Originally Posted by
Jeff Neese
Pro racing equipment is dictated by the manufacturers, and racers use the bikes their team supplies them with. If the sponsors are pushing some tech, that's what the racers have to use. I don't know if electronic shifting was forced onto racers like disk brakes were, but the idea isn't to sell the new stuff to pro racers anyway. It's to sell it to YOU. If there wasn't something new and cool and seemingly "advanced" or "high tech" then who would buy a new bike? The industry would collapse.
In general new tech is better than the old tech it replaces. Manufacturers are in direct competition, so it is in their own interest to innovate and improve their products. Otherwise we would all still be riding around on Penny Farthings and driving Ford Model Ts.
Pro racers want the very best equipment and any marginal gains that technology may offer. I don’t think any of them would choose to ride an older bike out of free choice. Likewise manufacturers are unlikely to supply inferior equipment to pro teams.
Do you think teams like Ineos would tolerate tech that was a disadvantage to their pro riders? Likewise do you think consumers would tolerate new tech that was inferior or less reliable? This was effectively what the OP was asking here and I don’t see any riders complaining about their electronic shifting or wishing they could go back to cable shifters.
The only naysayers are those who have never even experienced electronic shifting and in some cases not even mechanical brifters! Their opinion is IMO worthless.