View Single Post
Old 06-20-16 | 02:57 PM
  #12  
waynesulak's Avatar
waynesulak
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,971
Likes: 4
From: Ft Worth, TX

Bikes: Custom 650B tandem by Bob Brown, 650B tandem converted from Santana Arriva, Santana Noventa, Boulder Bicycle 700C, Gunnar Sport

Originally Posted by oldacura
As I gain more experience with Di2 I'm liking it better. However, because we wanted a big range, the jump between the front rings is big (52x34). I think that if we could live with a smaller range, I would like it better.

If Shimano can do a 3x11 for Di2 XTR, I don't see any reason they couldn't do 3x11 Di2 Ultegra.
I think that they could make a 3x11 Ultegra (or XT or whatever) but haven chosen not to because they do not feel it is the way to make the most money. Looking at low customer demand for triples, Shimano has decided that the marketing of wide range doubles, user desire for electronic shifting, and a lack of electronic triple competition will keep them from loosing customers. There is really no need from their perspective to incur the expense of supporting another product.

I have been hoping for a lower grade group electronic triple but sadly those of us that want triples are left with maintaining older mechanical systems or XTR. The decision to not move the mountain electronic triple down to other groups makes me expect that it might be dropped altogether soon.

Too bad, electronic shifting if it is as good as described on this forum it means there is little reason not to have more closely spaced triple rather than a double. The arguments of a triple's added complexity and degraded shifting evaporate if Di2 works well.
waynesulak is offline  
Reply