# Dropbar Shifters- Why?



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

Maybe this will reveal the fact that I'm kind of new to shopping for a touring bike, but why do touring bikes have their shifters on the ends of the drops?

I'm just trying to think how that would be better than the normal STI-brake lever design.

Please, I may know some of the jargon, but please explain this in terms that someone who has been riding for less than a year can understand.


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

They are simpler and cheaper. If you have a problem with them on a long tour away from tools and replacement parts you can just switch to friction mode.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

In the conditions that real touring bikes are designed for STI hasn't proven itself to be reliable enough for the very conservative group of riders that are hardcore tourists.

On tour bikes can take a real beating and you could be out riding in rain for days. STI works best when kept clean and lubed and the derailleurs have to be in correct alignment. You can really beat on bar end shifters and they will keep on functioning well enough to get you home. The ability to turn off the index shifting is a real plus when things go south.

Down tube shifters share the durability and simplicity of bar end shifters and are very protected from crashing but you have to take your hands off the bars to use them which can be a problem with a heavy load on the bike in sketchy conditions.

MB1
Down Tube Shifter kind of guy.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Once you get used to bar-end shifters, they're almost as practical as STI. If you aren't racing, they're probably 99% as practical as STI and several times less likely to break. I like the very reassuring "thunk" they make when you shift.

Figure the money they save equals a whole bunch of much nicer components- Bar end shifters run about $80 vs. STI which starts at around, what, $300? Having $200 to play with is the difference between crappy racks and Nitto racks or the difference between an OK set of wheels and a set of excellent hand-built wheels or the difference between nashbar panniers and Arkel, or even the difference between Arkel and Giles Berthoud...


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

Ok, now I know. If I were out several 100's of miles away from the nearest LBS, then I probably would go w/ bar end shifters.

But since in my commute there's going to be lots of situations where I'll have to brake & downshift simultaneously, you can probably guess what I'm going to go with.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Another possible reason*



lx93 said:


> Maybe this will reveal the fact that I'm kind of new to shopping for a touring bike, but why do touring bikes have their shifters on the ends of the drops?
> 
> I'm just trying to think how that would be better than the normal STI-brake lever design.


Another reason that some touring bikes (and some cyclocross bikes as well) use bar-end shifters is so that they can use linear pull brakes (V-brakes). Linear pull brakes have most of the advantages of cantilevers, but are sometimes easier to design a bike around because they don't require a frame mounted cable stop.

However, no dual control (STI or Ergo) drop bar levers are designed to work with linear pull brakes. But there are a few linear pull brake compatible drop bar brake levers on the market, so these are used with bar-end shifters.


----------



## the_dude (Jun 25, 2004)

i'm surprised no one has stated the obvious reason: they're dead sexy.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Lol*



the_dude said:


> i'm surprised no one has stated the obvious reason: they're dead sexy.


Silly me to have missed that!


----------



## the_dude (Jun 25, 2004)

MB1 said:


> Silly me to have missed that!



you are forgiven.


----------



## Vettekid (Sep 16, 2005)

Maybe I am missin' something. I have about five hundred miles on a bike with STI shifters. Awhile back I put together a bike with bar end shifters and have about a hundred miles logged on it. When I was really young, more than forty years ago, I had a standard road bike with down tube shifters. 

I don't see what the big deal is with the STI shift scheme. Bar end shifters take soooooo much less effort to get from one gear to the next. The entire range can be travelled with one quick and easy motion of the lever. A motion so much less than the cumalitive motions required to move the STI lever for each change of a gear. Maybe if only three gears were involved it wouldn't be so bad ;^) Each swing of the lever on an STI is close to the same motion for the entire range of a bar end but the change is just one stop. I do not at all "get it." I am seriously considering abandoning the STI system all together.

While we are so close, I am at a complete loss to understand the anotomic kick to new style handlebars..........but I'm not really interested in thread highjacking.


----------



## Sixty Fiver (Jul 7, 2007)

The only bikes I own that have indexed shifting are my mountain bikes where indexed shifting is actually useful.

Everything else is either a fixed gear, siongle speed, uses friction shifters, or is one of my 3 speeds which one might consider an early variant of indexed shifting.


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

Whatever anyone rides, I'm glad that they enjoy it- it's THEIR ride, not mine. 

And actually, I don't even have STI, I have Campy Ergopower- not sure if there's a huge difference, never having ridden a bike w/ Shimano components. 

W/ Ergopower, I just make 1 motion to shift gears, and each "click" is 1 gear up or down- if I want to move up/down several gears, it's easy to tell when I've gone enough.

But being able to keep both my hands on the bars while shifting is a huge advantage if I'm trying to avoid potholes/cars pulling out in front of me/pedestrians in crosswalks/who knows what else.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm not a cyclo-tourist, so my opinion doesn't matter in the slightest, but I did do my time with bar end shifters, many many years ago. Of course this was way before index shifting, but I found bar end shifters to be a miserable experience (I had Campy, BTW). They had none of the feel and precision of downtube shifters. I could never accurately gauge how far to push the lever in order to get the gear I wanted...something which I soon became expert at with downtube levers. I also found them to be just as awkward to get to as downtube shifters. I would have to ooch my hand to a part of the bar I never used and then move the lever with my palm. With the downtube levers, I'd simply let my right hand swing down from the handlebar to it's natural vertical position, and there the downtube levers were!

All the while, meantime, I dreamed of the day when I could shift with a button near the brake levers, a button that would precisely put me into the next gear.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

I'm going to have to agree with the STI crowd. I think the main reason bar end shifters enjoy popularity on touring rigs is fashion. In actual practice they're miserable.

My credentials supporting this claim include many thousands of touring miles, and many thousands of racing, training and touring miles with STI shifters without one failure or problem. Further, back in the dark ages, I put plenty of miles on bar end and downtube shifters, and my recent touring bike had twist grip shifters, so I have some basis for comparison.

Bar end shifters are the worst of all possible choices. Heavily loaded touring in hilly terrain requires lots of shifting, but comfortable riding dictates hands on the tops. To have to ride continuously on the drops to keep up with the shifting is uncomfortable, and to have to continuously move hands from tops to drops to shift is an invitation for a crash, especially with heavily loaded front panniers and/or while wearing bulky clothing in cold or wet weather. I'm not even going to mention the extra cables flapping around with bar ends. If you're a purist who goes without a kickstand (another bad idea for touring), sooner or later, you're going to lay your bike down wrong and find your bar end shifters full of mud and turned sideways...no problem, they still work, but it's a PITA.

In my experience, the argument that STI shifters are unreliable is without merit , but for those who worry about it, it's an easy, cheap and light fix to carry a pair of down tube friction shifters as spares. Yes, new STI may be more expensive, but if you shop carefully on eBay, you can pick up a nice set of used 105's for $100 give or take. You're not going to get decent brake levers and bar ends for any less.

My order of ranking for touring shifters:

STI - easily the most functional with the least strain on the body and mind of the rider.

Down tube - cheap, reliable, light, and if you have to move your hands to shift, it's safer to reach for the down tube than for the bar end.

Twist grip - At first glance would seem to be the best, but recent touring experience has shown me that straight bars, even with all kinds of extensions are just not as comfortable as drop bars and that twist shifting gets to be a pain after days in the saddle.

Bar ends - last choice for all the reasons mentioned above.

BTW, What's the deal with Brooks saddles? Fashion again methinks. Flame away.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Bad boy, how dare you?*



StillRiding said:


> ....BTW, What's the deal with Brooks saddles? Fashion again methinks. Flame away.


I feel faint.......


----------



## yetisurly (Sep 30, 2005)

MB1 said:


> I feel faint.......



I just got myselfish one of them there b17 saddles. Now, If things came together so that I can ride the bike that I put it on, well, that would be cool.


----------



## yetisurly (Sep 30, 2005)

Interesting. I have bar end shifters on one of my bikes. Have put billions of miles of pure cycling enjoyment on it and also have STI on another. Have put many miles of pure cycliing enjoyment on that one too. I have had down-tube shifters in the past and found them to equal they cycling enjoyment of the other styles.

But I think as far as all the points that you have brought up - I agree. But they all really suck.

I have a fixed gear that I ride to the point of religion that is superior in everyway as far as comfort, reliability, safety, technical accuracy and pure cycling enjoyment. 

But your saddle point is off base.


----------



## FrontRanger (May 19, 2004)

You know I thought the same thing about Brooks saddles. I mean how can a non padded saddle be even remotely comfortable. I decided to try out a B17 because it was a cheap investment. It isn't broken in yet after several hundred miles but I gotta say it is the most comfortable saddle I own.


----------



## Howzitbroke (Jun 1, 2005)

I dig bar end shifters if I am gonna shift. Normally I am on a single speed but prior to that I had a Bridgestone RB-1 racing bike that came stock with bar end clickers during the 7 speed downtube shifter revolution. I rode it for 10 years without ever having a problem. I ride in the drops a bunch too so the shifters are right there. It just works to me. I rode Campy ergo 9 for a while, and Ultegra STI 9 for a bit too, even tried Kelly take offs, and Paul road thumbies, they all work and have pros and cons but give me my grumpy old out dated bar end shifters. K.I.S.S.> and yes I am stupid.


----------



## ethebull (May 30, 2007)

*Go Shift*

Sounds to me like those who are bashing bar-ends haven't used them on a properly designed and fitted rig. A well set-up touring bike will have the handlebars about even in height with the saddle, so the drops are user friendly. Shifting with barends is very stable because you shift with your pinky and ring fingers while gripping the bar. You don't "take your hand off the bar" any more than you normaly do in moving about to stay comfortablle. 

Down shifting and simultaniously braking? If you say so


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

ethebull said:


> A well set-up touring bike will have the handlebars about even in height with the saddle, so the drops are user friendly.


Bar height (and reach) is a very personal thing. To say that a well set-up touring bike will have bars at the same height as the saddle is a gross generalization. My race bike is set up with 9cm of bar drop, and for touring, I prefer about 4 or 5cm. YMMV. Go here if you want to see a wide range of saddle/bar positions on touring bikes: http://www.fullyloadedtouring.com/ 

Bars level with the saddle just put more load on your butt...maybe that's why Brooks saddles.


----------



## ethebull (May 30, 2007)

I said "about" even. 4cm is pretty close. About even in height means the rider can bend their elbows, stay comfortable, and have good weight distribution.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

*Handle Bar Bags....................*

another reason bar-ends are so popular is that many tourons use handlebar bags....they are very handy ....Shimano shift cables get in the way....PITA...

re shifting:

gear anticipation is the key to good shifting, regardless of system...

loaded touring does not require constant gear banging....
less is more ... K.I.S.S.

........that is all..........


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

*Luddite Utopia....*

Bar-ends sensibly located.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

bonkmiester said:


> another reason bar-ends are so popular is that many tourons use handlebar bags....they are very handy ....Shimano shift cables get in the way....PITA...
> 
> re shifting:
> 
> ...


STI shifters don't seem to interfere with these bar bags:

http://www.pbase.com/canyonlands/image/56985130/large
http://www.pbase.com/canyonlands/image/56986029
http://www.pbase.com/canyonlands/image/56871203
http://www.pbase.com/canyonlands/image/57387872
http://www.pbase.com/canyonlands/image/57818349

...and there's plenty more examples where these came from.

Anticipating a shift is fine, but why move your hands from a comfortable or safe position to do it?

Loaded touring on the flat requires little shifting. OTOH, if you're not shifting in the hills, you're either chapping your butt with spinning or grinding your knees down with stomping. There's no prize for "fewest shifts done during the course of a tour". Why make life difficult?


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Hi SR-
Not to put too fine a point on it, but your photo's actually underscore my point. With handlebar bags, those cables are not ideally routed. With bags larger than your examples, on small frames w/ narrow bars [typical women's setup] the cable routing can get rather torturous. 

Campy or Modolo brifters would not present that particular problem. 

re: why make life difficult?....like when your brifter breaks and you are out in the middle of nowhere?...bar-end or DT friction shifting is mechanically reliable and easily accomplished...it's just another skill, easily learned...

But obviously it's all about choices. While thousands of people tour w/brifters quite successfully, the OP simply asked why many use bar-ends. 

b0nk
chapping, spinning, grinding and stomping since '78 
[and occasionally bonking too  ]


----------



## ethebull (May 30, 2007)

bonkmiester said:


> Hi SR-
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but your photo's actually underscore my point.


And they all have the bars about even in height with the saddle. 

BTW, in another post you ask about 26" wheels for loaded touring. I agree with you, they are better than 700c's. The 29'r analogy is not valid. Larger wheels roll better over ruts, small branches and other irregularities on trails, but I don't believe you are asking about touring on dirt. 

A Surly HT will be a big improvement over your highly modified MTB's because of the lower bottom bracket. Add a set of bar end shifters, a Brooks B17, and you'll be good to go.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Lol!*



ethebull said:


> ....A Surly HT will be a big improvement over your highly modified MTB's because of the lower bottom bracket. *Add a set of bar end shifters, a Brooks B17, and you'll be good to go*.


Smack! Bang! Pow!


----------



## lx93 (Jun 14, 2007)

I keep reading everyone's comments about bar-end shifter being so much more reliable, which makes me ask myself- 

Does this mean that my original 1997, no repairs/mods ever done, Campy Ergopower Mirage setup (same concept as STI) has set a record for longevity?

I just don't see STI/ergopower as being this fragile eggshell that some people make it out to be. Really, how much energy should we be applying to shift gears? Sort of reminds me of mechanics that apply 250 ft-lb's of torque to tighten up an oil drain bolt.


----------



## Huckwheat (May 17, 2007)

Love the hijacking in this thread.....man it is going lots of directions. Shifting, into handlebars, into brooks debate, into singlespeed. 

I have ridden all three, and I love my campy sti style shifting. Has been 6 years on my commuter/tourer/utilitarian all purpose bike and I have basically never gotten a tune of any kind (yes I am lazy....but that is how I like my bikes to work).


----------



## YuriB (Mar 24, 2005)

I haven't tested mine to the point where durability would play a factor yet. I just prefer the motion to the sti motion.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

I've decided on the 54cm LHT. I only wish that I could find it in green. It will have either 105 brifters or downtube shifters. I'll never have barcons again. At this point in time I'm leaning toward downtube shifters mainly because I have an old set laying around...but I do have an eye on eBay for used 105s. 

I may try the Fi'zi:k Rondine saddle, I've had good luck with their Arione on my road bike, but I may just save bucks and go with a WTB Speed V, which has served me well for many thousands of touring miles. Sorry, no Brooks for me.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

*All Problems Solved*

This bike solves the shifter and saddle problem conclusively.

http://www.echobike.com/bike26inch.html


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*26" wheels too.*



StillRiding said:


> This bike solves the shifter and saddle problem conclusively.
> ...


You should be able to climb just about anything with that gear too, a shame it isn't fixed.


----------



## khill (Mar 4, 2004)

StillRiding said:


> This bike solves the shifter and saddle problem conclusively.
> 
> http://www.echobike.com/bike26inch.html


Sweet. I'd like to some Hans Rey pulling some trials moves on that with fully loaded panniers.

Oh, and get those MTB grips off there and put on some Brooks handlebar tape.


----------



## smokey422 (Feb 22, 2004)

I've got Shimano bar-con shifters on my Lemond and like them just fine. We've got lots of steep peaked hills here in MO and it's nice to be able to shift up several gears at once after the crest of the hill on the steep drop down the other side. I also like the simplicity of them, less parts equals less to go wrong.


----------



## MDGColorado (Nov 9, 2004)

lx93 said:


> I just don't see STI/ergopower as being this fragile eggshell that some people make it out to be.


No, it's not that bad. I've heard a few cases of them breaking on tour, though. When that happens you're probably going to need to buy a pair of levers at the local LBS at full retail. Good idea, whoever said carry a spare dt or even friction thumb shifter on tour. For actual usability, I like STI, but only a little better than dt's. 

I once asked the touring list @ phred.org why people think bar-ends are so much better than downtubes. To me the reach is about the same. Turns out that this isn't the case for everybody - bar-ends are easier to reach for taller people.


----------

