The new Shimano Dura-Ace still isn’t wireless, but does it actually matter?

On Saturday, somewhat inconveniently, while I was having a lovely dinner with some friends (Jess, your filo pastry leek pie thing was delicious by the way), we broke the story of the latest Shimano Dura-Ace, spotted at the Vuelta a España on the bikes of Alpecin-Premier Tech. The reception to the visuals was somewhat muted, with many commenters saying it looks pretty similar to the old one, though this is a criticism that could equally be levelled at the current Dura-Ace.

Most of the feedback, at least of the negative type, centred around the fact that while SRAM has gone entirely wireless throughout its performance range on road and gravel, and Campagnolo is following suit, Shimano seems to be steadfastly sticking to a semi-wireless setup. This caused some degree of surprise throughout the commenteriat, especially given the latest GRX and XTR is fully wireless.

Does this matter, though? There’s a case to be made on both sides, and so it pays to analyse a good faith argument for each.

The case for going fully wireless

At the time of the last Dura-Ace release Shimano was much more dominant in the componentry market, with SRAM playing catch up. Now the tables have flipped somewhat, especially at the lower end of the market. It’s a lot easier to explain ‘you have one kind of battery and you just need to charge it in house house every now and then’, rather than ‘the battery is in the down tube or seat tube and the shifters are wireless to the rear derailleur, which acts as a brain, and that is hard wired to the battery and the front derailleur so you have to plug your bike into the wall in-situ’.

I get that SRAM has a patent on using identical batteries, but even different batteries as is the case with Campagnolo is an easier system to live with. Mechanically speaking it’s a lot easier to set up, too. Routing brake cables and hoses is a pain but I find routing Di2 wires infuriating. I will admit the mineral oil in Shimano brakes is far more pleasant to deal with than hateful DOT fluid, and I think Hollowtech cranks are a breeze compared to Dub, but purely from the gearing setup SRAM has it licked and that is why they seem to be cornering the market from the bottom up I think.

It also makes sense for bike designers. If your batteries are all external you can omit ports in the chainstays, which will reduce cost ever so slightly. The same goes for the conundrum of where to place the battery, which seems to have migrated in recent years from the seatpost to the base of the down tube as seat tubes have got more narrow or simply more complex. I suspect there are more than a few brands who were hoping to see fully wireless, just because it would make their lives easier.

The final point for going wireless is that it both looks neater because you don’t have a wire sticking out the back of your chainstay, and it’s potentially slightly less prone to accidental snagging in a crash because there isn’t a wire sticking out of your chainstay. Nearly every tech gallery we produce from any race features some very neat cable routing, either through aftermarket direct mount derailleur hangers, or via the judicious use of strips of inner tube or tastefully arranged zip ties, all in an effort to keep the whole system plugged together in an emergency, and all of which would be unnecessary if it wasn’t wired.

The case for keeping the wire

A quick check revealed that SRAM claims approximately 60 hours of ride time for road derailleurs from a full charge.

Shimano doesn’t provide an approximate number of riding hours for its batteries, but according to the brand's site, 1,200 to 1,500 miles of riding can be expected from a full battery charge.

The Shimano battery will last longer, but it’s not necessarily night and day as I suspected. Regardless, I will continue with the defence, Your Honour. Keeping the wired system means the battery can live inside the frame, and with some clever placement (remember how they’re often at the base of the down tube now), this can have positive implications on weight distributions and the centre of gravity. It’ll be marginal in the grand scheme of things. But having the weight centralised at the bottom bracket (ish) will be a net benefit for handling.

There are also claims in the comments that Shimano’s system has faster shifting, particularly at the front, and while this is true, this isn’t down to the wireless vs wired nature of the systems but rather the internal protocols. SRAM shifters have a barely perceptible delay as it has to wait to see if you’re also going to hit the other paddle to shift the front derailleur, whereas Shimano systems can be immediate.

The final case for the defence is mostly aesthetic, but also has some performance implications. Not having a battery attached to both the front and rear derailleurs means they can be smaller, and smaller is more aero and, depending on your point of view, more aesthetically pleasing, though it must be said that people do seem to be appreciative of the quite bulky looks of SRAM’s XPLR derailleurs. It also means that, with a smaller front derailleur, there is hypothetically a greater width of tyre that can be fitted at the rear before either going no larger, or having to swap to a 1x system. Proponents of SRAM will point out at this juncture that you can just go 1x13, and it’s fine, but personally I always prefer the smaller jumps between the sprockets on a more traditional 2x setup.

What would I rather have?

The fence I’ve been sitting on for the last 1,000 words or so is getting rather uncomfortable, so rather than acting as a lawyer for both the defence and the prosecution I am also going to be the Judge, and my verdict is that I think the fact that Shimano hasn’t gone wireless with the latest Dura-Ace (assuming of course that this is the final form) is a mis-step.

I don’t think the slight improvement in battery life and smaller derailleurs makes up for the gains that could be won with a true wireless system in terms of usability and liveability. I much prefer working on Shimano bikes in the workshop. I can bleed brakes with ease without worrying about the fluid eating my paint. I can take the crankset off in seconds, and swapping chainrings is a breeze. I prefer the interface of the cassette and lockring vs a single piece as I find I am less likely to mis-thread a lockring. The wires are a pain, though, when building a bike, and finding your battery has dropped out the bottom of your seatpost and needs fishing out is infuriating and there is an easy fix for both.

More than how it will impact Dura-Ace though, I think the main knock on impact of this will be felt further down the line; if Shimano refuses to adopt wireless for its lower tier groupsets, and I’m particularly thinking of 105 level, it will be seen as a more complicated system and also a more dated one in the eyes of the consumer, and could well drive more new cyclists into the arms of SRAM, locking them into that ecosystem for when they next upgrade up the product tree.

I’m in little doubt that Dura-Ace will perform well out on the road. The current one still, in my view, shifts better than SRAM, but there’s more to how a groupset performs than how crispy the shifts are.