Front shifter from 3 x 10 with 9 speed?

[Blue Hills]

Apologies.

Not that technical.

I understand that there is a difference in pull on the rear between Shimano 9 and 10 speed.

One of several reasons why I am never likely to go beyond 9.

But would a front flat bar shifter for a triple in a 3 x 10 set-up work OK as a front shifter on a 3x9?

 

[davidphilips]

Sorry different pull ratios for rear derailleurs but not sure about front could be ok , shimano 10 speeds are different even for mtbs and road bikes when it comes to rear pull ratios is it just the front you intend to fit?

 

[Blue Hills]

yes just a front triple shifter that was apparently originally part of a 3x10 set-up.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Yes, it will work as long s you don't try and use one of the new 11-speed FDs with it. Those have a different pull ratio from 9- and 10-speed.

 

[Blue Hills]

Thanks yellow saddle.

In that case I assume it would also work with a 3 x 8?

(as you can possibly tell I am laying up spares)

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Thanks yellow saddle.

In that case I assume it would also work with a 3 x 8?

(as you can possibly tell I am laying up spares)

Yes

 

[bikingdad90]

Have you considered chain width? A 9 speed chain may not fit through a 10 speed FD without some rubbing.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Have you considered chain width? A 9 speed chain may not fit through a 10 speed FD without some rubbing.

Yes I have.

 

[Blue Hills]

Have you considered chain width? A 9 speed chain may not fit through a 10 speed FD without some rubbing.

it's a shifter, not a mech.

Will be used with a 9 speed chain, or possible an 8 speed chain on the 8 speed.

And both the 8 and 9 speed bike will be using a front mech that is supposedly only for 7 speed and can be had from Germany for about £7. And is tough.

Oh the simple joys of not following the bike industry in its marketing games

 

[Yellow Saddle]

it's a shifter, not a mech.

Will be used with a 9 speed chain, or possible an 8 speed chain on the 8 speed.

And both the 8 and 9 speed bike will be using a front mech that is supposedly only for 7 speed and can be had from Germany for about £7. And is tough.

Oh the simple joys of not following the bike industry in its marketing games

And here's cynical me defending the industry for once.

It was a move that had to be done to improve shifting consistency (not accuracy).

The lower the "speed" rating of the system, the more the derailer moves to shift one gear. Conversely, the higher the "speed" rating, the smaller the movement required to shift one gear. System slop and cable friction make small cable movements inaccurate. All "systems" have an error but the higher the error/movement ratio, the more unpredictable and inconsistent the movement becomes. What Shimano had to do was to increase the relative cable movement for a smaller (11-speed) derailer movement. This makes the error a smaller percentage of the overall movement. Hence the change. SRAM had implemented that principle earlier on, perhaps for other reasons (probably patent issues) and just got lucky when "speeds" increased. Both SRAM and Shimano now have an approximate 2:1 actuation ratio - the cable moves two millimeters for a one millimeter shift in derailer distance. Previously Shimano was 1.2:1 or thereabouts.
It is all for the better, assuming that 11-speed is better.

 

[Blue Hills]

well I would argue that 11 speed isn't better for much cycling. It does have its specialised uses of course.

Thanks for your help yellow.

 

[hoopdriver]

A drawback to 10 and 11 speed - and this would concern tourers more than racers - is that you have much thinner and much less durable chains as you increase the number of sprockets. Rohloff, which used to make the finest chains on the market, stopped making chains altogether when the industry moved to make 10-speed the standard (let alone 11 speed!) The reason they gave was that they did not feel they could make chains to their high standard in the thinner widths, and they saw the market for 8 and 9 speed declining. A real pity. Their chains were beautifully made and incredibly durable.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

A drawback to 10 and 11 speed - and this would concern tourers more than racers - is that you have much thinner and much less durable chains as you increase the number of sprockets. Rohloff, which used to make the finest chains on the market, stopped making chains altogether when the industry moved to make 10-speed the standard (let alone 11 speed!) The reason they gave was that they did not feel they could make chains to their high standard in the thinner widths, and they saw the market for 8 and 9 speed declining. A real pity. Their chains were beautifully made and incredibly durable.

An of-repeated myth, but myth nonetheless. They are not much thinner and not much less durable either. They are slightly narrower which doesn't affect their strength since the rivets rest on exactly the same surface area as before. The fact that there is a shorter length of unsupported rivet between the plates makes it more, not less rigid. Further, the plates are still as thick as they were way back, it is only the rivets that have been countersunk in a chamfered plate. This makes their purchase on the plates much, much stronger. Just try and pop an 11-speed rivet vs an old 8-speed rivet with a chain breaker and you'll see.
Rohloff may or may not have stopped making chains, I don't know. But if they did I doubt the reason was their inability to move to 9, 10, and 11-speed. Something else went wrong in its market. Lastly, how can their chains be more durable than others? They're made from the same stuff, the technology is mature and the conditions are the same in which they get used.
Don't be so afraid of the future. It is bright.

 

[hoopdriver]

Well - now you do know: Rohloff ceased making chains some years ago and for the very reason I stated; I wrote to them at the time and asked why and received a very thoughtful and well articulated response. So while you may believe that it is a myth that thinner chains mean less durability, I think I will go with the engineers at Rohloff who collectively have had decades of experience at the pointy end of designing and manufacturing bicycle chains and were sufficiently convinced that thinner chains were less durable and unable to meet their high standards that they quit the market. Good enough for me. And by the way, they made 9 speed chains; it was 10 speed ones that were the step too far in their book.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Well - now you do know: Rohloff ceased making chains some years ago and for the very reason I stated; I wrote to them at the time and asked why and received a very thoughtful and well articulated response. So while you may believe that it is a myth that thinner chains mean less durability, I think I will go with the engineers at Rohloff who collectively have had decades of experience at the pointy end of designing and manufacturing bicycle chains and were sufficiently convinced that thinner chains were less durable and unable to meet their high standards that they quit the market. Good enough for me. And by the way, they made 9 speed chains; it was 10 speed ones that were the step too far in their book.

I should have listened to the German engineers. That must be the reason my 10-speed chains keep on breaking. Also why I hardly get 100kms on one before it is kaput.

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that a narrower ladder may still have the same thickness uprights and that the shorter rungs are stiffer than their wider cousins?