When people think of bicycling, what comes to mind first is the physical effort involved in riding a bicycle. Balancing, pedaling, braking and shifting gears are all part of the concept of cycling.
From its humble beginning to its emergence as a luxury item for the elite, the bicycle has always been associated with fitness and health. Whether used as transportation, recreation, athletic equipment or toy, the point of cycling is to move from one place to another using only human power.
Towards the end of the 20th century, the idea of human powered transportation was replaced, in some people’s minds, by the idea of making cycling easier. This particular group of people wanted to use various forms of modern technology to “enhance” the bicycle and the bicycling experience. To that end, they began to devise ways to modernize the bicycle by combining technological advances, from other areas, with the traditional bicycle.
One such attempt was the advent of electronic gear-shifting systems. SunTour, a bicycle component manufacturer, introduced the Browning Electronic AccuShift Transmission, a triple chainset system for mountain bikes, in 1990. Over the next few years, several other component manufacturers designed electronic shifting systems, as well. And, in the 2000s, Campagnolo and Shimano designed electronic shifting systems which were used in bicycle races.
In 2009, Shimano released the first commercially available electronic shifting system, Di2, which was used by several professional bicycle racing teams. Di2 is controlled by solid-state switches located in the shift levers. These switches send signals through a wiring harness to a lithium-ion battery pack near the bottom bracket. The rechargeable battery supplies power to the derailleur motors, which move the derailleurs via worm gears. According to Shimano, the battery can last about 620 miles (1,000 km) on a single charge.
Since the early models were very expensive, in 2011, both Campagnolo and Shimano offered lower priced models to reach a wider audience and to challenge traditional mechanical shifting systems. The amount of time and money major component manufacturers have devoted to this approach reflects a genuine effort to move bicycling away from the realm of human powered transportation.
The main advantages of electronic shifting systems are that they provide faster shifting and the ability to shift without changing hand position, while allowing more accurate shifting. Such systems, however, are not without shortcomings. For instance, there is no option for a manual override, if the battery dies. This could leave cyclists stranded in locations where being unable to shift gears would make riding difficult. Unreliability is another problem. Several systems have been recalled due to reliability issues. Aside from the inconvenience of a recall, malfunctioning systems could endanger a cyclist by mis-shifting or failing entirely.
Not least of all is the cost of outfitting a bicycle with an electronic shifting system. These systems currently cost several thousand dollars, and their long-term maintenance costs are unknown. Still, common sense dictates that electronic systems will be less durable — due to the larger number of parts to wear out — than mechanical systems, and will have to be replaced sooner.
More recently, researchers at Saarland University in Germany, have begun developing a prototype bicycle using wireless technology to control the braking system. Rather than using a traditional brake cable and lever, the cyclist squeezes the right handle to brake. A wireless pressure sensor registers the movement and the gripping force, and then sends signals to a receiver placed on the bike’s fork. The signal is transmitted to an actuator that operates the disk brake.
One of the researchers commented on the braking system’s reliability:
“‘Wireless networks are never a fail-safe method. That’s a fact that’s based on a technological background,’ explained Professor Holger Hermanns, a member of the scientific team behind the braking system. However, by using algorithms that are generally reserved for control systems in aircraft or chemical factories, the team has reported that their prototype brakes have 99.9999999999997% reliability.
‘This implies that out of a trillion braking attempts, we have three failures,’ Hermanns said. ‘That is not perfect, but acceptable.’”
The research team viewed similar experiments on trains and airplanes as moving too quickly, and as being too sophisticated. But bicycling, a “low-tech” mode of transportation, was seen as a “playground” for perfecting a safety system before moving on to larger projects.
An interesting aspect of the mindset behind such bicycle innovations is the idea of embracing “acceptable” failure rates for human powered transportation, while considering the same failure rates to be unacceptable for motor-driven forms of transportation. It’s almost as if they’re saying that injuring one person at a time is acceptable, but injuring many people at a time is not. Could this be a clue as to why the motoring public has less sympathy for cyclists who are injured or killed in an accident?
Safety aside, the question of whether combining technology with bicycles is a good idea remains. On one hand, it can’t hurt, and it might draw more people to cycling by making riding easier for beginners or those who don’t like to exercise. On the other hand, adding technological features which require cyclists to relinquish control of certain functions of their bikes is to separate cyclist from bicycle.
Although this separation may seem trivial, it detracts from what makes cycling unique. Under normal circumstances, a bicycle and cyclist act as one to propel a human through space. It is a combined effort. So, the cyclist should be in control of every facet of a bicycle’s movement, and the bicycle should respond, directly, to a cyclist’s actions.
In addition, reliance on technology — and the failures which accompany it — ruins the simplicity of bicycling. Technology overcomplicates what ought to be little more than a frame, seat, pedals, brakes, wheels — and sometimes, gears.
As we move forward into the 21st century, a struggle between simplicity and complexity and purity and pollution will be a driving force in the future we forge for ourselves. Simplicity and purity need not be relics from the past. Despite the complexity of a modern technological world, our fundamental nature still has meaning and relevance. Being true to ourselves, without interference or enhancement, is not archaic, it’s merely recognizing the essence of who we are and embracing the veracity of what it means to be alive and dependent only on ourselves to determine our final destination.
