tranzformer wrote:
So then how an one speak about something, if one hasn't experienced that something? Seems a bit strange to have a bunch of guys talk about Di2 when they haven't even spent significant time using it (not talking about a test ride in the shop parking lot wearing flip-flops).
if I'm not mistaken, this topic is about mechanicals. I don't give my opinion on Di2 but on mechanical groupsets. I've tried (only tried, like few rides) Di2, but didn't really have to do that to know that a regular DA 9000 suits me just perfectly. just like 7900 and 7800 did. from my perspective, of someone who does 10-15k kms a year, this is the top. anything above is just fancy.
tranzformer wrote:But there are a lot of people on here that get a new bike every year/every other year. Yeah not everyone on here. But for some members on here, paying extra for Di2 isn't going to break the bike build fund. Btw, Di2 isn't "A LOT" more expensive that the mechanical equivalent.
of course, there are always people who pay extra to get in front of equipment progress. It's fine for them I guess as long as they have the extra cash. but when shops try to sell electronic to consumers with limited budgets (say: 3000euro) they're not acting in clients best interests IMO, as for the buck they could well get overally better bikes - better wheels for instance - with mechanical groupset.
tranzformer wrote:New religion of consumerism? There is nothing new about that. Let me guess, you don't own a smart phone nor have high speed internet nor have other modern day conveniences since those would be giving into the religion of consumerism?
I have no idea what bikes you ride or what your cycling budget is. But for one, there will always been someone who will think you spend too much time and money on this hobby of ours. Secondly, if we can't have nice gear, than why even have this forum?
it's not new, point taken, but vastly spreading across the markets. and I'd argue that the line between what's necessary/functional and what's fancy/whimsy has been wiped out by the propaganda of a necessity to have the very latest iteration of literally everything. products' life cycles are getting shorter, *features* are piling up with every new generation, and the quality decreases so rapidly, your product often breakes before a new version surfaces from the cheap work camps in Asia.
of course it's not about living the life of a caveman ditching all the modern technology, but my view is that the world (as: us, the consumers) has lost a balance in all of this.
as for WW - it was born out of passion, not some irrational desire to have the best, the latest. don't confuse the two.
tranzformer wrote:What is wrong with product innovation? I don't get it. Do you complain that you have a car or use public transportation and wish you had a horse and carriage instead? Do you complain about having a dishwasher or washing machine? You make product innovation sound like a sin.
No one is saying that older products or parts aren't worthy of being used anymore. 9 speed and 10 speed bikes still work. But despite that, there is something regarding the improvements that Di2 have made. Whether that is worth it to you or not is up to you. But you can't really judge that until you actually use it more than a 5-10 min test ride around the parking lot.
[/quote]
to answer this briefly: nothing's wrong yet everything is. but first, let's distinguish the strive for innovation behind the closed doors of labs and various science institutes that bring us cancer cures, graphite or white laser technology, and simply making our daily life instruments, like phones, cars, or the household goods *better*. by *better* I mean adding the qualities that aren't crucial to functionality. like laptops being thin as a sheet of paper. smartphones being the size of small tablets. 3-cylinder, direct intake, turbocharged 1.6 engines that produce just 100hp. freezers that order food. all would be well, if those laptops' batteries lasted longer than a year or two, phones didn't break under stronger grip or crash their operating systems every once in a while, the engines were durable enough to cover more than 100.000 kms without a major breakdown.. etc, etc.
so yeah the progress that makes me visit shops or repair services more frequently than 10 years ago is not a progress at all. getting back to cycling, my first bike was some alu on RX100. heavy, flexy, the drivetrain was awfull. 6 or 7 years ago I bought a winter bike on alu/CF frame with 105, pricetag-wise, almost an exact equivalent of my first ride. boy it was day and night. that's the kind of improvement I'm talking about. when I sold it after two years, some minor tweaks and it rode like new. now, with electronics, nothing's that obvious. I can agree it shifts a bit 'nicer', the front mostly. but maybe 'differently' is the better word. on the other hand it introduces problems previously unknown - like those described in the recent
rear der Ultegra DI2 topic. battery issues, software issues. 'unknown' malfunctions that won't allow you to ride your bike without a specialists' help. I've no clue what are the % ratings of failures in electronic groupsets, but the reason they even exist in the first place is because it's electronics.
so for me, all things considered, Di2 is not a progress. it's a fancy option. potentially unreliable and problematic expensive option over something perfectly good.