Creeping brake pad drag

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 7:00:26 PM UTC, Radey Shouman wrote:

When the zombie apocalypse comes, we'll
ride bicycles just as long as the chain supply holds out, and no longer.

Every Christmas I send the guy with the keys to the KMC warehouse a hamper from Fortnum & Mason.

Andre Jute
Boy Scout

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 1:58:13 PM UTC-8, 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

Because all modern bikes use a plastic cable router under the bottom bracket I've never had to lubricate those. Older frames with steel routers did have to be cleaned and lubed or they would wear grooves in the frame that could wear out the cable where it crossed.

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 2:36:09 PM UTC-8, wrote:
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

Lou, while I agree that the complexity isn't all that great (it doesn't use stepping motors - it uses solenoids and ratchets) - it is still something that needs continuous servicing - the battery always has to be charged and the actual lifespan of the charge is relatively short. It is really nothing more than a NEW THING to buy. It offers no advantages even if it has no practical disadvantages.

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 2:00:26 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:



My point was not that I would actually make one. My point was that
manual (non-STI) shifting is a truly simple system. Despite your
claims, Di2 is not a simple system. The complexity is hidden inside an
unrepairable box that you replace if it goes bad, but the complexity
is there.

For either system, equally, most of the complexity is hidden in the
design of the chain, and gears. The chain is unrepairable, and all of
us replace it when it goes bad. When the zombie apocalypse comes, we'll
ride bicycles just as long as the chain supply holds out, and no longer.

Focus, please! The difference in complexity between the two systems is not the
chain, the cogs or the mechanical parts of the derailleur - i.e. the parallelogram
linkage and the jockey wheel setup. Those are essentially identical, whether
moved by cable or Di2.

The difference in complexity is the lever, cable and a bit of cable housing vs.
some pushbuttons, an electronic actuator of some kind (probably a stepper motor)
a collection of microelectronic bits and a few hundred lines of code.

And as a final detail, I wasn't comparing Di2 against STI. Think barcons. If you
like, make them index barcons, because the detents don't add much complexity.

Finally, I'll repeat that I'm not saying Di2 doesn't work, or can't be reliable,
or should be abolished. I'm saying that in my view, its benefits are not worth
its detriments.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 08:25:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 5:50:31 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 5:36:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
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

Upthread, I described the workings of a friction shifter in maybe 50 words or
so. Except for the design of the derailleur's mechanics (which is essentially
the same for both friction shifting and Di2) my description is very nearly
enough for a competent machinist to make a working system. It's that simple.

Can you do the same now for Di2? Don't omit a sufficiently thorough explanation
of the micro code and a description of the actuator in the derailleur. Describe
it well enough that someone can make one, plus program the code.

Why does anyone have to make one for their own. Shimano/Sram/Campagnolo did that for me.

Similarly, if you like we can compare descriptions of what to check if each
shifting system stops moving the derailleur. I know what to do if my rear
derailleur cable breaks and my bike is stuck in the smallest cog. Two times
(in 50+ years) I've fixed that on the road, far from home.

I don't make choices which if it went wrong isn't the end of the world or life threatening based on something that may happen once in 25 years. When it happens I deal with it. Probably I ride home or nearest bike shop in a not optimal gear like you wil do if a cable snapped and you don't carry a spare and/or the tools to replace it. Nobody carries a spare cable for their normal rides. Of coarse in this sort of discussions people are always far from home and in de middle of nowhere which they almost never do.

Tell us what you should do if your Di2 gets stuck in the smallest cog.

Like I said I deal with it like you have to deal with it. But I'm still waiting for 6 years now for that to happen with my Di2 system.

The comparison should show which is complex and which is not.

Why do all mechanical people get nervous when electronics are involved? In my line of work the mechanical parts are the least reliable not the circuit boards or the software once tested and debugged. Electronic shifting is not a complex system and not inherently unreliable. Don't compare a downtube friction shifter with Di2 shifting a 11-12 speed gear systems. That is another discussion. A simple motor and some switches replace all the mechanical parts within a STI shifter and a cable. Can you shift a 11 speed reliable with a downtube friction shifter by the way?

Lou

Re shifting a 11 speed with a down tune shifter. I've never tried it
but I can, and do, shift a 10 speed reliable with a down tube shifter
:-)

And for those who can't I might mention Eddy Merckx who was said to
have stated "shifting? I haven't missed a shift since I was eight
years old" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 7:32:57 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

BTW, I'm curious how many bikes you own, and how many have electronic
shifting. I have five bikes that I ride regularly, so I suspect
converting all to electronic shifting would be quite expensive. Have you
done that?

I have 7 bikes and I will end up this year with 11000 km. Two of the bikes are ridden less than 500 km/yr. Two of them have Di2. I don't convert bikes to Di2 they already had Di2 when bought.

I thought so. IOW, for you, cable operated shifting is actually sufficient. If
it were not, you wouldn't put up with whatever disadvantages you perceive in
mechanical shifting.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 3:07:46 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 10:38:40 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2019 11:35 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 6:04:58 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 8:57:43 PM UTC-5, Ralph Barone wrote:
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.


It’s not bicycle related, but I spent WAY more time fiddling with cars
before the computers took over. Idle speed, idle mixture, choke
adjustments, timing, dwell, vacuum advance, plug gap. Now I just pour gas
and drive. I could imagine Di2 to be that way if you wanted it to be.

My point here is not that we should eschew everything controlled by electronics.
My main point is that we should rationally evaluate benefits vs. detriments; and
that in my view, the benefits of electronic shifting are minimal and too costly.

Cars have increased greatly in reliability and performance, often because of
electronics, and that's good. But Di2 has not improved bike shifting or
shifting reliability to anything like the same degree.

- Frank Krygowski

Says who? You have again a strong opinion about the reliability of something you never used. I haven't touched my Di2 system in 6 years now using my cross bike in brutal conditions and undergoing a brutal cleaning regime at the carwash. It has been a boring system regarding maintenance. Is it worth the extra cost? That should even decide for their own. I'm not plugging electronic shifting I just oppose to the idea that it is complex and therefor unreliable.

You seem to have misunderstood. I never said Di2 was unreliable. I said
I don't think it has improved shifting reliability to a significant degree.

Why? Because ordinary shifting is already extremely reliable. There's
not much room for improvement.

As with so many bicycle equipment "advances," we're chasing minuscule
and diminishing returns.

A lot of it depends on how you ride your bike. On a CX bike in the muck, the reliability of a Di2 front derailleur shift under load may be a race winner. Ghost shifting of a gunked up cable under the BB may be a race loser.. You can also use satellite shifters if you are a sprinter or a climiber or have a TT bike with bar extenders. The degree of return depends on who you are and how you use your bike.


That makes sense. Or more briefly, Di2 _may_ have advantages for racers, in
certain circumstances.

(I wonder how many people posting here still enter races?)

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 24 November 2019 15:14:40 UTC-5, Duane wrote:


You’re arguing with people that had the same sort of argument about
brifters.

Some people still argue that Brifters or Ergos aren't needed on ANY bicycle.

"Needed"?

I'd say brifters are needed to be competitive in a criterium race. They're
often, but not always, needed to be competitive in the final sprint of a road
race.

When else are they "needed"?

I wonder how heated the arguments would have been had the internet been around when the transition from wooden frames or from wooden wheels to metal ones or from solid rubber tires to pneumatic tires?

When pneumatic tires were introduced, it became impossible to win a race on
solid tires. The difference in rolling resistance was that dramatic. So was
the difference in comfort.

The same can be said about multiple gears. Very soon, everybody saw the advantages
and knew the benefits outweighed the detriments.

But since then, returns on technology have diminished. The benefits of most
innovations since, oh, 2000 or so are barely measurable in most situations.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 11:48:44 PM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 08:25:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 5:50:31 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 5:36:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
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

Upthread, I described the workings of a friction shifter in maybe 50 words or
so. Except for the design of the derailleur's mechanics (which is essentially
the same for both friction shifting and Di2) my description is very nearly
enough for a competent machinist to make a working system. It's that simple.

Can you do the same now for Di2? Don't omit a sufficiently thorough explanation
of the micro code and a description of the actuator in the derailleur. Describe
it well enough that someone can make one, plus program the code.

Why does anyone have to make one for their own. Shimano/Sram/Campagnolo did that for me.

Similarly, if you like we can compare descriptions of what to check if each
shifting system stops moving the derailleur. I know what to do if my rear
derailleur cable breaks and my bike is stuck in the smallest cog. Two times
(in 50+ years) I've fixed that on the road, far from home.

I don't make choices which if it went wrong isn't the end of the world or life threatening based on something that may happen once in 25 years. When it happens I deal with it. Probably I ride home or nearest bike shop in a not optimal gear like you wil do if a cable snapped and you don't carry a spare and/or the tools to replace it. Nobody carries a spare cable for their normal rides. Of coarse in this sort of discussions people are always far from home and in de middle of nowhere which they almost never do.

Tell us what you should do if your Di2 gets stuck in the smallest cog.

Like I said I deal with it like you have to deal with it. But I'm still waiting for 6 years now for that to happen with my Di2 system.

The comparison should show which is complex and which is not.

Why do all mechanical people get nervous when electronics are involved? In my line of work the mechanical parts are the least reliable not the circuit boards or the software once tested and debugged. Electronic shifting is not a complex system and not inherently unreliable. Don't compare a downtube friction shifter with Di2 shifting a 11-12 speed gear systems. That is another discussion. A simple motor and some switches replace all the mechanical parts within a STI shifter and a cable. Can you shift a 11 speed reliable with a downtube friction shifter by the way?

Lou

Re shifting a 11 speed with a down tune shifter. I've never tried it
but I can, and do, shift a 10 speed reliable with a down tube shifter
:-)

And for those who can't I might mention Eddy Merckx who was said to
have stated "shifting? I haven't missed a shift since I was eight
years old" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Even Eddy changed his mind. Look what he is selling now:

https://www.eddymerckx.com

Lou

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 11:59:10 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 24 November 2019 15:14:40 UTC-5, Duane wrote:


You’re arguing with people that had the same sort of argument about
brifters.

Some people still argue that Brifters or Ergos aren't needed on ANY bicycle.

"Needed"?

I'd say brifters are needed to be competitive in a criterium race. They're
often, but not always, needed to be competitive in the final sprint of a road
race.

When else are they "needed"?

I wonder how heated the arguments would have been had the internet been around when the transition from wooden frames or from wooden wheels to metal ones or from solid rubber tires to pneumatic tires?

When pneumatic tires were introduced, it became impossible to win a race on
solid tires. The difference in rolling resistance was that dramatic. So was
the difference in comfort.

The same can be said about multiple gears. Very soon, everybody saw the advantages
and knew the benefits outweighed the detriments.

But since then, returns on technology have diminished. The benefits of most
innovations since, oh, 2000 or so are barely measurable in most situations.

- Frank Krygowski

I came across this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJ06mro5fw

Lou