Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 103
  1. #1
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    39

    Should electronic shifting be banned

    I'm not a big fan of electronic shifting. I don't like the idea of a battery or computer dying and my bike being out of commission for a long while till the part comes in. So what I'd I break a shift cable you can buy them at every store. Also I think it reduces the skill and tune of a bike in pro cycling. I think the uci should put there foot down and ban it like golf is doing to the belly putter. Otherwise in a couple years we will have fully auto shifing based on preset wattage inputs. Wich will be totally lame and take away even more skill

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    662
    That's interesting. A drivetrain that monitors gear selection, RPM, and watts and determines your most effective rev range at each speed and power level and does the shifting for you. Crazy, effective, and an easily implemented idea that could really help less experienced riders but like you I think it should be kept out of racing. I also don't think sequential or semi-auto trannies should be in car racing. The art of rowing an H-pattern was lost years ago and perhaps the skill of bicycle gear selecting is on the way out.

    Chinese proverb: May you live in interesting times.

  3. #3
    rebounder
    Reputation: naawillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    596
    unless it could sense hills coming (preprogrammed route) i couldnt see it working very well. no way to ramp up rpms before a roller etc. anyway, THAT should be illegal, not e-shifting. the input from the rider is exactly the same. a pro's bike should work perfectly either way, mech or elec, why would it matter what carried the signal (der cable vs electrons)?

    OP, have you ridden/set up di2 or EPS?

    what about auto-braking? that would be great for noobs.
    on the other hand, you have different fingers

  4. #4
    Fecal indicator
    Reputation: Oxtox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6,111
    if you don't like it, don't buy it. pretty simple solution...

    as for what is legal in pro racing, that's a completely different situation.

    just curious, can you use a friction shifter skillfully?
    eff all y'all...

  5. #5
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,985
    just watch NASCAR, you'll be fine.
    i work for some bike racers...
    2013 Trek Madone 5.9 w/ '12 SRAM Red
    2010 Cervelo T1 sprint bike
    Ruger 10-22TD
    Smith&Wesson M&P 15-22
    Smith&Wesson M&P 9
    oh, those belong in another forum

  6. #6
    Matnlely Dregaend
    Reputation: DrSmile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,479
    Battery power doesn't belong on the functional components of a bicycle. A dynamo powered shifting system would be acceptable, even a dynamo powered system with a capacitor, as long as all power used is supplied by the rider. I wish the UCI made such a rule, because it would be very easy to implement a dynamo powered system, plus you wouldn't have to ever recharge any batteries.
    "I haven't @#&$ed like that since I was an altar boy." Hank Moody
    “Bicycling has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world.” Susan B. Anthony 1896
    "Brifter" is the coolest cycling word

  7. #7
    The Pb Torpedo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmile View Post
    Battery power doesn't belong on the functional components of a bicycle. A dynamo powered shifting system would be acceptable, even a dynamo powered system with a capacitor, as long as all power used is supplied by the rider. I wish the UCI made such a rule, because it would be very easy to implement a dynamo powered system, plus you wouldn't have to ever recharge any batteries.
    Hummm, I was considering buying new pulleys for my R.D., but maybe I should wait until the dynamo versions come out.

  8. #8
    have droids, will party
    Reputation: Guod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    359
    I don't understand the aversions to technological progress in sports. As far as the car racing analogy, I bet you could put an F1 driver in a honda civic (manual) and you could hop in his F1 car. I'm fairly certain he'd post a better lap time than you, mostly because you lack the skill and reflexes to even keep the car at a high enough speed to generate enough heat for the brakes and downforce to keep the vehicle on the track. Even at that, his lap times in the civic would be in a realm you could never dream of.

    Arguing that electronic shifting is somehow polluting the sport is just silly. Should we require everyone ride steel single speeds again? Even if they made a program based off of power output and it was able to optimize itself for every situation, they're still way faster and way more skilled than us mere mortals. That strength and skill is why we watch. If some technological improvement makes them faster, then that's ok with me. It still needs the human to work.

  9. #9
    Dr. Buzz Killington
    Reputation: SauronHimself's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Bantamben View Post
    I'm not a big fan of electronic shifting. I don't like the idea of a battery or computer dying and my bike being out of commission for a long while till the part comes in. So what I'd I break a shift cable you can buy them at every store. Also I think it reduces the skill and tune of a bike in pro cycling. I think the uci should put there foot down and ban it like golf is doing to the belly putter. Otherwise in a couple years we will have fully auto shifing based on preset wattage inputs. Wich will be totally lame and take away even more skill
    Translation: "I disagree with the use of a specific technology, so therefore it's only logical that it should be banned."

    Technology will advance whether or not you like it, and new technologies always and eventually make their ways into normal societal use. If it isn't your cup of tea, you don't have to drink it, but don't pose the fallacious argument that it should be banned.

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    169
    As I understand it, the governing bodies of cycling generally accept a piece of technology provided it is available to the general public. When CF was first allowed, they were only race legal if the frames were glued together using separate tubes because monocoque was too expensive to be widely-available on a consumer-level bike.

    A golfer friend of mine says that belly putting actually violates another pre-exisiting rule that bans the practice of "anchoring" any part of the club on any part of the body.

    True, tuning the bike is a skill that is part of a sport. And if you have a support team, they really become part of the team if they tune the bike for you. But we have many new advancements in the sport that require less maintenance than prior generations. Just look at the better alloys to make chains and the cleaner lubes. Tubes that hold air longer. Presta valves.

    If someone were to develop a truly useful automatic transmission, would that be legal? I'm not sure it would be so useful. What you're envisioning is something that is sensitive to biometrics as well as road condition. It would need to take HR, VO2, and lactic acid into account.

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelandjt View Post
    That's interesting. A drivetrain that monitors gear selection, RPM, and watts and determines your most effective rev range at each speed and power level and does the shifting for you. Crazy, effective, and an easily implemented idea that could really help less experienced riders but like you I think it should be kept out of racing. I also don't think sequential or semi-auto trannies should be in car racing. The art of rowing an H-pattern was lost years ago and perhaps the skill of bicycle gear selecting is on the way out.
    And like the full auto (which that would be), racers wouldn't use it. As Naawillis said, without it sensing changes in environment there's inevitably going to be a lag in response time that people would find unacceptable. More importantly, you need to have control of your gearing to adapt to situations (e.g. standing up to mash on a hill, or gearing up to respond to a breakaway).

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: spade2you's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    11,134
    Quote Originally Posted by SauronHimself View Post
    Translation: "I disagree with the use of a specific technology, so therefore it's only logical that it should be banned."

    Technology will advance whether or not you like it, and new technologies always and eventually make their ways into normal societal use. If it isn't your cup of tea, you don't have to drink it, but don't pose the fallacious argument that it should be banned.
    We should ban carbon bikes, TT bikes, power meters, yadda yadda yadda. They should race the TdF on old Huffys.

    I also agree with CXwrench.

  13. #13
    Steaming piles of opinion
    Reputation: danl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10,524
    Non-issue. E-shifting isn't for me, but if others want it, goody for them.

    For racing: No factor. There is no significant skill involved in shifting anymore, and hasn't been since before indexing, cassettes, and ramps and pins. Noobs might find it challenging, but by the time there's enough miles in your legs to be racing beyond maidens, there's no issue.

    Re: "intelligent" or auto-shifting: I doubt you'll see this from the majors anytime soon, though someone might work out a hack. And even if so, any decent racer would be disabling the feature or over-riding it's estimations so frequently that it may as well not be there. People that think this is the next great idea simply don't ride bicycles enough to understand what they are talking about.

    Examples: 1) A drivetrain always has a few crossover gears. If there is any 'skill' to attribute to shifting, it's in anticipating what's coming up the road to make that choice correctly. The bike has no way to make that judgement. 2)Auto-shifting based on power, torque, etc. makes fine sense for machines. Humans are not machines. There's a myth of 'ideal cadence' that makes some sense, but at the same time, a rider often wants to go above or below that. Maybe it's anticipation of the road ahead, maybe it's to flush the legs, maybe to give the lungs a rest.

    By the time you over-ride it to cover all of these exceptions, you'd be shifting as much as if you were just doing it yourself, and likely more as it kept trying to follow it's algorthym. That would last about 2 miles on an experienced rider's bike, the 'neato' factor would wear off, and it would be ripped off the bike and left in the bus lane.
    A good habit is as hard to break as a bad one..

  14. #14
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,985
    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmile View Post
    Battery power doesn't belong on the functional components of a bicycle. A dynamo powered shifting system would be acceptable, even a dynamo powered system with a capacitor, as long as all power used is supplied by the rider. I wish the UCI made such a rule, because it would be very easy to implement a dynamo powered system, plus you wouldn't have to ever recharge any batteries.
    oh jesus...go watch nascar on a black & white tv w/ OP. technology is fun. and you'd have to be a complete idiot to run out of charge on a Di2 battery.
    i work for some bike racers...
    2013 Trek Madone 5.9 w/ '12 SRAM Red
    2010 Cervelo T1 sprint bike
    Ruger 10-22TD
    Smith&Wesson M&P 15-22
    Smith&Wesson M&P 9
    oh, those belong in another forum

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Duke249's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    213
    Keep in mind, the UCI set the weight limit on road bikes because they did not want to see an escalation of cost.

    With the cost of electronic shifting and the forthcoming hydraulic brake offerings, I wouldn't put it past the UCI to attempt to limit electronic/hydraulic technology.

  16. #16
    Matnlely Dregaend
    Reputation: DrSmile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,479
    Quote Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    oh jesus...go watch nascar on a black & white tv w/ OP. technology is fun. and you'd have to be a complete idiot to run out of charge on a Di2 battery.
    You obviously don't understand my point. The battery holds energy that wasn't provided by the rider. This is clearly against the rules of bicycling. In a sport where a 10 second difference over an hour is deemed significant, this discrepancy should be accounted for.
    "I haven't @#&$ed like that since I was an altar boy." Hank Moody
    “Bicycling has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world.” Susan B. Anthony 1896
    "Brifter" is the coolest cycling word

  17. #17
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,985
    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmile View Post
    You obviously don't understand my point. The battery holds energy that wasn't provided by the rider. This is clearly against the rules of bicycling. In a sport where a 10 second difference over an hour is deemed significant, this discrepancy should be accounted for.
    are you serious? if you actually think that a race can be won or lost because of the energy saved/expended by shifting, you're dreaming. how does your argument work if electronic shifting is ok IF the power comes from a dynamo? it's still electronic shifting. that is the root of the argument, isn't it? i guess we just have a difference of opinion on where the power comes from and whether it matters.
    should it be against the rules for a team mechanic to jump out of the team car and change a flat? or pump up the tire in the first place? or wash/adjust the racers' bikes? where do you draw the line?
    i work for some bike racers...
    2013 Trek Madone 5.9 w/ '12 SRAM Red
    2010 Cervelo T1 sprint bike
    Ruger 10-22TD
    Smith&Wesson M&P 15-22
    Smith&Wesson M&P 9
    oh, those belong in another forum

  18. #18
    Matnlely Dregaend
    Reputation: DrSmile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,479
    Quote Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    are you serious? if you actually think that a race can be won or lost because of the energy saved/expended by shifting, you're dreaming. how does your argument work if electronic shifting is ok IF the power comes from a dynamo? it's still electronic shifting. that is the root of the argument, isn't it? i guess we just have a difference of opinion on where the power comes from and whether it matters.
    should it be against the rules for a team mechanic to jump out of the team car and change a flat? or pump up the tire in the first place? or wash/adjust the racers' bikes? where do you draw the line?
    You are making the argument about about electronics. I never made that argument. My argument is about energy. And yes I think it makes a difference. I am not claiming it makes a lot of difference, but in this sport of seconds yes it could be a significant difference.
    "I haven't @#&$ed like that since I was an altar boy." Hank Moody
    “Bicycling has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world.” Susan B. Anthony 1896
    "Brifter" is the coolest cycling word

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmile View Post
    You are making the argument about about electronics. I never made that argument. My argument is about energy. And yes I think it makes a difference. I am not claiming it makes a lot of difference, but in this sport of seconds yes it could be a significant difference.
    I don't think it'd make a noticeable difference in professional racing, but I think you have a fair point with your basic premise that all energy used in the movement and control of the bike should come from the person riding it.

  20. #20
    Dr. Buzz Killington
    Reputation: SauronHimself's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,240
    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmile View Post
    You obviously don't understand my point. The battery holds energy that wasn't provided by the rider. This is clearly against the rules of bicycling. In a sport where a 10 second difference over an hour is deemed significant, this discrepancy should be accounted for.
    Unfortunately, your argument is faulty. The potential energy stored by the battery does not provide additional power to propel the rider faster. It only supplies electrical energy to the shifting system which is entirely dependent on the rider's input. By your logic, we should prohibit aerodynamic helmets and clothing; those items contain potential energy, and they're helping the rider move quickly with less effort. Obviously, though, that potential energy is doing nothing to actually help the rider, and your ignorance of rudimentary physics and chemistry is astounding.

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by SauronHimself View Post
    Unfortunately, your argument is faulty. The potential energy stored by the battery does not provide additional power to propel the rider faster. It only supplies electrical energy to the shifting system which is entirely dependent on the rider's input. By your logic, we should prohibit aerodynamic helmets and clothing; those items contain potential energy, and they're helping the rider move quickly with less effort. Obviously, though, that potential energy is doing nothing to actually help the rider, and your ignorance of rudimentary physics and chemistry is astounding.
    Where does he use the term 'potential energy'? Nor does he specifically mention that energy being used to provide propulsion (it is however part of the system). Before you deride someone for their ignorance in the physical sciences perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension?

  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,104
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bantamben View Post
    I think it reduces the skill and tune of a bike in pro cycling. I think the uci should put there foot down and ban it like golf is doing to the belly putter.
    Electronic shifting doesn't change the game or render existing courses obsolete.

    Otherwise in a couple years we will have fully auto shifing based on preset wattage inputs.
    That's a separate issue and wouldn't change fundamental things like strategy.

    Also given different preferences based on whether riders are seated or standing, the durations of efforts, and anticipated changes in pace/terrain I don't know how likely it is.

    Wich will be totally lame and take away even more skill
    If UCI wanted to keep racing traditional they should not have permitted 2-way radios which changed the game.
    Last edited by Drew Eckhardt; 12-18-2012 at 03:06 PM.

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    334
    I think I'd rather see them curtail the doping rather than spend any resources worrying about the 2 millisecond advantage one might gain from electronic shifting.

  24. #24
    FTR
    FTR is offline
    Burn baby, burn.
    Reputation: FTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,415
    Let the UCI sort out the sock height issue fully first.

  25. #25
    Dr. Buzz Killington
    Reputation: SauronHimself's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,240
    Quote Originally Posted by ratherBclimbing View Post
    Where does he use the term 'potential energy'? Nor does he specifically mention that energy being used to provide propulsion (it is however part of the system). Before you deride someone for their ignorance in the physical sciences perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension?
    It's a simple concept to understand even if you don't. He didn't have to use the term "potential energy" or refer to it as being energy that provides propelling force. Batteries store chemical potential energy; there is no debate about what kind of energy it is. Moreover, the only argument he could possibly fathom for an aversion to electrical shifting systems is the one used to say that it somehow makes the rider faster. Shifting in and of itself doesn't do that, so the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that somehow the system provides additional forward force.

    It would've taken you less than 60 seconds to think that one through, but it seems you just read something with which you disagreed and then shot-gunned a response.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Sea Otter Classic

Hot Deals

Contest


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook