Hey Austin- keep a close eye on wear, rival level does not have the hard chrome treatment that force and red level has. It will likely be similar to what we see with eagle where GX level chains wear rapidly, whilst x01 / xx1 have extreme longevity.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks for taking the time to give me some advice and educate me. Y’all are out here doing gods work, keep it up. Your work is much appreciated.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 I understand you might not know but cheap Vs expensive bottom bracket, does it change the shell quality? I been looking to maybe buy cheap and put Enduro XD 15 bearings inside it instead of what in it
@@mlee6050 that is hard to answer concretely. All industries have brands that manage good quality for an impressive price, others may be poor material quality and mfg tolerances at more budget prices. It really would be brand and price level specific, what material quality do they use, and what % of product comes out in tolerance based on their mfg techniques and quality checks. Tolerance to a degree you can measure if you are very good with a good set of calipers - but not easily, and normally a micrometer is better but not many have those. Material quality is harder of course. At a race last weekend, a friends bb shell housing snapped off (bsa bb) - so that was his race done, and some fun now to get the threaded section out of frame. if it is an internal housing such a thing is a lower risk, it is more about tolerances and fit. Personally, if you have the budget for xd-15, i would rather just have everything guaranteed awesome with a quality housing as well.
Dylan, I work in a pretty good Bikeshop in Germany as a Mechanic and all your resources are top notch and a heaven-sent. I agree with most of what you find on the different topics you deal with and offer much more in depth and significant info ontop of that. Many times this has been info raceing teams want to keep for themselves to gain an advantage. To have this sort of Info publicly available and for free is a gamechanger. Imho your channel is one of the best and most reliable resources on bike knowledge available. So thank you very much for what you do! Ride on!
Alot of info to unpack there! I found the part about finding what combo front and rear gear you will most likely be in the most during the event was fascinating. I am not interested in using ceramic bearings and after this video I do not think I will ever be. Way more benefit from picking the right chain and waxing it than all the expensive ceramic bearings on the bike.
Adam and ZFC are gems. Product marketing is insane. Companies make wild claims, sometimes dishonestly! But guys like Adam keep them honest. Thanks Adam! Brilliantl video Dylan.
I really appreciate watching all these videos on RUclips. And they do prove That you can pick up a little power and speed from all over the place. But if you don't have heart lungs and legs you are not going to compete with your fellow competitors.
Been craving this info for years. I knew I liked my bigger rings but couldn't put my finger on why. Thanks, Dylan for getting in there, and thanks Adam for being THE friction nerd the community needs.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the chain only meets the chainring and the cassette at the top in line with the bottom bracket and the axle of the wheel. It meets the chainring slightly before, if we use a bigger chainring than cassette and after if the cassette is larger than the chainring. I believe the angle of the chain line is the same if we use an 80t chainring and an 80t biggest cog as with a 30t-30t. The chain doesn't meet the chainrings at the closest points like the drawing shows. But again, correct me if I'm wrong! Great video otherwise, interesting informations!
That's a very good point and a pretty basic oversight for the people putting so much effort into saving a few watts. Still choosing gearing that gives you a straighter chain most of the time will be best. So his point is still valid.
I agree. Chain angle will be essentially the same for the various cog/ring positions, regardless of the size of the sprockets. That diagram was incorrect.
I'm on a level where the biggest friction happens, when I want to get up my ass and go for an actual training. I'm happy not to be bothered by a 1W loss on a chain
Well, it's not about being bothered by 1 watt for most people. It is about which chain is worth buying if you have to buy one. According to their tests SRAM lasts longer while other chains have less friction, if i was buying a chain maybe i'd go for the longer lasting one.
@@sepg5084 as i commented above, in my opinion the (according to the chart) sometimes more than double the lifespan outweighs a 2watts saving max any day
You gotta lube this part by making appointments with another rider. Way easier to get up, especially in winter. Worked for me today, I wouldn't have made it outside today on my own.
@@sepg5084 Actually less friction means less wear on your drivetrain which in my opinion is a much more expensive component compared to a chain. My Shimano chains have lasted pretty decently as well, not as long as SRAM ones but long enough that the price wise it isn't really that expensive to replace. Though the wear is still pretty low even in SRAM chains considering these are all marginal, though the Shimano chains lasts decently long enough that the watt savings can be pretty good if you do century rides often even on a SRAM drivetrain.
After watching this interview I stand by my vote in your recent pole on marginal gains even more. Being 20~30 pounds overweight is way more of an issue than .5 watt from a bottom bracket. That being said, I still love wax chain lube because it’s so easy and so clean. The longevity is a nice hope too. The quiet smooth pedaling is just icing on the cake.
That's the tradeoff of 1x drivetrain. But I don't think most MTBers are obsessing over the fractions of a watt that a perfect chain line would give. Even in XC racing a couple watts from chain choice and ceramic bearings isn't going to make up for even one bad line choice even over the course of a long race. and in DH and Enduro durability trumps efficiency because a broken drivetrain = DNF. TT seems to be where it would give the most benefit as that is the closest you can get to a pure watts per KG contest.
@@mrvwbug4423 I’ve seen some pretty bad chain lines with 1x setups but there’s certainly brands doing it better than others. I’ve even used spacers to move bottom brackets a 1-2mm to get the chain aligned to the middle of the cassette. Some frames are just bad.
@@tinshield Centered is not necessarly the best. Angles are not symetric top and bottom and you can tradeof some chainline on one side to get it better on the other.
@@TheAntoine191 much of my riding is in the inner half of the cassette. My bikes are pretty much in the middle. Quieter and smoother. Many bikes favor the smaller cogs which isn’t ideal IMO.
Used to be MTB chainline was 47.5-49mm. Boost showed up and everything moved 3mm to ~52mm. In the latest round of 12 speed Shimano cranks 52mm is non-Boost, and 55mm is Boost to make more room for frames to clear large wheels and still have room enough to have a meaty chainstay while tucking 29er wheels under the rider. Add to this the pinned together construction allowing the big cog to overhang the freehub, and the biggest cog moved inward about 4 mm compared to say an old 9 speed cassette, and that low cog is about 7mm more out of line with the chain ring than it would be historically. If you have an older frame not needing the extra clearance it is an unnecessary penalty on the hills.
Yes, unless one is competing or riding in a group I really don't understand why people spend money and waste time on these things that seem like marginal gains. If the bike is slower, you still get the same exercise anyway in 1h, you just did it going over a slightly shorter distance. I actually ride a 29er xc bike with "city" type tyres and am probably at least 5km/h slower than I would be on some good road bicycle but I had almost no technical issues in 10 years(0 flats), brakes are great in all conditions and I can ride for hours fairly comfortably and even ride easily when the road isn't perfect.
Totally. Adam's work is really useful in that regard. I have totally changed the lubes I was using on both my gravel and mountain bike chains and I'm really happy with the long-term results.
I agree, when I saw the chain chart my first reaction was - wow SRAM lasts a lot longer, I’m buying SRAM. I don’t race so I’ll take 1500 more kms vs a couple watts.
@@cyberfunk3793 Have you ever looked at how much you can gain through stacking a number of marginal gains? You can save quite a lot on tire choice, clothing(aero) and drivetrain efficiency that can yield > 50watts. Now figure out how long it would take to increase your baseline of riding by that much ;-) But to each their own for sure. As a recreational rider as well, I will definitely spend $$ in some areas, but not others, but it's all about optimizing for each person. You can sit there and ride the same bike for 10 years and be happy, when others buy new bikes every year .
@@pcericm I don't know what you exactly mean with baseline of riding, but I just ride to get to places like the supermarket and to exercise. I can get to the supermarket easily with any bike as it's about 5km away and for exercise I can ride with the same amount of watts with any bike also. So if I do 200 watts on my bicycle I just ride a shorter distance than I would on a more efficient bicycle to get the exact same exercise. Sometimes it is even a good thing when you don't need to go that far (bicycle roads here end at some point when you go further after which I would need to ride with cars on the road which I don't prefer for obvious safety reason). Added benefits includ things like that I can use 1 chainring in the front as I don't typically go much faster than 25 km/h, it's also perhaps a bit safer when I go a bit slower and have strong MTB brakes on bicycle with a bit wider tires. The bike is also fully suspended so driving over stuff like curbs and cobble is comfortable when I ride through places like the old town. When I ride through gravel and dirt paths through some park it's also doable even though the tyres are not nobby so not best for that. The only times I think a faster bicycle would really benefit me is when I decide to visit some place 50km or furher away to take photos for example and it would be best to get there as efficiently as possible when the trips is something like 100km or more both ways.
Good to learn that the trade-off for 30,000 km service life on a Dura-Ace BB is only around .5 watts. I'm good with only having to change by BB every two years if that's all I'll lose.
Don't forget that with an "optimised BB" you can probably throw it after any bad weather day. Also if you don't disassemble it before every race to check if it's sound you might ride a dead BB too.
Very interesting thank you. Especially the clear longevity of SRAM chains. Durability is the most under-rated aspect of bike talk / reviews. The fastest is really only relevant to top 20 riders like you Dylan. Durability is more important for 99% of cyclists, especially when the ‘speed gains’ are so marginal. Long term reviews and durability of bikes and components, tyres, bearings, grease, lube, etc all far more important for most of us.
i know this series is about the marginal gains.. but as a consumer that buys his own gear i take a chain that lasts more than twice as long any day over 2watts (if at all) any day of the week so i find it quite exaggerated how sram components are portrayed here disclaimer: i am not a fan of any particular brand and own more bikes with shimano than sram
My current chain is the XX1 SRAM meant to be long lasting, according to FF. Does not shift as nicely as Shimano on my drivetrain, but I run Di2, so shifting is always good anyway. 1500k in, my chain checker has hardly budged. My next experiment will be with the Wippermann conex, as they are meant to last even longer. Not cheap, but I like the idea of producing less waste. I had no issues with Shimano chains and lifespan was good. I just stopped using them because their coatings have PFTE, as does YBN. SRAM/Wipperman are also made in Europe, which means less CO2 footprint for those of us living in this part of the world. PS: given this is also a marginal gains channel, I guess saving 2W fits into the category. I weigh 47kg and don't have a huge peak power on absolute terms. I recently found a better choice of tyres+tubes+chain+lube would save close to 1h in a 160k event on my own. And that is not even with the 'best in class' choice for each (I won't go latex or wax my chain, for instance).
5,000 mi on a XX1 chain and still not worn. Chiefly dry, dusty climate and chain is regularly hot waxed every 300 miles. I’d say that’s an A+++ for durability.
I don't understand the chain line diagrams. Surely the chain leaves the chain ring and cassette at close to the top/bottom rather than the trailing edge.
Yes - I noticed this - that point is incorrect the chain angle is the same whether it’s am 80:80 or a 30:30 - his subsequent point stacks up though as if you want a 1:1 ratio and you run an 11-34 cassette you’ll have a straighter chain line at 1:1 with a 30 tooth front than a 34 tooth front.
On my winter bike, 9sp, Ive started sacrificing my front chain rings and run a chain & cassette until they are visibly worn. Get about 15k miles and it works out costing a lot less than swopping chains at 2k and cassettes at 4-5k.
The only chains I've been buying for over 5 years are Campagnolo Record 11. I started waxing them about 3ish years ago and love how much cleaner everything is and how much less time it takes overall when you consider how long the wax lasts and there's so much less cleanup. I run them on my Campy equipped road bikes, my Shimano GRX gravel bike and my Shimano XT equipped fat bike. I tried sram before and I never liked it, this is just another reason to keep up the trend
@@SeaCowsBeatLobsters that's not the issue. It's the fact that if you have a cadence zone and you change chainring sizes, you're going to be on a different cog.
@@SeaCowsBeatLobsters That would be true only if you did not cross the chain and did not have different cassette cog sizes. If you look at how the chain exits the big ring when it's on the smallest sprocket, you will see it will touch a few more teeth beyond the center. The same for a big/big combination. Try the same on the smaller ring and the chain will stop touching any teeth much sooner. Then experiment back pedalling with your hand on different combinations and notice the difference.
Yes, I always noticed how a cross chainline on my 46 always sounds so much worse (more friction) than in the 34. After watching this I went to look at how the chain exits the big chainring on the cassette ends and it makes total sense. It rubs in a lot more teeth. I guess this shows bigger chainrings are only more effective if you can ride in the middle of a cassette most of the time.
As mainly a single speed rider I can feel that cross chain lose big time when I ride geared. Also went through a learning curve of using white lithium grease, then marine grease, then back to white lithium after feeling that marine grease drag in bottom brackets and freewheels.
On paper the oversized pulley wheels show gains in a stationary friction test but on the road with aerodynamics factored in those gains are cancelled out. Due to the larger pulley wheels and also due to the fact that the pulley wheels are closer to the ground cause increased drag (a larger wind profile). So if you do both a stationary friction test and a wind tunnel (aerodynamic) test, zero watts are gained.
I have an old 9 speed mountain bike and i needed a new chain so I installed a sram. I had also updated drivetrain but the entire system was loud and would ghost shift on me under load. I thought it was the adjustment of the derailleur but nothing I did helped there (sram shifters and derailleur). I decided just for the heck of it to put the old 15 yo shimano chain and it was silent and shifted like a dream. I ended up buying a new shimano chain and all my issues went away. Lesson learned for my instance.
16:00 Product marketing is insane. Companies make wild claims. Thanks Adam for pointing about OSPW wild claim. No different in term of performance between normal size ceramic bearing pulley wheels & expensive OSPW. Great video by Dylan as always.
30t front chainring, you’d likely be dropped on the long downs of places like Leadville. The winner las year had a 38t front ring and used it to great advantage.
I used to run a 52 56 front chainrings on my TT bike. I did this because most of the time trials I raced were usually very flat and wind was the determinant of the gearing needed. Going into the wind I could use the 52 inner ring combined with a 19 or 21 (largest on the cogset )and keep a straighter chain line. It looked strange with two chainrings so close in size but an added benefit was it sure shifted nice 👍.
Depends on your W/Kg. A DA link is 2.4g and the OPSW requires 2 more links. So that's 5g + 22g more (over stock) for the OPSW itself. So at 5w/kg that would cost you 0.135w on a climb but you save 0.5-1.0w. But if you are an alien pulling 50w/kg that's a 1.35w penalty and you are better off using the shorter chain and stock pulley system
Although I'm a bit puzzled as to the "why" of the fact that SRAM chains are not as efficient, I am also happy with the fact that they are very durable. As others have stated, I'll take the added durability over a marginal efficiency loss any day.
@@veloaa-montreal6924 Actually I run a 14-28 cassette-small steps between useable gears. And I have no delusions of grandeur of being able to spin out a 53x11!
Is the chain test discussed here the test where they used the same chain ring on all chains, a chain ring made for old school drivetrains that do not match SRAMs newer chain and tooth profile?
I’ve been saying for years that larger rings are more efficient and that Sram’s AXS Road groups feel rough. Nobody believes me. Shimano employs the smartest and best engineers in the cycling industry, and if oversized pulleys or tiny, odd-shaped chainrings or flat top chains really were faster, they would have been standard on all Dura-Ace groupsets for the past twenty years. Thanks for the excellent video, Dylan!
SRAM chain aside, i'd say it depends. My 11 speed drivetrain was 50/34 with 11-30 cassette. Upgraded to AXS 12 speed with 50/37 and 10-33. 12 speed setup is faster (equivalent to 55-11) and slightly easier. Yes the 10t cog is less efficient but now I'm pedaling whereas with the 50-11 I'd be coasting. Then when climbing the 12spd chainring and cogs are larger & more efficient than 11 speed setup. I use the force flat top chain cause it's a bit faster than the Red.
The non belief on this by some i find fascinating. Especially some of the responses to this i have seen by sram themselves. Its just straight up basic physics and math. Greater articulation = more losses, and there is more articulation with a smaller ring, and you will be running a smaller cog for desired gear inches with a smaller ring = mores losses. And there is more chain tension with a smaller ring, so the greater articulation at both ends is under greater tension / load. To balance, sram have done so much excellent pioneering work in many area's - but for from a Mr Low friction perspective, i would have like to see things move forwards in all aspects, not say a great move with wireless 12spd, but go backwards on efficiency. Work should be done to move efficiency in a forwards direction as well. Staying static on that front for X years is barely a pass mark, going backwards - to me it is a direction i cannot understand how it was signed off and put into production. Just imagine me at those meetings hahahaha. I have had the same information relayed to me from multiple sources that as soon as axs road came out, the first thing the pro teams on sram at the time did was demand 54/38 ring sizes and they locked out the 10t, so basically they made their new 12spd the same as the old 11spd. Whilst consumers were stuck with 48/32t rings , until after a couple of years, a 54/38t ringset, in red level was released, with an rrp of about 1 billion dollars. 52/36 and 54/38 chain sets should be widely avail, at reasonable prices, from rival level. A very fast friend of mine is looking at the Factor Hanzo tt bike - it looks amazing, but you can only buy specced with sram - with 48/32 rings. For a tt bike. Cmon sram...... So much great work..... why is efficiency not a focus for this company.
@@freakyPhred You're still riding a noisier and less efficient drivetrain. Besides, If you're spinning out 50x11 on 700c wheels, you don't need a 33tooth rear cog, or even a 30.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 if you're referring to my comment, I don't disagree with you at all. However, I'm coming from the practical standpoint of having 50/34 rings for my older legs. From my perspective upgrading to SRAM 50/37 got me less articulation when climbing and one faster gear. Guess I could run a 53/39 and an 11-36 which would be almost as easy.
People are putting oversized pulley wheels on their bike (in an area where there is almost no load on the chain, thus for miniscule results) to make their drivetrain a tiny bit more efficient and SRAM is selling drivetrains with decagons for power transmission, wtf. I strongly agree on that one, I think it is plain stupid to buy such a drivetrain. One can feel how inefficient an 11t cog is, I can't imagine using a decagon as a cog, it must be horrible.
@@veganpotterthevegan they do, but the gains are less when riding in a group, and really only become more of a gain when riding solo / doing an ITT on a road bike. It’s the same with some aero gains.
@@CarbonRider1 drag is very important in a peloton. If you're holding on at the back of a group at 250w, or it's a slow group you're trying to catch while pushing 250w, you'll still benefit fairly similarly from those gains
Following Mark's comment below... is the 1/2 a watt done with a statistically signigicant sample size? What are the tolerances on these components, and what is the qualitly control like? If you find 0.5 watts by comparing one example of one component... I don't think that's significant
Well that's the topping on the burnt cake..I was forced a Force group on my new bike and its terrible..After riding Di2 for 10 years, the Sram components are inferior in every way..What a huge mistake I made.
I would live to see the repeatability and reproducability statement on this test method. Also the statistical significance. Its a good debate, particularly as i reluctantly tried chain waxing, and found it to work well.
Would be interesting to see an updated version with the sram transmission added. It feels to be the most stiff and efficient drivetrain I’ve ever used. I can literally feel the difference between my two MTB bikes, one has Shimano Xt drivetrain, the other has XO transmission.
Also Dylan, I know Josh has reported that a 53x11 is a 6 watt savings over a 48x10 (at least half of that is actually due to the chain) but does anybody have the numbers on how much even larger front chainrings would save over the 53 such as a 56 or even the 62 tooth front chainring that Victor Campenaerts utilized at Omloop? Victor also had a 1x system with a Classified hub. I know your sponsored by CeramicSpeed and appreciate the inclusion of Adam’s information on how little those components actually save.
I'd like to see the wind tunnel data on a 62t chainring vs a 53. It may lose a sizeable percentage of the total gains. Less so on a TT bike(or with a classified hub) running 1x as you gain even more by not having the FD, FD hanger and small ring at low yaw. Haven't seen and 3rd party data about the efficiency of the classified hub either. A rohloff is the only internally geared hub that's tested and proven to be quite efficient. But it's absurdly heavy and you can't shift under much load.
The watt savings are more by not using an 11 tooth sprocket than by using a 56 or a 62. A 52x 11 is roughly the same as 56x12 but the chain doesn't have to do such a tight turn, also when using a large front sprocket the gaps between gears are smaller , so you don't get so much as one gear feeling too high and the other too low.
Nice to see data that Dura-Ace chains are faster than Ultegra or 105. Use a Dura-Ace chain for racing and a lesser chain for training. For my gearing I have always used the smallest cogs with the smallest chainrings that get the gear range that I want. This results in lighter cogs and chainrings and a shorter chain, all saving weight.
I anecdotally came to the same longevity conclusion. the X01 chain takes so much longer to start showing wear its increadible. on my MTB i am more than happy to trade 2W of efficacy in for 75% longer chain life (and therefore also cassette life). i love that chain
For the chain angle diagrams (10:18), they seem to show the chain coming off the end of the ring/cassette, causing extreme angles. But the chain doesn't come off the end of the ring/cassette, it disengages at the top (12 o'clock position), give or take a few degrees on either side to wrap from a larger to a smaller ring on either side. Doesn't this mean that for a given cog/ring combination, the chain angle will be about the same, regardless of the size of those rings/cogs? I get that it may be advantageous to run a smaller ring so that you can be in the 2nd largest cog, rather than the largest, which really will reduce the chain angle
The picture is not representative of RED22 chain, i’m not sure about the Shimano either. If not for the logo, it could be the other way round??? SRAM chains have a silk smooth polished finish, whereas Shimano chains are rough as hell. I can’t work out what is going on here, but something seems off. Is this a like for like comparison??? Or maybe both SRAM and Shimano chains have changed a lot 🤷♂️. What i see is not typical/familiar to me.
I would be curious to see some testing done for comparing the chainring/sprocket size vs aero drag. I understand that larger rings/cogs reduce chain articulation and save watts that way, but what about the aero and potential weight penalties with bigger set ups?
Adam lives around the corner from me. I take what he says with a pinch of salt as he is pretty gullible in my experience and will just believe what ever he is told to believe marketing wise or social narratives lol. He was selling a bent coat hanger for 'wax dipping' for an insane amount of money. He is just cashing on this chain wax craze IMO. Look at the prices he charges for some of the stuff he sells. He has some good stories to tell from his time as a cop though. He should do a podcast about that. Just use squirt lube and save the $ and faff. The types what worry about 2w on a chain are the types to lose 80-200w because they are ignorant to how much water and sugar to consume each day to max out glycogen partitioning.
These wattage losses are at what speed of the chain and what tension is put on the chain? I mean the losses are more exponential so the percent loss will be much less if we aren't that fast
Lots of us bike commuters (who outnumber you road racer guys) care more about the durability of a chain because it saves money vs. saving 2 - 3 watts here or there.
Those are indeed interesting findings! Normally one would expect longer lasting chains be better at efficiency too: smoother surfaces with tighter dimentional tolerances benefit both. Must be something about being beefier and chain-cassette engagement then, would explain that sram chains are normally more noisy. Also, maybe the most honest and correct opinion on OSPW ever
Regarding using a YBN or KMC Chaim on SRAM AXS…I have AXS on my TT, and run an AeroCoach 1X chainring, with a 12spd YBN Chain with an Absolutblack OSPW, and it works fine, no dropped chains or jumping. Ok, sure I have an OSPW, but it seems that you can safely run a YBN or KMC chain on AXS, by running different chainrings than the AXS.
Thanks for the great content. Could you shed some light on the proper way to return to training after a crash/surgery once given the go ahead from the doc. The current content seems to be divided between (1) for every week off, ride 2 weeks of z1 rides (NorCal) and (2) 1 week at z1 per week off (GCN). Surley there must be more to it than that.
YBN chain is excellent, that is if you can find original item. There are YBN counterfeits in the market. I had 9s YBN hollow plate, hollow pin, gold colour (nitride coating) and it was bliss. I also use YBN 11s solid plate, solid pin, gold colour, after riding it for 1000 km I'm pretty sure it was counterfeit.
10mins in: I do not understand this point at all. The chain does not come off the chain ring at the trailing edge, and nor does it come off the cassette at the leading edge of the sprockets. It comes off at the dead top and dead bottom. So there is no difference in running an 80-80 vs a 20-20, in terms of angles you're forcing the chain through (when viewed from above/below - I'm not talking about the radius of the curves). The 80-80 will certainly have a longer path and so you'll need a longer chain to have the same tension, and hence more weight etc, but the diagram on screen at 10:15 does not seem at all right to me. The chain comes off the cogs dead above and below the axles (ok, ignoring rear derailure).
Please correct me if i'm wrong, but according to that chart from 1:39 the "fastest" chain is only 3W better than the slowest here. Also it lasts for not even 2k km and it costs some insane amount of money? The whole debate seems a waste of time until you race world championships or something...
this is 2k km without maintenance. If you maintain your drivetrain with wax, the chain lasts virtually forever with multiple chain rotations. yeah watt savings might not be too big of a deal for non-competitive riders, but refer more to other videos that show how much money you can saving long term by investing in a waxing set-up. you will never have to replace chainrings, cassettes, and even chains with proper waxing maintenance.
Plenty of pros aren't gearheads and do plenty of things that hurt them because they're used to it. And plenty of amateurs care about efficiency. In the end, we're playing a sport for entertainment and people enjoy different aspects of it.
@@raphaelbartolome2265That sounds interesting. I would like to see such chain after 50k km. IMHO no chain, nor casette can last forever. However 50k life would justify the price.
3w is worth 12s over a 40km time trial. Then when you add another 2 or 3 “only 2-3w savings” in other areas you’re at 7-10w Now your talking 30-40s over a 40km TT.
I mean no hate here, but are we using tools that have a low enough margin of error that can detect a watt or two difference from chain to chain, lube to lube, day to day? Even the top tier power meters on a bike have a 1 percent margin of error, and that's 3w at 300w, which is more than these claims are. Sell me the magic beans, really, money in hand, but my math isn't happy yet.
Your power meter does not have the resolution to measure differences so small but his test rigs are using much more sensitive meters that do have the necessary accuracy.
the reason for the 1% is price if you are willing to spend money you can go down alot lower (also replications of experiments), but i see where you are comming from defo a valid question
How do we know chain to chain is even the same? How often do they calibrate the chain makers at the factory? What if we get a Friday afternoon special? What if we get one right off a fresh maintenance? There's too many variables that can't be reasonably checked, to me. I do want to believe, I swear, but I need more assurance. 2w isn't even reasonable to me. 10w, yes. 5w, more likely. 3 or under, eh. 4w, the universe stops.
@@tumbleweedking5668 what about 3 watts? 4? 10? 20? The numbers add up with little drivetrain and drag losses that eventually make a difference. We're drawn to these miniscule differences because we are geeks about it.
Ok, watched the video, read the comments, and honestly I'm surprised at the SRAM fanboy complex. SRAM made design choices that have consequences. Deal with it. And I'm saying this as someone who has owned and enjoyed multiple SRAM drive trains. SRAM Red Etap 11 speed w/ a Dura Ace cassette and chain is AMAZING and still probably my favorite setup. Imagine my disappointment when I got a SRAM Force AXS groupset. For me, I'm swapping all my bikes to Shimano one piece at a time. I've got so many negative experiences with SRAM guide brakes and maintenance in general, the original SRAM etap blip box not being compatible with new AXS stuff (yeah just pony up another $400 what's the big deal?), the wireless blips which were always supposed to be updated to actuate the reverb dropper post and then SRAM just deciding not to do it, I could list more but not worth my time. Frankly I trust Shimano more, with the quality of their components, and definitely more with my wallet. SRAM is a corporate money printer and you're the printing press.
Hello Dylan, thanks for the very informative video. Are you planning something evidence based on masters training? I am over 60 and thinking about a 10 or 14 day microcircle. Any thoughts? Thanks, Peter
Tis true, and without controversy there is no progress. I just went with KMC and it's comparable to an XT chain, and I think it's actually better...on a Shimano drive train!
I was thinking 'Well, crap, I just bought three SRAM Force 12 speed flat top chains on 40% discount literally this Saturday', but if I understand correctly there isn't a great alternative because of the detailed geometry. I still love my Force AXS though. I also bought three SRAM Rival PC-1130 chunk-o-chains for my Kona Sutra which is 11 speed Rival 1, again at a good discount. If anybody has comments on alternatives I'm all ears. I'll get through them in 18 months, or at 15 Euro's a pop they can stay in the spares bin without too much heartbreak if there is a better alternative. I'm a recreational pensioner cycling (in a stately and dignified manner) on road and very sandy trails. I care about budget a bit but I can a reasonable spend if the Missus isn't reading this.
I've been thinking about ditching the SRAM and Shimano 12 speed stuff for a Prime 9 setup. It would be interesting to know how that would compare in efficiency. I'm assuming it would benefit from a less extreme chain line, and also less rotating mass. I think we've gotten carried away with 12 speeds on mountain bikes. I feel like I'm always just shifting 2 or 3 gears at a time. The increments are too small. I think a wide range 9 speed cassette would be fantastic.
Good info overall, but the chain line graphic/analogy is just wrong. Chains separate from cogs at TDC and BDC, especially when front and back are equal in size. After chain line, the true optimization relates to articulation vs drivetrain weight and clearance.
There must be something in the pipeline at SRAM. I guess Jumbo Visma would not have swapped over otherwise. Interesting stuff again. At least 50% of the chain lubes in the charts are completely uncommon in Europe and some of the common brands here are missing completely. I never thought this is such a segmented market.
If the YBN chain is recommended here for race day applications, why doesn't that rank up there on Ceramicspeeds list of potential chains to use? Also, Super happy w/ the balance of my Sram Red 22 chain for my mtb/gravel. Been flawless.
I do know from experience when riding with a bunch of guys on electric mountain bikes, when I hear somebody with a noisy drivetrain and horrible clunking shifting, I pay attention to what they are riding, 95% of the time it is Sram. Meanwhile I glide along silently with my Shimano and you virtually never hear me shifting gears. And again, these are electric mountain bikes with very high loads on the drivetrain. WT1 chain lube! 💪
The illustration at 10:15 is incorrect. With a chainring and cog which are similar sizes to each other, the chain will leave the cog and meet the chainring roughly near the top, where the chain is tangent to the cog/chainring. This point will be roughly aligned with the axle/spindle regardless of the size of the cog/chainring. Even when you have very mismatched diameters, the point where the chain leaves/meets the cog/chainring only shifts a few millimetres. Thus, the cross-chaining angle will be largely unaffected by cog size.
Dylan, great video!!! Just a side question, gear-wise, if I may? What are the tyres you're running on your Factor gravel bike in this video, please? They seem to be wide but slick...is there any reason for that (like that you use them while training on your gravel bike on the road or something?). Thank you & keep up the good work!
The most important thing, which I loved, was that all the other drivetrain upgrades mean diddly squat if your chain is dirty. No one likes to say it in cycling but these 1 watt here vs 0.1 watts here, really make no difference to 99.99% of us, it is all in our heads. But the fact is that with a decent, clean, good condition chain, you save more than you would paying thousands into other "upgrades".
I went from Shimano DA always having issues, to SRAM RED and have No issues, and dont' even have a front chain guard for my 1X road.. Never falls off.. So I don't have a few watts from the SRA chain.
I recently did 95k in mud, leaves and tree roots everywhere, with several short but sharp hills in between. I used my 3x XT converted MTB to CX/gravel bike - I truly was surprised of the 3x efficiency. It is slightly heavier but who cares with all that mud around, keeping you stuck…
It s mean that on a road bike if you have a Sram group it isn t possible to set a Dura Ace chain on it? I have a Sram group set 12 speed, Rotor Aldhu chainset and a Sram Force cassette 10/36. Sorry for my english I am French.
When i was younger i once purchased a $90 Sram chain thinking 🤔 it was going to be the best chain ever, not the case, super lightweight but other than that it was super weak, had to manually tighten every link to prevent the chain from falling apart on the trails.
I think we're once again coming upon the issue of what you're optimizing for. Like yes SRAM AXS drivetrains are less efficient because of their smaller gears, but on the flipside they have a really nice gear range. And yes the chains are less efficient, but they last longer. So for me, those upsides are worth the lower efficiency. I think we too often fail to think outside our own bubble and mindset and thus don't recognize that others might have different priorities
@@TheAntoine191 I don't think the 10 is useful in a vaccum, but it does allow you to make the chainrings smaller and thus get much more low-end range. I currently have a claris 50/39/30 and an 11-32 and I use that whole range. I not infrequently do a 2ish mi climb with an average gradient of 5% or so, and that 30/32 is really convenient. With SRAM, I can do a 46-33 and an 11-36 and get that same range. Do I need that upper end 50/11 or 46/10? Nope, but it's fun.
Agreed. I use my 50/10 every day on the road. On gravel, my 48, 46, or 44 fronts would be virtually useless for me without the 10t. I'd actually prefer a 9t and skip the 10t for gravel so I could use the 44 front and a wide range cassette. The longevity is great and I've very rarely found myself needing a 2x.
What about AXS derailleurs and everything else NOT SRAM? It's what I'm "testing" on a bike. It should not have "chain width" problems, as I'm using an YBN chain with Shimano cassette/chainset.
It would be interesting to see a baseline graph of the chain's efficiency, as the one shown is after the ceramic speed UFO coating, which means this data doesn't really show the chain's efficiency but the effect the UFO coating has on a chain.
There’s also a big problem with imitation Shim@no 11s chains (and probably others as well). Definitely avoid Arizon. That’s where I got my fake one. Before I returned, I did a side by side on how to tell them apart. If you’d like to see, let me know where I can send a link to an album.
@@yonglingng5640 Generally speaking, one of the external ways is on the packaging. Some say they can spot a slight difference in the font, however it can be difficult. An easier way is to look at where the check box is for the number of links. If the check in the box looks like it was printed on as part of the package, that would be a likely indication of a fake chain, whereas a check in the box that looks like it was done with an actual pen or marker, by hand, would indicate a strong likelihood of a genuine product.
Love watching this after picking up my SRAM rival chain on Friday.
Hey Austin- keep a close eye on wear, rival level does not have the hard chrome treatment that force and red level has. It will likely be similar to what we see with eagle where GX level chains wear rapidly, whilst x01 / xx1 have extreme longevity.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Thanks for taking the time to give me some advice and educate me. Y’all are out here doing gods work, keep it up. Your work is much appreciated.
Glad here as been looking at red but wondering if red update first or not
@@zerofrictioncycling992 I understand you might not know but cheap Vs expensive bottom bracket, does it change the shell quality? I been looking to maybe buy cheap and put Enduro XD 15 bearings inside it instead of what in it
@@mlee6050 that is hard to answer concretely. All industries have brands that manage good quality for an impressive price, others may be poor material quality and mfg tolerances at more budget prices. It really would be brand and price level specific, what material quality do they use, and what % of product comes out in tolerance based on their mfg techniques and quality checks.
Tolerance to a degree you can measure if you are very good with a good set of calipers - but not easily, and normally a micrometer is better but not many have those. Material quality is harder of course. At a race last weekend, a friends bb shell housing snapped off (bsa bb) - so that was his race done, and some fun now to get the threaded section out of frame. if it is an internal housing such a thing is a lower risk, it is more about tolerances and fit.
Personally, if you have the budget for xd-15, i would rather just have everything guaranteed awesome with a quality housing as well.
Dylan, I work in a pretty good Bikeshop in Germany as a Mechanic and all your resources are top notch and a heaven-sent. I agree with most of what you find on the different topics you deal with and offer much more in depth and significant info ontop of that. Many times this has been info raceing teams want to keep for themselves to gain an advantage. To have this sort of Info publicly available and for free is a gamechanger. Imho your channel is one of the best and most reliable resources on bike knowledge available.
So thank you very much for what you do!
Ride on!
Alot of info to unpack there! I found the part about finding what combo front and rear gear you will most likely be in the most during the event was fascinating. I am not interested in using ceramic bearings and after this video I do not think I will ever be. Way more benefit from picking the right chain and waxing it than all the expensive ceramic bearings on the bike.
Adam and ZFC are gems. Product marketing is insane. Companies make wild claims, sometimes dishonestly! But guys like Adam keep them honest. Thanks Adam! Brilliantl video Dylan.
I really appreciate watching all these videos on RUclips. And they do prove That you can pick up a little power and speed from all over the place. But if you don't have heart lungs and legs you are not going to compete with your fellow competitors.
Been craving this info for years. I knew I liked my bigger rings but couldn't put my finger on why. Thanks, Dylan for getting in there, and thanks Adam for being THE friction nerd the community needs.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the chain only meets the chainring and the cassette at the top in line with the bottom bracket and the axle of the wheel. It meets the chainring slightly before, if we use a bigger chainring than cassette and after if the cassette is larger than the chainring. I believe the angle of the chain line is the same if we use an 80t chainring and an 80t biggest cog as with a 30t-30t. The chain doesn't meet the chainrings at the closest points like the drawing shows.
But again, correct me if I'm wrong!
Great video otherwise, interesting informations!
That's a very good point and a pretty basic oversight for the people putting so much effort into saving a few watts. Still choosing gearing that gives you a straighter chain most of the time will be best. So his point is still valid.
I agree. Chain angle will be essentially the same for the various cog/ring positions, regardless of the size of the sprockets. That diagram was incorrect.
Been watching this series. My. Head. Hurts. Great research backed stuff, just a lot to digest! Keep it coming!
I'm on a level where the biggest friction happens, when I want to get up my ass and go for an actual training. I'm happy not to be bothered by a 1W loss on a chain
Well, it's not about being bothered by 1 watt for most people. It is about which chain is worth buying if you have to buy one. According to their tests SRAM lasts longer while other chains have less friction, if i was buying a chain maybe i'd go for the longer lasting one.
@@sepg5084 as i commented above, in my opinion the (according to the chart) sometimes more than double the lifespan outweighs a 2watts saving max any day
You gotta lube this part by making appointments with another rider. Way easier to get up, especially in winter. Worked for me today, I wouldn't have made it outside today on my own.
@@sepg5084 Actually less friction means less wear on your drivetrain which in my opinion is a much more expensive component compared to a chain. My Shimano chains have lasted pretty decently as well, not as long as SRAM ones but long enough that the price wise it isn't really that expensive to replace. Though the wear is still pretty low even in SRAM chains considering these are all marginal, though the Shimano chains lasts decently long enough that the watt savings can be pretty good if you do century rides often even on a SRAM drivetrain.
Adam rules and I watch every second of his videos. Very glad you did this interview with him.
It seems that a 105 system with a Dura Ace chain is the best compromise for those want to train and race on budget.
105 is definitely recommended, best cost/performance and more than enough for most
with an ultegra crankset
After watching this interview I stand by my vote in your recent pole on marginal gains even more. Being 20~30 pounds overweight is way more of an issue than .5 watt from a bottom bracket.
That being said, I still love wax chain lube because it’s so easy and so clean. The longevity is a nice hope too. The quiet smooth pedaling is just icing on the cake.
which wax lube brand do you use?
@@robt8042 silca secret chain blend.
Wax for the win, it's clean, it's just so nice. I use store bought paraffin wax.
if it is a flat time trial or crit, 0.5 watts of pulley is about the same as 30lbs
No reason you can't improve both
So many MTB’s being sold with horrible chain lines. Great info and something to pay attention to!
That's the tradeoff of 1x drivetrain. But I don't think most MTBers are obsessing over the fractions of a watt that a perfect chain line would give. Even in XC racing a couple watts from chain choice and ceramic bearings isn't going to make up for even one bad line choice even over the course of a long race. and in DH and Enduro durability trumps efficiency because a broken drivetrain = DNF. TT seems to be where it would give the most benefit as that is the closest you can get to a pure watts per KG contest.
@@mrvwbug4423 I’ve seen some pretty bad chain lines with 1x setups but there’s certainly brands doing it better than others. I’ve even used spacers to move bottom brackets a 1-2mm to get the chain aligned to the middle of the cassette. Some frames are just bad.
@@tinshield Centered is not necessarly the best. Angles are not symetric top and bottom and you can tradeof some chainline on one side to get it better on the other.
@@TheAntoine191 much of my riding is in the inner half of the cassette. My bikes are pretty much in the middle. Quieter and smoother. Many bikes favor the smaller cogs which isn’t ideal IMO.
Used to be MTB chainline was 47.5-49mm. Boost showed up and everything moved 3mm to ~52mm. In the latest round of 12 speed Shimano cranks 52mm is non-Boost, and 55mm is Boost to make more room for frames to clear large wheels and still have room enough to have a meaty chainstay while tucking 29er wheels under the rider.
Add to this the pinned together construction allowing the big cog to overhang the freehub, and the biggest cog moved inward about 4 mm compared to say an old 9 speed cassette, and that low cog is about 7mm more out of line with the chain ring than it would be historically. If you have an older frame not needing the extra clearance it is an unnecessary penalty on the hills.
As a recreational cyclist, I'll take longevity over marginal gains.
Yes, unless one is competing or riding in a group I really don't understand why people spend money and waste time on these things that seem like marginal gains. If the bike is slower, you still get the same exercise anyway in 1h, you just did it going over a slightly shorter distance. I actually ride a 29er xc bike with "city" type tyres and am probably at least 5km/h slower than I would be on some good road bicycle but I had almost no technical issues in 10 years(0 flats), brakes are great in all conditions and I can ride for hours fairly comfortably and even ride easily when the road isn't perfect.
Totally. Adam's work is really useful in that regard. I have totally changed the lubes I was using on both my gravel and mountain bike chains and I'm really happy with the long-term results.
I agree, when I saw the chain chart my first reaction was - wow SRAM lasts a lot longer, I’m buying SRAM. I don’t race so I’ll take 1500 more kms vs a couple watts.
@@cyberfunk3793 Have you ever looked at how much you can gain through stacking a number of marginal gains? You can save quite a lot on tire choice, clothing(aero) and drivetrain efficiency that can yield > 50watts. Now figure out how long it would take to increase your baseline of riding by that much ;-) But to each their own for sure. As a recreational rider as well, I will definitely spend $$ in some areas, but not others, but it's all about optimizing for each person. You can sit there and ride the same bike for 10 years and be happy, when others buy new bikes every year .
@@pcericm I don't know what you exactly mean with baseline of riding, but I just ride to get to places like the supermarket and to exercise. I can get to the supermarket easily with any bike as it's about 5km away and for exercise I can ride with the same amount of watts with any bike also. So if I do 200 watts on my bicycle I just ride a shorter distance than I would on a more efficient bicycle to get the exact same exercise. Sometimes it is even a good thing when you don't need to go that far (bicycle roads here end at some point when you go further after which I would need to ride with cars on the road which I don't prefer for obvious safety reason). Added benefits includ things like that I can use 1 chainring in the front as I don't typically go much faster than 25 km/h, it's also perhaps a bit safer when I go a bit slower and have strong MTB brakes on bicycle with a bit wider tires. The bike is also fully suspended so driving over stuff like curbs and cobble is comfortable when I ride through places like the old town. When I ride through gravel and dirt paths through some park it's also doable even though the tyres are not nobby so not best for that.
The only times I think a faster bicycle would really benefit me is when I decide to visit some place 50km or furher away to take photos for example and it would be best to get there as efficiently as possible when the trips is something like 100km or more both ways.
Good to learn that the trade-off for 30,000 km service life on a Dura-Ace BB is only around .5 watts. I'm good with only having to change by BB every two years if that's all I'll lose.
Don't forget that with an "optimised BB" you can probably throw it after any bad weather day. Also if you don't disassemble it before every race to check if it's sound you might ride a dead BB too.
Very interesting thank you. Especially the clear longevity of SRAM chains. Durability is the most under-rated aspect of bike talk / reviews. The fastest is really only relevant to top 20 riders like you Dylan. Durability is more important for 99% of cyclists, especially when the ‘speed gains’ are so marginal. Long term reviews and durability of bikes and components, tyres, bearings, grease, lube, etc all far more important for most of us.
When I saw this pop up in my feed, I wondered why Tim Allen was talking about chain lube and chains
Yes, Me too! Tool time Tim
i know this series is about the marginal gains.. but as a consumer that buys his own gear i take a chain that lasts more than twice as long any day over 2watts (if at all) any day of the week
so i find it quite exaggerated how sram components are portrayed here
disclaimer: i am not a fan of any particular brand and own more bikes with shimano than sram
people are different. For me personal those 2 watts are a reason to not put Sram on my bike.
My current chain is the XX1 SRAM meant to be long lasting, according to FF. Does not shift as nicely as Shimano on my drivetrain, but I run Di2, so shifting is always good anyway. 1500k in, my chain checker has hardly budged. My next experiment will be with the Wippermann conex, as they are meant to last even longer. Not cheap, but I like the idea of producing less waste.
I had no issues with Shimano chains and lifespan was good. I just stopped using them because their coatings have PFTE, as does YBN. SRAM/Wipperman are also made in Europe, which means less CO2 footprint for those of us living in this part of the world.
PS: given this is also a marginal gains channel, I guess saving 2W fits into the category. I weigh 47kg and don't have a huge peak power on absolute terms. I recently found a better choice of tyres+tubes+chain+lube would save close to 1h in a 160k event on my own. And that is not even with the 'best in class' choice for each (I won't go latex or wax my chain, for instance).
Been exclusively using Shimano chains on SRAM groups exclusively for over 200k miles. There's no reason you can't just take out the worst offender
@@veganpotterthevegan I know that worked ok on 11 speed but 12 speed?
5,000 mi on a XX1 chain and still not worn. Chiefly dry, dusty climate and chain is regularly hot waxed every 300 miles. I’d say that’s an A+++ for durability.
Adam is the CHAIN WHISPERER!
I don't understand the chain line diagrams. Surely the chain leaves the chain ring and cassette at close to the top/bottom rather than the trailing edge.
Good point!
Yes - I noticed this - that point is incorrect the chain angle is the same whether it’s am 80:80 or a 30:30 - his subsequent point stacks up though as if you want a 1:1 ratio and you run an 11-34 cassette you’ll have a straighter chain line at 1:1 with a 30 tooth front than a 34 tooth front.
This video is underrated, outstanding work.
On my winter bike, 9sp, Ive started sacrificing my front chain rings and run a chain & cassette until they are visibly worn. Get about 15k miles and it works out costing a lot less than swopping chains at 2k and cassettes at 4-5k.
The only chains I've been buying for over 5 years are Campagnolo Record 11. I started waxing them about 3ish years ago and love how much cleaner everything is and how much less time it takes overall when you consider how long the wax lasts and there's so much less cleanup.
I run them on my Campy equipped road bikes, my Shimano GRX gravel bike and my Shimano XT equipped fat bike. I tried sram before and I never liked it, this is just another reason to keep up the trend
How often do you have to rewax them?
The chainring size increase having negative side effects on chainline is something I had never considered
It doesn’t make sense to me, since the chain should leave the chainring near the center, not at the ends.
@@SeaCowsBeatLobsters that's not the issue. It's the fact that if you have a cadence zone and you change chainring sizes, you're going to be on a different cog.
@@veganpotterthevegan Yes, there’s cadence too, but look at 10:17. There’s exaggerating to make a point but good lord! LOL!
@@SeaCowsBeatLobsters That would be true only if you did not cross the chain and did not have different cassette cog sizes. If you look at how the chain exits the big ring when it's on the smallest sprocket, you will see it will touch a few more teeth beyond the center. The same for a big/big combination. Try the same on the smaller ring and the chain will stop touching any teeth much sooner. Then experiment back pedalling with your hand on different combinations and notice the difference.
Yes, I always noticed how a cross chainline on my 46 always sounds so much worse (more friction) than in the 34. After watching this I went to look at how the chain exits the big chainring on the cassette ends and it makes total sense. It rubs in a lot more teeth.
I guess this shows bigger chainrings are only more effective if you can ride in the middle of a cassette most of the time.
I moved to 58 single ring with 12-25 cassette on my TT bike. It’s been a lovely compromise for me.
As mainly a single speed rider I can feel that cross chain lose big time when I ride geared. Also went through a learning curve of using white lithium grease, then marine grease, then back to white lithium after feeling that marine grease drag in bottom brackets and freewheels.
On paper the oversized pulley wheels show gains in a stationary friction test but on the road with aerodynamics factored in those gains are cancelled out. Due to the larger pulley wheels and also due to the fact that the pulley wheels are closer to the ground cause increased drag (a larger wind profile). So if you do both a stationary friction test and a wind tunnel (aerodynamic) test, zero watts are gained.
I have an old 9 speed mountain bike and i needed a new chain so I installed a sram. I had also updated drivetrain but the entire system was loud and would ghost shift on me under load. I thought it was the adjustment of the derailleur but nothing I did helped there (sram shifters and derailleur). I decided just for the heck of it to put the old 15 yo shimano chain and it was silent and shifted like a dream. I ended up buying a new shimano chain and all my issues went away. Lesson learned for my instance.
Great video!!! Thanks for sharing 🙂
16:00 Product marketing is insane. Companies make wild claims. Thanks Adam for pointing about OSPW wild claim. No different in term of performance between normal size ceramic bearing pulley wheels & expensive OSPW. Great video by Dylan as always.
Remember though that Adams business is selling products and making claims about them.
30t front chainring, you’d likely be dropped on the long downs of places like Leadville. The winner las year had a 38t front ring and used it to great advantage.
Glad to see my KMC preferred chain is pretty good.
Hi, do you recemmend for full hollow KMC chain for shimano 11s gs?
@@apair4002 Shimano chains shift better on their own group set is my experience.
I used to run a 52 56 front chainrings on my TT bike. I did this because most of the time trials I raced were usually very flat and wind was the determinant of the gearing needed. Going into the wind I could use the 52 inner ring combined with a 19 or 21 (largest on the cogset )and keep a straighter chain line. It looked strange with two chainrings so close in size but an added benefit was it sure shifted nice 👍.
I usually just need info & recommendations on regular everyday city riding. So thanks for that. 😮
Whatever minuscule gain from the OSPW is negated or worsen by the extra weight of the chain length in addition to the more surface area for wind drag.
Depends on your W/Kg. A DA link is 2.4g and the OPSW requires 2 more links. So that's 5g + 22g more (over stock) for the OPSW itself. So at 5w/kg that would cost you 0.135w on a climb but you save 0.5-1.0w. But if you are an alien pulling 50w/kg that's a 1.35w penalty and you are better off using the shorter chain and stock pulley system
Although I'm a bit puzzled as to the "why" of the fact that SRAM chains are not as efficient, I am also happy with the fact that they are very durable. As others have stated, I'll take the added durability over a marginal efficiency loss any day.
So my old school 53/42 chainrings are the future?
Paired with a modern 11-34t cassette, yes.
@@veloaa-montreal6924 Actually I run a 14-28 cassette-small steps between useable gears. And I have no delusions of grandeur of being able to spin out a 53x11!
Is the chain test discussed here the test where they used the same chain ring on all chains, a chain ring made for old school drivetrains that do not match SRAMs newer chain and tooth profile?
I’ve been saying for years that larger rings are more efficient and that Sram’s AXS Road groups feel rough. Nobody believes me. Shimano employs the smartest and best engineers in the cycling industry, and if oversized pulleys or tiny, odd-shaped chainrings or flat top chains really were faster, they would have been standard on all Dura-Ace groupsets for the past twenty years. Thanks for the excellent video, Dylan!
SRAM chain aside, i'd say it depends. My 11 speed drivetrain was 50/34 with 11-30 cassette. Upgraded to AXS 12 speed with 50/37 and 10-33. 12 speed setup is faster (equivalent to 55-11) and slightly easier. Yes the 10t cog is less efficient but now I'm pedaling whereas with the 50-11 I'd be coasting. Then when climbing the 12spd chainring and cogs are larger & more efficient than 11 speed setup. I use the force flat top chain cause it's a bit faster than the Red.
The non belief on this by some i find fascinating. Especially some of the responses to this i have seen by sram themselves. Its just straight up basic physics and math. Greater articulation = more losses, and there is more articulation with a smaller ring, and you will be running a smaller cog for desired gear inches with a smaller ring = mores losses. And there is more chain tension with a smaller ring, so the greater articulation at both ends is under greater tension / load.
To balance, sram have done so much excellent pioneering work in many area's - but for from a Mr Low friction perspective, i would have like to see things move forwards in all aspects, not say a great move with wireless 12spd, but go backwards on efficiency. Work should be done to move efficiency in a forwards direction as well. Staying static on that front for X years is barely a pass mark, going backwards - to me it is a direction i cannot understand how it was signed off and put into production. Just imagine me at those meetings hahahaha.
I have had the same information relayed to me from multiple sources that as soon as axs road came out, the first thing the pro teams on sram at the time did was demand 54/38 ring sizes and they locked out the 10t, so basically they made their new 12spd the same as the old 11spd. Whilst consumers were stuck with 48/32t rings , until after a couple of years, a 54/38t ringset, in red level was released, with an rrp of about 1 billion dollars. 52/36 and 54/38 chain sets should be widely avail, at reasonable prices, from rival level.
A very fast friend of mine is looking at the Factor Hanzo tt bike - it looks amazing, but you can only buy specced with sram - with 48/32 rings. For a tt bike.
Cmon sram...... So much great work..... why is efficiency not a focus for this company.
@@freakyPhred You're still riding a noisier and less efficient drivetrain. Besides, If you're spinning out 50x11 on 700c wheels, you don't need a 33tooth rear cog, or even a 30.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 Sram's focus is to sell gimmicky tech to gullible consumers.
@@zerofrictioncycling992 if you're referring to my comment, I don't disagree with you at all. However, I'm coming from the practical standpoint of having 50/34 rings for my older legs. From my perspective upgrading to SRAM 50/37 got me less articulation when climbing and one faster gear. Guess I could run a 53/39 and an 11-36 which would be almost as easy.
I changed my sram rival etap axs chain to a SUMC chain, the difference is huge, feels like a new bike
Finally -- people (re-)learning the value of good chainine.
People are putting oversized pulley wheels on their bike (in an area where there is almost no load on the chain, thus for miniscule results) to make their drivetrain a tiny bit more efficient and SRAM is selling drivetrains with decagons for power transmission, wtf. I strongly agree on that one, I think it is plain stupid to buy such a drivetrain. One can feel how inefficient an 11t cog is, I can't imagine using a decagon as a cog, it must be horrible.
On a road bike it’s more for bling since the gains are small, but on a TT, all the little watts here and there ad up.
@@CarbonRider1 those same watts add up on a road bike and due to speed, it's a smaller percentage of the losses for a TT bike
Been riding SRAM for well over 200k miles... with Shimano chains🙃
@@veganpotterthevegan they do, but the gains are less when riding in a group, and really only become more of a gain when riding solo / doing an ITT on a road bike. It’s the same with some aero gains.
@@CarbonRider1 drag is very important in a peloton. If you're holding on at the back of a group at 250w, or it's a slow group you're trying to catch while pushing 250w, you'll still benefit fairly similarly from those gains
Following Mark's comment below... is the 1/2 a watt done with a statistically signigicant sample size? What are the tolerances on these components, and what is the qualitly control like? If you find 0.5 watts by comparing one example of one component... I don't think that's significant
Running KMC Gold 12spd chain on sram red axs etap but with dura-ace 11-34 cassette. Shifts smooth and quiet no probs.
Well that's the topping on the burnt cake..I was forced a Force group on my new bike and its terrible..After riding Di2 for 10 years, the Sram components are inferior in every way..What a huge mistake I made.
I would live to see the repeatability and reproducability statement on this test method. Also the statistical significance.
Its a good debate, particularly as i reluctantly tried chain waxing, and found it to work well.
Would be interesting to see an updated version with the sram transmission added. It feels to be the most stiff and efficient drivetrain I’ve ever used. I can literally feel the difference between my two MTB bikes, one has Shimano Xt drivetrain, the other has XO transmission.
Also Dylan, I know Josh has reported that a 53x11 is a 6 watt savings over a 48x10 (at least half of that is actually due to the chain) but does anybody have the numbers on how much even larger front chainrings would save over the 53 such as a 56 or even the 62 tooth front chainring that Victor Campenaerts utilized at Omloop? Victor also had a 1x system with a Classified hub. I know your sponsored by CeramicSpeed and appreciate the inclusion of Adam’s information on how little those components actually save.
I'd like to see the wind tunnel data on a 62t chainring vs a 53. It may lose a sizeable percentage of the total gains. Less so on a TT bike(or with a classified hub) running 1x as you gain even more by not having the FD, FD hanger and small ring at low yaw. Haven't seen and 3rd party data about the efficiency of the classified hub either. A rohloff is the only internally geared hub that's tested and proven to be quite efficient. But it's absurdly heavy and you can't shift under much load.
The watt savings are more by not using an 11 tooth sprocket than by using a 56 or a 62. A 52x 11 is roughly the same as 56x12 but the chain doesn't have to do such a tight turn, also when using a large front sprocket the gaps between gears are smaller , so you don't get so much as one gear feeling too high and the other too low.
Your windtunnel data would be off cause the ice cream
When you're walking up the muur, don't think chain efficiency matters
Nice to see data that Dura-Ace chains are faster than Ultegra or 105. Use a Dura-Ace chain for racing and a lesser chain for training. For my gearing I have always used the smallest cogs with the smallest chainrings that get the gear range that I want. This results in lighter cogs and chainrings and a shorter chain, all saving weight.
Saving less than 100g at best though no?
@@SamuelBlackMetalRider It all adds up. Weight should be a part of every frame, component and tire selection.
@@danielrussell9416 Right,in the end all these little savings add up! 👌
@@danielrussell9416 Only if you're going up. It does not help riding on flats or downhill.
I anecdotally came to the same longevity conclusion. the X01 chain takes so much longer to start showing wear its increadible. on my MTB i am more than happy to trade 2W of efficacy in for 75% longer chain life (and therefore also cassette life). i love that chain
I have the Sram Red flat top chain. It's fine plus there's the weight saving. I also lube it with UFO Drip Wax.
Agreed, the 10 cog is silly.
For the chain angle diagrams (10:18), they seem to show the chain coming off the end of the ring/cassette, causing extreme angles. But the chain doesn't come off the end of the ring/cassette, it disengages at the top (12 o'clock position), give or take a few degrees on either side to wrap from a larger to a smaller ring on either side. Doesn't this mean that for a given cog/ring combination, the chain angle will be about the same, regardless of the size of those rings/cogs? I get that it may be advantageous to run a smaller ring so that you can be in the 2nd largest cog, rather than the largest, which really will reduce the chain angle
totaly agree, big mistake!!
The picture is not representative of RED22 chain, i’m not sure about the Shimano either. If not for the logo, it could be the other way round??? SRAM chains have a silk smooth polished finish, whereas Shimano chains are rough as hell. I can’t work out what is going on here, but something seems off. Is this a like for like comparison??? Or maybe both SRAM and Shimano chains have changed a lot 🤷♂️. What i see is not typical/familiar to me.
That was more interesting than I thought it would be 😀
I would be curious to see some testing done for comparing the chainring/sprocket size vs aero drag. I understand that larger rings/cogs reduce chain articulation and save watts that way, but what about the aero and potential weight penalties with bigger set ups?
Great video!!
Adam lives around the corner from me. I take what he says with a pinch of salt as he is pretty gullible in my experience and will just believe what ever he is told to believe marketing wise or social narratives lol.
He was selling a bent coat hanger for 'wax dipping' for an insane amount of money. He is just cashing on this chain wax craze IMO. Look at the prices he charges for some of the stuff he sells. He has some good stories to tell from his time as a cop though. He should do a podcast about that.
Just use squirt lube and save the $ and faff.
The types what worry about 2w on a chain are the types to lose 80-200w because they are ignorant to how much water and sugar to consume each day to max out glycogen partitioning.
These wattage losses are at what speed of the chain and what tension is put on the chain? I mean the losses are more exponential so the percent loss will be much less if we aren't that fast
Lots of us bike commuters (who outnumber you road racer guys) care more about the durability of a chain because it saves money vs. saving 2 - 3 watts here or there.
Those are indeed interesting findings!
Normally one would expect longer lasting chains be better at efficiency too: smoother surfaces with tighter dimentional tolerances benefit both. Must be something about being beefier and chain-cassette engagement then, would explain that sram chains are normally more noisy.
Also, maybe the most honest and correct opinion on OSPW ever
Bigger roller diameter means the wear spread over a lager surface I guess.
@@chrisridesbicycles most durable Eagle chains still have same diameter pins and rollers.
@@feedbackzaloop Ok, good point.
Great to see the Bilko cameo!
Regarding using a YBN or KMC Chaim on SRAM
AXS…I have AXS on my TT, and run an AeroCoach 1X chainring, with a 12spd YBN Chain with an Absolutblack OSPW, and it works fine, no dropped chains or jumping.
Ok, sure I have an OSPW, but it seems that you can safely run a YBN or KMC chain on AXS, by running different chainrings than the AXS.
Is the XTR chain the same as XT just with hollow pins as the only difference? Which is faster?
Wow! I know what chains I'll be buying from now on! SRAM, because I'm not sacrificing 2000km of durability for 2 watts.
Thanks for the great content. Could you shed some light on the proper way to return to training after a crash/surgery once given the go ahead from the doc. The current content seems to be divided between (1) for every week off, ride 2 weeks of z1 rides (NorCal) and (2) 1 week at z1 per week off (GCN). Surley there must be more to it than that.
Great information as always ✅
thank you 🙏
YBN chain is excellent, that is if you can find original item. There are YBN counterfeits in the market. I had 9s YBN hollow plate, hollow pin, gold colour (nitride coating) and it was bliss. I also use YBN 11s solid plate, solid pin, gold colour, after riding it for 1000 km I'm pretty sure it was counterfeit.
You may have addressed this, but does a broken-in chain get more efficient?
10mins in: I do not understand this point at all. The chain does not come off the chain ring at the trailing edge, and nor does it come off the cassette at the leading edge of the sprockets. It comes off at the dead top and dead bottom. So there is no difference in running an 80-80 vs a 20-20, in terms of angles you're forcing the chain through (when viewed from above/below - I'm not talking about the radius of the curves). The 80-80 will certainly have a longer path and so you'll need a longer chain to have the same tension, and hence more weight etc, but the diagram on screen at 10:15 does not seem at all right to me. The chain comes off the cogs dead above and below the axles (ok, ignoring rear derailure).
No, it does not come off right at the center of the cog. Bigger the cog, longer the distance from the center.
Please correct me if i'm wrong, but according to that chart from 1:39 the "fastest" chain is only 3W better than the slowest here. Also it lasts for not even 2k km and it costs some insane amount of money? The whole debate seems a waste of time until you race world championships or something...
Wonder if it’s just fastest when brand new with the more durable one having a flatter efficiency throughout the life
this is 2k km without maintenance. If you maintain your drivetrain with wax, the chain lasts virtually forever with multiple chain rotations. yeah watt savings might not be too big of a deal for non-competitive riders, but refer more to other videos that show how much money you can saving long term by investing in a waxing set-up. you will never have to replace chainrings, cassettes, and even chains with proper waxing maintenance.
Plenty of pros aren't gearheads and do plenty of things that hurt them because they're used to it. And plenty of amateurs care about efficiency. In the end, we're playing a sport for entertainment and people enjoy different aspects of it.
@@raphaelbartolome2265That sounds interesting. I would like to see such chain after 50k km. IMHO no chain, nor casette can last forever. However 50k life would justify the price.
3w is worth 12s over a 40km time trial. Then when you add another 2 or 3 “only 2-3w savings” in other areas you’re at 7-10w Now your talking 30-40s over a 40km TT.
I mean no hate here, but are we using tools that have a low enough margin of error that can detect a watt or two difference from chain to chain, lube to lube, day to day? Even the top tier power meters on a bike have a 1 percent margin of error, and that's 3w at 300w, which is more than these claims are. Sell me the magic beans, really, money in hand, but my math isn't happy yet.
Your power meter does not have the resolution to measure differences so small but his test rigs are using much more sensitive meters that do have the necessary accuracy.
@@jerrycombs3459 No ones lost a race or PR by 2 watts.
the reason for the 1% is price if you are willing to spend money you can go down alot lower (also replications of experiments), but i see where you are comming from defo a valid question
How do we know chain to chain is even the same? How often do they calibrate the chain makers at the factory? What if we get a Friday afternoon special? What if we get one right off a fresh maintenance? There's too many variables that can't be reasonably checked, to me.
I do want to believe, I swear, but I need more assurance. 2w isn't even reasonable to me. 10w, yes. 5w, more likely. 3 or under, eh. 4w, the universe stops.
@@tumbleweedking5668 what about 3 watts? 4? 10? 20? The numbers add up with little drivetrain and drag losses that eventually make a difference. We're drawn to these miniscule differences because we are geeks about it.
Ok, watched the video, read the comments, and honestly I'm surprised at the SRAM fanboy complex. SRAM made design choices that have consequences. Deal with it. And I'm saying this as someone who has owned and enjoyed multiple SRAM drive trains. SRAM Red Etap 11 speed w/ a Dura Ace cassette and chain is AMAZING and still probably my favorite setup. Imagine my disappointment when I got a SRAM Force AXS groupset. For me, I'm swapping all my bikes to Shimano one piece at a time. I've got so many negative experiences with SRAM guide brakes and maintenance in general, the original SRAM etap blip box not being compatible with new AXS stuff (yeah just pony up another $400 what's the big deal?), the wireless blips which were always supposed to be updated to actuate the reverb dropper post and then SRAM just deciding not to do it, I could list more but not worth my time. Frankly I trust Shimano more, with the quality of their components, and definitely more with my wallet. SRAM is a corporate money printer and you're the printing press.
Every bike Ive had with sram gets replaced by Shimano at some point. Shimano more refined and easier to set up. Just works better
Hello Dylan, thanks for the very informative video. Are you planning something evidence based on masters training? I am over 60 and thinking about a 10 or 14 day microcircle. Any thoughts? Thanks, Peter
Tis true, and without controversy there is no progress. I just went with KMC and it's comparable to an XT chain, and I think it's actually better...on a Shimano drive train!
I did the same just weeks ago. And I've run nothing but Shimano and I too think the kmc works excellent.
I was thinking 'Well, crap, I just bought three SRAM Force 12 speed flat top chains on 40% discount literally this Saturday', but if I understand correctly there isn't a great alternative because of the detailed geometry. I still love my Force AXS though.
I also bought three SRAM Rival PC-1130 chunk-o-chains for my Kona Sutra which is 11 speed Rival 1, again at a good discount. If anybody has comments on alternatives I'm all ears. I'll get through them in 18 months, or at 15 Euro's a pop they can stay in the spares bin without too much heartbreak if there is a better alternative. I'm a recreational pensioner cycling (in a stately and dignified manner) on road and very sandy trails. I care about budget a bit but I can a reasonable spend if the Missus isn't reading this.
I've been thinking about ditching the SRAM and Shimano 12 speed stuff for a Prime 9 setup. It would be interesting to know how that would compare in efficiency. I'm assuming it would benefit from a less extreme chain line, and also less rotating mass. I think we've gotten carried away with 12 speeds on mountain bikes. I feel like I'm always just shifting 2 or 3 gears at a time. The increments are too small. I think a wide range 9 speed cassette would be fantastic.
I agree. I have 9 speed on a couple of my bikes. It didn't get better than this! (I have 8sp, 9sp, 10sp and 11sp bikes)
Good info overall, but the chain line graphic/analogy is just wrong. Chains separate from cogs at TDC and BDC, especially when front and back are equal in size. After chain line, the true optimization relates to articulation vs drivetrain weight and clearance.
There must be something in the pipeline at SRAM. I guess Jumbo Visma would not have swapped over otherwise. Interesting stuff again. At least 50% of the chain lubes in the charts are completely uncommon in Europe and some of the common brands here are missing completely. I never thought this is such a segmented market.
Don’t underestimate sponsorship money.
Regarding lubricants, you only need to remember one name…Silca.
I think what was in the pipeline was a big bag with a dollar sign on it 💰
Never underestimate how little this stuff matters when factoring in all of the potential “minimal losses” that occur during a bike race.
NEVER underestimate how much fat chex affect product choice! @@industryrule-4080
If the YBN chain is recommended here for race day applications, why doesn't that rank up there on Ceramicspeeds list of potential chains to use?
Also, Super happy w/ the balance of my Sram Red 22 chain for my mtb/gravel. Been flawless.
I do know from experience when riding with a bunch of guys on electric mountain bikes, when I hear somebody with a noisy drivetrain and horrible clunking shifting, I pay attention to what they are riding, 95% of the time it is Sram. Meanwhile I glide along silently with my Shimano and you virtually never hear me shifting gears. And again, these are electric mountain bikes with very high loads on the drivetrain. WT1 chain lube! 💪
Did this video make a case for a 2x system for Leadville like events with fast, pedaling descents and long climbs?
The illustration at 10:15 is incorrect. With a chainring and cog which are similar sizes to each other, the chain will leave the cog and meet the chainring roughly near the top, where the chain is tangent to the cog/chainring. This point will be roughly aligned with the axle/spindle regardless of the size of the cog/chainring. Even when you have very mismatched diameters, the point where the chain leaves/meets the cog/chainring only shifts a few millimetres. Thus, the cross-chaining angle will be largely unaffected by cog size.
Dylan, great video!!! Just a side question, gear-wise, if I may? What are the tyres you're running on your Factor gravel bike in this video, please? They seem to be wide but slick...is there any reason for that (like that you use them while training on your gravel bike on the road or something?). Thank you & keep up the good work!
The most important thing, which I loved, was that all the other drivetrain upgrades mean diddly squat if your chain is dirty. No one likes to say it in cycling but these 1 watt here vs 0.1 watts here, really make no difference to 99.99% of us, it is all in our heads. But the fact is that with a decent, clean, good condition chain, you save more than you would paying thousands into other "upgrades".
I went from Shimano DA always having issues, to SRAM RED and have No issues, and dont' even have a front chain guard for my 1X road.. Never falls off.. So I don't have a few watts from the SRA chain.
Zerofriction has added the new SRAM t-type chains, and the XO is on par with Shimano’s XT. But twice the $. 😮
I recently did 95k in mud, leaves and tree roots everywhere, with several short but sharp hills in between. I used my 3x XT converted MTB to CX/gravel bike - I truly was surprised of the 3x efficiency. It is slightly heavier but who cares with all that mud around, keeping you stuck…
It s mean that on a road bike if you have a Sram group it isn t possible to set a Dura Ace chain on it?
I have a Sram group set 12 speed, Rotor Aldhu chainset and a Sram Force cassette 10/36.
Sorry for my english I am French.
When i was younger i once purchased a $90 Sram chain thinking 🤔 it was going to be the best chain ever, not the case, super lightweight but other than that it was super weak, had to manually tighten every link to prevent the chain from falling apart on the trails.
I think we're once again coming upon the issue of what you're optimizing for. Like yes SRAM AXS drivetrains are less efficient because of their smaller gears, but on the flipside they have a really nice gear range. And yes the chains are less efficient, but they last longer. So for me, those upsides are worth the lower efficiency. I think we too often fail to think outside our own bubble and mindset and thus don't recognize that others might have different priorities
On mtb you need that 10 because biggest cog is huge but on the road really that make little sense.
@@TheAntoine191 I don't think the 10 is useful in a vaccum, but it does allow you to make the chainrings smaller and thus get much more low-end range. I currently have a claris 50/39/30 and an 11-32 and I use that whole range. I not infrequently do a 2ish mi climb with an average gradient of 5% or so, and that 30/32 is really convenient. With SRAM, I can do a 46-33 and an 11-36 and get that same range. Do I need that upper end 50/11 or 46/10? Nope, but it's fun.
Agreed. I use my 50/10 every day on the road. On gravel, my 48, 46, or 44 fronts would be virtually useless for me without the 10t. I'd actually prefer a 9t and skip the 10t for gravel so I could use the 44 front and a wide range cassette. The longevity is great and I've very rarely found myself needing a 2x.
How do you maintain or service a ceramic bearing?
Curious of the 650 vs 700 wheelset difference have you done or is there a video that compares the two
I saw a video on RUclips that did a rolling test. There is no difference. Rene Herse website also confirms this.
What about AXS derailleurs and everything else NOT SRAM? It's what I'm "testing" on a bike. It should not have "chain width" problems, as I'm using an YBN chain with Shimano cassette/chainset.
Now we're getting somewhere. 😁
I've been running a XTR chain with my SRAM axs.
Lots of good info here 👍
It would be interesting to see a baseline graph of the chain's efficiency, as the one shown is after the ceramic speed UFO coating, which means this data doesn't really show the chain's efficiency but the effect the UFO coating has on a chain.
There is a typo in the description. Cain lube instead of chain lube.
"I hope we have a good lawyer"
😀👍 My kind of video!
There’s also a big problem with imitation Shim@no 11s chains (and probably others as well). Definitely avoid Arizon. That’s where I got my fake one. Before I returned, I did a side by side on how to tell them apart. If you’d like to see, let me know where I can send a link to an album.
It can certainly fool the untrained eye, I can't say it's a piece of cake to identify except if a fake HG901 uses solid pins instead of hollow ones.
@@yonglingng5640 Generally speaking, one of the external ways is on the packaging. Some say they can spot a slight difference in the font, however it can be difficult. An easier way is to look at where the check box is for the number of links. If the check in the box looks like it was printed on as part of the package, that would be a likely indication of a fake chain, whereas a check in the box that looks like it was done with an actual pen or marker, by hand, would indicate a strong likelihood of a genuine product.
@@GNX157 Yes, that's one of them.