canuckcicle

Looks pretty nice for being in prototype stage. I'm a bit disappointed that they followed the two button trend for the front mec... Since none of them support a triple, one button would be sufficient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM9AdD0fGiY

Andy Somnifac 

Would a 2 button system not allow for trim settings? A one button system could, but if you wanted to go from trim to full on the big ring, you'd have to cycle through the small ring (if it went in one direction); or if you wanted to go from trim to the small ring, you'd have to go to full position on the big ring before going to the small (if it went in the other).

2 buttons allow you to go either way, from any position, and allow you to trim on the fly (rather than only having one trim position).

dr_lha

Don't electronic shifters have auto-trim?

Andy Somnifac 

I don't know, I don't have the money to replace groupsets that are still working for me.

In either case, is some manual override if you're still getting some rub a bad thing?

canuckcicle

Yes you constantly hear the front mec adjusting when you shift your rear mec. I would be happy if I could have one button move to the opposite position to where it currently is.

dr_lha

Well, from what I know (from friends, I've never ridden a Di2 bike), Di2 has auto trim that means you don't have to worry about rub ever. The set up seems to be easy as well.

I'm not particularly advocating electronic here, I ride mechanical groups myself, I just think the lack of trim is likely a non-issue.

Campag4life

Whether waiting for the new Sram wireless system or the new FSA kit, I honestly am not that interested in an electronic system. I prefer cable.
OMO.

arben

As you shift through the middle of the range, at least—shifting up top and down at the bottom of the range is more or less silent—I only hear the front adjust once the chainline demands it, iirc.

link0

I am happy to see more options. The semi-wireless system makes a lot of sense.

merlinextraligh

Yes. The FD knows what cog you're on in the back and adjust accordingly

rpenmanparker 

How so? The only use for any wires that I can see would be to connect both derailleurs to a single battery and that would be a waste of time and effort IMO. There is no reason why control wires would be needed at all.

link0

Well the FD and the RD are pretty close to each other and only require a short length of wire, which has a very direct/straight routing. Having a them connected together by wire reduces the number of wireless transceivers and batteries. This reduces a bit of complexity and weight as well as increase reliability by a tiny bit.

In addition, the FD is twice as close to the shifters than the RD, so it will get 4x the signal strength from less attenuation. It's prob not a big deal, but it's something that can allow for reduced transmission power which means increased battery life.

I'm not saying that this is a better method than SRAM's full wireless design, but it's just as legitimate.

redtires

I may be misunderstanding what your saying here, but I think this is how it works. You have no "control" wires from the shifters, and then only one receiver on the front derailleur. That receiver then can send a signal via the one wire to the rear mech. The front and rear mechs are connected to the battery in the seatpost. I dunno, that's how I understood the video at least. It's an interesting twist on SRAM's version, which looks to have receivers on both front and rear derailleurs. I would think that would mean that you would have to run two frequencies, one from the front and one from the rear. That is UNLESS, you have the shifters wired together with one transmitter (for either SRAM or the FSA setup). I just thought of that while I was typing...so, I have no idea if that is the case for either system.

arben

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the wired assembly is lighter than the wireless. Complexity might be less, but I don't think that that's clear cut either.

rpenmanparker 

Fair enough, but I personally refuse to buy an electronic shifting system that contains any wires, period. Go wireless or go home. That is where the technology invariably is going, and I see no reason to get tied up with a half-assed compromise on the way to the real deal, then have to spend more money to update to what should have been the original offering in the first place. I'm good with 10-speed mechanical Red while I wait. When wireless is offered, that is when I will consider making the change to electronic. Not before.

rpenmanparker 

Perhaps that is how FSA works, but, if so, that is half-assed IMO. I would never buy into that. Wireless or bust.

rpenmanparker 

BTW, remember that anything you see in that video could be a red herring. That reporter was such a shill for FSA you couldn't believe a word he said. That wire(s) could very easily be just a misdirection for the competition.

datlas 

I like how the brake levers boldly say "prototype" so loudly. Is this a joke?

Bandera

Yep, early adopters get screwed while the standards evolve into something else w/ no backwards compatibility in 'lectric shifting.

10 cog mechanical does well enough so I'll wait wait and see.
In the mean time 19th century FG tech does just fine for a good many of the miles I ride................

-Bandera

merlinextraligh

And what is so objectionable about a few wires? the weight of the wires is deminimis, likely less than the extra batteries and hardware for wireless.

As for aesthetics with a seatpost battery, and internal wiring, you hardly see any wires.

And you only have one battery to charge or replace, and no possibility of radio dropouts.

I don't see wireless electronic shifting as being a big improvement; some advantage, some disadvantage, most noticeably multiple batteries

rpenmanparker 

By all means enjoy your wired system. I shall not. What is wrong with wires is two-fold. First they are unnecessary and inelegant. Secondly they will not be part of the final form of this equipment. You can buy in now and buy in again later. I will withhold my funds until the obvious end point is achieved.

merlinextraligh

There's never going to be an end point. The "modern road bike" seemed to be pretty mature and reached its end point by the 1970's, then a whole wave of innovation, mostly inspired by mountain bikes took hold, and today's road bikes are advanced far beyond what was thought to be the final evolution of the road bike.


If you wait for the end point, you'll never buy anything

merlinextraligh

Six years in, current Di2 is not exactly a beta version.

Bandera

It will be when Di3 wireless is released next season and support for Di2 adopters disappears................
In the meantime FG cycling has been mature for > a century for those disposed to a fully mature tech.

-Bandera

JohnJ80

So you never had a problem with generally the most unreliable and most prone to failing component in an electronic system - the battery? A lot of engineers might tell you that having extra batteries was a "half assed compromise." Heck, I would.

You'll just wind up changing more batteries and introducing more reliability problems. I think connecting the front and rear motors and using a single battery is pretty smart. It's an easy cable run, wiring is minimized and so are the batteries for the most power hungry components. Coin cells will run the shifters for a long, long time (maybe a whole year).

I sure like my Di2 system. Didn't think it would matter much, but it does. Haven't had a single bad shift since I got it. I think it's great that there is another alternative on the way.

J.