[talove]

I am affected by this. I own 4 bikes, all with electronic shifting and 3 hammerhead computers.

This isn't just losing nice-to-have features, many of these features are for safety.

One example, the thumb toggles on the Di2 shifters allow me to change screens on my computer without removing my hands from the hoods / grips. They is now disabled. If you are descending at 40-50mph you have to remove your hand from your hood in order to see your map.

This might seem minor but the point is that cycling is already super dangerous. The tech is there for safety as much as anything else. I find this incredibly anti-cyclist and anti-consumer.

[jfengel]

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.

[Brian_K_White]

Good habits is orthoganal to good equipment.

Sure you should maybe not try to look at a map except at certain times and not certain other times.

Yeah, and, shit happens. Life is messy. Cycling is inherently chaotic and your own input merely helps.

I don't see "you shouldn't do that" as a good excuse for "your equipment doesn't have to, but by choice, it helps kill you if you don't always do everything perfectly" not to mention, the danger from removing a hand from bars is not even remotely limited to 50mph hills.

You shouldn't put your hand into the table saw, AND table saws have guards.

[deebosong]

Can I echo this sentiment?

I also understand the frustration of losing key features... But yeah, I don't wanna be near anyone peepin down on their map while blasting down a descent at 40-50 mph lol. You better be laser focused on everything in your peripheral and immediate field of view, and look at all the data/ metrics/ navigation after the fact.

[karamanolev]

It's not for everyone, it's dangerous and it should be done carefully and skillfully, but...

I cycle 300+ miles per week. 1 or 2 100mi rides a week. Descending at 40mph and checking the map, assuming it's already on the computer, is not a problem. If the road in front of you is empty, it's not hugely different than being in a car. Actually, in a car, you might be going 60 in the same place. Are you telling me you never check where to go going 60?

I'd say that doing 25mph in a peloton (or your friendly neighborhood group ride) when riding 8in from the person in front and checking your map is more dangerous than going 40 on an open road with plenty of room, but I can tell you, everyone checks their bike computers on group rides.

I'm curious to know if the people saying "oh laser focus on the road never look at your Garmin" are road cyclists having frequently ridden in fast group rides.

[taude]

I'm not sure I fully understand your use case? Why would you be looking at the map in the middle of a fast descent like that. Were you already not aware that you'd have to slam your brakes on halfway down the hill for a right-turn before you even started the descend?

And I think the argument holds even less water in a fast group ride. Does no one in the group, especially the people at the front know where the group ride is going? If everyone is half lost, surely it'd be going pretty slow while someone calibrated where the group should be going....

[karamanolev]

1. On a fast descent I like to know what the turns coming up look like. Also, sometimes we follow the main road, sometimes we turn out at some point. If it's a 100mi ride that was planned online, even the planner doesn't know it by heart. You have to look occasionally.

2. No, you're not aware when you have to slam on your brakes. The descent can be 10 minutes long at a high speed. You don't know every single corner by heart. You look at the map.

3. The people at the front know where we're going, but sometimes they miss things. It's nice to shout things at them when they do. They also rotate. I know there's a bit of gravel on this road, but they don't. I tell them. I know because I know we're passing town X or side street Y.

4. Even in a group, I'd like to know if there's a sharp turn coming, going into the city, etc. I want to know my heart rate, power, cadence, etc. I'd like to know how long the false flat that we're on lasts or when the next climb is coming up.

[talove]

I'll also add, you might be riding brakes preparing for a turn on a descent. Under many road conditions, especially a steep descent, a road bike is much more likely to break traction than a car which can literally be fatal (sliding out into an opposing lane, barrier, or off an edge). Anybody who has descended, even at reasonably safe speeds on a road bike with a bike computer knows it is the safe thing to do.

[kcmastrpc]

If I'm going down a relatively new descent, I'll use the bike map computer to visually confirm if there is a sharp turn or other hazard that might be on a blind corner (side roads connecting). I only need to glance at it, but it's very useful.

[karamanolev]

Yep. Can confirm. Quick glance, tells you what you need to know. Car drivers (sad to admit myself included) take their eyes off the road for much much longer. What I'm saying is that you do look at the bike computer.

[deebosong]

Just wanna say, I believe you. You def sound like a high level rider who isn't fazed by those speeds in those conditions, and it feels very controllable for you. And like you assumed, I don't do group rides often (and when I do, I'm not gonna be checking any bike computers).

[karamanolev]

Thanks :) I've been doing fast and frequent group rides for years. Haven't had accidents in a group yet, knock on wood. FWIW, I get more easily distracted when I'm alone. People riding 5in from me doing 25+mph keep me quite alert.

What I think is good if you get a lot of experience on the bike before you start doing group rides. That's what I did. Some people get fitness quickly after starting the sport and when they join the group rides, it gets dangerous - no bike handling skills, but the speed is high.

[skeeter2020]

> it's dangerous and it should be done carefully and skillfully, but..

the OP's original complaint was that the feature removal created the danger, so I'm glad you state that the act is already dangerous.

[wolverine876]

> If the road in front of you is empty, it's not hugely different than being in a car.

What do you mean? It seems hugely different to me for the obvious reasons.

[karamanolev]

I mean that for a skilled rider, the breaking distance doing 40mph on a bike is shorter than 60mph on a car. Also the distance travelled during reaction time is longer doing 60mph, so a given distance to a dangerous object allows for way less distraction time in a car.

People get more distracted in a car, because the environment is so calm inside. The rushing wind, constant vibrations and the physicality of riding a bicycle fast keeps you way more alert and doesn't dull your background sense of danger like a car does.

Hitting a pothole you didn't notice in a bike is quite startling - "oh, I better pay more attention, that wasn't nice". In a car you're like "meh, that didn't sound very nice for the suspension, back to my SMS on the phone".

[talove]

In popular road cycling areas, things like 10+ mile descents aren't unusual. Momentarily glances at the map is how you know you need to slow down.

As an example, search YouTube for a video of someone descending a road in the Santa Monica mountains.

[farski]

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.

[frankhhhhhhhhh]

The reason to have a map on screen when descending is to anticipate upcoming bends. This helps you to take the best line through the apex of the corners. Also mountain descents will regularly throw you very tight, and sometimes blind corners at random, and the best practice to handle these without going off the road is to brake hard enough to scrub off some speed before you begin your turn, then let go so you're not braking while turning. Navigation prompts will not show this because they are not turns.

[downut]

I am literally dressed and ready to head out for a 3000' training ride with tight twisty descents and IMHO it is quite suicidal to look down at a map when anything like you describe might happen. If I was a riding with you and I noticed you doing what you claim you need to do I would stop, let you go on, and if I didn't hear any crunching noises, resume, never to ride with you again.

Apex "civilization": people trust a fucking tiny map off in some other direction than they are traveling in lieu of the data streaming realtime right into their goddam eyes.

So you're looking at that fucking map, and what do you do when the squirrel/deer/javalina/pile of lumber discard appears in front of you?

I should delete this but no I am going to descend Thumb Butte road in a fury now.

[Brian_K_White]

Information is always useful. Your objection to it doesn't matter.

I hope you don't drive a motor vehicle without looking in the mirrors because gasp you are moving forwards at 80mph and need to be looking that way!

[loeg]

It’s obviously not the information that’s the problem, it’s looking away from the road surface even for an instant.

Cars protect the driver substantially more than bikes and car tires handle small debris in corners substantially better than bikes. Also the rare road surface that supports 80 mph speeds has relatively shallow corners and is closed to bikes. It’s a useless comparison.

[frankhhhhhhhhh]

Here's a stage winner of the Tour de France explaining using maps when descending. https://youtu.be/rY1-eq4FqTc?t=547

[marcosdumay]

> Apex "civilization": people trust a fucking tiny map off in some other direction than they are traveling in lieu of the data streaming realtime right into their goddam eyes.

Well, I haven't heard about people driving into a cliff because their GPS told them to in a while, but it used to be somewhat common.

There is no reason to expect people to not the equivalent thing in a bike. There is something about easy information summaries that compels people to get them and act on them.

[theCodeStig]

I hear you but... I myself, would not be trying to ride the best line, and hit every apex on a descent that I'm not intimately familiar with. I'd take it slow, and exercise caution until I am intimately familiar with the entire route.

[talove]

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.

[contravariant]

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?

[E39M5S62]

They release bug fixes and new features every two weeks. You'd have to weigh never getting those again to keep your Shimano Di2 integrations.

[teakettle42]

God forbid they release a product that works right the first time, with the features it’s supposed to have, and thus not have to ship an update every two weeks for a piece of bicycle kit, with customers losing an advertised product feature from their $400 cycle computer because of a license being revoked after their purchase.

[teakettle42]

The downvotes without comment have me curious. My assumption is that these are coming from people who do the same thing with their own product, and don’t appreciate the cost their customers pay for this development methodology.

Meanwhile, my Sonos system’s audio has been dropping out repeatedly for the past month because they keep shipping buggy updates I don’t need, but am forced to install.

[nradov]

Your assumption would be wrong. These bike computers have become complex general purpose computing devices with extensive functionality for training, safety, navigation, and even running third-party apps. Manufacturers keep individual hardware models in production for years and add new features through software updates all the time. Customers like me want those enhancements, although it rankles when updates introduce regression defects or (occasionally) remove features.

If you want a simple bike computer that doesn't have updatable firmware, well those are still widely available.

[teakettle42]

Wouldn’t you rather have a product that was fit for purpose from the day it was released, and without constant bug regressions (and outright removal of features you’ve paid for, as in this case)?

I’m certainly not seeing anything here that justifies the churn: https://www.hammerhead.io/blogs/change-logs

[skeeter2020]

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?

[6510]

To see if you might die in the next corner.

[elbigbad]

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.

[julenx]

> 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.

[ajdude]

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

[notesinthefield]

No, 40-50 mph happens often on a long decent. It's extremely exhilarating, dangerous and always takes a lot of focus.

[mauvehaus]

I've hit 45mph going down Tioga Pass towing a BOB trailer while touring[0]. Doing it on an unladen road bike would not be a big deal for a high level road cyclist on a good road surface.

[0] BOB's recommended top speed is 25 mph, for the record.

[mayormcmatt]

Damn, this is hardcore.

[mauvehaus]

It's also probably not the smartest thing I've ever done, but I survived.

[ubermonkey]

S/he does not. 50MPH is entirely plausible on even a relatively short alpine descent.

[323]

Check out this video, 100 kph descent in a competition:

https://youtu.be/I4aMTp6-WKU?t=23

[incahoots]

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.

[matsemann]

The thing is that Shimano doesn't have to do anything to support the competing product. They're just broadcasting signals on Ant+. It's Hammerhead doing the integration, and now shimano actively blocking that.

[Melatonic]

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

[1-more]

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

[PLenz]

The correct number of bikes or bike thingies is always n+1

[loeg]

Bikes, yeah, but the computers are portable between bikes. You only need one per rider. I have three bikes, but one computer.

[LeifCarrotson]

Where "n" is the amount that you currently own, I assume?

I thought it was n - 1, where "n" is the number at which your spouse would no longer be able to tolerate your obsession.

[1-more]

It's a bit like the math on Rubik's cubes, where there were two different proofs: there exists a configuration of the cube that takes n moves to solve, and for all configurations it takes at most m moves to solve the cube. Those numbers finally reached the same value at 20. Hopefully I won't have to go through that much to figure out the right number of bikes with my partner. After I get my frame fixed I'm still probably getting another, and that's how it starts.

http://www.cube20.org

[wyre]

Both are correct so it’s important to maximize for n

[skeeter2020]

marriages have been ended when those don't produce the same value for n

[1-more]

For bikes, sure; for computers when you can move them between bikes I don't see it. Maybe they mean in their household one per person?

[pharmakom]

Cycling is not super dangerous, statistically speaking.

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