electronic shifting - will it be avoidable?

Garybee

neeb wrote:

I guess I can see the potential advantages for racing, but it's a pity that this means that it will necessarily become the norm. What everyone wants (and what is marketed) is driven by racing and what the pros use, so it will become the standard option. It's true, all the newest innovations have always been resisted on the grounds that they are unnecessarily complicated and reduce the purity and simplicity of the bicycle (including gearing for years and years) but going electronic is surely a huge step that changes the ground rules. How about power-assisted and computer-controlled braking? Why not? Maybe even a little motorized input into the drivechain, just to even out the power distribution over the crank cycle without adding any extra overall of course...

I think it's a little too soon to be making that assumption. I would imagine that if it does at some point become the norm it will be because it is so well sorted that most people will want it. Remember though, that you can still buy a fixed gear bike now if you want one.

Anti-lock brakes on a bicycle, now that's a thought. Actually I quite like the idea .

aracer

Garybee wrote:

Sounds like you treat your bikes a bit gentler than I do mine. Don't get me wrong, I think ergo levers are great, I would just really like to be able to shift when out of the saddle on the drops too.

I can do that on my mechanical system - sounds like you treat your bike rather gentler than you make out.

I'd suggest that full auto is something which will only appear on leisure bikes - there really isn't any advantage to it (and plenty of disadvantages) on a racing bike. After all racing cars don't have full auto boxes. What is an advantage is the ability to auto trim the front mech, and to integrate the front and rear shifting, so that when changing rings on a compact for instance the rear automatically shifts the right number of cogs to give you one gear different.

Garybee

aracer wrote:

Garybee wrote:

Sounds like you treat your bikes a bit gentler than I do mine. Don't get me wrong, I think ergo levers are great, I would just really like to be able to shift when out of the saddle on the drops too.

I can do that on my mechanical system - sounds like you treat your bike rather gentler than you make out.

I'd suggest that full auto is something which will only appear on leisure bikes - there really isn't any advantage to it (and plenty of disadvantages) on a racing bike. After all racing cars don't have full auto boxes. What is an advantage is the ability to auto trim the front mech, and to integrate the front and rear shifting, so that when changing rings on a compact for instance the rear automatically shifts the right number of cogs to give you one gear different.

When on the drops and sprinting flat out, there's no way you're going to be able to change up without backing off. A racer would know that.

F1 cars did have fully auto 'boxes until it was banned.

aracer

Garybee wrote:

aracer wrote:

Garybee wrote:

Sounds like you treat your bikes a bit gentler than I do mine. Don't get me wrong, I think ergo levers are great, I would just really like to be able to shift when out of the saddle on the drops too.

I can do that on my mechanical system - sounds like you treat your bike rather gentler than you make out.

When on the drops and sprinting flat out, there's no way you're going to be able to change up without backing off. A racer would know that.

F1 cars did have fully auto 'boxes until it was banned.

Read carefully what he said he'd like to do - no mention of sprinting flat out. Not that I do much in the way of sprinting, but I certainly don't find a problem shifting when out of the saddle climbing hard, which can hardly be much less stressful on the drivetrain.

F1 cars have never had full auto boxes, just semi-auto with driver control. The idea of full auto being an advantage in that context is quite bizarre (how does the auto know when to change down going into a corner, or whether to short change coming out of a corner?)

Garybee

aracer wrote:

F1 cars have never had full auto boxes, just semi-auto with driver control. The idea of full auto being an advantage in that context is quite bizarre (how does the auto know when to change down going into a corner, or whether to short change coming out of a corner?)

They certainly did in the early 90s before driver aids were clamped down on. Have a read up, there were some real oddities around that time.

Meredydd

One aspect of this that no-one's mentioned yet is the ecological element. The ecologically friendly nature of bicycles is something that's frequently boasted about. Electronic shifting can only possibly be less environmentally friendly - both in terms of the power used, and the substances contained in the battery. At a point when, supposedly, we're becoming more ecologically concerned, and looking to reduce energy usage, to introduce electronic shifting, really quite unnecessarilly, to something as mechanically simple as a bicycle really seems quite perverse.

Ten or fifteen years ago they ripped out all the traditional parking meters in Southampton and replaced them with electronic ticket machines. In the last five years or so those have been adapted with the addition of a solar panel above each of them to provide environmentally friendly power. Which always makes me smile, seeing as the original mechanical parking meters needed no power in the first place.

aracer

If you're worrying about the ecological impact of battery powered shift systems on bicycles (where the battery is recharged from the mains, probably during off-peak hours when power stations have capacity to spare), then you really need to get a sense of perspective! I reckon that owning multiple bicycles as I do has far more impact - after all I only really need one - but I'm not about to worry too much about that given the bouyant sales of big engined cars.

Meredydd

aracer wrote:

If you're worrying about the ecological impact of battery powered shift systems on bicycles (where the battery is recharged from the mains, probably during off-peak hours when power stations have capacity to spare), then you really need to get a sense of perspective! I reckon that owning multiple bicycles as I do has far more impact - after all I only really need one - but I'm not about to worry too much about that given the bouyant sales of big engined cars.

Well, yes. It often seems to me that we're more than a little blase about the true environmental cost of bicycles. Electroinic shifting will just increase that - for what real benefit in most instances? Batteries, I believe, aren't the easiest or cleanest things to recycle, and will, presumably, continue to have limited life - rather less, presumably, than the life of the bike in question.

aracer

Garybee wrote:

aracer wrote:

F1 cars have never had full auto boxes, just semi-auto with driver control. The idea of full auto being an advantage in that context is quite bizarre (how does the auto know when to change down going into a corner, or whether to short change coming out of a corner?)

They certainly did in the early 90s before driver aids were clamped down on. Have a read up, there were some real oddities around that time.

I checked, and what you're referring to wasn't an auto box in the conventional sense, but a pre-programmed box which learnt what gear was needed where on the circuit. Such a device certainly wouldn't translate to bicycles, as even on a circuit it can't tell where you might decide to jump or how tired you are. I think most people are considering an auto box in the more conventional sense with input just from road speed, engine speed and throttle position, and such a device would work no better on a bicycle than in F1, where they haven't been used.

meenaghman

I would have thought an electronic system would allow for the reintroduction of mix and match in terms of using a shimano with a campag system, given electronics easier to program to move the required amount of distance than cable shifting with every up/down shift.

rjeffroy

I would have thought an electronic system would allow for the reintroduction of mix and match in terms of using a shimano with a campag system, given electronics easier to program to move the required amount of distance than cable shifting with every up/down shift.

I'm sure campag and shimano will work hard to make their systems completely incompatible!

meenaghman

I'm sure campag and shimano will work hard to make their systems completely incompatible!

..which is where our russian hacker friends come in handy.

APIII

aracer wrote:

What is an advantage is the ability to auto trim the front mech, and to integrate the front and rear shifting, so that when changing rings on a compact for instance the rear automatically shifts the right number of cogs to give you one gear different.

That's a good point that many people seem to overlook.

robbarker

You'd need some sort of power measuring system to make a meaningful auto shift system. If you put an HRM into the mix it could become a fearsome training system - dial in how hard you want to work and the system keeps you in an optimum power / HR zone throughout your ride. For racing you'd need a GLF button like they have in BMW "M" cars for the final run in.

Garybee

robbarker wrote:

You'd need some sort of power measuring system to make a meaningful auto shift system. If you put an HRM into the mix it could become a fearsome training system - dial in how hard you want to work and the system keeps you in an optimum power / HR zone throughout your ride. For racing you'd need a GLF button like they have in BMW "M" cars for the final run in.

Uh oh, that sounds worrying. You could also have it give you an electric shock if it doesn't think you're trying hard enough. Race team anagers would love you .

cougie

It may prove popular with pro teams and mechanics and the poseurs at the cafe - but the backbone of cycling is weekend riders - I'm not gonna be arsed with batteries for my gears, and I've never had a cable break in 25 years. So as they say in Dragons Den : I'm Out.

edeverett

Does anywhere in Italy make batteries to use with the Campag version? Surely people with eRecord would only be happy using hand-crafted units made with knowledge passed from generation to generation of swarthy Italian craftsmen.

Just a thought.

Rob Sallnow

edeverett wrote:

Surely people with eRecord would only be happy using hand-crafted units made with knowledge passed from generation to generation of swarthy Italian craftsmen.
Just a thought.

So long as the technology is derived from an Italian inventor, in this case Alessandro Volta, I'm sure it'll be fine.

edeverett

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Volta

Well there you have it, they've thought of everything.

Right, next - who makes the lightest AA : Duracell or Energizer? (Oh, And which gives out the most watts for it's weight?)

Garybee

edeverett wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Volta

Well there you have it, they've thought of everything.

Right, next - who makes the lightest AA : Duracell or Energizer? (Oh, And which gives out the most watts for it's weight?)

Gotta be everready, Duracell sounds too much like something Shimano might make.

Spare Tyre

Electronic shifting seems like a solution to a non-existent problem. None of the posts on this thread so far have persuaded me that this is going to be offer much real advantage. It's not that I'm resistant to change: I think STI & Ergopower levers were a big step forward from gear levers mounted on the down tube. The ability to change gear without letting go of the handlebars was an obvious advantage and, like clipless pedals, STI was one of those inventions that just looked right the first time I saw it. I just don't get the same feeling from reading about electronic shifting.

uphillbothways

Spare Tyre wrote:

Electronic shifting seems like a solution to a non-existent problem. None of the posts on this thread so far have persuaded me that this is going to be offer much real advantage. It's not that I'm resistant to change: I think STI & Ergopower levers were a big step forward from gear levers mounted on the down tube. The ability to change gear without letting go of the handlebars was an obvious advantage and, like clipless pedals, STI was one of those inventions that just looked right the first time I saw it. I just don't get the same feeling from reading about electronic shifting.

It will become standard on high-level TT bikes, of that I have no doubt. Gear changes are quicker and smoother, cable routing can be more flexible and more aerodynamic, you can have shift buttons on both the bullhorns and the aerobars, you no longer need shift levers on the end of the aero bars so another aerodynamic improvement, automatic trimming, potentially more aerodynamic mechs - it's an absolute no-brainer for TT bikes. Some of the reasons above also apply for road riding, most significantly the speed and smoothness of shifting - some of the prototype electronic mechs can shift smoothly even when climbing out of the saddle or sprinting hard - easing off to shift can easily cost you a sprint. Pro riders are already using electronic groupsets, if the peloton can be convinced that it's a reliable system, I can see it becoming the standard.

The game has changed now that firms are putting together no-compromise bikes at under 6.8kg. Unless the UCI change the minimum weight or the dimensional regulations for frames & handlebars, we're going to see a lot more radical departures from the norm. Personally, I reckon Cervelo are very close to the absolute limits of what's possible in frame design with current groupsets and current UCI rules. The tubes in the Soloist are not far from being as close to a perfect aerofoil as you can get within the UCI rules and the practical limits of carbon layup, yet they still build up easily to under 6.8kg. We'll see marginal improvements in wheel technology, but nothing dramatic unless someone figures out how to get around the UCI rules or figures out how to make rims deeper without stuffing the handling. There's little to be gained in terms of race times from further improvements in frame stiffness or handling, though rider preference will drive this. If someone can figure out how to get riders into a position which is both comfortable and flat-backed, they'll make a ton of money.

My money says that the next big things will be:
Narrower BBs and headsets
Aerodynamic improvements on brakes, brake levers/hoods, mechs, saddle rails and cables
More consideration given to clothing and helmet aerodynamics
Tyres that are both puncture-proof and have low rolling resistance

For recreational riders? It's a question of whether they'll be willing to ride something that isn't UCI legal. On the flat, recumbents are vastly superior. Uphill, an ultralight diamond frame is as good as it gets, but over a hilly course you'd be better off with a beam bike. Plastic wheel covers and partial fairings should by rights be commonplace, but for whatever reason most people won't buy it if it's not UCI legal. Mind you, most knobbly tyres never see mud - consumers don't seem to like buying products suited to the task.

robbarker

The only reason the pros are using electronic shifters, or anything else for that matter, is that the manufacturers want to sell them to us.

It's only a matter of time until the UCI ban it anyway..

aracer

uphillbothways wrote:

My money says that the next big things will be:
Narrower BBs and headsets

You mean the headsets will go back to being as narrow as they used to be?

oldwelshman

Smokin Joe wrote:

Electronic shifting is likely to become the norm for racing as it is so much quicker that cable systems, but it is highly unlikely to replace it. Most people will want a bike they can leave propped against the garage wall for a few months and just get on and ride without worrying about charging the battery first, and for tourists it will not be a practical proposition.

SRAM will eventually go electronic if the system proves to work or they will not find any pro teams accepting their out dated equipment. Shimano tried to resist ten-speed but had to succumb and follow Campag in the end.

Much quicker? How much, seconds? I think not
I did not notice anyone in last years TDF winning by large margins due to using electronic shifting so dont really see the point.
Electronic compnents in a car are bad enough, but at least modern suspension systems make them a little more reliable but on a bike exposed to the elements and our roads? You must be joking.
It is ok for tdf riders using them with full support from mechanics after race and look after them cerefully and probably change a few of them.
Personally I will stay as far away as possible from them and think they may sell a few starting off but once reliability issues arise they will probably drop in price 8)
By the way, I graduated in Electronics and never once considerred designins anything electronic for a bike

oldwelshman

uphillbothways wrote:

Spare Tyre wrote:

Electronic shifting seems like a solution to a non-existent problem. None of the posts on this thread so far have persuaded me that this is going to be offer much real advantage. It's not that I'm resistant to change: I think STI & Ergopower levers were a big step forward from gear levers mounted on the down tube. The ability to change gear without letting go of the handlebars was an obvious advantage and, like clipless pedals, STI was one of those inventions that just looked right the first time I saw it. I just don't get the same feeling from reading about electronic shifting.

It will become standard on high-level TT bikes, of that I have no doubt. Gear changes are quicker and smoother, cable routing can be more flexible and more aerodynamic, you can have shift buttons on both the bullhorns and the aerobars, you no longer need shift levers on the end of the aero bars so another aerodynamic improvement, automatic trimming, potentially more aerodynamic mechs - it's an absolute no-brainer for TT bikes. Some of the reasons above also apply for road riding, most significantly the speed and smoothness of shifting - some of the prototype electronic mechs can shift smoothly even when climbing out of the saddle or sprinting hard - easing off to shift can easily cost you a sprint. Pro riders are already using electronic groupsets, if the peloton can be convinced that it's a reliable system, I can see it becoming the standard.

The game has changed now that firms are putting together no-compromise bikes at under 6.8kg. Unless the UCI change the minimum weight or the dimensional regulations for frames & handlebars, we're going to see a lot more radical departures from the norm. Personally, I reckon Cervelo are very close to the absolute limits of what's possible in frame design with current groupsets and current UCI rules. The tubes in the Soloist are not far from being as close to a perfect aerofoil as you can get within the UCI rules and the practical limits of carbon layup, yet they still build up easily to under 6.8kg. We'll see marginal improvements in wheel technology, but nothing dramatic unless someone figures out how to get around the UCI rules or figures out how to make rims deeper without stuffing the handling. There's little to be gained in terms of race times from further improvements in frame stiffness or handling, though rider preference will drive this. If someone can figure out how to get riders into a position which is both comfortable and flat-backed, they'll make a ton of money.

My money says that the next big things will be:
Narrower BBs and headsets
Aerodynamic improvements on brakes, brake levers/hoods, mechs, saddle rails and cables
More consideration given to clothing and helmet aerodynamics
Tyres that are both puncture-proof and have low rolling resistance

For recreational riders? It's a question of whether they'll be willing to ride something that isn't UCI legal. On the flat, recumbents are vastly superior. Uphill, an ultralight diamond frame is as good as it gets, but over a hilly course you'd be better off with a beam bike. Plastic wheel covers and partial fairings should by rights be commonplace, but for whatever reason most people won't buy it if it's not UCI legal. Mind you, most knobbly tyres never see mud - consumers don't seem to like buying products suited to the task.

Not sure about you comment of smooth changing during a sprint ?
First of all, any decent sprinter will know what gear to use for the sprint, and also they will be going very fast anyway in lead up to sprint and probably already in their sprint gear.
Secondly, the smothness of a change is bound to be affected by the forc applied to the pedals? Ho can electronic shifter make it smother when a sprinter is applying almost 2000w of power to pedals?
Changing gear under extreme load such as sprinting and climbing steep hills is not a good idea whatever shifter you use and I cannot see how electronic shifter can reduce mechanical loading ?

Wooliferkins

I'll launch this one in from 26 years fixing aircraft in the military,

"It's electronic, therefore inherently unreliable and prone to failure"

When the battery goes in the neck of nowhere will it revert to manual? No. It'll be like flappy paddle gear changers in cars, reserved for those with more money than sense.