New dura-ace R9100

[allenpg]

Because I am a very naughty boy, I recently decompiled the eTube software, and loaded it into Visual Studio for a poke about. It is programmed in c#, and therefore sits on the .NET framework (which is why it doesn't support Mac; a typically ridiculous move from Shimano, who could have just programmed it in c++ and ported it (but that would involve finding a good Japanese programmer...))

I found a SHIT LOAD, and I mean a SHIT LOAD of errors in the code, as well as horrific commenting, and naming conventions, dodgy method construction, really bad my-first-programming-project level coding, complete lack of finesse, etc. and that was just with the main application, before I even got started on the associated files. So, the fact that this is causing errors does not surprise me one single bit.

It looks like the software has been 'coded' (and I use that term loosely) by a single guy, who really doesn't know what he is doing. The fact that it is done in c# makes me think they got some goon over from the banking section and asked him to make it.

Really shocking.

There seems to be a recurring theme of component programmers in the bike industry. You would think there would be enough good programmers that are bike nuts that would love to work for Shimano, SRAM, etc. Of course, the pay is not as good as other companies, but you get to work directly in the sport you love. Shimano North America HQ is here in Irvine. There are TONS of programmers around here...heck, Valve is literally down the street from them (right next to the bike path)!

[TheDarkInstall]

Because I am a very naughty boy, I recently decompiled the eTube software, and loaded it into Visual Studio for a poke about. It is programmed in c#, and therefore sits on the .NET framework (which is why it doesn't support Mac; a typically ridiculous move from Shimano, who could have just programmed it in c++ and ported it (but that would involve finding a good Japanese programmer...))

I found a SHIT LOAD, and I mean a SHIT LOAD of errors in the code, as well as horrific commenting, and naming conventions, dodgy method construction, really bad my-first-programming-project level coding, complete lack of finesse, etc. and that was just with the main application, before I even got started on the associated files. So, the fact that this is causing errors does not surprise me one single bit.

It looks like the software has been 'coded' (and I use that term loosely) by a single guy, who really doesn't know what he is doing. The fact that it is done in c# makes me think they got some goon over from the banking section and asked him to make it.

Really shocking.

There seems to be a recurring theme of component programmers in the bike industry. You would think there would be enough good programmers that are bike nuts that would love to work for Shimano, SRAM, etc. Of course, the pay is not as good as other companies, but you get to work directly in the sport you love. Shimano North America HQ is here in Irvine. There are TONS of programmers around here...heck, Valve is literally down the street from them (right next to the bike path)!

Definitely, you are totally right. Programming a software interface for a closed hardware system with only a couple of adjustable variables should be an absolute piece of piss. An 18 year old 1st year Computer Science undergraduate could do it between lectures, and have it out the door within a day. Hell, there were 14 year olds cracking copy-protected boot sectors on magnetic disks back in the early 90s, and they learned that by themselves with no internet to help them. There really is no excuse for anything other than perfection, when it comes to this stuff.

I don't want to be 'that guy', but as someone else also said, this is a bit of a trait of Japanese manufacturing, and is across all of their tech industries. They make absolutely superb hardware, but can't seem to work out how to program software for any of it, so you end up with fiasco's like this (it is also why programming jobs are relatively well paid in Tokyo...)

I am in two minds whether or not to start an open source project to write an alternative software interface... it would no doubt cause a lot of knickers to get in a twist, which is the main reason I am not gong ahead with this, and also I sort of don't want to be doing their job for them, especially considering how much they charge for the stuff, but on the other hand I don't see them fixing it any time soon.

If any coders out there would consider teaming up to do this, we could do it on the sly, and release it over GitHub...

[RimClencher]

Sounds like a great project, but considering the anal way Shimano might go about prosecuting people for doing something useful like that, I would start covering my tracks from the get-go.

And, as interesting as this information is to read about, could they even think enough damage has already been done to take some kind of action? Not that I know anything about this stuff.

[TheDarkInstall]

On topic;

Seems Di2 is delayed for all the pro-teams as well...

[goodboyr]

And where's the fd and Rd 9070 firmware for synchroshift? 3 weeks ago they said "two weeks".........

[Calnago]

Not sure I understand the appeal of "syncroshift". I guess the idea is that basically you press one button to go to the next higher gear, and another button to go to the next lower gear. That's fine, except with a two chainring system, that next gear either way may be incrementally higher or lower and cause a shift between both the chainrings and cassette and result in possibly an almost identical gear that you just shifted from. Meaning you'd have to "synchroshift" again, to have it go through all it's gyrations of moving back to the chainring it was possibly on prior to the first shift and simply shift one cog at the back. All that commotion seems really convoluted when with experience, you know exactly where you want to be and just shift accordingly.

Here's an example:
Suppose you're running a 34/50 compact crank up front with an 11/28 cassette at the back. Pretty common setup.
Now suppose you're in the 50/21 combo and ramping up speed gradually. Your next smallest cogs are a 19 then a 17 down the cassette. Very likely what you'd want to do is just shift the rear once down to the 19, then in a little bit shift the rear once more to the 17. Pretty easy progression, simple shifts, no chance of chain drop, always maintaining a good chain line, etc.

But now let's assume synchro shift is in play, and please correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of how synchro shifting actually works.
So, same example, assume you're in the 50/21 combo and gradually increasing your speed over level terrain. You hit the button for the next higher gear... and instead of just shifting the rear one cog, it drops the front from the 50 tooth chainring down to the 34, and shifts the rear all the way down to the 14. This is the next highest gear possible, yet it is not really much of a change at all in gear inches.
So you hit the button again, because you hardly notice any change from the first shift... and it puts you into the 13 cog at the rear and stays in the 34 ring up front. So you're now in a gear that is almost identical to a 50/19 but getting on the verge of an awkward crossed chainline. The 50/19 combo would be a much better gear to be in at this point from a chainline perspective and it's almost identical gear inches to the 34/13 combo. And it would have been so much easier to get to with a simple shift of one cog at the rear.
So, now you want your next highest gear so you hit the button once again, and the next highest gear is in fact the 50/19, so off we go again for a convoluted shift involving moving the chain from the small to the big ring up front and moving the back from the 13 to the 19. And voila, you're in almost exactly the same gear as you were before you hit the button. So... hit it again of course, and the next gear in the progression is 34/12. Ugh... ok Mr. Synchro... lets shift back down to the small ring up front and all the way down to the 12 from the 19.

So, if that was difficult to follow... good. Because that's what I don't get with syncro shift, if that is in fact how it works. Now, I suppose if you could program it yourself to say "this is how I want the progressions to go", that would at least enable you to tell it to not do a shift which involves changing both the front ring and the rear cog and ending up in virtually the same gear you just left.

Thoughts? Am I off base in what syncro shift really is supposed to do and/or does?

[pantelones]

Thoughts? Am I off base in what syncro shift really is supposed to do and/or does?

Here is what it will do:
pic upload

[ooo]

real photos of SW-R9150 sprinter-climber smart shifter with full size e-tube port connector

[wingguy]

But now let's assume synchro shift is in play, and please correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of how synchro shifting actually works.
So, same example, assume you're in the 50/21 combo and gradually increasing your speed over level terrain. You hit the button for the next higher gear... and instead of just shifting the rear one cog, it drops the front from the 50 tooth chainring down to the 34, and shifts the rear all the way down to the 14.

No, that is absolutely not what it will do. Syncro shift will only shift the Chainrings once on the way up the cassette and once on the way down the cassette. If you're speeding up it will not drop you to the 34, and if you're slowing down it will not lift you to the 50.

[cyclespeed]

I can just about see the benefit (maybe!) of the semi-synchronized, but not the full. I would rather have control over my front mech and when it shifts. Maybe good for beginner though?

[Calnago]

Thoughts? Am I off base in what syncro shift really is supposed to do and/or does?

Here is what it will do:
pic upload

@pantelones: Thanks for that, and apologies for not looking it up myself, too lazy but mostly saw no interest in it. And now I know why.

I cannot see how anyone who has experience shifting a mulitgeared bicycle would find this at all useful. Proper shifting is a combination of a whole lot of things, including rider weight, fitness, natural cadence, terrain, cassette and chainring choices, whether racing or not racing, etc etc etc... The "semi synchro" mode is basically what I do instinctively when I shift between the chain rings, except I have the choice of 1,2,3,4 etc cogs at that instant, in one motion (I use Campy, but applies almost as well to Shimano mech). With their semi synchro mode you have to tell it how many cogs you want it to move, and that is set. With my current setup, I "think it", and I'm there... 1,2,3, 4, or even 5 at a time. In practice, I never shift more than 3 rear cogs at a time, rarely shift 3, often shift 2, but sometimes just shift one when I change chain rings. It all depends on a lot of factors as I mentioned.

I like having full control and virtually instant gear changes to whatever I am thinking at the time, simultaneously shifting front and rear to where I want it to be, in a second. To date, none of the electric shifting groups can do that as efficiently as I can do it with my mechanical shifting system.

The "full synchro" mode is much more along the lines of what I think might, maybe, sort of but not really, be a tiny bit useful to a rank beginner with no concept of how the gears work and their relationships and no willingness to learn. This is more along the lines of what I was thinking when I produced my example of a pure progressive "next higher or next lower" shifting system, which would be an inefficient nightmare as I explained in my previous post. At least the full synchro mode might help those beginners and/or people who just don't care to know what's going on "down there and back there".

But those types of people might just be better served with little reminders on their handlebars, such as this person had during a sportif ride I was on. I just had to take a picture... so I guess there are those people out there...

[cdtf]

I can just about see the benefit (maybe!) of the semi-synchronized, but not the full. I would rather have control over my front mech and when it shifts. Maybe good for beginner though?

For me. Can't shift with my right hand, lacking 3 fingers.

[goodboyr]

I guess I just like to try new things, and since I have the components to do it, I will give it a whirl with an open mind. Calnago, I understand your points, and although I am a very experienced cyclist, do not take your opinion as insulting ( although if it came from someone else, I might... )
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Calnago]

@cdtf: Yes... some of this stuff could have enormous benefits to people such as yourself, especially if you could customize it to accommodate whatever physical handicaps people might have. So yes, I see this being very useful for people in those situations. Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry for forgetting that, because I actually know someone who had a missing finger and electric shifting made things much easier when it was introduced.

@goodboyr: My opinion wasn't meant to be "insulting", I just see this as kind of gimmicky thing that does not add anything useful, excepts dumbs down the experience. But given what @cdtf has pointed out, there could be some very useful benefits to those who may have to deal with physical handicaps.
Let us know what you think after you put it through its paces.

[goodboyr]

Absolutely. From you, I know you didn't mean to insult. No worries and will definitely report back objectively as possible.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk