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. Got told no.
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.
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. Got told no.
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
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker