# friction v thumb shifters



## Chris S (18 Sep 2010)

I've seen a number of what look like decent bikes on ebay, with friction shifters.

I've only ever used thumb shifters and have been told that friction shifters are tricky to use, particularly when they're old and worn.

Is it best to avoid these bikes and stick with something more modern?


----------



## Greenflash (18 Sep 2010)

Tricky one to answer. By friction shifter, I assume you mean a down tube shifter, mounted between your legs. There is a reason these are known as "suicide shifters". Shifters mounted on the handlebars are much easier to use.

Shimano used to make a thumb shifter that had the option of switching between indexed shifting and friction shifting. I still use one of these, on a fairly "modern" bike, always in friction mode. I find the shifting smoother and quicker than having to click through gears and infinately better than the Rapid Fire shifters that were originally fitted.

It is most likely an old derailler that gets worn, not the shifter, and this is what leads to tricky use. 

However, having said all that, some people still swear by downtube shifters, but I think they can be regarded as being a bit eccentric.

Depending on the bike you may have to change the gear block, rear derailler, (Front deraillers tend to work reasonably well in "Friction Mode") cables and shifters to bring it close to modern standards. Whether that is an economical upgrade would be your decision.


----------



## Globalti (19 Sep 2010)

_*fusty old bugger mode on*_

We managed with friction shifters for decades, all that happened was that you needed a little sensitivity when changing gear, although of course you probably only had five gears, widely spaced. With a non-indexed system you had the freedom to move through the gears as fast as you wanted. My mountain bike still has a friction shifter for the front derailleur; a beautiful little Suntour XC Pro thumbshifter. The rear shifter is indexed but you can move a little lever and cancel the indexing. These are lightweight and simple, exactly what you need for a bike designed for long, self-sufficient mountain days.

See here: http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...XmVrg0&t=1&usg=__zhmgHBkaHIJdBYIqTD_91oH84rc=

_*fusty old bugger mode off* _


----------



## jig-sore (19 Sep 2010)

whilst i agree that people managed with friction/down-tube shifters for years, and they are perfectly usable... having the shifters as part of the brake (drop bar or MTB) means you dont have to move your hands so much to use them. 

as a result you tend to shift gears more and your riding is more efficient.


----------



## chillyuk (19 Sep 2010)

jig-sore said:


> whilst i agree that people managed with friction/down-tube shifters for years, and they are perfectly usable... having the shifters as part of the brake (drop bar or MTB) means you dont have to move your hands so much to use them.
> 
> as a result you tend to shift gears more and your riding is more efficient.



I was looking at a cycling magazine in a cafe during the week. It had an article about Lauren Fignon (spelling??) and an excellent photo of him on a TdF climb. His bike had downtube shifters and metal toe clips with straps. Pity he couldn't ride efficiently.


----------



## Chris S (19 Sep 2010)

Greenflash said:


> Tricky one to answer. By friction shifter, I assume you mean a down tube shifter, mounted between your legs. There is a reason these are known as "suicide shifters". Shifters mounted on the handlebars are much easier to use.



I didn't realize that friction shifters were mounted anywhere apart from the downtube. I'll avoid these bikes but give other ones a second look.


----------



## jig-sore (19 Sep 2010)

chillyuk said:


> I was looking at a cycling magazine in a cafe during the week. It had an article about Lauren Fignon (spelling??) and an excellent photo of him on a TdF climb. His bike had downtube shifters and metal toe clips with straps. Pity he couldn't ride efficiently.




thats not what i meant.

the thing is, people get lazy. why change gear to climb up a small rise when you can just grind up it and knacker your knees ?!?!

with the shifters at your finger tips you do tend to shift gear more often, its human nature.

i completely agree with you on the old style bikes... toe clips, down tube shifters, steel frames, five gears (if lucky). and if those guys could ride them then why cant we BUT... things move on and given the choice between shifters where you have to move your whole arm to get to them and shifters that just take a flick of the finger im sure even Mr Fignon (spelling??) would have chosen the latter !!!


----------



## jig-sore (19 Sep 2010)

Chris S said:


> I didn't realize that friction shifters were mounted anywhere apart from the downtube. I'll avoid these bikes but give other ones a second look.



early MTB's, touring bikes and most "girls racers" used friction shifters mounted on the handle bars or stem


----------



## raindog (19 Sep 2010)

chillyuk said:


> I was looking at a cycling magazine in a cafe during the week. It had an article about Lauren Fignon (spelling??) and an excellent photo of him on a TdF climb. His bike had downtube shifters and metal toe clips with straps. Pity he couldn't ride efficiently.


He _was _riding efficiently, with the equipment of his era. But modern gear is easier and more pleasurable to use. If that wasn't the case the pros would chuck their brake mounted shifters away and use downtube friction jobbies.


----------



## kewb (19 Sep 2010)

kona honky tonk notice the shifters .

http://www.roadcyclinguk.com/news/images/kona-honkytonk-hi.jpg


----------



## andy_wrx (21 Sep 2010)

Kona Honky Tonk notice the £770 RRP for downtube shifters and cro-mo frame !


----------



## briank (21 Sep 2010)

"Suicide"? Nonsense!

True, you tend to change gear more frequently with STi/Ergopwer levers: set against that the training benefit of riding what used to be called a "fixed wheel" - pedaling fluency developed through varying cadence. Some of that benefit here? For changing gear when eyeballs out on a climb or in a sprint, handlebar mounted shifters are hugely better, but for commuting/touring/general riding downtube levers are fine - once you get the hang of them. Friction levers do take a bit of getting used to and even then a degree of skill and mechanical sensitivity. It's a skill irrelevant to those who have learned to ride in the last 15 years.

One advantage, as already noted, is that it's easy to shift all the way across your gears in one movement, another is weight saving and a third is reliability - and cost of replacement. I've a left hand Dura Ace STi which has died on me - replacing it will NOT be cheap.


----------



## snailracer (21 Sep 2010)

Apparently Lance Armstrong used a friction shifter for his front derailleur in all his Tour de France wins.

It's lighter than an indexed shifter, and even the best indexed front shifter requires trimming to avoid chain rub, and trimming is easier to do with a friction shifter.


----------



## andy_wrx (23 Sep 2010)

No, not 'all' : Lance used one on _some _of the climbing days on _some _of his earlier Tour wins.
On flatter days in the same race, he used a lefthand STI brifter

Whether it actually made much difference is moot - may just have been publicity or out-psyche-the-opposition stuff.

In later Tours, he used STI's both sides even on climbing bikes, as Trek had by now made a bike under the minimum weight limit, needing to be ballasted-up rather than weight saved, and STI front-shift and trim technology had improved by now.



Personally, if I had a retro bike which I dug-out on the occasional sunny Sunday, rather as people drive around in classic 1950's sportscars, then obviously it would have the correct period downtube shifters.

But for a modern bike for everyday use, no chance !

I can remember hitting a pothole years ago, with only one-hand on the bars and one down on the shifter, and enduring a _*huge *_tank-slapper before I got back under control, my ears filled with the sound of a large diesel engine growling along just behind me...


----------



## tyred (23 Sep 2010)

When I put my old Pugeot on the road, I hated the DT friction shifters, finding them difficult to get used to. After a week or so of regular riding, it felt perfectly normal and has caused me no issues. I appreciate the simplicity of the design, the ease of adjustment when setting the bike up in the first place and the fact that after 2,200 miles, no further adjustment has been necessary. I would say that for an everyday bike, they are ideal, being simple, long lasting and cheap.


----------



## HJ (24 Sep 2010)

Chris S said:


> I've seen a number of what look like decent bikes on ebay, with friction shifters.
> 
> I've only ever used thumb shifters and have been told that friction shifters are tricky to use, particularly when they're old and worn.
> 
> Is it best to avoid these bikes and stick with something more modern?



I used them for years, they are fine, once you get used to them...


----------



## snailracer (24 Sep 2010)

andy_wrx said:


> No, not 'all' : Lance used one on _some _of the climbing days on _some _of his earlier Tour wins.
> On flatter days in the same race, he used a lefthand STI brifter
> 
> Whether it actually made much difference is moot - may just have been publicity or out-psyche-the-opposition stuff.
> ...


Aslo, frames were probably a bit more flexy in the early days of STI, and more flex = more chainrub = more trimming.


----------

