SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
zenitb
Posts: 245
Joined: 7 Aug 2018, 9:59pm
Contact:

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby zenitb » 9 Feb 2019, 11:31am

thelawnet wrote:...

Great post thelawnet. You have triggered a "feeding fenzy" of comments taking the mick out of this mad sounding groupset...which has been great fun to read.

Part of me feels uneasy slating something I haven't cycled yet though...I remember laughing at Shimano's original £80 SPD pedals and matching £80 SPD "golf shoes" and thinking "what mug would buy them?". Of course I now cycle in SPDs all the time, have spent far more than £160 on SPD pedals and shoes, and regret I didnt buy them as soon as they were released!!! So I never say never nowadays - I will have to try one of these AXS monsters out...if only for laughs!!..:-)

That said though AXS does sound particularly unsuited to my style of cycle touring as it stands. As others have said though there is SOME innovation there ..e.g. the mech damper so MAYBE the more usefull bits will "trickle down" to more cost effective and useful groupsets over time... ????

(...Or maybe its just a pants groupset for wealthy roadies who only go out in the sun!!!!)

Samuel D
Posts: 2701
Joined: 8 Mar 2015, 11:05pm
Location: Paris

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby Samuel D » 9 Feb 2019, 12:38pm

Canuk wrote:
Samuel D wrote:Here’s a concise and simple description of li-ion ageing by a battery scientist. It explains calendar ageing […]

Battery aging would indeed be a problem if you were charging the battery every day. Its down to charge /discharge cycles […]

You’ve quoted my words “calendar ageing” and then said it doesn’t happen because there are few charge cycles. What can I reply to that except read the article? Should I repeat the words calendar ageing or calendar loss for them to be ignored again? Should I labour the point by explaining what a calendar is? Should I list a hundred academic studies about this myth or show that billions have been wasted by companies ignorantly trying to fix it?

You have the modern condition of being proudly impervious to facts and accusing your debating opponent of exactly your own faults early and often (“hot air”, “ludicrous argument”, “myth”, “embarrassing”, etc.), and then repeating your point and a swarm of increasingly tenuous points (Di2 battery life, golfers, swimming pools) until no-one can be bothered to refute them all, and all while ignoring every substantial point put to you that you don’t like the smell of. Meanwhile you invent or embellish a large portion of the anecdotes you claim; I’ve run into enough compulsive liars to spot the signs. All while posting under multiple anonymous accounts. What do you get out of this? Behave! The posturing convinces no-one even though it’s in vogue with certain public figures nowadays.

Canuk wrote:The spares I maybe charged 20 times in all those years. Across the terminals they're all still giving the original voltage.

That is no surprise, because the change with age of the open-circuit voltage of charged li-ion cells is practically nil. Measuring this voltage without knowing both the battery’s precise state of charge and its ageing characteristics tells you nothing about its capacity.

The battery life points are not new to SRAM AXS anyway.

What is new with AXS is that SRAM is saying that mixing and matching parts will no longer be tolerated. You can’t use third-party chainrings, cassettes, chains, pulleys, bearings, or power meters, along with all the other things they’ve already banned such as third-party shifters or brake levers. You have no choice of derailleur cage length or much choice of cassette (they all start with that 10T) and you can’t even use cheaper products from SRAM in key parts. It’s not backward compatible and it probably won’t be forward compatible in any significant way. It’s one system with unprecedented integration at one moment in time, purportedly state of art, priced around €4000, and you can take it or leave it as a whole.

zenitb wrote:That said though AXS does sound particularly unsuited to my style of cycle touring as it stands. As others have said though there is SOME innovation there ..e.g. the mech damper so MAYBE the more usefull bits will "trickle down" to more cost effective and useful groupsets over time... ????

The hydraulic damper may prevent paint chips on the stays without the power consumption of Shimano’s clutch. Trickle-down of such features will happen, but I think SRAM is signalling clearly that the future will be integrated and offer little freedom for customisation or using third-party components. We will not have access to the benefits without locking ourselves into an expensive, disposable system with the downsides too. We have heard this story before for other consumer products.
Last edited by Samuel D on 9 Feb 2019, 12:42pm, edited 1 time in total.

londonbikerider
Posts: 68
Joined: 22 Nov 2018, 7:58am

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby londonbikerider » 9 Feb 2019, 12:38pm

Cugel wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:(snip)

Brucey, why do you always resort to using insulting language when it comes to people spending money on things you wouldn't? No-one is "naive" for wanting to part with their money, it's simply not necessary and off topic to always throw insults and continually make derogatory comments about cyclists due to their personal buying decisions!


Buyers of black-box land-fill fodder are worse than naive; they're dupes become complicit in the ongoing neolib consumerist scam and planet-despoliation. Fashion victims. Bauble-addicted, glamour-fooled folk defined only by what they own.

Buyers of such stuff are not "making personal buying decisions". The decision was made by those who have built the consumerist hegemony fold that various sheep-people feel obliged to get driven into by advertising-collies. Sheep make decisions about running for the fold in only the most dilute sense of decision-making. The advert-collies know better.

Still, we all like the myth of free will, eh!? The alternative view is, I admit, depressing, since one way or another we are all sheep. I would 'fess up my own herd behaviours but what would you think!? The shame!!:-)

Cugel


Your concept makes sense in the grand scheme of things. However, I cannot see Sram selling zillions of those groupsets, as a matter of fact they ought to make most of their money with the mid-range stuff, won't they?

londonbikerider
Posts: 68
Joined: 22 Nov 2018, 7:58am

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby londonbikerider » 9 Feb 2019, 12:48pm

The utility cyclist wrote:...
Brucey, why do you always resort to using insulting language when it comes to people spending money on things you wouldn't? No-one is "naive" for wanting to part with their money, it's simply not necessary and off topic to always throw insults and continually make derogatory comments about cyclists due to their personal buying decisions!


Knowlegde shouldn't automatically imply patronizing?

Those sort of topics seem to raise the heat here, good grief where are the happy cyclo tourists gone?
It seems to me that everything "new" (brackets needed) the manufactuters come up with, will cause anger and fury between some.
For the sake of truth, I ride most stuff that is considered "obsolete" by today's standards (if there's any!), yet I keep a positive attitude about things. Why would people be negative by default?
Wherever I go, I see people happy riding their 11 speed groupsets with fairly low gear, the same 11 speed ones that people were slagging off (or raising an eyebrow at best) a few years ago. Isn't that a good thing, that people can have a wide range of gears without big jumps in between? In my view, it certainly is, and if that means more wear on the chain, well there is always a trade-off that people should be allowed to choose and pay for, if so they wish.

ChrisButch
Posts: 917
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 12:10pm

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby ChrisButch » 9 Feb 2019, 12:54pm

zenitb wrote:. As others have said though there is SOME innovation there ..e.g. the mech damper so MAYBE the more usefull bits will "trickle down" to more cost effective and useful groupsets over time... ????


To widen the discussion to SRAM innovations more broadly, one which did seem to have some potential for trickle-down benefits for a wider range of riders was the 'yawing action' front derailleur. This looked as if it might mitigate some of the chainline issues arising from the rigid front-to-rear alignment of the front mech, especially with triples. It's been around for a number of years now, but I've never heard how it's worked out in practice. Anybody have any experience with these?

Samuel D
Posts: 2701
Joined: 8 Mar 2015, 11:05pm
Location: Paris

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby Samuel D » 9 Feb 2019, 12:56pm

londonbikerider wrote:However, I cannot see Sram selling zillions of those groupsets, as a matter of fact they ought to make most of their money with the mid-range stuff, won't they?

Sure, and how do you think the mid-range stuff will differ? If SRAM follows the usual industry practice, it will be the same except for price. Price is only one of our complaints.

Samuel D
Posts: 2701
Joined: 8 Mar 2015, 11:05pm
Location: Paris

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby Samuel D » 9 Feb 2019, 1:21pm

ChrisButch wrote:To widen the discussion to SRAM innovations more broadly, one which did seem to have some potential for trickle-down benefits for a wider range of riders was the 'yawing action' front derailleur. This looked as if it might mitigate some of the chainline issues arising from the rigid front-to-rear alignment of the front mech, especially with triples. It's been around for a number of years now, but I've never heard how it's worked out in practice. Anybody have any experience with these?

They work, but the problem that they solve – trimming – is a negligible one for experienced cyclists, and that is in return for fussy set-up, especially on the second or subsequent set-up. Seeing that most bicycles on the road are not set up correctly, I did not think that was a good trade.

However, since SRAM’s Yaw arrived, all front derailleurs have become more complex to install and tune, so Yaw is no longer exceptional in this regard. The latest ones from Shimano and Campagnolo have adjustable secondary supports that bear against reinforcing plates that must be glued to the seat tube in the right place, plus a host of complex and unintuitive set-up procedures. All to make front shifts work more reliably with a taught chain, since getting cyclists to ease off the pressure while still spinning the cranks for the fraction of a second of the shift has been like asking them to walk and chew gum at the same time.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2234
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby The utility cyclist » 9 Feb 2019, 1:23pm

Samuel D wrote:
londonbikerider wrote:However, I cannot see Sram selling zillions of those groupsets, as a matter of fact they ought to make most of their money with the mid-range stuff, won't they?

Sure, and how do you think the mid-range stuff will differ? If SRAM follows the usual industry practice, it will be the same except for price. Price is only one of our complaints.

So what, why are you and others complaining so vehemently and some even using derogatory language when people like you and the majority on here would not even remotely consider buying it? :?
It has its flaws obviously as a lot of stuff has other the years, it's clearly aimed at the sporting/competitive cyclist, that's always been the case with higher end groups for some time, and yes, even then it's rarely been perfect and even less so for the average bike rider.

Overall however advances in tech within the cycling industry have made cycling far, far easier and often more accessible for people who might not have considered cycling at all or simply allowed them to ride further for less effort and/or fewer mechanical problems.
You only need look at how cycling folk were condemning STIs as the devils work, new fangled cleat retention pedals were a heinous crime and that 8 sprockets at the back was too many, more chain wear, more cost etc and were only for racer boys with too much money are were 'gullible/naive' due to them buying it ... and now that's the good old reliable, cheap, long lasting, don't need anything more range. :roll: Rinse and repeat every time something new comes along by the same old faces.

Assessing it for ones own use, technical flaws and how it could have been better for its intended purpose and why that might not be perfect (what is though), sure, but the continual condemnation of all things 'modern' and labelling people in a derogatory way who choose to buy it is tiresome to say the least. Why does it matter so much?

Canuk
Posts: 1105
Joined: 4 Oct 2016, 11:43pm

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby Canuk » 9 Feb 2019, 1:27pm

Samuel D wrote:
Canuk wrote:
Samuel D wrote:Here’s a concise and simple description of li-ion ageing by a battery scientist. It explains calendar ageing […]

Battery aging would indeed be a problem if you were charging the battery every day. Its down to charge /discharge cycles […]



Being derogatory is all in a days posting for some people. I normally just report their idiocy and think kindly of them as they thump their worktops at another peerless piece of literature deleted.

You're hard work though. You reference one article like it's manna from heaven itself. I could post a dozen links to academic articles refuting it's content. If Li ion technology is so crap, why is virtually every automotive and aerospace manufacturer pursuing future production with either Li ion or a slight evolution of it. Your critique bears no argument in the face of what is simply an industry standard, almost universally deployed. There's no point arguing with someone like you.

I was going to comment on one of the interesting patents in The Shimano wireless link I posted above and that's the provision for piezoelectric/energy return power generation from the levers themselves. This its argued would be enough to continuously trickle charge the batteries which could integrated into the frame somewhere. A larger piezoelectric device mounted in the down or seat tube would be an interesting development and would likely lead to a bicycle which is self contained, for all its daily power needs.

Well done Shimano. Another brilliant innovation first paid for from the first adopters many on this forum seem to absolutely love to hate. Someone has to pay the price for development of the tech you and I take for granted. So be grateful for the unwashed golf bat fanatics who are happy to spend 10k to keep up with the Joneses, if not for them we'd be still be rocking down tube mounted gear levers and Ever Ready lights.

londonbikerider
Posts: 68
Joined: 22 Nov 2018, 7:58am

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby londonbikerider » 9 Feb 2019, 1:43pm

The utility cyclist wrote:....
Overall however advances in tech within the cycling industry have made cycling far, far easier and often more accessible for people who might not have considered cycling at all or simply allowed them to ride further for less effort
....


Damn right!

Samuel D
Posts: 2701
Joined: 8 Mar 2015, 11:05pm
Location: Paris

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby Samuel D » 9 Feb 2019, 2:42pm

The utility cyclist wrote:You only need look at how cycling folk were condemning STIs as the devils work, new fangled cleat retention pedals were a heinous crime and that 8 sprockets at the back was too many, more chain wear, more cost etc and were only for racer boys with too much money are were 'gullible/naive' due to them buying it ... and now that's the good old reliable, cheap, long lasting, don't need anything more range. :roll: Rinse and repeat every time something new comes along by the same old faces.

That’s a pretty glib assessment. I use 8-speed because 7-speed parts are largely gone, not because it’s better. I don’t use 9-, 10-, 11-, or 12-speed because those systems offer minimal benefits – the increased sprocket count not being one of them – and a long list of incremental downsides. I use down-tube levers because I still can and because STIs have trivial benefits and plenty of downsides for the sort of (sport) cycling I do. Clipless pedals had big advantages over clips from the beginning, though they did and do cost more. (By the way, did you notice that flat pedals are presently enjoying a resurgence among ultra-endurance racers and Grant Petersen acolytes alike?)

You forgot to mention the many once-hailed innovations that were dropped by the wayside after an initial furore. Did you defend Shimano Biopace chainrings, Spinergy Rev-X wheels, Campagnolo Delta brakes, and aluminium forks from their knowledgeable detractors of the time too? Those products look ridiculous today, but they once glittered as brightly as SRAM AXS.

It’s important to independently assess new products on their functional merits, not give them a free pass just because they are novel and sell to serial-consumers so distracted and ignorant that they don’t know what they’re buying and can’t give a coherent answer as to why. That doesn’t mean that some buyers of the latest kit don’t know what they’re buying. If you do, why not say why SRAM AXS is a good idea rather than picking a pointless fight with the likes of me?

The utility cyclist wrote:Assessing it for ones own use, technical flaws and how it could have been better for its intended purpose and why that might not be perfect (what is though), sure, but the continual condemnation of all things 'modern' and labelling people in a derogatory way who choose to buy it is tiresome to say the least. Why does it matter so much?

It’s a gross exaggeration to say all modern things are condemned here. And it’s at least as tiresome to hear mindless consumerism defended from every tentative critique. To answer your question, it matters because it’s wrecking our choice of economical and functional bicycle parts, wrecking our happiness, and wrecking our planet. With only minor extrapolation, the matters talked about here are the profound questions of our age.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2234
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby The utility cyclist » 9 Feb 2019, 2:57pm

Canuk wrote:I was going to comment on one of the interesting patents in The Shimano wireless link I posted above and that's the provision for piezoelectric/energy return power generation from the levers themselves. This its argued would be enough to continuously trickle charge the batteries which could integrated into the frame somewhere. A larger piezoelectric device mounted in the down or seat tube would be an interesting development and would likely lead to a bicycle which is self contained, for all its daily power needs.

Well done Shimano. Another brilliant innovation first paid for from the first adopters many on this forum seem to absolutely love to hate. Someone has to pay the price for development of the tech you and I take for granted. So be grateful for the unwashed golf bat fanatics who are happy to spend 10k to keep up with the Joneses, if not for them we'd be still be rocking down tube mounted gear levers and Ever Ready lights.


I've mentioned previously elsewhere about wobble motion and fame vibrations within frames as a method to power stuff, you could even transfer the energy via carbon fibre strands so ideal to have them within carbon frames, just imagine how much you could power your back wheel/BB on a ride on a cobbled classics route (or your average UK road) just like Cancellara's :lol:

thelawnet
Posts: 2092
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby thelawnet » 9 Feb 2019, 3:02pm

londonbikerider wrote:Wherever I go, I see people happy riding their 11 speed groupsets with fairly low gear, the same 11 speed ones that people were slagging off (or raising an eyebrow at best) a few years ago. Isn't that a good thing, that people can have a wide range of gears without big jumps in between? In my view, it certainly is, and if that means more wear on the chain, well there is always a trade-off that people should be allowed to choose and pay for, if so they wish.


Not sure what you mean here tbh.


A 50/39/30 chainset with 12-28 8 speed cassette has a 24-28 jump and a 14-16.

A modern 50/34 with a 11-32 11 speed cassette has the same 14-16 jump and then a 28-32.

As far as low gears goes they are roughly the same, while there's a slightly harder fast gear.

Oh and the 50/34 has a massive gap so you will have to double shift when you change, whereas the 50/39/30 is easier to use as it won't change your cadence too much. The 3*8 is clearly a better system to the new 2*11, though you might be stuck with low end components that complicate that

I'm not really sure people have actively chosen this so much as the manufacturers have created it.

People buy 11 speed, and it works, and at this point there might even be good reasons to choose it over other options - but those reasons generally relate to manufacturers' decisions, not anything technically superior about the system.

In general when you have around 10 cogs, the idea that adding one more is critical to gear selection is plainly ludicrous.

Certainly comparing say a 3 speed hub gear to an 8 speed it is more significant but on modern derailleurs not so much.

I note that a lot of the tricks of marketing-led engineering have been shut down by the EU in that applicances sold on the basis that one is more powerful than others - I e. It consumes more electricity - are no longer allowed, and you can no longer buy vacuum cleaners that use enough power to illuminate a village, or dishwashers that wash at 70C. For cycling though this scam is unabated, and 12 speed is here, and it's being used to persuade people who prefer buying bikes to actually riding them that they need to throw away their old bikes and replace them with new ones.

That there might be improvements along the way is incidental to the product lifecycle which depends on making a product a few years old appear little better than scrap.

Certainly there is no duty incumbent on posters here to praise this - you can find that anywhere else online.

thelawnet
Posts: 2092
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby thelawnet » 9 Feb 2019, 3:21pm

Samuel D wrote:
.

Canuk wrote:The spares I maybe charged 20 times in all those years. Across the terminals they're all still giving the original voltage.

That is no surprise, because the change with age of the open-circuit voltage of charged li-ion cells is practically nil. Measuring this voltage without knowing both the battery’s precise state of charge and its ageing characteristics tells you nothing about its capacity.



Indeed; I recently purchased a new charger , which shows both voltage and the amount of current that has been charged into the battery.

This quickly showed me that some of my cells, both NiMH and LiIon had severely degraded, even though they appear to work just fine, except for shorter life which may not be apparent as the cells are used in threes, or because you assume you left your light on or whatever.

Of course any SRAM or Shimano battery will be in an expensive wrapping which means you cannot use a charger like mine, but are instead left guessing as to whether your cells are in fact perished.

My understanding of electric car batteries is precisely because li ion cells are not all that reliable, a substantial proportion of circuitry is devoted to managing the bad cells. There are some videos on YouTube of people replacing the individual cells, a job not for the fainthearted , but certainly cheaper than buying a new battery pack.

Everyone who relies on batteries knows how terrible they are (that's why generators are generally preferred for backup power when the mains is unavailable), and you will want to avoid creating a dependency on them when possible.

Samuel D
Posts: 2701
Joined: 8 Mar 2015, 11:05pm
Location: Paris

Re: SRAM new 'AXS' for MTB/road

Postby Samuel D » 9 Feb 2019, 3:29pm

thelawnet wrote:That there might be improvements along the way is incidental to the product lifecycle which depends on making a product a few years old appear little better than scrap.

Right. That’s why they keep adding sprockets (strictly one at a time even as that increment means less and less) long after that ceased to deliver a benefit.

SRAM’s new hydraulic damper may be an improvement on a friction clutch, provided it doesn’t leak in the field or something. But it’s not available unless you throw out your old group and indeed half the bicycle (you’ll need a rear wheel with a €102 XD™ Driver Body to enable a 10T sprocket you don’t want, new brake levers, an expensive new chain, and a whole lot else that has nothing to do with the new damper in the rear derailleur).

Thus even where progress is made, it’s no longer available on reasonable terms. I can see the benefit of this to SRAM – though it implies unsavoury things about consumers – but not to me.