Electronic shifting

geebee2

I'm not sure electronic gear shifting is a good thing.

For me, a bike should be powered by the rider, not a battery.

What do you think?

Chiggy

"What can go wrong, will go wrong".

Murphy.

JohnnyAllez

geebee2 wrote:

a bike should be powered by the rider, not a battery.

What do you think?

Bike is still being "powered" by the rider, pedals being turned propells you forward, just the gearchanging is being done electrically by a servo motor, not a lot different to the rider pushing a lever and a cable doing the movement, with Di2 the rider presses a button / lever and it`s an electrical cable causing the movement, it`s still a remote operation.

Bet Andy Schleck has Shimano Di2 on his Christmas pressie list

snailracer

geebee2 wrote:

I'm not sure electronic gear shifting is a good thing.

For me, a bike should be powered by the rider, not a battery.

What do you think?

Would all your objections be lifted if it was powered by a dynamo? You could also run your lights off it, too.

beverick

I couldn't see the point in derailleurs when I had hub gears;
I couldn't see the point in 5 speed gears when I had 3;
I couldn't see the point in 10 speed gears when I had 5;
I couldn't see the point in indexed gears when I had friction levers on the downtube;
I couldn't see the point in 24 speed gears when I had 10;
I couldn't see the point in 30 speed gears when I had 24;
I can't see the point in having 33 gears now I have 30;
I can't see the point in replacing a metre of steel cable with two copper wires.

So I'll no doubt have electronic gears when they're cheap enough.

(I do think we should work on improving people's ability to spell in the meantime.)

Bob

Mark Alexander

Chiggy wrote:

"What can go wrong, will go wrong".

Murphy.

Well, it isn't taking away from the rider's effort. Wait for Clarkson' "flappy-paddle gearboxes" or for an automatic lol. I voted no, not for 'on principle' but it's simply unnecessary.

re-cycles

Sorry if this is a foolish question, but what is the suggested advantage of electronic gear changes?

desweller

I chiefly see it as an opportunity to get rid of all the problems we have with mixed standards. The same shifter could operate 9-speed, 10-speed, hub gears of all kinds. Plus you could have more than one set of shift buttons on your bars if you wanted, so a couple of buttons on your tri-bar extensions as well as your brake levers for example.

Buckled_Rims

I'm in favour, however, It will eventually lead to automation of gear changes ie, if you're most efficient cadence is at 80rpm then it'll automatically change to the correct gear. They'll also be a connection to disk brakes (yeah, I can't wait for that either) and then we'll have anti-locking.

For racing I think many fully manual setups should be used.

pneumatic

DesWeller wrote:

I chiefly see it as an opportunity to get rid of all the problems we have with mixed standards. The same shifter could operate 9-speed, 10-speed, hub gears of all kinds. Plus you could have more than one set of shift buttons on your bars if you wanted, so a couple of buttons on your tri-bar extensions as well as your brake levers for example.

As a consumer, I agree entirely, but if we were manufacturers, we would, as ever, be using this as the ideal opportunity to launch a new and very diverse RANGE of un-interchangeable parts.

Cue: Shimano Carbon 10 speed tri-bar paddle-shift left-handed narrow-bar attachment kit £89.99 (electronic shifter servos not included, please check your manual for compatibility matrix before ordering to avoid disappointment, only available in Blue; White discontinued)
:roll:

ilm_zero7

Buckled_Rims wrote:

It will eventually lead to automation of gear changes ie, if you're most efficient cadence is at 80rpm then it'll automatically change to the correct gear. .

isnt the next logical step some form of CVT - continuously variable transmission for bikes then? maybe DAF could get into the bike scene!

Pross

Didn't see the point until I tried it out briefly. If they were sensibly priced (and I could afford them) then yes I would get some.

Smokin Joe

beverick wrote:

I couldn't see the point in derailleurs when I had hub gears;
I couldn't see the point in 5 speed gears when I had 3;
I couldn't see the point in 10 speed gears when I had 5;
I couldn't see the point in indexed gears when I had friction levers on the downtube;
I couldn't see the point in 24 speed gears when I had 10;
I couldn't see the point in 30 speed gears when I had 24;
I can't see the point in having 33 gears now I have 30;
I can't see the point in replacing a metre of steel cable with two copper wires.

So I'll no doubt have electronic gears when they're cheap enough.

(I do think we should work on improving people's ability to spell in the meantime.)

Bob

Agree with the above.

I've been at this a long time, and every single innovation that we now wouldn't buy a bike without was poo pooed as unnecessary when it first appeared. Gear changing is nothing to do with the principle of pedalling the bicycle, just a necessary chore to make more efficient use of your power output, and anything which gets it out of the way more quickly and efficiently is ok by me.

Give it five years and it will be a commonplace fitment.

cee

for me the coolest thing about the di2 stuff is the automatic trimming of the mechs...so they move about depending on the chain line...giving a clean run even in a poor gear combo...

that said...i don't like the idea of a battery running out midway through a long ride.

geebee2

snailracer wrote:

geebee2 wrote:

I'm not sure electronic gear shifting is a good thing.

For me, a bike should be powered by the rider, not a battery.

What do you think?

Would all your objections be lifted if it was powered by a dynamo? You could also run your lights off it, too.

I think it's acceptable in the same way that a battery to help you up hills is ok for commuting, but you could also buy a moped.

But I don't like it from a "pure" bicycling point of view.

It's just yukky.

Smokin Joe

geebee2 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

geebee2 wrote:

I'm not sure electronic gear shifting is a good thing.

For me, a bike should be powered by the rider, not a battery.

What do you think?

Would all your objections be lifted if it was powered by a dynamo? You could also run your lights off it, too.

I think it's acceptable in the same way that a battery to help you up hills is ok for commuting, but you could also buy a moped.

But I don't like it from a "pure" bicycling point of view.

It's just yukky.

There is no such thing as a "Pure" bicycle. If it's motion is controlled only by the pedalling efforts of the rider it ticks all the boxes for me.

beverick

cee wrote:

for me the coolest thing about the di2 stuff is the automatic trimming of the mechs...so they move about depending on the chain line...giving a clean run even in a poor gear combo...

that said...i don't like the idea of a battery running out midway through a long ride.

Now if the manufacturers could only design the chain out of the mix.......

Bob

rick_chasey

If it involves less faff - especially messy greasy faff, then i'm all for it.

Self-triming sounds bloody excellent.

whyamihere

geebee2 wrote:

I think it's acceptable in the same way that a battery to help you up hills is ok for commuting, but you could also buy a moped.

But I don't like it from a "pure" bicycling point of view.

It's just yukky.

That bike in your avatar looks like it has gears. Surely you should be riding a fixed gear?

Dunk_911

[quote="Felt so Good"isnt the next logical step some form of CVT - continuously variable transmission for bikes then? maybe DAF could get into the bike scene![/quote]


*invented

ride_whenever

The best application is sequential shifting. There was a mtb with bodged Di2 and some electronic magic that meant a tri bar extension pod mounted underbar on one side did 20 gears in sequence by GI perfectly.

The waiting for the perfect arrangement of sprockets/chainrings is also very neat and leads to very nice shifts in my experience.

Also CVT is rubbish currently.