With the event of Dura-Ace DI2 going 11spd and Campagnolo already being 11spd, is it a case that Ultegra DI2 10spd will be obsolete by 2013?

Could it not just be programmed to run 11 speeds?

I'm sure it could be but not by the average cyclist, hence I can see shimano's trickle down tech reaching Ultegra in 2013 (or sooner) meaning the Ultegra 10spd g/set will be outdated very quickly (tho it could be that just the "brains",block & chain need updating).

Bingo!

Being forever stuck in the big ring and small cog will be the equivalent of the dreaded "blue screen". Then when you call to get it resolved you'll be asked a series of questions, put on hold, then told to hold the right button as you repeatedly push the left button until you hear three beeps, followed by a long tone. Then, your connection with the support tech will be mysteriously disconnected right before the crucial last step to ensure a successful reset of the system. Ah, I miss being able to fix everything on the road with my trusty multitool.

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ

Between myself and two people I ride with, none of us have had one problem with di2 so far. Combined thats about 3 years between us. I love it. Makes my sora equipped commuting bike feel so old school!

_________________
FELT AR0 Now sold.
Crit Weapon. CAAD10 105 W/Hollowgram chainset, Ksyrium SLR/FFWD F6R Ltd's
Velo Club Bristol

You won't get DA Di2 Ver 2 at least till 2013.

So what's it got to be outdated about ???

Understand your concern about 'future proofing' but its somewhat like the transition between 9speed and 10 speed clusters. By the time it really felt 'obsolete' ... it was time to change the groupset already. Which is typically about 5~6 years with regular use (5k-10k kilometers a year). Had the same dilemma when I was running DA7700.

Also, chances are, there may be a new 'frame standard' for rear spacing if they really want to change the system for the overall good. By then which, your frame may be 'obsolete' too ...

My comments were said a bit tongue in cheek. I too have heard mostly good things about it. But I still just have no desire to jump ship from mechanical to electric and that's coming from someone who's a technology geek by most peoples standards. Gimme wifi, throw it in the cloud and let me find it, gimme all the latest computer wizardry you got and I'll generally welcome it and say gimme more. But there's something kind of sacred (to me at least) about a bicycle and it's mechanical purity. And no, just because I used the word "mechanical" doesn't mean I like SRAM. But by the logic above, with three people using it for a year making that 3 years of trouble free service, why stop there. There's gotta be at least a thousand people (make it simple) using Di2 therefore that must equate to a thousand years of trouble free service. Let's just say that in one year you and your two buddies have been trouble free. That's great. I'm happy for you. I'm just glad we still have a choice. To each his own. Damn! My iPhone is flickering...

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ

Why do you suggest a new rear spacing standard when numerous posts here on WW and elsewhere have solidly indicated a 130mm rear 11 speed hub?....ok maybe something else may be in the works for disk brakes (and thus a need for a frame with the associated brake mounts) but so far not looking that way for rim brakes.........correct?

Sorry, nothing of value to add, but that was brilliant.

_________________
Cervelo R3, Campagnolo Chorus/Record mix... pastatrails.blogspot.com
And you can call me Macktastik Honey Pete Kicks, thank you.

Yes, you're right. That's what I'm referring to.

Shimano has seldom been shy to suggest a new 'standard' if it helps to overcome technical limitations. And the 130mm spacing is a limiting problem when you want to increase the number of cogs as well as include a disc brake option in the system while keeping a viably robust wheel platform. They are already testing a 142mm rear spacing aren't they for MTB/ Downhill bikes ???

Which is why I said 'chances are ...'. Nobody outside of the innermost development circles know for certain ( I certainly don't). But the technical limitations are there for everyone to observe and consider.

I know I'm getting a bit OT from the Ultegra question, but in this moment I've gotta say that the human body is what it is. I feel I have fairly average foot placement and angle on the pedals......and with all 3 of my bikes I barely clear the chainstays with my heels. MTB's have 135 but (at least until lately) they were dealing with triple cranks with a wider chainline - so it was a compromise forced on us. Doubles don't belong using anything wider than 130 (as my body tells me when I ride that damn MTB).

It's one thing to try to try to introduce something new......but on the otherhand the human body came first and isn't budging on it's own optimal specs.

Yes, I agree with this too.

But the real issue isn't about forcing the cranks to go wider to clear the stays. The cranks don't have to be , the stays just need a bit of tweaking to something of a swoopy 's' and current cranks will do perfectly fine. But its whether there is sufficient clearance to clear the heels for some people (like in your case here ...) ???

There is more than enough space to cater for that extra 5mm (2.5mm on each side) for the cranks but heels clipping may be an issue if frame manufacturers do not exercise discipline in their frame build/ design though.

If by obsolete you mean "working just fine" and "supported by Shimano for the years to come", then yes, obsolete.

_________________
Bikes: Raceur, Beateur

Problem is chainline. An assimetric rear axle could be a solution for disc brakes, that wouldn't need a wider chain line.