#166
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Not a good example. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
The main thing that has always annoyed me with compatibility issues is Hub -> Cassette incompatibility when Shimano upgrades stuff...
3rd party wheel manufacturers have had plenty of wheels that worked with Shimano X and still worked with X+1, but the Shimano hubs often were made in a way they didn't. I am totally fine with an 10 speed derailleur not working with a 9/11/12 speed setup, etc.. Other areas they are fine.. I've been using Shimano 11 speed cranks/rings for years with 10-speed chain + drivetrain with no issue. There was an assumption there I'd be going to 11 speed before I needed a new crank. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
It is and it isn't. Software is what I do for a living. Sometimes it's compatible, sometimes it isn't. eTap11 wasn't built around a communication protocol that could speak to a phone. eTap 12 is. That alone is a foundational shift that can prevent backwards compatibility. There are also the mechanical considerations with how the chain, rings, ramps, pins, pulleys, spacing, etc. are setup. As the owner of two sets of eTap11, I'd love it to be backwards compatible, but I didn't expect it to be.
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That's what happened with Dura-Ace Di2. If you bought a Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 9spd drivetrain, and brought it to a bike dealer after a few years because a shifter or derailleur broke, the dealer would have to inform you that no new parts were available for your system (even though Shimano still made 9spd systems, and still made electronic systems). The only option they could give you was to replace the entire shifting system. I have home heating furnace and a "smart" thermostat that were made by two difference companies about 5 years apart. And yet, they work perfectly together. That's how hard goods are supposed to work. The bicycle component companies already had a poor intercompatibility model with mechanical drivetrains, and its only gotten worse with electronic systems. |
#171
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Which leaves the compatibility question in the future... |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But I am sure they will do this again when eTap 13/14/15/whatever comes out and it uses a new/different wireless communication setup. It would be silly to think they're going to suddenly switch to keeping things compatible after this. This is consumer stuff.. there is little interest or upside for them to maintain compatibility. People are happy about Microsoft keeping things compatible.. MS is not doing that for consumers, they're doing it for the army of businesses that depend on them and pay huge $$$ compared to consumers to make it all happen. Remember lots of B2B software products cost in the 6-7 figure range to get all that support! Just about 100% of the software I've worked on in my career has been in that price range. Last edited by benb; 02-14-2019 at 03:46 PM. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Let's say that two riders, call them A and B, bought new bikes some years ago. Rider A decided to buy a mechanical group, and rider B decided buy an electronic group. Both of their bikes give them good service, until just the other day, when in a freak event they both simultaneously broke their rear derailleurs. So, they both bring their bikes into the shop for repair. The mechanic tells Rider A, "Sorry, Shimano doesn't make that model of derailleur anymore. But I can sell you a derailleur from a current groupset, which will also work with your drivetrain." Rider A isn't happy that his bike won't be the exactly the same as before, but at least it can be made to work again at not much cost. The mechanic then turns to Rider B and says, "Sorry, Shimano doesn't make this version of Di2 anymore, so there are no derailleurs available that are compatible with the rest of your shifting system. But I can sell you a completely new shifting system for a boatload more money then just buying a derailleur." Rider B is far less happy than Rider A, and is out far more money to get his bike fixed. Think it can't happen? It can, and it has. And likely will again. |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But in all seriousness first gen of new software/hardware tends to be incompatible with future gens since the early-adopter revenue will balance out any revenue lost from incompatibility, especially if the product is good. Since SRAM is now going to go Force ETAP it makes sense for they to include some cross-generational compatibility since they'll be wading into a more consumer-level price bracket, as opposed to Red/Dura Ace which is generally reserved for the upper echelon of spending. That being said I still find the integrated chainset power meter silly, but if high-end bikes can still find profitability when including power meter modules for free (ie only need a unlock code after paying for activation) maybe the ride and return model isn't so absurd. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
I LITERALLY laughed out loud...
11 speed ETap is truly amazing. I for one am happy to ride my 5 x 11 speed ETap groups for many, many happy miles and years to come.
__________________
Livin’ the dream ( just like Mike ) |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
In your scenario, I feel bad for rider B. But he'd be in the same situation if he was riding DA 7600 or Campy 9 or whatever old mechanical group. I'd also say that people should give SRAM some time to see what kind of support they offer for older eTap owners. SRAM still lists 10 speed groups on their site and parts can still be found new. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
https://www.excelsports.com/search/?...=Sram+10+speed
I’m not sure how long SRAM 10 speed was on-off the market for, but it certainly looks like many years down the road it is still supported quite well. As for software - firmware updates of 11 speed ETap, why fix something if it isn’t broken? I works pretty much flawlessly all the time.
__________________
Livin’ the dream ( just like Mike ) |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As far as "small electronics" being more limited in compatibility vs. complex systems: Having worked in the embedded microcontroller systems industry for 25 years, I can assure you that the exact opposite is true. Complex systems require many different layers of software and systems, which all must interact with each other and are all typically developed and maintained by different parties. Getting all the parties to agree on maintaining forward and backwards compatibility across a set of changing standards is nearly impossible. Over time, the cost of trying to maintain and upgrade the many components of a complex systems generally means that it turns out to be simpler and easier to replace an entire system every few years. In contrast, small embedded systems are much simpler, and require a far more limited set of smaller components. Consequently, maintenance and modification of these systems is simpler, and can largely be done by a single party. In fact, I've worked on upgrading the capabilities of embedded systems that had been designed and built decades earlier. Since embedded systems are often used in "hard good" type products with long service lives, the microcontrollers are generally designed with future upgradeability in mind - only a poor embedded engineer will allow their product to go out the door without the ability to add and modify features for future compatibility. (I'm currently working on a microcontroller based electro-mechanical product to replace an older existing product; the new product will not only have new and different features and and capabilites, but it will have the capacity to add even more features and capabilities in the future, AND it will remain fully backward compatible so it can be used as a direct replacement component in already existing systems.) Quote:
It appears that some component manufacturers really like electronic shifting systems, and not just because of their higher selling prices - it appears that they allow them to better control forced obsolescences. One of the features of digitally controlled system is that they allow greater flexibility and adaptability than purely mechanical systems. So if the features of electronic shifting systems aren't forward and backward compatability, it is because of manufacturer imposed limitations. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
AXS uses Bluetooth only for setup, not for operation. SRAM 11spd systems already have their own system for setup, so Bluetooth is not required. Both AXS and the previous SRAM electronic shifting systems use the same proprietary Airea wireless communication for actual shifting operations. Backwards/forwards compatibility doesn't mean that older components will get all the functionality of new components - it means that older components will at least retain their previous functionality when used with newer components (and may get new functionality when possible). In my current industry, not retaining backward compatibility would mean that customers might have to replace their whole system (at larger cost) when upgrading a single component. And if customers have to replace their whole systems, that opens up the possibility of replacing our systems with a competitors - which means lost sales to us. On the hand, if maintaining backward compatibility resulting in cost increases in our products, that might discourage sales to new customers. So we have to think ahead and do careful design work. But apparently, the bicycle industry has enough customers like you, who are willing to jump at any shiny new trinkets at any cost, so they don't have to put as much forethought into their products. |
|
|