View Single Post
Old 04-30-24, 07:45 AM
  #65  
Jrasero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Westchester, NY
Posts: 514

Bikes: Scott Foil RC, Specialized Aethos

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked 153 Times in 103 Posts
Originally Posted by 2muchroad
That's a sound argument.
The bottleneck of progress due to the literal, physical limitations of the technology itself. I like that.

What would you imagine could be a revolutionary leap in progress regarding the current state of bicycle engineering?
I personally don't know since so much of the accepted tech is really trickle down from the pros so stuff like ebikes, internal gear hubs, and run flat 3D printed tires all sound cool but will never be adopted by the pros, thus while some consumers will buy them most of this stuff has never got on because it's not UCI legal, it adds weight and complexity, or just costs a lot. This is why I think electronic shifting while not revolutionary is fine. To me it's like going from crank windows to electric ones in your car. Yeah electric ones are more complex and cost more but the convenience is just super nice. A course manufactures will charge premium for any new tech but Shimano years ago said they NEVER introduce a lower tier Di2 groupset, yet in 2022 we got 105 Di2 at lower prices with basically the same tech as past gen Shimano Di2. I think the only disadvantage of Di2 now is weight and price but this is were that iterative revisions come in. Yeah maybe we are still 1-2 more gens/refreshes from electronic shifting mirroring mechanical weights and maybe because inflation we will never see electronic shifting mirror mechanical, but IMO as of today faster and more reliable shifts that don't need to be tuned with the ability to track your data and for SRAM the ability to setup a bike in a fraction of the time while not dealing with wires is pretty awesome.
Jrasero is offline