I take your point, but there is no way on God's green earth that I am going to look at a map for even an instant while descending that fast. My eyes are locked on the ground scanning for the tiniest crack or piece of junk that would send me to my doom.

I can't imagine going any direction except straight at that speed.

There are a bunch of features on Karoo that will show or indicate turns regardless of which screen you're on. As jfengel said, if you're going 50mph you should know where you're going and not looking at your computer. The other things being removed (battery level, gear indicator, shift mode) represent no realistic safety concerns.

I'm annoyed that I'm losing these features, too, but they are all firmly in the nice-to-have category. Just like bike computers in their entirety.

Following up to add some context to this since it struck a lot of debate. I feel very matter of factly that the assistance of a bike computer when used responsibly increases rider safety. All of the debate seems very semantic but look at a video such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUTiwocccE

This is a 10-mile descent that thousands of cyclists do a weekly that would put you at 30-50mph for most of it. You can very obviously safely glance at your bike computer from time to time to see things like your speed, sharpness of upcoming curves, angles, upcoming obstacles, intersections, merges, and other important metrics that help inform your braking, turning and mental route preparation.

I've been road cycling and racing for many years. Taken many safety and skills courses. The most dangerous experiences I've ever had have been from incidents where glancing at a map would have prevented. Where I was riding moderately paced and unanticipated obstacles were around corners such as blind intersections.

Having laser focus on the road AND knowing what's ahead where you can't visually see are both equally important.

I can probably guess the answer to this question, but it's an important question to ask.

Why don't you simply not update the firmware?

It's kind of funny that you think removing features from a cycling computer is the dangerous part, when we know from pretty much every other situation involving potentially dangerous tasks and computers it's the introduction of the device in the first place that creates most of the danger. Why would you even glance at a map while going 50 miles per hour on a bicycle?

In what seems like a lucky break, I also have a Karoo, used these same features, and moved from di2 to campagnolo electric last summer.

> If you are descending at 40-50mph you have to remove your hand from your hood in order to see your map.

Well you don't have to, you can switch to the map screen before starting the descent. If you are willing to change screens while descending, the blame on safety is not on technology, but rather on your own decision to do so.

I really hope you meant 40-50kph, because this feels incredibly fast on a bicycle. I try to avoid that if I can help it

It's difficult to believe this was going to continue on wards as SRAM bought Hammerhead, it was only a matter of time before Shimano decided not to support a competitor product.

So are people going to keep everything on older versions to try to keep this functionality?

Hammerhead has only made two models of computer, right? Why do you have three?

Cycling is not super dangerous, statistically speaking.

However, your situation sucks and I hope a work-around is found.

I was pretty anti-electronic shifting on my bikes...but once you have it, it's hard to go back. The automatic derailleur tuning to always have snappy, responsive shifts it pretty amazing. And then not having to change cables out is a nice bonus, though not a deal breaker. And even the aesthetics of a cable free bike begins to grow on you. luckily, battery charging is pretty simple, and I've been always having to charge a bike computer for the past 15 years anyway, so not a big deal to plug it in every couple of month. (This is coming from someone who used to single-speed mountain bike a lot, for the "simplicity" and because I was lazy to have to maintain much on my MTB). I'm kind of looking forward to a day when they get the internal hub thing dialed in and lightweight and can handle a lot of torq and not have the drag penalty, etc....

That said, I don't use any integrated shifting->head unit functionality. Not really sure what someone would use it for other than checking battery levels? Which is super simple to see on the hardware itself. And which is easier to just get off my phone.

Also, firmware updates are typically pretty simple these days due to the pretty decent phone app support. I've done firmware updates on both a Wahoo computer and SRAM shifting, and it was really straightforward, and never for a critical item, yet, only to get more features (though I'm not an early adapter in any of this). I guess I'll find out mre about Di2 specific integrations when my next bike arrives...

One thing I noticed after cycling across North America on a $500 hybrid and then Colombia on a $200 utility bike was that there is a wildly different class of cyclist that rides with computers and carbon fiber and shiny jerseys... They were as baffled by my setup as I was by theirs. It's almost an entirely different category of transportation. Or perhaps it isn't so much a form of transportation for them, it's a hobby - they often drive their bikes to the place they want to ride instead of just riding the in-between.

I imagine there is room to cater to both types of cyclist. Perhaps it was a self-selecting group for me, but I found every mechanic I visited on the road to be most busy with repairs of low-tech gear. It seems to me that low-tech bikes will continue to make up the long tail for many years to come, even if catering to those customers is less lucrative.

Going to have to disagree. Electronic shifting is definitely not a move in the wrong direction.

I used to be in in the camp where I thought electronic shifting was a gimmick. I got a bike that happened to come with di2 and its simply amazing. The shifts are responsive and clean. Adjustments are hardly ever needed and if you do, the process is beyond quick and amazingly accurate. I don't need to test shifting it through all the steps. Do you need it on a commuter bike? Definitely not but for a hobby bike (road cycling, gravel, mtb) its a really nice to have feature. Since you are already confused I would put you in the commuting territory (maybe unfair) which makes sense, its not really a useful feature in those cases. These have been around for a while and in the past few years cheap enough that it becomes a nice upgrade for hobby users.

Unless we hit mass extinction there is no way to stop progress. Humanity is going to continue to innovate and create. Sometimes those things are totally unnecessary. We should be looking to the future as a beacon of hope. Not trying to argue that we should not be mindful of our level of consumerism BUT humanity is going to keep innovating and lets look to the future that we will solve problems. Not that we are going to move back to an agrarian lifestyle. These devices most likely have an increase footprint, you now have a small motor and battery compared to a cable but the lifetime of the product I think is on-par or increased. Better shifting means longer chain/chain ring life.

I feel similarly about computers on bikes, even though I've had them for years before ditching them.

There's another facet to the problem of bike computers and I don't know if others feel this way but for me at least quantifying the time on the bike distracts from the joy of riding. Every time I turned on the bike computer it felt like I was "time-trialing" against myself, my previous rides, and randos whose stats I saw on Strava. It started to really make me miserable especially because as the years passed my "performance" more or less continuously degraded.

I feel differently about electronic shifting, though I probably will never experience it as my bike still has 2000's "vintage" Campy 9-speed and I see no need to ever change that unless I wreck it. The Shimano alfine internal hub has some models that use electronic shifting. It might be good on a utility bike-- if it's easy enough to deal with.

FWIW, the electronic drivetrains are superior in just about every performance metric, aside from needing to be charged every few weeks. You might not want an tablet computer in your refrigerator door but electronic bike shifting is more akin to going from carbureted to fuel injected engines, it is the more reliable and tunable of the two options.

Electronic shifting is actually pretty great. I get that it's not something everyone wants, but you owe it to yourself to give it a test ride before you dismiss it entirely.

It's fast, it's always precise (never drifts; no cables to stretch), insanely stable, requires virtually no effort to shift, and (at least for me) has provided a more reliable platform than cable-pull Ultegra was. The mech system was prone to alignment issues, cable issues, etc. With eTap, I just charge it every few weeks and I'm done.

Also, re: consumer abuse, read the linked article. Shimano are only able to do this because their connectivity is proprietary, apparently. More modern systems rely on open standards, apparently.

IMO the bicycle was perfected 20+ years ago

There is nothing left to be improved, only gimmicks with aggressive marketing

Just be happy with the bike you have, and ride

I wouldn't be too discouraged, it's still pretty rare to see on most bikes. I don't feel like it will become the norm outside of very-high-end, just because it can never be cheaper than cable shifted. People buying very-high-end stuff are usually acquainted with the warranty/return to manufacturer process so at least it won't be your hassle.

I have had the same though by the way. I reckon a small bike shop would be a great little business to run into retirement.

Built my last road bike from the ground up and I would say electronic shifting is my favorite part. Its more precise and easier to maintain than cable shifting.

All this compatibility warring sucks of course. But there's tons of merit to going digital on certain bike parts.

I'm the same way with my bikes, but after renting a bike in Santa Cruz, I definitely noticed a positive difference in shifting promptness with electronic vs cable. Not enough for me to retrofit an existing bike, but enough to use as a criteria point when comparing models. In some ways, its like going to linear brakes after using modulated for so long. Different experience, and I definitely prefer Shimano 4pot calipers over Srams.

Re: lights on bikes. Dynamos and dynamo hubs thankfully remain constrained by physics, so they will remain interoperable with a number of brands for a long time.

I highly recommend anyone that uses a bicycle for any meaningful amount as part of their day-to-day routine to get a dynamo hub and a light. You will save your sanity with battery replacements.

This is why I ride a brakeless track bike, everything else is just putting another level of annoying indirection between you and the thing you want to be doing.

Dynamo powered components are an exception. Great interoperability, repairability and product life.

Well, if it feels petty, it's because it is.

The "data" You're talking about is basically just battery level and which gear are You in.

Just for context, SRAM (the second biggest component producer and the new owner of Hammerhead) publishes the same data in plain ANT+ format. It's basically an open standard over which sensors broadcast their data. Anyone who is interested can read it, no license agreements necessary.

AFAIK Shimano has decided to encrypt their packages and the license is for the encryption keys / algorithms.

I have a Hammerhead 2 and Di2. The most commonly used functionality for me was using the buttons on the brake shifter hoods to control the screens on the HH. It meant you could control the device without moving your hands and I use it all the time.

Having access to shifter position and Di2 battery levels was also super useful. This move really pisses me off!

Guess I will not be updating the firmware of my HH2 for a while at least.

Lack of interoperability in any system is a bad thing for consumers. However in this case you could argue that Shimano are right. It's fine to allow interoperability without the data. A KMC chain will work with a Shimano derailleur. Shimano should have no problem with that. But Shimano have to assume that SRAM would now get all the aggregate data on the operation of thousands of their Di2 systems. So SRAM could see how much faster or slower the Di2 gear shifts are. How many times the user had to make the same shift twice maybe because of failure. If a user tends not to use the largest sprocket when putting in a lot of effort then maybe it means their gears aren't tuned correctly etc. So it's competitive intelligence that SRAM can use to out compete. When Shimano allowed Di2 interoperability their intention was that it would be for the benefit of the consumer, not their direct competitor.

There isn't necessarily a limitation on reverse engineering, they just can't use the information they had under contract anymore.

Weak sauce that they didn't attach the licensing to the devices though.

This is kind of what RAND licensing frameworks are for.

there’s a certain irony in proposing this as regards bicycle components, specifically.

This is to some extent even already the case through GDPR in Europe.

I wonder if GDPR is applicable to realtime Di2 data that is not shared with a third party. See also https://medicaldeviceslegal.com/2016/12/19/privacy-by-design...

As far as I understand the bike computer connects to the group set (Di2) on the bike directly using either ANT+ or Bluetooth signal and no internet is needed for their communication. This is how I have used both.

I think you can even DIY a device which connects to the group set. ANT+ is open access.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANT_(network)

This is local only over a pretty simple communication protocol. Hammerhead had previously licensed that protocol, but Shimano cancelled the contract when Hammerhead were acquired by Shimano's largest competitor.

I'm not a lawyer so don't know if they _need_ to have a license for the protocol, but presumably they think they do.

It is local, purely happen between the shimano di2 junction box on the bike and the bike computer.

There's no cloud. Shimano has a say because Shimano has decided to encrypt their ANT+ broadcast messages.

Wait until you see what Bosch and Shimano have been up to in the e-bike market.

Mid-drive systems from both companies require a specific mount in the frame for them, and of course one system will not mount in a hole made for the other. It's so bad that they've even made the mount specific to a particular product line. Buy a bike with the motor designed for relaxed cruising, and later decide you want the performance assist? Too bad! It won't fit your bike. Wom wom.)

You can't diagnose either system without their proprietary software.

Bosch's batteries brick themselves if you open them up and attempt to re-cell/repair the battery (third party solutions allow for de-bricking them now.) So when they stop making battery packs for your e-bike, it's a giant paperweight.

"I struggle to think of a good term for companys that insist on high ecosystem control."

Extortionists.

“Apple”

abusive, isolating, controlling, manipulative, etc?

Not sure in the case of Hammerhead (I've got a Wahoo and a Garmin), but mostly You can opt out of updating Your head unit. Problem is, it's an all-or-nothing. By not updating You also lose whatever bugfixes will be coming in the future updates.

Shimano is a Japanese company. They would be surprised to hear anyone outside the company is expected to have any sway over their policies. It's sad they turned to anti-consumer behaviour, as their hardware is top notch. But luckily, there is good competition and one can vote with their wallet.

> They actually work better than modern ones imo, because you can go into any gear from either front cog with no issue

You can do this on the latest modern stuff too, what you are describing is often called "cross-chaining". Cross chaining has generally always worked, it's just not recomended as puts undue wear on the chain and gears, coupled with the fact gear ratios on bikes overlap so much you will get the same or similar pedal effort from the cog with less cross-chain. Cross-chaining usually isn't recommended on a 2x8 speed road groupset either but like everything bike maintenance opinions vary.

> https://wickwerks.com/support/crosschaining

not sure how this is anti consumer? Shimano hasn't pushed these for years (decades?) and they're allowed to stop manufacturing parts eventually.

Hammerhead makes what’s known as a bicycle computer. The original purpose of a bicycle computer was quite simple, to track stats measured about performance on the bicycle. That’s expanded quite a bit. Now bicycle drivetrains are operated wirelessly rather through cable tension, and bicycle computers can integrate with them as well, through a protocol called ANT+. ANT+ is an open protocol, and most bicycle components and accessories with digital features (think heart rate monitor, computer, smart watch, smart trainer, etc.) nowadays are interoperable between manufacturers because of it. ANT+ however does allow for custom proprietary implementations. Shimano was supposed to be migrating away from their proprietary implementation for their DI2 (electronic shifting) systems, but they haven’t, and are now starting a trend of ostracizing competitors. The likely cause for this is that Hammerhead was just acquired by SRAM, one of the 2 major competitors in the bicycle component business. That move from open protocols to closed protocols used cynically is a pretty big departure and could be disastrous for bicycle riders, we’ve been lucky to have component compatibility across manufacturers as an option for decades. I could probably say more but I’ll stop here for now.

Yes, but it’s anti-consumer bullshit from Shimano. They are making Hammerhead remove Di2 functionality because Hammerhead was recently bought by SRAM, the other big player in the bicycle component market, who make their own electronic groupsets.

It’s like you’ve been using AirPods with your Android phone for ages with no issue, then Google releases some wireless earbuds and Apple decides AirPods no longer work with Android phones at all.

The Wahoo bike computer just came out in 2016! They're hardly Oldsmobile.

Yes. This. SRAM is the main competition in the bicycle world for Shimano.

Yeah, why would anyone buying a high-end bike go Shimano if they're going to be hamstrung trying to use the (arguably) best computer on the market with it.

This behavior reminds me of the "stuck-in-their-ways" description of another Japanese company (Sega of Japan) in the book "Console Wars". They punched their own ticket out of the console sphere and dragged Sega USA (who tried all they could to right the ship but were subservient of course to Sega Japan) with them.

That’s what I’m wondering too. They don’t really gain a lot from the move. But if let’s say 5% of higher end bike owners have a Karoo computer and would avoid Shimano in the future due to incompatibility, then it seems like a loss in market size to me. It’s also not like Shimano could compensate it by selling their own bike computer - because they don’t have one.

I have a SRAM eTap groupset on my roadbike and really enjoy it. The batteries are super convenient, I only charge them "defensively" once in a while and have never actually run out on a ride. If I had, I could have swapped the one of the front derailleur, which is significantly less used, with that of the back derailleur, and ride another few hundred (thousand?) kilometers. You could even carry an extra battery just in case. From what I understand, to charge Di2 you need to fully stop and couldn't even charge with a portable battery while moving, but I could be wrong. Seems like SRAM isn't as feature-rich, but is more straightforward and reliable.

Right now in the US the bike industry is spending dump trucks of cash to push state-by-state changes to bike laws creating a complex system of "classes" of e-bikes depending on power and features (namely, whether they use expensive "torque sensing" assist, or "throttle" assist.)

Why?

Because there are a lot of cheap conversion kits out there that use generic components, provide more power/range, are more repairable, and can be bolted on to almost any existing bike. And transferred to a new bike. Etc.

These systems would either be made completely illegal or regulated to the highest "class", which, coincidentally, the legislation typically grants agencies, towns, and bike paths the most control over - including outright banning them. Which is a huge change from the status quo, where in many states, cyclist have a specific right to ride on almost any road.

Bosch and Shimano have invested megabucks into "mid drive" systems which they've designed all sorts of planned obsolescence features. The most glaring example would be that each company's assist unit mounts to the frame in a very differently shaped space in the frame, so bikes have to be designed for a particular company's system.

Even worse, a particular company might have several different tiers of systems (Bosch has 3-4 currently) and each uses a different shaped space in the frame.

If interoperability was marketed as a feature at the moment you bought the product then in my understanding in Europe one could (try to) annul the agreement. Features are an integral part of the buying agreement. That still wouldn't hurt Shimano directly, since the annulment is with the shop. However, with these being 5k+ bikes, dealers would pretty soon start complaining to Shimano.

That sounds like the anti-trust stuff we supposedly already have.

I have a 12 year old Shimano Ultegra groupo that has needed very little upkeep and has a lot of miles on it. My newer shimano out performs my newer SRAM on my mountain bikes. Was Shimano new to the cycling industry 35 years ago, maybe they were bad then? I'm sure that was a glory day when Campi was the gold standard or something (I hear this from the old timers). I wish my newer SRAM stuff was as durable as my Shimano, because it was less expensive....

I'm even now waiting longer for a new road bike just so I can get shimano on it, rather than having SRAM on it and be delivered maybe next month....

Even if you're "in to" bikes, it's almost unintelligible aside from knowing Shimano is a brand.

I back this sentiment.

No there are many different manufacturers including SRAM which now owns Hammerhead but Shimano does have about 70% of the marketshare.

There are plenty of manufacturers making gears. (Cassettes and chainsets) For example mine are by their main competitor: SRAM

No, SRAM and (to a lesser extent) Campagnolo are two other fierce competitors.

Ok, we changed to that from https://support.hammerhead.io/hc/en-us/articles/360051706614.... Thanks!

Folks should be aware that Ray regularly receives highly preferential treatment by Garmin (who own the ANT standard), as well as speaking engagements at their ANT conference.

Expect anything that comes out of his mouth to be colored by his desire to not piss off the gods at Garmin. I've been watching him do that dance for years, refusing to acknowledge major bugs people find in various Garmin products that go unaddressed, to not having a peep to say about the absurd levels of market segmentation Garmin goes to.

Oh hey, here's him not pointing out that the whole thing is Garmin's fault for allowing vendors to utilize private, secret ANT functions. Instead:

> In other words, this is entirely a result of SRAM acquiring Hammerhead earlier this year

No. It's the fault of Garmin for creating "private ANT", mainly because they wanted it for their own purposes. See, Wahoo and others were starting to release competing GPS bike computers (and Hammerhead came along as well)...so private ANT let them lock out other bike computer manufacturers from getting advanced power meter stats, controlling their lights, getting alerts from their radar, etc just long enough to force people to buy their overpriced, under-featured, buggy bike computers.

Maybe you have got downvotes because you mean some proprietary software, not a computer per se. BTW personably I consider your comment reasonable even in that wording. Computer adds to that mechanical device nothing except of annoying.