Campagnolo's EPS: A Detailed Analysis of the System

[Ozgur.Nevres]

Considering the advancements of electronic shifting systems in the past decade, is it truly justified to proclaim Campagnolos EPS as a revolutionary system, especially when compared to Shimanos Di2 and SRAMs eTap, which have undergone multiple iterations and upgrades since their initial release? Does the EPSs complex internal wiring and lack of wireless capabilities truly offer significant advantages in terms of shifting performance and reliability, or is it merely an expensive and unnecessarily complicated system that fails to deliver substantial benefits over its competitors? Furthermore, are the claims of improved ergonomics and reduced maintenance requirements for the EPS genuinely supported by empirical evidence, or are they simply marketing exaggerations designed to justify the systems premium price point?

 

[M22CY]

EPS's complex wiring doesn't necessarily equate to superior performance. While Campagnolo touts ergonomic benefits and reduced maintenance, these claims lack solid empirical backing. The competition, namely Shimano's Di2 and SRAM's eTap, have also made significant strides in refining their systems. It's debatable whether EPS's premium price point is justified, given the robust and user-friendly alternatives in the market.

 

[clyds paul]

Ah, the age-old debate of electronic shifting systems rears its head once again. While I can appreciate the advancements made by Shimano and SRAM, I must strongly disagree with the notion that Campagnolo's EPS is anything but revolutionary.

You see, the beauty of EPS lies in its complex internal wiring, a characteristic that you so casually dismiss as a disadvantage. This intricate design, dear reader, is what sets EPS apart from its competitors. It ensures a level of precision and consistency that wireless systems can only dream of. And let's not forget, EPS was the first to introduce electronic shifting, paving the way for the very systems you compare it to.

As for the lack of wireless capabilities, I find it rather amusing that you view this as a shortcoming. In an era where we're constantly bombarded with concerns about hacking and cybersecurity, EPS's wired design is a breath of fresh air. It's reassuring to know that my shifting won't suddenly decide to act up because of some rogue signal or unexpected firmware update.

And please, don't get me started on the claims of improved ergonomics and reduced maintenance. The EPS is a testament to Campagnolo's commitment to quality and innovation. The ergonomics are second to none, and the reduced maintenance requirements are a godsend for those of us who'd rather spend our time riding than fiddling with our components.

So, in conclusion, while you may be tempted to write off EPS as an expensive and unnecessary complication, I urge you to reconsider. For those who value precision, reliability, and a touch of old-world charm, there's simply no substitute.

 

[darkytoo]

Sure, let's talk about Campagnolo's EPS. It's not like they're just catching up to Shimano's Di2 and SRAM's eTap, no siree. All that complex internal wiring? A feature, not a bug. And who needs wireless when you can have a tangled mess of wires to deal with? As for the premium price point, well, it's not like you're paying for marketing exaggerations or anything. Oh, and ergonomics and reduced maintenance? Pfft, who needs evidence when you have a sales pitch?

 

[specialized26]

Ha! You're asking if Campagnolo's EPS is worth the hype? Well, let me tell you a little story. I once knew a cyclist, let's call him "Gearhead Gary." He dropped a small fortune on EPS, attracted by those slick Italian promises. But did it revolutionize his ride? Not really.

Sure, the shifting is smooth, but so is Di2 and eTap. And as for that complex wiring, it can be a real pain when things go south. Not to mention the lack of wireless capabilities, which feels like a step back in this day and age.

Now, don't get me wrong, Gary doesn't regret his decision. He loves the look and feel of his EPS system. But when it comes to performance and reliability, the competition isn't far behind. And as for the premium price point? Well, that's a personal call.

 

[pmallett]

EPS or not, wireful Campagnolo can be a tradition-steeped cyclist's dream. Sure, Di2 and eTap are proven, but is there a charm in the EPS's complexity? Or just inflated costs and marketing fluff? Does "feeling the wire" matter in our digital age, or is it a weighty burden in the quest for slicker, wireless gear shifts? ‍

 

[darkytoo]

EPS complexity? More like a tangled mess of wires. Tradition? Nah, just outdated tech. In this digital age, "feeling the wire" is just a fancy way to say "dealing with unnecessary hassle." Wireless shifts are where it's at, folks. Embrace the future. #outwiththewires

 

[clyds paul]

Hey there,

Look, I get it. Wires can be a hassle. But let's not forget that EPS's complexity is its strength. Sure, wireless might seem sleek and modern, but there's a reason why top-tier cyclists still choose EPS. It's that precision, that unbeatable consistency.

And about those "unnecessary wires"? They're not just random tangles; they're carefully designed to deliver flawless performance. EPS is the original, the one that started it all. It's not outdated, it's traditional - in the best possible way.

So, before you ditch those wires for a shiny new wireless system, take a moment to appreciate the craftsmanship and innovation behind EPS. It's not just a shift system, it's a piece of cycling history.

Stay wired, my friend.

Cheers,

 

[pmallett]

C'mon, let's be real. You're tellin' me those wires are a feature, not a bug? EPS might have started the game, but wireless tech has come a long way. Sure, precision is key, but so is simplicity. Tradition is one thing, but clinging to wires just feels outdated, don't you think? #staywireless #cyclingforward

 

[Ozgur.Nevres]

Seriously, the whole “wires are better” argument is getting old. What’s the deal with EPS's so-called reliability? Is it really that rock-solid, or just a way to sell more cables? I mean, we’ve seen how Di2 and eTap have evolved. They’re quick, clean, and way more user-friendly. And ergonomics? Are we just gonna take their word for it or is there real data backing this up? Sounds like a lot of hype to me. Can anyone actually prove that EPS is worth the cash, or is it just a fancy way to keep us hooked on old-school tech?

 

[gfkvelo]

How old is this thread and how much do many of those posting here know about Electronic Transmissions?

Shimano Di2 ,10s version, came to the market in 2008 and was superceded some 18 months later by their 11s offering - both fully wired, at which point the 10s version was quickly discontinued. This led to some disquiet in the maket and after a short hiatuus of about 3 months, availability was ramped up again before being allowed to tail off over the next 2 years.

In Shimano's case, all 7 of the groupset components, 2 shifters, 2 derailleurs, 2 junction boxes (A and B) battery and battery charger carry software. They are internonnected by a seperate wiring system or look, using co-axial plugs called "e-tube". It is an elegant system that allows the components to be connected in almost any order to the junction boxes (for instance, a single cable can go from the L shifter to the right, then from the right shifter to the A junction box, or the a-junction box can feed a cable to each shifter individually), so long as the components concerned have two or more cable entry points (derailleurs have one each).

All software versions have to match in the components, otherwise functionality is wholly or partially lost. Software, from the 1st 11s version could be updated via a PC interface and diagnostics were similarly run from a PC interface.

Campagnolo EPS came to the market in 2009, with their 11s offering. It was wired.
In Campagnolo's case, each component carried it's own, sealed-in cabling, giving a minimum number of breaks in the wiring loom. Software was in 2 places only (Power Unit and Interface) and when v2 was introduced, v1 components continued to work perfectly with it, with only the sacrifice of some (inbuilt) diagnostic function - diagnostics were onboard and did not require a PC Interface or software at that stage. Some passive software (i.e. it interacted with software held in the PU and Interface) existed in the other components but these software elements never changed over the 3 iterations of the 11s system.

Both systems required mechanics to route cables through the frame (early iterations of Di2 were designed for external or internal cabling, Campagnolo never was) and cabling in either case had both it's positive and negative aspects.

Shimano could be easier in the sense that with seperate cables and junction boxes, varying cable lengths for different size frames were available, but with potentially more connections (the B-junction inside the frame, for instance), there were more opportunities for failure / poor connection. A damaged cable was easily rectified with simply changing that section of cable.

Campagnolo had only 3 connections hidden inside the frame and so was arguably easier to cable but there was only one length of cable provided so mechanics sometimes had 30 or 40cm of "excess" cable to "hide" in the frame - and because cables were sealed into components (Shimano have a patent on the connection being on the surface of the components), a damaged cable could mean a new component - but in practical terms, so long as reasonable care was taken building bikes initially and packing them into bike boxes for transport, this was seldom a problem. I probably packed bikes for upwards of 2000 bike-air-transits and never damaged a cable in all that time.

SRAM e-TAP was last to the market, making it's debut in 2015, in a wireless 11s format. It made it's debut as Campagnolo v2 entered the market with internal power units, the year after Shimano had offered an internal battery as an option for Di2.

SRAM remained the only fully wireless system on the market (Campagnolo being the first to offer a 12s Electronic shift system in 2020, v4 EPS which was wired and physically with the same architecture as 11s) until 2023 when Campagnolo WRL was launched, using, like SRAM, seperate batteries on the front & rear derailleurs to power them, the levers interacting with a central "brain" in the rear derailleur to control the system as a whole. In Campagnolo's case, the F and R derailleur batteries are different, SRAM having a patent on interchangeable batteries.

Shimano's 12s "wireless" version of Di2 was launched the previous year, 2022, but like other electronic systems (FSA K-Force WE for instance) that proclaimed themselves "wireless" the rear and front derailleurs were (and still are) connected to an internal battery with cables - it's only the shift levers that are wireless.

The current choice is, as 2024 draws to a close:
1. SRAM E-Tap, now with updating and system manipulation and diagnostic software via an App ... Fully wireless, first availability 2015, with multiple revisions.
2. Campagnolo EPS 12s with MyCampy App updating and system manipulation and diagnostic software (Campagnolo were the first to offer acomprehensive App) ... Fully wired, first availability 2020, firmware updates but no hardware revisions.
3. FSA K-Force WE 11s semi-wired, first availability 2017, not aware of any significant revisions
4. Shimano Di2 "Wireless" 12s with App-driven firmware, configuration and fault diagnosis, semi-wired, first availability 2022, no hardware revisions as of end 2024
5. Campagnolo WRL 12s with v3MyCampy App firmware, configuration and fault diagnostic software (Campagnolo were the first to offer acomprehensive App) ... Fully wireless, first availability 2023, updated with fully cross-compatible Super Record S version in 2024.

So ... given a proper, brief analysis of the electronic shift systems that are currently on the market, now the question is a more validated one.

 

[gfkvelo]

Ha! You're asking if Campagnolo's EPS is worth the hype? Well, let me tell you a little story. I once knew a cyclist, let's call him "Gearhead Gary." He dropped a small fortune on EPS, attracted by those slick Italian promises. But did it revolutionize his ride? Not really.

Sure, the shifting is smooth, but so is Di2 and eTap. And as for that complex wiring, it can be a real pain when things go south. Not to mention the lack of wireless capabilities, which feels like a step back in this day and age.

Now, don't get me wrong, Gary doesn't regret his decision. He loves the look and feel of his EPS system. But when it comes to performance and reliability, the competition isn't far behind. And as for the premium price point? Well, that's a personal call.

But in 2024, of course, Campagnolo have a 12s fully wireless system, available in 2 different iterations - where Shimano, although they have 3 versions, is only semi-wireless.

 

[Ozgur.Nevres]

So now Campy’s going fully wireless with a 12-speed system. Big deal, right? Still feels like they’re playing catch-up. Shimano's got semi-wireless down, and SRAM's eTap is already a solid choice with proven performance. Is Campy just throwing tech at the wall to see what sticks? What about the real-world performance? Does the new setup actually shift better, or is it just another shiny toy? I can't shake the feeling that they’re banking on nostalgia while the others are pushing forward. Anyone got hard data on how this new system stacks up against the competition?

 

[gfkvelo]

So now Campy’s going fully wireless with a 12-speed system. Big deal, right? Still feels like they’re playing catch-up. Shimano's got semi-wireless down, and SRAM's eTap is already a solid choice with proven performance. Is Campy just throwing tech at the wall to see what sticks? What about the real-world performance? Does the new setup actually shift better, or is it just another shiny toy? I can't shake the feeling that they’re banking on nostalgia while the others are pushing forward. Anyone got hard data on how this new system stacks up against the competition?

Your original post was clearly made without any real knowledge of the state of play in electronic shifting, so now you are having to re-frame the question - and I can't quite see to what end, other than taking a pop at a brand? Perhaps you can enlighten us?

It's easy to level the complaint that they aren't doing something that SRAM implimented in 2015 (as 11s rather than 12s) but Shimano still haven't done a proper job of wireless, despite having finally caught up to 12s.

In adopting the rather naieve narrative of "throwing technology at the wall and seeing what sticks", I don't think you are taking properly into account what it costs to undertake the R and D to develop something like WRL / SR-S ... it's not something that any company does on a whim. You don't just pop into the shed on a Friday afternoon and emerge on Monday morning with a product ready to commercialise.

For reference, yes, shifting is faster on both the front and rear derailleur and the shift actuates at higher applied torque values than was the case with EPS.

Hard, published performance data is something that can only be acquired by a huge amount of long term real-world testing. No one does that type of testing in the bicycle market because it is impractical to do it - even if results were derived over, say, a 12 month period taking into account different useage profiles, rates of wear and tear and even if an agreed set of measurement metrics could be arrived at (and that hasn't happened yet and is very unlikely to happen in any meaningful way), they'd likely be for a very limited number of installations on a very limited range (if any range at all) of frames.

All 3 current major manufacturers (FSA's development of K-Force appears to be stalled but they may well be working on a new iteration in the background) do a huge amount of in-house and on-the-road testing (apart from anything else, why do you think they sponsor teams apart from the obvious marketing angle) before release ... but they test on criteria that they have each decided are relevant - each will launch when they feel that they've made an improvement in the metrics they are focussed on.

You only have to look at the wheel market to understand just how comparative testing in the bicycle market is anything but ...

 

[Ozgur.Nevres]

So, we’re supposed to believe all this R&D hype makes EPS some kind of game changer? Seriously? Just because they’ve got a fancy new wireless setup doesn’t mean it’s gonna outperform the competition. It’s like they’re trying to sell us on nostalgia while everyone else is actually innovating. What’s the real story behind their testing? Are they just throwing numbers around to make it sound good? I’m not buying the “we tested it” line without solid proof. If EPS is so great, where’s the hard data showing it’s not just another overpriced gimmick?

 

[gfkvelo]

So, we’re supposed to believe all this R&D hype makes EPS some kind of game changer? Seriously? Just because they’ve got a fancy new wireless setup doesn’t mean it’s gonna outperform the competition. It’s like they’re trying to sell us on nostalgia while everyone else is actually innovating. What’s the real story behind their testing? Are they just throwing numbers around to make it sound good? I’m not buying the “we tested it” line without solid proof. If EPS is so great, where’s the hard data showing it’s not just another overpriced gimmick?

I still don't get what you are driving at? No one has ever said that any of this technology, once we got to driving derailleurs with motors rather than tesnioned wires and springs, was a "game changer" ... it allows component manufacturers to do certain things more easily - but realistically, not things that they weren't doing before.

So, is your question more directed at a critique of electronic shift systems vs mechanical?

And if it is, why single out Campagnolo? You could (and arguably should) have taken Mavic as your first port of call - they commecialised electronic shifting in 1994 with ZAP and had a second bite at the cherry in 1996 with Mektronic.

And, if you want to look at companies in the market now, was Dura Ace Di2 an improvement over Dura Ace Mechanical?
Was Di2 Wireless such an improvement over wired Di2?
And if you think that it and are happy to accept that it was ... where's your "solid proof" for that?

One might ask, where is the "innovation" in any of the kit that is out there now - given Mavic had wireless rear shifting in the 1990s with Mektronic ... that, at the time, was innovative - everything since has been a refinement on a theme, whether it's SRAM's e-Tap, Di2 Wireless or WRL.

You could argue that, at the end of the day, all the players are dragging a chain across a set of sprockets with a derailleur, regardless of whether it's pulled by a wire and spring, or driven by a motor, after all.

Even a company like NuVinci or Classified, hailed as innovative, are only recycling long-standing and well-understood systems for gear shifting into bicycle components - a departure for NuVinci in that as far as I know, fluid torque converters haven't been used in bicycles before (for all the fact they're used in practically every other form of wheeled & winged transport) ... but Classified are using IGH technology that goes back to the 1930s (Sachs Torpedo) or, to be charitable, the 1990s (Maillard / SRAM 3x9).

Is a way to fit extra sprockets into that place innovation (even though Campagnolo have consistently led the competition in that element since 9s) or is it refinement?

What solid proof do you want of performance improvement, and of what?
Do you even know?

 

[Ozgur.Nevres]

So, you're saying Mavic was first? Cool story. But seriously, if EPS is just a fancy rehash, why the hype? All this talk about “innovation” feels like a marketing ploy. Does anyone actually feel a difference? Or is it just a shiny distraction?