ultimately I would want the cabling that the ultegra di2 has. the cool computer diagnostics of ui2...which im sure will trickle upwards. oh and the price of ui2...chances are..i might go with the ultegra di2...ill just have to lay off the hamburger to compensate for the weight gain on my bike

I've read it before and am unimpressed. All it does is skip gears where the ranges intersect. Some of you guys seem to think that shifting is some kind of black art or rocket science. Of course, no one ever went broke underestimating....

Considering how long a charge on these batteries lasts, one could wonder if solar power would work. Then again, building a charging mechanism into the bike probably adds a good number of extra grams, and considering Di2 is already relatively heavy it may not be a good idea.

Nice assumption there. I'm running 7 speed at the moment because my rear wheel crapped out on me and it's the only backup I've got available until I can afford to get a new one with a 9+ speed hub.

Regardless, there's absolutely no reason why it wouldn't work with 7 speed. You can reprogram it to shift to different places, it's not like there's a physical limitation to the number of gears the shifter can support anymore.

I don't know how fast the 35+ peloton rides up this hill, but I'll have to check my speedo the next time I race there. They don't walk up it. Back in the early 90's they asked some Euro rider who had ridden the road in Central Park as part of the Tour du Pont or Tour du Trump. Some reporter asked him about the Harlem hill in Central Park. His response was 'what hill?', and I'm sure he wasn't joking.

There's always a bigger fish.

Thinking that it's not that complex is a clear sign that you don't understand the possibilities.

You can't? Am I to assume that you've run matrix analysis of all plausible chainring/cassette cog combinations, even if those combinations don't fit within the status quo dictated by current hardware and user shifting limitations? I'm sure that Shimano would be interested to look at your work.

This is, again, neither here nor there, as users like you would be free to select the shifting protocols desired.

Incorrect - some of us KNOW that shifting is currently a compromise because of hardware and user limitations. It can be made more efficient.

Never say never. I saw a demo of a Toyota Prius that some university students reprogrammed as their thesis. It was programmed to look at the gradients of the road you're on and automatically optimize fuel efficiency based on what terrain you're coming up on.

For example in a regular hybrid, the car uses a "greedy" algorithm which attempts to keep the hybrid battery charged to a certain level at all times, because it has no idea what terrain you're going to be taking it on. So if you go down a steep hill it will turn the engine off, but at some point on the hill, if it is long enough, it will have to turn on the gas engine again to prevent from overcharging the battery.

However with the intelligently programmed hybrid, it knows exactly how long the hill is, so it feels comfortable depleting more of the battery on the ride up the hill, so that when you're going down it can charge the entire thing without hitting 100%.

If you programmed the entire trip into the GPS beforehand, it got even more efficient because it can look beyond every turn you make. Something like a 20% energy savings just from having the computer know the terrain beforehand.


So never say never. I imagine it won't be too far in the future when your Di2 can talk to your Edge 500 and power meter using ANT+, and figure out exactly what the road ahead looks like, and what gearing would be optimal, if programmed with an optimal power output per pedal stroke beforehand. From a technical standpoint, there's nothing preventing this from being more efficient than you.

Less fun? Maybe. To each their own. But given enough tech, a computer can easily figure out more efficient shifting than you can.

Have we really gotten up to 58 posts with no one mentioning multi-cog dumps?

i find no extra pleasure in shifting...this would be cool

And here's what's on Pcad's wish list:
1.) I wish I was more patient and had waited for the Utegra Di2 to put on my tt bike because everyone says it's better and the next generation of DA Di2 will probably use the same wiring leaving me with an obsolete setup.

A) I disagree.

B) Nobody cares about your Fredly opinions.

C) There is no Ultegra Di2 TT bike set up available or announced. Hell, there's no Ultegra Di2 available at all, it's all friggin vaporware. I'm riding my Di2 every day.

D) D.A. is lighter and has far less horsey and more sophisticated servo motors.

E) Your stuff says 'Dura Ace' which delivers maximum Starbucks Impact.

No, it's a sign that it's not that complex.

Oh, now we're completely redesigning bicycles? I thought we were discussing next gen of Di2, not changing chains, chainrings, cassettes, frame spacing, and everything else. That's a whole different animal.

Everything's a compromise. The worst parts of today's indexed mechanical shifting (non-linearity/drift of cable tensions, FD trim, and front shift speed) are neatly addressed by Di2. My biggest wish for future versions is frame integration.

Fixed.

Altering the cog combinations to make more efficient use of existing technology is completely redesigning bicycles? That's news.

OK, let me see if I understand the BF Fred Thought Process® on this. You idiots want me to get Ultegra Di2, which isn't available yet, and then you want me to wait for the Ultegra Di2 TT kit, which hasn't even been announced yet, and then you want me to wait for the next generation D.A. Di2 which isn't even a glimmer in the Shimano Vaporware Dept. eye yet?

Is that the 'thinking' on this?

Hey, not for nothing, but a car loan beats a car lease in many respects, particularly when you drive a lot of miles. I understand that, the car business, the credit industry in America and personal finance in general.

Yeah, but buying a gently used car for cash beats the crap our of either of those options. Heck it's your money, do what you want. Since most people think that they're going to make the next gen DA Di2 use something like the Ultegra's wiring system, I do wonder if they're going to make adapters for the older wiring system. Or maybe they'll just keep the different wires so you can't mix and match.

Not in this market. Used car values are too strong. I shopped and shopped. The used cars I wanted to buy were far too pricey. New car made more sense.

Indeed and you're the one that announced it -- remember this? "even if those combinations don't fit within the status quo dictated by current hardware and user shifting limitations?"

And when will that be? 2013? And why would you eff with Di2 after it's on your bike? So the idiots in the 41 will give you their nod of approval? Look Fredly, I ride and race this crap every day, in the real world, on real bikes, so all this hand wringing over the stuff I read here is just too stupid. Not as stupid as me reading and responding to it of course, but stupid nonetheless.

I find it hilarious that the morons here get their bibs in a bunch over external Di2 wiring set ups when a Di2 retrofitted bike, even with external wiring, looks 5x cleaner than any bike with mechanical cables ever could. And shifts 10x better.

Really? I have spell it out for you? I'm talking about combinations different from the common 53/39 up front and 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 on the cassette. How is changing the number of teeth on a cog reinventing the wheel?

I was thinking you were going outside of 50/34 or 53/39 up front, and 11-23 through 11-28 in back. That is the current Shimano status quo.

If you want finer granularity in tooth ratios than is currently possible, you're talking about changing chain link lengths to get in between current ratios. If you're talking about going outside of 16 teeth front and 17 teeth rear ranges, you're talking about derailleur dimensions, cages, frame clearances for larger rings, etc. If you're talking about the potential of adding more cogs, then you're after hub spacing or chain widths.

Seems my definition of "status quo" is more imaginative than yours.

Settle down Francis.

Back on topic: how about multiple cog shifts? A triple option? Third party brifters with different switch actuation (e.g. move the whole lever to shift, or have the Campy style downshift)? Front derailleur only to save cost and get most of the benefit? Mountain bike models? Recumbulator options (those guys would love it)? There are lots of possibilities.

This is a whole lot of talkin' out of your ass unless you've done the matrices that I've previously mentioned - get back to me on that.

If only you had a Stripes avatar, instead!

Presuming that the endpoints 39-25 and 53-12 are acceptable there aren't that many options available for a 10 or 11 speed drivetrain. Can you be more specific what you are thinking of?