Originally Posted by RTDub (Post 13074596)

I wish it would go away. Seriously. That it is even a notion - a computer choosing your gear for you is silly. It would take the sport out of racing, and the fun out of recreational cycling.

Meet George Jetson.

Originally Posted by patentcad (Post 13075734)

Yeah, I put it on my road bike, it was great, next week I pick up my TT bike with Di2, that will be perfect.

Originally Posted by guadzilla (Post 13077221)

New bike or just new group set?

Originally Posted by patentcad (Post 13077694)

Old Cervelo P3, new Di2.

Originally Posted by patentcad (Post 13077694)

Old Cervelo P3, new Di2.

Originally Posted by WhyFi (Post 13077200)

- Computer isn't selecting the gearing, it's just going to the next (sequential) gear when you tell it to.

Originally Posted by svtmike (Post 13080928)

I'm pretty sure I don't want this. The gear spacing would be too tight in the center of the full range, and the constant shifting between the small and big rings would be very disruptive. I'd have to think more about shifting (do I want two upshifts or five?) than I do today.

As for automatic shifting, no I don't want to have a computer select a gear for me presuming that I want a particular cadence. Sometimes I want to spin at 110-120, sometimes I want to push at 70-80. Just having the auto trim and shift precision of current Di2 would be enough for me.

Originally Posted by svtmike (Post 13080928)

I'm pretty sure I don't want this. The gear spacing would be too tight in the center of the full range, and the constant shifting between the small and big rings would be very disruptive. I'd have to think more about shifting (do I want two upshifts or five?) than I do today.

As for automatic shifting, no I don't want to have a computer select a gear for me presuming that I want a particular cadence. Sometimes I want to spin at 110-120, sometimes I want to push at 70-80. Just having the auto trim and shift precision of current Di2 would be enough for me.

Originally Posted by WhyFi (Post 13081213)

You know the great thing about computers? You can re-friggin'-program 'em and use whatever setting you want.

Originally Posted by Mithrandir (Post 13075839)

I don't see it working that way to be honest. Here's an example of how I see it working.

I run 3x7 at the moment. The 3 ring is 28% higher than the 2 ring, and my cassette is closely spaced, so that 2-7 is roughly equivalent to 3-3, and 2-6 is close to 3-2. I cruise from 2-5 to 2-7 most often. The next gear up from 2-7 is 3-4, and I can handle 3-4 for moderate distances. Problem is on flats, I'm not quite able to handle 3-5 steadily yet. So when shifting up I tend to go from 2-6 to 2-7, then I should go to 3-4 and then up again to 3-5. But since I rarely get to 3-5 before I encounter an incline, I find myself shifting from 2-7 to 3-4, back down to 2-7, all in a relatively short time frame. There are no words to explain exactly how annoying this is, so what tends to happen is I get to 2-7 and stay there, even if I could go up again. I don't, because I know I'll just have to do 4 shifts shortly.

So here's what I see Di2 doing for me.
When gearing up it would seamlessly go 2-5, 2-6, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, etc.
When gearing down it would go 3-5, 3-4, 3-3, 2-6, 2-5, etc.


Basically instead of shifting between all the individual gears exactly in order, it will try to stay on the same chainring until cross chaining becomes an issue, and then switch to the next biggest or smallest chainring on demand. In my example I'm assuming it's programmed to avoid 1-6, 1-7, 2-1, 2-7, 3-1, and 3-2. This way the only time it will shift in front will be if you switch from 2-6 to 3-3, and vice versa, and whatever gears form the boundary between chainring 1 and 2. No different from how you would switch the gears manually by hand, really; just avoids the fancy fingerwork of switching both derailleurs at once, and 3 to 4 gears on the cassette at the same time.

Originally Posted by svtmike (Post 13082668)

I had no idea. Please tell me more about these amazing ... what did you call them? Computers?

Originally Posted by WhyFi (Post 13083050)

Ask your grand kids - they'll fill you in.

Originally Posted by tadawdy (Post 13083069)

Powered by a dynamo hub. Only thing I don't like is the battery.

Originally Posted by svtmike (Post 13083192)

I asked them and they were very helpful. They said that although what you said is true, the reprogrammability of computers is unrelated to my opinion that sequential shifting and automatic gear selection would be undesirable to a cyclist such as myself.

I thanked them, promised to relay this information to you as soon as their grandmother arrived to type it into the typy clicky thing, and then told them to get off my lawn.

Originally Posted by WhyFi (Post 13083391)

Before being chased off of your lawn, did they relate to you that complaining about such features is a rather curmudgeonly, pointless endevor, because functionality could be changed with a push of a button, thus accommodating those that want progressive gearing AND those that want traditional gear selection? I mean, what kind of old-fashioned fart complains about features that a) are free and b) are easily changed to suit?

Originally Posted by svtmike (Post 13080928)

I'm pretty sure I don't want this. The gear spacing would be too tight in the center of the full range, and the constant shifting between the small and big rings would be very disruptive. I'd have to think more about shifting (do I want two upshifts or five?) than I do today.

As for automatic shifting, no I don't want to have a computer select a gear for me presuming that I want a particular cadence. Sometimes I want to spin at 110-120, sometimes I want to push at 70-80. Just having the auto trim and shift precision of current Di2 would be enough for me.

Originally Posted by svtmike (Post 13084128)

I don't know why you're so butt-hurt about my dislike of these ideas that you're carrying on so and deemed it necessary to immediately insult me and make insinuations about my age and technical understanding. Obviously if the features can be shut off, that's great for people who also think they suck, but that doesn't change my opinion that they would be undesirable.

Originally Posted by motobecane69 (Post 13082782)

you ride a 3x7? why the hell are you even in this discussion?

Originally Posted by WhyFi (Post 13084518)

Me pointing out that your complaining (whether born from a lack of technical knowledge or a lack of imaginative application) about the potential inclusion of features (that others would find useful and that are easily disabled) is ill-conceived and shortsighted = butt-hurt?

Originally Posted by Mithrandir (Post 13084521)

Oh I'm sorry mr. weight weenie did I offend you by existing?

I'm interested in the tech, and very soon (1-2 years at most) it will be on triple rings either when Shimano debuts its MTB lineup or even sooner when someone hacks it to work on triples.

But yeah I see your point, I obviously have nothing to contribute whatsoever because I made the horrible sin of riding a triple. Zeus in heaven, get over yourself.

Originally Posted by svtmike (Post 13084755)

Or thought through and dismissed because it's not that complex.



You can't get away from the fact that the same rear cogs would be available to both (or "all" since we're being imaginative) front chainrings. You can't get away from the fact that the gears will be more spread out at the edges and more crowded where the ranges intersect. It's simple linear math.

The current Di2 is a simple, elegant way to consistently transform rider input into bicycle reaction. It takes away the simple but annoying task of trimming the front derailleur. I can't think of any time (especially in a fast-moving paceline) that I'd want anything but an immediate, specific reaction from the bike to my shifting demand, or that I'd want an autonomous shifting action from the bicycle. I can compute my gearing needs much more quickly and accurately than any external computer can estimate them. And I can predict them too, something no computer can do.

When it comes to taking action on the bicycle based on what the rider is doing, the best computer possible is already on the bike -- and it's the rider.