Originally Posted by
PeteHski
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.
Well said. Part of the issue is these traditional forums are skewed to an much older demographic which is not very progressive in their views and not representative of modern sport cycling. Like Japanese soldiers left on a South Pacific Island fighting a war long since lost, they are still debating, index shifting, 3X drivetrains, tubular tires, lugged steel frames, brifters, carbon fibre, disc brakes, etc. Show a picture of a restored semi mass produced Masi or Cinelli which litter eBay, Craigslist or FB Marketplace and you get tearful accolades after recalling a time when their part time job did not spin out enough cash to purchase said dream bike. This is the last place to come for advice around bike tech.
But entertainment that’s a different story.