Gear shifting - electronic or not?

However you look at it, it's 2024 and electronic gear shifting is now available to masses. There is no need to pay $700 for just the rear derailleur only. Thanks to new groupsets, like SRAM Apex, a 12-speed electronic rear mech can be had for "as little" as $270. So when the prices keep dropping and everyone around you raves about how great button-shifting is, you start to wonder - should I go for it?

 

First of all, there is no denying that electronic shifting comes with measurable benefits. Two main ones are precision and speed. These systems can change gears faster than mechanical indexed setups. In terms of precision - the best way to understand the difference is to try shifting a 9-speed and 12-speed cassette with a friction shifter. Since the 7, 8, and 9-speed cassettes used wider chains and had wider spacing between cogs, there was simply a lot more travel required to move the chain between these cogs. This means there was much more tolerance to the position of chain. A slightly misaligned chain would still run through cogs just fine. Not so with a 12-speed cassette. Cogs are now spaced so tightly that a narrower chain is needed and that means much shorter jumps between cogs and much less tolerance to chain misposition. 

Spacing and sprocket width of typical Shimano cassettes. Source: BikeGremlin

 

The situation becomes more challenging the more cogs you pack on the cassette and that will require higher shifting precision that mechanical systems may won't be able to provide. This makes me predict that 13-speed derailleurs may be the last ones to be offered in the mechanical version. Everything beyond that will be electronic-only. Now keep in mind that I'm writing it from a standpoint of someone who has 3 bikes, none of which use electronic shifting, 2 of them still run 9-speed cassettes, with one using friction shifting. So yes, I'm way behind the newest tech.

 

As you can tell right now, I decided that despite the obvious benefits, electronic shifting is not for me. At least not right now. The reasons are:

Price

Yes, prices came down quite a bit. For a simple 1x drivetrain, the most expensive components are the rear derailleur and shifters. These entry-level components will still cost you about $500-$600 total. That's a good chunk of money and everyone needs to decide if it's worth it. But price may be just a minor problem. The next one is...

Battery

Note that I didn't say battery life, but battery in general. Of course, there is a non-zero chance that you may run out of battery to your "gearbox" during your ride, but the bigger problem for me is the existence of battery in the first place. I see bikes as simple machines. One of the major advantages over other means of transport is that bicycles don't require fuel and only very little maintenance. Once you throw in battery to the mix, you complicate things unnecessarily. Now you have to think about "fueling" your bike before the ride. Now the "it just works anytime" mode is gone. You sacrifice simplicity for the sake of precision and speed. You need to decide, which one is more important to you.

Reliability

This may not be a burning problem for you, as modern components are generally quite reliable, but certainly increased level of complexity over purely mechanical systems means that chances of something going wrong go up. After all, an electronic derailleur contains not just circuit boards, but also battery, motors, wireless communication, mechanical systems, etc. It's like the Charles Lindbergh situation - when asked why he wanted to fly across Atlantic in a single engine plane, he replied that with 2 engines chances of something going wrong are doubled.

Compatibility

This is the big reason why I'm still resisting. Once you dive into the electronic groupset, you are stuck as these components are only compatible with their own kind. That's not a problem if you are buying the entire groupset for your bike, but if you like to mix and match, you will run into issues. On the other hand, mechanical systems, especially when running on friction shifting, give you all the setup freedom you want. Comparing the the world of computer operating systems, electronic shifting is like MacOS - works great, is fast, precise, easy to learn, but also costs more and locks you in. Basically, you sacrifice some of your freedom for the convenience of use. On the other hand, friction shifting a mechanical derailleur is like Linux - a much steeper learning curve, less precise, but free and with complete compatibility and freedom.

Looks

Finally, there is a beauty problem. Let's be honest - these modern electronic derailleurs are ugly. First of all, they are all black. Gone are the classic, polished silver components. Next, due to integrated battery they look like the Hunchback of Notre Dame (the rear ones) or a British Royal Guard in a comically oversized hat (the front ones). There is no subtlety in these designs.

Shimano GRX Di2 rear derailleur - looks like Robocop's mechanical arm

SRAM Force eTap front mech - is it a tumor?

So there you have it. Some of you will consider these to be unimportant and irrelevant. That's ok - everyone has different priorities. For now, I'm perfectly happy with my oldie, friction 2x9 setup and I don't really need anything "better".

Indoor trainers or outdoor rides?

It's winter time so some of you are likely still in hibernation mode, which means parking your bike in the garage until it gets warmer again to ride. Others, myself included, will keep riding as long as it's reasonably dry outside (i.e. it's not pouring heavily at the moment). Then, there is a third group that will not ride outside, but use an indoor trainer instead.

The new and fancy Garmin Tacx 3M for as little as... $2000. (Source: garmin.com)

I don't like indoor trainers and find them pointless, but I think I understand why they may be an attractive option for some cyclists. I'm guessing that there are at least 3 main technical reasons why someone would use an indoor trainer:

1. Bad weather. This one is most obvious. Some people don't like riding when it's cold, icy, snowy, rainy, etc.
2. No "winter bike". Some people only have 1 bike (impossible!) and they don't want to expose their nice, expensive bike to road salt, mud, etc.
3. No place to properly clean a bike. Some people live in apartments or tighter spaces that lack facilities to clean the bike after a ride. Knowing that I can simply use a garden hose to wash my bike right after, makes me want to ride it more in winter time.

But then there is another, important, philosophical reason why some prefer indoor trainers, while others would never use them. It's the answer to a question - why we ride?

It's basically a difference between racing or more competitive riding and touring or "romantic cycling". You simply need to ask yourself - what's the goal of my riding? If the goal is the destination and you want to get there as fast as you can, then you are racing and in this case your body output and power will be important to you. An indoor trainer will help you stay fit, well-trained and maintain peak performance through those gloomy winter months.

The other answer is - my goal is the journey, the ride itself. The destination is not only secondary, it's actually something unwanted because it ends my ride. I want to travel, see places, take pictures, spend time in nature. In that case an indoor trainer is as useless as two chopsticks to eat a soup. A trainer won't take you to places. You will be stuck in your room, spinning cranks and staring at a wall.

Liberating Limitations

We live in interesting times - the times of many opportunities. We have a chance to go to more places than our grandparents ever could. We can do more things, as they are generally more accessible to us. We have more options to buy and own various stuff than before.

And yet, sometimes it feels that this variety, this accessibility, these opportunities are overwhelming. Not that I would like someone to make decisions for myself, but I do get a feeling that less is more and limitations can be... liberating.

Take cameras, for example. I always take one on every bike ride. If I want something small, it's my Ricoh GRIII. If I have space for something larger, it's my Fuji with a 35mm lens. That's it. No multiple choices. No zooms. Small and simple. One focal length to do it all. At first, this looks like a severe limitation. You may think that you need to be able to take ultrawide angle pictures of landscapes and close ups of distant wildlife, all on the same 50 mile trip. No, you don't. It actually better to limit yourself to one focal length and learn how to see the world through just one lens. You won't take all pictures, but you will take some good ones.

Ricoh GRIII with a single focal length built-in lens - limiting yet wonderful.

Back to bicycles - single-speed bikes are liberating in some sense. Not having to think about gear shifting keeps it simple. You can focus on your ride and surroundings only. Just push on pedals and go. If you can't go - walk your bike uphill. It's not a race and you are not in rush.

If that's too much for you and you really want to keep your gearing, that's fine. It's useful in most situations. However, I found out that those modern, multi-speed systems are not needed to day-to-day riding. Unless you race, there really is no need for a 12-speed cassette and top of the line shifters. In fact, my adventure bike has a simple 2x9 speed setup with friction shifting. That sounds ancient and is not something that most cyclists would be willing to try, but again, it's liberating. It works with any derailleur, from any brand, is cross-compatible with most mechanical components, and is so simple that there is basically no way to break it. I mean, a friction shifter is built of 3 main parts that pretty much can't fail in normal conditions. May not feel or look fancy, but it is in fact a true zombie-apocalypse-ready gearing.

Simple friction shifter - works with anything.

Sometimes it's just not necessary to overcomplicate things!