Di2 Failure mode

[Kim]

It may not be long before Garmin, Shimano, or someone else launches a standard wiring loom for bicycles with one centralised battery powering the GPS computer, derailleurs, nine shift buttons, power meter, DRLs, night lamps, plug-in video cameras, mobile phone charger, and all the other gizmos that cyclists increasingly cannot do without.

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but that sort of integration (of motor, lights, gears, console - increasingly with navigation functions, and USB charging output) is normal - if not standardised - on higher-end e-bikes.  I expect some of it will trickle down eventually, but won't hold my breath for standardisation.

Specifically designed such that one flat battery means everything stops working...

Indeed.  Although, again, less of a problem with e-bikes, where you (hopefully) plan never to run out of power, but even if you do, there's enough juice in that whopping great battery to keep the lights and electronics going for hours after the motor conks out.

One thing that surprises me about di2, is that the charger is needed. Rather than just have a micro USB socket on the a junction box. There is a box of tricks that has a USB input and a proprietary input... most riders these days are carrying charging capability for various USB based devices (phone, wahoo, many lights etc...). But shimano have this extra box that is ended between the USB stuff and the di2. Feels like short sighted design...

Feels like they're selling to weight-weenies, rather than endurance riders.  I love gadgets, but I only carry charging gubbins on a small percentage of my bike rides (a slightly larger small percentage if you count the folding wall-wart that lives in the bottom of my Brompton bag).

[jiberjaber]

It may not be long before Garmin, Shimano, or someone else launches a standard wiring loom for bicycles with one centralised battery powering the GPS computer, derailleurs, nine shift buttons, power meter, DRLs, night lamps, plug-in video cameras, mobile phone charger, and all the other gizmos that cyclists increasingly cannot do without.

Specifically designed such that one flat battery means everything stops working...

One thing that surprises me about di2, is that the charger is needed. Rather than just have a micro USB socket on the a junction box. There is a box of tricks that has a USB input and a proprietary input... most riders these days are carrying charging capability for various USB based devices (phone, wahoo, many lights etc...). But shimano have this extra box that is ended between the USB stuff and the di2. Feels like short sighted design...

J

That's because it does more than just charging it is also the route to upgrade the fw (pre-BT app of course) (I think I recall reading somewhere it was based on CANBUS).  I'm planning to crack one of mine open and use some heatshrink to make it a smaller unit.  The nice rounded corners managed to eat through my bag on LEL with teh movement of the ride so keen to remove that issue for future rides.

Re SS coupling, there is one cable that runs through the downtube to a dumb 4 way junction box, so you could adjust the location of this (or add an intermediate one) and therefore disconnect at the coupler.

[Cudzoziemiec]

It may not be long before Garmin, Shimano, or someone else launches a standard wiring loom for bicycles with one centralised battery powering the GPS computer, derailleurs, nine shift buttons, power meter, DRLs, night lamps, plug-in video cameras, mobile phone charger, and all the other gizmos that cyclists increasingly cannot do without.

Have the whole lot powered off a dynamo with battery back up as needed (as per standlights) and it sounds a very good idea.

[hatler]

To me,  it represents the exact antithesis of the sort of technology that ought to be incorporated into a simple machine such as a bicycle.

Snap.

[mzjo]

To me,  it represents the exact antithesis of the sort of technology that ought to be incorporated into a simple machine such as a bicycle.

Snap.

But, since I do not have indexing of any sort (although I might put it back on the Super Champion dérailleur) and i only carry a phone for emergency phoning, I am very obviously not in the target client group. (Actually this is not quite true, I do have it on the Alfine8 - can't get out of that).
The more difficult question is what manufacturers are going to bring out to serve those of us who are clients for a different style of equipment.

[quixoticgeek]

To me,  it represents the exact antithesis of the sort of technology that ought to be incorporated into a simple machine such as a bicycle.

Snap.

So where do you draw the line? How do you define simple?

Electronic shifting is too complex for a simple machine like a bike, we should stick to boweden cables on mechanically indexed shifters.

Indexed shifters are too complex for a simple machine like a bike, we should use friction shifters.

Friction shifters are way too complex, and as for those derailures. All too complex for a simple machine like a bike. We should ride single speed.

But the pawls in that free wheel are too complex for a simple machine like a bike. We should ride fixed.

That chain is a bit complex. Look at all those moving parts and fine tolerances. Far too complex for a simple machine like a bike. Get rid of it and have direct drive, ride a penny farthing...

A bike? Two wheels? Twice as much to go wrong... now how about a unicycle...

It's all a matter of where you draw the line and how you see the bike. As well as how you see the relationship between rider and bike. There is a strong argument in some cases for a bike based on boweden cables for gear shifting control. If I was to ride a bike in places where I was hundreds of km from the nearest bike shop, or where temperature was likely to be outside of -5 - 50°C. Then there would be no question of sticking wifh cables operated gears. If I wasn't wanting aero bars so that I can cover very big distances are higher speeds and in more comfort, I wouldn't be thinking of electronic shifters. But for this use case, there are sound reasons for the use. I contacted James about his choice of di2 for his bike. He confirmed that he payed for his first set, and that di2 has operated faultlessly throughout. It's quite an endorsement.

Any equipment choice for a bike is a calculated risk. I am trying not to suck at maths.

J

[Karla]

Having wheels and a frame is adding complexity and is just asking for trouble, you should take up running instead.

[Brucey]

To me,  it represents the exact antithesis of the sort of technology that ought to be incorporated into a simple machine such as a bicycle.

Snap.

So where do you draw the line? How do you define simple?....

a definition of 'simple' that is, er, simple, is that when part of your bike stops working in a few year's time, (or right now in the back of beyond), you don't have to throw most of the bike away because you can't fix it or get spare parts for it.

Designing ever-more complicated products with ever-shorter lifetimes in pursuit of largely imaginary benefits is in good part symptomatic of the mindset that is busy killing the planet.

A Bicycle is at heart a simple machine; so-called progress is turning the average bicycle into just another 'consumer durable'; not that durable, only there to be consumed.

cheers

[quixoticgeek]

a definition of 'simple' that is, er, simple, is that when part of your bike stops working in a few year's time, (or right now in the back of beyond), you don't have to throw most of the bike away because you can't fix it or get spare parts for it.

Eh?

If a rear derailure dies, you replace the rear derailure. If it happens sufficiently in the future that Shimano have discontinued any compatible derailure, then worst case is you replace FD, RD, and 2 shifters. And chances are that I've got through a few 10s of thousands of km on the kit at this stage.

Thing is, how is that different from non electric? If a tiagra 4600 series part fails, it's going to become increasingly hard to find replacement parts, tiagra 4700 is incompatible with 4600... the same is true a cross groups etc and brands at all points in the price range. I have a Calton touring bike in my stable that is older than me It needs a new rear hub. It's hard to find one that is compatible these days..it's a 126mm oln hub with 5 speed block. Bikes change, tech changes. I admit it's bloody infuriating that there's a lot of incompatibility within bike components. But that's not made any worse by electronic shifting.

Designing ever-more complicated products with ever-shorter lifetimes in pursuit of largely imaginary benefits is in good part symptomatic of the mindset that is busy killing the planet.

Multiple shifters is an imaginary benefit? Ability to shift while on the aero bars, or when on the hoods, or even on the tops? That is quite a feature to have from where I'm sat.

A Bicycle is at heart a simple machine; so-called progress is turning the average bicycle into just another 'consumer durable'; not that durable, only there to be consumed.

cheers

Define durable? I've done 4000km since I built this bike. In that time I have replaced: 2 chains, 2 gear cables. The first chain was the cheap one that came with the group set. It lasted ~1300km. The second lasted ~1950, and had a  more life left, but I replaced it as I was about to start a 1670km race and didn't want it dying in the middle. The gear cables died one due to user error (I caught it with a pair of pliers when adjusting the gears and it started to fray.), and the other got shredded by some nasty off road riding in the wet, when it had already done a couple of thousand km. Neither of these is particularly resource intensive. The first chain I killed has gone on to become jewellery. The second chain will likely have the same fate. It's resources are not lost and could be recycled...

My steal framed carbon fibre free bike is entirely recyclable apart from the tyres and tubes. Everything else can be recycled. So it's hardly raping the world of resources.

As for electronic components of the di2 stuff. They should have a life equal to that of the cable operated counter parts. And all the parts can be recycled. In fact being electric, under eu WEEE regs, they must be. So I don't think that your argument really holds water.

There are valid concerns to be had regarding how long shimano will support these parts, how long they will remain compatible with themselves, and the options for bodging things in the event of a mishap to get to the next option for repair. But they are things which can be balanced out by features like greater flexibility. Its horses for courses, and ultimately no one will forces you to use kit you're not happy with.

J

[Brucey]

customers have already been left high and dry by shimano only a few years after buying Di2 systems; instead of buying one new mech they have faced a bill of about a grand for parts that they are having to replace because the new ones are not compatible.

BTW I don't think that modern bike parts are really durable enough; you might get through three chains per set of (decent) tyres, for example.

But I think you have maybe missed the point; in a few years time shimano et al will have come out with another set of shiny new systems and like a herd of demented sheep folk will go out and buy them, because new is always better, right? 

It should be a given that an object like a bicycle should be durable and recyclable; instead of worrying about a partial recycle after a 'product life' of five years or less one should be aiming for a product life many times greater than that and a more complete recycling that isn't so energy intensive.

Short product lifetimes are basically wrecking the planet at high speed; there are various elements that are not abundant in the earth's crust that are being used up at an incredibly high rate because of (say) folk's addiction to mobile phones. Each one (and DI2 systems and the rest...) contains a tiny amount of various elements that are not presently recovered when the phone is 'recycled' and we are basically going to run out of some of these in not that many years. Everyone in the west lives a life that effectively assumes that there are about five times the resources on the planet vs what there actually is, and that is before you get to specific things that we are going to run out of.  Batteries alone are an environmental nightmare; 'nice clean electric cars' are largely  just a way of exporting the pollution someplace else; both the pollution required to generate the electricity required to fill them and especially the pollution required to make the batteries, the cars that they go in then and ship them half way around the world.  Dragging bicycle technology further into the same consumerist, built-in obsolescence, waste-of-resources, throwaway  world is taking it in the wrong direction IMHO.

cheers

[Karla]

To me,  it represents the exact antithesis of the sort of technology that ought to be incorporated into a simple machine such as a bicycle.

Snap.

So where do you draw the line? How do you define simple?....

a definition of 'simple' that is, er, simple, is that when part of your bike stops working in a few year's time, (or right now in the back of beyond), you don't have to throw most of the bike away because you can't fix it or get spare parts for it.

That's not simplicity, that's obsolescence

It should be a given that an object like a bicycle should be durable and recyclable; instead of worrying about a partial recycle after a 'product life' of five years or less one should be aiming for a product life many times greater than that and a more complete recycling that isn't so energy intensive.

What counts as "many times" greater than 5 years?  50 years?  You expect people to buy bikes to last 50 years?  Bollocks to that.  If you want something that lasts 50 years may I suggest a hair shirt?  I hear they're very durable these days.

[mzjo]

Thing is, how is that different from non electric? If a tiagra 4600 series part fails, it's going to become increasingly hard to find replacement parts, tiagra 4700 is incompatible with 4600... the same is true a cross groups etc and brands at all points in the price range. I have a Calton touring bike in my stable that is older than me It needs a new rear hub. It's hard to find one that is compatible these days..it's a 126mm oln hub with 5 speed block. Bikes change, tech changes. I admit it's bloody infuriating that there's a lot of incompatibility within bike components. But that's not made any worse by electronic shifting.

 

There are valid concerns to be had regarding how long shimano will support these parts, how long they will remain compatible with themselves, and the options for bodging things in the event of a mishap to get to the next option for repair. But they are things which can be balanced out by features like greater flexibility. Its horses for courses, and ultimately no one will forces you to use kit you're not happy with.

J

126mm freewheel hubs are not a problem, Zenith make them, I almost bought a set when I wanted l/f hubs like that for my tourer. (But who would buy stuff like that when you can have Di2 would be the Shimano arguement)

Ultimately no-one forces you to use kit you're not happy with - except that they are not proposing an alternative! Fortunately the older kit keeps working, which is why I am using a lot of kit that is 30+yrs old and still going. But the choice is limited - where am I going to find a replacement 7s 14-32 cassette (not freewheel note) for Coline's mtb - Shimano stopped supporting that equipment a while ago. Perhaps I should be buying up stocks of 8s cassettes for my stuff now, along with a couple of road hubs.

To me,  it represents the exact antithesis of the sort of technology that ought to be incorporated into a simple machine such as a bicycle.

Snap.

So where do you draw the line? How do you define simple?....

a definition of 'simple' that is, er, simple, is that when part of your bike stops working in a few year's time, (or right now in the back of beyond), you don't have to throw most of the bike away because you can't fix it or get spare parts for it.

That's not simplicity, that's obsolescence

It should be a given that an object like a bicycle should be durable and recyclable; instead of worrying about a partial recycle after a 'product life' of five years or less one should be aiming for a product life many times greater than that and a more complete recycling that isn't so energy intensive.

What counts as "many times" greater than 5 years?  50 years?  You expect people to buy bikes to last 50 years?  Bollocks to that.  If you want something that lasts 50 years may I suggest a hair shirt?  I hear they're very durable these days.

I feel deeply insulted. My tandem frame was well over 50yrs old when I bought it and it still works, when I find a stoker. Most of my kit is well over 25 years old. The biggest replacement headache is probably rims. I have Mavic hubs that I love that must date from the late 70's that turn beautifully and that I would always use in preference to some more modern stuff. My choice! But no-one wants to supply people like me with kit I would want to buy. So what's the alternative - use the car (which is also 30yrs old aand nearly infinitely repairable)

[grams]

I disagree with the notion that electronic gearing is more complicated. I view it as a simplification.

In a modern mechanical system the derailleur positioning system is a complex plastic mechanism crammed into the brake lever at the other end of the bike. It's then dependent on a cable snaking between them staying exactly the same length, not fraying, not ingesting dirt, being perfectly lubed everywhere, all of which we know not be true for very long.

In an electronic mech all of this is contained within a sealed box on the mech itself. The brake lever is just a brake lever with a couple of small electronic push buttons integrated into it. Simple.

Di2 itself may not be a great implementation, but the fundamental concept of electronic gearing is so much simpler than what mechanical's become.

[Hot Flatus]

Tubes made from complex modern 1930's steel alloys?

No. They should be roughly hewn from rock and then lashed together with rope. Wheels ought to be rounds cut directly from the trunk of a tree with the species selected for bark that offers the best grip and ride quality. Rubber tyres just introduce another failure point. Many an audax has been abandoned through an unrepairable tyre gash.

Sometimes what is referred to as 'progress' is just manufacturers creating a market.

[Samuel D]

Mzjo brings up the problem that most concerns me: there is little alternative to the present paradigm of ever-shorter product cycles, shorter product lifespans, higher prices, and product development focused on fictional and irrelevant benefits at the expense of things that matter.

It’s fine and dandy saying no-one has to buy Di2, misplaced carbon fibre, aerodynamic components, 11-speed, and the other hocus-pocus that woolly thinking has made mainstream. But if you want, say, 7-speed gearing, now’s your very last chance (some would say you’re already too late). If you want low-cost, high-quality, lightweight rims with thick braking surfaces: tough! You’re a generation late. Et cetera.

Meanwhile, the few, critically important open standards that have existed in the bicycle industry are being hounded out of town to make way for proprietary standards, often in the name of aerodynamic integration. In many cases these developments make the bicycle disposable, since they’re sold by manufacturers who have a history of not supporting their products with spare parts just five years down the line. They’d rather sell you a new bicycle, ideally one with aerodynamic flaps, hidden fixtures, and incompetent mechanical design such that it becomes a creaking, dysfunctional mess in two seasons of hard riding.

Time to break out the great Lewis Mumford, who wrote this in 1952:

“But once established and perfected, type objects should have a long period of use. No essential improvement in the safety pin has been made since the bronze age. In weaving there has been no essential modification in the loom for over a century. And what is true for machines holds good in no small degree for their products. When the typical form has been achieved, the sooner the machine retreats into the background and becomes a discreetly silent fixture the better. This again flies in the face of most contemporary beliefs. At present, half our gains in technical efficiency are nullified by the annual custom of restyling. Extraordinary ingenuity is exercised by publicity directors and industrial designers in making models that have undergone no essential change look as if they had. In order to hasten style obsolescence, they introduce fake variety in departments where it is irrelevant—not in the interest of order, efficiency, technical perfection, but in the interest of profit and prestige, two very secondary and usually sordid human motives. Instead of lengthening the life of the product and lowering the cost to the user, they raise the cost to the user by shortening the life of the product and causing him to be conscious of mere stylistic tricks that are without any kind of human significance or value. This perversion of technics in our time naturally saps the vitality of real art; first by destroying any sound basis for discrimination and then by taking energy and attention away from those aspects of human experience in which the unique and the personal are supremely important.”

[Brucey]

Mumford put it better than I ever could, although not all his concepts and phraseology are known to the average reader.

I disagree with the notion that electronic gearing is more complicated. I view it as a simplification....

perhaps you have never looked inside one...? ... (I know you meant as a user interface BTW, but even that isn't true- where would you be without a computer/phone to program it...?). You will note that I didn't hold up current mechanical shifting as an exemplar of 'simplicity'; I know folks who carry a friction lever as a backup when touring, rather than be left in the poop if/when the STIs clap out or are damaged.

.....Thing is, how is that different from non electric? If a tiagra 4600 series part fails, it's going to become increasingly hard to find replacement parts, tiagra 4700 is incompatible with 4600... the same is true a cross groups etc and brands at all points in the price range. I have a Calton touring bike in my stable that is older than me It needs a new rear hub. It's hard to find one that is compatible these days..it's a 126mm oln hub with 5 speed block. Bikes change, tech changes. I admit it's bloody infuriating that there's a lot of incompatibility within bike components. But that's not made any worse by electronic shifting.

When your 4600 components clap out there are lots of others that would be good substitutes.  For example the RD shift ratio is one that is shared with (literally) hundreds of different models (from more than one manufacturer) starting as far back as the 1970s.  If the shifters bork themselves there is a similar argument to be made and of course you can always revert to a friction shifting if you want to, because the system is, in essence, simple.  You could go into almost any bike shop in the world with broken 4600 stuff and come out with a working bike again, having changed a minimum number of parts.

This is profoundly different from electronic systems; if these parts are not (very deliberately) designed to be compatible with one another, they aren't, simple as that. No compatibility between manufacturers and incomplete compatibility within = built in obsolescence at best.

 But it is worse than that; currently many framesets are built to accept a variety of components, courtesy of various 'open standards' in the industry. This means that you could buy a modern frameset and (say) equip it with a 60  year-old groupset, and it would work.  This is appears to be a fanciful notion but the underlying point is that your bike will always be easy to repair as long as it adheres to this approach.  If you start redesigning everything (and Di2 etc is just one example of this) you end up with a bike that cannot be repaired so easily or indeed at all.

This has already become so bad that (if you were so inclined) you could go out and buy/build a road bike that would share no parts at all that could be interchanged with (say) a 15-year old model.  Folk that understand the way these things work quite rightly resist these (largely pointless) changes; it is (ultimately) bad for the consumer, bad for the manufacturers, bad for the planet.

BTW as I understand it, Darwin's theory of evolution has undergone a refinement in recent years. It is now viewed that in times that are easy, any given species may indulge itself in what might be termed 'pointless variation' and that this will be tolerated, because times are easy. However when times are hard, only some of these variants offer an improved outcome, and survive.

It could be argued that in bicycle design (and perhaps consumer society as a whole) this is a time of 'pointless variation'. 

cheers

[quixoticgeek]

Mzjo brings up the problem that most concerns me: there is little alternative to the present paradigm of ever-shorter product cycles, shorter product lifespans, higher prices, and product development focused on fictional and irrelevant benefits at the expense of things that matter.

That's kinda our fault as much as the manufacturers. Would you buy a drive train for 5 times the current price, if it lasted 6 times as long? or would you go choose the cheaper option? For most riders, they don't need need the durability that many of the longer distance riders would like. How many bikes are purchased, ridden a few times in the summer, and never even get as far as wearing out a cassette? I would wager that for every bike that is bought and riden to the point the drive train wears out, there are 3 bikes that largely sit in the shed. So given most bikes then don't need the extra durability, is it worth the manufacturers making the parts more expensive?

It’s fine and dandy saying no-one has to buy Di2, misplaced carbon fibre, aerodynamic components, 11-speed, and the other hocus-pocus that woolly thinking has made mainstream. But if you want, say, 7-speed gearing, now’s your very last chance (some would say you’re already too late). If you want low-cost, high-quality, lightweight rims with thick braking surfaces: tough! You’re a generation late. Et cetera.

Yep. Can you get 5 speed? Can you get 6 speed? SRAM are discontinuing their hub gears... etc... No company seems to make things for any long period of time. 10 Speed is only in Tiagra from Shimano, everything else is 11 speed. Campag and SRAM are moving to 12 speed, and apparently the triple is now dead...

Meanwhile, the few, critically important open standards that have existed in the bicycle industry are being hounded out of town to make way for proprietary standards, often in the name of aerodynamic integration. In many cases these developments make the bicycle disposable, since they’re sold by manufacturers who have a history of not supporting their products with spare parts just five years down the line. They’d rather sell you a new bicycle, ideally one with aerodynamic flaps, hidden fixtures, and incompetent mechanical design such that it becomes a creaking, dysfunctional mess in two seasons of hard riding.

The lack of standards, open or otherwise drives me FSCKING insane. The profusion of screwed up BB standards in recent years is just mind boggling...

A lot of Di2 complaints could be mitigated with open standards... The protocol it uses is canbus, and I've found a couple of places selling the connectors. So in theory it might not be long until it's been fully reverse engineered...

J

[grams]

perhaps you have never looked inside one...? ... (I know you meant as a user interface BTW

No, I mean as an engineering solution to the problem of positioning the rear cage relatively precisely and repeatably. You probably can't avoid small moving parts, so the best you can do is put them in a sealed box right next to the cage with a hard linkage to it.

but even that isn't true- where would you be without a computer/phone to program it...?).

You only need an external device if you want to reassign buttons to something non-standard or roll the firmware update dice. The default button functions work straight out of the box.

[Brucey]

there are any number of ways of achieving a similar result mechanically. Most of them would have a lower part count and would be cheaper to make, too...

cheers

[DuncanM]

The process of moving complexity from hardware to software is one that has happened in many places. Carbs -> mechanical fuel injectors -> electronic fuel injection. Points and distributor -> electrical ignition -> ECU. As you do this, you remove user serviceability, but hopefully you introduce greater reliability and efficiency.  I don't know many petrolheads who bemoan the demise of points and distributors.
In 10 years time you will probably have to take your brand new Colnago back to the shop and they will plug it into a computer to fix it. At least there aren't a million different bits they will replace in a random order in order to hunt down the error.

[simonp]

I really don't miss the carbs on my first motorcycle. Fiddling about with the choke, then applying just the right amount of throttle, not too much, not too little. Especially not too much, flooding the engine and having to wait before trying again.

[Brucey]

yebbut.... they don't bolt the box with all the complicated bits in on the outside of the car and expect it to act as a cushioning device in parking collisions?

cheers

[Kim]

A lot of Di2 complaints could be mitigated with open standards... The protocol it uses is canbus, and I've found a couple of places selling the connectors. So in theory it might not be long until it's been fully reverse engineered...

Goes for most embedded systems.  A great deal of what people are complaining about when they complain about 'electronics' is actually down to closed systems.  It's like complaining about 'plastic' when the actual problem is glue, heat-stakes and ultrasonic welding.

If the Di2 controllers were, say, Aduino-compatible, then anyone with a PC and the right cable could program them to talk to whatever they wanted.  Want your 2019 vintage derailleur to speak to a modern fuel cell unit^[1] in time for the 2050 Eroica Britannia?  Just find a retrocomputing geek to spin up a VM and jibble the registers so they work with the BikeFibre4000 to CANBus converter you found in a cycle jumble last year.


_{[1] There's an exemption so people don't have to do the hazardous substances paperwork required to use authentic Lithium-polymer batteries in a road vehicle.}

[mzjo]

I really don't miss the carbs on my first motorcycle. Fiddling about with the choke, then applying just the right amount of throttle, not too much, not too little. Especially not too much, flooding the engine and having to wait before trying again.

I still do this with my bikes and with my car. No problem when you have been brought up with it. Lots of problems if you are a young thing brought up on HDI turbo diesels. My daughter's boyfriend gives me the shivers every time he borrows the 205 (but then he has also pulled the handbrake out of the floor; mechanical systems are obviously beyond him. Not too happy with a turbo diesel Skoda in his hands either mind you).
The same problem probably exists with the modern generation using friction gear shifters (regardless of where they are mounted). Failure of the education system; no respect for the elders!

[Kim]

As someone who was brought up on friction shifting, I reckon it works far better with modern transmissions than it ever did with 5-speed.