How many pros still use mechanical groupsets?

neeb

freefall_junkie wrote:

Quote from Luke Rowe, Team Sky:
“I’ve ridden electronic for four or five years, and it’s not until you hop on a bike with mechanical shifting and change gear a few times that you realise how much poorer it is. It takes a while for you to remember just how bad it was. It’s a no-brainer — I never want to go back.”

This is an age-old phenomenon when you shift to a system (gears, brakes or whatever) that requires less physical effort, and then shift back again. Basically, you adapt physically/neurologically to the new system (a bit like muscle memory), so when you change back again it seems like a massive inconvenience and physical effort to push a little lever with one finger.. But of course it's not, it's just that your brain is telling you that you should only need to push with force x and you now need to push with force x+y, so it's uncomfortable due to neurological/physical dissonance. If you kept riding mechanical it would rapidly become effortless once again (as it is, in effect). Same phenomenon (in reverse) as makes your bike seem incredibly light to pick up if you do just after doing some barbell curls..

meanredspider

neeb wrote:

freefall_junkie wrote:

Quote from Luke Rowe, Team Sky:
“I’ve ridden electronic for four or five years, and it’s not until you hop on a bike with mechanical shifting and change gear a few times that you realise how much poorer it is. It takes a while for you to remember just how bad it was. It’s a no-brainer — I never want to go back.”

This is an age-old phenomenon when you shift to a system (gears, brakes or whatever) that requires less physical effort, and then shift back again. Basically, you adapt physically/neurologically to the new system (a bit like muscle memory), so when you change back again it seems like a massive inconvenience and physical effort to push a little lever with one finger.. But of course it's not, it's just that your brain is telling you that you should only need to push with force x and you now need to push with force x+y, so it's uncomfortable due to neurological/physical dissonance. If you kept riding mechanical it would rapidly become effortless once again (as it is, in effect). Same phenomenon (in reverse) as makes your bike seem incredibly light to pick up if you do just after doing some barbell curls..

The point is that mechanical shifting IS poorer though (just like your bike IS lighter than the barbells). If you continue applying the logic you've used, we all might as well be riding big steel sit-up-and-beg bikes with solid tyres and rod brakes (or just the soles of your shoes). After all, each of the steps that got us to where we are now was only very small.

sloppyschleckonds

Bobbinogs wrote:

I always get the impression that guy couldn't even brush his teeth in the morning without making it some epic challenge, complete with sponsorship and social media coverage.

neeb

meanredspider wrote:

The point is that mechanical shifting IS poorer though (just like your bike IS lighter than the barbells). If you continue applying the logic you've used, we all might as well be riding big steel sit-up-and-beg bikes with solid tyres and rod brakes (or just the soles of your shoes). After all, each of the steps that got us to where we are now was only very small.

Depends what you mean by "poorer". There's no reason why having to apply slightly greater force to change gear should necessarily be the inferior option (assuming it's not just because you are more used to one or the other). You might reasonably prefer the slightly greater physical interaction with the process and find it more positive. The ideal force required to change gear for some people might be considerably less than on your sit-up-and-beg bike but greater than with Di2.

Anonymous

meanredspider wrote:

neeb wrote:

freefall_junkie wrote:

Quote from Luke Rowe, Team Sky:
“I’ve ridden electronic for four or five years, and it’s not until you hop on a bike with mechanical shifting and change gear a few times that you realise how much poorer it is. It takes a while for you to remember just how bad it was. It’s a no-brainer — I never want to go back.”

This is an age-old phenomenon when you shift to a system (gears, brakes or whatever) that requires less physical effort, and then shift back again. Basically, you adapt physically/neurologically to the new system (a bit like muscle memory), so when you change back again it seems like a massive inconvenience and physical effort to push a little lever with one finger.. But of course it's not, it's just that your brain is telling you that you should only need to push with force x and you now need to push with force x+y, so it's uncomfortable due to neurological/physical dissonance. If you kept riding mechanical it would rapidly become effortless once again (as it is, in effect). Same phenomenon (in reverse) as makes your bike seem incredibly light to pick up if you do just after doing some barbell curls..

The point is that mechanical shifting IS poorer though

Yeah that £1500 Campag SR mechanic groupset is absolutely garbage compared to Ultegra Di2.

de_sisti

Maglia Rosa wrote:

You should be giving your bike a full check over every time you ride it.

Maglia Rosa wrote:

You should be giving your bike a full check over BEFORE you ride it.

FTFY

Anonymous

De Sisti wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

You should be giving your bike a full check over every time you ride it.

Maglia Rosa wrote:

You should be giving your bike a full check over BEFORE you ride it.

FTFY

DILLIGAF

meanredspider

Maglia Rosa wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The point is that mechanical shifting IS poorer though

Yeah that £1500 Campag SR mechanic groupset is absolutely garbage compared to Ultegra Di2.

If it shifts rings under load with less than a few millisecond/millimetre twitch of a finger, then I take it back.

If you can index the RD on the go, then I'll take it back.

If the RD never needs re-indexing, then I take it back.

If it auto trims etc...

It's not to say the the high-end mechanical stuff isn't good - it's just not AS good.

Technology only moves in one direction and performance moves with it.

Anonymous

meanredspider wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The point is that mechanical shifting IS poorer though

Yeah that £1500 Campag SR mechanic groupset is absolutely garbage compared to Ultegra Di2.

If it shifts rings under load with less than a few millisecond/millimetre twitch of a finger, then I take it back.

If you can index the RD on the go, then I'll take it back.

If the RD never needs re-indexing, then I take it back.

If it auto trims etc...

It's not to say the the high-end mechanical stuff isn't good - it's just not AS good.

Technology only moves in one direction and performance moves with it.

Yet at least 3 of the world's top riders choose not to use it.

debeli

This thread has slipped a little towards the relative merits of electronic shifters.

I am (as are many cyclists) a partial and selective Luddite. I find Campag Ergo such a joy after decades of fumbling around behind the steerer that I cannot believe anything will be much better.

Similarly, I get more joy driving an old 1961 roadster of my wife's than I do in any modern car. It has 4 gears, makes less than 60 bhp and weighs about 700 Kg. I have to wind the windows down by hand and fold the roof back the same way. The brakes have no servo (although the fronts are discs). It has carburettors... But it is a joy.

Similarly, I derive huge joy from older bicycles. They may lack something in the latest tech, but they bring me joy.

I realise that top pro-peloton riders look ofr speed more than they do joy, but clearly the case has not yet been made fully for electronic systems if people who can have any system they want are still opting for cables and grease.

The Richmond Park Elite Squad (invitation only) will always argue that the case has been made, but it has not... yet.

And there is also a case to be made for the joy of cycling..... which seems not to include things with batteries.

meanredspider

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Yet at least 3 of the world's top riders choose not to use it.

Yup - I don't think we know why. Most of the rest of them do. Certainly some of the advantages of Di2 are less interesting to pro riders whose kit is fettled constantly and spend long periods wafting along in the peloton on wide open roads with no traffic lights, roundabouts or T-junctions to stop at. The advantages are more marginal at pro level.

meanredspider

Debeli wrote:

Similarly, I derive huge joy from older bicycles. They may lack something in the latest tech, but they bring me joy.

It's probably best not to introduce "joy" into a pro racing thread.

I successfully campaign a 60's coupe. It's a "joy" to drive. I'd be even more successful though if I strapped on lots of electronic gizmos - launch control, throttle bodies, DSG etc but that's not the point. Where performance counts and the rules allow it, electronics rule.

Ultimately, pro cycling is 99% about the "engine" on board the bikes and the brains behind the tactics.

Anonymous

meanredspider wrote:

Debeli wrote:

Similarly, I derive huge joy from older bicycles. They may lack something in the latest tech, but they bring me joy.

It's probably best not to introduce "joy" into a pro racing thread.

I successfully campaign a 60's coupe. It's a "joy" to drive. I'd be even more successful though if I strapped on lots of electronic gizmos - launch control, throttle bodieks, DSG etc but that's not the point. Where performance counts and the rules allow it, electronics rule.

Ultimately, pro cycling is 99% about the "engine" on board the bikes and the brains behind the tactics.

You seem to be swapping about to further your argument. Seconds ago you say pros have it easier and electronic gears are not so important in the pro peloton then you dismiss someone for mentioning 'joy' in a pro cycling thread. Make your mind up. Or stick your fingers in your ears going lalalala as it seems. Gears, electronic or mechanical, will not make you faster or climb better or make you fitter or obviously bring more joy to your riding. A well tuned and looked after mechanical setup is just as smooth as electronic. If you need to worry about your gears going out of trim every 5 minutes or you lack the strength to push over the lever to change you seriously need to look at your own riding style. For the cost of going up to electronic I could buy a decent set of carbon wheels which would make impove my speed/climbing/comfort all of which moving to a heavier set of gears will not

meanredspider

Nope - not changing my argument - just responding to the points.

I didn't say pros have it "easier" - they have different needs: if you don't need to accelerate from a standstill, for instance, you don't much care about that capability.

"Joy" isn't something the pro peleton care about in a gear set. As it happens, I get "joy" from Di2 - I subliminally change gears. Riding a bike isn't about changing gears for me. If I don't need to think about it, I'm very happy.

The pro peleton will be after marginal gains in performance and reliability. This is probably why much of the peleton ride electronic. But it is marginal between mechanical and electronic and there may be reasons why some of the riders choose mechanical that aren't entirely rational (like wearing lucky socks) - or they've had a bad experience - or it's commercial.

I don't see where I'm changing my position in any of that.

trailflow

meanredspider wrote:

The point is that mechanical shifting IS poorer though (just like your bike IS lighter than the barbells). If you continue applying the logic you've used, we all might as well be riding big steel sit-up-and-beg bikes with solid tyres and rod brakes (or just the soles of your shoes). After all, each of the steps that got us to where we are now was only very small.

Poorer yes to a small degree, but it can still execute its task quite well. With the refinements that have that gone into mechanical shifting ,and will continue to do so, at it's current state, it is perfectly adequate and its normal functioning would never ruin your ride like those examples. Comparing points of safety or points of road contact like tyres vs the non essential luxury of Di2 is abit daft. Di2 is not that much of a game changer. Only an experience enhancer. Di2 is not vital and never will be. Pneumatic tyres and good brakes are.

DeVlaeminck

meanredspider wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The point is that mechanical shifting IS poorer though

Yeah that £1500 Campag SR mechanic groupset is absolutely garbage compared to Ultegra Di2.

If it shifts rings under load with less than a few millisecond/millimetre twitch of a finger, then I take it back.

If you can index the RD on the go, then I'll take it back.

If the RD never needs re-indexing, then I take it back.

If it auto trims etc...

It's not to say the the high-end mechanical stuff isn't good - it's just not AS good.

Technology only moves in one direction and performance moves with it.

Mate of mine came off because his chain slipped - knocked out and broken collarbone - he was on Di2. It's not as if this stuff is fault free.

For the record I've not reindexed my gears since the Marmotte last year and that is mechanical Ultegra. You may prefer the feel of electronic but any actual performance benefit is so tiny that it is practically non-existent - as has been said if performance is your thing spend the money on something aero or even something light.

bernithebiker

neeb wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The point is that mechanical shifting IS poorer though (just like your bike IS lighter than the barbells). If you continue applying the logic you've used, we all might as well be riding big steel sit-up-and-beg bikes with solid tyres and rod brakes (or just the soles of your shoes). After all, each of the steps that got us to where we are now was only very small.

Depends what you mean by "poorer". There's no reason why having to apply slightly greater force to change gear should necessarily be the inferior option (assuming it's not just because you are more used to one or the other). You might reasonably prefer the slightly greater physical interaction with the process and find it more positive. The ideal force required to change gear for some people might be considerably less than on your sit-up-and-beg bike but greater than with Di2.

The reason why it's better to apply less force (and above all, TRAVEL) to your shifters is that it's one less thing to do.

Steaming downhill into a roundabout that then climbs, I can go from 50-15 say, to 36-19 with just a couple of light presses, which leaves me free to concentrate on braking hard and picking my line. The shifts WILL be perfect.

With mechanical I have to free up fingers to make a big sweep with both levers - and hope that the shifts go smoothly - it's not the same thing.....

meanredspider

trailflow wrote:

Poorer yes to a small degree, but it can still execute its task quite well. With the refinements that have that gone into mechanical shifting ,and will continue to do so, at it's current state, it is perfectly adequate and its normal functioning would never ruin your ride like those examples. Comparing points of safety or points of road contact like tyres vs the non essential luxury of Di2 is abit daft. Di2 is not that much of a game changer. Only an experience enhancer. Di2 is not vital and never will be. Pneumatic tyres and good brakes are.

I think you missed my point - it's just coincidental that I mentioned the tyres and brakes. My point is that most improvements in bikes (and all technology) are smaller, iterative, changes. Without this, bikes would be like the clunker my dad rode to work (tyres, brakes, gears, weight etc etc). Rarely (especially in cycling) has an improvement come along that everyone has embraced: Carbon? Tubeless? Discs? 11sp, 10sp, 9sp? Aluminium? Brifters? Presta? Skinny tyres? Fat tyres? It's come step-by-step. What's also true is that most things that have made it into the mainstream have become the norm (I'm sure there's some exceptions).

meanredspider

DeVlaeminck wrote:

For the record I've not reindexed my gears since the Marmotte last year and that is mechanical Ultegra. You may prefer the feel of electronic but any actual performance benefit is so tiny that it is practically non-existent - as has been said if performance is your thing spend the money on something aero or even something light.

If it weren't for an off on diesel, I don't think I'd ever have re-indexed my gears on the Volagi in 5 years. It's not a big deal because I'm good at it and I've often done it for my "mechanical" friends. Even when I've had an off and bent the hanger, I could tune the mis-aligned RD on the go to minimise the effect (I was in the middle of a 190k sportif in the Ardennes)

Berni makes a good point above that I've forgotten I do (because of the intuitive bit) - braking hard on the limit and shifting. It's incredible fun and (although I've never measured it) it's intuitively a performance gain.

stueys

I've three bikes, 9070 on one, 9000 on another and rival 22 on the third. I switch between mechanical and electronic regularly. Without question electronic offers a better experience, for the points I made earlier in the thread. Yep 9000 shifts just as sweetly on the back (when it's well maintained) but 9070 kills it on the FD and gets a perfect shift every time at the back, 9000 will sometimes miss (mainly because of user error but that's kinda the point, you can't make those errors on 9070). The other advantages of electronic I detailed above.

Added to the ride experience, electronic is lighter and requires less maintenance. The cost is really the only reason not to go there, I'm genuinely lost at the arguments any other way. I get it's expensive for the marginal benefits, but let's not debate that the benefits aren't there. Over 90% of the pro peloton (I suspect I'm being conservative but I don't have an exact stat) adopted electronic within a season, give me another piece of technology that's been adopted that quickly; power meters weren't as an example, shall we dispute the benefits they offer?

My prediction is that within five years this won't even be an option that you can debate, it will be all electronic. I

pblakeney

Opinions aside.
How many pros?

sloppyschleckonds

Stueys wrote:

My prediction is that within five years this won't even be an option that you can debate, it will be all electronic. I

I don't make predictions, never have and never will.

sloppyschleckonds

PBlakeney wrote:

Opinions aside.
How many pros?

Im sure someone will be along soon to make up a stat to justify their opinion

mamba80

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Opinions aside.
How many pros?

Im sure someone will be along soon to make up a stat to justify their opinion

it is exactly 987, a more meaningful stat would be how many amateur racers, as they have choice.

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

it is exactly 987, a more meaningful stat would be how many amateur racers, as they have choice.

But not unlimited resources.

rolf_f

Stueys wrote:

My prediction is that within five years this won't even be an option that you can debate, it will be all electronic. I

Do you also predict that there will be an option to operate the electronic gears via downtube shifters? (still available 27 years after the invention of the integrated shifter/brake.....)

Anonymous

Rolf F wrote:

Stueys wrote:

My prediction is that within five years this won't even be an option that you can debate, it will be all electronic. I

Do you also predict that there will be an option to operate the electronic gears via downtube shifters? (still available 27 years after the invention of the integrated shifter/brake.....)

Im 5 years Halfords will be selling cheap'n'nasty bikes all fitted with electronic gears that probably cost more than the rest of the bike combined.......apparently

86inch

bernithebiker wrote:

The reason why it's better to apply less force (and above all, TRAVEL) to your shifters is that it's one less thing to do.

Steaming downhill into a roundabout that then climbs, I can go from 50-15 say, to 36-19 with just a couple of light presses, which leaves me free to concentrate on braking hard and picking my line. The shifts WILL be perfect.

With mechanical I have to free up fingers to make a big sweep with both levers - and hope that the shifts go smoothly - it's not the same thing.....

But Cancellara etc seem to manage.....

drlodge

There are a lot of plus points with electronic shifting, however there is still one thing that my mechanical group does which the electronic group doesn't - and that's multiple shifting with accuracy. On the mechanical setup I can press the lever/thumb button a certain number of clicks and know the derailleur will change that number of sprockets, but with electronic shifting I have to hold the button down until the required number of gears has shifted and its impossible to know when that's achieved without looking back at the cassette.

Electronic is better on balance, but not on every point. This is Campag BTW.

chris_bass

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Stueys wrote:

My prediction is that within five years this won't even be an option that you can debate, it will be all electronic. I

Do you also predict that there will be an option to operate the electronic gears via downtube shifters? (still available 27 years after the invention of the integrated shifter/brake.....)

Im 5 years Halfords will be selling cheap'n'nasty bikes all fitted with electronic gears that probably cost more than the rest of the bike combined.......apparently

Electronics do get cheaper very quickly, not exactly a fair comparison but: