also, i wouldn't hold my breath for shimano carbon cranks.
This is what's wrong with The Industry™
- Thread starter Electric_City
- Start date
-
- Tags
- e-bike
Hold on a second, Shimano is not getting off the hook here... you forgot to mention that instead of making a direct mount option they did something equally as annoying/stupid, they came out with their own proprietary offset/strange bolt pattern spider for their new cranks. I hate to ask this also, but do their cranks work with boost? IE do I have to buy a different chainring or cranks if I have a boost frame?
I dunno if you guys picked up on in that industry response article, but it sounds like SRAM is forcing bike manufacturers to buy their cranks with any Eagle drive train, reminds me when MS used to force people to use Internet Exploder in Windows.
while stupid, at least shimano isn't suing people for making aftermarket rings with their wonky bolt pattern.
oh absolutely. this is a power move on sram's part to lock them into more OEM business.
SR Sramtour
Shimano has boost and non-boost cranks. Some boost frames will work with non boost cranks which will potentially give you a better chainline. People on empty beer are of great help when answering this type of compatibility related questions.
Then there are offseted chainrings fitting Shimano cranks so that you can have a non boost chainline and still be able to brag about your boost crankset. Blackspire makes this kind of rings in many colours. Finding chainrings fitting Shimano cranks is a none issue, even Shimano is making narrow wide rings these days.
Last edited:
you are right about the weird spacing. I think it's a holdover from road, where it probably adds 3.2% stiffness and 420x dentist points.
Looks like shimano isn't very compatible with boost, while direct mount cranksets are, mostly: https://www.oneupcomponents.com/pages/understanding-chainline-for-optimal-1x-conversions-boost-and-non-boost But isn't that the point of boost? to get the customer to buy new shit without making it backwards compatible? It seems to me that sram is trying to innovate as quickly as possible so that competitors, like shimano (who take their fucking time doing anything) will be left in the dust time and time again. Doesn't matter if the improvements are small/non-existant, OEMs will eat them up and force you into it.
i feel like this is becoming more and more relevant. these days it seems like (to me at least) few and fewer riders are doing custom specs/builds and are just buying a complete bike just so everything is compatible.
I think I’m running stock RF and I found some Hope (and I think they are the same as RealWorldCycles enduro) for not too expensive so I have the Hope as a backup, this standard forces you to run basically the bare bearings in the frame, no shell and poor protection against dust/contaminants in the BB. I generally don’t run that bike through super nasty stuff unless it’s a race, not nearly as much as my RFX, the BB92 setup is on my 429SL.
You also used to be able to buy a new frame and move most of your components over from an old bike.
but that doesn't put money into the pockets of the lizards.
The irony here is that SRAM (nee Gripshift) got their big break in the 90's when they sued Shimano for forcing manufacturers to buy entire groupsets (which locked Gripshift out of the OEM market). Gripshift won the lawsuit and they're now pulling the same stunt they sued Shimano over.
I worked in a bike shop back then and really wish Shimano won that lawsuit, those old Gripshift sucked.
Last edited:
I do think the situation here is *slightly* different from a legal perspective. From what i recall from way back it was part of the business agreement that shimano required manufacturers to buy the groupset.
in the case of sram, it doesn't sound like they're making it a business requirement; but are instead designing their system to only work with itself (at least for the drivetrain), requiring OEM's to spec the whole eagle groupset if they want any aspect of it.
I fall into that category. Back when I owned a shop, all of my bikes started as a raw frameset, and were built up from there...but my new Rocky didn't come with anything I didn't want or need to be a badass bike.
The only things I changed were the chainring and seatpost remote.
Actually, I did replace the stem for a 32mm...
this sounds right, but i'm sure they are also giving a price break to OEM's to 'encourage' them to spec SRAM across the entire bike.
well yes that's generally how it works.
of course it does. how much encouragement they are giving is the question. are they package pricing the competition out of the equation to a point it could be considered questionable business?
i suspect its component compatibility they're using to lock in. ie if you want eagle, it's all or nothing.
It's interesting; in the road world shimano is dominant, and in the mtb world, sram has certainly taken the lead. Actually, i don't know if that's very interesting at all. 1x doesn't really work on a high performance road bike, whereas it's the only thing to use on a high end endurbro bike.
I always noticed when I got back on my 83mm BB bikes, and I never liked them for pedally rides. I'm currently riding a trail bike with 157mm rear spacing and 73mm BB. I purposely got the cheap RF cranks so I could flip the chainring. Plenty of miles and zero issues with this setup.
I was perfectly happy w/ 142, but the industry decided to move to Boost. I'm okay with another move to an existing, backwards compatible standard as a replacement for something that's completely pointless.
google q-factor.
10mm is a mere 3/8". Measure the distance between your 2 feet at any given time and it will be greater than your cranks and will vary more than 10mm. 83mm Bb's are only used on DH bikes, so that's probably why they sucked for "pedally rides"?
Several of my buddies ride fat bikes and road bikes with no complaints. That's probably a 50mm difference at least. But, to each their own.
Last edited:
If that was still the case, I would have spent several thousand dollars more in mtb related purchases in the past 5 years. That money went instead to the building and constant upgrading of kickass BMX bikes (for which nearly all the parts are compatible together, how nice is that?)
Mountain bikes are riding better than they used to be, but the overall experience is now unbelievably frustrating when you include the shopping, purchasing and upgrading. Dentists who like spending as much $$$ as possible on stupid shit may feel differently about that on the other hand...
Bikes are a hell of a lot more capable today, I am not necessarily convinced they are that much more fun.
Plenty of freeride bikes BITD that had 83mm. We had the same arguments back then about whether or not the extra 10mm mattered. It wasn't my intention to rehash that argument, though I guess that's what I did. Anyway, my intention was to point out the fact that 73mm/157mm works fine on an XC bike. Carry on.
Shimano did that in 2002'ish. I was horribly racing XC and everyone had XTR. Around 2002 Shimano came out with a new XTR brake lever/shifter all in one. They were outrageously priced and needed the XTR caliper bled to it. Which required a special offset wheel that was also XTR only, which used Shimanos centerlock discs... You couldn't buy one XTR component, you had to buy them all.
Last edited:
No argument here. We're good.
Yes, no doubt very different from a legal perspective but from a "this is what's wrong with the industry" perspective I still find it entertaining. It's a bullshit engineering argument that the rear derailleur will only work with a SRAM crank as anyone who's ever mixed drivetrain brands can attest. On the other hand, it's a great market protection argument.
hrmf. i may be the exception, but i just got a 2018 frame and the only thing i needed was a new rear hub and a wheel rebuild. if staying 26 is too low, i’ll get new rims and tires and be done with it.
well . . . wait . . . I mean, I guess I could get a water bottle cage and water bottle now too, if I wanted . . .
New fork as well maybe? ...or do you already have a 27.5 fork with 26 wheels?
I'll be interested in hearing about how you like your 27.5 bike with 26" wheels. My current bike is built with super high-end parts and it's unlikely I'll have the funds to buy a similarly spec'ed bike when I'll need to replace it. Buying frame only and transferring most of the parts seems like an interesting option. Let us know how it goes.
Been on the same Saint cranks since 2010. Passed them through different bikes, each with new BB. Zero issues, I love them. What's 300grams to us?
when I got a new fork a few years back I got a tapered 170mm 36 for 27.5 wheels. at that point, I also had to switch the top part of the headset from 1.5 to 1.25. running 26 will make the new bike a bit lower, but i'll try it in the "high" setting and see how it feels.
That's it! Believe it or not, this is what actually put sram on the map. Soooooo many racers changed to sram cause of that horrible mess.you mean dual control?that shit was garbage.
let's not forget rapid rise dual control. that's about as much kill list as you can fit into a single drivetrain