Made me laugh - after all SRAM's kerfuffle about licensing narrow-wide...
Touché!
You copy our narrowide - we'll copy your oval.
Well if anyone is taking orders, I'd like XSync2 ovals in Absolute Black timing to fit RF Cinch and 104BCD please. 32 and 34 should be fine, maybe a 36 might be nice.
Thanks! 😆
So tooth profile on the Sram is totally different, webbing is different too , and the machined finish is different to, yep definitely a copy IMO.
They say SRAM bought dozens of their rings (so obviously not secretly). Probably they bought dozens from One-up, Wolf Tooth et al. And tested them. Sounds sensible, if a variety of designs is available off-the-shelf, why waste money making prototypes to test?
Copied the "clocking" they say. One design parameter, a single number. Like one manufacturer saying "you copied our top tube measurement!"
I don't think AB need to worry, I can't see many people paying the £107 that SRAM want their theirs
"absoluteBLACK spent three years in design development and have perfected both timing and shape design element"
A pretty interesting claim from a company that researches and tests things so thoroughly that they managed to make all their original chainrings incompatible with KMC chains (while rushing them to market after seeing SRAM, Works and Wolftooth make narrow/wide rings). And that spent ages insisting that narrow/wide chainrings weren't necessary and that their profile was better, before totally backtracking on that.
They also insisted 30T rings were a really terrible idea right up until they copied Wolftooth's and made their own, claimed that 10-speed narrow-wides couldn't be compatible with 9 speed chains even as competitors did just that, that narrow/wide wasn't necessary and their profile worked better (before dropping their own profile when everyone found the chains dropped off, and switching to narrow/wide), that Raceface and E13's rings wouldn't work, because he'd looked at a photo and could just tell- they turned out to work better than AB's.
Not to say SRAM haven't copied their numbers; but Marcin already admits that his product has almost the same shape and clocking as Rotor. If this is optimal clocking, as he claims, then anyone else doing the same research will end up with something similar (as he claims he did, rather than copying rotor)
In conclusion, boy's a fanny, he's dicked around an awful lot of folks on here in the past and slagged off competitors without cause, ergo he can **** off.
Beautiful.
Makes a change for Absolute Whack. Normally they are trolling One-Up. Oval rings have been around since circa 1890 so they can jump off a bridge:
http://www.cornant.uk/info/ovals03.html
In conclusion, boy's a fanny, he's dicked around an awful lot of folks on here in the past and slagged off competitors without cause, ergo he can **** off.
Totally and add to that threats to folks on Instagram who've posted pictures of AB rings that have snapped and shed teeth in record time.
Piss poor products from a company that came bloody late into it and now claim to be the kings.
Rotor are still the best elliptical ring out there
Shame Chris Bell didn't get more out of it.
I did some testing in early MBR days with oval rings to eliminate suspension bob. Loved them. But that pesky front mech...
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/rip-chris-bell-inventor-of-eggrings/019966