Creeping brake pad drag

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 6:37:21 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/23/2019 5:15 AM, 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?

Well, the first clue I got was in forums such as these, where some
people posted questions about how to use the computer interface for
adjusting some feature or another. Then I came across online
instructions (and maybe videos?) telling or showing how to do it.

I'll admit, I don't know how necessary those procedures really are. I
could learn that only by installing the system, and I don't have a
reason to do that.

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.

Your definition of "simple" is much different than mine. On one hand, we
have a lever with a cylindrical surface on which a cable is wrapped. The
cable passes through a housing, then pulls on (effectively) a lever
built into the derailleur. A spring makes it return. Everything is
visible and easy to understand, easy to diagnose, and can be fixed with
hand tools that fit in one's pocket.

OTOH, we have a battery, wires, an electric actuator of some kind with
who-knows-what inside it (do you know?), push buttons and unknown
circuits of microelectronic components and probably hundreds of lines of
code. In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

One day, I'm sure, Shimano will introduce "thought shifting" triggered
by some bio-electronic technology. I'm sure it will have fans who will
say "I can't believe I used to have to move my fingers to shift." I'm
sure you will be one of those fans; and I'm sure I won't.

--
- Frank Krygowski

There is another attempt to ridicule things Frank. Lets do the same. If you are scared by simple hardware and software that poll 4 simple switches and when it detects that a switch is actuated it sends a predetermined amount of pulses and a direction signal to the right stepper motor maybe you should consider a bike with a wheel you can flip to get the other gear like in the very old days. Why risk a failure of a cable or a complex mechanical device such as a derailleur with multiple pivots and a springs that can fail. Then of course you only have two gears and you have to stop and get off the bike first but hey you are not racing so it shouldn't matter. Your toaster, oven and dishwasher is more complicated than Di2.


Lou

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 10:58:13 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

From a user standpoint, Di2 is very simple -- more simple than cables. No tension adjustment or lubrication, and no sticking after riding in muck.. You have to charge it now and then -- and you can get fussy with programming (on bike, no computer necessary for certain settings). Electronic shifting is not an imperative, and it's expensive, but its a reasonable choice.

Well, sure, everything is a reasonable choice for someone in some situations.

But "no tension adjustment or lubrication"? I can't remember the last time I
did a so-called tension adjustment on anything but the folding bike; and for
whatever reason, that one seemed to settle down early this year. I think all
my shift cables are lined with plastic, but for whatever reason, I don't ever
seem to have to lubricate them. Well, except for where they pass through that
open plastic channel under the bottom bracket of one bike, and that's only
very rarely. Other lubrication? A Di2 derailleur still has mechanical pivoting
joints, doesn't it?

It's OK if someone wants to buy e-shifting. And given basic early adopter psychology, plus normal pride of ownership, it's a given that most who spend
many hundreds of dollars for its tiny benefits will say it's worth it.

But it seems obvious that 99.9999% of the world's cyclists - and even cycling
enthusiasts - get along just fine with mechanical systems. This choice proves
that, at best, bike technology is now way, way deep into diminishing returns.

And I really do think there's an important difference between "simple to use
because of incredible complexity built into a tiny box" and just plain "simple."
That difference shows up when something goes wrong.

- Frank Krygowski

What incredible complexity?

Lou

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.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 12:37:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/23/2019 5:15 AM, 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?

Well, the first clue I got was in forums such as these, where some
people posted questions about how to use the computer interface for
adjusting some feature or another. Then I came across online
instructions (and maybe videos?) telling or showing how to do it.

I'll admit, I don't know how necessary those procedures really are. I
could learn that only by installing the system, and I don't have a
reason to do that.

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.

Your definition of "simple" is much different than mine. On one hand, we
have a lever with a cylindrical surface on which a cable is wrapped. The
cable passes through a housing, then pulls on (effectively) a lever
built into the derailleur. A spring makes it return. Everything is
visible and easy to understand, easy to diagnose, and can be fixed with
hand tools that fit in one's pocket.

OTOH, we have a battery, wires, an electric actuator of some kind with
who-knows-what inside it (do you know?), push buttons and unknown
circuits of microelectronic components and probably hundreds of lines of
code. In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

One day, I'm sure, Shimano will introduce "thought shifting" triggered
by some bio-electronic technology. I'm sure it will have fans who will
say "I can't believe I used to have to move my fingers to shift." I'm
sure you will be one of those fans; and I'm sure I won't.

SRAM now has a "wireless" shifting system :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

From a user standpoint, Di2 is very simple -- more simple than cables.
No tension adjustment or lubrication, and no sticking after riding in
muck. You have to charge it now and then -- and you can get fussy with
programming (on bike, no computer necessary for certain settings).
Electronic shifting is not an imperative, and it's expensive, but its a
reasonable choice.

Well, sure, everything is a reasonable choice for someone in some situations.

But "no tension adjustment or lubrication"? I can't remember the last time I
did a so-called tension adjustment on anything but the folding bike; and for
whatever reason, that one seemed to settle down early this year. I think all
my shift cables are lined with plastic, but for whatever reason, I don't ever
seem to have to lubricate them. Well, except for where they pass through that
open plastic channel under the bottom bracket of one bike, and that's only
very rarely. Other lubrication? A Di2 derailleur still has mechanical pivoting
joints, doesn't it?

It's OK if someone wants to buy e-shifting. And given basic early adopter
psychology, plus normal pride of ownership, it's a given that most who spend
many hundreds of dollars for its tiny benefits will say it's worth it.

But it seems obvious that 99.9999% of the world's cyclists - and even cycling
enthusiasts - get along just fine with mechanical systems. This choice proves
that, at best, bike technology is now way, way deep into diminishing returns.

And I really do think there's an important difference between "simple to use
because of incredible complexity built into a tiny box" and just plain "simple."
That difference shows up when something goes wrong.

- Frank Krygowski


Face it Frank. The technology stack associated with every part of modern
life is so deep that nobody can really claim to be a neo-Luddite. So go
ahead and use friction shifters, but be aware that there’s 10 million lines
of code that run when you flush your toilet or flip a light switch. You
can’t escape it.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:58:10 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

From a user standpoint, Di2 is very simple -- more simple than cables. No tension adjustment or lubrication, and no sticking after riding in muck. You have to charge it now and then -- and you can get fussy with programming (on bike, no computer necessary for certain settings). Electronic shifting is not an imperative, and it's expensive, but its a reasonable choice.

Well, sure, everything is a reasonable choice for someone in some situations.

But "no tension adjustment or lubrication"? I can't remember the last time I
did a so-called tension adjustment on anything but the folding bike; and for
whatever reason, that one seemed to settle down early this year. I think all
my shift cables are lined with plastic, but for whatever reason, I don't ever
seem to have to lubricate them. Well, except for where they pass through that
open plastic channel under the bottom bracket of one bike, and that's only
very rarely. Other lubrication? A Di2 derailleur still has mechanical pivoting
joints, doesn't it?

It's OK if someone wants to buy e-shifting. And given basic early adopter psychology, plus normal pride of ownership, it's a given that most who spend
many hundreds of dollars for its tiny benefits will say it's worth it.

But it seems obvious that 99.9999% of the world's cyclists - and even cycling
enthusiasts - get along just fine with mechanical systems. This choice proves
that, at best, bike technology is now way, way deep into diminishing returns.

And I really do think there's an important difference between "simple to use
because of incredible complexity built into a tiny box" and just plain "simple."
That difference shows up when something goes wrong.

- Frank Krygowski

Ah, but Frank. You apparently understand, It is NEW! (and therefore
obviously better :-)

And USians apparently have an almost unlimited amount of disposable
income - I read the other day that "shopping", i.e., going to the
Mall, is now considered a form of entertainment.

And, of course, one has to "keep up with the Jones" and one way to do
it is to have a more expensive bicycle. (we have at least one bloke
here who drops the casual mention of his $4,000 bike into the
conversation at frequent intervals).

What could be more up-market than electrical shifting. It is NEW, it
is EXPENSIVE, I got it and you don't. What better reasons could
possible be imagined for owning something?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:27:21 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Well, unless, of course, the computerized equipment made the bike
lighter. Or faster. Or climbed hills quicker :-)

Or your primary interest is fiddling with the equipment.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:35:44 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

From a user standpoint, Di2 is very simple -- more simple than cables.
No tension adjustment or lubrication, and no sticking after riding in
muck. You have to charge it now and then -- and you can get fussy with
programming (on bike, no computer necessary for certain settings).
Electronic shifting is not an imperative, and it's expensive, but its a
reasonable choice.

Well, sure, everything is a reasonable choice for someone in some situations.

But "no tension adjustment or lubrication"? I can't remember the last time I
did a so-called tension adjustment on anything but the folding bike; and for
whatever reason, that one seemed to settle down early this year. I think all
my shift cables are lined with plastic, but for whatever reason, I don't ever
seem to have to lubricate them. Well, except for where they pass through that
open plastic channel under the bottom bracket of one bike, and that's only
very rarely. Other lubrication? A Di2 derailleur still has mechanical pivoting
joints, doesn't it?

It's OK if someone wants to buy e-shifting. And given basic early adopter
psychology, plus normal pride of ownership, it's a given that most who spend
many hundreds of dollars for its tiny benefits will say it's worth it.

But it seems obvious that 99.9999% of the world's cyclists - and even cycling
enthusiasts - get along just fine with mechanical systems. This choice proves
that, at best, bike technology is now way, way deep into diminishing returns.

And I really do think there's an important difference between "simple to use
because of incredible complexity built into a tiny box" and just plain "simple."
That difference shows up when something goes wrong.

- Frank Krygowski


Face it Frank. The technology stack associated with every part of modern
life is so deep that nobody can really claim to be a neo-Luddite. So go
ahead and use friction shifters, but be aware that there’s 10 million lines
of code that run when you flush your toilet or flip a light switch. You
can’t escape it.

At least you can't get junk texts on your Di2, and it doesn't talk to you or suggest gears that you might like. It doesn't make decisions for you, except the damned prohibition on cross-chaining, but I think I can program that out -- maybe.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 19:11:18 -0500, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:27:21 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Well, unless, of course, the computerized equipment made the bike
lighter. Or faster. Or climbed hills quicker :-)

Or your primary interest is fiddling with the equipment.

Yes, there is that and I am probably as guilty as anyone. Although as
I grow older I find that I tend more toward the "if it ain't broke
don't fix it" point of view.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, 23 November 2019 18:43:26 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:58:10 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

From a user standpoint, Di2 is very simple -- more simple than cables. No tension adjustment or lubrication, and no sticking after riding in muck. You have to charge it now and then -- and you can get fussy with programming (on bike, no computer necessary for certain settings). Electronic shifting is not an imperative, and it's expensive, but its a reasonable choice..

Well, sure, everything is a reasonable choice for someone in some situations.

But "no tension adjustment or lubrication"? I can't remember the last time I
did a so-called tension adjustment on anything but the folding bike; and for
whatever reason, that one seemed to settle down early this year. I think all
my shift cables are lined with plastic, but for whatever reason, I don't ever
seem to have to lubricate them. Well, except for where they pass through that
open plastic channel under the bottom bracket of one bike, and that's only
very rarely. Other lubrication? A Di2 derailleur still has mechanical pivoting
joints, doesn't it?

It's OK if someone wants to buy e-shifting. And given basic early adopter psychology, plus normal pride of ownership, it's a given that most who spend
many hundreds of dollars for its tiny benefits will say it's worth it.

But it seems obvious that 99.9999% of the world's cyclists - and even cycling
enthusiasts - get along just fine with mechanical systems. This choice proves
that, at best, bike technology is now way, way deep into diminishing returns.

And I really do think there's an important difference between "simple to use
because of incredible complexity built into a tiny box" and just plain "simple."
That difference shows up when something goes wrong.

- Frank Krygowski

Ah, but Frank. You apparently understand, It is NEW! (and therefore
obviously better :-)

And USians apparently have an almost unlimited amount of disposable
income - I read the other day that "shopping", i.e., going to the
Mall, is now considered a form of entertainment.

And, of course, one has to "keep up with the Jones" and one way to do
it is to have a more expensive bicycle. (we have at least one bloke
here who drops the casual mention of his $4,000 bike into the
conversation at frequent intervals).

What could be more up-market than electrical shifting. It is NEW, it
is EXPENSIVE, I got it and you don't. What better reasons could
possible be imagined for owning something?
--
cheers,

John B.

Once it's totally perfected, widespread and trickled-down to mid-range groupsets; I can see electronic shifting getting popular with touring bicyclists. There would be no problems with cables. I have bicycles with downtube shifters and I have bicycles with downtube shifters AND tubular tires. MY road touring bicycle has Campagnolo 9-Speed Mirage Ergo levers on it. Ratcheting front shifter lever mechanism. Why? Because I like being able to have two hands on the handlebar when honking up a hill or riding in strong cross winds on my loaded touring bike. Franks and YMMV. I DO KNOW what works best for ME.

Cheers