by graeme_f_k on Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:00 pm
To reply to a few of the negative comments around EPS above ... and acknowledging that I have a built-in bias ...
Just because Shimano did it. doesn't necessarily make it right, but Shimano also made two totally non-compatible iterations of Di2 - Dura Ace 10s Di2, then the e-tube variants - and also did an internal battery after the external - so for Campagnolo to have actually only ever made two basic versions, and retained almost full reverse compatibility, is not really "pissing the customers around" if looked at in the context of the competition.
On v2 charger ports - the charger port in many cases does not need to be an additional drilling:
In frames originally made for external battery frames (Campagnolo or Shimano), you already have a port drilled - the one where the cable bundle previously entered the frame. That can be used.
In frames made later that retained external battery bosses, one of the bosses can be removed and that port used.
We've fitted a lot of v2 using these two methods, perfectly successfully.
Because Campagnolo wanted to retain a shared data / charge port (as they wanted to keep options open for software manipulation), that to some extend dictated what they did with the interface unit and incorporation of the charger port there. Battery choices and patents precluded using micro USB, unfortunately.
In terms of reverse compatibility, almost full reverse compatibility exists in EPS - OK, early v1 PUs won't recognise 2015 front derailleurs or the 5-lead TT interface but apart from that, all parts are reverse compatible and all parts that need to be are still available from the factory, rather than having to trawl e-bay or find a shop or distributor with old stock as one has to with early Shimano Di2. Got Athena and broken something? OK, Chorus has the same plug system. Got Record v1 and want to retrofit to v2 or v3? PU, Interface and charger needed - all else is compatible. With the caveats given, all software versions degrade gracefully ... not so all of the competition.
Wireless - this is very much swings and roundabouts.
A wired connection is secure and can be made highly water resistant, but assembly can take some time (although in most cases it's pretty quick. In 95% of the builds I have done - and as a SC we have done quite a few as well as re-doing some badly bodged ones, in some cases from scratch - we are cabled up in 10 minutes max).
A wireless connection scores because the way that SRAM have tacked it, it can be lighter and doesn't require running cables through the frame but there are 4 potential points of failure in the software, the hardware and in terms of charge.
Assembly is basically a one-time only job as for all but to contrast SRAM with both Campag and Shimano, in their respective cases, any external part of the system can be plugged to a loom that stays in the frame - so the main advantage of wireless in that respect from a user point of view is a frame with fewer ports in it.
The wireless system batteries can be, using SRAMs patents, smaller and lighter than a centrally-powered system and there is no weight of a wiring loom - that is true - however since most of the bike manufacturers are catering to the UCI weight limit at present, not making in order to produce bikes of absolute lightness, (and yes I am aware this is "WeightWeenies"), weight reduction past a certain point becomes of less value - I have a v2 Super Record system on a 55cm standard v1 Bianchi Oltre which with race wheels in tips the scales at 6.8 kg, without having to "try" on the weight saving. There's probably 3 or 4 kgs that can easily come off me before I have to worry about shaving the grammes off the bike, anyway.
Where the weight savings in a wireless shift system may matter more in the future is if disc braking gathers momentum as the braking system, at least currently, inherently adds weight to the complete bike, so saving weight in the transmission is useful, it has to be admitted.
What it is fair to say is that with ANT compatibility and a free-at-point-of-delivery App, Campagnolo have significantly raised the stakes in terms of the ability to customise and control shifting without the need for any other hardware (except, arguably, some will need to buy an iOS or Android device to run the App). The customisation options are quite radical and cater to riders with very particular requirements, too, so starting to really explore some of the potential advantages of electronic, without having to learn a whole new logic in shifting ...
It could be argued that this comes at the cost of upgrading to v3 but it's important only if you want or need it - as others have pointed out, all the functionality that probably 95% of users need was already built into EPS v1 anyway.
I guess the last question is why we feel the need for manufacturers to upgrade year-on-year and why upgrades have to be radical - if a system is basically right for it's time - EPS v1, already 11s, using existing wheel, cassette, and chain technology, already offering single or multiple shifts, by design extremely weather resistant, already as crash-resistant as practical, already with on-board diagnostic function - then it's natural that what follows will be incremental change.
On the mechanical side, too, it's worth saying that Revolution Plus is the first compatibility change in Campag 11s since MY2009 - so a six-season lifespan on parts and still full factory availability of the superceded components - again, hardly something to piss customers off ...
A Tech-Reps work is never done ...
Head Tech, Campagnolo main UK ASC
Pls contact via velotechcycling"at"aim"dot"com, not PM, for a quicker answer. Thanks!
