that’s nice.
I think I’ll get SLX/XT and a few holidays.
A few?! As in, multiple? 🤨
Have you seen the 'accomodation costs' thread?
XT is £500, X01 transmission is £1500. £1000 just about gets you a week away somewhere sunny or somewhere hilly, these days!
I got as far as "datum for shifting" with that video and it was pretty obvious he either doesn't quite get it or is choosing not to. He doesn't seem stupid, so, I reckon it's the latter.
That's some pretty sodding big hits in order to break both an 'old' AXS mech and the new one. And the new mech let go (or a small part did) before the frame of the axle.
Pft 8 speed would be so all over that
Usual STW world mentality in action as always. Shock/outrage at the pricing and "change for the sake of change", and then will get into a frenzy when these groupsets are discounted in a year or two (Don't believe me? Look at all the GX AXS PSA threads on here in the last few months), forgetting their initial fury and comments that Sram x9 was the pinnacle of drivetrains and anything that came after it is the work of the devil etc, etc.
Tongue in cheek comments aside, I think this is a big step forward for drivetrains. Not so for some of the gimmicky things such as the "magic pulley", but the direct mount concept solves so many of the common issues with traditional derailleurs in terms of tolerances between derailleur/hanger/frame. Once this matures and trickles down to Gx and even Nx level with fewer gimmicks and less exotic materials I think it'll make a big impact.
I'm a big shimano fan (just prefer the feel of their stuff to sram, personal preference) but this unfortunately shows how far behind they are in the drivetrain game and I don't think they'll ever catch up. We're now in the 2nd gen AXS and Shimano don't have anything to rival it in their range.
If the rumours are true, they will be bringing out a new wireless drivetrain soon. But the issue is that as Sram have played the long game by introducing the UDH standard a few years back and using that to create the direct mount derailleur, Shimano won't be able to do any direct mount systems unless they concede to sram and use the UDH standard, which will never happen.
Bike frames are generally designed 3-4 years in advance so you can bet more or less all of them will be designing around the UDH standard now, so even if Shimano were to bring out their own new hangar standard to create their own direct mount system, uptake will likely be quite low amongst frame manufacturers and also unpopular with the OEM market, simply because Sram got there first and have consolidated market dominance with UDH.
So when Shimano does bring out their wireless drivetrain, it's unfortunately only ever going to really be a rival for the 1st gen AXS. I'm hoping I'm wrong though.
I'm more than happy with my 1x12 GX, can't see why I'd pay so much more for this. But then I'm obviously not the target audience.
I just wish that there was as much investment into internal gears as there is in derailleur design. We might actually see some real progress with it.
Maybe this is where Shimano has been spending it's money.
didnthurt
Full Member
I’m more than happy with my 1×12 GX, can’t see why I’d pay so much more for this. But then I’m obviously not the target audience.I just wish that there was as much investment into internal gears as there is in derailleur design. We might actually see some real progress with it.
If you’re a manufacturer like SRAM or Shimano, why would you invest in developing internal gears?
If they’re as reliable as people say and out of the way enough to avoid damage then from a manufactures point of view, you sell them once and that’s it. No follow up business when they fail/get smashed on a rock.
It doesn’t make business sense as far as I can see.
Peak Torque sums it up well
Does he. It seems to me that he wants to stand out a bit, so this is the angle he's gone for. If you've ever wondered why cycling journalism gets a bad rap; point them in the direction of that.
We might actually see some real progress with it.
Rohloff and Shimano have been developing their gearboxes for 20+ years now, How much progress have they made with that?
If you’re a manufacturer like SRAM or Shimano, why would you invest in developing internal gears?
If they’re as reliable as people say and out of the way enough to avoid damage then from a manufactures point of view, you sell them once and that’s it. No follow up business when they fail/get smashed on a rock.
how many do they actually sell as repairs? I know this is an xc biased forum, but what proportion of bikes (from posh hybrids all the way up to 12k wundersleds) are actually wearing out drive trains regularly? And even fewer are being smashed apart on rocks.
Interesting video here of someone abusing it.
Nope that is a video of someone strictly following the SRAM media guidance which is obviously FFS under no circumstances breath on the end of the cage or its completely screwed. OK maybe not breath but why not grab the lower jockey wheel firmly and give it a good ole yank... or just attach a string and use it to lift the bike in the "test"???
If we were putting £2k+ worth of drivetrain on our MTB then we just need to be OK with crash damage, I'd guess it's affordable. Nothing is unbreakable and crashes onto rocks are random. We're past 'just riding bikes on tracks' and into track-day type of kit and costs - luxury goods or tech toys for most or sponsorship kit for pro racers.
I'm not being dismissive of the cost, though tbh that was my first reaction. I'd be ok with a big chunk of £ on a NOS Campag road groupset for a summer days road bike for ex because bikes are great things and premium bikes are lovely things to own, I just personally see an MTB as a bike that has minimal viable kit in areas like the rear mech, or more accurately the whole drivetrain, due to the use it gets. Minimum spend for acceptable durability since base level cable-pull kit shifts just fine.
which means the buyers of the lower end stuff are paying for the RnD of the innovations years before they get the benefits of the trickle down. subsidizing the halo groups, even!
I'd think of it more as a progressive taxation system, where each tier pays according to its means. The early adopters will still be paying a higher overall amount and probably a higher % too. But the overall contribution of the lower tiers will be greater in the end.
Probably 😀
Someone should send Sram that video and point out that HE'S AN ENGINEER. They probably don't have any of those themselves, eh?
But I think the concepts of the UDH and the new direct mount mech are great – the former stops us having a crazy amount of mech hangers, many of which end up being unused spares that outlast the frame they’re for. And the latter removes all the variability and looser tolerances of having a hanger between frame and mech.
Agreed. If we were starting from scratch, I'd vote for this. It's not gonna offer enough to tempt me off cheaper 11sp stuff though.
but what proportion of bikes (from posh hybrids all the way up to 12k wundersleds) are actually wearing out drive trains regularly?
Given that I've seen folks on here worry over which lube will make their drivetrain last 'forever', and some that literally disassemble their drive train components to the last pin and screw to clean them once a year in the hope that it'll become magically brand new again , I think there's more folk on here trying to avoid wearing out their drivetrains rather than worrying about crash replacement or spares availability.
or its completely screwed.
At some point everything will break. What's your point beyond that exactly?
ta11pau1
Doesn’t matter if you’re not buying it, it’s called trickle down technology and it’s been happening for years in all sorts of areas. Cars, computers, phones, in fact lots of stuff you use probably has some tech that was originally developed in a NASA space program and has then go onto be used in every day appliances.
Exactly my objection... it's virtually impossible to buy a half decent car without tech I don't want like a satnav (that is out of date before the new car is even sold for example) but worse is part of some integrated unit I can't just pull out.
It's assumed I (and everyone) want a smartphone and all sorts of crap I don't want in my life just to pay a bill and then justify why I don't want something being forced onto me I didn't want in the first place.
All this started off as expensive tech and has now been FORCED on the masses whether they wanted it or not.
The price after trickledown is almost immaterial if what I can buy doesn't fit the car/bike etc.
The reason why it’s expensive is because it’s expensive to make. They’re not churning out xx wireless mechs at the same rate as they produce sx mechs – cutting edge tech is expensive to make at first. Why in the hell would they sell a mech that probably costs a few hundred to make (recouping r&d costs mostly) for £150/at a huge loss?
I simply do not want it ever. They could give me one and it would be totally useless to me anyway as non of my MTB frames are DUB/metric/boost/UDH
But nah, let’s not further technologies, let’s all be happy with a club and a spear and fire.
These threads with anything remotely new or ‘different’ or, god help us… expensive, always go the same way. I guarantee the release of the first dropper post would have had a similar theme! Or the first carbon framed MTB, or the first disc brake…
Yes and people like you always say "if you don't want it don't buy it" until the option to not buy it is removed then what?
Same conversations on wheel size, boost, metric shocks and the same all tired "you'll still be able to buy the bits for your bike" and the manufacturers assuring us "we are still going to make 26/non boost/non metric" except that is never the case except EITHER some premium exceptions or absolute trash BSO stuff.
until the option to not buy it is removed then what?
You can't buy a whalebone corset or a Model T anymore either, It's a conspiracy to make me buy stuff I tell you!
What's the point of your rant beyond "things about modernity I don't like" There's an 18thC text that rails against the tyranny of this new fangled thing called "the novel" becoming available and complains that all the "fashionable" young persons are rotting their brains with nonsense.
Maybe you need to go on a nice bike ride in the countryside?
Exactly my objection… it’s virtually impossible to buy a half decent car without tech I don’t want like a satnav (that is out of date before the new car is even sold for example) but worse is part of some integrated unit I can’t just pull out.
I can see your predicament and I sympathise Steve. That sounds like a big issue indeed. It almost sounds as though they are doing it on purpose to make your life a nightmare.
Nickc
What’s the point of your rant beyond “things about modernity I don’t like”
The point is people saying time after time saying "it won't affect you if you don't buy it" because it absolutely does if I can't buy/pay for/use etc the thing I need using things that I'm comfortable using or throwing something otherwise perfectly good away.
I believe people should have real choices not sophies choices and that things should be used to their potential use not made obsolescent by design.
It almost sounds as though they are doing it on purpose to make your life a nightmare.
No they are doing it on purpose to build in obsolescence and failure.
Somewhere most of this tech stuff got lost from being premium innovations to built in obsolescence... Sat Nav was put into the premium cars then trickled down into integrated units that when they break make the otherwise perfectly good car non-economic to repair.
The first iPhone you could change the battery ... or the earlier iPods where you could buy a "device for life" to put all your music on to a change to a subscription service.
etc. etc.
At some point the manufacturers have switched from optional cool stuff to forcing you to upgrade/scrap and lock you into their systems and the "cool stuff" isn't optional any more.
I'm with stevextc on this
Sure, I appreciate technological progress, but our global ecological situation really needs us to prioritise maximising the useful life of products and ensuring things don't go obsolete. It doesn't do that
Anyway, if such rapid technological innovation is necessary for us to enjoy biking, shouldn't we be asking ourselves why we are currently having as much fun as we are, given our bikes are so much shoddier than the things people will be riding 20 years from now?
until the option to not buy it is removed then what?
If MTB to someone is full suspension and all that goes with it they're playing a performance technology game. Tech progresses after we buy into it and at some point we need to keep up, old stuff is old. We can't have it both ways.
I can be a luddite and ride a Rivendell or a Jones or a custom something or other if I want to be outside of the new tech merry-go-round. It's just a different game.
if such rapid technological innovation is necessary for us to enjoy biking, shouldn’t we be asking ourselves why we are currently having as much fun as we are, given our bikes are so much shoddier than the things people will be riding 20 years from now?
*Applause*
Anyway, if such rapid technological innovation is necessary for us to enjoy biking, shouldn’t we be asking ourselves why we are currently having as much fun as we are, given our bikes are so much shoddier than the things people will be riding 20 years from now?
Well, nothing is 'necessary'. No-one 'needs' a modern 170mm enduro bike to ride down Top Chief at fort William, you can technically ride it on a 1997 Kona cinder cone. But it's a lot better on a more modern bike!
And there's plenty of choice of bikes if you don't want to have the latest FS bike, even FS bikes that haven't really changed aside from geometry over the last 5-10 years (I'm looking at you, Orange).
if such rapid technological innovation is necessary for us to enjoy biking, shouldn’t we be asking ourselves why we are currently having as much fun as we are, given our bikes are so much shoddier than the things people will be riding 20 years from now?
*Applause*
It's the thing in these debates about tech progress than annoys me
People always say 'would you really want to be riding a 90s bike again'? and of course I wouldn't, and if I had to I would not enjoy it very much
But am I thinking about what a piece of crap my current bike is compared to a 2040s ride? No, largely as I've not a clue what they'll look like
Well, nothing is ‘necessary’. No-one ‘needs’ a modern 170mm enduro bike to ride down Top Chief at fort William, you can technically ride it on a 1997 Kona cinder cone. But it’s a lot better on a more modern bike!
I totally agree
But my point is that it would also be much better still on a 2040s bike that's not yet been invented, but that fact doesn't take anything away from anyone's enjoyment today
SRAM has worked out that all the issues they have with poor shifting are down the the mech hanger and the way it sits in relation to the axle/cassette. Be intrigued to know what the scrap rate at the OEM's does and whether we will see more frame failures with mech strikes, as the load has to go somewhere.
Be intrigued to know what the scrap rate at the OEM’s does and whether we will see more frame failures with mech strikes, as the load has to go somewhere.
Watch the video I posted earlier, they smashed a current xx1 AXS mech and a new mech. The old mech went through 2 fully bent/broken mech hangers before the mech broke. They hit the new one with the same force that totalled the xx1 AXS mech, it broke a small part (which is replaceable). The (carbon) frame was completely fine. And they weren't small hits, either.
Remember, the new mech isn't actually attached to the frame (the frame is sandwiched between the mounting plates), it's attached to the rear axle. Good luck snapping a rear axle!!
whether we will see more frame failures with mech strikes, as the load has to go somewhere
Or fewer because the mech is further out of the way (~8mm inboard I think). gets out of the way of impacts (overload clutch) and is less likely to get ripped right off into your wheel (then frame). Could go either way, but I don't think you can judge it until it's been out in the wild for a good while.
the load goes into the rear axel, no? I imagine the weak point is still the "hanger" - its just a lot wider and more rigid than it was before. you can add sideways stiffness with the new design without necessarily harming the ability for it to shear at loads above x
SRAM has worked out that all the issues they have with poor shifting are down the the mech hanger and the way it sits in relation to the axle/cassette
My understanding of AXS shifting issues on some bikes was pretty much all down to bike manufactures not understanding that AXS places quite large sideways loads onto a relatively small area on a bike.
Failures (for instance) on Yeti ARC hardtail frames with UDH fitted were entirely down to this, which as it turns out weren't even sufficiently robust for mechanical systems let alone AXS and have been modified subsequently by Yeti, not SRAM. I've heard of more than one Bike manufacturer having to do that.
legometeorology
But my point is that it would also be much better still on a 2040s bike that’s not yet been invented, but that fact doesn’t take anything away from anyone’s enjoyment today
It's not necessarily "better" though ... assuming someone recreates the current top chief as is in 2040.
Somewhere between the 1997 Cinder cone and the modern 170mm Enduro bike these changes ceased to be meaningful.
Last time I rode it was on my 2015 non boost, non metric shock Bird MK1.5 at 160/150 and I can't see what's happened since then to make it "better" in a meaningful way. (OK before Ben jumps in and says the metric shock and boost allow a bottle cage) so I've actually go to then look at the DH or Glencoe and say "well yeah, that would be better ion a 170/170 .. assuming I was pedalling up then the seat tube also got steeper which might be a better "better" but it's nowhere near enough to make me think "this 2015 frame is crap I'd be having so much more fun on a 2023 170/170 I need to chuck it away".
What's more likely to happen is not "so much better" but "I can't buy a shock or repair the current one" forcing me into new everything. (Or I take the eMTB because I can do more pedal ups)
ta11pau1
And there’s plenty of choice of bikes if you don’t want to have the latest FS bike, even FS bikes that haven’t really changed aside from geometry over the last 5-10 years (I’m looking at you, Orange).
They now have tapered headsets, boost and metric shocks so my wheels and shock don't fit.
They now have tapered headsets, boost and metric shocks so my wheels and shock don’t fit.
For reasons that escape me now I have a threaded fork in the shed. Again, It took me 5 minutes of riding bicycles for leisure to realise that "standards" is a meaningless word in a hobby that is driven by marketing and discretionary spending. What's taking you so long?
They now have tapered headsets, boost and metric shocks so my wheels and shock don’t fit.
tapered headsets have been a thing for over 15 years. They offer no benefits over the 1.5 standard that came before (although some over 1-1/8th).
boost has been around for 8 years, and metric shocks have been around for 7 years. You can still buy plenty of parts that fit the old standards - the first rockshox rear shock I checked (sid lux) is available in all metric sizes, and there are loads of 142mm rear wheels still there.
Sure, I appreciate technological progress, but our global ecological situation really needs us to prioritise maximising the useful life of products and ensuring things don’t go obsolete. It doesn’t do that
Should you be mountain biking at all then - surely its just a waste of resources regardless of the mech you are using - better to spend your time planting beans or something.
Sure, I appreciate technological progress, but our global ecological situation really needs us to prioritise maximising the useful life of products and ensuring things don’t go obsolete. It doesn’t do that
Should you be mountain biking at all then – surely its just a waste of resources regardless of the mech you are using – better to spend your time planting beans or something.
Good point. Similarly, last night I ate too much chocolate, so I've decided that for the rest of my life I'm not even going to look at a vegetable, what's the point, right?
I also found out that some of the chocolate I ate a few years back relied on some forced labour in the supply chain, so I'm just going to go ahead and campaign for the return of the slave trade
I also found out that some of the chocolate I ate a few years back relied on some forced labour in the supply chain, so I’m just going to go ahead and campaign for the return of the slave trade
Please yourself, not sure what that has to do with the fact that if you own a mountain bike then the resources used to make, sell and ride it could have been used for something more worthy, given your concern about our ecological situation and how any new innovation should be limited by what went before.
That's interesting, I've never heard anyone make an argument like that before. I'm going to go and have a really, *really* good think about it and get back to you
That’s interesting, I’ve never heard anyone make an argument like that before. I’m going to go and have a really, *really* good think about it and get back to you
Ok, cant wait.....why is it always the free members..
Anywho, what's this post about again, oh yeah SRAM's new eagle stuff.
It was about Sram, then about incremental gains in cycling tech more broadly and obselesence, then mtb650 decided to make it about whether I, personally, should be allowed to mountain bike at all, which I agree is quite tangential, so I will say bye and leave it to the Sram-interested again
Anywho, what’s this post about again, oh yeah SRAM’s new eagle stuff.
Indeed it is, the system looks pretty cool to me, better shifting and better suited to ebikes
Exactly. New, shiny stuff. What's not to like 🤣
I'd be interested if Nicolai being out a UDH hangar for the G1 (which wouldn't be too hard as the dropout/hanger is a separate unit to the frame, see below) and when there's an upgrade kit available, and my cassette needs replacing.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/s2sfD0z4/PXL-20230323-151803535.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/s2sfD0z4/PXL-20230323-151803535.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
I'd stick with the old style paddle shifter though, not sure about that new one.
Peak torque makes some valid points as I was thinking the same thing and after watching the fanatik video first all I was thinking was those poor stays, pivots and hub internals, I'd definitely get that back end x-rayed before riding anything serious. Then again, how often does the mech take hits like that to stress the stays. I think it's time to maybe re think having mechs dangling down, I recall seeing a configuration with a rear mech sort of between the stays out of harm's way.
5lab
They now have tapered headsets, boost and metric shocks so my wheels and shock don’t fit.
tapered headsets have been a thing for over 15 years.........
The point being it's NOT the same bike and the same components won't fit.
boost has been around for 8 years, and metric shocks have been around for 7 years.
and neither fit my main bikes... the frame hasn't snapped my 2015 bike does everything I could want
the first rockshox rear shock I checked (sid lux) is available in all metric sizes, and there are loads of 142mm rear wheels still there.
Erm so won't fit .. and there aren't loads of decent quality reasonably priced 142mm rear wheels... I can but a DT350 or a Pro4 hub even with HG but I can't go and buy a decent rather than premium set of non boost wheels.
That's more 'standards' changing rather than technology becoming obsolete. Which is a whole other kettle of fish!! There was no real technological advancement that caused MTBs to use 148mm spacing over 142mm, it just came about for lots of small reasons.
Now, if you'd have said that you can't use your Nokia 5110 2g mobile phone after 2033, that's a technology advancement that's caused it, because well, no one is using 2g anymore... 🤣