"Some very impressive engineering to get the cassette down to £115."

Why always assume that people wanting new kit that works with their old kit is always about saving money?

Perhaps they like their current kit and would like to add “something” to it (like a clutch mech, or a lower cog) without throwing out something they like for something they do not see as “better”. My 11spd XTR needs far more tinkering with than my 9 or 8spd set ups to keep indexed. My 9spd shifters can be positioned far better than either my 10spd or 11spd ones. So, moving from one compete system to another one brings some benefits, and some downsides. It would be nice to able to pick and mix as you see fit, then have to take a whole groupset that isn’t quite what you want. The best compromise for me would be 9spd with a clutch and a 11-40t spread… other people will have other preferences… and obviously some people are happy to swap out everything for the latest assuming that it’s also the greatest.

Kelvin could have been commenting (like me) on swanny’s suggestion the industry ‘should’ have adopted the road 11 speed freehub body

I was. And it would be pointless, as you say.

My 9spd shifters can be positioned far better than either my 10spd or 11spd ones

That’s surprising, there’s far more adjustability and choice of clamps with the 10 or 11 speed ones.

My 11spd XTR needs far more tinkering with than my 9 or 8spd set ups to keep indexed

That also surprises me, although my SRAM 11 speed definitely needed more tweaking to keep it working properly!

Compatibility vs improvement is an interesting one. I don’t mind the occasional standard change if it is of enough value. 20mm hubs for big forks yes please. Post mount brakes was alright, easier for manufacturers and users could swap brakes around/up/down size with some cheap adaptors, win win.
But a lot of stuff just appears to be to prevent you using older gear and forcing you to buy new stuff if you want the benefit. Clutch mech is 10spd only with different cable, now if the cable pull was to make narrower jumps easier to index then it’s understandable I guess but roadies managed 10spd fine without a cable pull change and pretty sure with 11speed they’ve changed it again – that’s no benefit for the rider, it’s just forcing you to upgrade everything at once. Still no reason why they can’t stick a clutch on 9spd mechs tho. Wider range cassettes are perfectly do-able on 10speed but shim/sram only seem to want to sell 11 speed. The freehub design has been around for a long time, ali versions don’t play nice with cheaper cassettes and (to a lesser degree) it prevents <11T, whether XD is a worthy successor I dunno but my cynical side says XD2 will probably appear in a year or two anyway.
Boost, pressfit BBs, the bazillion different headset standards and marginally bigger wheels can **** off tho.

With slacker and slacker bikes a granny ring aint going to help you past a certain steepness point anyway.

OMG! 🙄

Clutch mech is 10spd only with different cable,

If you didn’t need one before why do you need one? The major upside of clutch mechs is in the 1x market.

Still no reason why they can’t stick a clutch on 9spd mechs tho.

Why botherer? 9sp 3x people never shouted about wanting one why revisit a design that is sorted.

Wider range cassettes are perfectly do-able on 10speed but shim/sram only seem to want to sell 11 speed. The freehub design has been around for a long time, ali versions don’t play nice with cheaper cassettes and (to a lesser degree) it prevents <11T, whether XD is a worthy successor I dunno but my cynical side says XD2 will probably appear in a year or two anyway.

The 10-42 offers a significant improvement on 11-40 for range, that is why it’s offered. Why stick with a limited design of freehub when it’s really easily changed.

Again at no point has this stopped a traditional 11-36 groupset being sold damm cheap.

Seems like people want the benefits of SRAM’s R&D work but without supporting them financially. That’s not really playing fair is it. They’re a business, so of course selling product and putting cash in the till is a priority. Nothing wrong with that, and as has been stated on here multiple times, nobody has forced you to change to 1 x 11, XD bodies or anything else.

If you want 10-42, the improved functionality of the revised parallelogram and so on, buy GX/X1/X01/XX1. If not, bodge some bits as best as you can. But for the love of god, don’t moan that you can’t get the performance of the proper kit if you aren’t prepared to spend the money buying it. SRAM don’t owe you anything.

Seems reasonable!

yebbut, you’d think that by the time the 1×11 tech has trickled down 3 levels, the price probably wouldn’t be between Shimano Pro Race level and Shimano enthusiast level.

and with some of the likely OEM full bike prices I’ve seen suggested, the price of GX to the likes of specialized, and the price an OEM groupset on Merlin could differ by a factor of 3 or even more.

So GX is like XT+, X1 is like XT++, X01 is like XTR, and XX1 like XTR+ (and anything in the SLX/Deore level is obsolete)

Hate to think how much XX1 electronic shifting will be.

SRAM’s R&D work

😆
Sram R&D Guy: how about copying Shimano Capreo cassettes/freehubs but add MOAR teeth and sell them to mountainbikers at extortionate prices?
Head of Sram: Yeah, that’ll work. hold back on the 9T sprocket until we have our 12 speed group ready tho 😉
R&D Guy: Ah.. ENDURO?

A bit OT I guess but since it was mentioned: SRAM wireless electronic:
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/04/tour-of-flanders-tech-detailing-the-unusual/

No doubt it’ll generate the same discussion.

Back on topic, I see this new groupset at SRAM making the most of their dominant position in the 1x market (while Shimano try and work out how to do their own wide range version without admitting that SRAM’s XD solution is probably best) and creating groupsets to satisfy demand that’s there. As has been said, they’re not forcing people onto it and while I think £100+ is silly money to spend on a mtb cassette, I can see how the costs are justified from a business perspective.

Oh and I don’t consider it engineering either. Well, maybe manufacturing engineering but that’s the dirty, unglamourous side of engineering 😉

Some good examples of their R&D here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/article/sram-xx1-component-development-and-details-35654/

http://www.bikemag.com/blog/inside-look-bike-visits-the-sram-california-development-center/

So GX is like XT+, X1 is like XT++, X01 is like XTR, and XX1 like XTR+ (and anything in the SLX/Deore level is obsolete)

How’s that different to 10 speed? Look at the price of XX compared to XTR. Cassettes are still >£300 at retail, mechs are £275 etc. The 11 speedness of these groups is a bit of a red herring.

Sram R&D Guy: how about copying Shimano Capreo cassettes/freehubs but add MOAR teeth and sell them to mountainbikers at extortionate prices?

Quite different really – Capreo used half a normal freehub body in effect, with only the smallest sprockets on their own body, an XD body is entirely different and the whole cassette needs to be pinned together structurally – as discussed a few pages back. It’s nothing like an HG50 cassette, because on that the individual sprockets still have splines to support them.

Whether SRAM should have copied Capreo more closely is something else altogether…

apologies for the use of humour in serious engineering thread

If you didn’t need one before why do you need one?

didn’t say I needed one it was a general point, but there have been comments on here and elsewhere about people wanting them

The major upside of clutch mechs is in the 1x market.

plenty of 1x-ers around who don’t necessarily use 10 or 11 speeds, DHers, fatbikers, niche-ists, cxers (a 9 speed mtb clutch mech would work with a 10speed STI to cheaply enable 1×10 for cx) etc.

The 10-42 offers a significant improvement on 11-40

Yes I know but shimano seem to think 11-40 is a valid range (see new XTR) but they won’t do a 10spd version that a lot of people buying aftermarket expander kits seem to think is a good idea.

Again at no point has this stopped a traditional 11-36 groupset being sold damm cheap.

Yeah but it’s the “hey look we’ve invented(or copied) a useful new feature but you have to do an across the board upgrade to gain that little perk” that irks. Slightly tweaking the cable pull or hub/steerer/dropout/headset/wheel size on each new generation of kit seems specifically aimed at making it difficult for people trying to keep using their current gear. Almost designed in obsolescence – and it does seem to coincide with “raphaisation”, prior to that stuff was seemed IIRC* fairly backwards/forwards compatible apart from when the occasional step changes were needed (I’m mainly thinking of shimano here).

*obligatory rose tinted specs, cynicism, may not be true disclaimer.

apologies for the use of humour in serious engineering thread

It’s not a million miles off though I suspect! Begs the question why Shimano haven’t pursued it though, they must have their reasons.

I’d love to have been a fly on the wall during SRAMs R&D pitch for their X01 DH XD driver 7 speed cassette.

These guys are either complete genius or complete ****. I don’t really know how to tell which.

Shimano made all their brake levers and more importantly (and expensively) STI units (eg combined shifter and brake lever) obsolete with V-brakes. That was 1995.

They also did the same to all the spangly square taper BBs we had around then too with Octalink and then with HT2.

Campag changed cable pull a few times over the last couple of decades. Shimano similar (with Dura Ace at least).

‘Obsolescence’ is nothing new. Raphaisation has just extended the high price end of the market IMO. I reckon that the lower end is better VFM than ever before.

Oh and I just remembered that the Shimano XT 8 speed cassette I had to buy while touring in 1995 cost me £50 which was full RRP. That made my eyes water but by my reckoning that’s £88.88 in today’s money. £115 doesn’t seem SO bad in comparison.

Well, I didn’t expect that suggestion to be so readily put down- I’m not suggesting I’d particularly want all of my freehubs to suddenly be ‘old’, just that if there was going to be a major move in hub widths it might make sense to take advantage of it and allow a bit more room to grow so if they, say, go to 12 speed down the line there’s a bit of space to play with. A spacer would keep current drivetrains compatible and no reason why SRAM couldn’t follow with an equivalent slightly wider XD.

Or perhaps it could happen this way- things get moved across to boost, then in a few years a little more cassette real estate is sought and all the hubs have to change again and everyone complains about yet another standard.

If there’s going to a major PITA coming up with changing rear hub standards, I’d rather there was a bit of forward planning so we could perhaps put the next one back as far as possible.

Both mountain bikes still on 3×9 – oh, the shame! 😳

Even the road bike is, erm, (counts on fingers)….only 18 speed.

Can live with 3×9 on the Inbred. Would like to go 2x something on the FSR, but it’s finding the funds and inclination to sort it out that is lacking….

I haven’t really liked SRAM stuff when ever I’ve rode bikes with it (dunno why), but they do seem to be a bit more willing to try new things than Shimano.

Or perhaps it could happen this way- things get moved across to boost, then in a few years a little more cassette real estate is sought and all the hubs have to change again and everyone complains about yet another standard.

Not sure if two new standards is better than one or not. 11 speed road freehub bodies don’t need new frames or anything, just a new body, much like XD. Seems a bit pointless to introduce a new standard as an entirely pre-emptive move though, any precedent for that? Be like us all going for 2″ head tubes, and using reducers, until the ‘inevitable’ 2″ steerers arrive 😕

There’s no offset on the back of a SRAM 11 speed cassette, so they may be able to capitalise on that as Shimano have – and dish the largest sprocket toward the spokes. Which would give them one up on Shimano certainly. One would hope that 12 speed is a little while off anyway.

SRAM road 1x on the way. That’d go a treat with 12 speed 😉

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/sram-brings-1x-tech-to-the-road-sram-r1-43808/

I’m not particularly happy with many of the ways this could go! I’d quite like shimano to do an 11-42/44 that fits on a standard freehub for new xt, but if we’re going to have lots of changes I just think it’d be nice to get them all out of the way.

Put it this way- I can see where they’re coming from with boost, but it’s a pain. Same with XD, same with 11 speed road (especially). If it were possible to try and get as much of the good bits from them into one thing, with as much gain as possible for the hassle, and then leave it for, say, 10 years, that would be quite nice.

If they could do something about cassettes scoring freehub bodies that would be nice too.

SRAM road 1x on the way. That’d go a treat with 12 speed

It could be interesting. I guess you could do a 12 speed 10-36 cassette with similar jumps to a 10 speed 11-28, then a 50t ring would give a comparable bottom gear to 39/28, and higher top gear than 53/11, or more realistically you’d go 48t and have an easier bottom gear and a very similar top gear. Even a 46t single could work – would give a low gear similar to 34/26.

If they could do something about cassettes scoring freehub bodies that would be nice too.

Like using XD bodies…? Changing freehub isn’t really that much of a pain for most people. It’s an expense admittedly, but not a regular one. I’m not too sure why so many folk stress about it.

Exactly and I can definitely see it being popular as electronic becomes more common since it cuts a load of cost out by removing almost half of the electronics and I always figured that the front mech probably needs quite a powerful (read expensive) servo given its position.

That’s good to know- I hadn’t realised XD solved that. I would agree that changing freehub isn’t too much of a problem- current plan unless shimano pulls their finger out is GX cassette and xt 11 speed, so I’ll have to find out about XD sooner or later!

I was waiting on Hydraulic Shifting, seemed a perfect idea.
Established tech (Same fluid,tubes n tools)

Dont wan’t batteries on me MTB

I don’t really understand the ‘I don’t want batteries’ thing – they’ve proven to be really reliable on road despite being used for several years now in filthy conditions and you’d only run out on a ride if you were utterly negligent to teh point of wanting the battery to run out.

That’s good to know- I hadn’t realised XD solved that

Yep, the cassette is one unit and threads on to the body, with a centre section that rotates independently. No lockring per se, and no splines on the freehub.

I was waiting on Hydraulic Shifting, seemed a perfect idea.

Acros do it if you want. Expensive, but light. I think electronic makes far more sense.

Shimano made all their brake levers and more importantly (and expensively) STI units (eg combined shifter and brake lever) obsolete with V-brakes. That was 1995.

the very long arms of V brakes could be used with your old STIs but they were stupidly powerful and spongy (I know, I did it), you could also get cheap travel adjusters, however both are moot because V brkes were well worth it IMO. One of those step changes.
Octalink and HT2, yeah, hmm…. HT2 is easier to fit, lighter and possibly* stiffer, crap lifespan tho. I’m undecided overall, I run HT2 on most bikes but so far I’ve stuck with sq taper for winter bikes. But still, this “feature”, if you want it, only requires a new crank, you could still use your old rings and drivechain – or buy the new rings and put them on your old sq taper cranks** as I do 🙂

I know change happens but 7,8,9(and 10 road) all played fairly well together, (apart from 8 needed a longer freehub) how come stuff is suddenly speed specific and seemingly changes ever so slightly not through need but seemingly just to prevent backwards compatibility?

*supposedly they are, whether you can feel the difference is probably more open to debate.
**unless you’re cranks were 5 bolt 🙂 5 to 4 was a more nebulous change, 5 bolt had more ring options 4 bolt had….? about 5 grams weight saving? Still I guess that one has been a fairly long lived “standard”

only thing that puts me off batteries is the need to plug the bike in to charge up in the shed. and plugging a lappy in to reflash the firmware on a bike is just wrong.
oh and the price (right now).

I know DI2 is sposed to have a battery life of ages, but with 4 bikes in the shed, how long is “ages” when one or more might be sat there for well ages?

I know, I tried too – they were rubbish 😉 The travel adjusters came out some time after FWIW – they certainly weren’t about in 1995/6 and they weren’t cheap when they came out.

Anyway, the point is that standards change. Sometimes for the better, sometimes less clear, sometimes for the worse (ISIS?). It’s nothing new and it’s not really forcing people to change unless maybe you keep the same parts for 10+ years in which case there’s still a pretty big market in second hand or NOS parts.

I know DI2 is sposed to have a battery life of ages, but with 4 bikes in the shed, how long is “ages” when one or more might be sat there for well ages?

Even if it’s gone flat when you go to use it, in the time it takes you to have a piss and put your shoes on you’ll have enough of a charge for about 200 miles.

Not aware of anyone having problems with current drain when you’re not using it, but I guess it must happen.

Li-ion loses charge very slowly I thought. I’ve certainly noticed on things like tablets, etc that even if I don’t use them for months, they’re still well charged when I do.

and for all the luddite complaints I make, I’m looking forward to (significantly cheaper than DA/ultegra) leccy shifting. Bye bye mucky/twisty/rusty cables.

If you didn’t need one before why do you need one?

What a [playground word removed]

Mountain bike kit moves on in leaps and bounds… people are just saying it would nice if it was easier to mix and match.

As soon as 9spd landed I was running my old Cannondale 1×9 with a DMR guide. A clutch would have been nice.

Now… 10spd has always needed a bit more fiddling than 9spd to work as well even/especially when 1x.
8spd was even more reliable.

Now… the good news is that Shimano 11spd is just as good as their 10spd, so no step backwards this time. It’s all good.

A clutch mech with wider gauge would still be welcome though, not least for downhillers and winter use.

Oh… cassettes… top end ones from both S&S are works of art… predict Shimano will make great affordable 11spd ones well before SRAM though.

I race XC and enduro when I can, I ride up proper hills, I’m mechanically able and I can see the benefits but I probably don’t fit into your tight socio-economic definition of what mountain bikers can be unless you have given up on that idea.

Well so do i but i am still running a 2×9 speed set up do I win something?

I don’t understand the “I want to replace a simple cable with a battery, wires, and electronics” thing?

I’m with the Luddites here.

My rear mech, cable, and shifter cause me no problems at all. It is almost set and forget. Change the cable once every couple of years, job done.

What is the advantage in throwing out that simple mechanism that takes no further thought, for a complicated system that needs batteries and charging, with all the problems that brings?

Filthy on the road is not nearly the same as filthy off road.

How does it do on day 5 of a 10 day off road tour, in the middle of nowhere?

I don’t believe that. 3 minutes charge is nothing. Also, what if you do that and it lasts 150 miles into a 200 mile run?

Why in the name of all that is good would we swap out a practically zero maintenance thing, with something that needs so much care and attention?