On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 04:18:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 12:05:05 PM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 02:15:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 6:49:45 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 5:34:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:

In general, I prefer to stay away from bicycle technologies that require
such explanations. Those include hydraulic discs. (Ten paragraph lines
of possible solutions?) Ditto for electronic shifting ("First press and
hold the button to enter the programming mode... or connect to your
computer interface using the appropriate software...") Ditto for STI,
which usually gets summarized as "You can't fix it. Just throw it away
and buy another one."

I know I'm archaic. But I like simple mechanical devices that get
diagnosed by sight and fixed with things like allen wrenches.

And I never liked working on plumbing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

If I am going to talk like this will you shoot me please because that is the moment you give up to learn and experiencing something new. I'm a mechanical engineer that started with a simple drawing board and those awful ink pens and no PC's. Then we got 2D cad, then 3D cad and then 3D cad with integrated simulation and calculation modules and databases. It got complicated everytime but is was nevertheless progress.

Requiring computers is different from being able to use computers.

I was and still am quite skilled as a paper draftsman. When it became available,
I learned and used 2-d computer drafting. I learned 3-d solid modeling. (Hell,
the last piece of furniture I built was designed using 3-d solid modeling.) I
learned and used Finite Element Analysis. I can do that sort of stuff.

But I don't want equipment on my bike that requires interfacing to a computer to
adjust or fix. To me, that's the opposite of "appropriate technology." I have
done plumbing and can still do plumbing, but I don't like it and I don't want
plumbing on my bike. And so on. I think bikes should be simple. YMMV.

- Frank Krygowski

What makes you believe that electronic shifting needs interfacing to computer to adjust or fix? That is not true and it is one of your misconceptions that hold you back from looking at it with an open mind. You just push a button instead of turning on a adjusting barrel. What is the difference? For most people this is more intuitive. In my kind of work a mechatronic approach leads in most cases to the best design/solution for a problem, so a combination of mechanics, electronics and software. In my opinion shifting on a bicycle is an example of a problem that will benifit from a mechatronic approach. The weak point of the current pure mechanical solution are the cables and the complicated mechanical components in the shifter in the environment were they are used. Shifting by wire solves the issue of the cables and make the internals of the shifter immensely simple. The electronics are simple for today standards and the same apply for the firmware. In the beginning you have to
have
vision and see the potential of such a system: a low maintenance, reliable, easy to setup and simpler system. As a benifit it will also be lighter. As you repeately showed you only see the potential problems which after a while don't exist anymore.
If you wonder how your books are printed today look at this:

But, but, but; my manual (down tube) shifters are reliable. They've
worked for probably 15 years with minimal adjustments, typically a
partial turn of a screw. And I've never had the battery fail. I'll go
even further and say there is no possibility that the battery will
fail.

You also see potentional problems which practically don't exist. For the record I had more issues with downtube shifters than I ever had with brifters. Sure problems were easy to diagnose and fix but I had to do the frequently. And in case you didn't noticed you can shift with brifters without taking your hand of the handlebar, an feature the vast majority appreciates.


Strange that.
Given that "brifters" are a somewhat more complex device than a simple
lever with a friction device. But then you comment that you hade no
problems with your hydraulic brakes and (I haven't read this morning's
posts) there has been a on going post from someone who has had
problems with his hydraulic shifters. So the score seems to be one for
and one opposed while I can't even remember anyone posting about
problems with a down tube friction shifter although given human
frailties I'm sure that there has been some.

As for not having to take the hands off the handle bars to shift, I'm
reminded of the famous test of old time bikes by modern "racers" in
which the comment was made that "I'm afraid to take my hands off the
bar to shift" :-)

As for simplicity, I had a look at electric derailers and lo and
behold they work the same as a manual derailer, with the addition of
some sort of electric actuator. So in reality they are more complex
than manual derailers.

As a said you get rid of outer and inner cables the main cause of problems with current systems. You also don't need complex (expensive and difficult to assemble) inner parts of mechanical brifters.

While I am well aware of the problems with depending on one's memory,
I cannot remember ever changing a shift cable (Bowden Cable) for
mechanical problems. I have changed them, from time to time when
rerouting controls for one reason or another but never because the
cable itself failed. Again, I'm sure that cables have failed but in
the past 20 years or so it has never happened to me.



As for "low maintenance, reliable, easy to setup and simpler system" I
heard that same argument about hydraulic disk brakes when they first
came out and the site has had repeated "help me" posts saying, my
brakes squeak, the pads won't go in, why are my brake pads all greasy
an oily, why does my bike drip on the floor, and, and, and.

I have my Di2 cross bike with hydraulic disk brakes for almost 6 years now and I never had to adjust/replace/bleed anything, something I never achieved with cable operated derailleurs and brakes. That is the potential I'm talking about.

Like Jay already said:

'The good old days weren't perfect, except in our memories.'

Certainly not but in many cases there were far fewer problems then
than now. As a rather outlandish example, we lived, much of the time,
for about 10 years on a 40 foot sail boat. During that period I had a
number of problems with the outboard motor on the dinghy but none
whatsoever with the oars and oarlocks.


Lou
--
cheers,

John B.