A listener asked on a recent Geek Warning if electronic shifting is soulless? Nope. Shifting lost its soul a long time ago with the advent of indexed shifting. Friction levers, especially when you had to reach to the down tube (and especially the old Campy ones) were the definition of soul in shifting. Less efficient for certain, but definitely more soulful, especially the way you had to guide the chain slightly past the cog when shifting up the cassette and then slightly bring the lever forward to settle it in perfectly.
6 Likes
I guess that depends on what you consider âsoulfulâ to be.
IMHO, the issue with that discussion was the apparent assumption that people that prefer or buy mechanical systems are somehow yearning for the old days or are retro grouches. I think that ignores a number of reasons why people might prefer mechanical groups over electronic groups. Someone just might prefer more simplicity. Someone might prefer the mechanical feedback or a more tactile or visceral riding experience. Someone might have other reasons.
Are electronic groups soulless? That depends on what a given user thinks. Are electronic groups better? Again that depends on what a given user thinks. Better is not an objective measure of anything. In fact, itâs entirely dependent on a userâs needs, preferences, etc.
7 Likes
Bikes lost their soul as soon as they added gears. (/s)
I think it all comes down to: donât yuck someone elseâs yum, but also donât close yourself off to new innovations. Almost all of us are doing this for fun - go have fun! (although it does suck if the industry no longer makes the thing you consider the most fun, hopefully you can find a different kind of fun with the new stuff).
4 Likes
My thoughts exactly. Iâm surprised people feel that cable-actuated, indexed shifting feels like a manual when it decidedly feels like a double clutch transmission or automatic in manual mode. 
I think those are valid points, but I wouldnât connect that to soulful- or soullessness. There are some practical aspects where e. g. someone doing a tour around the world, they might opt for mechanical shifting. (Although then Iâd look towards either a Pinion gearbox or hub gears with a carbon belt drive.)
Or if you are a super weight weenie, you may have a Red mechanical 11-speed drivetrain lying around on your hill climb bike with drilled out handlebars and such.
Let me nitpick: I think we should distinguish between better and more enjoyable. My previous mountain bike was a fully, now I am back on a hardtail. I prefer how hardtails feel, but I acknowledge that except in a very small, specific number of circumstances, a fully is better.
Or a quartz or smart watch is much better at keeping time than a mechanical watch. But you want a mechanical watch for reasons other than being better.
Perhaps someone prefers electronic shifting to mechanical indexed shifting for the same reasons. Whatever floats your boat. 
2 Likes
Instead of overthinking bikes and their tech, I prefer to find âsoulâ in the ride itself.
12 Likes
Unfortunately, âbetterâ is a subjective thing. We canât measure âbetterâ. We can say this set of properties is what we think is better, but choosing that set of properties is itself a choice based on preferences, needs, etc, not an objective qualification.
A good example of the subjectivity of âbetterâ is your watch example. Is a quartz or smart watch âbetterâ at keeping time? It depends. Is time shown on a smart or quartz watch more accurate or precise? Possibly. What if youâre in the wilderness for a long period of time and canât charge that smart watch or get a battery for the quartz watch? Well, if they run out of power, then theyâre no longer going to function while the mechanical watch will. A person might need that watch to function no matter whether batteries or electric power are available, so that person might find the mechanical watch better.
In the same way, saying electronic group sets are better than mech groups, disc brakes are better than rim brakes, frame material X is better than frame material Y, cargo bib shorts are better than non-cargo bib shorts, etc is no different than saying this flavor of ice cream is better than that one.
As you suggested, it really is all about whatever floats your boat. Unfortunately, that idea seems to get buried beneath the bullshit idea that âbetterâ is something that is irrefutable and objective.
5 Likes
Bikes donât have souls, people have souls. A well maintained modern mechanical groupset is indestinguisably from a good electrc groupset. I push the button or lever and the resistance of the pedals changes how I want it to. Both systems are extension of my brain and body.
The problems happen when the output doesnât happen how I want it to. That could be a dead battery, worn cable, or flat tire. But whatâs usally problem in the system is my legs, thatâs where the soul is.
3 Likes
But nope. Flavors are preference. Bike components are designed and engineered for specific functions. Better is pretty easily defined for machines (brakes, drivetrains, etc.) and intended purpose.
Brakes have one purpose: to slow your roll. Hydro disc are quantifiably and subjectively better than any rim brake system, in any conditions, at doing this.
Shifting mechanisms serve a purpose: move the chain up and down the cassette or chainrings. Elec. is faster (so much so, most systems offer settings to slow the shifts), are more precise and much more reliable than any friction system and all indexed mechanical systems, too.
While there was an art to shifting Campy C-Record downtube shifters, the levers, cables, and derailleurs still were designed with a single purpose. Campy EPS is just better at shifting. And so are SRAM and Shimano versions of the same.
Frame material? Iâm not touching that oneâŚ.
Also, vanilla is a better flavor for ice cream, while chocolate is superior for baked goods.
And the spirit of gravel is and always will be bourbon. Change my mind.
4 Likes
Thatâs wrong you missed the whole point. âBetterâ is not objective. To figure what better is you have to assign some arbitrary properties or qualifications. Yes, arbitrary because not everyone has the same list of properties or qualifications. Also, you canât measure âbetterâ. There is no sensor that quantifies âbetterâ. You can measure speed, stopping distance, drag, weight, grams of sugar, density, conductivity, moisture content, cholesterol levels, and a hugemongous list of other things, but you canât measure better.
Companies donât design something to be âbetterâ. Nope, they instead make list of properties and/or performance they want to improve they want to improve, and those choices are based on opinions. Theyâre certainly not constants. A good example is stiffness, it used to stiffness to weight ratio was the god that bike manufacturers built bike to satisfy. Seemingly everyone wanted to come out on top of Tour magazineâs stiffness tests. Guess what? It isnât the almighty property anymore.
Shifting faster is better? Oh, since when, and according to who? Show me test data that shows shifting faster is always better. Show me the test data that shows that shift speed is is always relevant. That data doesnât exist. You may not see it, but what youâre saying is that you think faster shifting is better, always relevant, and always detectable. Those are opininions not facts.
Question: why donât we have 320mm cast iron Brembo disc rotors on the front of bikes. Those rotors with the right pads provide way more friction than what we get with bike brakes. They have to be better. After all, theyâd stop a bike way sooner.
Question: why donât riders in TTs and triathlons use 19mm wide tires? Their presented area is way smaller than 28mm tires, and since the drag force varies directly with presented area, theyâve got to be better right?
Why donât we weigh ourselves on the most accurate and precise mass balances out there instead of on the relatively cheap weight scales we use? More accurate and precise is better right, so that means such expensive mass balances must be better for everyone.
The frame material debate is exactly the same kind thing: there is no best or better frame material. Thatâs for the rider to decide.
Better is not an objective thing.
Move goalposts
Yes, the word better is contextual, which is why I gave a few examples.
I guess a writer who first used pen and paper could argue manual typewriters are soulless; and manual typewriter users could argue composing with a computer is soulless.
A cycling forum is an interesting venue for a linguistic theory discussion.
2 Likes
I donât care about the linguistics. I care about the difference between objective and subjective. In terms of bike or bike component performance, objective things are things you can measure or otherwise quantify. Subjective things canât be quantified and depend on other factors like preference, opinion, âfeelâ, color, and any of a lot of other factors. Then you have to throw into that max how a given rider âweightsâ those objective and subjective factors. Thatâs the answer to âIs product A better than product B?â is more often than not, âIt dependsâ.
No goalposts were moved at all.
Hydraulic brakes are definitely better at stopping, and that is their single purpose, but other brakes are acceptable at stopping and have different trade offs (eg rim brakes are lighter and allow for lighter, more compliant forks). I find the trade offs for hydraulic disc brakes more than worth it, and run them on all of my bikes, but I can 100% understand if someone preferred rim brakes.
I think if weâre trying to get to a narrowly defined, objectively optimal solution for problems, bicycles would rarely be the answer.
1 Like
I think there are instances where you can agree on objective criteria for âbetterâ, and new stuff is better. E. g. new cars tend to be much safer than cars 30 years ago. If âbetterâ means âmore enjoyableâ, Iâd just skip the word better and focus on more enjoyable itself.
I think focussing on âbetterâ misses the point why some people feel affection for things such as vintage cars or vintage bikes. Itâs not that a car from 50 years ago is âbetterâ, but it is still appealing to drive it. There could also be ways in which old things are better, because they were e. g. better made. An old Rolex is better made and more durable than a Swatch. But a Swatch is better at keeping time. And the reason is that wrist watches have gone from something you buy once every few decades to something you buy more often.
Another analogy is looks. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To give one example, if you ask an old roadie what a good-looking road bike is, they might describe, among other things, a bike with rim brakes, few-to-no aero features and the like. I come from mountain biking, and to my brain (rightly or wrongly) disc brakes trigger reactions like âcheapâ and âbadâ. I also donât have as strong a preference as to frame shape.
1 Like
Iâm sorry, but why is this about âaffection for things such as vintage cars or vintage bikes?â Is that the only reason you can see for someone not thinking a modern part is not better for them? Why is this about what âan old roadieâ thinks is good looking?
That whole approach is dismissive of what anyone considers better that others might not. It completely dismisses all other priorities and preferences that someone used to decide what is âbetterâ for them. Thatâs another example of the difference between subjective and objective points. That someone must be retro grouch or love of vintage things if they donât prefer some new component or system is certainly an âinterestingâ opinion, but itâs the polar opposite of any objective conclusion.
Disc brakes can allow a bike to stop more quickly. Disc brakes tend to have more consistent modulation. What happens though when a person doesnât like the modulation delivered? Sub-optimal modulation for a person can result in an increased stopping distance, and whether the modulation is optimal or not is dependent on the person and is not a universal truth. Thatâs an example of two factors not necessarily resulting in âbetterâ.
I found this a bit hard to understand, but I think we are both saying the same thing here - there isnât really any way to achieve a universal objectively best solution. I was replying to another member on this thread.
1 Like
Maybe whatâs soul to you, is very useful innovation to me. My soul, in the days of friction gears, was tortured! It was a major impediment to me enjoying my bike. The advent of indexed mechanical shifting still didnât help much because it was so hard to get onto the bike chain ring (small hands, stretched out). Di2 and the latest innovations that auto shift the front cogs are just great.
I also donât miss double declutching on the car - I can still do it but I love my EV with no gearbox more and I can enjoy other aspects of driving besides the technical challenge. Maybe we are looking for âsoulâ in different places.
What would Henri Desgranges say
Sorry to break it to you, but people donât have souls either. Or possibly âsoulâ is an epiphenomenal social construction bla bla bla. But really, itâs just turtles all the way down.
2 Likes
Iâd say itâs fair to be critical of what weâre using and how it impacts us.
To me itâs not just where I ride but itâs bike, the weather, the food I eat, what equipment Iâm using (or lack thereof) and the purpose of the ride that contribute to the âsoulâ of ride.
Even then itâs not always the same day to day, and my preferences certainly change over time
Iâm not a âsoulâ person, but I get the gist theyâre trying to get across.
For a bit I went vintage bikes (2x7 with friction shifting, skinnier rims & tyres), and it was about going slow, and feeling like the bike is an extension of me. It was quite visceral. In fact, too visceral. I wanted to enjoy the scenery a bit more but my eyes are too glued to the road to watch for rough stuff, and having to remember next time the worst sections. Iâm also fiddling with the downtube shifters more than Iâd like. I want to relax a bit more.
Was it more âsoulfulâ? Yeah, did I enjoy it more? No
Then for a bit I went the other way. Di2, power meter, gels, etc. It was a lot of fun, pushed myself hard, took a few local KOMâs, etc. but then after a bit Iâd say it lost that âsoulâ as I was just building numbers of getting those FTP up, checking my heart rate, etc.
So yeah, I would kind of agree with OP that electronic shifting is soulless but I also respect that if a lot of people just donât care about that particular aspect or it adds zero enjoyment to their ride.
Hence for me a mechanical indexed shifting is the sweet spot. As others have said, YMMV and you find your soul in other places