manuelschafer
Old School Hero
why that rapid rise xtr explicitly?
the unofficially cool MTB drop bar thread
- Thread starter legrandefromage
- Start date
I think that's just what he had lying around at the time?
Mickeyspinn
rBotM Winner
Affectionately known as hightower.... police academy style tall and a loose cannon (12 1/4" BB height! 
) Hasn't had me off yet.....sure it will!
Now this Tequesta ain't gravel it ain't MTB it ain't ATB .....it's A 2 B as the crow flies by any means necessary!
Lots more to do like finish the camper conversion.... A telescopic boom from seat post that means I can pitch a shelter in seconds it's all very ingenious this little puppy. If I can get my fitness back on track this build is for a crack at the TCR!
) Hasn't had me off yet.....sure it will!
Now this Tequesta ain't gravel it ain't MTB it ain't ATB .....it's A 2 B as the crow flies by any means necessary!
Lots more to do like finish the camper conversion.... A telescopic boom from seat post that means I can pitch a shelter in seconds it's all very ingenious this little puppy. If I can get my fitness back on track this build is for a crack at the TCR!
Actually it does make some sense as it keeps the bar end shifters out of the way in lower gears, when you are more likely to be out of the saddle. It saves banging your knees on them.
I tried it years ago, but the rapid rise idea is fundamentally flawed in my view - once the spring (which is all that holds it in a lower gear) weakens, it tends to upshift under load.
Mickeyspinn
rBotM Winner
Have no experience with rapid rise so if cable were to snap or slip it'll run up the block?
frkl
Retro Guru
That's a question to me?
I actually like the rapid rise motion a lot.
I decided to move it from another bike, where it was kind of confusing. I did, in fact, have the Vs lying around at the time, and this was an opportunity to unite the two on one bike. In the process, the other bike is now XT unified, so that worked out well.
I also work under a fairly strict budget, so I do, without apologies, plan around what I have.
My hope, however, was that because the derailleur is controlled by a bar end shifter, the shifting motion would be different enough that I would not mixing up shifting directions. Seems to have panned out as I hoped, so far.
@hamster , your reason sounds better, so I will use that from now on
fortunately the spring is still good but I can see that becoming a problem.
frkl
Retro Guru
Yes. Unbolt the cable and the thing shifts easier.
Correct, all the way to bottom gear. It's a 'low normal' mech instead of 'high normal'. It is logical from the point of view that both shifters move in the same direction for easier and harder gears.
Of course, on a (high) normal mech the chain tension helps the spring and downshift is powered by the cable tension (and rider's hand).
Of course, on a (high) normal mech the chain tension helps the spring and downshift is powered by the cable tension (and rider's hand).
Mickeyspinn
rBotM Winner
Only ever come across that with an old simplex set up!
frkl
Retro Guru
Yeah like a lot of things it wasn't Shimano's invention...
This is one of those things that if the low normal had gained adoption first, and then Shimano came up with the "rapid-fall" high normal, people would probably complain about high-normal. Theoretically, I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
It's maybe similar to conventions about which hand, right or left, controls the brake on which wheel. I could make an argument that since most people are right handed, you want the stronger hand powering weaker brake, or you could say the right hand usually has better fine motor control so it should control the considerably stronger brake. And you see both, and people stick to what they learned.
Probably the best theoretical argument could be made for looped cable systems like the LMDS (and this would be a completely theoretical argument for me since I've never tried one) that do away with the spring all together and have a zero net tension and are "neutral normal."
Similar threads
