Di2 - A technology too far?

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
peetee
Posts: 1466
Joined: 4 May 2010, 10:20pm
Location: Cornwall

Re: A technology too far?

Postby peetee » 29 May 2019, 5:30pm

reohn2 wrote:You haven't seen my SinL's old bike now in the w/shop Deore outer cageplate worn through :shock:


Yes I have seen the sort of damage you describe when the chain wears away at the side plates but these had fractured at the bridge plate between the two. I don't know how but if I were to take a guess I would say the chain failed to unhook from the outer ring, possibly because the rider wasn't pedalling, and the power of the solenoid did the rest.
Current status report:
Latter side of fifty and feeling less than nifty.
Too many bikes on pegs and too few miles in the legs.

reohn2
Posts: 36746
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: A technology too far?

Postby reohn2 » 29 May 2019, 5:52pm

peetee wrote:
reohn2 wrote:You haven't seen my SinL's old bike now in the w/shop Deore outer cageplate worn through :shock:


Yes I have seen the sort of damage you describe when the chain wears away at the side plates but these had fractured at the bridge plate between the two. I don't know how but if I were to take a guess I would say the chain failed to unhook from the outer ring, possibly because the rider wasn't pedalling, and the power of the solenoid did the rest.

I see what you mean,I too have never seen that on a cable operated f/mech.

On another point,Di2 mechs,particularly the rear, and shifters are expensive to replace in a crash and are the most likely things to take a hit.
Some twenty years ago in a crash whilst using RSX 7sp STI's I had the misfortune of watching my bike tople end over end behind me as I slid down a very wet road at over 20mph.miraculously I got up unscathered other than two debarked knees,the bike was similarly unscathered other than gouges in both STI's.I was slight dischuffed,but when I got home managed to smooth most of the scrapes and gouges out with fine grade wet n dry and rode with them for at least another 10K miles before upgradjng to 9sp :)
I can't see that happening with Di2's
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

thelawnet
Posts: 2248
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: A technology too far?

Postby thelawnet » 29 May 2019, 5:56pm

Brucey wrote:I think you missed my point which is that whilst there are rare exceptions, at best these things are usually an irrelevance, and are liable to cost more (in time, money and aggro) over their lifetime than equivalent mechanical systems. You don't need to have any mechanical aptitude to see that.


But that was never the point. If you have resolved to to spend £9,500 on one of these:

Image

Then the greater cost is a goal not a drawback.

Clearly that is a somewhat extreme case, but a real one, as these things do sell, but in any case it is wrong to assess that a mechanical system is better, because better by your set of criteria is not necessarily the point. An antique piece of furniture costing £20k is 'worse' than something from Land of Leather for all sorts of reasons, but that's not really the point. Someone who derives satisfaction from something being finely crafted would appreciate the antique more, and equally someone who appreciates new technology may derive pleasure from the fact that their bicycle has electronic shifting, and indeed they might be very happy that their bicycle can be configured with a computer.

Whatever arguments you or I can come up with as to why it's less practical or whatever is not really the point when there are many millions of miles of being cycled for reasons that are nothing to do with practicality. There isn't too much difference in that respect between reconditioning a vintage bicycle with period parts that in some respects will perform worse than more modern ones, and owning a shiny new carbon whatsit with Di2 doo-daas. Both are about fetishisation, be it of 'new technology', or some sort of 'vintage'.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2920
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Di2 - A technology too far?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 29 May 2019, 6:23pm

"Better by your set of criteria is not necessarily the point."

This should be borne in mind every time we comment on someone's choice of technology.

User avatar
Lance Dopestrong
Posts: 1227
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 1:52pm

Re: Di2 - A technology too far?

Postby Lance Dopestrong » 29 May 2019, 6:56pm

That's a good point. Restoring a 100 year old bike presents few insurmountable problems. In 100 years where will people find working computers with the necessary operating systems to work on Di2? Not a big deal in any way, just another strand of thought jn the broad church that is cycling.

One things for sure. Retrobikers will get clearly used Di2 kit, give it a buff until it shines a bit, then sell it as "new old stock" :lol:
https://themediocrecyclist.home.blog
Self employed MIAS L5.B Instructor.
Warwickshire Lowland Rescue Bike lead.
IPMBA certified member.
Cyctech C2 hammer and crowbar bodger.
Lapsed CTC Ride Leader, amateur hour stuff from the fun old days.

dim
Posts: 168
Joined: 12 May 2019, 5:59pm

Re: Di2 - A technology too far?

Postby dim » 29 May 2019, 8:23pm

suppose that it boils down to:

"If You Use Yesterday's Technology today, you will be out of business tommorow"

sort of reminds me of my late mother:

"I will never ever buy a microwave oven, it gives off radiation"

a few months later, she was cooking 5 course meals in a convection microwave oven

and .... "I will never get a cellphone (mobile phone) .... it gives you brain cancer"


soon after, she has 2 mobile phones and cancelled her landline contract

soon we will all be riding bikes with electronic gears and hydraulic disc brakes

thirdcrank
Posts: 28684
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Di2 - A technology too far?

Postby thirdcrank » 29 May 2019, 8:38pm

The implication that all new technology will inevitably be adopted is absurd. When I was a child, the better quality shoe shops had X-ray machines operated by shop assistants to measure children's feet. Obviously, things advance or we'd be living in caves, but not everything turns out to be the holy grail.
======================================================

PS How many systems for direction indicators on pedal cycles or riders' helmets/ gloves have been introduced over the years? Ditto systems to light up the rider and/or bike to make them more conspicuous.

User avatar
Lance Dopestrong
Posts: 1227
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 1:52pm

Re: Di2 - A technology too far?

Postby Lance Dopestrong » 30 May 2019, 8:35am

I've not succumbed to smartphones, and never will.
https://themediocrecyclist.home.blog
Self employed MIAS L5.B Instructor.
Warwickshire Lowland Rescue Bike lead.
IPMBA certified member.
Cyctech C2 hammer and crowbar bodger.
Lapsed CTC Ride Leader, amateur hour stuff from the fun old days.

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 2803
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Di2 - A technology too far?

Postby Cugel » 30 May 2019, 9:02am

Bmblbzzz wrote:"Better by your set of criteria is not necessarily the point."

This should be borne in mind every time we comment on someone's choice of technology.


Criteria for specifying one's bicycle certainly vary with the cycling style involved and with the priorities of the bike user. However, there are surely some basic or fundamental criteria that will apply in all cases. The obvious basic requirement of all is that the bike should be a bike and not a bike-shaped-object (BSO) as sometimes found in supermarkets.

If this is so (that there is a set of fundamental criteria applying to all bikes; perhaps wider sets applying to all bike types) then it would be interesting to know what they are so one could pay attention to getting them in any bike one acquires - whatever other bells, whistles, go-faster stripes and gizmo might be wanted on top.

So, who would care to start of list of (a) fundamental functional requirements of all bikes and (b) fundamantal functional requirements of specialist bikes, such as tourer, commuter, racer ......

Here's a starter:
(a) Replaceable bearings, gear parts, brake parts; et al, so the whole thing doesn't have to be binned when worn.
(b) Tyres that are suitable for all the kinds of surfaces the rider plans to cycle over.

Moreover, as this thread indicates, there might be things that are spurious to all bike types; or to some varieties of bike types. Some have suggested (perhaps) that electronic gearing is spurious, for example - although there is an argument it serves convenience or the cack-handed. :-) But are there (c) other bike things pushed by marketing that really are spurious - have no functional purpose for cycl;ing at all except fashionability? And might even detract from cycling.

(c) power meters; anodised aluminium bolts on stressed parts.

Cugel

iandriver
Posts: 2192
Joined: 10 Jun 2009, 2:09pm
Location: Cambridge.

Re: Di2 - A technology too far?

Postby iandriver » 30 May 2019, 9:14am

I love the blog http://inrng.com/. It's a great view on the pro race seen. He talks about Di2 here: http://inrng.com/2019/04/the-moment-par ... x-was-won/

Roubaix is about the story of those who tried but lost too. Sep Vanmarcke was an unlucky story of the day, fourth today for the third time, added to a second place too. But you make your own luck sometimes and he was one of several riders having trouble with Shimano’s electronic gears. Di2 is wonderful, an advantage over a mechanical set-up because it’s lighter to operate, and a rider can have extra buttons to shift gears from. But these gains are, to borrow a phrase, marginal and the downside is hugely asymmetric: a cable that unplugs, a battery fault or the rear mech going into crash mode and a major result is binned.

For disability cycling, it can be transformative.

It's something I want to like, but I'm not convinced it's where I would need it to be right now. I don't exactly walk on egg shells around my kit. Right now I don't really get it, but I'll keep an open mind.
Supporter of the A10 corridor cycling campaign serving Royston to Cambridge http://a10corridorcycle.com. Never knew gardening secateurs were an essential part of the on bike tool kit until I took up campaigning.....

reohn2
Posts: 36746
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Di2 - A technology too far?

Postby reohn2 » 30 May 2019, 9:24am

Bmblbzzz wrote:"Better by your set of criteria is not necessarily the point."

This should be borne in mind every time we comment on someone's choice of technology.

I think this is a good point,to each their own,whatever their own philosophy and nirvana be :)
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

reohn2
Posts: 36746
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Di2 - A technology too far?

Postby reohn2 » 30 May 2019, 9:27am

dim wrote: .....soon we will all be riding bikes with electronic gears and hydraulic disc brakes


I don't think that's a given or ever will be in the future.
I do think a lot more people will be riding electronic/hydros particularly mid to high end road and MTB's,but it'll never be the majority.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

thelawnet
Posts: 2248
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: Di2 - A technology too far?

Postby thelawnet » 30 May 2019, 10:44am

Cugel wrote:Here's a starter:
(a) Replaceable bearings, gear parts, brake parts; et al, so the whole thing doesn't have to be binned when worn.


There are quite a few bikes with disposable parts. Some very pricey ones at that. For the manufacturer and retailer repairability isn't necessarily a good thing, if you can design something that breaks expensively and can persuade the customer to replace it. Arguments about waste and so on aren't likely as credible as they seem given the vast amounts of waste produced by the typical human, an extra brake here or cassette there isn't a significant extra burden.

I wouldn't buy such a bike, but if you can present these things as 'the ultimate in performance', then people will buy them.

(b) Tyres that are suitable for all the kinds of surfaces the rider plans to cycle over.


Some people buy very lightweight tyres for weight savings or ultra-low rolling resistance. It may make their bike unusable on certain circumstances. This cannot be 100% condemned as if you choose to prioritise one factor to an excessive degree well ultimately it's your bike to do as you wish.

But are there (c) other bike things pushed by marketing that really are spurious - have no functional purpose for cycl;ing at all except fashionability? And might even detract from cycling.

(c) power meters; anodised aluminium bolts on stressed parts.


Power meters are entirely functional if you are training for a race.

Aluminium bolts are used in airplanes, they are not suitable for all purposes, but they aren't absolutely wrong.

rmurphy195
Posts: 1440
Joined: 20 May 2011, 11:23am
Location: South Birmingham

Re: Di2 - A technology too far?

Postby rmurphy195 » 30 May 2019, 10:57am

If a bike gearchange relies on batteries/servos, instead of a direct mechanical connection, then it is too far IMHO - I don't have to keep the batteries charged in order to cvhange gear with my old-hat setup!
Brompton, Condor Heritage, creaky joints and thinning white (formerly grey) hair
""You know you're getting old when it's easier to ride a bike than to get on and off it" - quote from observant jogger !

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2920
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Di2 - A technology too far?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 30 May 2019, 11:55am

Cugel wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:"Better by your set of criteria is not necessarily the point."

This should be borne in mind every time we comment on someone's choice of technology.


Criteria for specifying one's bicycle certainly vary with the cycling style involved and with the priorities of the bike user. However, there are surely some basic or fundamental criteria that will apply in all cases. The obvious basic requirement of all is that the bike should be a bike and not a bike-shaped-object (BSO) as sometimes found in supermarkets.

You are thinking like a cyclist (it's hard not to) rather than a person who has £99 and needs to get to work tonight in order not to lose their zero-hours contract.

If this is so (that there is a set of fundamental criteria applying to all bikes; perhaps wider sets applying to all bike types) then it would be interesting to know what they are so one could pay attention to getting them in any bike one acquires - whatever other bells, whistles, go-faster stripes and gizmo might be wanted on top.

So, who would care to start of list of (a) fundamental functional requirements of all bikes and (b) fundamantal functional requirements of specialist bikes, such as tourer, commuter, racer ......

Here's a starter:
(a) Replaceable bearings, gear parts, brake parts; et al, so the whole thing doesn't have to be binned when worn.

Those are fundamental requirements for a bike that's mendable. It doesn't actually have to be mendable to, eg, get you to work. For some people and purposes, a bike which functions tolerably (for their values of toleration) for a limited time is enough to do the job. This might be a shame for several reasons, but nevertheless, the fundamental requirements are being met. See above...

... But are there (c) other bike things pushed by marketing that really are spurious - have no functional purpose for cycl;ing at all except fashionability? And might even detract from cycling.

(c) power meters; anodised aluminium bolts on stressed parts.

Cugel

This seems to be judging other people's choices by your criteria again. I can see a point in power meters if you're training for competition, for instance.