Seems like a solution to a problem that never existed, even more so than disc brakes. Frankly, I like DT shifters and bar ends.

LC

I prefer a manual transmission in my motor vehicle, also prefer to shift my bikes manually.
I like to shift manually - because that is my preference; however I can appreciate those applications in which some type of electronic shifting is a benefit or necessity.

Late to the conversation...smack me if someone has already said this. My favorite quote on electronic shifting is from BikeSnobNYC:

I remember when I could fix things on my car when they broke.

Yes, I remember manual chokes, replacing spark plugs and points every year, and maybe a rotor cap too. The good old days when you pumped the accelerator before starting the car, especially in the winter. Hopefully you didn't flood it.

Cars have gotten way more complex, but at the same time they're more reliable and require less regular maintenance.

and more expensive to purchase, insure and maintain. TCO on motor vehicles has been consistently rising...you don't get all that performance, security and convenience without paying the price.

It's true. You could also buy a new car for around $3000. The technology has come at a hefty price (though I do realize some of that cost increase would have come anyway).

The thing is, you mention actual problems with regard to cars. Is the same degree of problem present with bike shifting? And is the cure worth the cost? For instance, I love indexed shifting. I would hate to go back to friction shifting (except maybe on the front derailleur). But with indexed shifting, when something goes wrong (and, granted, it often does) I can easily fix it, usually without even stopping the bike. With electronic shifting, it sounds like the system is designed to be able to adjust itself, and that's fantastic. You could probably go years without having to worry about it. But when it breaks is it going to be something I can fix, or am I going to be dropping $500 for a replacement part?

Honestly, though, I have to admit that I am interested, and at the right price point I'd probably try it.

New cars are more expensive but it's hard to know where all the extra cost is coming from. Part of it just to do with features that people now get without thinking that many would have left off before. Things like A/C, expensive sound systems, power doors, windows, locks. There's safety features that didn't exist before like air bags, anti-lock brakes, and security systems.

I'd contend that stuff like electronic ignition and fuel injection actually save the owner money in the long run. Fewer repairs and tows. Better gas mileage and longer engine life. When I was growing up, a car lasting for 100,000 miles was long-lived. Now 100,000 is nothing.

One nice feature for people who do want to do their own repairs are engine codes. You can get a little reader to plug in to your car that tell you what they mean.

That made me laugh - you're entirely correct. I remember as a kid that each of our cars had different "cold weather" starting routine.You may remember those kinds of ("Pump twice, crank the starter once, pump one more time, then crank it for real.") Cold weather starting was always an iffy proposition.

I am not sure that I believe that the inflation adjusted TCO of ownership has gone up over the years (modulo the price of gasoline). Our '94 Camry wagon has had nohing more than oil changes and minor repairs and has 265K. I suspect that it would have cost me a lot more (inflation adjusted) dollars to get my old slant six Valiant to 265K miles - including I don't know how many engine re-builds.

A little off-topic, but your post re-minded of cold winter mornings sitting in a car in my youth wondering when/if the darn thing would start. Every one of my cars started every time we turned the key this winter - and we expect that now.

I apologize for not having a cite, but my kid did a study of just this last year as her Masters dissertation. She made a pretty convincing case.

the engineers and companies supplying the parts for the high profile racing teams
are in the same kind of competition as the race car manufacturers of F1.

they are depending on the Gee Whiz factor , selling these parts to the Rabble ,
after seeing them on the sponsored Pro's bikes ..

which obviously works ..

F1 just charges a lot of money for the advertising space on the CF body shells.

Though apparently Mr Bean made enough to buy his own McLaren to crash.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-14414889

Alright, you've convinced me that computerized car engines are a good thing.

Unless you buy American. ZIING!!!



On the concern that all bicycles will get ultra expensive with electronic shifting: I doubt it will kill off manual shifting. After all, index shifting didn't kill friction shifting did it? I see people riding bikes with downtube shifters all the time. There's always going to be a market for mechanical shifters.

One would argue that the whole Single Speed/Fixed Gear community is a good example of this; despite derailleurs existing for decades and making cycling much easier, there's quite a few people who enjoy going back to the old tech just for the challenge/cool factor of it all.

One additional point: Many changes in automobiles are mandated by changes in emissions laws; engines have to get more complex in order to run more efficiently. I am pretty sure bicycles will never be regulated like that.

How many new bikes are offered with friction shifters? Can you even get one?

J.

Hmmm.

I think indexed shifting has pretty much killed off friction shifting as far as new bikes go. In fact, the migration to indexed shifting pretty much killed off Suntour who didn't have a decent indexed shifting system of their own until it was too late. Downtube shifters since the mid to late 80's have been indexed. Even the cheapest Walmart bikes with derailleurs are indexed. I'm sure friction shifters are still available but it's a niche market.

Further, I think we're confusing electronic shifting with automatic shifting. Di2 is still manual shifting.

Mass migration to electronic shifting depends on how much the price can be dropped. When people expect to be able to get a new bike for $100 - $200 because that's what they see at Walmart, it's going to be awhile before electronic systems own the market.

Since Di2 self adjusts to a certain degree there are some savings too. The bike shop can potentially assemble the bikes quicker and there's fewer things to have to monkey with when the bike comes in for a free tuneup.

I don't flip many bikes but occasionally people will just give me a bike because something's wrong with it and they don't want to deal with it. They just want it gone. At the same time they don't want to toss it out so they'll ask me if I'll take it off their hands.

One of the things I typically do before selling it is to replace the cables and housings. While it's not super expensive, it's not free and if the bike isn't worth a lot anyway, it's almost a waste of time and money. By contrast wires can certainly be broken but they're easy to repair with a soldering iron and some shrink tubing. Then effectively they're as good as new. Once a shift cable is broken or even kinked, there's not a lot you can do except get another one.

Well I didn't really consider pre-made bikes being the only market. Friction shifters will always be available on the aftermarket, and anyone serious enough about them can easily install them on their own.

As a fat dude, I cannot consider pre-made bikes simply due to the fact that I literally am not able to find a bike without suspension but with 36 spoke double walled wheels, so custom made or buy-then-modify is my only option.

Likewise, I imagine anyone who wants to stick with purely mechanical could easily install them on their own; or, if like I'm predicting, the market for mechanical shifting will still remain viable enough for new bikes to still be sold with them (ie: like SS/FG bikes are now; they're a niche, and they're available).

Of course, that's what they said about indoor lighting and vaccines.

Due to repairs and maintenance, or due things like gasoline and insurance?

Mike

I think it more akin to manual shifting vs the semi-automatic sequential gearboxes used in formula 1 race cars. The driver is in control of the shifting, it is the mechanism that drives the shifting is different.

Tourring bikes pretty much come standard with 36 spoke wheels now. I have also heard about some fancy spokes that are almost twice as strong as normal spokes because they are made of super high tensile steel. Of course, I don't think they would come cheap.

I think before trying it, it is very plausible that you would say the same thing about electronic shifting.

I'm not normally overwhelmed by gimmicks so I'd like to think I'm looking at this objectively. Ultimately though, I would have to try it.

All of the above and more. Total Cost of Ownership.

If her figures include the cost of insurance and gasoline, then I wouldn't be surprised at all - but I'd like to see what happens when those are factored out. For example, the factors due the rising cost of insurance probably can't be attributed to increased design complexity, nor the rise in the cost of gasoline. Those would primarily have socio-political causes.

My memory is that the cars of the 60s required a lot more maintenance (and more skilled maintenance) than cars of today. The mechanic who tuned our family cars in 1965 had to have a lot more skill and took a lot longer than they do today. A carb rebuild took some fairly serious mechanical skill. From what I can tell, a "tune up" today takes next to skill at all - it's basically a take old parts (spark plugs) out, put new spark plug in exercise.

I believe you when you tell me that your offspring studied this and his/her figure are correct.

I am curious about the factors involved - since tune-ups used to be more frequent, more labor intensive, and require more skilled laborers, it doesn't make sense that that would be the source of increase. And cars used to be a heck of a lot less reliable, which means a lot more parts had to be replaced.

Has the cost of labor increased dramatically (in inflation adjusted dollars), or the cost of parts?

Even aside from gas and insurance I wouldn't be surprised if TCO has gone up even though I think everything you've said is true. How many people changed their oil every 3,000 miles back in the 60s and 70s? And of course while you're in one of the rapid oil change places, they'll try and sell you on any number of other services which I'm sure they succeed at at least some of the time.

Any kind of body work today will cost you a small fortune. Bumpers are virtually worthless to prevent damage and cars are designed to crumple like accordions in a collision.

I also think cars are more expensive because we get them with more features on average and we have higher standards for ride quality, quietness, comfort and conveniences. Manual transmissions have gotten less and less common.

The cost of labor has increased somewhat, even adjusted for inflation. This makes sense because it takes way more education and and training to understand the workings of automobiles today than when I was a kid in the 60s/70s. Same goes for the cost of replacement parts. Lights and brakes were two of the examples she used.

Did she do it all in inflation adjusted dollars? I'd love to see the numbers.

j.