5 ms·

Can you expand on your idea of why you think Shimano doesn't look relevant now? Not to play favorites, but they seem to be the biggest manufacturer of high-end

Can you expand on your idea of why you think Shimano doesn't look relevant now? Not to play favorites, but they seem to be the biggest manufacturer of high-end bike parts in the world. On road, every World Tour team, save 3 are running Shimano. Campagnolo seems the company that's becoming irrelevant, with SRAM being second, but doing some interesting stuff. In my experience, jockey pulleys don't add too much friction, as they're not under a great amount of force and don't fail all that often - for the same reasons. It's the derailleur arm itself that's very likely to take damage from abuse (by bending out of spec). I would say the use of a clutch on a rear derailleur - something your SRAM 1x most certainly has, leaks more watts (tho v. v. little) - the compromise is certainly worth is, especially for the gear cluster spread you're running on the back. This design looks just to be an improvement of some sort of clutch system, with purpose to try and move the derailleur arm out from being so low, where lovely things like rocks can hit it. That seems like a win to me, given my own assessment of how these things become worthless paperweights. SRAM actually seems to be all-in on making rear derailleur replaceable in piecemeal, which seems to be a nice improvement over the design, in a very Right To Repair kinda way. https://bikerumor.com/next-gen-sram-eagle-direct-mount-derailleur-is-modular-to-save-the-planet-your-wallet/ https://bikerumor.com/next-gen-sram-eagle-direct-mount-derai... I'm not sure why such a design can't be run wireless if that's your preference. Looking at Shimano's offerings, even the 105 is electric these days. But again: this is just a patent for an idea - it's not the first time Shimano has done this obviously https://www.bike198.com/shimano-gearbox-patent/ https://www.bike198.com/shimano-gearbox-patent/

latchkey 4y ago
I mean relevancy in the abstract sense by the way. It is trying to solve a problem that nobody really has, by adding an additional component to the system. It also makes your chain a tad bit longer... added weight and links. > Can you expand on your idea of why you think Shimano doesn't look relevant now? ... On road, every World Tour team, save 3 are running Shimano. They all use electronic shifting. This is not the way to compare relevancy, given that it is a sponsorship. Next year, sram comes out with a better financial deal for the team than shimano and they go with them.
- sasawpg 4y ago
  Came in here to say just that - I wouldn’t judge relevancy based on the amount of sponsorship a company is willing to throw at a world tour team.
  - justinator 4y ago
    I'm not judging relevancy on just the amount of sponsorship but it is a sign pointing to "relevancy". No World Tour team would use Shimano if it's 1% disadvantage over brand X. Seeing Campy not being used at all is again: another sign of this company being relevant, when paired with their loss of market %.
    - latchkey 4y ago
      It is pretty simple though. Top end campy isn't wireless.
    - sasawpg 4y ago
      By that logic, you would see very little variety in types of components used by world your teams. Teams are in the business of making money, if SRAM offers them a better deal, team owners will find it hard to say no.
      - justinator 4y ago
        The logic I'm displaying is using a variety of different metrics in order to come up with a conclusion. I also never said that SRAM is irrelevant, only questioning why Shimano seem irrelevant to the the original poster I replied to - and I also mentioned how much product they push in the second sentence. But the business of World Tour temas is also to win, as winning means being invited to the big races, which actually have coverage for the ads-on-wheels that riders are to get eyeballs on. If they can't win because of crap gear, they won't use said gear, no matter how much money given to them. It's a fine balance, right? Some riders of high talent are also pretty controlling on the gear they use, and will bring their own bike sponsor into a team as part of the deal of transfer. Chicken and egg I guess: if the gear is irrelevant, you'll never see it on the Pro Tour.

latchkey 4y ago

I mean relevancy in the abstract sense by the way. It is trying to solve a problem that nobody really has, by adding an additional component to the system. It also makes your chain a tad bit longer... added weight and links. > Can you expand on your idea of why you think Shimano doesn't look relevant now? ... On road, every World Tour team, save 3 are running Shimano. They all use electronic shifting. This is not the way to compare relevancy, given that it is a sponsorship. Next year, sram comes out with a better financial deal for the team than shimano and they go with them.

sasawpg 4y ago
Came in here to say just that - I wouldn’t judge relevancy based on the amount of sponsorship a company is willing to throw at a world tour team.
- justinator 4y ago
  I'm not judging relevancy on just the amount of sponsorship but it is a sign pointing to "relevancy". No World Tour team would use Shimano if it's 1% disadvantage over brand X. Seeing Campy not being used at all is again: another sign of this company being relevant, when paired with their loss of market %.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    It is pretty simple though. Top end campy isn't wireless.
  - sasawpg 4y ago
    By that logic, you would see very little variety in types of components used by world your teams. Teams are in the business of making money, if SRAM offers them a better deal, team owners will find it hard to say no.
    - justinator 4y ago
      The logic I'm displaying is using a variety of different metrics in order to come up with a conclusion. I also never said that SRAM is irrelevant, only questioning why Shimano seem irrelevant to the the original poster I replied to - and I also mentioned how much product they push in the second sentence. But the business of World Tour temas is also to win, as winning means being invited to the big races, which actually have coverage for the ads-on-wheels that riders are to get eyeballs on. If they can't win because of crap gear, they won't use said gear, no matter how much money given to them. It's a fine balance, right? Some riders of high talent are also pretty controlling on the gear they use, and will bring their own bike sponsor into a team as part of the deal of transfer. Chicken and egg I guess: if the gear is irrelevant, you'll never see it on the Pro Tour.