electronic shifting, does anyone care?

[Jobst Brandt]

Tom Nakashima writes:

>> Andy won the GdI (1988) and did so on the Gavia, first by excellent climbing and secondly, and
>> possibly more important, getting a change of clothes at the summit and "arctic gear" for the
>> descent to Bormio, a descent on which others could not continue due to their chilled hands and
>> feet as well as with shimmy inducing shivers. There was no "broom wagon" closing time on this
>> stage or they would have lost a large part of the field.

> I tried to tell a friend that you can induce shimmy on a descent by shivering or nervousness. Can
> you lead me to the article. I couldn't find it.

Try:

http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8h.5.html

At the Rifugio Bonetta on the Gavia summit, Signor Bonetta has postcards with pictures of that race
in driving snow. It was miserable and only those who had experience with it knew that dry clothes, a
hooded parka and good gloves would get you off the mountain. I know from experience.

http://www.waltellina.com/ortlescevedale/bonetta/

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

[campy-addict]

>I think electronic shifting will never catch on because it turns something cheap simple and
>reliable into something much more complicated and expensive with no clear advantages. What happens
>if you forgot to change the batteries? What if you ride under some powerlines and they trigger gear
>shifts? Faulty electronics can't be fixed by 99% of people, but mechanical shifters can easily be
>put right in most cases by almost anybody. The great thing about bikes is how simple they are. This
>makes it almost impossible to make a significant improvement which will have lasting value. Why
>substitute a gear cable with expensive electronics if both can do the same job?

Are you kidding me? People will line up to buy it. I will for sure. The battery will last for two
years. We not talking about Zap, this is the 2000's man. Not wireless either. Wired, so there won't
be any interference worries.

The advantages are perfectly clear and if someone can't see them they must be blind.

Shifting placement points can be completely customized. A bike can be a double purpose for TT'ing
and road racing because the shifting buttons can be placed anywhere you want them to be withough
having to remove cables and such.

This is the last big "upgrade" I - and 1000's of others - have been waiting for!

People scoffed at Ergo/STI at first but now its the norm - electronic shifting will be the same.

 

[campy-adict]

>such as wheels with not enough spokes - which are silly, but sell very well, and for serious
>dollars, in serious volume)

Then they obviously aren't that silly are they?

I've yet to hear one complaint from my rider friends about aero wheels. Just because wheels came
with 36 spokes for 100 years doesn't mean that what it has to be forever. Technology my friend has
changed things. Do you think all technological advances are "silly"?

 

[campy-adict]

>Why substitute
>> a gear cable with expensive electronics if both can do the same job?

Man, with a mentalitity like that we'd still be in the Stone Age if you ran the world.

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:20:43 -0500, jobst.brandt wrote:

> (you know "18-wheelers") are automatic, as are of course, formula race cars.

Well, not exactly the same. They have an automatic clutch, and push-button shifting, but the driver
determines the gear. Most passenger car automatics shift when the torque changes, and can only
partially be overridden. This is especially bad, I think, if you want to accelerate a little on the
highway. Just a bit too much gas, and the thing shifts down and roars. It also shifts into too high
a gear for city driving, and the engine lugs most of the time.

> I am amazed how many men cannot get over these juvenile ideas about manliness.

That isn't necessarily the reason to choose a manual transmission. I had for many years driven
low-power economy cars, and being able to get up a hill at anything near highway speed required
planning ahead and downshifting at the bottom of the hill. Their performance in general was much
better with a manual transmission. I'm also less likely to lose traction in the snow with a manual
transmission.

But my biggest prejudice against automatics is reliability. This is better now than it was, but in
my youth needing a new automatic transmission at 40,000-50,000 miles was a common thing, and not
cheap. Manuals are more durable.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not _`\(,_ | certain, and as
far as they are certain, they do not refer to (_)/ (_) | reality. -- Albert Einstein

 

[Jim Nonnemacher]

I've used the Zap on both my TT bikes (flat roads, and another for duathlons) personally, I wouldn't
ride a TT without it. With the **** butons at the apex of the aero bars I can shift easily with
barely moving my hands. For duathalons with rolling courses or some major climbs, I have the other
shift buttons attached to the brake lever and I can easily shift (up or down) with the flick of my
thumb will out of the saddle.

I just like it and I have never had problems with the Zap failing.

dave silva wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I'd like some input from this group on the desireability of electronic shifting. From what I've
> read Mavic Zap was nearly dead on arrival with a propritary deraileur and a very high price tag.
>
> There seems to be a lot of chatter on Shimano and the Italians developing a completely automatic
> transmission that keeps cadence with sensors etc but I want to know if you think serious cyclists
> would be interested in a device that just electrifies shifting (but does not automate it) by
> placing something on the chain stay that pulls cable from an existing deraileur?
>
> It would probably not be any lighter than the cables and shifters it replaces but it would allow
> for multiple inputs on the handlebars. That being the biggest advantage.
>
> I may have a solution looking for a problem and I'd like some feedback on its potential value.
>
> Dave Silva
>
> Frustrated inventor

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 20:08:20 -0500, Jim Nonnemacher wrote:

> I've used the Zap on both my TT bikes (flat roads, and another for duathlons) personally, I
> wouldn't ride a TT without it. With the **** butons at the apex of the aero bars

I've been waiting for someone to make that mistake....

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored _`\(,_ | by little
statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo (_)/ (_) | Emerson

 

[Pete Biggs]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> Then I must be blind. What advantages are there over STI or Ergo?

I think people are short-sighted not to imagine that there could be anything better. Maybe there
wouldn't be a quantum leap but there's plenty of room for refinement.....

> Ease of shifting? It's essentially push-button already.

Yes but the action could be made even more finger-friendly. Shifts could be easier and faster, and
made from more positions. This would benefit the ordinary leisure/utility rider as well as racers.

> Accuracy? Not an issue.

The Ergos I've used have some play resulting in less than silent chain, and apparently STIs can
sometimes go "sloppy". An electronic system could have 100% accuracy at the shifter end at least.

> Reliability? Unlikely.

Ergos need awkward maintenance periodically to /stay/ reliable and STIs can fail catastrophically.
A simple electric switch should be more reliable. As for the derailleur end? Well, the technology
is still in its infancy. We can't know now whether the latest and future developments will work
out or not.

> Cost? Yeah, sure.

The shifters themelves would be so simple that they could easily be cheaper. The derailleurs would
be more costly, but the overall price of the combination would eventually be reasonable.

~PB

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>, "David L. Johnson" <David L. Johnson
<[email protected]>> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:16:49 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>
> > My manual transmission in my Ford Bronco II disintegrated- quite literally- at 110,000 miles.
> > The automatic in my Volvo 240 as 120,000 on it and has never had any problems throughout it's
> > life other than needing a new rear seal a couple of weeks ago. I guess my mileage varied.
>
> Not exactly a fair comparison, now, was it? I was 20 before I knew that "FORD" wasn't an acronym
> (fix or repair daily).

Volvos *are* Fords. Nowadays, anyway. ;-) But you're right, Volvo 240s were much better designed and
built vehicles than the Bronco II. Except for replacing the blower motor.

> Besides, there is a slight chance that the Ford got harder treatment.

Well, I honestly don't know. I bought the Ford new and the Volvo used. The Bronco II was never
heavily used, e.g. for towing in the mountains. It mainly saw highway miles like most SUVs.

> And you are talking about all of 10,000 miles of extra life. With a Volvo.

So far. ;-)

> My wife and I, over the years, had 3 Volvo 240s, all manual. Two of them died of engine failure at
> about 150k, each with the original transmission and clutch. The other was traded in at something
> like that mileage, still going strong (though looking rather beat up).

150,000 is an unusually short service life for a Volvo- at least the
B21/23/230 engines.

So far our Volvos (and all the Volvos we know personally) are holding up well. My wife's former 245
with a 5 sp manual went over 200,000 before being totalled in an accident, no tranny problems. Her
current 244 with AW70 has 180,000 and no problems that we know of (bought it used, so you never know
for sure). The Ford tranny was a Mitsubishi, IIRC, and was still on the orinigal clutch much to my
amazement; my Volvo also has an AW70.

 

[A Muzi]

> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:16:49 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
> > My manual transmission in my Ford Bronco II disintegrated- quite literally- at 110,000 miles.
> > The automatic in my Volvo 240 as 120,000 on it and has never had any problems throughout it's
> > life other than needing a new rear seal a couple of weeks ago. I guess my mileage varied.

"David L. Johnson >" <David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not exactly a fair comparison, now, was it? I was 20 before I knew that "FORD" wasn't an acronym
> (fix or repair daily). Besides, there is a slight chance that the Ford got harder treatment. And
> you are talking about all of 10,000 miles of extra life. With a Volvo. My wife and I, over the
> years, had 3 Volvo 240s, all manual. Two of them died of engine failure at about 150k, each with
> the original transmission and clutch. The other was traded in at something like that mileage,
> still going strong (though looking rather beat up).
>
> My old car, which my daughter drives, just had to have it's transmission replaced. It only had
> 140,000 miles on it. Ok, the tranny was bad, but the clutch was original. Even at that, it still
> worked, but the synchos were dying and it was hard to shift. My wife drives automatics, and had
> trouble with the previous car at about 90,000.

David and others recount what I believe are typical experiences with various gearboxes in cars.

Can we agree they all seem to work and that the relevance to bicycle gear shift formats is tenuous?
--
Andrew Muzi, who has his preference but won't belabor that here. http://www.yellowjersey.org

Open every day since 1 April 1971

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:26:36 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

>> Not exactly a fair comparison, now, was it? I was 20 before I knew that "FORD" wasn't an acronym
>> (fix or repair daily).
>
> Volvos *are* Fords. Nowadays, anyway. ;-) But you're right, Volvo 240s were much better designed
> and built vehicles than the Bronco II. Except for replacing the blower motor.

Yeah, I know about the blower motor. First step, remove dash.

>> My wife and I, over the years, had 3 Volvo 240s, all manual. Two of them died of engine failure
>> at about 150k, each with the original transmission and clutch. The other was traded in at
>> something like that mileage, still going strong (though looking rather beat up).
>
> 150,000 is an unusually short service life for a Volvo- at least the
> B21/23/230 engines.

Yeah. One was a radiator or hose, but my wife kept driving to get out of the intersection. Not the
best day for our relationship. Sure, repairable, but the head was gone (damn aluminum heads) and the
car was not worth it any longer. The second managed to throw a rod.

But even now that kind of service (150K+) on most automatic transmissions is unusual without major
bucks being thrown at it. The automatics used on Volvos, IIRC, are high-quality German makes.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can _`\(,_ | assure you that mine
are all greater. -- A. Einstein (_)/ (_) |

 

[Jon Isaacs]

>I think electronic shifting will never catch on because it turns something cheap simple and
>reliable into something much more complicated and expensive with no clear advantages.

Unfortunately you have just described the majority of "high tech" improvements made to the
modern bicycle.

These are the very reasons that we will soon be seeing electronic shifting.

And we will be hear how difficult STI is to use and that EBS (Electronic-??-Shifting) makes it
possible for a whole new crowd to get involved. And I will have to start carrying batteries in my
***** pack so I can help out the "riders" with dead batteries.

<half serious>

jon isaacs

 

[Jon Isaacs]

>I've used the Zap on both my TT bikes (flat roads, and another for duathlons) personally, I
>wouldn't ride a TT without it. With the **** butons at the apex of the aero bars I can shift easily
>with barely moving my hands.

The same is true with bar ends or "Flite controls." No need to switch to electronic shifting in
order to get finger tip control.

>I just like it and I have never had problems with the Zap failing.
>

Apparently you have been lucky.

Steel cables are certainly more reliable and less likely to get pinched than electronic cables. Also
less likely to have problems with water, salt, etc.

Jon Isaacs

 

[David Damerell]

<[email protected]> wrote:
>Allen Foster writes:
>>>It's the same with a manual transmission in a car. I'm not sure about in the states but in the
>>>UK at least manual transmissions (or gears as we like to them) are far more popular than
>>>automatics yet
>I don't believe that is correct. The machismo of shifting gears has lost favor in most
>civilized places.

Your assertion that this is all down to machismo is not correct in the UK; if it were, a
disproportionate number of women would drive automatics. This is not the case.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!

 

[reset]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:20:43 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Allen Foster writes:
>
>>> It's the same with a manual transmission in a car. I'm not sure about in the states but in the
>>> UK at least manual transmissions (or gears as we like to them) are far more popular than
>>> automatics yet the shifting system has not changed dramatically since the dawn of cars.
>
>I don't believe that is correct. The machismo of shifting gears has lost favor in most civilized
>places. It has nothing to do with usefulness or economy. Today, most large SUV's and long haul
>trucks (you know "18-wheelers") are automatic, as are of course, formula race cars. That these
>drivers use automatics has muted the common axiom that automatics are for women (who can't master
>the mechanics), the common explanation when the subject of sporty driving (a man's thing) arises.
>Heel-and-toe, double clutching and all that gratuitous hand- and foot-work of the initiated. Give
>me a break.
>
>I am amazed how many men cannot get over these juvenile ideas about manliness.
>

Manual transmission is better for the open road, but unpleasant for stop and go traffic.

 

[Justin Seiferth]

"Rob Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I think electronic shifting will never catch on because it turns something cheap simple and
> reliable into something much more complicated and expensive with no clear advantages.

- electronic automobile environment systems
- ATX PC power supplies
- integrated headsets
- SUVs
- electronic books
- programmable microwaves
- electronic household thermostats
- identity cards
- DDR memory
- most any new technology except in retrospect

Should I go on?

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Justin Seiferth wrote:

> "Rob Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> I think electronic shifting will never catch on because it turns something cheap simple and
>> reliable into something much more complicated and expensive with no clear advantages.
>
> - electronic automobile environment systems
> - ATX PC power supplies
> - integrated headsets
> - SUVs
> - electronic books

Word/phrase searches.

> - programmable microwaves
> - electronic household thermostats

Automatically turning heat down at night when you don't need it, to save energy. Probably not much
more expensive.

> - identity cards

Security.

> - DDR memory
> - most any new technology except in retrospect
>
> Should I go on?

--
Benjamin Lewis

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> Benjamin, I think you're making his point: these items all replaced non-electronic stuff that
> worked perfectly well (books, rheostats, and keys, to choose your examples), and you are pointing
> out the particular improvements each offered.

While the old items worked perfectly well, there are some obvious "clear advantages" to the
replacements, which I was pointing out. I believe these advantages would have been clear even before
these things were developed (in fact, I remember thinking "that's a good idea" when I first heard
about programmable thermostats).

> Could it actually be that rbt's own brifteur-hating retrogrouch is arguing in favour of electronic
> shifters? Fabrizio will be pleased!

On the other hand, I *don't* see any obvious advantages to electronic shifting.

And for the record, I don't "hate" brifteurs, I just think they're hugely overrated, particularly
for non-racers, and happen to have a personal preference for something else. I also don't really
consider myself to be a "retrogrouch". I'm all for technological improvements where they exist --
you don't see me riding around on wooden or steel rims, or even using toe clips, and I think QR
skewers are great, to name a few.

Of course, you're just trying to push my buttons, aren't you . . .

--
Benjamin Lewis

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber

 

[Sheldon Brown]

Justin Seiferth dissed:

> - electronic books

Sorry to be off topic, but this is a hot button issue for me. I mostly read these days on my
Handspring Prism color PDA, and I love it. I find it greatly preferable to the old CB-Roms
(Cellulose-Based.)

It is smaller than a book, fits easily in my pocket, and holds lots of books: Mine currently
contains War and Peace, the Iliad, the History of Herodotus, The Song of Hiawatha, the Libretto to
Gilbert & Sullivan's Patience (I'm in rehearsal for that.) a French/English dictionary, an English
dictionary and 3 or 4 trashy science fiction novels, in addition to my Bicycle Glossary and Vintage
Bicycle Price Guide.

I can read it even when the light is poor or non-existent.

I can operate it with one hand, unlike a paper book.

If I have a minute or two to read, when I turn it on I'm right where I left off to within a couple
of sentences.

I can adjust the font and color to make it easier on the eyes than most books.

I can read in bed without having to roll over every other page.

I can download lots of great stuff for free from the Web.

I can get new books without having to throw any old ones away...my wife and I are both avid readers,
and, while we've got two rooms lined with bookshelves, they're all full!

Sheldon "http://www.sheldonbrown.com/pdb/" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, | or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses. |
| --Abraham Lincoln |
+-----------------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:

> Justin Seiferth wrote:
>
> > "Rob Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> I think electronic shifting will never catch on because it turns something cheap simple and
> >> reliable into something much more complicated and expensive with no clear advantages.
> >
> > - electronic automobile environment systems
> > - ATX PC power supplies
> > - integrated headsets
> > - SUVs
> > - electronic books
>
> Word/phrase searches.
>
> > - programmable microwaves
> > - electronic household thermostats
>
> Automatically turning heat down at night when you don't need it, to save energy. Probably not much
> more expensive.
>
> > - identity cards
>
> Security.
>
> > - DDR memory
> > - most any new technology except in retrospect
> >
> > Should I go on?

Benjamin, I think you're making his point: these items all replaced non-electronic stuff that worked
perfectly well (books, rheostats, and keys, to choose your examples), and you are pointing out the
particular improvements each offered.

Could it actually be that rbt's own brifteur-hating retrogrouch is arguing in favour of electronic
shifters? Fabrizio will be pleased!

Well, I guess you could emulate Barcons with auxiliary buttons....

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club