# M760 XT rear derailleur



## guppie (Jan 26, 2004)

I'm not a beginner, but I sure as hell feel like one! I just upgraded from an 03 XT rear derailleur to a 05 XT rear derailleur. All I can say is: "WTF"!!!!

Call me crazy, but my thumb shifter used to make the chain jump onto the higher cogs thereby making it easier to pedal and the index shifter used to make the chain drop onto the smaller cogs making it harder to pedal... Apparently this is completely the reverse on my new 05 M760 XT rear derailleur and I can't get used to it!

Is this normal? Please tell me everyone else's M760 XT rear derailleur shifts this way as well... It's aggravating as hell when I'm trying to climb out of a drop and then all of the sudden when I switch gears I can't pedal anymore cuz I'm in the wrong gear by at least 2 clicks!

What to do? Can this be reversed? Is my derailleur screwed up? Am I the only dumbass who wasn't aware of this before I bought it?


----------



## GearHead (Dec 27, 2004)

guppie said:


> Is this normal?


No, this is called rapid rise. It is Shimano's new derailleur design. What you wanted is called normal rise (old design). You can still buy the old design due to people's hate for the new rapid rise.


----------



## Zanetti (Sep 18, 2005)

Yep. Rapidrise. Shimano first tried to introduce this concept back in 1996 with the 950 series XTR. Many people hated it back then too.


----------



## Bikinfoolferlife (Feb 3, 2004)

You want the M750, on sale a coupla places now for 40 bucks...


----------



## TREK'ed-out! (Jan 19, 2005)

*well...*

Join the hate-club!
You know, eventually you'll get used to it. It's like a new wife bad cooking. If you eat it long enough...you'll get used to the taste...or not!
I ordered my bike this year, thinking it would have the high normal derailleur - but No! Got the RD760 instead. It took 20 rides for me to get used to it. It's tougher when you have 2 rides - one old XT and one new XT. It's confusing at times and I would get seriously frustrated if I was racing the bike. But the 760 has good shifts so I'll give it some credit. You can always look for a 750 if you really don't get along with this one. At least the XT750 is cheaper. One other thing is: Why the heck do the new ones come in 2 different lengths? Long and extra freaking long???


----------



## Prexus2005 (Mar 18, 2005)

I built up my new bike with it also. I think I'll get used to it even though I'm accustomed to normal rise. 

What was the advantage of rapid rise again? Did it make it easier for shifting under pressure or something?

Phil.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

Prexus2005 said:


> I built up my new bike with it also. I think I'll get used to it even though I'm accustomed to normal rise.
> 
> What was the advantage of rapid rise again? Did it make it easier for shifting under pressure or something?
> 
> Phil.


The advantage of rapid rise is that when you encounter a hill or when you want to pedal with lots of force and you want to shift to a lower gear, it is easier to engage to lower gear by releasing tension versus increasing tension of the derrailluer spring. A non-rapid rise is the opposite, it requires tension in the derrailleur to shift to lower gears (ie: the bigger cogs). Rapid-rise really does make more sense but I think people have been introduced to non-rapid rise first and thus become more accustomed to it. And also, the XT 760 was designed around the new dual control levers, not the shift pods.


----------



## RonSonic (Jan 8, 2005)

I'll disagree with it for the same reason that derailleurs were designed to be high normal in the first place. My thumb and or grip is stronger than the return spring on the derailleur. In fact it is FAR stronger than the return spring. Shift to a smaller cog requires less force than shifting to a larger cog. So it only makes sense to use the weaker element for the upshift and the stronger for the downshift.

Your description (same as Shimano's) is fair enough, but in a world that includes operator error, late shifts, dirty cables and housing, mud caked derailleurs and spanish moss in the cogs I'll stick with a system that we know works. A regular derailleur can almost always be seduced into working no matter how worn, beat up and abused. The rapid rise will freeking FAIL as soon as it is less than optimum. Shimano likes that - means we buy derailleurs sooner. Even if that part didn't bother me, the reduced practical reliability does. 

Sorry, it was just a bad idea. Changing something just for the sake of changing something that works almost always is. And it isn't just about what people are used to. This was just a bad idea. And no it really doesn't make sense. The downshift is more important and shouldn't be left to something that cannot be forced into place at need.

Ron


----------



## guppie (Jan 26, 2004)

yeah, I second that thought... Shimano just wants everyone to go out and purchase their "new" product cuz its "new".

I do agree that as soon as the spring tension gets weak/worn, it will probably make it tougher to get onto the larger cogs and stay put... When you think about it, unless you race, you aren't really spinning too hard. Not sure of everyone else, but for me, I'm usually pedaling along somewhere on the upper half of the cassette. I don't know of many "trail riders" that are in the lower cogs too often... You would need to be traveling at good speeds most likely on rolling XC trails rather than "trail riding" on the typical technical trails with climbs and drops. Sure, you can pedal downhill on the small cogs, but you're probably racing in that case...???

Thanks guys


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

keep the rapid rise, you will get used to it and don't listen to the rants about it not working unless conditions are perfect. I've been using one for a couple of months now and it works as well as the old style, I've riden it in mud , snow, bent hangar, loose hangar. even with a bent hangar and covered with mud it still shifted (not perfectly but good enough to keep riding) but the biggest plus I've found is after climbing a good long hill in a low gear, if you mash the thumb lever all the way down the deraillier shifts up 3 gears at a time so as you crest the hill 1 press and you are back in business


----------



## All Mountain (Dec 9, 2005)

guppie

The same thing happened to me. It was a shock. I'm back with a proper high normal XT, and loving every minute on it. Sold the RR to the first offer.

Even SRAM has enough common sense to use high normal.


----------



## carl1266 (May 17, 2004)

I love the RR derailleur. I always struggled with the different logic of front and rear shifting. Now it's the same. Pushing the thumb lever makes it harder. Makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## DakotaJockey (Nov 23, 2004)

RR blows for one main reason:

When I want to shift MORE THAN ONE GEAR IN ONE MOTION, It is ALWAYS to go to a lower gear. Transitions from descending to climbing are sometimes instantaneous, and a dump from the forth cog down to my 32 needs to happen NOW....no, ...not now....NOW!!!!

Impossible with RR. You'll find yourself clicking away at the release trigger like a crackhead trying to jam the rock in. Even then, your derr's spring will act like the wimpy f'in spring it is and _slowly_ go about it's business of getting the big cog up and running.

Forget that. This ONE reason alone has convinced me that my next high end drivetrain will be SRAM...and this comes from one who has dumped mucho denaro on Shimano products all these years.

SHIMANO....ARE YOU LISTENING???


----------



## Bikinfoolferlife (Feb 3, 2004)

Great points on this thread, I much prefer high normal shifting and I really despise being forced to change should I want an update to my drivetrain. I have several mountain bikes and I wouldn't want to have different systems among them. My old drivetrains are quite fine as long as I can get replacement parts and components and in a reasonable lifetime for those components, which is a lot longer than Shimano's 5 year obsolescence plan...they've lost me on the next new drivetrain I need to SRAM, unless Shimano reverses direction.


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

DakotaJockey said:


> RR blows for one main reason:
> 
> When I want to shift MORE THAN ONE GEAR IN ONE MOTION, It is ALWAYS to go to a lower gear. Transitions from descending to climbing are sometimes instantaneous, and a dump from the forth cog down to my 32 needs to happen NOW....no, ...not now....NOW!!!!
> 
> ...


I don't know what you're talking about , I can drop down 3 -4 gears in 1 or 2 seconds . maybe you're deraillier is broken or miss adjusted. AND unless there is a hairpin corner at the bottom of a hill that you have never seen before you should be looking ahead enough to anticipate that shift, not to mention the momentum will carry you for enough time to shift
sounds like bad technique or defective equipment


----------



## BrandonJ (Oct 25, 2004)

RapidRise is Shimano's answer to a non-existent problem. It is their solution to there stuff shifting like a slugish piece of crap. The 2nd best way to make a Shimano shift better is to install an Avid Rollamajig. The best way is to get rid of it and go with SRAM X9.


----------



## DakotaJockey (Nov 23, 2004)

dan0 said:


> I don't know what you're talking about , I can drop down 3 -4 gears in 1 or 2 seconds . maybe you're deraillier is broken or miss adjusted. AND unless there is a hairpin corner at the bottom of a hill that you have never seen before you should be looking ahead enough to anticipate that shift, not to mention the momentum will carry you for enough time to shift
> sounds like bad technique or defective equipment


I don't care how well adjusted your RR derr. is, it cannot dump more than one gear lower at a time without multiple clicks on your release trigger. ONE motion with non-RR does that.

Or maybe you are just so superior to all the riders who have the same complaint with RR as I do...maybe your technique to so finely honed as to defy description. Or maybe you're a Shimano fanboy who cannot accept the FACT that Shimano has a rich history of introducing the next big thing only to have to revert to the standard later after sales are affected. I am 45 years old and have been riding mountain bikes since they were first introduced to the public. Don't try and make a case for RR based upon your misconception of my riding ability.
BTW, all my bikes run Shimano drivetrains.


----------



## carl1266 (May 17, 2004)

DakotaJockey said:


> I don't care how well adjusted your RR derr. is, it cannot dump more than one gear lower at a time without multiple clicks on your release trigger. ONE motion with non-RR does that.
> ...


You are correct, but you can make several clicks in a very short period of time. The same time (or even less) it takes to turn the cranks and move the chain. And if your derailleur spring is wimpy it's wimpy if push a lever or pull a trigger. In that regards, DekotaJockey's argument is nonsens.

Anyway, I don't think it's your riding ability. I get more a feeling from you and other posters that they have a hard time changing their habits.


----------



## DakotaJockey (Nov 23, 2004)

carl1266 said:


> You are correct, but you can make several clicks in a very short period of time. The same time (or even less) it takes to turn the cranks and move the chain. And if your derailleur spring is wimpy it's wimpy if push a lever or pull a trigger. In that regards, DekotaJockey's argument is nonsens.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think it's your riding ability. I get more a feeling from you and other posters that they have a hard time changing their habits.


My argument is nonsense? You have got to be kidding me. Springs weaken with age and repeated useage. So you tell me which you would prefer, your rear der. hesitating going up to a larger cog on the cluster, or it hesitating going down to a smaller, higher gear? To make your choice easier, which end of your cluster do you spend the most time riding? The larger, lower gears of course. I and many many people have ridden XT and XTR non-RR rear derr's into the GROUND as they continued to get sloppier and sloppier due to pin and bushing wear. And they continued to shift decently enough to be useable.
I have ridden RR rear derr's that felt nowhere NEAR as good as new within a few months of wear, and that's even with continued maint. Oh yeah..that's another thing...RR rear derr's absolutely SUCK when grunged up badly with mud or ice. The force available with standard rears from your hand easily overcomes additional resistance to movement caused by contaminants in the system.
BTW, this is not even touching on the dual-control reasons for staying with non-RR rear derr's. 
You say that folks that are against RR are just resistant to change because of habits? I say folks that are pro-RR are that way because they cannot admit that something that cost them $$ is really no improvement after all. My guess is that you and most "pro-RR" people bought bikes with the system already speced on their new bikes. I KNOW that aftermarket sales of RR systems have been cut into BADLY by SRAM systems. I have NO ISSUES with purchasing new tech and using the hell out of it. There just has to be an IMPROVEMENT over what is currently being used. Not just a difference, but an IMPROVEMENT. Rapid Rise, by ANY measure, is NOT an improvement.
BTW, I have some Biopace chainrings in Florida I could sell you.


----------



## carl1266 (May 17, 2004)

DakotaJockey said:


> My argument is nonsense? You have got to be kidding me. Springs weaken with age and repeated useage. So you tell me which you would prefer, your rear der. hesitating going up to a larger cog on the cluster, or it hesitating going down to a smaller, higher gear? To make your choice easier, which end of your cluster do you spend the most time riding? The larger, lower gears of course. I and many many people have ridden XT and XTR non-RR rear derr's into the GROUND as they continued to get sloppier and sloppier due to pin and bushing wear. And they continued to shift decently enough to be useable.
> I have ridden RR rear derr's that felt nowhere NEAR as good as new within a few months of wear, and that's even with continued maint. Oh yeah..that's another thing...RR rear derr's absolutely SUCK when grunged up badly with mud or ice. The force available with standard rears from your hand easily overcomes additional resistance to movement caused by contaminants in the system.
> BTW, this is not even touching on the dual-control reasons for staying with non-RR rear derr's.
> You say that folks that are against RR are just resistant to change because of habits? I say folks that are pro-RR are that way because they cannot admit that something that cost them $$ is really no improvement after all. My guess is that you and most "pro-RR" people bought bikes with the system already speced on their new bikes. I KNOW that aftermarket sales of RR systems have been cut into BADLY by SRAM systems. I have NO ISSUES with purchasing new tech and using the hell out of it. There just has to be an IMPROVEMENT over what is currently being used. Not just a difference, but an IMPROVEMENT. Rapid Rise, by ANY measure, is NOT an improvement.
> BTW, I have some Biopace chainrings in Florida I could sell you.


No, I was not kidding.

I did buy the RR as an aftermarket and hated it at first but I gave it some time and now I'm loving it. Like I said I find the operation of a RR derailleur much more logic compared to a non-RR derailleur. This makes it a huge improvement to me.

I don't ride in ice or in mud, so both conditions don't apply to me and I am willing to bet that the vast majority of mountain bikers doesn't ride in the conditions you described either. I don't believe that (almost) anybody is making a conscious decision for non-RR because they ride in ice or mud but rather just don't like it because they have to change their habits. Let's face it, we are creatures of habit and do not like change.

I am not a native speaker but AFAIK there is a difference between worn and wimpy. If it's worn I replace it.

Anyway, if you like your non-RR derailleur that's fine with me. I like my RR and see it as an improvement. You may have different preferences, but don't bash a product or concept just because you don't LIKE it.


----------



## DakotaJockey (Nov 23, 2004)

carl1266 said:


> No, I was not kidding.
> 
> I did buy the RR as an aftermarket and hated it at first but I gave it some time and now I'm loving it. Like I said I find the operation of a RR derailleur much more logic compared to a non-RR derailleur. This makes it a huge improvement to me.
> 
> ...


You're actually kinda funny. You claim my feelings about RR are based upon "Liking" or "habits" and yet I have done far more to explain to you (and hopefully BEGINNERS) the actual reasons for RR not living up to the hype using real-world examples.

I am sure you can also explain to me and everyone else how excellent it is having your shifters and brake levers integrated. That will no doubt make all the owners of Hope, Magura and Hayes brakes feel better. Ahhhh...that's right. Shimano's hydraulic brakes are the best too right? And Lord KNOWS that rather than replace a broken lever after a crash, you would rather replace the entire frigging dual control assembly.

Look...I could care LESS whether you or anyone else is SOLD on RR and Dual Control. There were a LOT of people spouting on about Biopace too. I posted what I posted because the OP obviously knew NADA about RR. Now maybe he knows the rest of the story. Shimano is trying to pidgeon-hole consumers into buying their SYSTEMS. Designing early replacement into something that worked beautifully to begin with is just TOO OBVIOUS to those that care to open their eyes.


----------



## carl1266 (May 17, 2004)

DakotaJockey said:


> You're actually kinda funny. You claim my feelings about RR are based upon "Liking" or "habits" and yet I have done far more to explain to you (and hopefully BEGINNERS) the actual reasons for RR not living up to the hype using real-world examples.
> 
> I am sure you can also explain to me and everyone else how excellent it is having your shifters and brake levers integrated. That will no doubt make all the owners of Hope, Magura and Hayes brakes feel better. Ahhhh...that's right. Shimano's hydraulic brakes are the best too right? And Lord KNOWS that rather than replace a broken lever after a crash, you would rather replace the entire frigging dual control assembly.
> 
> Look...I could care LESS whether you or anyone else is SOLD on RR and Dual Control. There were a LOT of people spouting on about Biopace too. I posted what I posted because the OP obviously knew NADA about RR. Now maybe he knows the rest of the story. Shimano is trying to pidgeon-hole consumers into buying their SYSTEMS. Designing early replacement into something that worked beautifully to begin with is just TOO OBVIOUS to those that care to open their eyes.


Didn't you read or understand my first post?

You gave some technical explanations but they only apply to muddy and icy conditions or worn parts. I hope you know that riding muddy trails contributes to erosion and it's (at least here in GA) widely accepted and respected not to ride muddy trails (in fact many trails are closed when wet). So that leaves icy conditions. How many people ride in snow or do stream crossings that could ice the rear derailleur? You are trying to tell me that a majority is doing it? How often do you ride through snow in Florida? Your "real-world" examples simply do NOT apply to the majority of mountain bikers.

I have no idea what hype you are talking about? I don't read any mtb magazines. So is there hype?

The OP did not complain about anything you mentioned. He didn't say the derailleur was not working in ice or in mud, did he? In fact he mentioned he can't get used to it (=> creature of habit)!

Your assumption of my opinion about dual control levers and hydraulic brakes are interesting. I run rapid fire, grip shifters (works fine with RR) and V-Brakes and only comment or review products I have actually used for some time. 

Not only do I open my eyes I even open my mind. Therefore I know that the best product is not always the one that works best in extreme conditions and please note I do not argue that a non-RR works better in extreme conditions. The best product is the one that is most operator friendly and works best in the conditions it is used in. After I got used to RR, it is very logic and intuitive to me. Hence I have less miss-shifts, feel better and safer on the bike and trail and have an overall better riding experience. BTW. if a dual control lever does the same to someone and they don't crash it IS and improvement to them.


----------



## DakotaJockey (Nov 23, 2004)

So your whole line of reasoning...your whole argument for RR is that it is "logic" (BTW, it's logiCAL) to you to push the shift lever with your thumb to make the bikey pedal harder because that's the way the front shifter works?

man, I am glad you cleared that mess up. I'll run out now based upon your reasoning and switch over to RR. Now I'll be able to sleep better knowing that it's all logic now.

->mental note to self: push with thumb=harder.....got it!!!

THANK YOU SHIMANO FOR MAKING IT EASIER FOR ME


----------



## Dave B (Jan 13, 2004)

SHIMANO....ARE YOU LISTENING???[/QUOTE]
No, of course Shimano isn't listening--if they were, we'd still also have 8-spd drivetrains that worked better on mtn.bikes instead of 9-spd, narrow chained, roadie components!


----------



## Hecubus (Jan 12, 2004)

Zanetti said:


> Yep. Rapidrise. Shimano first tried to introduce this concept back in 1996 with the 950 series XTR. Many people hated it back then too.


It was 1998 with the 953 and it was very popular and one of their highest rated derailleurs. Just look at the reviews here on it dating back to 1998


----------



## carl1266 (May 17, 2004)

DakotaJockey said:


> So your whole line of reasoning...your whole argument for RR is that it is "logic" (BTW, it's logiCAL) to you to push the shift lever with your thumb to make the bikey pedal harder because that's the way the front shifter works?
> 
> man, I am glad you cleared that mess up. I'll run out now based upon your reasoning and switch over to RR. Now I'll be able to sleep better knowing that it's all logic now.
> 
> ...


See even you can understand me. You just have to try.  Let me guess, you are an engineer?

Shoot, I always mess that "logic / logical" thing up. Sorry for that.


----------



## DakotaJockey (Nov 23, 2004)

Look, Shimano has even publically admitted that RR was designed to help introductory riders shift more efficiently. Shimano was aware that unexperienced riders often shifted to a lower gear with the drivetrain under too heavy of a load, causing grinding, excess wear and sometimes component failure. They ADMIT that more exerienced riders did not have this problem. They ADMIT that their marketing stategy was failing and that the RR concept SHOULD have been a BOTTOM-UP market drive, meaning RR should have been introduced at lower-levels first, and possibly integrated into higher-end if it sold well.


----------



## carl1266 (May 17, 2004)

DakotaJockey said:


> Look, Shimano has even publically admitted that RR was designed to help introductory riders shift more efficiently. Shimano was aware that unexperienced riders often shifted to a lower gear with the drivetrain under too heavy of a load, causing grinding, excess wear and sometimes component failure. They ADMIT that more exerienced riders did not have this problem. They ADMIT that their marketing stategy was failing and that the RR concept SHOULD have been a BOTTOM-UP market drive, meaning RR should have been introduced at lower-levels first, and possibly integrated into higher-end if it sold well.


But what has that to do with me liking it? I don't care what Shimano or some magazine says or whatever. And from what you wrote Shimano doesn't say that the product is bad, they say their marketing and sales strategy is/was bad. If you read between the lines, Shimano actually says exactly what I have been saying. RR is more intuitive where as non-RR has to be learned.

I am always going back and forth between my road bike, a fs with grip shifters and a HT with rapid fire. For whatever reason I always had issues with the non-RR and the rapid fire style shifters. I bought the RR actually by accident, the old derailleur was worn and I needed a new one. First I thought OMG this will mess me up even more, but after riding a few hours I don't have any problems anymore.

Anyway, as long as I like the product and it's reliable I use it. I'd be more worried about the reports of broken x.9 and x.7 derailleurs. That doesn't sound like a good option to me.


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

DakotaJockey said:


> I don't care how well adjusted your RR derr. is, it cannot dump more than one gear lower at a time without multiple clicks on your release trigger. ONE motion with non-RR does that.
> 
> Or maybe you are just so superior to all the riders who have the same complaint with RR as I do...maybe your technique to so finely honed as to defy description. Or maybe you're a Shimano fanboy who cannot accept the FACT that Shimano has a rich history of introducing the next big thing only to have to revert to the standard later after sales are affected. I am 45 years old and have been riding mountain bikes since they were first introduced to the public. Don't try and make a case for RR based upon your misconception of my riding ability.
> BTW, all my bikes run Shimano drivetrains.


well I'm 52 and been riding just as long, I never said I didn't use multiple clicks to downshift, I said 1 hard mash to upshift 3 gears, to downshift its click click click as fast as you can say it ,its done. Hence the name Rapid RISE not rapid lower I find it more usefull to be able to upshift 3 gears with 1 hard press (such as when cresting a long climb) I also have 4 other bikes 3 with old style shimano. I am a fan of Shimano altho I've never tried Sram, I'm happy with what I have. Lastly I have no conception of your riding ability good or bad, I just dissagree with your rant about the rr.
And I only dissagree because of my experience with it and I like being able to upshift faster, if you like downshifting faster thats great stick with the old style


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

DakotaJockey said:


> My argument is nonsense? You have got to be kidding me. Springs weaken with age and repeated useage. So you tell me which you would prefer, your rear der. hesitating going up to a larger cog on the cluster, or it hesitating going down to a smaller, higher gear? To make your choice easier, which end of your cluster do you spend the most time riding? The larger, lower gears of course. I and many many people have ridden XT and XTR non-RR rear derr's into the GROUND as they continued to get sloppier and sloppier due to pin and bushing wear. And they continued to shift decently enough to be useable.
> I have ridden RR rear derr's that felt nowhere NEAR as good as new within a few months of wear, and that's even with continued maint. Oh yeah..that's another thing...RR rear derr's absolutely SUCK when grunged up badly with mud or ice. The force available with standard rears from your hand easily overcomes additional resistance to movement caused by contaminants in the system.
> BTW, this is not even touching on the dual-control reasons for staying with non-RR rear derr's.
> You say that folks that are against RR are just resistant to change because of habits? I say folks that are pro-RR are that way because they cannot admit that something that cost them $$ is really no improvement after all. My guess is that you and most "pro-RR" people bought bikes with the system already speced on their new bikes. I KNOW that aftermarket sales of RR systems have been cut into BADLY by SRAM systems. I have NO ISSUES with purchasing new tech and using the hell out of it. There just has to be an IMPROVEMENT over what is currently being used. Not just a difference, but an IMPROVEMENT. Rapid Rise, by ANY measure, is NOT an improvement.
> BTW, I have some Biopace chainrings in Florida I could sell you.


welll mine has been grunged up badly with both mud and ice and I don't have dual controls AND mine has allways worked just fine, by the way, mine is after market after banging the pivot bolt on my 2 month old xtr just enough to stop it from pivoting. I've heard alot of raves about SRAM but you're the first person who I heard say it was because of RR
Well maintained? riding it into the ground as it gets sloppier & sloppier is not good maintenance
"The force available with standard rears from your hand easily overcomes additional resistance to movement caused by contaminants in the system." HUH?


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

DakotaJockey said:


> Look, Shimano has even publically admitted that RR was designed to help introductory riders shift more efficiently. Shimano was aware that unexperienced riders often shifted to a lower gear with the drivetrain under too heavy of a load, causing grinding, excess wear and sometimes component failure. They ADMIT that more exerienced riders did not have this problem. They ADMIT that their marketing stategy was failing and that the RR concept SHOULD have been a BOTTOM-UP market drive, meaning RR should have been introduced at lower-levels first, and possibly integrated into higher-end if it sold well.


its inexperienced not unexperienced, Not to be a dick but you started it with Carl
Where did shimano admit this?
and by more experienced riders do you mean riders that have gotten used to that style of deraillier


----------



## Hecubus (Jan 12, 2004)

DakotaJockey said:


> Look, Shimano has even publically admitted that RR was designed to help introductory riders shift more efficiently. Shimano was aware that unexperienced riders often shifted to a lower gear with the drivetrain under too heavy of a load, causing grinding, excess wear and sometimes component failure. They ADMIT that more exerienced riders did not have this problem. They ADMIT that their marketing stategy was failing and that the RR concept SHOULD have been a BOTTOM-UP market drive, meaning RR should have been introduced at lower-levels first, and possibly integrated into higher-end if it sold well.


LOL, would you care to point out where they "admitted" this?


----------



## DakotaJockey (Nov 23, 2004)

LOL....here
http://www.nsmb.com/gear/shimanocamp_11_04.php

and the term Shimano used was "less experienced"....so sorry for using incorrect grammar with "unexperienced"

BTW, by their own admission RR relies upon the whole pulley/ramps/pins to be all "ready" for the RR spring to do it's thing.

I would rather force the f'er up to the larger cog, relying upon my experience to know when to let off drivetrain pressure timed with my thumb mash.


----------



## carl1266 (May 17, 2004)

just two quotes from the article:



> Less experienced riders tend to shift when they shouldn't and *those of us who know better do occasionally as well*. Shifting under load using an HN drivetrain can produce what the Shimano clan calls the 'train wreck' sound. With some experience *most * riders learn to 'clutch' when downshifting in difficult circumstances by powering up before the shift and then easing off during the shift.


and



> I did my best downshift badly, full power on the pedals, and not once could I make the system skip a beat. I also tried shifting while coasting and then jumping out of the saddle and onto the pedals afterwards and once again the chain obediently, and quietly, migrated to the required cog.


Sounds to me like RR is an improvement.  You are sure you are not biased because you just can't get used to it?


----------



## OldTeen (Jun 14, 2004)

Why argue about this? Whatever you ride is OK with me. 
Personally, I like non-RR. I'm buying an extra non-RR derailleur just in case Lord Shimano decides to stop producing 'em. (Nothing against SRAM either- it's just that my bikes came stock with Shimano).


----------



## DakotaJockey (Nov 23, 2004)

No argumant here. In fact, I have done much to try and support my position that RR doesn't work as well as HN with factual information.
It may seem like an argumant because on this thread the RR proponents have tried to say that riders like me (or you to it seems) don't like RR probably because we "can't get used to it"

Bottom line: My thumb provides more power to get the chain up onto larger cogs when the drivetrain is under some load. Experienced riders know how to blast the chain up there quick and simultaneously soft-pedal for that very instant to keep from damaging anything. The result? A nearly instant downshift.

With RR, even when an experienced rider soft-pedals and times it well, there is a delay from the mechanism as the spring-rate on the derr. body determines when to shift (which changes as the spring weakens) and still more delay as the RR rider rapidly flicks the return trigger in succession to change more than one cog at a time.

Oh yeah...I am arguing because I disagree with Shimano's marketing strategies...because they may affect whether I can continue to enjoy XT and XTR-level components on future bikes WITHOUT RR.

Hello SRAM


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

DakotaJockey said:


> No argumant here. In fact, I have done much to try and support my position that RR doesn't work as well as HN with factual information.
> It may seem like an argumant because on this thread the RR proponents have tried to say that riders like me (or you to it seems) don't like RR probably because we "can't get used to it"
> 
> Bottom line: My thumb provides more power to get the chain up onto larger cogs when the drivetrain is under some load. Experienced riders know how to blast the chain up there quick and simultaneously soft-pedal for that very instant to keep from damaging anything. The result? A nearly instant downshift.
> ...


the facts are here for everyone to read for themselves
http://www.nsmb.com/gear/shimanocamp_11_04.php
by the way
it seems Shimano xt derailliers are on sale everywhere, think they are getting rid of invetory to go to rr only?


----------



## DakotaJockey (Nov 23, 2004)

dan0 said:


> the facts are here for everyone to read for themselves
> http://www.nsmb.com/gear/shimanocamp_11_04.php
> by the way
> it seems Shimano xt derailliers are on sale everywhere, think they are getting rid of invetory to go to rr only?


First of all, I was the one who posted the link to the article, so I assume you are reposting it out of sarcasm.

Secondly, that article is NOT fact, it is Shimano's marketing opinion. The entire camp was Shimano's sad attempt to convince selected bicycle media members that RR isn't as bad as they thought.


----------



## Shawn595 (Dec 19, 2004)

BrandonJ said:


> RapidRise is Shimano's answer to a non-existent problem.


Agreed.



BrandonJ said:


> The 2nd best way to make a Shimano shift better is to install an Avid Rollamajig.


The best way to improve your shifting is to run full cable housings. It's not hard to do even makes a noticable improvement on modest hardware.


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

DakotaJockey said:


> First of all, I was the one who posted the link to the article, so I assume you are reposting it out of sarcasm.
> 
> Secondly, that article is NOT fact, it is Shimano's marketing opinion. The entire camp was Shimano's sad attempt to convince selected bicycle media members that RR isn't as bad as they thought.


I know it was your post, I wasn't re posting it out of sarcasm, I was re posting it because you keep making up, or miss reading what is written, first you claim Shimano admits all kinds of bad things and list the post as proof, but whenever anyone reads it , they see that the article is really possitive for Shimano
Anyway, this is a dead horse or in your case horses ass, I'm done responding to someone who won't be reasoned with, use whatever componets you like as will the rest of us


----------



## DakotaJockey (Nov 23, 2004)

dan0 said:


> I know it was your post, I wasn't re posting it out of sarcasm, I was re posting it because you keep making up
> (You state one thing I have said that was "made up"),
> or miss reading what is written, first you claim Shimano admits all kinds of bad things
> ("bad things" is your wording, not mine .They admit RR was designed to benefit less experienced riders. They also admit that the idea of RR would have been better marketed starting with low end and gone up from there)
> ...


----------



## All Mountain (Dec 9, 2005)

Just got a high normal XT on. B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L !


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

Wow, how did a simple post of the function of the derrailleur become a heated battle of who's right and who's wrong, shimano vs sram, etc. The poor guy just wanted to know if the derrailleur was working correctly not hear a battle royal about the politics of shimano.


----------



## All Mountain (Dec 9, 2005)

guppie did get his answer though.



fanghasyou said:


> Wow, how did a simple post of the function of the derrailleur become a heated battle of who's right and who's wrong, shimano vs sram, etc. The poor guy just wanted to know if the derrailleur was working correctly not hear a battle royal about the politics of shimano.


----------



## lalittle (Sep 3, 2005)

When it came time for me to replace a rear derailleur recently, I read up and asked around about the advantages of normal vs. rapid rise. I too was worried about one of the issues mentioned above -- i.e. that intutively, shifting to a larger gear would call for more power, and therefore that the thumb lever was more suited to shifting in this direction. For this reason, my initial reaction was to stick with high normal.

As I did more research, however, I had a very hard time finding testimonials that actually reported "experiencing" the problems being talked about. The complaints seemed to come from people who had little (if any) experience with low normal rear derailleurs, and the negative comments were often based more on what "seemed to make sense" rather than what actually happened in practice. This is in no way criticising the reports given here -- I am simply reporting my "overall" findings.

Of the people who actually used rapid rise for a long enough period of time to get used to it, there were far more positive reports than negative. On top of this, one thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet is the idea that when you let the spring take care of the shift to the larger gear, it is a "controlled" amount of force, which is more likely to allow the shift to take place at the actual gates on the rear cassette. The stronger force of the thumb, on the other hand, is more likely to "force" a shift where there is no gate. This equates to the "potential" for smoother shifts with rapid rise, which in turn can present less strain on the drive train over time. Given this, and given that I could find no pattern of problem reports from people actually using rapid rise, I decided to go ahead and give it a try.

My experience so far has been completely positive. The "reversed" shifting did feel really strange at first, but I found that it was actually much easier to get used to then I thought it would be. It took me a couple hours to become decently acclimated to the new system, but once I did, I found it more "intuitive" to have the shifting work the same way on both sides, which I believe is why it was relatively easy to adapt to it so fast. I also found that the shift quality was at least as good -- if not better than -- I've EVER experienced. I've had zero problems with shifting, including some fairly sloppy rides. While I admittedly haven't been using the system all that long (I believe a few weeks now), so far I haven't had to readjust the system at all.

Ironically, one of the things I like about rapid rise is one of the issues raised AGAINST rapid rise by some people. This is the idea of being able to shift down faster. People often say that the multiple clicks allowed by the thumb lever offer faster shifting to a lower gear. In practice, however, I find that I can shift MUCH faster with the finger trigger due to the fact that I can bang off shifts as fast as I want without waiting for the chain to engage. With the thumb lever, you can only move three gears before you have to wait for the chain to engage, and doing this requires a faily large swing of the lever. With the finger trigger, you can shift through the ENTIRE range without waiting at all, and the short swing of the trigger is very conducive to rapid, multiple clicks. I find that the "3 clicks at a time" thumb shifting ends up being far SLOWER than the shifting I can accomplish with the finger trigger.

All in all, I prefer the low normal shifting. I don't see it as "fixing an issue that was not a problem," but rather as offering a new paradigm that, in practice, gives the advantage of a more intuitive shifting methodology without sacrificing (and in some ways actually improving) performance. Based on my personal experience, I can honestly recommend rapid rise (low normal.).

Larry


----------



## northparkrider (Sep 26, 2005)

*grips???*

Now hold on, i dont own these but have riden a friends bike with them and i hated it but that is probably habbit but they were sluggish in my opinion. But it seems to me that carl1266 is making his argument based on using the RR with grip shifters so this is why he is not having any trouble adjusting. Now i may be a complete idiot and read his posts wrong but if this is true that would explain somethings and he probably is a sucker for shimano.


----------



## carl1266 (May 17, 2004)

northparkrider said:


> Now hold on, i dont own these but have riden a friends bike with them and i hated it but that is probably habbit but they were sluggish in my opinion. But it seems to me that carl1266 is making his argument based on using the RR with grip shifters so this is why he is not having any trouble adjusting. Now i may be a complete idiot and read his posts wrong but if this is true that would explain somethings and he probably is a sucker for shimano.


I rode the RR with grip shifters and currently have it on a bike with triggers. With triggers I find it actually more intuative. At first it threw me off several times but I adjusted fairly quickly (3-4 hours of riding). Even though I am an experienced rider I do make mistakes and I find the RR is much more forgiving. Plus I don't want to ease up on a climb and again the RR is much more forgiving. I only rode once in very muddy conditions where my derailleur clocked up and didn't work, but that was with non-RR. I guess the RR wouldn't have worked either but I can't say for sure. My drivetrains are a mix of SRAM and Shimano, so no, I am not a "sucker for Shimano". I may have not been clear in my posts and won't call you a complete idiot. 

Fact is, that you have more strength in you thumb to push the derailleur. But also fact is that a) even experienced riders make mistakes, b) you have to ease up when shifting under load with a non-RR, c) the situations where you need the extra strength are rare for the majority of mountain bikers and d) sales numbers are not an indicator of the technical qualities of a product/technology.

Bottom line is both systems have pros and cons. Get the one that works best for you.


----------



## dan0 (Oct 12, 2005)

northparkrider said:


> Now hold on, i dont own these but have riden a friends bike with them and i hated it but that is probably habbit but they were sluggish in my opinion. But it seems to me that carl1266 is making his argument based on using the RR with grip shifters so this is why he is not having any trouble adjusting. Now i may be a complete idiot and read his posts wrong but if this is true that would explain somethings and he probably is a sucker for shimano.


I also have trigger shift and am having no problems. I've been using rr for a couple of hundred miles so far and I love it. Maybe your friends bike needs an adjustment but mine are as fast as old shimano. Before you make a judgement maybe YOU should ride a rr deraillier more than once. We don't think you're an idiot but your spelling and grammar ARE pretty bad


----------



## northparkrider (Sep 26, 2005)

Well ill talk to my friend about getting a few more rides in on his bike. Also my grammar and spelling both suck because i pay absoultely no attention in english class and would rather ride than do my homework. Any way, im thinking about going for sram stuff so i dont have to deal with this shimano crap and just laugh while everyone fights.


----------



## PrincipalRider (Jun 24, 2005)

Just my two cents... I have Shimano saint and I have gotten comfortable with the rapid rise. At first I did hate it, but now its no big deal. So, I guess I got all worked up just because it's fun to say, "Shimano, you suck."


----------



## lalittle (Sep 3, 2005)

northparkrider said:


> Now hold on, i dont own these but have riden a friends bike with them and i hated it but that is probably habbit but they were sluggish in my opinion.


When I first tried it, it felt VERY bizarre and was confusing to get the hang of it. I had to really concentrate to shift in the right direction, and my first thought was that it would not be easy to get used to. I could easily see people saying "this is awful -- I can't get used to this" and just giving up. I found, however, that I was able to acclimate to it pretty quickly. Habits are hard to break, but I think that if you just make a conscious "decision" to learn it, it's not that difficult after all.

As to it being "sluggish," this could quite likely have been due to their adjustment. You shouldn't draw an all-encompassing conclusion about rapid rise derailleurs based on a SINGLE experience. This is just as bad as someone concluding that ALL SRAM derailleurs break based on a single experience where one breaks.



> But it seems to me that carl1266 is making his argument based on using the RR with grip shifters so this is why he is not having any trouble adjusting.


I'm using regular rapid fires, and it really didn't take that long for it to stop feeling so strange.



> Any way, im thinking about going for sram stuff so i dont have to deal with this shimano crap
> 
> 
> > What "shimano crap"? Some of us are saying that it works very well, and that we simply aren't experiencing the issues in the negative comments here. We say this based not on intuition, but on actual experience. In other words, I'm using Shimano, and I don't have to deal with any "shimano crap" either.
> ...


----------



## All Mountain (Dec 9, 2005)

Good point. SRAM is laughing all the way to the bank at the moment. It's about time Shimano had competition, so Shimano can afford to try new things now like Dual Control to get an edge.

I'm a HN person (and dislike DC), but it is nice Shimano gives us the option as we all have different quirks. You can use DC or decide that you prefer triggers. I hope Shimano continues to invent strange new things, but also hope they continue to give us a tried and true option to it.



lalittle said:


> Or... you could use Shimano and laugh when everyone fights. You could laugh because you use Shimano and don't have any of the problems that people are talking about. One thing that I've definitely noticed is that a lot of people really seem to "enjoy" disliking Shimano. When Shimano comes out with a new system, it's attacked as being about "fixing something that isn't broke" rather than trying to improve on a system, which in turn will increase sales. Yes -- Shimano wants to make money... but do people think that SRAM doesn't? It's ALL about making money, and the best way to do that is to "build a better mousetrap" in order to beat the competition.
> 
> Larry


----------



## Mervyn_b (Jan 30, 2004)

RonSonic said:


> I'll disagree with it for the same reason that derailleurs were designed to be high normal in the first place. My thumb and or grip is stronger than the return spring on the derailleur. In fact it is FAR stronger than the return spring. Shift to a smaller cog requires less force than shifting to a larger cog. So it only makes sense to use the weaker element for the upshift and the stronger for the downshift.
> 
> Your description (same as Shimano's) is fair enough, but in a world that includes operator error, late shifts, dirty cables and housing, mud caked derailleurs and spanish moss in the cogs I'll stick with a system that we know works. A regular derailleur can almost always be seduced into working no matter how worn, beat up and abused. The rapid rise will freeking FAIL as soon as it is less than optimum. Shimano likes that - means we buy derailleurs sooner. Even if that part didn't bother me, the reduced practical reliability does.
> 
> ...


I think it doesn't really matter whether it's a R/R or a normal "high-normal" derailler. If the spring weakens out on a Rapid-Rise, it will fail to move the chain to a larger cog while if it's a "high-normal", it will fail to move the chain to a smaller cog too. I mean, the environment where a spring acts against the tension created by the shifter/cable is common on the 2 types. Dirty housing/cables, late shifts etc. can be present in both cicumstances. I think it's the same thing basically. - I got a habit to leave the derailleurs on the bikes which I use less frequently completely slackened i.e. with no tension at all - I think that will help the spring to work for much longer.


----------

