This is what's wrong with The Industry™
- Thread starter Electric_City
- Start date
-
- Tags
- e-bike
this isn't anything new. this concept was prototyped for fat bikes at least a decade ago. clearly never went anywhere.
979K views · 4.9K reactions | ⚙️ IS This How Marianne Vos WON? . Watch The Full Video LIVE NOW On #YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dDZXYEV2-s . The Hottest New Tech At Gravel World Champs 2024! . #GCNtech #globalcyclingnetwork #cycling #cyclingtech | GCN Tech
⚙️ IS This How Marianne Vos WON? . Watch The Full Video LIVE NOW On #YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dDZXYEV2-s . The Hottest New Tech At Gravel World Champs 2024! . #GCNtech...www.facebook.com
I think I remember looking into this, and discovering it was complete horseshit. What SRAM actually did was not to increase the bearing size, but to add a plastic shim inside the inner bearing race to deal with poor tolerances that SRAM products all have. There was no increase in bearing size. Wasn't there a SRAM insider on here that claimed it was as you describe above? Dcamp or something like that? Anyways, it's not true. It's the same bearing size plus a plastic reducer, rather than a metal race against your BB axle.
SRAM DUB BB's bearing size? - Page 2 - Weight Weenies
weightweenies.starbike.com
These are the bearings. Normal bearings (6806) are 41x30, these are 40 x 30, so reduced ball size is likely. I don't know how much.
MR3040H7-2RS Dub
If your looking for MR3040H7-2RS Dub, come to Aire Velo Bearings the UK No.1 bicycle bearing supplier
www.airevelobearings.com
Please....SRAM DUB BB's bearing size? - Page 2 - Weight Weenies
These are the bearings. Normal bearings (6806) are 41x30, these are 40 x 30, so reduced ball size is likely. I don't know how much.
MR3040H7-2RS Dub
If your looking for MR3040H7-2RS Dub, come to Aire Velo Bearings the UK No.1 bicycle bearing supplier
I am all for the udh design, I have a couple (or moar) bikes, none have a common hanger till udh happened, even worse nobody I ride with has a bike that uses a common hanger, go some where and someone breaks a hanger and they don't carry a spare, game over.
I don't get what the problem is with that SRAM brake mount.
If they keep the same bolt pattern so that the new brake mount system is compatible with current brakes, it seems good for everybody and I don't see any drawbacks. What am I missing?
On my Devinci, my Mavens are sitting a bit too high and I have to keep an eye on the pads and shave a small lip of pad material that doesn't get eaten by the 180mm rotor (the Maven pads are wider). Not relying on the frame manufacturer to position the brake mounts should help avoiding such situations.
If they keep the same bolt pattern so that the new brake mount system is compatible with current brakes, it seems good for everybody and I don't see any drawbacks. What am I missing?
On my Devinci, my Mavens are sitting a bit too high and I have to keep an eye on the pads and shave a small lip of pad material that doesn't get eaten by the 180mm rotor (the Maven pads are wider). Not relying on the frame manufacturer to position the brake mounts should help avoiding such situations.
Last edited:
So if a bike comes with a 162.17mm sram rear disc and I wanna change it to a standard 180mm disc I'll have to pay $126.26 for a different Dropmount*!
Can I mount a different mount to that mount?
We already have a half similar mount called a IS (International STANDARD) 51mm mount.
I like innovation, but when it changes how an unrelated company (in this case, the bike frame designer) has to change their bikes to only accept one companies design, I refuse to deal with either of them. Like some manufacturers ditched cable routing telling the consumer that we can only go electronic on certain bikes. That's not someone I'm buying my next bike or components from.
(*I just TM'd that shit!)
The brake mount is questionable, if the brake line needs to follow the chainstay instead of the seatstay, or the caliper has a thread in fitting or a banjo changes the best placement.
We already have 2 systems. What do you think this is going to fix? You still need the correct mount. And since sram was the different-than-everyone-else brake company, how is that going to fix anything?
When disc brakes were new in 1998, the standard size was 160mm brought on by Hayes I believe since they were the "first" real disc brake company that became something. Standards were made and others followed. 180 and 203mm discs became something. Avid decided that 165, 185 and 200mm would be their size. For what? Is sram going to standardize these stupid mounts to their size only? Is this a "standard like Boost that's open to whomever wants it?
UDH being included w/ road frames was a surprise. Cannot see any UBH for flat mount though even if I was massively, massively wrong before.
While cleaning up the rear triangle frame design, it must be for something gearbox related. Wheel Speed sensor integration for ebikes and/or Automatiq Enviolo style drivetrains in the grand market perhaps.
While cleaning up the rear triangle frame design, it must be for something gearbox related. Wheel Speed sensor integration for ebikes and/or Automatiq Enviolo style drivetrains in the grand market perhaps.
Red E1 (1x13) needs udh
I am not going to argue about past SRAM fuckups and I don't mean to defend SRAM at all cost here. I am still dealing with 185mm rotors in my fleet and I'd rather not have to. I have also always been very vocal about the ever-changing industry standards that made our existing stuff non-compatible with it...and I still hate SuperBoost.
I just don't see the big issue if this new system is fully backward compatible with existing brake calipers, adaptors and rear hubs. If it is indeed the case, this new system may not be a bad thing, as it should make the job easier for the frame manufacturers.
Just like the UDH: Yes, it was a Trojan Horse to prepare for T-Type, but I think we're much better off with a widely adopted standard hanger that works fine with standard derailleurs than with the previous clusterfuck we were dealing with.
Again, maybe there are some drawback I don't see here and I will be happy to change my tune if it is the case.
I don't have much of an issue with UDH. I like that i can walk into any reasonable store, in theory, and grab a UDH hanger and be on my way.
I don't really have a big issue with the mount itself. I do not see why we need it, but brake mount to bike and off we go.
The issue that i have is, instead of my plethora of brake mounts I now own, I will soon need to buy a different set of brake mounts so I can mount the same brakes to my next frame. More importantly, what pandora's box is this going to open in an industry that is struggling with constant forced obsolescence? Is Uncle Jessie's Bikes and Skis going to now have to carry post mount 160/180/200 mounts, plus flat mount 140/160/180, plus SRAM's new "Brakemount Universal, T-Type" (BUTT) in 160/180/200? We can already see that BUTT users are going to have compatibility issues with a variety of frames like split pivot or short link bikes, but what else is there? Will people have to buy a new BUTT when SRAM releases a new caliper that is not post-mount compatible, but you can only put in your BUTT? Will shops have to carry post-mount and BUTT-mount calipers? Will we get a new axle standard because BUTT enables it?
Sorry, I'm getting carried away here. My whinge is mostly directed at SRAM's constant introduction of stuff that is marginally better but completely not backwards-compatible. I love my AXS setup, but zero part of it is compatible with anything else- I'm locked into freehub, chain, cassette, chainring, shifters, calipers, none of which is compatible with MTB SRAM shit. So when RM and GT are on death's door, they now will have even fewer options for flexibility.
I don't really have a big issue with the mount itself. I do not see why we need it, but brake mount to bike and off we go.
The issue that i have is, instead of my plethora of brake mounts I now own, I will soon need to buy a different set of brake mounts so I can mount the same brakes to my next frame. More importantly, what pandora's box is this going to open in an industry that is struggling with constant forced obsolescence? Is Uncle Jessie's Bikes and Skis going to now have to carry post mount 160/180/200 mounts, plus flat mount 140/160/180, plus SRAM's new "Brakemount Universal, T-Type" (BUTT) in 160/180/200? We can already see that BUTT users are going to have compatibility issues with a variety of frames like split pivot or short link bikes, but what else is there? Will people have to buy a new BUTT when SRAM releases a new caliper that is not post-mount compatible, but you can only put in your BUTT? Will shops have to carry post-mount and BUTT-mount calipers? Will we get a new axle standard because BUTT enables it?
Sorry, I'm getting carried away here. My whinge is mostly directed at SRAM's constant introduction of stuff that is marginally better but completely not backwards-compatible. I love my AXS setup, but zero part of it is compatible with anything else- I'm locked into freehub, chain, cassette, chainring, shifters, calipers, none of which is compatible with MTB SRAM shit. So when RM and GT are on death's door, they now will have even fewer options for flexibility.
This. I've had a bike (Spec Levo) where the post mount alignment was such that I basically had to run the caliper slid fully outboard to center over the rotor, giving almost no room for adjustment through pad wear. A system like this will at least standardize the distance from the edge of the hub shell to the center of the brake mount.
If ya'll think this is a trojan horse similar to UDH for T-Type, what's the real end game here? They said similar things about alignment, frame manufacture, etc., when UDH came out, but clearly they were up to something else.
There is already a solution for this. It is called a receipt which you use to return a shitty product.
step one is that SRAM can loosen up tolerances and still get customer satisfaction at a lower pre-product cost.
Step two is to release a caliper that is integrated into the arm such that it isn't compatible with the old shit. It'll be lighter, or marginally better, or whatever, but it definitely will NOT be compatible with what you bought last year.
Step three is to not sell those calipers without selling a transmission with it, nor without selling a fork and shock together. People hate sram brakes, but if you can't buy a bike with transmission without buying those too, you'll ride em no matter how much they suck. All that means profit while shimano is still wondering whether they should release a true wireless system and FOX is battling an OEM behemoth.
Am I the only one that sees how UHB could open up the potential for aftermarket floating brake arms?
Picky picky.
I still lament the death of 20mm. I could swap wheels between trail, enduro and DH without a worry which came in handy many many times, not to mention loaning a wheel to a buddy who kerfunckled one of theirs. 15 mm is lighter he says, next he says I have a fix, open your wallet for Torque Caps. So now we are back to the same weight but without the rigidity.
Now on Superboost. Yes my trailbike has it. No, I don't find my size 12's get in the way. Life would be simpler if it didn't exist, but it does not give me any issues other than compatibility.
However what does chew my ass is Trunion, that just gets in the fucking way. Granted riding a far to many pivots Knolly, at least my shock is well isolated and does not see huge loads on the interface, but being a very old school rider who grew up using knock knees to saddle for bike control - a habit I have never been able to fully break, I find the side of my calf pretty banged up on my forward foot from running into that wide-assed assembly whenever trails get spicey and I have to get more active and pull body English out of retirement. Never happens with any of my other too many pivot Knolly non-trunion bikes.
UBH looks good as for making proper caliper to disk alignment better, but it don't smell right at the moment and I certainty don't trust it. Time will tell.
...story time is now all over and there are clouds to yell at.
I'll get me coat.
Now on Superboost. Yes my trailbike has it. No, I don't find my size 12's get in the way. Life would be simpler if it didn't exist, but it does not give me any issues other than compatibility.
However what does chew my ass is Trunion, that just gets in the fucking way. Granted riding a far to many pivots Knolly, at least my shock is well isolated and does not see huge loads on the interface, but being a very old school rider who grew up using knock knees to saddle for bike control - a habit I have never been able to fully break, I find the side of my calf pretty banged up on my forward foot from running into that wide-assed assembly whenever trails get spicey and I have to get more active and pull body English out of retirement. Never happens with any of my other too many pivot Knolly non-trunion bikes.
UBH looks good as for making proper caliper to disk alignment better, but it don't smell right at the moment and I certainty don't trust it. Time will tell.
...story time is now all over and there are clouds to yell at.
I'll get me coat.
lots of finger tapping for sram brakes/mounts/standards. who the fuck actually uses sram brakes????