SRAM eTap awaiting certification for use in South Africa

[Nick]

Could well be that. And then it makes sense.

 

Edit: Should I really be assuming that what they do makes sense?

 

Haha, we're dealing with the hypothetical here.

[Shebeen]

There are still restrictions within the ISM band for instance maximum permissible transmitter power. Naturally strict frequency band adherence needs to proven as well.

I had a look at the icasa website and got nowhere quickly.

I think the threshold is 100mW, which is quite a big transmitter, no way these little things are over that.

 

In looking at the SRAM site, there is very little info on the actual comms protocol being used. Airea could even be their own coding system which uses something off the shelf like zigbee for the actual RF transmissions. I see very little point in them developing their own tx hardware when you can't really improve it.

 

My RF design knowledge has been parked in the design lab I left about 10 years ago, so would really love someone to throw more light on this.

[Skinnyone]

Yes ICASA needs to approve it to make sure that the TX doesn't transmit more than the claimed values - in case you ride past parliament and accidentally jam all the signals there   and from what I have read (stand to be corrected) they need a operating unit in their offices to test and then approve so if Cape Cycles don't have this yet then this is where the hiccup may be. Like has been mentioned, they may also want documents of the design etc which SRAM may not like as it opens doors for competitors to spy etc...

 

OR Cape Cycles may just pay a bribe and get the stuff approved double quick...

[Pure Savage]

All this hassle and we have not even got to the fact you cannot shift rear and front mech at the same time

[JA-Q001]

Well, maybe its bottlenecks like this that makes Shimano not want to go wireless?

[madbradd]

Well, maybe its bottlenecks like this that makes Shimano not want to go wireless?

 

I'm not sure Shimano base their tech on what ICASA are/aren't doing.

 

I've never heard of this type of issue on any other "open" platform like ANT+, Bluetooth etc. I really believe that this is a case of someone having declared something that they didn't really have to resulting in a bunch of confused people.

[JA-Q001]

I'm not sure Shimano base their tech on what ICASA are/aren't doing.

 

I've never heard of this type of issue on any other "open" platform like ANT+, Bluetooth etc. I really believe that this is a case of someone having declared something that they didn't really have to resulting in a bunch of confused people.

But, if it really does require a lot of red tape to get your product introduced into a country (not just SA), then eliminating it is better for both the company and end user.

[Skinnyone]

I'm not sure Shimano base their tech on what ICASA are/aren't doing.

 

I've never heard of this type of issue on any other "open" platform like ANT+, Bluetooth etc. I really believe that this is a case of someone having declared something that they didn't really have to resulting in a bunch of confused people.

In theory (and it doesn't always happen because of the red tape) ANY unit that transmits a radio frequency be it 2.4Ghz - (Hobby/Wifi/most others inc ANT+), 35MHz (Hobby), 27MHz (hobby-ground based, amateur radio), ANT+ or BLE MUST be approved by ICASA...

[Rocket-Boy]

I had a look at the icasa website and got nowhere quickly.

I think the threshold is 100mW, which is quite a big transmitter, no way these little things are over that.

 

In looking at the SRAM site, there is very little info on the actual comms protocol being used. Airea could even be their own coding system which uses something off the shelf like zigbee for the actual RF transmissions. I see very little point in them developing their own tx hardware when you can't really improve it.

 

My RF design knowledge has been parked in the design lab I left about 10 years ago, so would really love someone to throw more light on this.

Ahh zigbee, there is a term I have not seen for a while. Used it to wirelessly link RFID readers together a while back.

But I fully agree, no point in developing your own comms stack if there is stuff available that you can just add an authentication layer to.

[User Error]

I've pre ordered it along wilth Eagle but still excuse after excuse . It kinda sux when your excited about something and all you get is more long winded story's .

 

how did you manage to "pre order" a groupset when it's not even available to order yet.

[Simon123]

It's not Shimano, so not too phased.

[Cogent Industries]

Africa, where technology comes to die.

[BMCfan]

Not icasa, but nrcs

 

This is the reply we got when enquiring about our application

 

"

Good day

 

I can unfortunately not say where in the queue it is, but it has only been submitted on 2016-06-22 and our turnaround time, as stated in the LOA procedure, is ± 120 days.

 

Tx

 

"

 

Africa for the win i guess - LOL

[Spinnekop]

Not icasa, but nrcs

 

This is the reply we got when enquiring about our application

 

"

Good day

 

I can unfortunately not say where in the queue it is, but it has only been submitted on 2016-06-22 and our turnaround time, as stated in the LOA procedure, is ± 120 days.

 

Tx

 

"

 

Africa for the win i guess - LOL

Interesting.

 

My bother with this is that Cape cycle systems (rep) first said they will have stock in Jan 2016 (This was December).  If the application was done then, 120 days.......

Then the promise to my bike shop was May......(This was in February)....if the application was done then......120 days...

 

So someone dragged feet.  And I am guessing it is not ICASA......but they get blamed.

 

Interesting.

[BMCfan]

Wait wait!

 

I didnt say icasa took 120 days.

 

the nrcs takes 120 days.

 

I was trying to point out that everything here is good ol' Africa takes time...

[Rocket-Boy]

There are two sides to it, to be fair to icasa they have to certify everything from cordless phones wireless panic buttons, so they have a ton of devices to get through.

 

The other side is that its a bit ridiculous that they re-certify everything, each of those devices has already gone through FCC approval in terms of interference etc so they are just really making money and wasting people's time.

 

Icasa should stick to what they are already bad at doing and try to improve that, i.e cellular certification, spectrum allocation and carrier grade equipment.