Electronic Shifting the future?

[qwiksilver]

well as a start why do you need crank arms why not the pedals go round a larger 340mm hole fixed the equivlant of a 170mm crank along the lines of this

(not my piccy but really kool lookin)
would give much more play/room to fit in the gears to the bottom bracket

 

[Smokin Joe]

That's what I'm thinking. Since cars have become electronic, most of us are helpless when something goes wrong. When it was just simple mechanics, it didn't take a great deal of knowledge or skill to fix common problems yourself.

"What if it goes wrong" could be applied to numerous things on a bike. What if your carbon forks break, or your wheel folds up when you hit a pot hole, or your saddle rail breaks or you get a six inch gash on your tyre?

All these things happen, but they are so rare we don't have to worry about them. So far electronic shifters haven't proved to be any less reliable than the above, neither are they likely to be. It's Micky Mouse technology in the grand scheme of things.

 

[lulubel]

"What if it goes wrong" could be applied to numerous things on a bike. What if your carbon forks break, or your wheel folds up when you hit a pot hole, or your saddle rail breaks or you get a six inch gash on your tyre?

I'm a "belt and braces" kind of girl - steel forks, handbuilt 32-spoke wheels, puncture resistant tyres - so "what if it goes wrong" is always going to be the first thing I think of and try to find a way to avoid.

I wouldn't try to persuade anyone else to not use them, though, any more than I'd try to persuade anyone not to drive a car that has to be wired up to the diagnostic computer to find out why it won't start. But my personal preference is to avoid as much as possible anything that can't be (relatively) easily and cheaply fixed, preferably by me.

 

[DiddlyDodds]

20 years ago i heard the same for and against diving computers in the scuba world, all the same "what if the batteries go" you can not dive and have wasted a day , and "i am sticking to the good old tables to tell me how long and how deep i can dive"
20 years on and i doubt if anyone still dives on hand written tables and almost everyone will have a dive computer.

On the "if its not broke why fix it" bikes have changed very little in design for a hundred years m there are very few big leaps , so its tiny advances that dont seem much that make the difference from the bikes in 1912 to 2012

 

[Speedywheelsjeans]

well as a start why do you need crank arms why not the pedals go round a larger 340mm hole fixed the equivlant of a 170mm crank along the lines of this

(not my piccy but really kool lookin)
would give much more play/room to fit in the gears to the bottom bracket

Your immedietly reducing the distance of your crank from pedal to point of force transfer taking away all that extra torqu you achieve from long cranks.... so shooting yourself in the foot by doing so. Concept designs are generally done by artists who dont know what science is.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Firstly: if you don't like electronic shifting them you haven't got to buy it. Why harp on about how you don't like it - it's not mandatory.

Secondly: it's great to see some innovation. in the 4 decades (a long time) that I have been away from the road scene what has really changed with road bikes? Brifters, a few more cogs and some lighter materials. Not much really when you consider what else has changed in the world in that time. Bring on some change!

 

[Speedywheelsjeans]

Firstly: if you don't like electronic shifting them you haven't got to buy it. Why harp on about how you don't like it - it's not mandatory.

Secondly: it's great to see some innovation. in the 4 decades (a long time) that I have been away from the road scene what has really changed with road bikes? Brifters, a few more cogs and some lighter materials. Not much really when you consider what else has changed in the world in that time. Bring on some change!

Because its a forum... and the thread is asking what people think about electronic brakes??

which is usually the cue for people to answer (including myself) with their different and highly uneducated opinions.. then to discuss the subject and increase the knowledge surrounding the subject, thus changing peoples opinions and opening peoples minds up a bit.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Because its a forum... and the thread is asking what people think about electronic brakes??

which is usually the cue for people to answer (including myself) with their different and highly uneducated opinions.. then to discuss the subject and increase the knowledge surrounding the subject, thus changing peoples opinions and opening peoples minds up a bit.

OK - I'm enlightened now. Will try much harder in future.

 

[col]

Im not sold at all. If you have your gears set up properly they are quick and smooth, and also reliable with rapid fire shifters or brake lever shifters. Even electric ones will need the same adjustments and maintanance, so whats the point other than being able to say I have electric gears(that do exactly the same as none electric) It seems like technolgy just for the sake of technology, and wont make much difference at all, other than the sellers bank balance.

 

[qwiksilver]

Your immedietly reducing the distance of your crank from pedal to point of force transfer taking away all that extra torqu you achieve from long cranks.... so shooting yourself in the foot by doing so. Concept designs are generally done by artists who dont know what science is.

it's an idea speedy and also not necessarily the best one nor does it have to look like that but the idea of moving the entire gear mech inside the bb and maybe even redesigning the bb is not a bad idea as the biggest jump in the shape of bikes has had is the old bone shaker in the early yrs of the bike and companies are putting alot of effort into making things that aren't really needed we didnt need full sus bikes they didnt have em pre war and ppl could still ride or sti shifters for that matter, i just think if your going to make some real changes that are a benefit to cycling design you need to think outside the box and yes i know that bike shapes havent changed much as the current bike shape is seen as the most usable but if ppl dont try we will never really know if something better could be done

 

[Davidc]

"What if it goes wrong" could be applied to numerous things on a bike. What if your carbon forks break, or your wheel folds up when you hit a pot hole, or your saddle rail breaks or you get a six inch gash on your tyre?

All these things happen, but they are so rare we don't have to worry about them. So far electronic shifters haven't proved to be any less reliable than the above, neither are they likely to be. It's Micky Mouse technology in the grand scheme of things.

I totally agree SJ.

I would expect electric shifting to be more reliable than cable, lighter than cable, easier to maintain and more durable than cable.

As I said above, I think it'll end up like the move from rod to cable brakes, after a few years it'll be hard to imagine how everyone survived with the cable technology. On road bikes, audax and touring anyway, I'm sure that the brake cables will go the same way as is happening on mtbs, with hydaulic operated discs being the future, and gear cables becoming a piece of wire. With a fair wind both will go inside the frame for protection and aesthetics.

Cables have had a good run but it's time they went to the museum.

 

[Psyclist]

Don't know if you saw that they tried Di2 on a 29'er!!

It could very well be the future for all types of bikes with further development and testing.

 

[classic33]

Have had the chance to try both electronic brakes & shifters.
Downside is there is no "feedback" from the brake levers. In the same way that either rod or cable brakes do.
Shifters, no manual adjustment available in the event of a failure, so you're unable to set it in a gear you want.

Maybe these will be/will have been ironed out who knows. But at present the no "feedback" on the brakes is a non starter, for me at least.

 

[Night Train]

Your immedietly reducing the distance of your crank from pedal to point of force transfer taking away all that extra torqu you achieve from long cranks.... so shooting yourself in the foot by doing so. Concept designs are generally done by artists who dont know what science is.

It looks to me that the position of the pedal from the centre of rotation is the same and so the leverage is the same as a crank on a spindle. I don't think there is any loss of torque and the larger bearing diameter should result in a stronger and stiffer, but possibly heavier BB.

Gearbox BB isn't a new idea but manufacturers all have their own non standard standards that requires a specialist frame builder to work around. They won't be common until some standard shape or mounting is established and frames and gearboxes become more interchangable.

 

[Speedywheelsjeans]

It looks to me that the position of the pedal from the centre of rotation is the same and so the leverage is the same as a crank on a spindle. I don't think there is any loss of torque and the larger bearing diameter should result in a stronger and stiffer, but possibly heavier BB.

Gearbox BB isn't a new idea but manufacturers all have their own non standard standards that requires a specialist frame builder to work around. They won't be common until some standard shape or mounting is established and frames and gearboxes become more interchangable.

Im not too sure about that, its the distance of the lever that counts? not to the centre of rotation? the lever there is only a couple of cm's. I have been wrong in the past, I will have to do some research on torque and inertia to be 100% sure on the issue, now you have mentioned it my mechanical mind is trying to figure out how both would be affected, I understand where your coming from as rotational torque = moment of inertia*rotational velocity.... but moment of inertia can be a tricky one depending on so many factors, i understand it as mass*radius^2 on the most basic level ...

So in fact I could be very wrong on the issue,