Agreed.
Sort of. Also important to note that there is no "trollness" going on here.
I totally understand that this could easily veer into some off topic unpleasantries. But the very nature of this discussion easily falls within the timeline. But, if the rules are to be followed to the letter of the law, not the spirit, then this topic should have been moot from the onset.
My opinion is simply this- the question involves both OT parts and ideas. I agree that the part about using modern shifters veers a bit, but I believe the spirit is still very on topic. Not to mention if the idea of the "garage chat" theory is still in play, it's natural for a conversation to ebb and flow but still keep the nature of said conversation. One would not simply stop talking about something because it's slightly beyond the initial scope of the conversation.
But I digress. My original question was more of "this has got me thinking/excited to try something different" than purposefully delving into OT land. So in the interest of "keepin' it real". I'll drop it.
Sean Flores SF, CA
Besides, I On Mar 23, 2010, at 2:15 PM, verktyg wrote:
> Sean, et al,
>
> Not wanting to sound like a troll, but index shifting sort of violates one of the most important precepts of the CR list:
>
> From the list rules:
>
> " 15. While the CR focus is on the beginning of the twentieth century to 1983, a few contemporary, classically made small workshop bikes are considered on- topic* here These are generally referred to as "KOF" (see # 2 above). Those welded, injection molded, or glued modern wonders belong in some other mail list. Ditto for mountain bikes, "middle weights", BMX, recumbents, and balloon-tired bikes. Those bikes have merit, but they do not belong on the Classic Rendezvous. Ditto for components that are post- 1983 or those which are harbingers of a new, aesthetically "modern" era (like cycle computers, clipless pedals, index shifting, etc.) If in doubt of the appropriateness of your intended topic, please ask the web master first."
>
> That said,
>
> Just about any rear derailleur with sufficient sideways float in the upper pulley will work with most down tube index shift levers (mention of brifters is pushing my luck).
>
> No combinations work reliably with the bastardo (a proper Italian term for someone born out of wedlock) Campagnolo Synchro down tube "clicking" shift levers!
>
> BTW, Most later OT indexing derailleurs work great with friction shifters - no 2 steps back and 1 forward adjustments when shifting.
>
> Hint, try putting a little side to side slop in your upper pulley and see if it improves shifting any.
>
> I, on the other hand, being well versed in the manly art of friction shifting have no problems with shifting 7 or 8 cog freewheels with good down tube shifters like Simplex Retrofrictions! ;-)
>
> Chas. Colerich waiting for the axe to fall...
> Oakland, CA USA
>
>
>
> Sean Flores wrote:
>> This brings up a nice subject.
>> What other combinations of non-indexing RD's have people been able to successfully run with indexing shifters? I'd love to find a solution for a Huret duopar or even a campy rally (knowing I'd have to add a barrel adjuster somewhere in the mix.
>> Sean Flores
>> San Francisco, CA
>> On Mar 23, 2010, at 11:59 AM, David Snyder wrote:
>>> Haven't we seen examples of a couple of the very early derailer systems having an indexed lever? I can't recall which one(s), but I have a picture in my mind of a sort of sprung, toothed slider alongside the shift lever, a system that would be relatively easy to craft at home.
>>>
>>> On a related note, I recently got a '79 600 Arabesque derailer to nicely index a standard 6-speed using a 7-speed Accushift lever, much as a pre-'96 Dura-Ace derailer would function. I found this surprising in that every good index derailer is a slant parallelogram, while the early 600 is not. Conveniently, it even came with a barrel adjuster.
>>>
>>> David Snyder
>>> Auburn, CA usa