Dura-Ace R9200
Moderator: robbosmans
Not yet, soon though. Needs to order the junction and wires
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
-
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 9:18 pm
TBH with lbss round here your almost guaranteed to end up with bricked everything...
- MrCurrieinahurry
- Moderator
- Posts: 4825
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:01 pm
- Location: London
Basso Diamante super record EPS 12
BMC slr01 ultegra Di2
Formerly known as Curryinahurry
Chuggin bell, no wonder i like mech shifting.... what a faff for as far as i can, little advantage.TerryDi2C wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:43 amYeah.. you can either use the SM-PCE02, OR connect the lever you want to update to the rest of the system using an EW-SD300 wire.
I have asked Shimano why, expecting an answer Monday.
My guess is that the levers don't communicate with the app/phone directly (RD is the master unit), and that Shimano decided allowing firmware updates over BluetoothLE is too risky / likely to "brick" the levers. If the RD goes 'offline' during a firmware update, you're screwed... unless you connect the lever to the system by wire .
Again.. just what I think the reason is. Should know more Monday .
RidesOfJapan and I came up with two options... either unplug the FD, then use EW-JC302 and a spare EW-SD300 wire to connect one lever, and then update the next one.
Or.. take out the seatpost (poor downtube battery users) and use a single EW-SD300 wire to update the levers. Again, one at a time.
Either way, it's definitely more of a hassle than it used to be. They're not winning any points here..
-
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:35 am
Hmm.. interesting. Is shimano decided to put address server and/or 'bicycle server' into RD9250's firmware instead of BT-DN300?
Originally, BT-DN110 acts as PLC master, address server and 'bicycle server' at the same time, all other units are acting as PLC slaves/clients by default. This PLC bus is p2p network, but because of such stupid architectural decision all communication is going through BT-DN110 with original firmware.
With new hardware, wireless switch-units (ST-R9270) are transmitting their data to RD-R9250, so more logical choice here will be to put at least server stuff to RD-R9250 instead of BT-DN300. If my assumptions are correct and BT-DN300 acts as slave/client, then it may be good replacement in the future for BT-DN100 with R9150 if some another unit will act as PLC master/server.
Sadly, RD-R9250/BT-DN300 firmware is not available yet to look at it.
Overall, at first look RD-R9250 looks horrible in comparsion with RD-R9150: heavier and contains at least 3 microcontrollers with firmware for each of them. Programming and architectural complexity is pretty much high for a bicycle... Reversing this will definitely take some time.. -_-
However, FD-R9250 looks promising, maybe it will be a good combo for RD-9150 + FD-9250 in the future.
Originally, BT-DN110 acts as PLC master, address server and 'bicycle server' at the same time, all other units are acting as PLC slaves/clients by default. This PLC bus is p2p network, but because of such stupid architectural decision all communication is going through BT-DN110 with original firmware.
With new hardware, wireless switch-units (ST-R9270) are transmitting their data to RD-R9250, so more logical choice here will be to put at least server stuff to RD-R9250 instead of BT-DN300. If my assumptions are correct and BT-DN300 acts as slave/client, then it may be good replacement in the future for BT-DN100 with R9150 if some another unit will act as PLC master/server.
Sadly, RD-R9250/BT-DN300 firmware is not available yet to look at it.
Overall, at first look RD-R9250 looks horrible in comparsion with RD-R9150: heavier and contains at least 3 microcontrollers with firmware for each of them. Programming and architectural complexity is pretty much high for a bicycle... Reversing this will definitely take some time.. -_-
However, FD-R9250 looks promising, maybe it will be a good combo for RD-9150 + FD-9250 in the future.
I can't imagine spending $13k for last gen parts and OE specifications. You should be able to build it easily for that price with R9200 and top shelf parts if you shop around to avoid MSRP. You'll also end up with a bike that has your bar width, stem length, crank length, gearing, etc. You can also get the wheel spec/depth, saddle, crankset, PM, and everything else in the brand and spec of your choosing. I'll never understand buying an off-the shelf bike for that amount of money.Basscadet wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:44 amI know this is somewhat off-topic, but is the new Dura-Ace enough of an advancement that it would prevent you from buying a '21 S-Works Aethos that comes with the old 11-speed Dura-Ace @ $13,500 USD? I hate paying a premium for old technology but the only alternative is a) building the bike up which will cost more and b) going SRAM Red.
-
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:14 pm
- Location: Sunny So Cal
Walked into LBS and went home with the new group - 52/36 170mm and 11-30t. I'm going to order frame and wheelset tomorrow. I'm in California.
IMG_3130 by ipenguinking, on Flickr
IMG_3130 by ipenguinking, on Flickr
rustedsword wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:36 amInteresting... Why did they drop SM-BCR2/PCE1 support from e-tube? And practically every existing switch-units except SW-R9150?
I don't have a new hardware to be 100% sure, but since SW-R9150 is still supported, then PLC protocol has not been changed, so it seems another artifical limitation.
So, most likely BT-DN300 firmware, just like BT-DN110 will not send SYS_ACT command to all units if it has 'incompatible' unit registered. So, slave registration on BT-DN300 with fake unit id will do the job, as well as using new derailleurs with old stuff with custom firmware.
The only potential difference between BCR2/PCE1 and PCE02 firmware is maybe in bootloader protocol: original bootloader API uses 4bytes per packet at 1MHz while SM-PCE02 can be used to send 16bytes per packet at 2MHz and with multiple time slots. Afaik, SM-BCR2 hardware can only send 8bytes per packet at 2MHz. So it seems the only real possible incompatibility between new 9250 and current stuff is if they decided to not support original bootloader protocol inside these devices' bootloaders.
As bootloader protocol is used only to flash firmware, then all current and new devices should be able to communicate with each other using simple 4b/1MHz. And if original bootloader protocol it still supported, then SM-BCR2/PCE1 can be used for firmware reflash too.
You impress me but also leave me asking is this what cycling has become? I admit that nothing old school can compare to my DA 9170 equipped rig, but there is a part of me that misses the simplicity and the overall zen of mechanical bikes (but hey, my first race was in 1979 so...). I hope the 9200 stuff really delivers, though other than better ergonomics of the hoods, I have trouble seeing an argument to upgrade over 91XX. Not even sure I'm keen on the semi-wireless.rustedsword wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:20 pmHmm.. interesting. Is shimano decided to put address server and/or 'bicycle server' into RD9250's firmware instead of BT-DN300?
Originally, BT-DN110 acts as PLC master, address server and 'bicycle server' at the same time, all other units are acting as PLC slaves/clients by default. This PLC bus is p2p network, but because of such stupid architectural decision all communication is going through BT-DN110 with original firmware.
With new hardware, wireless switch-units (ST-R9270) are transmitting their data to RD-R9250, so more logical choice here will be to put at least server stuff to RD-R9250 instead of BT-DN300. If my assumptions are correct and BT-DN300 acts as slave/client, then it may be good replacement in the future for BT-DN100 with R9150 if some another unit will act as PLC master/server.
Sadly, RD-R9250/BT-DN300 firmware is not available yet to look at it.
Overall, at first look RD-R9250 looks horrible in comparsion with RD-R9150: heavier and contains at least 3 microcontrollers with firmware for each of them. Programming and architectural complexity is pretty much high for a bicycle... Reversing this will definitely take some time.. -_-
However, FD-R9250 looks promising, maybe it will be a good combo for RD-9150 + FD-9250 in the future.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.
Shimano says the BT-DN300 is the Master unit of the system..............and has already released the first firmware update for the ST-R9270 https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/e-tube/p ... l=ST-R9270rustedsword wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:20 pmHmm.. interesting. Is shimano decided to put address server and/or 'bicycle server' into RD9250's firmware instead of BT-DN300?
Originally, BT-DN110 acts as PLC master, address server and 'bicycle server' at the same time, all other units are acting as PLC slaves/clients by default. This PLC bus is p2p network, but because of such stupid architectural decision all communication is going through BT-DN110 with original firmware.
With new hardware, wireless switch-units (ST-R9270) are transmitting their data to RD-R9250, so more logical choice here will be to put at least server stuff to RD-R9250 instead of BT-DN300. If my assumptions are correct and BT-DN300 acts as slave/client, then it may be good replacement in the future for BT-DN100 with R9150 if some another unit will act as PLC master/server.
Sadly, RD-R9250/BT-DN300 firmware is not available yet to look at it.
Overall, at first look RD-R9250 looks horrible in comparsion with RD-R9150: heavier and contains at least 3 microcontrollers with firmware for each of them. Programming and architectural complexity is pretty much high for a bicycle... Reversing this will definitely take some time.. -_-
However, FD-R9250 looks promising, maybe it will be a good combo for RD-9150 + FD-9250 in the future.
There is also version 5.0.2 of E-tube for Windows
Last edited by Ritxis on Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
- robbosmans
- Moderator
- Posts: 2780
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:40 pm
- Location: Central Belgium
- Contact:
Nope, they have different internalstyro13 wrote: Do you know if the ospw system of a dura ace 9100 is compatible withe the new 9200?
kamokamo12 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:33 amI made two types of electric downtube shifters, friction and Di2.
https://youtu.be/QOA7ENnLUuw
https://youtu.be/FYhrPh0-uGg
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Another boring 9270 build:
SL8 S-Works Project Black - 6.29kg
IG: RhinosWorkshop
IG: RhinosWorkshop