Why are thumb shifters so prized in the retrobike community?

[retrobiker273891]

They happen to be my favourites but until I discovered this community had no idea that they were cherished by others too.

I just had a dim memory of them being 'cute/cool' back in the 90s when a lot of people were using those double under trigger ones. I just liked their utilitarian, minimalist nature.

I had them on a recent bike I got for free and it just reminded me of those memories and then when posting on this forum I see they are going for high prices.

So why do others think they are so great too? Is it because of scarcity or something else? Functionally they aren't probably as good as those trigger ones which seemed most popular back then.

 

[Betsy]

It’s a ageing community, most of us afflicted by arthritis and/or gout, our thumbs being the only fully functioning digit.

 

[Tootyred]

They came on old bikes....not really much other option at the time!

 

[retrobiker273891]

They came on old bikes....not really much other option at the time!

Well as I mentioned those trigger ones were common too weren't they? Probably mid 90s where they are under the brake and thumb shifts up and fore finger for down.

 

[markoc]

They just work. Simplest of designs, and minimal moving parts.

Plus, if you turn off the clicks, you never had to index your gears properly - and for lazy people like me, thats fab.

 

[minor_LEGEND]

They were the first type of gear lever for an MTB. When alternative types came along (Shimano STI or Suntour X-press) there was some push-back against the new levers & thumbies already had their die hard fans.
As said, simplicity, rugged by design & not bound by indexing which is useful if you can't setup gears or you suffered derailleur damage or even a cassette full of mud & grass.

 

[retrobiker273891]

They just work. Simplest of designs, and minimal moving parts.

Plus, if you turn off the clicks, you never had to index your gears properly - and for lazy people like me, thats fab.

Yes non indexed has always suited me. When I figured out what indexing was I thought it unnecessary faff.

 

[greencat]

The first generation of Shimano's twin trigger system was notoriously poor. They worked well enough, but longevity was terrible. The set that came on my new bike failed after about 6 weeks. Also near impossible to fix too. Shimano had a reputation for monopolising tactics, and this just seemed another attempt at locking people into a system that wasn't really needed.

I and others felt sufficiently burned to stick with thumbshifters. I stayed with them to the end of the 90s - even replacing brand new sets of Shimano rapidfire (or whatever they were called by then) with the thumbshifters from a previous bike.

I'd also say they struggled to sell the benefits (presumably better grip on handlebars) initially - and that mountain biking, at least around my parts, had a different culture. Rapidfire seemed to be aimed at racers determined to eek every fraction of performance, while thumbshifters felt more rugged both in construction but also in providing a fall back to friction shifting (in practice never actually needed) - better suited to the wild (in our minds) country riding me and my mates were doing.

I'd happily ride with either system nowadays - and am surprised there aren't more thumbshifter options. I used to covert Mavic's under the bar thumbshifter which promised the best of both worlds - and had some ancient suntours set up that way for a while.

 

[trailwright]

The first generation of Shimano's twin trigger system was notoriously poor. They worked well enough, but longevity was terrible. The set that came on my new bike failed after about 6 weeks. Also near impossible to fix too. Shimano had a reputation for monopolising tactics, and this just seemed another attempt at locking people into a system that wasn't really needed.

I and others felt sufficiently burned to stick with thumbshifters. I stayed with them to the end of the 90s - even replacing brand new sets of Shimano rapidfire (or whatever they were called by then) with the thumbshifters from a previous bike.

I'd also say they struggled to sell the benefits (presumably better grip on handlebars) initially - and that mountain biking, at least around my parts, had a different culture. Rapidfire seemed to be aimed at racers determined to eek every fraction of performance, while thumbshifters felt more rugged both in construction but also in providing a fall back to friction shifting (in practice never actually needed) - better suited to the wild (in our minds) country riding me and my mates were doing.

I'd happily ride with either system nowadays - and am surprised there aren't more thumbshifter options. I used to covert Mavic's under the bar thumbshifter which promised the best of both worlds - and had some ancient suntours set up that way for a while.

And to add to this, while the later STI was pretty good I stuck with a thumbie for the front mech shifting because it allowed infinite micro adjustment so there was never any chainrub. I did the same on my road bike at the time, keeping a downtube front shifter and a brifter for the rear gears, and had this set-up and raced on it until 2000. Interestingly my 1998 Sunn road bike came like this so they as a manufacturer obviously felt the same.

 

[retrobiker273891]

Shimano had a reputation for monopolising tactics, and this just seemed another attempt at locking people into a system that wasn't really needed.

Sounds like 1x. Not much has changed in all the intervening years then.