
> 
> 
> andrew karre:
> ...


If the Diacompe/Silver shifters don't work like previous Suntour or Simplex retrofriction, than they aren't retrofriction. I've never seen one, just heard them described as retrofriction and assumed the decades old term is being respected.

It sounds like the shifters are based on the principle that the Ultegra shifter is built on.


As far as using an old derailleur to match the Simplex shifters, older slant parallelogram derailleurs don't work so well with wide range freewheels. Such freewheels were the reason that drop parallelogram derailleurs were created, really. There are some wider range Campy's from the '70s, and the late '80s Athena would probably be the most modern RD that doesn't need much cable to function.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> If the Diacompe/Silver shifters don't work like previous Suntour or Simplex retrofriction, than they aren't retrofriction. I've never seen one, just heard them described as retrofriction and assumed the decades old term is being respected.


If so, seems then like 'retrofriction' is either a term that ppl play fast and loose with (i.e. is often used to describe any 'improved' friction shifter), or perhaps 'retrofriction' was just a marketing term to begin with.



> _As far as using an old derailleur to match the Simplex shifters, older slant parallelogram derailleurs don't work so well with wide range freewheels. Such freewheels were the reason that drop parallelogram derailleurs were created, really. There are some wider range Campy's from the '70s, and the late '80s Athena would probably be the most modern RD that doesn't need much cable to function._


I thought slant parallelogram derailleurs became uber-popular because they had a consistent chain gap, which is one of the requirements for good index-shifting performance? :idea: 

Or are you talking the 'really old days' and stuff like 14-34 5- and 6-spd freewheels?

The history is fascinating to me, that's why I ask.
.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> If so, seems then like 'retrofriction' is either a term that ppl play fast and loose with (i.e. is often used to describe any 'improved' friction shifter), or perhaps 'retrofriction' was just a marketing term to begin with.
> 
> 
> I thought slant parallelogram derailleurs became uber-popular because they had a consistent chain gap, which is one of the requirements for good index-shifting performance? :idea:
> ...


Oops, I got my terms backwards. Drop is the older type (C-Record, Huret Jubilee), and slant is the more modern type where the parallelogram is horizontal. Suntour invented the slant in the early '60s, long before indexing, and it was to get the jockey pulley to track closer to the cogs.

It isn't a necessity. The original Athena derailleur was drop style, but was so radically different in geometry from previous drop derailleurs that is tracks the cogs as consistantly as any slant style. It ends up working more like a Sram derailleur than later Campys, despite the difference in parallelogram angle.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Hmm... any more on this? Sounds interesting.
> .


Here's one example (under "Alternate Cable Routing") which moves the derailleur farther per given cable pull. It's designed to make indexing possible with mismatched components, but it would also change total friction lever travel from smallest to largest cog. In essence, changing the length of the lever defined by the distance between the housing stop and the clamp point changes derailleur swing per amount of pull. The change isn't dramatic unless you fashion a custom clamping arrangement, but it might just be enough to make something work in an acceptable fashion.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/derailer-adjustment.html#alternate


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> Oops, I got my terms backwards. Drop is the older type (C-Record, Huret Jubilee), and slant is the more modern type where the parallelogram is horizontal. Suntour invented the slant in the early '60s, long before indexing, and it was to get the jockey pulley to track closer to the cogs.
> 
> It isn't a necessity. The original Athena derailleur was drop style, but was so radically different in geometry from previous drop derailleurs that is tracks the cogs as consistantly as any slant style. It ends up working more like a Sram derailleur than later Campys, despite the difference in parallelogram angle.


Good info, rx, thanks. Did not know about that 'special' Athena drop-p RD, that sounds very interesting.

Oh and yes, Suntour did invent the slant-p RD long before SIS indexing took over the world, but it was indexing that made slant-p RDs de rigeur, if you see what I'm getting at. 

/ Shimano, of course, waited 'til the Suntour patents ran out in '84.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

wim said:


> Here's one example (under "Alternate Cable Routing") which moves the derailleur farther per given cable pull. It's designed to make indexing possible with mismatched components, but it would also change total friction lever travel from smallest to largest cog. In essence, changing the length of the lever defined by the distance between the housing stop and the clamp point changes derailleur swing per amount of pull. The change isn't dramatic unless you fashion a custom clamping arrangement, but it might just be enough to make something work in an acceptable fashion.
> 
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/derailer-adjustment.html#alternate


Wow, did not know about that... may come in handy. Thanks for the heads-up. 
.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> Good info, rx, thanks. Did not know about that 'special' Athena drop-p RD, that sounds very interesting.
> 
> Oh and yes, Suntour did invent the slant-p RD long before SIS indexing took over the world, but it was indexing that made slant-p RDs de rigeur, if you see what I'm getting at.
> 
> ...


Shimano, Campy and Suntour all had slant derailleurs back in the '70s. They worked better for many things, but were more complicated and heavier. They were popular for touring, and most were long cages. They were the easiest existing design to convert to indexing, and were so celebrated for that that Campy went completely to them when they got serious about indexing. But some of their slant RDs would have indexed really well, like the Croce and Athena, IF the cable wrap had been larger. Otherwise, their geometry for placing the pulley near the cogs was pretty good. Cable wrap was probably much more of a problem than parallelogram style, but the press said different.

The main divide in modern index RD design as I see it is the placement of the jockey cage pivot. Most systems - Shimano, Campy, old Mavic 8 and Suntour, place the cage pivot below or in front of the upper pulley pivot, so the pulley moves as the cage moves. SRAM and that old Athena put the upper pulley on the pivot, so the upper pulley's position is dicated only by the B screw adjustment - the pulley path is independant of chain tension or cog size.

Here's a neat site:
http://www.disraeligears.co.uk/Site/Home.html


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> Shimano, Campy and Suntour all had slant derailleurs back in the '70s.


If you mean by that 'slant parallelogram', I don't see how Shimano and Campy had 'em in the '70s.

Suntour invented the slant-p rear derailleur in '64, and vigorously defended their patents for twenty years, as per Frank Berto's excellent _Sunset for SunTour_ article:


*1964 - Invention of the slant parallelogram rear derailleur*

Nobuo Ozaki, the head of Product Development at Maeda, invented the slant parallelogram rear derailleur in 1964 and Maeda obtained worldwide patents on the design.

This was a significant invention. The jockey pulley tracked the angle of the freewheel sprockets and maintained a nearly constant distance (chain gap) between the jockey pulley and the sprocket. For the next twenty years, SunTour produced technically superior derailleurs. SunTour's slant parallelogram broke the image of Japanese components being cheap copies of European components.

SunTour had good patent attorneys and they vigorously defended the slant parallelogram design. All of the major derailleur makers incorporated slant parallelograms when the patent expired in 1984.​

Are you referring to Shimano and Campy workaround designs that tried to do the same thing as Suntour's true slant-p RDs did? :idea:

If so, doesn't seem like those fully succeeded in their goals, since most everyone went with the Suntour-style design once the patents ran out. 


/ Btw, that's a top-notch website you list, thanks. :thumbsup:
.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

They still sell the 7800 10 speed barends, they're friction and index


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> If you mean by that 'slant parallelogram', I don't see how Shimano and Campy had 'em in the '70s.
> 
> Suntour invented the slant-p rear derailleur in '64, and vigorously defended their patents for twenty years, as per Frank Berto's excellent _Sunset for SunTour_ article:
> 
> ...


Systemshock,
It looks like I have ALWAYS misunderstood the derailleur terminology. This is a drop parallelogram derailleur:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/assemblylinecollective/5040367664/
As is this:
https://www.disraeligears.co.uk/Site/Shimano_Crane_derailleur_(DR-101).html
1971 Crane, which is the template for nearly every modern index derailleur, except for the fact that it does not yet have a slanted parallelogram:

https://www.disraeligears.co.uk/Site/US_Patent_3,364,762_-_SunTour_Gran-Prix.html

I had always (mis)understood that "drop" and "slant" referred to the location of the hanger pivot, and that one of those terms applied to derailleurs like this:
https://www.disraeligears.co.uk/Site/Zeus_Gran_Sport_derailleur_(2nd_style).html
Which it does not. This is, apparently, a "parallelogram derailleur".

The Crane and Rally are "drop parallelogram" derailleurs. The patented Suntour Gran Prix is correctly a "dropped slant parallelogram". The only non-drop "slant parallelogram" I can think of is the first Athena:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2760801919/
The interesting thing about the Athena is that its parallelogram geometry made it follow the freewheel cog angle without need of a slant, even if it has one. Unlike previous designs, as the parallelogram moves in to lower gears, it also extends out.

And since we're talking Campy weirdness, the first Chorus derailleur was a drop/slant, where the slant was adjustable:
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...page=1&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0&tx=78&ty=24

Finally, the Croce d'aune, non-drop, non-slant derailleur that used a connecting rod to pull the deraileur back, making it track the cog angle like a slant.
https://campagnolo.wikispaces.com/Croce+D+aune,++Rear+Derailleur

My apologies for messing up the terms - I've had them mixed up for over two decades.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> Systemshock,
> It looks like I have ALWAYS misunderstood the derailleur terminology. This is a drop parallelogram derailleur:
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/assemblylinecollective/5040367664/
> As is this:
> ...


No prob, rx... I learned some things I didn't know before from your input as well. 

But, I think SunTour might have a prob with the Crane being thought of as the template for all modern index derailleurs (which are SunTour-invented slant-Ps, after all)... and even your website does give a shout-out to SunTour in the Crane description:


_The only fly in the ointment was SunTour’s patent on the slant parallelogram. The Crane never changed gear quite as well as the much more lowly SunTour V series - despite Shimano’s puff about the efficacy of their ‘servo pantagraph’ design with its two sprung pivots._​


I'll give you that the Crane does _look_ like modern RDs, for sure. But so did the SunTour V Series. From your site:


_With the third iteration of the V series SunTour defined the look and performance of derailleurs for the next 30 years. All the elements are here: the curvaceous cast aluminium knuckles, the slant parallelogram, the adjustment screws (clearly marked ‘H’ and ‘L’) at the back, the adjustable cable outer stop, the cable clamped under a washer by a bolt, and the final element - big, glossy, chromed allen bolts._​
.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> No prob, rx... I learned some things I didn't know before from your input as well.
> 
> But, I think SunTour might have a prob with the Crane being thought of as the template for all modern index derailleurs (which are SunTour-invented slant-Ps, after all)... and even your website does give a shout-out to SunTour in the Crane description:
> 
> ...


Aside from the heavy patentable stuff, the basic set up of the Crane is what every modern Shimano and Campy is based on, with the addition of the Suntour slant. In contrast, most of the salient features of the '60s through '80s Suntour derailleurs weren't embraced by anyone, and even Suntour dropped them - their last designs, like the GPX, had a Crane layout with the twin springs and high pulley pivot.

Suntour is owed its due for the slanting feature, but that seems to be the only enduring part of the design. That isn't a judgement, just an observation. Just as Columbus wasn't the first European to see the America's, his journey was the one that shaped history. The Crane, aside from being the first all aluminum drop model, was not groundbreaking. But it was a good, clean design that adapted well to modern shifting.


----------



## CurbDestroyer (Mar 6, 2008)

spookyload said:


> For downtube, the best was Simplex Retrofriction. They look pricey on Ebay now though.


+1 on the Simple Retrofriction . . . worth every penny. Then if you don't like them, it's likely you can turn around and sell them and get your money back.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> Aside from the heavy patentable stuff, the basic set up of the Crane is what every modern Shimano and Campy is based on, with the addition of the Suntour slant. In contrast, most of the salient features of the '60s through '80s Suntour derailleurs weren't embraced by anyone, and even Suntour dropped them - their last designs, like the GPX, had a Crane layout with the twin springs and high pulley pivot.
> 
> Suntour is owed its due for the slanting feature, but that seems to be the only enduring part of the design. That isn't a judgement, just an observation. Just as Columbus wasn't the first European to see the America's, his journey was the one that shaped history. The Crane, aside from being the first all aluminum drop model, was not groundbreaking. But it was a good, clean design that adapted well to modern shifting.


I dunno rx... when I think 'blueprint for the modern derailleur', I think SunTour V series.

Frank Berto, in his excellent bike-history book _The Dancing Chain _calls it a 'breakthrough' derailleur, and it wasn't only because of the slant parallelogram shifting, but also the aluminum design. And to quote the Disraeli Gears website again on the point (this time with emphasis added):


*With the third iteration of the V series, SunTour defined the look and performance of derailleurs for the next 30 years. All the elements are here: the curvaceous cast aluminium knuckles, the slant parallelogram, the adjustment screws (clearly marked ‘H’ and ‘L’) at the back, the adjustable cable outer stop, the cable clamped under a washer by a bolt, and the final element - big, glossy, chromed allen bolts.*​

So I'm not sure one can really kinda dismiss the SunTour designs of that era as notable 'only' for the slant-p design. But even if one was to do so, SunTour would still come out ahead, because slant-p wasn't 'just one' innovation, it was THE innovation. 

Without it, one has to wonder how well the entire '80s indexing revolution would've come off... Shimano did wait 'til the patents ran out before introducing SIS, after all. And it's still the dominant design today, almost 50 years after its' invention. 

Finally, you say that many of SunTour's innovations and design elements didn't really catch on. But to be fair, the same thing could be said of other component makers... Shimano AX, anyone? Positron shifting? Campy single-pulley derailleurs? :idea:

Don't get me wrong, I do like Shimano, and they have a prominent place in cycling history as well... but SunTour deserves their due, and then some. 

/ In the end, I suspect we're not that far apart on this.  
.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Frank Berto, in his excellent bike-history book _The Dancing Chain _calls it a 'breakthrough' derailleur, and it wasn't only because of the slant parallelogram shifting, but also the aluminum design.


Speaking of Frank Berto, the article at the link is a good read on the Suntour vs.Shimano battle. Interesting blend of technology and marketing, and well-written.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hadland/page35.htm


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> I dunno rx... when I think 'blueprint for the modern derailleur', I think SunTour V series.
> 
> Frank Berto, in his excellent bike-history book _The Dancing Chain _calls it a 'breakthrough' derailleur, and it wasn't only because of the slant parallelogram shifting, but also the aluminum design. And to quote the Disraeli Gears website again on the point (this time with emphasis added):
> 
> ...


I was neither being dismissive of Suntour or complimentary of Shimano. I was just pointing out that the basic blueprint of Campy, Shimano and Suntour's modern index derailleurs is a Crane + slant parallelogram. And the reason for that is probably that the first commercially successful index derailleur was a Crane + slant pattern 600EX.

And, as I pointed out, there were other systems that didn't require Suntour's slant to track the cog profile, but they weren't Shimano inventions either and were still in patent, so the company that made index work chose the architecture that everyone else adopted.

It is also important to keep in mind that Shimano did other things that Suntour didn't to create better shifting, like regular cog spacing, profiled cogs, chain profile, improved cable housing, etc. A freewheel tracking method was all that was missing for a successful product introduction. Suntour had some experience with similar systems before, but even it's reaction products didn't shift as well as Shimano's very first products - despite their own history of shifting innovation.

On the other hand, Suntour invented compact gearing systems and had the best MTB parts for several years. I still use XCPro brake levers on my mountain bike. I actually really love Suntour and thought it unfortunate that the Suntour/Sugino/DiaCompe coopertive couldn't move forward. Maybe if they had more aggressively attacked the Brifter problem, or if they had sued Shimano for unfair trade practices we'd still have them to choose from. But Shimano Microsoft'd the component world and their legacy remains with the Crane derailleur.

I wish Mavic, Suntour, and Sachs/Huret still made derailleurs. I wish Campy could have continued developing their own derailleur designs instead of Crane-ing up. I am so glad that SRAM went their own way, and Microshift is nipping at Shimano's scraps. The architecture of the Vx, Athena, Croce d'Aune are lost in time.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

wim said:


> Speaking of Frank Berto, the article at the link is a good read on the Suntour vs.Shimano battle. Interesting blend of technology and marketing, and well-written.
> *http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hadland/page35.htm*


Oh yes... I've read that one before, and it is a VERY good read. 

Love Berto, one of the best cycling writers out there. :thumbsup: 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> I was neither being dismissive of Suntour or complimentary of Shimano. I was just pointing out that the basic blueprint of Campy, Shimano and Suntour's modern index derailleurs is a Crane + slant parallelogram. And the reason for that is probably that the first commercially successful index derailleur was a Crane + slant pattern 600EX.
> 
> And, as I pointed out, there were other systems that didn't require Suntour's slant to track the cog profile, but they weren't Shimano inventions either and were still in patent, so the company that made index work chose the architecture that everyone else adopted.
> 
> ...


Well, while you'd call the basic blueprint for modern index derailleurs 'Crane + slant parallelogram', I'd call it 'slightly-updated SunTour V'. I think plenty of others would as well.  

That said, cosmetically, I love the Crane.

And yes rx, there were many other RD geometries/systems that ppl tried over the decades besides slant-p... but slant-p did generally work the best. That's why Shimano used it for SIS, not because they were waiting for still other patents to run out. But if you have some strong evidence to the contrary, would love to hear it... I'm all ears.

Also, there are a few things you are forgetting about: SunTour actually did play around with tooth profiles, IIRC, in order to improve shifting, and I believe they started doing this as early or perhaps even earlier than Shimano did. They also had the Power Ratchet shift levers (which we were originally discussing), Power-Ratchet-based BarCons (which outsold all other bar-cons combined in their day), and FDs that pulled the opposite way of today's FD... a better design in many ppl's opinion. They even had indexing way back in 1969, but it didn't work well enough to win wide-spread adoption... I believe because it was too 'open' a system. 

But I would agree that once Shimano cranked up their own innovation machine in the mid-80s and afterwards, SunTour couldn't keep up, in large part because of how they ran their company... they charged too little for their more premium products, which, ironically, caused the market not to view said products as 'high end' even though they outshifted all others at the time (until the slant-p patents ran out); this also had the secondary bad effect of starving SunTour of cash. SunTour really needed to hire a lot more engineers and testers than they did, and this caused them problems... for example, they rushed their early MTB products to market without sufficient testing, and it was later found that said parts had poor seals which would cause said parts to die after about a year of use in the dirt. Talk about a reputation-killer. 

Your other points about you wish there were more component makers out there doing drivetrain stuff is very well taken. Right now there's a 'Big Three' doing these things, and in many/most North American bike shops, it's more like a 'Big Two'. Modernized Mavic, Simplex, and Huret designs would probably be cooler than sh**... I mean, geez, wouldn't it be nice to have something _different_ for a change? But we're stuck in near monopoly-ville for the moment, have been for awhile, and that's just the way it is.

Another reason to bemoan the loss of SunTour.
.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> Well, while you'd call the basic blueprint for modern index derailleurs 'Crane + slant parallelogram', I'd call it 'slightly-updated SunTour V'. I think plenty of others would as well.
> 
> That said, cosmetically, I love the Crane.
> 
> ...


This seems like we're having an argument, but we're not. It's just a point of view thing. I'm not saying that the Slant wasn't critical to indexing, I'm just saying that the rest of the features that went with it were not necessarily, which is why the Crane pattern was so easily adapted and widely adopted.








Does this look like the layout of any index derailleur you saw after 1992? The extremely low pulley pivot point and a pulley cage that pivot almost inbetween the pulleys are all much more closely related to simpler designs:








Can you see the family resemblence? The Suntour derailleurs attempted to duplicate the basic geometry of previous derailleurs even while introducing a drop and slant parallelogram. In contrast, the Crane moves the lower pivot up to the knuckle and the pulley cage pivots much closer to the upper pulley, which allowed more chain wrap around the freewheel and less radical changes in pulley position with FD shifts. The Sram design takes this a step further and puts the upper pulley on the pulley pivot.

I think good engineering could make a great derailleur out of any basic layout, but the Suntour RD layout was more primitive in some ways than the Crane, and contained only one important feature that transformed the Crane into the the Ultegra of today. If I was handing out awards, I'd give the Shimano layout 3rd runner up.

BTW, here's a list, with links, of all the other index tries. https://velobase.com/ListShiftSystems.aspx


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> Does this look like the layout of any index derailleur you saw after 1992? The extremely low pulley pivot point and a pulley cage that pivot almost inbetween the pulleys are all much more closely related to simpler designs


By the same token, how many modern index derailleurs are SunTour-style slant-p's, and how many are Crane-style 'servo-pantagraphs'?

Hint: It's a _really_ lop-sided number. And due in very large part to the fact that the SunTour slant-p's shifted better than the servo-pantagraph design.

It's called best-of-breed evolution... the best designs survive, the also-rans get weeded out. If Shimano could've made an exceptional SIS system using servo-pantagraph, they would've, since they already owned the design. They chose not to.

And this I guess is a lot of why I have a different PoV regarding what should be considered the 'blueprint' for the modern RD... an inferior-shifting design by definition is not the template for the future. 

Far as the Mavic comparison goes... really? The Mavic seems to be much more like a Campy Nuovo Record imitation, i.e. the RD that was famously described as being so well-constructed that it would "shift poorly... forever." That design is very different from a slant-p, and (infamously) doesn't care too much about things like consistent chain gap. The geometry is inherently very different from a slant-p.

Which brings up another point: You shouldn't be so concerned where the pulley cage pivot is, but rather, where the upper pulley wheel is in relation to the cogs. That's what matters most.

I think you're banking far too much on superficial resemblances, and not enough on actual performance. Which is really the determiner of which designs live on. 




> _I think good engineering could make a great derailleur out of any basic layout, but the Suntour RD layout was more primitive in some ways than the Crane, and contained only one important feature that transformed the Crane into the the Ultegra of today._


Again, you ignore other aspects of the SunTour derailleurs, such as the V's aluminum design... it was one of the first such RDs.

And I hate to bring up Disraeli again, but since you keep on ignoring it... 


*With the third iteration of the V series SunTour defined the look and performance of derailleurs for the next 30 years. All the elements are here: the curvaceous cast aluminium knuckles, the slant parallelogram, the adjustment screws (clearly marked ‘H’ and ‘L’) at the back, the adjustable cable outer stop, the cable clamped under a washer by a bolt, and the final element - big, glossy, chromed allen bolts.

...This is one of my ‘derailleurs that changed the world’.*​.

... and yet, in your book, the SunTour RDs of the time are notable for only ONE thing? :idea:











.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> By the same token, how many modern index derailleurs are SunTour-style slant-p's, and how many are Crane-style 'servo-pantagraphs'?
> *All of them. Do you know what a servo pantagraph is?*
> Hint: It's a _really_ lop-sided number. And due in very large part to the fact that the SunTour slant-p's shifted better than the servo-pantagraph design.
> 
> ...


Nope. You either purposely misquote or misunderstand. I said, and keep saying, that the ONLY Suntour RD feature that survived to the modern age was the Slant itself. That is not a bust on Suntour - I keep saying that I don't think the Shimano design is necessarily superior, but it is the defacto derailleur of our time. I more than recognize the importance of Suntour's Slant patent, but I can also clearly see (and read) that the Crane ended up contributing the lion's share of architecture to what we use today. I don't think that's good or bad, it's just a fact of life. When you buy a new RD, chances are it is a mostly Shimano design with one, albeit important, feature taken from Suntour.

Performance is not a feature. You can produce performance in many different ways. A derailleur is relatively complicated and relies on all of its features to work. Suntour contributed one particularly great feature that, if applied to an otherwise well designed derailleur, makes the shifting better. 

I don't see anything wrong with pointing out that a great and influential design was also full of dead ends. The Wright brother's plane steered in a way no one continued to. John Browning's seminal 1911 .45 pistol is loaded with features that are unused anywhere else. Edison blackballed Tesla in his attempt to promote his own DC electrical transmission system over AC. Except for DC, none of these designs were bad, but they weren't ultimately embraced, even while the base invention fostered generations of performance imitators. That's the way it is.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> Nope. You either purposely misquote or misunderstand. I said, and keep saying, that the ONLY Suntour RD feature that survived to the modern age was the Slant itself.


Geez, you can't even read that Disraeli quote, even though I posted it twice... in bold and red print, yet. That alone lists a _half-dozen things_ that were kinda special back in the late '60s/early '70s (when the V series saw its start), and which survive to the modern day. 

It's difficult to have a conversation with you when you are being this disingenuous. 

Or, as my uncle used to say, "I refuse to have a conversation with someone who's being willfully ignorant."

I'd continue, but given how you've chosen to argue, I can't see what the point would be... and honestly, your PoV no longer matters to me, as I no longer think you're a good judge here. You just repeat the same thing over and over again, and ignore contradictory information, no good explanation given. Sorry. 

*walks away*
.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> Geez, you can't even read that Disraeli quote, even though I posted it twice... in bold and red print, yet. That alone lists a _half-dozen things_ that were kinda special back in the late '60s/early '70s (when the V series saw its start), and which survive to the modern day.
> 
> It's difficult to have a conversation with you when you are being this disingenuous.
> 
> ...


And you have failed to even acknowledge any of the points I made. Too bad for both of us.


----------

