The main things I dislike about typical external bicycle gears is that they are still very crude designs with a couple major shortcomings.
First is that the arrangement of forward sprockets and rear cogs compounded means that you end up with some combinations that are essentially duplicating each other.
Second is that the "effective" gears (the series of combinations that are not duplicates) aren't controlled in a way that they can be accessed in mathematical order (from lowest gear-inches to highest gear-inches).

Electronic shifting may be able to deal with the second issue, but the first still remains unless you toss out the usual external gear design and go to something else entirely. And that is a big & heavy & expensive change for bicycles.

No, that would be the air bags....

Airbags, along with crumple zones and shoulder belts, are the major reasons why the fatalities per passenger mile continue to drop despite cell phones, texting, touchscreens. They don't go off for no reason and they work.

Bumpers that get thou$ands in damage in 5mph crashes, that's another matter.

"significantly more expensive to maintain than an automatic"

Simply not true. In my experience manuals are even more trouble free than auto's. My Jeeps original clutch lasted the entire life of the vehicle... over 200,000 miles. Plus it cost $1000 less than the optional automatic when new. On many cars the auto adds even more than that to the cost. They always are heavier, which never helps mileage, and when they do puke, the repair, oops, I mean replacement, costs way more than a manual.

But they do make it easier to text/play with your phone while you "drive".

You got it! As someone who has made my living in the automotive trades for a good part of my life, I have seen automatics fail at at-least a 15:1 ratio over sticks. Generally, automatics are good for 80-120K miles. And unless they are replaced with another OEM factory unit ($$$) ]as opposed to being rebuilt by a tranny shop]- they usually will die much sooner the next time(s) around. Most sticks will out-live the engine and the rest of the vehicle, if not terribly abused; and their clutches can last a good long time too. (And back when rear-wheel drive vehicles were common, it wasn't such a big deal to change a clutch- like it can be on today's transverse-engine crap-packed-in-every-single-millimeter vehicles).

Fact is, there is very little to go wrong with a stick, if not abused. Automatics, on the other hand, generate a lot of heat and friction which just-plain wears the parts within a given time or distance frame- no matter what you do- it's just the nature of the beast- and it's getting worse now, with A/T's having more speeds; and with things like CVTs, etc. We are approaching the day when there will be no such thing as a used car, except for late-model vehicles which are still under warranty. It's getting to the point where it's just unfeasible to drive many of these new vehicles once they've reached end-of-warranty. Never mind fixing them...just diagnosing the problem can cost a fortune.

Only in recent years, have I been running into something which I NEVER used to see: People spending in some cases THOUSANDS of dollars; and at their car-brand's dealership, no less....and not even getting the problem resolved, because even the factory trained technicians, with the brand specific diagnostic equipment, end up just guessing, and replacing parts, hoping to hit upon a cure.

Yeah, so when that servo quits in your RD after say 3 or 4 years....and if the new DR isn't compatible with the rest of the system.......

And quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of everything being controlled by computers. I can see, in applications where complex calculations must be made many times every minute...then such can be a good thing- but to delegate control to a COMPUTER for something as simple as positioning a derailer- something which as a child, I was able to do comfortably even with friction shifters, without thought or concern- is just ludicrous. Having a computer-controlled shifting system on a bicycle is like having a computerized hat!

Back in the late 60's / early 70's we sent men to the moon and back in space ships that had less computer power than what we have in modern cars today. Yet bikes need a computer to shift gears. No, it's not overkill at all. :lol:

It depends on the type of automatic. Manuals are generally faster, and more efficient, than older torque-converter automatics. But more and more cars are coming equipped with CVT's, dual-clutch transmissions, and even torque converter autos that have much, much better torque converters than their counterparts of even a few years ago. Take the Ford Mustang though; even my wifes 2014 model, and the numbers are out there. The manual is much quicker, and transfers more power to the rear wheels; and gets better gas mileage. (She's got the automatic though. Yuck!) A manual Porsche vs. it's PDK counterpart is a different story. But there are plenty of guys who would rather drive the 6-speed manual anyway. I drive a manual just because I like it. The alternative was a dual-clutch auto.

You're right though. Both modern manuals and automatics are bulletproof. The clutches though, still need replacing. Although; we are seeing an issue with wearing out clutches on DCT's, the clutches not lasting any longer than their manual counterparts. Living in a fairly rural area with no real stop-and-go, clutches are likely to last me a long time. My last manual had 270k on the original clutch.

Though one way to look at it is; the cost up front. On my particular car, the dual clutch auto was a $2,600 option. That's a couple of clutches. And considering folks are seeing worn-out clutches are their DCT's of some models early (this particular DCT has only been around since 2012 so it's too early to tell); so if I have to swap a clutch for a grand (assuming I pay someone to do it. Clutches aren't that expensive; it's the labor), I can do that 2.5x before I've spent as much as the auto. So given your estimate of 120,000 miles (which is a lot lower than my experience. But, that aside); that's 300,000 miles before the automatic becomes cheaper. Assuming IT'S clutches don't fail, and it doesn't have any issues.

There's little "need" anymore for a manual. But they are a lot of fun, add a level of control, and... well... they are fun!
A bike doesn't need a computer to shift gears. Mine does it without a computer. It's a good ol' indexed shimano manual shifter. But a computer (well, a very, very basic one) can be programmed to know exactly where to move the derailleur; which never requires adjustment or replacing cables. (Though; both of those tasks are pretty trivial).

Electronic shifting does still have a way to go though. It's puzzling that sequential shifting isn't already here. It would seem if I had electronic shifting, I should no longer have to worry about redundant gears, cross-chaining, etc. I ought to be able to just shift 'up' or 'down' and not have to worry about whether I need to shift chainrings or the rear cassette and where. Not that that's hard. I'm a newbie and have no problems getting the hang of where I need to shift, when, and how. (Like simultaneously shifting into the next hardest gear whilst dropping onto a smaller chainring; which effectively gives me the next 'gear', and isn't quite as steep a gear change as just changing the chainring and leaving the cassette in the same spot.) But, still, it seems all the technology is already there; and it ought to be just a trivial software thing to have it handle all of that. Just shift up or shift down!

4 pages and I didn't see one mention of moving to 1 x 10. Another nice advancement to sell. Simplified shifting, no FD to worry about. I'm already thinking down-the-road to upgrade my mtb, dropping 2 of the 3chain rings.

:thumb:

I was going to say "How true!"...but I think I'll just let my computer handle it!

By the way it's probably worth mentioning, when folks say "We got to the moon with less power than your watch", etc., that space computers are very, very basic. Even today, what is used to pilot and operate spacecraft is significantly less powerful than the laptops, tablets, and even mp3 players that the astronauts are using. Simply, it's a matter of reliability. And a matter of 'proven reliability'. NASA knows a certain microprocessor has been used in space for years and years. So they'll send a brand new satellite, component, or spacecraft up with 20 year old microprocessor designs. Even today, the most cutting edge spacecraft is still less powerful than what you're likely posting onto this website on. It's just a matter of writing software within those limitations. Whereas in the consumer space; software is constantly evolving and hardware has to continue to improve to match it. The Van Allen probes, for example, launched in 2012; are powered by 200MHz PowerPC single-core CPU's, which use an instruction set developed in 1991. But NASA knows it works, and it isn't susceptible to the radiation of space and other complications. So they could put the latest bleeding edge intel CPU in there. Or; they could send it up with a tried-and-true IBM/Apple/Motorola design that won't fail.

So we went to the moon on less than what our smartphones today have. And we launched spacecraft a few weeks ago with less than what our smartphones today have.

the rebirth of the venerable 10 speed.

Odd... I was just looking up chain today. I really only have about four gear combinations that I use now. I think its cause of age and debility. In my twenties, I could go from pulling 120 inches of chain to 30 on a short up and down climb. Now over 60 I rarely pull more than 80 inches and hang out at about 40 inches more than i would like to admit...

Wow - Am I old enough to use a hub now???

Hmmm. It sounds like NASA understands that overkill is not only unnecessary, but undesirable... even for complex tasks like space flight. That's the entire point of this thread, except applied to bicycle drivetrains.

At least when a fancy 12 speed electronic shifting drivetrain fails no one will be lost in space. ;)

I'm still on the fence. On the one hand, my 9-speed cassette's gears work just fine and I'm happy with chain life. OTOH, a 10 or 11 speed rear with an 11-36 cassette on it would let me run a 36/52 double crank and get rid of the third chainring. It's not just the chainring that's the issue, but also a little weight and it would make for a narrower front end.

What's holding me back is that I don't want to be stuck with some sort of intermediate drive system that's locked into ONE choice of matched-set components.

Not to take this thread off the topic of automobile transmissions but I wanted to mention to Doug5150 that I felt very much like him about gearing front and rear and all the duplication and awkward mathematics with chain rings and cogs. You add into that complexity the wider the stack in the back and front get cross chaining into combinations that really are not good for the mechanism and rob you of power are likely to be used.
I set out to make logic out of this chaos for my own needs. I liked the idea of a triple as the center ring is lined up on the center of the cogs and provided the best straight chain lines over the widest range of gears. If when I made mine a 1X10 was around it still wouldn’t have gave the total range I wished for but I may have got me close.

I opted for a 3x9 based around my personal sweet spot being the center ring and the center cog and then worked out in both directions looking at all the cassettes available in a 9 speed. For me it was 42 front and 21 rear. I balanced steps between gears much like I would on a 1x9 but knew I had a granny to help fill in the low end and a bigger ring to top me off. I hated the duplication and the crazy way I would use the large ring. What I found the large ring really good for is making my chain line straight on the smallest cogs. The granny is a personal selection based on how low you need and how low you feel comfortable switching in and out of. I stared with a 30 went to a 26 and ended up with a 24 based around where I live and how hard it is to mash for me vs spin up a long steep climb. I then looked for the big ring that made shifting simple and straight forward and without duplication filling in each space in the ring below range. For my 42 that large ring became 45 and a shift that is as effortless as a one cog shift in the back. I do have duplicate gears as I wanted duplication when I was shifted on to the granny, I wanted to not have to jump back and forth to the center ring when spinning up a hill.
There is no math involved in shifting and no cheat sheets taped to the handlebars and no duplication except where I wanted it.
I ended up with this as my gearing (45-42-24) X (12,14,16,18,21,24,28,32,36)
And here are my usable gear inches
Granny without cross chain
17.7
20.0
22.8
26.6
30.4
35.5

Main rings without cross chaining. (15 gears)The – sign ones off the 45t.
31.4
35.3
40.4
47.1
- 50.5
53.9
- 57.7
62.8
- 67.3
70.7
- 75.7
80.8
- 86.6
94.3
- 101.0

To say nothing of the extremely high-end computer systems on the ground that do most of the "thinking" :) But reliability uber alles when it's a million miles away, for sure.

And again, it's still drawing lines in the sand. Deciding at what point technology is 'enough' and at what point it's 'overkill' is a fairly arbitrary process. And by no means are higher end components 'overkill'. They would allow NASA to do significantly more. It's purely a matter of reliability. Choosing the old technology for the sake of reliability; not because it's 'better' in any other way.

The electronic shifting argument sort of reminds me of the fuel-injection vs carb argument. Especially on motorcycles, where you still find carbs. Some of the old timers love to scoff "Jes' wait till that there fancy computer-machine dun brekks. Then yur' gon' be up a crik". But, by all accounts, fuel injection is SIGNIFICANTLY more reliable than carbs. The computers just don't break. Sure they can and have, but they almost never do. While carbs tend to wear out, need adjustment, get gummed up. That's aside from the very big performance hit they take. Likewise, there's a reason the pro peloton is embracing electronic shifting. It DOESN'T fail. Of course, most folks will know how to adjust, maintain, and repair a cable-operated system. And should something fail on the electronic system it'll likely just need replacing (but then, that's probably true of most components on a cable based system too). But I think over time we're going to see those being the significantly more reliable system.

Another thing is, the reliability of specific computerized components, like fuel injection computers or electronic shifting, is significantly better than the reliability of consumer electronics. (And consumer electronics are, statistically, very reliable. But they do fail). That's because heat kills components. And a laptop, for example, has to do a LOT of complex things even to render a webpage, which produces heat. Your laptops CPU could be hovering around 120F just doing basic web browsing. It may crank up to 150~160F during heavier loads. Your hard drive, RAM, and components on your motherboard like the north bridge are also heating up. That wears them out. Even on a blisteringly hot day, the 'computer' in the Di2 system just isn't going to get that hot. It isn't using the same kind of heat-producing microprocessor as your laptop. Or even as your smartphone (though those obviously produce a lot less heat; hence no fans necessary.)

By the way, I don't mind at all if folks don't want to adopt newer technology. Or if they prefer older stuff, etc. In some ways, I'm the same way with certain things. (As aforementioned; I prefer the 'old' manual transmission to even the most high tech 'automatics'). But, whenever there's a "things are getting too high tech" sentiment, I'm always puzzled. Because who decides where we draw the line? Whatever technology YOU think is enough, some old timer somewhere thinks is too much. And on down the line. I remember once a gentleman telling me my old flip phone (remember those?) with a color screen (!!!) and a camera was "way too much technology". And now, with smartphones, the line is being drawn by some at those old flip phones. Now THOSE are enough technology, but the smartphones are too much. And the cycle continues.

I think new technology is always good; even if it isn't something I'd adopt. Because it's innovation. Let the companies and the bleeding-edge early adopters try new things and figure new things out all the time! Maybe they'll stumble on some pretty cool stuff and it'll trickle down the line.

There is a real difference between advancement and overkill and it normally happens in super competitive markets. The flat panel TV is clearly and advancement over the tube TV’s just as solid state electronics was over tubes. My example of overkill was what happened in software with say the simple WORD program. Word processing started out pretty poor and great advancements were rapidly made at some point spelling correction was added and grammar etc. and the programs that we all used all served 100% of our need I would say in my case word covered 200% of my needs actually. I wanted to type a document and save it or send it, maybe add a photo or underline something heck maybe even change the color and slant it and underline it and make it larger text. But they all did that but didn’t stop. Every new computer I had more and more it would do that I didn’t need and then the dancing paperclip showed up one day to talk to me. It said don’t you want to do this and that and I said no I just want to underline this word. Next thing I knew Thomas Edison or Einstein or somebody started popping up giving me help as well and I would kill these things and they would come back to life again and again. I asked everyone I knew do you like these things popping up do they help you? and they said no but the other word processers have them so word added them. To me that’s what overkill is, when you make a change for the sake of change. True advancements will always be viewed by some as overkill and to others as the next great thing. But when you can’t find any logical reason for the change it might just be overkill.

For me high definition is kind of like that. I can only sit so close to a TV and still be able to take the full screen into view, once I am at that distance and my vision at 20/20 can no longer discern a pixel then going beyond that is overkill for me, it’s reached the limits of my abilities. We all have in the same way with a bike.

An interesting fact to look up is the history of wide screen images. When Edison invented movies he had to also invent film for the most part. He went with the format of 4:3 as that’s close to what the offset of our eyes can take in both right and left and up and down. That was the gold standard until TV came along and the movies needed to be different and they also wanted to get more people in to a theater and by stretching the screen sideways they could get more seats in. Wide screen was sold to the world as being better when all they did was take away some of the up and down vision, and make them not have to build such tall buildings and heat and cool a lot of space no one sat in. of course the great advancement in screen happened to us again with the flat screen TV’s and with 16:9 aspect ratio. For me it was a step backwards as everyone is now talking being emerged in the big image. But where it became overkill for me was when they started changing the aspect ratio of computer screens. If all I did was watch movies on my computer that would be dandy but I don’t I view things taller than wide most of the time. That’s just overkill.

You don't deal with many cars on a regular basis, do you? Actually, it's gotten to the point where the mechanical systems on a car routinely exceed their service life; but the various computers and modules; input devices which supply the computers with the needed info; and electronic engine-control devices (which allow the computers to control the various mechanical systems) do indeed routinely fail.

And when they do fail, it can be very difficult and expensive to diagnose the problem. I've seen cases where a loose wire intermittently losing contact in a connector or grounding out could befuddle numerous experts to the point of costing the car owner thousands of dollars before finding the actual problem.

Trouble is, too, that when a computer or electronic component fails, it usually just fails without any warning; and when an automotive computer fails, it very rarely completely fails- but more often, just one or two particular circuits will fail, so that the computer for all intents and purposes will appear to be functional- and yet one critical engine-management function will fail or not perform correctly, rendering the vehicle inoperative while befuddling the techs because the computer for all intents and purposes appears to be functioning.

Carburetors, by comparison, can be quite simple; fool-proof to diagnose; and repaired/rebuilt by an average person with a minimum of knowledge. [Note I said "CAN be"- in practice, over the years, they acquired so much baggage- i.e. electronic controls to perform various functions which used to be done mechanically or manually by operator controls, that THAT is what made them so needlessly complex and unreliable and hard to deal with.).

Tough to separate truth from fiction, ain't it?:)

fify :)

Why does it have to be like that though? Maybe some of us just find brifters more convenient than other shifting control styles. I couldn't imagine going back to downtube shifters when I could keep my hands in place and perform the same function.

If advances were useless sports car racing would still be without aerodynamics. They'd still be driving the Porsche 917 with its weak magnesium frame with the drivers legs reaching past the front axles at the fastest ever speed of 247 miles per hour down the back stretch of some European 24hr race.
Seriously though, an 11 speed rear cassette offers the ever high profile cyclist the most options at a lighter weight than those old 5spd cassettes. If you can't see the advancement in this, you are fighting a pretty obvious truth.
Am I saying that this is going to be best for you or I? No way. I have 6,7,8 & 10 spd cassettes on my bikes. In my current state of fitness is place the same in just about any race, regardless of equipment. & it's no where near the front. But, we are talking about advances to benefit those who can push up near 500 watts up a mountain side. Best do do s reality check when spending your money. A nice expensive after ride meal might serve you a higher purpose.

I have no problem with people liking and wanting brifters, if that's what they prefer- I just don't see why EVERY bike has to have them, these days. [Yeah, I know...Surly and Riv....but they don't interest me]. I'd just like to see some high-quality, light frames with DT bosses, from the major manufacturers (as opposed to over-priced specialty boutique manufacturers).

Hmmmm...just got an idea: One'a these days, I'm gonna get me a Dengfu FM098 frame and try out an idea I have for adding DT bosses to a CF frame.

Yup, I remember 1,000 mile LOF (lube, oil, filter) intervals. Now it's more like 7,500 miles. I replaced spark plugs, points and condenser every 12,000 miles. Now that's like a 100,000 miles. I used to figure tires would last 20,000 or 25,000 miles at most.