Shimano – CanooterValve

Lost in Translation

Sep 042012

This time every year, while the trade shows are rolling along, I find myself freshly amazed at how little companies seem to know about their product–or at least how little they’re willing to share with the end users.

Take Shimano’s site. The new SLX components are fantastics–a standout group among some excellent groups–but you’d be hard pressed to learn that from the company’s site. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to learn anything.

What’s the bolt-pattern on those chainrings? Blank space. Are those crank arms hollow? Tough to say. Average weight? Another blank space. Here’s the exact features spec from their page:

Model Number FC-M675
Series SLX
Crank Construction Hollowtech II Technology
Cassette Compatibility 10
Chain Compatibility HG-X 10-speed
4-Arm Chainrings Yes
Cahainring Sizes
Bolt Circle Diameter
Crank Arm Length 170,175mm
Crank Arms
Outer Chainring 40T/38T
Middle Chainring
Inner Chainring 28T/26T
Chainring Bolts & Nuts Yes
Chain Guard No
Chaincase Compatible No
Bottom Bracket SM-BB70 SM-BB71-41A
E-type FD Compatible
Chain Line 48.8mm
BB Shell Width –
Average Weight

Seriously guys, if you don’t know any of this data, and you created the damn thing, what’s the consumer supposed to do? You’re Shimano–biggest and most powerful bike component company in the universe–and you’re populating your consumer-facing site content with shit from a half-ass ERP system, typos and all?

Personally, I’m disappointed it’s not “Chaincase Compatible.”

But hey, that’s SLX. Nobody buys that shit aftermarket, right? And the bike companies all choose groups and components based on price. Now, the top-of-the-line: that’s where we get the solid data.

Consider the first sentence of the new 11-speed Dura-Ace cassette description currently on Shimano’s site:

“Rider-tuned means Dura-Ace works the way you want it.”

Read over that sentence again and tell me how Shimano’s site content is any better than Innova’s (my current gold standard):

(Josh at work found that on Friday, and instantly it made everyone who saw it a better person.)

And before SRAM can back out of the room quietly, let’s learn something about their PC 1051 10-speed chain.

“SRAM continues to innovate the chains that continue to win races around the world. The new PC 1051 10 speed PowerChain™ featuring the PowerLock connecting link provides smooth, precise shifting and weight savings.”

To their credit, SRAM at least has some separate specs with information that’s borderline useful, but most descriptions read as bullshitty and useless as the PC 1051–except the ones that say even less, like the 1031 chain:

“Simply stronger. The PC 1031 chain benefits from new design changes for better performance.”

Oh, well OK then.

But the James Joyce Stream-of-unconsciousness Award goes to the Force cranket.

“Competition-focused technology for the serious set, wherelight weight, strength, and durability come together. The SRAM Force crankset is offered in a BB30 option and, just like SRAM RED, the BB30 crankset is 10% stiffer, 20% lighter, and provides 300% more ankle clearance than the GXP version. Thanks to the unidirectional carbon structure, both GXP and BB30 crankset versions deliver a sleeker and race-proven design.”

Um, what’s inside the crank arms? Are they hollow? What’s the bolt pattern? While I don’t doubt the importance of putting ankle clearance into mathematical terms no human could possibly comprehend, I have to wonder if we could possibly find out whether or not this crankset comes with a bottom bracket.

Online or local, there will always be a need for bike shops, the beat reporters for the bike industry, asking the tough questions that have no answers.

Why don’t companies like Shimano and SRAM spend a tiny fraction of their marketing budget on hiring someone capable of writing copy that makes sense? Tough to say. Why does Innova prefer backwards apostrophes?

Why do you ask so many questions? Do yourself.

Looking Forward to the Past

Bikes, Gadgets Comments Off

May 292012

In case anyone was wondering, yes, I’d noticed the Bikerumor coverage of Kabush’s Scott bike with the Di2 battery-powered fork and rear shock lockout that are the exact patent I’d posted a while back. Lest we wonder that that says about the increasingly cozy relationship between Shimano and Fox, let’s consider that Shimano’s literally plugging its Di2 battery into Fox’s products. By some standards, you have to be married to do that.

Whatever the working relationship between the two companies, they sure are interested in making our bikes more complicated. I read with great interest the Bikerumor article itself, and then the comments that following. Having ridden one of those bikes with the Girven/Noleen piston-velocity-sensing forks my own self like 180 years ago, I’m willing to go out on a limb and say the only thing Foxmano’s NASA-level shit has in common with the 9-volt battery sucking ancient Noleen is that both products were in some way attached to bicycles. I don’t doubt the quality of the Di2 battery-powered lockout system going on there on the Kabushmobile, but I do have to wonder what the market is for such a thing.

Only yesterday, I’d asked if you’d be willing to buy all the new stuff necessary to convert to a SRAM 1×11 system, but in light of what Fox and Shimano are trying to bring to market, buying a new rear wheel, shifter, cassette and rear derailleur seems pretty basic and plain. Sure, there’s a parallel between the two–both address age old issues in fresh ways–but why do I expect electronic suspension will be tougher to sell?

Stigma, for one thing. There’s always going to be some kid who thinks the customer base for gadgets like this is made up of fat old men who like overpriced bikes that do all the thinking, because they can’t pick a line for shit. Haters gonna hate, for sure. But when that kid is motoring away from your electronic wonder bike on his rigid, steel 29er, you have to at least regard his bad attitude as constructive criticism. If you think you’re going to haul ass like Kabush once you’re wired up, the bad news I bring you is that no electronic suspension system is going to help you. It’s like the winter I was living in Atlanta during a freak snowstorm and watched somebody repeatedly gun the engine and plow his BMW into the center barrier again and again and again, thinking, presumably, that his “driving machine” would translate his incompetent spasms into some sort of positive outcome. There’s only so much the machine can do for you. For most of us, Mert Lawwill himself could be operating our suspension via remote control, and we’re still not going to be able to pick a line for shit.

Kabush, it seems unnecessary to point out, is simply hauling ass this year. You could tie him to a tandem with Oprah, and the boy would still be winning, so don’t let’s read too much into wires and servers as relates to victory just yet. I don’t know if people want all this stuff on their bikes. Probably they’ll accept it, but that’s not what I asked. What I asked is did they want it? Because bringing products to market that no one asked for really only seems to work if you’re Apple.

In contrast to the Inspector Gadget approach, consider the weirdly simple Magura fork Bikerumor and MTBR and everyone else just convered.

I have to tell you, I think I have a crush on this weird neo-retro Magura 29er fork, the TS8. For starters, nobody in Germany got the memo that any product is supposed to have an “X” in it. “TS8” sounds like an elite group of airport security people who appear from out of nowhere whenever there’s a potential problem, staring holes straight through you while they pull on a rubber glove.

So not sure about the name, but the c-clip in the bottom of the stanchion warms my heart. That’s how we used to do it. And really ditto on everything else about this fork, from simple-ass air chamber and piston (which is going to need 5cc of RockShox RedRum on top of it, I all but guarantee) to the cartoonish elastomer stack negative spring, to the ability to futz with oil viscosity to change compression damping.

If the Foxmano Di2-powered Lockout-o-matic is the suspension of the future, the Magura TS8 is the suspension of the past, only seemingly very well executed and using much better materials. So I should be far more interested in the groundbreaking Fox forks, but I find I’m actually much more intrigued by the simple Magura, particularly the idea that I can mess with oil weights again and really change the feel of the fork. The Fox post had over 10,000 views; the Magura about 2,400, so I suspect I’m firmly in the minority on this one, but I can’t help it. The simple but easy to tear down and customize Magura looks far more interesting to me right now. Maybe if I owned an X-box I’d feel differently.

Bloodsport

Bikes Comments Off

Mar 192012

It seems I haven’t been the only one to notice Shimano’s steadily accumulating arsenal of game-changing patents lately. Matt Wiebe’s new article in Bicycle Retailer draws attention to the industry behemoth’s patent portfolio, which dwarfs the competition. Wiebe writes that Shimano “is moving into areas of development—dirt suspension, hydraulic rim brakes, dropper seatposts and electric integration—that could shake up the market if the technology makes it into production.” Absolutely. And you don’t build an empire on your production capabilities by applying for patents for stuff you never intend to make. By all indications, Shimano is about to deliver their second major industry shakeup, and things are about to get rough for SRAM.

Or maybe not.

Much is constantly made of the relationship between component manufacturers and bike companies. The Bicycle Retailer article rightly points out the market share SRAM had been gaining in bundling suspension and components for OE spec on bikes, and the conspicuous silence from Shimano regarding this. “A survey of suspension engineers, who declined to go on record, said Shimano has the technology to make competitive forks,” writes Wiebe, “but none thought the company was setting up to enter the market. At the same time, however, they wonder how long Shimano can stand on the sidelines as SRAM’s RockShox suspension line enables it to offer product managers seductive pricing on component and suspension packages.”

The article goes on to point out that Shimano’s continuing absence from the suspension market continues to offer “a lifeline for Fox, Manitou, Marzocchi, SR Suntour and others,” which is true, except that one of those brands is clearly not like the others. Shimano doesn’t share patents with Marzocchi, Manitou or any also-ran suspension companies the way they do with Fox. The recent high-profile move of the Santa Cruz Syndicate team from SRAM to “Shimano and Fox,” combined with some pretty clear writing on the patent walls makes one thing pretty clear.

Shimano is going to buy Fox.

That is, if they even need to. Plenty of business mechanics to compute there, and clearly both companies are already benefiting from a very close partnership that might not require actually tying the corporate knot, but the writing is clearly on the wall.

Manitou and Marzocchi? Yes, they’re doomed. What’s left of them, at least. But SRAM? I don’t think so.

Continued and even strengthening relationships between Fox and Shimano will certainly not be good for SRAM, but SRAM has what it takes to survive the assault, and stands to benefit from the attrition that’d take place in the suspension market. Already borderline non-existent in the OE market, Manitou and Marzocchi’s potential total extinction stands to benefit SRAM’s RockShox division, a company with a far wider assortment of suspension products across a wide price range–much wider than Fox. A full assault by the combined Shimano and Fox forces would make what’s been happening over the past decade offical: nobody would be left but SRAM.

And somehow, White Brothers. Have to hand it to those scrappy little guys.

SRAM’s suspension products still need both brand work and innovation before they can truly rival the industry reputation and near rear suspension monopoly that is Fox, but SRAM has made tremendous headway in paying attention to the end user. When Shimano notoriously “integrated” your shifting and braking on mountain bikes, SRAM very specifically did not. SRAM has also led the way in 2×10 mountain drivetrains, a “by the people, for the people” kind of revolution. In both cases, SRAM’s marketing did an outstanding job of delivering the message: “We know what you want, and we’re building it for you.” They used Shimano’s enormous weight against them, getting the big guys off balance in the eyes of the public. Behind the scenes, this was a blip on Shimano’s bottom line, but SRAM set up shop inside that market inflection point and carved out a huge name for themselves.

It’s going to come down to electronics. If Di2 is any indication, Shimano may have already won the war, but it’s also possible that we’ll see a backlash to electronics among riders out there. SRAM has already drawn a line in the sand when it comes to road groups. Want to save a pound and a half? You know where find us. Adoption of electronics on mountain bikes could be more complicated–especially if Shimano plans to have a battery operating everything from your shifting to your suspension damping. Picture the entrance of a Shimano/Fox electronically controlled suspension fork onto the market with a price tag over $1000. How would that be received? How would it be promoted?

Interesting stuff. One thing is certain, though. If I were SRAM’s marketing department these days, I’d be putting a lot of effort into grassroots racing support and features the average rider can clearly appreciate–and I wouldn’t be pushing the panic button just yet. People still like alternatives. If SRAM can maintain their image as the best alternative, that’s good enough. It’s like the old “outrunning a bear” thing: SRAM doesn’t have to be faster than Shimano/Fox; they just have to be faster than all those delicious little companies who are much slower than they are. What looks like a vicious war between Shimano and SRAM might turn out to be pretty painless for both companies, but completely devastating to everybody else.

Shimano vs. Fox?

Bikes Comments Off

Mar 012012

Shimano Suspension Fork Through-axle System

Somewhere around my eighth cup of coffee this morning, I noticed Guitar Ted’s extremely interesting post, “Is Someone Waking the Sleeping Giant?”. The question he asks–is Shimano once again preparing to reassert its industry dominance?–is particularly intriguing, given the shape of today’s industry. Those of us who’ve been around long enough to remember Shimano’s last burst of innovative aggression in the ’90s know that the attack came with a violence and sense of scale normally reserved for military invasions. Suddenly, everything changed. When the market share needle at Shimano HQ finally dipped into the “unacceptable” range, quietly–with few flashing lights or screaming alarms–they struck. And when they did, your chi-chi wonderbike circa 1994, with its rasta anodized boutique mess of titanium chainrings and CNC machined everything, was basically vaporized where it stood, its fancy parts rendered quaint and technologically barren nearly overnight.

It was sort of breathtaking.

By the time they dropped those original “V-brakes” on us (with what turned out to be sort of piss-poor little wiggly, fast-wearing mini linkages), it was clear the Shimano tank had driven into our little DIY knife fight, and guys like Kooka and Grafton were going back to their day jobs.

This wasn’t necessarily a good thing. There’s a reason I referred to Shimano as “it” up there at the beginning of the post, whereas you tended to refer to companies like Cook Bros. and Paul Components as “they,” or even “he.” In a way I don’t think Shimano ever really understood that we liked our cobbled together, poorly shifting, fairly domestically-sourced mash-up bikes. A fair criticism of Shimano (that SRAM has done a great job avoiding) is that they’re out of touch with what we really like. But boy is Shimano good at giving us parts we need.

This is what mountain bikes looked like before "system integration."

When shit works–I mean works, like on a level never before witnessed or even imagined–and consistently, you can’t help but start to like it. Sometimes a big company has inferior products but a superior marketing budget or established power and rams garbage down our throats. Realistically, Shimano could have done that. They could have chosen to outspend these little guys–for whom the OE market wasn’t even a factor–and crushed them the standard issue, soul-less business way. To their infinite credit, Shimano actually innovated to the top. They built drastically better stuff. That’s an honorable way to win.

Which brings us to our current situation.

The catalyst for Guitar Ted’s ponderings would seem to be an article in Bicycle Retailer and Industry News, which I’ve clipped for your reading pleasure here. “Are you ready for an 11-speed internal-gear road bike with electric shifting and diss [sic] brakes?” the article begins. Diss brakes aside, the nature of the upcoming components described in the article does suggest the big wheels at Shimano are once again turning, and the giant cannon is once again emerging from Shimano’s base of operations within a hollowed out mountain somewhere. But where to aim it?

Gone are the scattered DIY insurgents Shimano obliterated last time. In their place stands the obvious competitor, SRAM. Though dwarfed by Shimano in terms of revenue, and seriously lacking a “fishing equipment” division, SRAM has seemed almost incapable of making a bad business decision over the past decade, carefully acquiring brands and rolling them up into a very legitimate powerhouse of a company. SRAM did a lot of the same things Shimano had done in the past, but also added a healthy dose of teenage instant-gratification. When Shimano was still saying, “No carbon fiber and go to bed by 10:00pm,” SRAM was busy giving us as much carbon shit as we could afford and letting us stay up all night if we wanted. Formidable stuff. Most notably SRAM took what had been a disadvantage–less ownership and control of their own supply chain and actual manufacturing processes–and turned it to their advantage. They seem to iterate like lightning, making Shimano, no slouch, seem ponderous by comparison. When it comes to mountain bikes in particular, SRAM absolutely out-innovated Shimano over the past five to ten years, thanks largely to listening to riders and being able to develop and bring to market products much more quickly.

But those with an ownership of their supply chain and manufacturing processes are starting to dominate again across all sectors. Apple, the kings of proprietary products and supply chain control, is a company now valued at nearly a half a trillion dollars. With a serious manufacturing advantage, Shimano is uniquely positioned to disrupt the industry yet again, but the real question is will they once again out-innovate everyone?

The biggest question for me–and something at the heart of all of this–is what about Fox? Check the Shimano patent drawing at the top of the post. Since 2009 alone, Shimano has applied for over a half dozen patents just in suspension systems–and these aren’t your Sunday-driver patents. They deal with electronic suspension monitoring and, more telling still, stuff like through-axles.

I included the drawing above because it raises the most interesting question of all: is Shimano about to turn on Fox? They’ve collaborated in the past, and Fox would certainly be a prime acquisition for Shimano, but Fox is no half-ass operation. They have interests and assets outside of the bicycle industry and a long history of independence. As the mountain bike world increasingly breaks down into game of SRAM vs. Shimano+Fox, you have to wonder what the through-axle patents Shimano is displaying say about their current relationship with Fox.

For one thing, that patent drawing looks a hell of a lot like a Fox 15QR system, but some of the embodiments (Shimano offers several within this patent) are even more like the Fox system. I’ll leave you today with those images, and you can ask yourself if we’re about to see a major partnership, or if Shimano’s about to eat Fox’s lunch. If they can.

8-tracks vs.Jetpacks

Bikes Comments Off

Jan 192012

Under the cover of high-profile SOPA protest blackouts, two ground-breaking innovations occurred yesterday. We finally saw detailed photos of Magura’s RT8TT hydraulic rim brakes, and Groupon finally had an offer on ShakeWeights (only $12!).

For only $12 for the women's, I'm getting two to jog with!

Plenty of people are happy to pounce on the perceived ridiculousness of a hydraulic braking system for road bike that doesn’t involve a shiny disc at the center of the wheel, and by all accounts, the momentum is solidly behind disc brakes for road bikes right now, boosted, no doubt, by disc brake advocates and current Goliath-slaying Bike of the People, Volagi. Why the hell would we want the pain-in-the-ass of a hydraulic system mated to all the old problems of rubber pads clamping a rim?

I have to admit, the notion sounds a bit silly–like adding a smartphone touchscreen to an 8-track player (or an 8-track repair company’s Facebook page). In fact, had I never ridden the original Magura HS-33 hydraulic rim brakes, I’d be unable to stop laughing at the whole idea of a hydraulic rim brake for road bikes. But as somebody with considerable time using those old Tomac stoppers, I have to imagine they’d be light years better than conventional TT brakes, and someday, may one day even contribute to a 0.4% drop in the cycling technology-related death rate of triathletes.

For all their faults–like the commitment required to properly align them or the way their horrible stock steel “boosters” made “aluminum” seem exotic as a material–the HS-33s had a range of stopping power that was like watching a color TV compared to the black and white of V-brakes (or the fuzzy white screen of most cantilevers). If there is such a thing as “mid-range” the hydraulic rim brakes had it to spare, and when it comes to controlling a tottering speed-centric death missle of a TT bike, I get their appeal.

But still, come on.

Hydraulic rim brakes?

Apparently, so, according to this Shimano patent filing from 2009.

Sure, the cost of a few patent applications is nothing to Shimano, but we seem to have an awful lot of thought going into a technology that will likely make an appearance, crack the fuck out of a few dozen carbon clincher rims, and then show up on eBay next to Airlines shifters.

This doesn’t feel like innovation to me. I mean, we were promised jetpacks, right? Where are our jetpacks?

Disc brakes have finally become a default in the world of mountain bikes because the perceived advantages now outweigh the disadvantages. Pioneering hydraulic rim brakes on a road bike feels inherently wrong.

Now magnets, those are the future.

Ultegra Electronic Shifting

Bikes Comments Off

Sep 142011

Yes, it’s making its way on down. Electronic shifting hasn’t gone away, which means it’s probably here to stay.

Interbike 2015: a Preview

Bikes Comments Off

Sep 092011

Interbike 2011 is about to get underway, and I’ll be there asking questions like “When will we actually see these at dealers?” and “How drunk were you when you designed this?” What with Eurobike just ending and Interbike just beginning, we’re all focused on seeing the latest stuff.

With that in mind, here’s a preview of some products we might be seeing–not at this year’s Interbike, but a few years from now. Think of this as the bike version of seeing the new Nike McFly. Some of what you’re about to see may never come to be, but some will, and all of it’s interesting. Finding this information is possible thanks to my extraordinary powers of prognostication, but also thanks to publicly available patent information anyone can access any time.

Integrated Shifting and Suspension Systems

I don’t know if Specialized will ever produce products using this patent, but they’ve had these plans to integrate shifting and suspension since 2006. As a guy who still dislikes anti-lock brakes, I tend to hope this stays on the shelf, but who knows. Maybe they could do something incredible with this.

Vibration Damping System for a Seatpost

There are plenty of weird things out there in Patent Land that aren’t yet attached to a company with the resources to see them into production, and this could be one of those, but I get the feeling we’ll see this actually hit the market at some point.

Trek Suspension Fork

Difficult to say exactly why Trek would have filed a patent application for a suspension fork in February of 2010. If it’s an attempt to make inexpensive forks for entry level bikes, you’d still think they’d just license something–and they sure wouldn’t put Jose Gonzalez and Greg Buhl, the guys behind anything serious going on with suspension designs at Trek, behind this project.

Trek’s Concentric Rear Derailleur

No, I don’t think Trek is muscling in on Shimano and SRAM’s turf, but this suggests the boys in Wisconsin are dedicated to their Active Braking Pivot frame design.

Craig Calfee Suspension Frame Design

Though it sure seems to pay homage to the classic Moots circa Kent Eriksen YBB design, Calfee’s design for a soft-tail looks distinct, cleanly done, and really intriguing, and it’s certainly possible we’ll see bikes using this design soon.

Shimano Suspension Fork

It’s certainly possible this fork will never see the light or day, or worse–that it’s intended for a hybrid. Shimano already shows fork patents that seem suited to light duty use, but this thing looks a little sophisticated for a trip to the grocery store. In addition to this patent, the same drawings appear in a second patent that details a process for transferring air between two different chambers using a lever, which gets really interesting, once you’ve seen the third patent, filed in April of 2008, that seems to show a dual remote system for managing both travel and damping (Fig. 2 below), or their external reservoir electronically controlled fork damping system.

Bizarre Dual Shock Suspension Design

Okay, so we probably won’t ever see this thing, and maybe it’s for the better, but part of me sure hopes it surfaces somewhere, somehow. Probably won’t be at a show, though. Interbike has become so incredibly expensive for the exhibitors these days that you never see insane, goofy shit like this anymore, and that’s truly sad. Here’s to you, dual-shock, elevated combo-chainstay-linkage design.

My Own Suspension Design

Maybe you’ll see it one day. I’m working on having a prototype built now. Feel free to submit questions about it using the question submission thing up at the top of the page, there on the right.

Electronically Cooled Fox Suspension

An excerpt from this patent application, filed in 2009, suggests the use of a “thermoelectric generator” that would use a magnet passing coiling wires during movement of the shock to activate a cooling device. Another, even wilder, possible embodiment introduces something called “piezo electric crystals” that would generate electricity when under compression. In all cases, these “TEGs” or thermoelectric generators, have the ability to literally move heat around, and that alone is pretty insane. By the time the application starts suggesting the TEGs can “based on the Peltier Effect and correspondingly constructed from thin ceramic wafers having alternate P and N doped bismuth telluride sandwiched between them,” I’m willing to just give Fox the benefit of the doubt and believe this crazy bastards are really serious about making suspension systems. I mean holy shit, guys.

The examples go on, and now that you know where to look, please feel free to roam around all up in the patent club. I haven’t even mentioned some really interesting suspension designs. Good, bad, or ugly, these patents are all proof that we belong to an incredibly creative and innovative industry.

Speed Compatibility

Bikes Comments Off

Aug 222011

Question:
Compatibility Question for Mr. Manic… I understand that SRAM and Shimano derailluers are not interchangeable because of the amount of cable the shifters pull, and the resulting movement of the parallelogram linkage in the derailleur, right? But what about using a 10-speed SRAM shifter with a 9-speed SRAM rear derailleur? Mountain doubles make so much more sense to me, but I don’t want to spend my hard-earned cash for a new derailleur if the old one can be made to work.

Answer:
Right on. If you’re looking to simplify your life, a double chainring configuration is a good start. Only three things in this world are worse than a mountain bike with a triple chainring crankset: cannibalism, Russel Brand, and a road bike with a triple (in that order). Unfortunately, you can’t substitute a 9-speed SRAM rear derailleur for a 10-speed model. I know it seems like you should be able to do this, but, according to SRAM, the “Exact Actuation” leverage ratio found on all their 10-speed rear derailleurs is actually different from the “1:1” ratio used on 9-speed derailleurs, so trying to mix those up would lead to the same kind of shifting problems you’d encounter if mixing SRAM shifters and Shimano rear derailleurs. Even though the shifter is the brains of the operation, telling the rear derailleur how much to move for each shift, the leverage ratio on the rear derailleur ultimately determines how to translate those increments, and the 9-speed derailleurs don’t use the same ratio as the 10-speeds.

If making the move to 10-speed all at once is a bit much (now that rear derailleurs cost more than many bikes), consider going with a 9-speed double ring configuration. Most 11-34t 9-speed cassettes offer a pretty broad range, and it turns out companies like Blackspire offer chainrings purported to work with both 9 and 10-speed systems and available in hip, dualie configurations, like a 26-tooth inner ring and a 38-tooth outer. Once your ship comes in, you could buy a 10-speed rear derailleur, rear shifter, chain, and cassette, and become what historians call “contemporary.”

Size Matters

Bikes Comments Off

Aug 202011

Question:
I need to replace my rear derailleur. What are the differences between the short/medium/long cage? Does the length of the cage matter that much?

Answer:
The easy answer is, if you have to ask, get a long cage. A long cage will work in every situation. I’m one of those “teach a guy to fish, so he quits asking me to give him fish” types, though, so let’s impart us some knowledge.

Understanding the differences in cage length means understanding both things a rear derailleur does. We all know a rear derailleur moves the chain in and out from one cog to another, but the other, equally important thing a derailleur does is move forward and back, taking up chain slack that varies as you change gears. Imagine your geared bike as a singlespeed with a bunch of gears in the back, but no rear derailleur. Suppose you had a chain that was the exact perfect length to wrap around your 32-tooth ring up front and your 34-tooth cog in the back without being too tight, or too saggy. Great. Now leave the chain on the same ring up front, but move it to the 11-tooth in the back. Saggy, isn’t it? If only there was a way have the same length chain adjust itself for smaller or larger gears. Luckily, a bunch of people in the 1800s had the same problem, and realized some sort of spring tension on the chain was the answer. The bigger the difference between the sizes of your gears, the more chain you need your derailleur to be able to take up. The ability of a rear derailleur to handle a range of chain lengths is referred to as the derailleur’s “chain wrap capacity.” You can calculate your chain wrap capacity by subtracting the number of teeth on your largest front chainring from the number of teeth on your smallest front chainring, doing the same with the gears on your rear cassette, then adding the two values. So necessary chain wrap capacity on a bike with a 44-tooth big ring, 22-tooth small ring, and 11-34-tooth cassette, would work out like this:

(44-22) + (34-11) = 45

The longer the cage of a rear derailleur, the more flappy chain it can pull tight, so the wider variance you can have between gears. Sometimes a manufacturer will tell you the chain wrap capacity of their rear derailleur, but the bottom line is you should always be sure you have enough chain to reach every gear combination—even the crossed-up ones you shouldn’t use, but might shift into accidentally. For most mountain triples, that amount of chain requires a long cage rear derailleur, and those work just fine.

So why do people try to use any shorter cages? In theory, a medium or short cage derailleur may shift just a fraction better because a shorter cage equals a stiffer cage, and they’re slightly less vulnerable to getting smote by rocks and the local flora, so experimentation is fine, provided you’re careful. In fact, most configurations will accept a medium cage rear derailleur, but only if chain length is set up carefully, and you error on the side of leaving more chain than you think you need. It also helps if you get rid of your biggest or smallest cog to lower that required chain wrap number. For most people, the added risk and configuration challenges aren’t worth the time, making the long cage the go-to option.

Sticker Shock

Bikes Comments Off

Aug 152011

Question:
I have acquired a used XT 770 crankset. The big ring is trashed and I am going into sticker shock at Shimano’s replacement prices. Anyone have luck with other brands i.e. Blackspire, FSA, Race Face for this particular model? I have a hard time throwing down 60-100 dollars for a chainring that is not going to last long.

Answer:
I sympathize with your plight. Shimano does seem to subscribe to the same OE replacement parts pricing as car dealerships and national defense contractors. The big ring on a 770 series crankset actually has a 104mm 4-bolt pattern, the same pattern used by most other brands, so other rings will match up, but be careful. Much in the same way you can’t imagine being married to a unicorn or living in a world where dogs can drive, Shimano can’t conceive of a world in which people buy FSA or Blackspire rings and bolt them to their XT cranksets. If you know the history of Shimano chainrings over the past few years, you’ll appreciate what a miracle it is that even the bolt pattern happens to match now.

So the good news is that nearly everyone makes an aftermarket 104mm bolt-pattern 4-bolt 44-tooth ring that will match up to the bolt hole pattern on your 770 crankset. The bad news is that it won’t work as well as the Shimano. This is partly because Shimano just makes excellent cranksets and chainrings, but mostly because all Shimano parts are designed specifically to work only with other Shimano parts. They don’t intentionally prevent other rings from bolting on, but they don’t test for them either. This means that, even if something else can technically bolt up, it probably won’t mesh all pro-like to the crankset’s spider–it will most likely be slightly too wide or too narrow, and some rings may even need sections filed down if they’re making contact with the Shimano spider or arm itself. Generally, a Shimano crankset with another company’s ring on it also won’t shift as well, because chains, chainrings and cranksets are one of the things Shimano still does extremely well.

So it comes down to you: if you’re the ultra anal-retentive type who demands perfection, you should shell out for the Shimano ring. If, on the other hand, you’re more the frugal rebel type who can smile while pressing a shifter paddle a bit harder to convince the chain to shift into a less expensive big ring, look for the most basic-looking 44t 4-bolt, 104mm bolt pattern ring you can find and get your rogue on.