Gears - electronic or mechanical?

Let me to distill the debate. There are two simple rules.

Rule 1 - Most riders don't give a shit about the debate.

Rule 2 - If you want it and it makes you happy, well done - life's short.

I am not an early adopter or a fan of changes that make equipment dated or redundant for no reason other than fashion or incremental gains; especially those that cost lots of bucks - eg the bottom bracket debate. If you are sprinting for a stage win and your livelihood depends on the result, for sure you should have the 0.0005% gain from a stiffer BB. If not, save your money. Then again, see Rule 2.

Anyway, to gears. I have been riding for long enough to remember when indexed down tube shifters were the latest break-through. My most recent road bike lasted 14 years and then terminally* cracked inside the seat tube. I ride road bikes and mountain bikes rain, hail, shine, snow, ice etc because I like it and I am apparently less obnoxious when I ride some. 

I weighed up the options and considered the debates-

• Carbon is stiff/fragile/plastic/a joke/essential
• 'Steel is real'
• Bamboo = smugness  
• Aluminium is passe
• Titanium is for middle aged men buying artisinal frames (true, but see rule 2)
• etc

For context, my riding is urban commuting and randonneuring. I don't club race, do triathlons or do training rides with more than 1 or 2 companions, if any. I don't mind if people club race, triathlons or ride in packs to the local coffee shop - it's just not my thing. I ride to be out in the weather and preferably, away from traffic, pedestrians and other cyclists who pose a danger to themselves and, more importantly, me - hard to avoid in NYC. I'm generally heading home when most recreational cyclists are heading out which means nothing more than my preference for bikes and equipment is less fashion, incremental improvement and more about fit, resilience and ease of repair given the miles I ride and the type of riding I do.

So to the bike. Based on my history of choosing carefully (or at least very, very slowly) and making bikes last a long time, the house budget committee approved me to spend some cash on the condition that whatever I chose, it had to last with minimal additional expense other than my endless quest for the perfect seat. After considerable (excessive) deliberation, I opted for a titanium frame (see rule 2), hand built wheels (DT rims/Chris King hubs) and a groupset that I'll get to.

The frame was a no-brainer given I have struggled to get the 'perfect' fit from stock frames and the best way is to get one that is made for me. There are plenty of decent options but I opted for titanium because (at least in the USA) you can get an awesome, custom fitted frame for a reasonable cost that has an excellent ride quality and avoids my two problems with carbon frames - try fixing them and the cost. Plus I think modern butted Titanium frames provide a superior ride to steel alloys - sure steel aficionados disagree but I sort of don't give a shit.

The wheels were easy as well. Until my recent (14 years old) Mavic Classics Pro wheelset, every wheelset I had was handmade because that's how wheels used to be made. There are endless options with fewer and fewer spokes, carbon rims/spokes/hubs etc etc but I live in an urban environment that is third world in terms of potholes and the kind of riding I do requires an ability to repair that which breaks - thus the DT rims and 28 spokes/wheel. They still weigh not much more than light weight wheelsets but can take more punishment and are more comfortable.

To the groupset. Despite my attitude to frames and wheelsets, I opted for Ultegra Di2. I am still not sure that this is the best choice or that, despite my scorn for fashion and incremental change, I haven't been sucker punched. However, the rationale is more complex. I have always wanted a Campy Record (not Super Record) groupset for the history and design but have always ended up with Japanese components because the quality, value and robust engineering suits my riding and budget. Simple things matter - eg it is easier, and much cheaper, to replace a broken Shimano chain than a Campy chain (ie if the LBS actually stocks them). The move to 11 speed rear cassettes just exacerbates the problem.

Which brings me to my dilemma. I opted for a groupset that has motors and relies on battery power to work. What was I thinking? I was thinking that the Dura Ace Di2 had some minor issues but was tested to death and has been improved to the point that it functions perfectly and any improvements are likely to be incremental in future generations. The Ultegra Di2 is still a similar cost to mechanical DuraAce, doesn't look quite as flash, is heavier than mechanical Ultegra but incorporates all of the improvements made to DuraAce Di2. If I was ever going to opt in, now is a reasonable time (actually in about 5 generations would be the time but I need a solution now).

But, all of this is weighing up incremental differences. Hopefully the incremental risk that won't be my undoing is the advantage of mechanical gears, namely, the thing that changes gears is a rider pushing a lever that pulls or releases a cable while Di2 relies on a motor to respond every time. Time will tell. If my objective was weekend rides of a few hours and some commuting, then the risk with electronic gears is negligible. If something goes wrong, you can generally limp home even in the wrong gear but being hundreds of kilometres from home, potentially in the middle of the night might change my mind. 

Regardless, the question remains - is there a need to opt into electronic shifting? Fundamentally, randonneuring is about resilience, self repair (usually in the middle of the night) and redundancy built into everything. Electronic shifting is the opposite of that. If something goes wrong with a servo, that's it...This might sound like buyer regret but it is not. For sure it is a leap of faith that I may regret but that is for the future. For now, the groupset is excellent - ie better than mechanical shifting and, on balance, I think I am on the right side of Rule 2. If it turns out to be a cluster, then I'll apply to the budget committee to undo the experiment, go for mechanical something and put it down to experience though to be honest, I really like Di2. Maybe it's the first blush of a new relationship but hopefully, it will grow into a 10 year relationship which, in bike technology terms, is married for life.

Interested in the opinions of others.

* Note - cyclists talking about their bikes bores the shit out of me but for the sake of completeness (and at the risk of showing my eccentricities), it was a Kestrel 200sci (they were such a forward thinking company in a non-bike way before they ran out of cash, got bought by Fuji and produced their current crop of truly ugly bikes - Kestrel, wtf happened?). I used Dura-Ace (mechanical of course) and had Mavic Classics Pro wheels. All awesome and took a complete flogging but when time is up, time is up. I put on a compact 105 crank last year for a 1200k event but everything, other than the frame, lasted very well despite 150,000km+ on the bike. Only swapped out pedals, seats(!) and bars (for a narrower fit).