Shimano have just released official pics of the new electronic time trial shifters that will be part of their 2009 digital Di2 range. The shifters, which were snapped in the wild for the first time in this year’s Tour de France, can be controlled from the ends of the aero bar extensions as usual, and also from the dual control levers on the base bar. It’s the change from cable to electrical operation that allows Shimano to offer these two different control points. The base bar levers mean that you can now change gear when you’re riding out of the saddle; there’s no need to sit back down, move your hands to the extensions, change gear, move your hands back to the base bar, and then stand up again. That’s always been a bit too much like hard work when you’re trying to get into a climbing rhythm. If they fulfill their promise, these shifters are set to make a huge impact, especially on hilly time trials and also in triathlon where race organizers often plan a climb as early as possible in the bike leg to split the field and reduce the problem of drafting. The Dual Control Levers, which have buttons for Shimano’s new FlightDeck cycling computer in the hoods, feature carbon blades and come in at a claimed weight of 127g per pair. The satellite switches – the aero extension shifters – weigh 103g per pair, and the wires can be plumbed internally through your aero bars. Of course, you’ll need the new Dura-Ace Di2 mechs too. It’ll be interesting to see how the other big players in the market respond. In the meantime, we can’t wait to get our hands on a set.
Shimano launch electronic TT shifters
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
No Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Or staying home.
But having recced it, did he go back and ride it properly?
I've posted this opinion a few times, but it feels relevant here. In the general population, there's always going to be some percentage of arseholes (e.g. rude, inconsiderate, selfish etc) and what we should be aiming for is to get those arseholes to not drive motor vehicles as that reduces how much harm they can cause. Ideally, we want them to be walking, but as we know, cycling is so much better for longer distances. So, every time we see arseholes on bikes, at least they're not riding/driving something heavier that goes much faster. Also, when someone keeps doing stupid things on bikes, they're likely to come off and hurt themselves at some point, so at least there's a negative feedback loop that should normalise the worst behaviours.
@chrisonabike - I think rich_cb's comments went downhill quite a bit. They used to be mainly argumentative, but nonetheless had some reason behind them, but then they started spouting some quite horrible right-wing/capitalist views which devalued and reduced people to how much money they make as well as pushing the whole oil agenda. They should have just stuck to their cycling opinions which were, as you say, well informed.
If cyclists treated drivers in the way that drivers treat cyclists there would be 100 extra dead each year.
Tentatively doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Also, who are you to place greater value on one person’s use of a road over another’s. If I am exercising instead of sitting in front of the to am I not reducing my burden on the NHS. My experience of pulling over on a long ride to visit parents (130km). I pulled over as was holding up a stream of commuters. More for my own safety. I then walked to a nearby cafe, had a tea and cake. I still found it challenging to rejoin the flow of traffic having graciously let 20 mins of streaming traffic get on their way. No one wanted to afford me the same courtesy I had afforded 100ds of drivers.
Don’t be so ignorant.
I think it's a pity rich_cb took off as while I often disagreed with them and that could be vexing many of those disagreements were *interesting*. (Well, apart from the chart wars...) Even where it seemed the arguments were shaped by our different ideologies I believe that was what they thought. As opposed to more common "find out what many people think then invent a character who says the opposite". Or "I have been cycling around my small patch for the last 70 years with no issues so I know exactly how you should do it and that you're wrong". Plus IIRC they were well informed about cycle infra in their patch.
Side point: why is the lead image on this item a 'cyclists have priority' sign? What's that got to do at all with the content? Is the implication meant to be that 'things have gone too far' and cyclists should get back in their place (in the gutter/hedge)?
Yeah, of course cyclists can be arseholes. I don't think I'd call this guy one, although I'm sure the Daily Mail would disagree. Perhaps ask them to publish it instead? You can lead with "I'm a cyclist..."