Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MakeShift: Security analysis of Shimano Di2 wireless gear shifting (2024)

usenix.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: MakeShift: Security analysis of Shimano Di2 wireless gear shifting (2024)

#21

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

tokai wrote: post #7
voidUpdate wrote: post #2

Wireless gear shifters? What was wrong with a cable? Even if you don't want it to be a mechanical connection, you could still at least send data over that instead of wirelessly...

Besides what other have answered you already have a lot of wireless connections on a race bike. To the sensors measuring speed, cadence, watts, and possibly stuff like rear traffic radar, gear selection etc.. It all integrates with an unwired bike computer, so wireless shifters makes fine sense in the system.

Recording telemetry is different from something which directly impacts operation.

Re: MakeShift: Security analysis of Shimano Di2 wireless gear shifting (2024)

#22

Post by doctorpangloss »

mauvehaus wrote: post #16
doctorpangloss wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of maintenance, most cyclists would benefit more from internal gear hubs and carbon belts. From a product development POV, seems better to make auto shifting IGHs. Indeed this is how share bikes are designed.

Yes, but for racing bikes, which are the target market for wireless shifting in 2025, the efficiency losses of an internal hub are a non-starter. The casuals whose bikes haven't seen a wrench since they were assembled aren't buying wireless groupsets. For them: we're in agreement about belts and internally geared hubs. Automatic shifting has yet to prove itself to be more than a curiosity. A 20-something year old Aut…

> In good shape it would be an entirely adequate solution, if only it solved a problem anyone had.

I cannot understate how big of a problem shifting is for the demographics you are not seeing on bicycles.

Re: MakeShift: Security analysis of Shimano Di2 wireless gear shifting (2024)

#23

Post by topaz0 »

tokai wrote: post #7
voidUpdate wrote: post #2

Wireless gear shifters? What was wrong with a cable? Even if you don't want it to be a mechanical connection, you could still at least send data over that instead of wirelessly...

Besides what other have answered you already have a lot of wireless connections on a race bike. To the sensors measuring speed, cadence, watts, and possibly stuff like rear traffic radar, gear selection etc.. It all integrates with an unwired bike computer, so wireless shifters makes fine sense in the system.

What ever happened to measuring speed, cadence and pedal force using your body and mind?

Re: MakeShift: Security analysis of Shimano Di2 wireless gear shifting (2024)

#24

Post by topaz0 »

Finnucane wrote: post #12
voidUpdate wrote: post #2

Wireless gear shifters? What was wrong with a cable? Even if you don't want it to be a mechanical connection, you could still at least send data over that instead of wirelessly...

Racing cyclist: can I spend some money and save 2 grams of weight? Touring cyclist: can I patch this with some duct tape and a radio antenna I ripped off a car?

I was on a tour recently with a guy who brought a racing bike with rear-only panniers that probably weighed 2-3x the whole rest of the bike. He really struggled with the balance.

Re: MakeShift: Security analysis of Shimano Di2 wireless gear shifting (2024)

#25

Post by cheeze »

voidUpdate wrote: post #2

Wireless gear shifters? What was wrong with a cable? Even if you don't want it to be a mechanical connection, you could still at least send data over that instead of wirelessly...

To me, it's night and day.

Cables stretch, need replacement (yearly or every 2 in my case), and mechanical shifting requires more effort.

Di2 is literally 'mouse click' with little electric components that _instantly_ shift. Maintenance is reduced, the shifting is notably smoother, and adjustments are a breeze.

IMO the "but my shifters could die" crowd overblow the concerns. I charge my bike _once a month_ and that's being conservative. I already have to charge my GPS unit, my lights, etc. so remembering to plug my bike in is a non-concern.

Anecdotally, most folks I know who don't like electronic shifting haven't actually used it. The major downside is that it's expensive, as are all road bike components.

Re: MakeShift: Security analysis of Shimano Di2 wireless gear shifting (2024)

#26

Post by cheeze »

raoulj wrote: post #15
fuzzylightbulb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not needing to route cables (or wires) along and/or through the bike frame is a huge improvement. Anecdotally, everyone I know that has adopted Di2 seems to love it. The cost of these systems is negligible for the type of buyer who is shopping for high-end groupsets.

Counterpoint - the benefits of wireless are there but the worry of your unit dying in the middle of a ride now replaces the concern of whether your derailleur is tuned and ready to go. It's easy for a shop to assemble, but now I'm worried about shorting the control unit of my di2 which would be a pricey fix. I have two bikes: one with and one without di2. Both work just as well and one costs much more. I do love disc…

You're talking about charging... monthly? With a system that gives clear warnings early that you're low on battery?

I'm already charging my GPS, headphones, bike lights, etc. regularly. This has been an absolute non-issue to me.

If the battery lasted for 100 miles, sure. But I'm getting ~1000 miles a charge.

Re: MakeShift: Security analysis of Shimano Di2 wireless gear shifting (2024)

#27

Post by topaz0 »

cheeze wrote: post #25
voidUpdate wrote: post #2

Wireless gear shifters? What was wrong with a cable? Even if you don't want it to be a mechanical connection, you could still at least send data over that instead of wirelessly...

To me, it's night and day. Cables stretch, need replacement (yearly or every 2 in my case), and mechanical shifting requires more effort. Di2 is literally 'mouse click' with little electric components that _instantly_ shift. Maintenance is reduced, the shifting is notably smoother, and adjustments are a breeze. IMO the "but my shifters could die" crowd overblow the concerns. I charge my bike _once a month_ and that's…

All this tech, just to recover the speed and smoothness of friction shifters from 30 years ago.

Re: MakeShift: Security analysis of Shimano Di2 wireless gear shifting (2024)

#28

Post by bee_rider »

topaz0 wrote: post #23
tokai wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides what other have answered you already have a lot of wireless connections on a race bike. To the sensors measuring speed, cadence, watts, and possibly stuff like rear traffic radar, gear selection etc.. It all integrates with an unwired bike computer, so wireless shifters makes fine sense in the system.

What ever happened to measuring speed, cadence and pedal force using your body and mind?

We can do that. (I barely “measure” in the sense that I’m lazy and just pedal slowly, haha).

But there’s a well established community of really hardcore bicycle hobbyists. The folks paying a couple thousand dollars for shifters want fancy stuff. Some want graphs and numbers. shrug

Re: MakeShift: Security analysis of Shimano Di2 wireless gear shifting (2024)

#29

Post by conradev »

fuzzylightbulb wrote: post #5
voidUpdate wrote: post #2

Wireless gear shifters? What was wrong with a cable? Even if you don't want it to be a mechanical connection, you could still at least send data over that instead of wirelessly...

Not needing to route cables (or wires) along and/or through the bike frame is a huge improvement. Anecdotally, everyone I know that has adopted Di2 seems to love it. The cost of these systems is negligible for the type of buyer who is shopping for high-end groupsets.

My Di2 is wired internally but can communicate wirelessly, which I really like. One charger and one battery for everything.
Post reply on HN