Is that with the gold inlays or without
Next generation of SRAM RED eTap AXS
Moderator: robbosmans
- wheelsONfire
- Posts: 6283
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
- Location: NorthEU
Bikes:
Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)
Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.
Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)
Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
€1100. But new stuff is being sold at MSRP €1260. Old XX1 goes for €7-800 depending on discount. I doubt the new stuff will be significantly discounted any time soon, because it's completely proprietary. It has both no competition (from Shimano), and no interchangability with other parts. XX1 had to compete with a plethora of other crank options and PMs.
All of the new sram transmission stuff is incredibly expensive and lower performance. Flat top chain for 2W loss, slower shifting than eagle AXS as stated by sram, no more xdome so much heavier cassette. All to chase after lower assembly costs for the bike manufactuer on a system that we don't know if will work well yet. I'm even less hopeful for the new sram red now.
This feels allot Zipp going to only hookless wheels to save a bit of manufacturing cost and then forcing the whole super wide tire trend on people.
This feels allot Zipp going to only hookless wheels to save a bit of manufacturing cost and then forcing the whole super wide tire trend on people.
I think that RED will move to a direct mount design. For the few UDH bikes there will be a specfic UDH hanger that borrows from the new "Transmission" RDs with the dual sided design. For everyone else, it will be compatible with Shimano direct mount. Given that these will still be 2x groups I think they will need to retain the B-knuckle, so I struggle to see them going fully getting rid of the hanger like they did on the MTB side.
With the levers and FD trickling up from Rival to Force and the chainrings going down from Red to Force, they are going to need something new in addition to the new levers to drive upgrades and claim better shifting. I doubt it will be new chains or cassettes due to wanting to have compatibility up and down the range.
With the levers and FD trickling up from Rival to Force and the chainrings going down from Red to Force, they are going to need something new in addition to the new levers to drive upgrades and claim better shifting. I doubt it will be new chains or cassettes due to wanting to have compatibility up and down the range.
It is already available with significant DiscountRDY wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:58 pm€1100. But new stuff is being sold at MSRP €1260. Old XX1 goes for €7-800 depending on discount. I doubt the new stuff will be significantly discounted any time soon, because it's completely proprietary. It has both no competition (from Shimano), and no interchangability with other parts. XX1 had to compete with a plethora of other crank options and PMs.
https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-anz ... pp_android
People said the same thing about 12x Shimano and you could have bought complete Ultegra groups for 1.6k€ a few months later.
-
- Posts: 613
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:39 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if the next gen was just a minor facelift like the new Force D2
If RED was really moving to UDH then they wouldn't have released the new rainbow colored chain & cassette
If RED was really moving to UDH then they wouldn't have released the new rainbow colored chain & cassette
Last edited by StiffWeenies on Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 12457
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm
StiffWeenies wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:28 pmI wouldn't be surprised if the next gen was just a minor facelift like the new Force D2
If RED was really moving to UDH then they wouldn't have released the new rainbow colored chain & casstte
UDH doesn't force a change to the cassette or chain design.
I don't think a coaxial mount RD is coming to road this time around just because there's like 4 non-mainstream road bikes that support it. 2x read derailleurs utilize a sprung b-knuckle so that is one less point of rigidity anyway. The coaxial mounted link would essentially be a beefy direct-mount hanger.
4 years down the road with 13 or 14 speed where stiffness is going to be even more important, yes maybe.
TBH, I'd rather move to direct mount or UDH on road bike, as it's less likely to get dinged or crashed and shifting under full power is much more useful on the road to me.
His: Orbea Orca OMX
Hers: Cannondale Synapse HM Disc
Hers: Cannondale Synapse HM Disc
I see the potential for direct mount, not coaxial, which would allow UDH bikes to use the super hanger. Otherwise it could use DM options, the same as what exists for Shimano today. Nearly all high end road bikes have a DM option and Sram can claim all the benefits of the Shimano design...and more with some of the changes they have designed into the new eagle RD. Also Cervelo uses a design that while not UDH could have a very stiff two sided DM RD hanger designed for it.
Yes, it would still need a B knuckle so it wouldnt be as robust as "Transmission" but would still be more crash surviable than current offerings.
Yes, it would still need a B knuckle so it wouldnt be as robust as "Transmission" but would still be more crash surviable than current offerings.
-
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:29 pm
^This
However, my sense is that SRAM have enough dominance in the high end MTB sector to dictate, to a degree, where the market goes; i.e., if high end SRAM goes UDH, then the frame manufacturers will follow.
On the road side, it's Shimano that sets the standards. Unless/until the advantages of SRAM's new drivetrain (sorry, transmission ) become clear enough to lead to significantly increased demand, or Shimano adopts something similar, then I think a change like this is quite a long way away.
In many SRAM related discussions you see comments about flat top chain being 2W less efficient, the figure coming from the years old tests by Zero Friction Cycling and CeramicSpeed. However, the tests were performed using a generic drive train and not with SRAM chain ring and cassettes, so it is likely the data is not fully valid. According to the tests by SRAM the flat top is at the same level as the competitors, but I wonder if any independent tests using a full SRAM drive train already exist?
There is Ceramic Speed data https://www.ceramicspeed.com/en/cycling ... ing-chains and another set of Ceramic Speed data both with their UFO lube.kervelo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:58 amIn many SRAM related discussions you see comments about flat top chain being 2W less efficient, the figure coming from the years old tests by Zero Friction Cycling and CeramicSpeed. However, the tests were performed using a generic drive train and not with SRAM chain ring and cassettes, so it is likely the data is not fully valid. According to the tests by SRAM the flat top is at the same level as the competitors, but I wonder if any independent tests using a full SRAM drive train already exist?
Also I believe Silca has also mentioned Sram and flatop chains being slow. I've also spoken to some relatively famous watt chasers, think testing people in triathlon and time trial side of things that have also mentioned Shimano chains being 1-2W faster than the rest.
Of course SRAM is going to say their chain is at the same level. They wouldn't say that they are slower, and they have done allot of dodgy testing before such as the rolling road and claiming 454 NSW has 9W less rolling resistance 404 NSW despite same inner width.
Yes, that is the same data we all have seen in the brilliant 2019 analysis by Dave Rome for Cyclingtips. The article also tells that the main reason for the SRAM inefficiency is that their chains have much tighter tolerances, which prevents the lubricant from getting inside the chain like with other brands. However, the point of my post was that it was also mentioned the testing method is not fully fair for SRAM flat tops and that results could be different if tested with a full drive train.
- wheelsONfire
- Posts: 6283
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
- Location: NorthEU
Can it be, flattop chain in design, is partly made that way to make the front shifting less prone throwing chain off?
If the chain is 2w slower and smaller chainrings are less effective compared to larger, then all in all Sram would have more drag than competitors?
Honestly, i like Sram, but the evolution in drivetrain would be less drag.
How about (weights a side) larger chainrings and larger cog cassettes instead of smaller chainrings and smaller cogs in cassettes?
Wouldn't that be a drivetrain with less drag?
Yeah, more weight, but again more effective?
If the chain is 2w slower and smaller chainrings are less effective compared to larger, then all in all Sram would have more drag than competitors?
Honestly, i like Sram, but the evolution in drivetrain would be less drag.
How about (weights a side) larger chainrings and larger cog cassettes instead of smaller chainrings and smaller cogs in cassettes?
Wouldn't that be a drivetrain with less drag?
Yeah, more weight, but again more effective?
Bikes:
Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)
Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.
Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)
Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
What I take from that chart is that in that limited test KMC Gold is the fastest at 3.55 watts at 13H. If they had stopped it at 2H at 4.87W where it increased slightly you would have never seen it get better.cajer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:21 amThere is Ceramic Speed data https://www.ceramicspeed.com/en/cycling ... ing-chains and another set of Ceramic Speed data both with their UFO lube.kervelo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:58 amIn many SRAM related discussions you see comments about flat top chain being 2W less efficient, the figure coming from the years old tests by Zero Friction Cycling and CeramicSpeed. However, the tests were performed using a generic drive train and not with SRAM chain ring and cassettes, so it is likely the data is not fully valid. According to the tests by SRAM the flat top is at the same level as the competitors, but I wonder if any independent tests using a full SRAM drive train already exist?
Also I believe Silca has also mentioned Sram and flatop chains being slow. I've also spoken to some relatively famous watt chasers, think testing people in triathlon and time trial side of things that have also mentioned Shimano chains being 1-2W faster than the rest.
Of course SRAM is going to say their chain is at the same level. They wouldn't say that they are slower, and they have done allot of dodgy testing before such as the rolling road and claiming 454 NSW has 9W less rolling resistance 404 NSW despite same inner width.
They seem to have done the same with the SRAM chains - no data at longer runs and they stopped the testing as friction increased slightly.
Given the comment about tighter tolerances on SRAM's chains an explanantion could be that after a few hours it starts to bind once the factory lube inside the rollers wears off - to where there basically is no lube as its too tight for new externally applied lube to penetrate and then the rollers start binding on each other causing friction and wearing the surfaces. If they had run it longer I suspect the increased wear would eventually have allowed the external lube to penetrate and then the SRAM chain would have been just as fast, and probably last a longer due to being of higher tolerance constuction in the first place.
A garbage test once again. Why did they treat SRAM differently than KMC?