It all depends on the bike, tbh. I've ridden all the new Di2 stuff on a ton of different bikes, and I've found that chain sizing...
It all depends on the bike, tbh. I've ridden all the new Di2 stuff on a ton of different bikes, and I've found that chain sizing really matters. I've tested T-Type and the new Di2 back-to-back on the same bikes, and while SRAM does do a slightly better job of keeping the spazzing to a minimum, it's certainly not perfect.
The dual-spring on Shimano takes about 5-6 lbs of force to break free when in the smallest cog on the cassette, and the SRAM T-Type clutch takes about 7.5-8 lbs to break free no matter what cog. The major difference with the Shimano "clutch" is that it requires more force to break away the higher you are in the cassette, which honestly seems really backward (measured up to 9 lbs to break away at the higher end of the cassette). I've been pulling them apart to see what can be done to reverse this, and a Dremel might be the answer. It would be sick to see an aftermarket spring for them that is just a bit tighter... or adjustable like the previous mechanical RD's.
Parallel cam-over spring so it adds chain tension in the small cogs and subtracts it in the large cogs.
Edit: pulled the pics- don't want to make trouble.
It all depends on the bike, tbh. I've ridden all the new Di2 stuff on a ton of different bikes, and I've found that chain sizing...
It all depends on the bike, tbh. I've ridden all the new Di2 stuff on a ton of different bikes, and I've found that chain sizing really matters. I've tested T-Type and the new Di2 back-to-back on the same bikes, and while SRAM does do a slightly better job of keeping the spazzing to a minimum, it's certainly not perfect.
The dual-spring on Shimano takes about 5-6 lbs of force to break free when in the smallest cog on the cassette, and the SRAM T-Type clutch takes about 7.5-8 lbs to break free no matter what cog. The major difference with the Shimano "clutch" is that it requires more force to break away the higher you are in the cassette, which honestly seems really backward (measured up to 9 lbs to break away at the higher end of the cassette). I've been pulling them apart to see what can be done to reverse this, and a Dremel might be the answer. It would be sick to see an aftermarket spring for them that is just a bit tighter... or adjustable like the previous mechanical RD's.
It was promising- less chainslap in general but on very large impacts chainslap was worse as you'd pull the derailleur into the weaker spring zone. Shifting was actually improved- less tension on the chain going into big cogs. Think the best would be a massive torsion spring to add tension everywhere and then use the cam over spring to mostly subtract tension going into the large cogs. I believe that is the limiter on cage tension. Once you have too much- the derailleur doesn't like shifting into the big easy cogs.
I filed paperwork to patent, begged, pleaded, told everyone it was a good idea. Derailleur team was too busy and I don't know what happened after that. Pics were from 2022 so IDK- figured if they were gonna do something with it I would have been notified about patent stuff to sign for by now.
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration limitations, QC issues, cassettes that need to be installed multiple times to settle, battery pins corroding etc etc), plus compromises they try and correct release to release. Maybe that’s ok, it’s up to the rider.
At the same time, Shimano releases a new di2 ecosystem that uses their existing(and awesome) cassettes, chains, rings, has the industry leading shifter for ergonomics. A sealed battery compartment, but its perceived to be noisy on some bikes, but better for suspension performance, and somehow it becomes an ideological war. It would have been easy for Shimano to stick with the old clutch (that was superior to sram) but they chose to implement something that would optimise suspension performance on bikes.
Oh, and Shimano retain fantastic cabled systems.
The new hanger design is clever, especially if it can be implemented to be ok with UDH but address the rotation issues. It’s a minor evolution that looks like it might even be retrofittable for some frames.
Shimano can be hard to understand because they don’t communicate well, whereas sram’s biggest issue is its primary strategy often seems to be prioritising the communication hype rather than investing the extra 2% in really sorting out a product.
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration...
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration limitations, QC issues, cassettes that need to be installed multiple times to settle, battery pins corroding etc etc), plus compromises they try and correct release to release. Maybe that’s ok, it’s up to the rider.
At the same time, Shimano releases a new di2 ecosystem that uses their existing(and awesome) cassettes, chains, rings, has the industry leading shifter for ergonomics. A sealed battery compartment, but its perceived to be noisy on some bikes, but better for suspension performance, and somehow it becomes an ideological war. It would have been easy for Shimano to stick with the old clutch (that was superior to sram) but they chose to implement something that would optimise suspension performance on bikes.
Oh, and Shimano retain fantastic cabled systems.
The new hanger design is clever, especially if it can be implemented to be ok with UDH but address the rotation issues. It’s a minor evolution that looks like it might even be retrofittable for some frames.
Shimano can be hard to understand because they don’t communicate well, whereas sram’s biggest issue is its primary strategy often seems to be prioritising the communication hype rather than investing the extra 2% in really sorting out a product.
I think Shimano is missing the point- noise is the biggest issue by far. If my bike is loud, it's bad. I don't care if the suspension is actually working 1% better.
If an STFU is the price for that it’s pretty good though, right?
I still remember when SRAM went from the 2.0 clutch to 2.1 without telling people and suddenly they couldn’t be adjusted or serviced - it would shred itself, race mechanics all over found out the hard way. That kind of fuckery sums it up. My current cabled Shimano can be rebuilt pretty quick, it’s adjustable, you can even turn the clutch off, and it works great. I know that’s not Di2, but the thinking is the same.
When sram went public they released a portfolio showing their revenue streams and strategy and it was essentially ‘sell this junk as cheap as possible to OEM, in ways that lock people in (XD), and then make silly margins selling spares or new at retail’.
SRAM made some great stuff, better than Shimano for sure. UDH improved the industry 1000%, but then they go and make silly decisions to cream a bit of margin and pretend THEY HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN THAT ISSUE BEFORE.
Meanwhile XTR has a 3 year warranty that’s actually accessible. I had an XTR caliper develop a leak after 2.5 years and when they couldn’t replace it with one to match the rest they sent two, and asked me to pay a small fee. It’s a different business model.
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration...
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration limitations, QC issues, cassettes that need to be installed multiple times to settle, battery pins corroding etc etc), plus compromises they try and correct release to release. Maybe that’s ok, it’s up to the rider.
At the same time, Shimano releases a new di2 ecosystem that uses their existing(and awesome) cassettes, chains, rings, has the industry leading shifter for ergonomics. A sealed battery compartment, but its perceived to be noisy on some bikes, but better for suspension performance, and somehow it becomes an ideological war. It would have been easy for Shimano to stick with the old clutch (that was superior to sram) but they chose to implement something that would optimise suspension performance on bikes.
Oh, and Shimano retain fantastic cabled systems.
The new hanger design is clever, especially if it can be implemented to be ok with UDH but address the rotation issues. It’s a minor evolution that looks like it might even be retrofittable for some frames.
Shimano can be hard to understand because they don’t communicate well, whereas sram’s biggest issue is its primary strategy often seems to be prioritising the communication hype rather than investing the extra 2% in really sorting out a product.
I think Shimano is missing the point- noise is the biggest issue by far. If my bike is loud, it's bad. I don't care if the...
I think Shimano is missing the point- noise is the biggest issue by far. If my bike is loud, it's bad. I don't care if the suspension is actually working 1% better.
Shimano seems driven by engineers, SRAM seems driven by product people.
I think Shimano is moving too slow- they are getting eaten alive in drivetrain. Engineers like to work slow and methodically, whereas sales and Product managers are looking for shiny new things. Need a balance- which I thought SRAM/RS had a decent balance.
If an STFU is the price for that it’s pretty good though, right?I still remember when SRAM went from the 2.0 clutch to 2.1 without telling...
If an STFU is the price for that it’s pretty good though, right?
I still remember when SRAM went from the 2.0 clutch to 2.1 without telling people and suddenly they couldn’t be adjusted or serviced - it would shred itself, race mechanics all over found out the hard way. That kind of fuckery sums it up. My current cabled Shimano can be rebuilt pretty quick, it’s adjustable, you can even turn the clutch off, and it works great. I know that’s not Di2, but the thinking is the same.
When sram went public they released a portfolio showing their revenue streams and strategy and it was essentially ‘sell this junk as cheap as possible to OEM, in ways that lock people in (XD), and then make silly margins selling spares or new at retail’.
SRAM made some great stuff, better than Shimano for sure. UDH improved the industry 1000%, but then they go and make silly decisions to cream a bit of margin and pretend THEY HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN THAT ISSUE BEFORE.
Meanwhile XTR has a 3 year warranty that’s actually accessible. I had an XTR caliper develop a leak after 2.5 years and when they couldn’t replace it with one to match the rest they sent two, and asked me to pay a small fee. It’s a different business model.
I would say that no, it’s not worth it even if an STFU masks most of the noise. I had an STFU on my insanely chain-slap happy bike and one of the loops came off only after a couple rides, flopped into the spokes and got destroyed.
Gravity MTB is not really a place where marginal gains make sense, I think the real performance gains comes from rider confidence.
The sound of silence is bliss because you’re not riding and constantly trying to asses if that clang indicates that something is about to snap in half, or if it’s just an everything is okay clonk.
Product managers aren’t looking for shiny new things, they are looking to create sales w max profit margins. Shiny and new is one way to do that, but it ain’t the only one.
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration...
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration limitations, QC issues, cassettes that need to be installed multiple times to settle, battery pins corroding etc etc), plus compromises they try and correct release to release. Maybe that’s ok, it’s up to the rider.
At the same time, Shimano releases a new di2 ecosystem that uses their existing(and awesome) cassettes, chains, rings, has the industry leading shifter for ergonomics. A sealed battery compartment, but its perceived to be noisy on some bikes, but better for suspension performance, and somehow it becomes an ideological war. It would have been easy for Shimano to stick with the old clutch (that was superior to sram) but they chose to implement something that would optimise suspension performance on bikes.
Oh, and Shimano retain fantastic cabled systems.
The new hanger design is clever, especially if it can be implemented to be ok with UDH but address the rotation issues. It’s a minor evolution that looks like it might even be retrofittable for some frames.
Shimano can be hard to understand because they don’t communicate well, whereas sram’s biggest issue is its primary strategy often seems to be prioritising the communication hype rather than investing the extra 2% in really sorting out a product.
I think Shimano is missing the point- noise is the biggest issue by far. If my bike is loud, it's bad. I don't care if the...
I think Shimano is missing the point- noise is the biggest issue by far. If my bike is loud, it's bad. I don't care if the suspension is actually working 1% better.
If you told me I could pay a 1% penalty on suspension performance to have zero drivetrain noise, I'd shell that out in a minute. Every time I ride after freshly servicing suspension, greasing freehub, putting fresh tires on, aligning calipers, etc... the silence is amazing and the bike feels so smooth.
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration...
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration limitations, QC issues, cassettes that need to be installed multiple times to settle, battery pins corroding etc etc), plus compromises they try and correct release to release. Maybe that’s ok, it’s up to the rider.
At the same time, Shimano releases a new di2 ecosystem that uses their existing(and awesome) cassettes, chains, rings, has the industry leading shifter for ergonomics. A sealed battery compartment, but its perceived to be noisy on some bikes, but better for suspension performance, and somehow it becomes an ideological war. It would have been easy for Shimano to stick with the old clutch (that was superior to sram) but they chose to implement something that would optimise suspension performance on bikes.
Oh, and Shimano retain fantastic cabled systems.
The new hanger design is clever, especially if it can be implemented to be ok with UDH but address the rotation issues. It’s a minor evolution that looks like it might even be retrofittable for some frames.
Shimano can be hard to understand because they don’t communicate well, whereas sram’s biggest issue is its primary strategy often seems to be prioritising the communication hype rather than investing the extra 2% in really sorting out a product.
As a die hard mechanical X01 rider, which I still run on my enduro bike, I've been very impressed with the new XT Di2 on my XC/DC bike. It is a little noisier, but I find that the days it is the noisiest are the days I'm simply riding like a**. When I ride smoothly it's not that loud. Plus, the shift speed is insane, the ergonomics are awesome and the battery life has been fantastic.
Factor in the numerous and costly issues my friend group has experienced on their Transmission setups, I'll be going to Shimano once I'm out of backup X01 derailleurs.
Are any of us getting front brake fade in a big way? Maybe if you have huge sustained steep trails? I've not experienced it at Pleney...
Are any of us getting front brake fade in a big way? Maybe if you have huge sustained steep trails? I've not experienced it at Pleney on rental bikes with 200 f&r, less knowledge of where the line goes, and lots of brake dragging.
I've been running 220r 200f on the park and ebike for a while now and have not experienced horrible brake fade on local steeps (XT's and now Mavens). Local steep with 1,500ft drop with 3 flat off the brakes sections in between the steeps. I've been able to get some fade on the ebike with the 220r on organic Maven pads. No fade using Galfer purples or sintered SRAM pads on that same setup and trail though. Never any on the 200 front with sintered pads. On "normal" trails I'm using my rear brake way more than my front.
I use the front brake way more than the back because it's the only brake that actually stops the bike. I usually change front pads twice...
I use the front brake way more than the back because it's the only brake that actually stops the bike. I usually change front pads twice before changing my rear ones. I run 203mm front rotor with ceramic pads and 180mm rear rotor with ceramic pads. I have a gully (chable) type trail which is basically 1:30mins of braking super hard and it's the ultimate brake test. Most of my front brakes fade down there.
I'm pretty sure I've never come across anyone wearing out pads in the front twice as quick as the rear, are you riding a penny farthing...
I'm pretty sure I've never come across anyone wearing out pads in the front twice as quick as the rear, are you riding a penny farthing :-)
Yeah, the earlier posts about pros using their rear brake way more than the front had just started to make me feel better about my rear-heavy braking habits, and then this guy pops up!
I spent several summers at the bike park, doing runs where I specifically only allowed myself to use the front brake, just to try to dial in my brake technique to use the "more powerful" front brake and shifting to shorter harder braking events. Here I am, 20yrs later, still dragging the rear and going through rear pads at about 2x the rate as front pads! I've reframed it and now consider it "trail braking" to shift weight forward and increase front traction.
As a die hard mechanical X01 rider, which I still run on my enduro bike, I've been very impressed with the new XT Di2 on my...
As a die hard mechanical X01 rider, which I still run on my enduro bike, I've been very impressed with the new XT Di2 on my XC/DC bike. It is a little noisier, but I find that the days it is the noisiest are the days I'm simply riding like a**. When I ride smoothly it's not that loud. Plus, the shift speed is insane, the ergonomics are awesome and the battery life has been fantastic.
Factor in the numerous and costly issues my friend group has experienced on their Transmission setups, I'll be going to Shimano once I'm out of backup X01 derailleurs.
But isn’t the point of mountain biking to ride like an ass?
Friends with it say for shorter travel bikes it’s not that noticeably loud but on bigger bikes it’s louder than sram. Guess those big bikes are more prone to riding like an ass.
Yeah, the earlier posts about pros using their rear brake way more than the front had just started to make me feel better about my rear-heavy...
Yeah, the earlier posts about pros using their rear brake way more than the front had just started to make me feel better about my rear-heavy braking habits, and then this guy pops up!
I spent several summers at the bike park, doing runs where I specifically only allowed myself to use the front brake, just to try to dial in my brake technique to use the "more powerful" front brake and shifting to shorter harder braking events. Here I am, 20yrs later, still dragging the rear and going through rear pads at about 2x the rate as front pads! I've reframed it and now consider it "trail braking" to shift weight forward and increase front traction.
My first day on a dh bike that I owned the rear brake failed on the lift. Fine in the lot, absolutely nothing and immediately to the bar. I honestly didn’t think about riding the lift back down so I ride the first lap like that. And the second. Finished the day like that. Sunday River in Maine so it was all tech, mostly damp and tons of rocks and roots. As a bigger dude, dragging the rear doesn’t really do much so I usually go through 4 sets of front pads per every 3 rears.
Enough. Tell me about the next gen Optic or Evil Following. Anyone have any info?
No, but we can imagine the Following will have the same mods the Offering had, some sponsored riders are already ripping what looks like a new insurgent and Wreckoning that look like they’ve got the full upgraded frame/geo
I would say that no, it’s not worth it even if an STFU masks most of the noise. I had an STFU on my insanely chain-slap...
I would say that no, it’s not worth it even if an STFU masks most of the noise. I had an STFU on my insanely chain-slap happy bike and one of the loops came off only after a couple rides, flopped into the spokes and got destroyed.
Gravity MTB is not really a place where marginal gains make sense, I think the real performance gains comes from rider confidence.
The sound of silence is bliss because you’re not riding and constantly trying to asses if that clang indicates that something is about to snap in half, or if it’s just an everything is okay clonk.
From my experience (and same issue) with STFU, I can say that the thickness of zip-ties you use is crucial. Once I clamped both loops with the widest and thickest zip ties possible (which still go through their slots normally), I never had it failing again.
My guess is drop the patrol make the spire mulletGet rid of every E that isn’t the regulator release an updated repeater with avanoxPotentially combine the Sentinel...
My guess is drop the patrol make the spire mullet
Get rid of every E that isn’t the regulator
release an updated repeater with avanox
Potentially combine the Sentinel and smuggler?
HOPEFULLY not true but drop 10 to 20% of their employees to save money
I’d agree that at this point the patrol and spire probably have no point in both existing, but I’d prefer if they marched them and kept the patrol name and ditched the spire for the sake of legacy. IMO the patrol was the springboard that has shaped the transition we know today.
My guess is drop the patrol make the spire mulletGet rid of every E that isn’t the regulator release an updated repeater with avanoxPotentially combine the Sentinel...
My guess is drop the patrol make the spire mullet
Get rid of every E that isn’t the regulator
release an updated repeater with avanox
Potentially combine the Sentinel and smuggler?
HOPEFULLY not true but drop 10 to 20% of their employees to save money
I’d agree that at this point the patrol and spire probably have no point in both existing, but I’d prefer if they marched them and kept...
I’d agree that at this point the patrol and spire probably have no point in both existing, but I’d prefer if they marched them and kept the patrol name and ditched the spire for the sake of legacy. IMO the patrol was the springboard that has shaped the transition we know today.
I agree, make a 160 or 170/170 Patrol with a flip chip if you want a 29 rear.
don't know if this is the right place to post this but- i've had my eye on an orbea rallon for quite some time.
I'm seeing the 2026 frame on sale, then again at full price except labeled at "2027 frame"
does anyone know if there is a difference?
I've read that there are horrendously flexible at the rear end, including the custom bridge you guys probably saw from last WC
then upon google searching Orbea says right there "stiff carbon frame" i remember them clearly saying last year it was "compliant"
can anyone do a deep dive and see if anything is new? or anyone know anything? I'm definitely after a stiffer frame, that's whats keeping me away at the moment. a few WC folks told me to "wait till next version"
orbea contact takes 3-6 business years to respond so no help there. LOL
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration...
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration limitations, QC issues, cassettes that need to be installed multiple times to settle, battery pins corroding etc etc), plus compromises they try and correct release to release. Maybe that’s ok, it’s up to the rider.
At the same time, Shimano releases a new di2 ecosystem that uses their existing(and awesome) cassettes, chains, rings, has the industry leading shifter for ergonomics. A sealed battery compartment, but its perceived to be noisy on some bikes, but better for suspension performance, and somehow it becomes an ideological war. It would have been easy for Shimano to stick with the old clutch (that was superior to sram) but they chose to implement something that would optimise suspension performance on bikes.
Oh, and Shimano retain fantastic cabled systems.
The new hanger design is clever, especially if it can be implemented to be ok with UDH but address the rotation issues. It’s a minor evolution that looks like it might even be retrofittable for some frames.
Shimano can be hard to understand because they don’t communicate well, whereas sram’s biggest issue is its primary strategy often seems to be prioritising the communication hype rather than investing the extra 2% in really sorting out a product.
I would challenge the idea that reduced derailleur tension inherently leads to better suspension performance simply because any time the chain slams undamped into your frame and the derailleur returns rapidly it’s going to unsettle your bike. It doesn’t feel great through the feet either. IIRC Vorsprung Steve argues that this is the primary utility of Ochain over reduced pedal kick.
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration...
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration limitations, QC issues, cassettes that need to be installed multiple times to settle, battery pins corroding etc etc), plus compromises they try and correct release to release. Maybe that’s ok, it’s up to the rider.
At the same time, Shimano releases a new di2 ecosystem that uses their existing(and awesome) cassettes, chains, rings, has the industry leading shifter for ergonomics. A sealed battery compartment, but its perceived to be noisy on some bikes, but better for suspension performance, and somehow it becomes an ideological war. It would have been easy for Shimano to stick with the old clutch (that was superior to sram) but they chose to implement something that would optimise suspension performance on bikes.
Oh, and Shimano retain fantastic cabled systems.
The new hanger design is clever, especially if it can be implemented to be ok with UDH but address the rotation issues. It’s a minor evolution that looks like it might even be retrofittable for some frames.
Shimano can be hard to understand because they don’t communicate well, whereas sram’s biggest issue is its primary strategy often seems to be prioritising the communication hype rather than investing the extra 2% in really sorting out a product.
Who at sram hurt you?
I think I'm on record saying that the only thing worst than The XTR cassette being made of plates and cheese is the awfulness of the microspline driver. A plastic spacer to remove creaking isn't a solution.
I've sold a small handful of XTR bikes this year, and we've had a fair number of them come back with broken rings.
We have near constant complaints about Shimano brakes being significantly louder than other models, and have yet to manage a consistent way to quiet them down, even after investing in a bedding machine.
Shimano went proprietary for their freehub even though it was extremely obvious that they could have used HG or paid into XD. Their road 12s systems are on HG still.
The new "UDH" achieves nothing. The current UDH has a shelf at the bottom corner of the dropout to prevent rotation. I had a customer break a frame while putting in WAY too much torque on assembly, and have photos as proof. There already was anti-rotation, and this is typical Shimano needing to be different. The current UDH also allows reward rotation to dissipate energy from a derailleur impact, which the Shimano version will not allow for, which honestly seems like a step backwards.
Sram put out an HG option nearly immediately when Eagle came out, and has continued to support mechanical options even if they are not putting focus on higher end groups.
They have another line (S) that still works with traditional frames lacking UDH.
If anything, Sram put out a non-proprietary drivetrain with multiple entry points at multiple pricepoints, the ability to mix and match, a host of small repair parts that very very few companies rival, and has had consistent support for previous generation units. I cannot fathom what you are talking about here. Sram's drivetrains are extremely viable. This comes off as fanboyism.
I'm a bit of a lurker here, but that's just slander plain and simple. Both companies make extremely good if imperfect systems.
New SRAM stuff is prohibitively expensive. Still buy and use GX Eagle. Why would I need anything else? I’m a gravity rider…my derailleur goes through hell. The last thing I want is to put a $600 derailleur on my bike. Upgrades to shifting? It’s a drivetrain…I click the shifter and the chain changes gear. What is there to upgrade?
They're making a "true mullet" from what I hear. Gonna be 32" rear wheel and a 24" front. Just a render from a brand look-book, but pretty polarizing.
Transition is getting into the super crowded full suspension cargo bike category ?
Parallel cam-over spring so it adds chain tension in the small cogs and subtracts it in the large cogs.
Edit: pulled the pics- don't want to make trouble.
That's pretty darn smart. How did it work on the trail?
And is it patented?
It was promising- less chainslap in general but on very large impacts chainslap was worse as you'd pull the derailleur into the weaker spring zone. Shifting was actually improved- less tension on the chain going into big cogs. Think the best would be a massive torsion spring to add tension everywhere and then use the cam over spring to mostly subtract tension going into the large cogs. I believe that is the limiter on cage tension. Once you have too much- the derailleur doesn't like shifting into the big easy cogs.
I filed paperwork to patent, begged, pleaded, told everyone it was a good idea. Derailleur team was too busy and I don't know what happened after that. Pics were from 2022 so IDK- figured if they were gonna do something with it I would have been notified about patent stuff to sign for by now.
It’s weird - sram can release an ecosystem of groups with proprietary cassettes, derailleurs, chains, rings, that have stratospheric prices and persistent issues (speed, shift calibration limitations, QC issues, cassettes that need to be installed multiple times to settle, battery pins corroding etc etc), plus compromises they try and correct release to release. Maybe that’s ok, it’s up to the rider.
At the same time, Shimano releases a new di2 ecosystem that uses their existing(and awesome) cassettes, chains, rings, has the industry leading shifter for ergonomics. A sealed battery compartment, but its perceived to be noisy on some bikes, but better for suspension performance, and somehow it becomes an ideological war. It would have been easy for Shimano to stick with the old clutch (that was superior to sram) but they chose to implement something that would optimise suspension performance on bikes.
Oh, and Shimano retain fantastic cabled systems.
The new hanger design is clever, especially if it can be implemented to be ok with UDH but address the rotation issues. It’s a minor evolution that looks like it might even be retrofittable for some frames.
Shimano can be hard to understand because they don’t communicate well, whereas sram’s biggest issue is its primary strategy often seems to be prioritising the communication hype rather than investing the extra 2% in really sorting out a product.
bro's gonna get murdered by big drivetrain illuminati after that one
I think Shimano is missing the point- noise is the biggest issue by far. If my bike is loud, it's bad. I don't care if the suspension is actually working 1% better.
If an STFU is the price for that it’s pretty good though, right?
I still remember when SRAM went from the 2.0 clutch to 2.1 without telling people and suddenly they couldn’t be adjusted or serviced - it would shred itself, race mechanics all over found out the hard way. That kind of fuckery sums it up. My current cabled Shimano can be rebuilt pretty quick, it’s adjustable, you can even turn the clutch off, and it works great. I know that’s not Di2, but the thinking is the same.
When sram went public they released a portfolio showing their revenue streams and strategy and it was essentially ‘sell this junk as cheap as possible to OEM, in ways that lock people in (XD), and then make silly margins selling spares or new at retail’.
SRAM made some great stuff, better than Shimano for sure. UDH improved the industry 1000%, but then they go and make silly decisions to cream a bit of margin and pretend THEY HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN THAT ISSUE BEFORE.
Meanwhile XTR has a 3 year warranty that’s actually accessible. I had an XTR caliper develop a leak after 2.5 years and when they couldn’t replace it with one to match the rest they sent two, and asked me to pay a small fee. It’s a different business model.
Shimano seems driven by engineers, SRAM seems driven by product people.
I would love to know if they new stronger springs Shimano are using to address the noise complaints are retrofittable. They should communicate that.
all fair points^
I think Shimano is moving too slow- they are getting eaten alive in drivetrain. Engineers like to work slow and methodically, whereas sales and Product managers are looking for shiny new things. Need a balance- which I thought SRAM/RS had a decent balance.
I would say that no, it’s not worth it even if an STFU masks most of the noise. I had an STFU on my insanely chain-slap happy bike and one of the loops came off only after a couple rides, flopped into the spokes and got destroyed.
Gravity MTB is not really a place where marginal gains make sense, I think the real performance gains comes from rider confidence.
The sound of silence is bliss because you’re not riding and constantly trying to asses if that clang indicates that something is about to snap in half, or if it’s just an everything is okay clonk.
Product managers aren’t looking for shiny new things, they are looking to create sales w max profit margins. Shiny and new is one way to do that, but it ain’t the only one.
If you told me I could pay a 1% penalty on suspension performance to have zero drivetrain noise, I'd shell that out in a minute. Every time I ride after freshly servicing suspension, greasing freehub, putting fresh tires on, aligning calipers, etc... the silence is amazing and the bike feels so smooth.
Enough. Tell me about the next gen Optic or Evil Following. Anyone have any info?
As a die hard mechanical X01 rider, which I still run on my enduro bike, I've been very impressed with the new XT Di2 on my XC/DC bike. It is a little noisier, but I find that the days it is the noisiest are the days I'm simply riding like a**. When I ride smoothly it's not that loud. Plus, the shift speed is insane, the ergonomics are awesome and the battery life has been fantastic.
Factor in the numerous and costly issues my friend group has experienced on their Transmission setups, I'll be going to Shimano once I'm out of backup X01 derailleurs.
Yeah, the earlier posts about pros using their rear brake way more than the front had just started to make me feel better about my rear-heavy braking habits, and then this guy pops up!
I spent several summers at the bike park, doing runs where I specifically only allowed myself to use the front brake, just to try to dial in my brake technique to use the "more powerful" front brake and shifting to shorter harder braking events. Here I am, 20yrs later, still dragging the rear and going through rear pads at about 2x the rate as front pads! I've reframed it and now consider it "trail braking" to shift weight forward and increase front traction.
But isn’t the point of mountain biking to ride like an ass?
Friends with it say for shorter travel bikes it’s not that noticeably loud but on bigger bikes it’s louder than sram. Guess those big bikes are more prone to riding like an ass.
My first day on a dh bike that I owned the rear brake failed on the lift. Fine in the lot, absolutely nothing and immediately to the bar. I honestly didn’t think about riding the lift back down so I ride the first lap like that. And the second. Finished the day like that. Sunday River in Maine so it was all tech, mostly damp and tons of rocks and roots. As a bigger dude, dragging the rear doesn’t really do much so I usually go through 4 sets of front pads per every 3 rears.
No, but we can imagine the Following will have the same mods the Offering had, some sponsored riders are already ripping what looks like a new insurgent and Wreckoning that look like they’ve got the full upgraded frame/geo
But all can’t arrive soon enough
From my experience (and same issue) with STFU, I can say that the thickness of zip-ties you use is crucial. Once I clamped both loops with the widest and thickest zip ties possible (which still go through their slots normally), I never had it failing again.
I’d agree that at this point the patrol and spire probably have no point in both existing, but I’d prefer if they marched them and kept the patrol name and ditched the spire for the sake of legacy. IMO the patrol was the springboard that has shaped the transition we know today.
Yeah Evil Following will be a 430 chainstay across the sizes.
This way all the tall riders can proclaim how playful it is while the small riders get to feel what a balanced bike is like.
I agree, make a 160 or 170/170 Patrol with a flip chip if you want a 29 rear.
don't know if this is the right place to post this but- i've had my eye on an orbea rallon for quite some time.
I'm seeing the 2026 frame on sale, then again at full price except labeled at "2027 frame"
does anyone know if there is a difference?
I've read that there are horrendously flexible at the rear end, including the custom bridge you guys probably saw from last WC
then upon google searching Orbea says right there "stiff carbon frame" i remember them clearly saying last year it was "compliant"
can anyone do a deep dive and see if anything is new? or anyone know anything? I'm definitely after a stiffer frame, that's whats keeping me away at the moment. a few WC folks told me to "wait till next version"
orbea contact takes 3-6 business years to respond so no help there. LOL
cheers,
I would challenge the idea that reduced derailleur tension inherently leads to better suspension performance simply because any time the chain slams undamped into your frame and the derailleur returns rapidly it’s going to unsettle your bike. It doesn’t feel great through the feet either. IIRC Vorsprung Steve argues that this is the primary utility of Ochain over reduced pedal kick.
Who at sram hurt you?
I think I'm on record saying that the only thing worst than The XTR cassette being made of plates and cheese is the awfulness of the microspline driver. A plastic spacer to remove creaking isn't a solution.
Anyways, back to the rumors:
Is Transition the new Yeti?
I've sold a small handful of XTR bikes this year, and we've had a fair number of them come back with broken rings.
We have near constant complaints about Shimano brakes being significantly louder than other models, and have yet to manage a consistent way to quiet them down, even after investing in a bedding machine.
Shimano went proprietary for their freehub even though it was extremely obvious that they could have used HG or paid into XD. Their road 12s systems are on HG still.
The new "UDH" achieves nothing. The current UDH has a shelf at the bottom corner of the dropout to prevent rotation. I had a customer break a frame while putting in WAY too much torque on assembly, and have photos as proof. There already was anti-rotation, and this is typical Shimano needing to be different. The current UDH also allows reward rotation to dissipate energy from a derailleur impact, which the Shimano version will not allow for, which honestly seems like a step backwards.
Sram put out an HG option nearly immediately when Eagle came out, and has continued to support mechanical options even if they are not putting focus on higher end groups.
They have another line (S) that still works with traditional frames lacking UDH.
If anything, Sram put out a non-proprietary drivetrain with multiple entry points at multiple pricepoints, the ability to mix and match, a host of small repair parts that very very few companies rival, and has had consistent support for previous generation units. I cannot fathom what you are talking about here. Sram's drivetrains are extremely viable. This comes off as fanboyism.
I'm a bit of a lurker here, but that's just slander plain and simple. Both companies make extremely good if imperfect systems.
New SRAM stuff is prohibitively expensive. Still buy and use GX Eagle. Why would I need anything else? I’m a gravity rider…my derailleur goes through hell. The last thing I want is to put a $600 derailleur on my bike. Upgrades to shifting? It’s a drivetrain…I click the shifter and the chain changes gear. What is there to upgrade?
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker