Do we need more than just Campag, Shimano & SRAM?

Woz":3rwjeej2 said:

Madness. Sheer madness. I just don't get it however hard I try to look at it objectively. I just see an Aldi cordless kitchen appliance in front of me :roll:
https://www.ebay.fr/itm/Derailleur-avan ... Sww2he9N3d

Click to expand...

Electronic gears such as DI2 are a really interesting development in cycling, but like pretty much all innovations, as I have mentioned in a previous posting, are only really of relevance to racing.
The DI2 front derailleur is quite a clever piece of kit, as it will move automatically, so for example, if you go down the rear block to the smaller sprockets, it will move the gate to stop chain rub. In a race situation I can see this being quite useful, but using a bike in any other situation is just not needed. When I use the smaller sprockets, for example, I just move the front mech over slightly manually, like pretty much everyone else would.
Electronic gears, on a bike not used in competition, is an answer to a question that has never needed to be asked.
It would be like having, for example, a track pump that you fit to your valve, dial in the pressure you want, and it inflates your tyres at the touch of a button, like the one I have for my car. Yes, convenient, but hardly necessary for a bike tyre. You get the idea.

Re:

Most developments on bikes are convenient, but hardly necessary. It just depends where you draw your line.
This includes double/triple chainsets, more than about 3 gears, foot retention systems, dropped bars, micro adjust seat pins etc etc. In other words what is necessary is literally what you need to be able to propel a bike, steer and stop it

I have no intention of getting electric gears, but one of the arguments for it is that because it's so easy and seamless, you change gear far more frequently and therefore spend more time in the optimum gear meaning you can go further, faster or it's simply more comfortable

Re: Re:

pigman":1m5gi1nx said:

Most developments on bikes are convenient, but hardly necessary. It just depends where you draw your line.
This includes double/triple chainsets, more than about 3 gears, foot retention systems, dropped bars, micro adjust seat pins etc etc. In other words what is necessary is literally what you need to be able to propel a bike, steer and stop it

I have no intention of getting electric gears, but one of the arguments for it is that because it's so easy and seamless, you change gear far more frequently and therefore spend more time in the optimum gear meaning you can go further, faster or it's simply more comfortable

Click to expand...

I'm struggling with this post, @pigman because I don't feel that your arguments reflect that there are a multitude of different needs. The necessity of a bike technology development depends on the use that you plan to put the bike to. I hope we would agree that the need varies from rider to rider and perhaps even from ride to ride - so for me this isn't really about drawing a line but matching need and budget with capability.

If I want a bike to take me on flat journeys for as little money as possible, then a single speed bike made with cheap steel components is probably acceptable, but if I live in the Alps, it probably isn't and neither is a 3 speed - as I either won't be able to cycle up or will have no useful gears on the level or down. If I can have drop handlebars for the same money as flat ones, I'll take them because they give me more position options so I can arrive at my destination in greater comfort - I'd argue that they are empirically "better". If I can have a lighter bike of the same strength for a similar price, then that is better too. If I need to carry things with me when I ride (perhaps I'm using my bike for a touring journey) then I want gearing and brake performance that reflects the load I'll be taking and he terrain. I probably want a frame geometry that prioritises comfort and stability. I probably DON'T WANT electric gears that could run out of juice before I have opportunity to recharge - although a system that meant that I wasn't continually fiddling with alignment would be "better" than one without.

Perhaps your use of the phrase "optimum gear" suggests that we actually agree; The machine can be more efficient with ingenuity, new materials and technology development. This is what I'd like to see rather than just a different way of writing "Exage" or a new adjective to precede "Record". I'd also support Simon's complaint that the big 3 equate "better" with "more like road racing".

Don't want to fall out, but I think there's more to it than propel, steer, stop.

Re:

First of all, this is lively debate, which I guess was the essence of the thread. No fear of falling out, the fact that we all ride bikes is a bond.

I'm not arguing from any one standpoint really. I read something and offer a counter argument. I don't really believe in one simple bike does all. What I argued against in that instance was Simon's view that electronic gears was pointless outside of competition. What I countered with was taken to it's ultimate, everything could be seen as pointless, and is just an extravagance or at best a convenience. You mention gears in the Alps. Well, in days of old, riders rode grand tours with a flip-flop rear wheel and made it round.
Personally, I'm all for better technology and making it easier, as I have to pedal the bugger round the peak district and I'm not getting lighter nor younger. I draw the line at electric bikes for the young and fit who don't need it. They might as well buy a moped and be done with it. I see no heroics in me being passed by a 10 stone 30 year old racing snake on an ebike

Got to say, The Man of Pig gave me food for thought.

Really, in a way Dura-Ace the flag ship gruppo was always aimed at racing. (Well until they made a long cage mech. and accepted that rich fat middle aged people would also like to own it....another discussion perhaps).

What I am seeing though the demarcation of groupsets is pre-decided for our riding and needs. More is introduced to fit budget and disciplines. So, ZG862 in your example, slap on a Tiagra - which by the way seems to be the life line for many commuters and just works day in day out - or go Deore.

What is getting me though, a while ago you could happily mix parts from various Shimano gruppos to form what you considered was the best value / most optimal / lightest / most reliable / etc., but it looks like those days are well and truly over. Now, it looks like you have simply got to have what is pre-defined for you. End of.

Always thought it strange that Shimano just so missed the Fixie boom. They had everything (NJS approved) to dust off and package a ready made high grade gruppo. They were incredibly late to the party with CX, and as for the gravel gruppos most people hacked up something similar 10 years ago or more by mixing and matching road and MTB parts in the right places.