How many pros still use mechanical groupsets?

neeb

I was quite surprised at this:
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/arti ... ike-47193/

So that's Alberto and Nibali both, arguably the two greatest Grand Tour riders currently. How many other pros are still using mechanical groups, and more interestingly, why?

I've no axe to grind here, I'm just curious. I've never ridden electronic but have toyed with the idea of going there (usually after faffing with gunged-up, poorly shifting, internally routed cables to no effect), but admit to being put off just a little bit by the whole diluting-the-mechanical-purity-of-the-bicycle thing. Not to mention the cost. But clearly, however nice it is, electronic shifting isn't necessary if those two can do without it.

What are Contador and Nibali's reasons - reliability? (electronic might be more reliable but less immediately fixable if it does go?). Weight? Or just the familiarity of mechanical shifting?

Do high-end mechanical groups still have a future, and will the manufacturers continue to innovate in this area and support them?

sungod

most pros have to ride what the sponsors tell them, only a few get to have things their own way

if they're happy with mechanical i'd guess they want to stay with it, at the end of the day there's no significant performance benefit one way or the other, most 'progress' is really just marketing to sell us more shiny shiny

fwiw i went from red to etap on mine a few months back, it shifted well before, it shifts well after, i'm a sucker for new shiny

PTestTeam

I;m sure both of them have suffered problems with electronic shifting in key points during races.

So I suspect they want to use something that's reliable. With a top class mechanic looking after their bikes the mechanical groupsets will be shifting sweetly anyway

Anonymous

I have lost count of the amount of times I have seen a rider have to change bikes cos the gears have stopped working. It happened to Wiggo famously and it has happened to many other riders. I agree and think riders like Nibali and Cancellara prefer traditional gearing for the reliability factor. If you suddenly lose shifting at on a big climb it could very well cost you the race.

neeb

Just found an online interview with Nibali where he's asked about this:

CN: One last question about the bike you ride. I noticed you were one of the few riders to still use Campagnolo mechanical gears. Is there a specific reason?

VN: I used the new Campagnolo electronic gears at the world championships and at the end of the season. I also use electronic components when I'm training at home but I like to have the option to choose in races. Both work really well but there's a slightly different feeling between the two systems.

In important races or stages I've opted to use mechanical gears to avoid any kind of risk, such as damage from a crash or if you chain jumps. If you make a mistake when using mechanical gears, you know is your fault, when you use electronic gears, it could be the computer's fault. When you prepare for a race like the Tour de France for months and look to minimise every risk and maximise every effort you make, I think it's normal to be careful and look at every tiny detail. Hence my decision to stay with what I know.

trailflow

I'd guess they just prefer the mechanical feel. The physical functioning and interaction of Di2 isn't to everyones taste. For example the Di2 hoods and brake levers are a different shape compared to mechanical. That might play a part.

Electronic groups dont guarantee race wins or make the riders anymore skillful. The truth is mechanical is just as reliable as Di2. Both have equal pluses and minuses. I predict more pro's will return back to mechanical in the future especially when Shimano release an even better group (that needs marketing) and that closes the gap again. There is/will be very little between them. It goes to show that the latest and greatest more expensive stuff isnt guaranteed to do anything any better. Mechanical drivetrains right now are as good as they need to be. More emphasis should be put into hood comfort in my view. That would benefit the rider more.

i think Di2 is overkill for the average everyday rider. It solves a few problems and creates just as many. Do we really need a robot to move the derailleur to the side by millimeters ? Really ? we got by for a very long time without motors on our derailleurs and nobody kicked up a fuss. My experience of Di2 had the opposite effect and made me realise just how well functioning my DA9000 mechanical group is.

i dont see Shimano stopping making mechanical groups ever.

i dont see those motors or batteries lasting 10 years or more or see Shimano providing spares for very long ahead.
Di2 groups should come with a use by date.

stueys

The other question you could have asked is 'isn't it surprising how rapidly electronic adoption swept through the pro ranks, even teams that had to buy DI2 directly from Shim did so whilst SRAM didn't have electronic'.

The argument on electronic v mechanical has been and gone, mechanical lost. My last/current bikes have had a DA 7900, 9000, 9070, rival 22 and red 22 on. I've had more issues with mechanical than electronic in terms of reliability, YMMV that's been my exerperience.

Electronic doesn't do anything wildly different than mechanical, it's not a complete game changer, but what it does do is improve every part of the drivetrain experience in incremental steps, which all adds up.

86inch

Stueys wrote:

Electronic doesn't do anything wildly different than mechanical, it's not a complete game changer, but what it does do is improve every part of the drivetrain experience in incremental steps, which all adds up.

Which adds up to what exactly?

Playing devil's advocate, if those incremental steps were so good, then Nibali/Cancellara/Contador etc wouldn't use mechanical at all.

Plain and simple, i see electronic for the pro's as "neither here nor there" for the amateurs and punters, electronic is probably superior as few people are willing or able to maintain their drive system and electronic is pretty much fit and forget.

stueys

86inch wrote:

Stueys wrote:

Electronic doesn't do anything wildly different than mechanical, it's not a complete game changer, but what it does do is improve every part of the drivetrain experience in incremental steps, which all adds up.

Which adds up to what exactly?

Playing devil's advocate, if those incremental steps were so good, then Nibali/Cancellara/Contador etc wouldn't use mechanical at all.

So your argument is electronic isn't worth it because 2% of pro's still use mechanical? :?

I can only talk to my experience of DI2, but the advantages it gives me are (i) multiple shift points (I've put sprint shifters by my stem, it's lovely when climbing not to have to stretch down), (ii) easy adjustment (I had to re-index my gears two weeks back as I had switched wheels, I did it whilst riding in about 5 seconds), (iii) ride experience, shifting is seamless, no trimming front derailleur, I can brake and drop down the whole cassette in one move at junctions, etc, etc.

As I said before, all of the parts are incrementally better. To argue that they aren't is a bit odd. Whether the marginal improvements are worth the money is purely down to your propensity to spend and will vary for all of us, there isn't a right or wrong answer there.

fenix

If you're climbing Stuey - really how much effort is it to move the hand to the lever ? It's hardly make or break.... It won't elevate your HR any more.

I'd think easy adjustment would be the real advantage for most of us. No mechanics around to do the gears for us.
That said - I can't remember the last time I needed to change my settings on the gears.

Sram Etap seems to be the way forward. One day I might make the move. When its a bit cheaper. ;-)

neeb

Stueys wrote:

The argument on electronic v mechanical has been and gone, mechanical lost.

I must have missed that, was there a referendum?

Seriously, I doubt it can ever be an argument that can be won or lost, it doesn't make enough difference for the practical aspects to outweigh taste/preference.

I'd still like to see more innovation in mechanical groups. If there was a way to use energy from the drive train to prime a spring, so that it wasn't necessary to pull against the force of another spring when shifting to larger sprockets/cogs... Incidentally that would also potentially open the way for wireless mechanical (shifting mechanically without motors but controlled electronically), although I'm not sure there would be much of a market for that..

dinyull

How many rides have been ruined by someone forgetting to charge the battery?

Anonymous

Dinyull wrote:

How many rides have been ruined by someone forgetting to charge the battery?

I would suggest quite a few. Then again how many were ruined by snapped gear cables?

JesseD

Nibali and Contador have had bad experiences with electronic gears so moved back to mechanical just in case, makes sense if you are racing at pro level and win races is what you are employed to do, though I don't agree I can see why they have decided not to take that risk, but there are plenty of pro-riders who ride electronic with no issues, with a lot of those preferring them to mechanical.

If you are an amateur and are funding yourself then if you can afford to race and replace Di2 or the like then fantastic, but for me as long as I am racing I will ride mechanical as its cheaper to replace a rear mech or shifter than with electronic.

When I hang up my racing wheels, I will definitely move to electronic, the setup on the go function and the auto trim on the front mech alone are enough for me

pblakeney

Dinyull wrote:

How many rides have been ruined by someone forgetting to charge the battery?

I know someone who missed a TT for that very reason.

dinyull

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

How many rides have been ruined by someone forgetting to charge the battery?

I would suggest quite a few. Then again how many were ruined by snapped gear cables?

Of course. But there is far more chance of forgetting to charge a battery every few days/week than snapping a cable every x thousand mile.

I know for a fact that if I ran Di2 every other ride would be a non starter :oops:

86inch

Stueys wrote:

So your argument is electronic isn't worth it because 2% of pro's still use mechanical? :?

I can only talk to my experience of DI2, but the advantages it gives me are (i) multiple shift points (I've put sprint shifters by my stem, it's lovely when climbing not to have to stretch down), (ii) easy adjustment (I had to re-index my gears two weeks back as I had switched wheels, I did it whilst riding in about 5 seconds), (iii) ride experience, shifting is seamless, no trimming front derailleur, I can brake and drop down the whole cassette in one move at junctions, etc, etc.

As I said before, all of the parts are incrementally better. To argue that they aren't is a bit odd. Whether the marginal improvements are worth the money is purely down to your propensity to spend and will vary for all of us, there isn't a right or wrong answer there.

I think you missed my point.. I'm not arguing for mechanical or electronic - as per my last statement, for most punters electronic is probably easier to set up and use.

Your argument was that the "incremental benefits" of electronic result in a superior performance and i disagree with this. I would argue that it isn't the case, electronic = well set up mechanical. Would that be the case, there would be zero pro's using mechanical as they would fear losing a race, and they don't.

Money doesn't even come into it.

Anonymous

Dinyull wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

How many rides have been ruined by someone forgetting to charge the battery?

I would suggest quite a few. Then again how many were ruined by snapped gear cables?

Of course. But there is far more chance of forgetting to charge a battery every few days/week than snapping a cable every x thousand mile.

I know for a fact that if I ran Di2 every other ride would be a non starter :oops:

I would think both come down to poor maintenance. You should be giving your bike a full check over every time you ride it.

If you get back to the pro riders, they have people to do all this every day and they still choose to go mech over electronic. That suggests to me there are still question marks over reliability. Thing is even poor shifting mech gears still shift albeit poorly.

fenix

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

How many rides have been ruined by someone forgetting to charge the battery?

I would suggest quite a few. Then again how many were ruined by snapped gear cables?

I've never snapped a cable in 30 years plus of riding. A couple of chains yes - but never a cable. Never seen it happen either.

pblakeney

Fenix wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

How many rides have been ruined by someone forgetting to charge the battery?

I would suggest quite a few. Then again how many were ruined by snapped gear cables?

I've never snapped a cable in 30 years plus of riding. A couple of chains yes - but never a cable. Never seen it happen either.

I've had a front cable snap in the hoods. I am guessing over tensioned/pulled too hard, too often.
Bad shifting should have been the indicator but as there was nothing visibly wrong......

Bobbinogs

I have seen a rear mech cable snap just in the BB guide, which I guess is a common friction point that can also get crappy in bad weather and is often overlooked when it comes to the odd squirt of oil, etc. The chap was reduced to 2 gears, as in one gear at the back (albeit a couple across the block, afforded by a wound in High stop) and two at the front on a hilly ride. It did make me chuckle as he moaned...continually :-)

Then again, I've also ridden with a chap who had a difficult hilly ride after his Di2 battery failed. Come to think of it, he moaned a lot too!

bernithebiker

I've had 2 gear cables snap on me, this was down to dodgy DA9000 shifters, (now replaced by DA9001).

Cables can get cruddy and make rear shifts poor.

I love Di2 (9070). So precise, and front shifting is just press and forget.

One of the best things about it is descending fast, hitting the brakes hard for a corner, and still being able to easily change to any gear you want - that simply is not possible with mechanical.

Running out of battery is a non-issue - it lasts for a month or so, and I have a % indicator on my Garmin. Twice in 2 years, I've had to come home the last 30km with just the rear cassette, no biggie really.

By the way, it seems that the new DA9100 will be out at the end of the summer.....NOT wireless (I still don't get on with wireless stuff...!)

DeVlaeminck

Fenix wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

How many rides have been ruined by someone forgetting to charge the battery?

I would suggest quite a few. Then again how many were ruined by snapped gear cables?

I've never snapped a cable in 30 years plus of riding. A couple of chains yes - but never a cable. Never seen it happen either.

Me neither - I've seen snapped chains, snapped bars, snapped spokes, snapped saddle clamps and snapped pedals but never a cable.

markhewitt1978

The point is as stated above that it actually makes little difference to the race bike since it's all exceptionally professionally maintained, there's going to be little difference between a mechanical set which is tuned by a race mechanic every single day vs a Di2 system.

dodgy

People talking about battery only lasting a few weeks or even a month? My Ultegra Di2 battery lasts about 2500 miles between charges! (most of my rides are rolling and occasionally hilly into North Wales). For me that's about twice a year that I charge it!

keef66

My 5600 shifter eats the gear cable pretty predictably. Snapped completely inside the shifter on one ride.

I imagine that electronic groupsets will gradually come down in price as sales volumes increase. The shifters must be cheaper to manufacture than the mechanical equivalents already. Top end mechanical will go the way of Shimano FlightDeck

stueys

dodgy wrote:

People talking about battery only lasting a few weeks or even a month? My Ultegra Di2 battery lasts about 2500 miles between charges! (most of my rides are rolling and occasionally hilly into North Wales). For me that's about twice a year that I charge it!

Yep, the battery talk is a bit nuts. I charged my DI2 when I went on a long weekend cycling in Girona four weeks back, since then it's done evening and weekend rides in the UK and I got back from 10 days in Mallorca at the weekend. The LED status light is still showing 100%. Maybe I don't change gear enough....

I think I've charged the bike 3 or 4 times since I put DI2 on over a year ago, and I've never seen the charge go below 50%. If Shimano did a battery at half the weight for half the capacity, I'd buy it, it's over spec'd.

stevie63

Many have mentioned about forgetting to charge, but how many use Garmins or equivalent on their bikes. They need charging every few rides. I bet most don't forget to do that. Most have lights, again they need charging and that's not a problem generally. Most take a phone on rides. We are used to charging things up before riding, yeah it takes some of the percieved purity out of the bike but technology is always advancing.

Most used to scoff at integrated levers and before that at indexing. Some feel that we should all still be riding around on 52/42 with a 12-21 block on the back but cycling changes all the time and give it a few years and electronic groupstes will probably be the norm with only mechanical on entry level bikes.

stueys

86inch wrote:

I think you missed my point.. I'm not arguing for mechanical or electronic - as per my last statement, for most punters electronic is probably easier to set up and use.

Your argument was that the "incremental benefits" of electronic result in a superior performance and i disagree with this. I would argue that it isn't the case, electronic = well set up mechanical. Would that be the case, there would be zero pro's using mechanical as they would fear losing a race, and they don't.

Money doesn't even come into it.

Yep, we disagree. I was arguing that there are distinct improvements in electronic performance over mechanical. Across the board and I gave some examples. My point was that the improvements were all incremental as opposed to game changers so it came down to the cost and value you put on them. I guess that applies to most of the cycling gear we buy thinking about it...

For pro's I suspect they put reliability above all else. So if someone has a bad day on electronic that probably wipes them for a season, irrespective of whether that's rationale or not. I still stand by my original comment that the biggest surprise should be how quickly electronic has been wholescale adopted by the pro's, even to the extent of ditching some sponsored gear and buying the stuff. That to me suggests that the majority opinion is that it adds to performance, not detracts.

Anonymous

Stueys wrote:

86inch wrote:

I think you missed my point.. I'm not arguing for mechanical or electronic - as per my last statement, for most punters electronic is probably easier to set up and use.

Your argument was that the "incremental benefits" of electronic result in a superior performance and i disagree with this. I would argue that it isn't the case, electronic = well set up mechanical. Would that be the case, there would be zero pro's using mechanical as they would fear losing a race, and they don't.

Money doesn't even come into it.

Yep, we disagree. I was arguing that there are distinct improvements in electronic performance over mechanical. Across the board and I gave some examples. My point was that the improvements were all incremental as opposed to game changers so it came down to the cost and value you put on them. I guess that applies to most of the cycling gear we buy thinking about it...

For pro's I suspect they put reliability above all else. So if someone has a bad day on electronic that probably wipes them for a season, irrespective of whether that's rationale or not. I still stand by my original comment that the biggest surprise should be how quickly electronic has been wholescale adopted by the pro's, even to the extent of ditching some sponsored gear and buying the stuff. That to me suggests that the majority opinion is that it adds to performance, not detracts.

I don't think I have seen any cases of teams ditching sponsored kit for other stuff. For a groupset you have Shimano , Campagnolo or Sram and until this season only 2 had electronic gears. Sram had been seen on individual bikes on trial but only if it was heavily disguised in the process. The fines from the UCI or loss of sponsorship money is not worth the risk for many teams. There is scarcely and money in the sport outside sponsorship as it is. Individual riders have been fined for wearing non issued kit (i.e Castelli Gabbas)

A possible reason more uptake of electronic gears came so quick was because of the manufacturers offering them at a better deal to the teams to put them in the shop window so to speak. They still have to recoup their spending on r&d by selling them to the public. As with most new things in cycling it more a case of money and marketing

okgo

Worth noting that its a very different situation being a pro having fresh cables every few days and a sparkling clean and professionally maintained bike EVERY DAY - that is why it makes little odds in terms of feel and shifting quality to these guys - for the average person though, who doesn't clean their bike and strip it each night, mech gears get crappy far far sooner than electric with mud, grime, cable stretch, etc etc.