I assume the most of a power meter is ain't from the hardware, is the R&D , software, suport , etc, that being said sram ahould able to supply replacement 'cheap', is just the question 'will they do so?'
@@nuttynut722 That mystical R&D argument again. It isn't that power meters are a most recent invention and require millions of funding for R&D. They have been around for long enough to pay off the R&D cost tenfold. A power meter produced by a recognized brand and installed and used according to the manufacturer's instruction doesn't require much support at all.
You are only the second person i've found on RUclips to make mention of the disposable power meter. Everyone else frothing over an app that let's you customise your shifters, swallowing SRAM's marketing without chewing.
@@aaronpaterson7582 Shimano's next Dura Ace will undoubtedly be 12-speed and may even offer wireless. I cannot imagine the company will go for smaller sprockets, though - certainly not a disposable power meter.
A chainring is a wear item, and it’s an item you might change for an event. It’s so anti-consumer to make it part of the power meter. It’s like asking me to throw out a brake caliper when the pads go. Good design is sustainable. This is not sustainable.
I'd agree IF the chainring wear rate was the same as other brands. SRAM claim a 50% increase in longevity before replacement. That's a bold claim and one that will show it's validity over time. However, SRAM have recognised that consumers may well be skeptical about their claims and so are offering users a 50% discount on RRP on replacement chain rings.
@@KimHDRoberts why not just reduce the price of chainring power meter combo by 50%. How ever we feel about this groupset the market will decide if SRAM have made a good decision with this idea.
@@modarm I didn't make the rules mate, just outlining them. Why not reduce the cost by 50%? Well, I assume SRAM want to sell their chainrings to people using other crank sets... probably a bad idea to reduce the retail price by 50% if you're looking to move some units to people as after-market. Not that I know for sure this is the reason, but it seems reasonable enough to me.
The claim, regarding efficiency, is that the efficiency of fewer front shifts vastly outweighs the small loss in efficiency of a 10 tooth rear cog and the associated decreased radius/increased chain wrap. Apparently SRAM's testing revealed that the decrease in efficiency of a 10 tooth cog was minuscule (something of the order of .2%). Sheer force is obviously increased, but the counter to this is that the chain is considerably stronger than older designs. Personally, I question this. The 10 tooth is there so that smaller chain rings can be used. Smaller chain rings allow for closer ratios (13 tooth maximum versus 16 tooth for other brands using more traditional rings/rear cog setups). Closer ratios on chain rings means less stress on front shifts and, teamed with an 12 speed cassette, you can still have a similar or wider range of gears. This makes sense. Speaking of the cassette, a 12 speed also allows for closer ratios - in some instances 7 cogs have a 1 tooth delta - this is also more efficient from a biomechanical perspective. Personally, I think SRAM have put a lot of thought into this group set configuration, I think they honestly believe in what they are doing and that it is a positive improvement on what has gone before. I am not in any way a fan of the 'disposable' power meter, however SRAM themselves realise this is a cost burden and are offering a 50% discount to users who wear out their chainrings - the reality is that the replacement cost of the rings is almost identical to the cost of a set of Dura Ace chainrings without a power meter. Building the power meter into the chain rings offers vastly diminished weight and better accuracy. So there's rationals for all of your concerns. Frankly, I think this group set will be remembered as a watershed moment in group set design, but I could of course be wrong - only time will tell.
I agree with most of your analysis. The whole design of the AXS group is, to make buyers switch to XDR driver bodys. IF you want to upgrade your bike with this groupset you might have to buy a new wheelset (and definetely a new freewheel body). NOBODY else has compatible cassettes... Expanding the spread or bandwidth of the geartrain by adding a 10T cog makes no sense whatsoever, because this 10T cog wil be all but useless to most riders. WHO can push a 46-10, 48-10 or even 50-10 at sensible RPMs (90-110)? Especially with the bigger arger diameter tires we are all usign these days... It would have made more sense, to stick with a 11T cog, form a performance perspectiveas well as from a mechanical perspective. The whole system is designed to move away from open standards towards a protect insular monopoly, which is goodfor riasing prices and creatign a monopoly. The power meter goes down the same stupid path. This might be the most wasteful component I have ever seen and even if it did perform better, crap like this shoul be prohibited for environmental concerns alone. Instead of giving consumers MORE options with a new group, we are being limited. Also, the "intelligent" system allows us only to use 23 of the 24 gears. Small chainring, 10T cog is maske out... So a whopping price tag for 1 extra gear most of us will just not be strong enough to push... WHY exactly should I buy this..or sell ittoone of my customers? If I were to design a new 12-speed groupset and cassette combo, I would actually opt for a 12-34 (12-13-14-15-16-17-18-21-24-27-30-34) combined with 46/30, 48/32 and 50/34 for recrerational ride(r)s or goinf uphill and 11-27 (11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-20-22-24-27) with 52/36 and 55/38 for more ambitious riders or Pros.
This is another great point. No one has XD driver bodies on road. Only some mtb. So most wheels are incompatible. Apart from Zipp (SRAM). Road bikes should have gone to wider dropout spacing on the rear when we moved up from 9sp. Its been too narrow ever since! Look at the drive side spokes!
Very well said! Most reviews only bring up the APP and BLA BLA BLA, but what Sram is doing is trying to push custumer to use only there products, -here take the Sram AXS and while you´re at it take some new Zipps cuz you will need them... To me Sram is like the Apple of cycling with this product...
Totally agree, inefficient gear radii and consumable power meters are absurd features! Not to mention the cog spacings they’ve chosen on the cassette. They have a chart that shows hey now have more 1t jumps but they fail to mention two important issues with their figures. Firstly, you have to always accept you “should” have at least one more by default as you now have an extra cog. Secondly, as they’ve added the extra cog as a 10t, the jumps on the bigger cogs have actually increased. Either in the absolute tooth change or how many bigger tooth changes depending on the cassette you chose. I love my 52/36 into 11/28 but the one cog I very rarely use is the 11. So why on earth would I now want a10 when I could slot in either a 30 or even 32 to give me wider range or genuinely smooth out he gaps from 11-28. I literally couldn’t find a chainring + cassette combination I’d consider from what they have on offer that would genuinely give me something I’d consider a worthwhile improvement.
All good points. I wouldn't want to ride a 10 tooth cog, no matter what ratio it yields. Simply put at the radii, the chain tension will be high and it will be lossy and noisy. Never ride in the 11 either!
Lot of misinformation in this thread. ROAD CC just did an in-depth report on the new system, with interviews with two of the chief engineers. 39 munutes long but clears up some of the (unfounded) concerns here. Everyone is so quick to jump to conclusions. Give it a bit of time and you’ll see. It’s gonna be the new norm :-)
+1 on this, all 1t jumps are not equal. I prefer cassettes that start with a 12, my current crit/tt setup is 1x with a 58t x 12-32. Same exact ratios as 53 x 11-28 only smoother jumps in the middle
SRAM will bill $410 to swap the chainrings + powermeter, vs $300 for just the chainrings. So it's just a $110 overcost for the powermeter, which in a way is justified by the increase in accuracy (?) that comes with the factory integration. Anyway, the sensible thing to do is to just buy the basic crankset and add Assioma or Garmin pedals.
from there website: "When it’s time to replace your integrated power meter, you can contact SRAM for a half-price replacement, and we will recycle your old one." PowerMeter cost $1200/2=$600 every race season...lol
Agreed, 11-32 straight though 11-18 would be real nice for the road... or on the climbing end. Last year everyone was throwing larger jockey wheels on because 'efficiency' (and they aren't even loaded), but here have a 10 on every cassette... One could hope Force will cater to broader application but I won't hold my breath. Shame, I like the wireless idea and SRAM levers, but they've lost my interest. All I hoped for was Force eTap 11 WiFli. 11-36 cassette and 46-30 chainrings. Address the new growing market that is begging for gearing like this than trying to invent some stupid new shit no-one asked for.
I went from a huge SRAM fan from using their mechanical 10 speed groups, which have a far better brifter than shimano, to really admiring the approach Shimano took with Di2. The cost of Ultegra Di2 is very reasonable and you can use your existing freewheel, cassettes, even your chainset if you want. It will even work with Q-rings. Love it!
power meters are probably way cheaper/simpler to produce than we all think and of course the brands don't want our reception to change as long as we're happy to pay a lot of money for them. but the fact that we have seen multiple bikes release last year with a stock power meter that doesn't work until you buy the software release (for example cannondale systemsix) is going in a similar direction as Sram with those chainrings. 30g for a power meter is a bold statement and the 8g of the chainring bolts + more material as it was a 2 piece construction would kill this. let's see what force will bring in April. I would be surprised if it hadn't replacable chainrings and people who change rings frequently could take the force crankset and the people who are happy to pay for red will benefit of the lightness.. who knows
I think a lot of cost is license and the calibration of the power meter. Perhaps they see that people wear out chainrings rarely since people upgrade before they wear out chainrings.
I have a 12spd AXS groupset with a 46/33 and 12-28 with power meter on a Cervelo R5 and have been riding SRAM since 2007. The 12spd setup (when adjusted and trimmed) is the quietest drivetrain ever. Minimal noise on shifting and with the hydraulic dampening in the rear derailleur there is no chain slap. Not concerned with wearing out chain rings because I keep my chain clean and replace them when they're worn. I've never worn out a cassette or chain rings in 35 years. Quarq power meters are very reasonable for what they deliver. I have two SRM's and spider unit with no chain rings or crank arms run 2500.00 if you want a rechargable unit and there is NO exchange policy. AXS is programmed through IPhone and Android apps on your phone so the platform can be managed very easily. I have (2) 11Spd ETap setups and the AXS is a vast improvement.
Chip a tooth on your chainring.. buy a chainset, oh, and a new power meter... As has been said.. it's not really a sustainable. I'll stick with my Di2 stuff. Let's see how Shimano responds.
Ever seen those Japanese product managers, marketing gurus, engineers, pr team in baseball caps and pit shirts doing interviews on RUclips? No...they don't have to.
Thank you. I don't understand why no one else is asking these questions. GCN in particular glossed over the consumable power meter as if everyone watching their video is in the 1%, and can replace a power meter the way I replace inner tubes. I want a fully wireless groupset for my new bike, but I'm puzzled by some of the decisions SRAM is making.
I have used standard gearing 53/39 on a 11-23 cassette and on flat terrain is awesome but any hills and riding gets exhausting and not as fun. Also knee tear and wear from over torquing forces applied to precious body moving parts is of great concern. Also muscle and lungs exhaustion is experience in the sake for faster gearing. A happy medium is semi compact gearing!
Sorry I'm gonna comment twice - I'm super-pissed about what SRAM have done. Buying eTap was massive for me and I fkg love it, like one fellow cyclist had said in these comments the dongle you supplied: wtf was it for ? I will continue to love my eTap as it's the best thing since...but to recommend it, bit stupid now - oh and it's off the scale now,, it's simply a fit n forget item, if you've got the cash! in fact it's a bloody farce... I'm glad I've found this channel 🙏
Facts: Jump from 13t to 12t tooth cog is 7.7%, from 12 to 11 8.3% and from 11 to 10 is 9.1%. The bigger front chainring, the smoother will be shifting at higher speeds when the tooth progression is minimal (1 tooth). That gear ratios are less smooth at high-end (where you have one tooth progression). You can add another 20 cogs in the cassette and you will still have rougher gear ratio spread at high speeds while using smaller front chainring. There is no way around it. Hypothesis: Smother gears are more important at high speeds. While you can easily stand up or accelerate slightly to accommodate gear ratio change when climbing at lower speeds, the high speeds are whole different story. You cannot make positional change on the bike as you are forced to be in aero position, you cannot accelerate that much because of progressive nature of drag and you just feel that gear change more on otherwise smooth ride. This would defeat one purpose of having 12 cog cassette, namely having a better gear ratio spread. I am also not fan of the smaller difference between front gears. This defeats second purpose of having 12 cog cassette (having wider gear ratio range). From the user perspective I cannot see a reason why difference would not be bigger, for example 7 tooth or even more, especially if you consider fancy electronic shifting and all options that come alongside. Maybe there are some technical reasons, or maybe the whole system is designed to push as many consumers as possible to 1X. Either way, my general impression is that the whole concept is engineers cutting some corners and then marketing trying to sell just that as technical breakthrough. More money for lesser product, perfect!
I am in the market for an Etap setup right now, and would love to buy the new setup, except for that integrated meter and spider. that completely kills it for me. the 10 tooth sprocket though, doesn't bother me 1 bit.
Well said .. I've been wondering the same thing in the xc mountain bike world. I'm still riding a triple setup to avoid ver small cassette cogs and too small a ring at the front. I find it feels more comfortable to ride a bigger gear in the back and also the front for long periods of time especially halfway thru a race or more when i can use some slower rpm pedaling but still keep up my speed on the bigger chainring. I come from a family steeped in engineering and ask the same question and all I can say is they try to make people think that new and much more expensive is needed every so often so people will rush out to keep the bike companies and bike component makers making new profits. I'm 62 years old and race xc quite often and win more often than not in the old guys category , all on a triple chainring ( albiet a close ratio of 26-32-40) which suits me in every situation from horrendous steep climbs to long flat sections and everything in between. I use a 11-42 or 11-46 in the rear and it will get me up anything ,almost all the time on the 32t without going down to the 26t chainring. and the set up is very cheap, but performs well enough to win on.
I agree that a disposal power meter and non replaceable chainrings make no sense, and at these prices, pretty crazy. I'm willing to bet they will revise this in the future. As for the 10 cog, when you think about it, even the pros are rarely in...sprints and descends. But what a 10 cog gets you a more usable smaller chainring, which means you will stay in the big ring more. I think time will tell.
When you get into you 60's, you will understand the logic of these gears. 🙂 It's nice to have lower gears on a top end groupset. Powermeter - the argument would hold water if the cycling community actually showed that it cared about the cost of gear. Seems that cost is not an issue for the bulk of riders. Just go to you local race/ride and see the monetary investment people make on their gear. I use the Assioma's.
Honestly the Garmin Vector 3 is so good taking 60 seconds to swap between bikes and a superior amount of metrics. Unless you must use Speedplay pedals they are a no brainer. Of course gravel bikes aren’t included so I hope Garmin releases a SPD version. Love the AXS eTap though.
There was an old book called Bicycling Science that said anything under a 16/17 tooth cog (from memory) resulted in reduced efficiency, maybe the people churning out 9 or 10 tooth cassettes should read it 🤣 there is a LOT of design/engineering choices at present that make no sense. Good vid as always 👍
I agree about the disposable power meters, but there is a suggsstion that the true manufacturing cost is around $10, in which case they are doing well from their $110 changeover. For the reduced tooth count... I’m not so convinced. There is the general trend to higher cadence, which also implies a demand for a higher range of gears. The front difference seems to be limited to about 14 teeth, since that determines the required radial displacement.So then the only way to increase the gearing spread is to go to smaller tooth values. I have a 46-30 chain ring sitting on my table. That’s going to be more useful as cassette sizes increase, ie 11-30 cassettes on world tour bikes. The related problem is avoiding the need for huge rear mechs as cassettes head towards 50 teeth, with vulnerable cages.
I've been asking this about this trend in cycling as well and it's like no one has a comment. I remember when I started cycling, compact road wasn't a thing and those of us that were not in "racer" shape basically suffered. Right before compacts hit the market I remember riding Campagnolo setups that were 53/39 in the front and 13-29 in the back to get more gearing but use a double. Then compacts came out and so you'd have a 50/34 and in the back something like a 12-25 or 12-27. Now if you do the gear calculation you'll find that a 39-29 and a 34-26 combo are VERY similar at just 1 gear inch difference. But ride those bikes and the full race double feels so much more efficient. I think this all goes to pros wanting their bike to look pro. We would be better served by larger rings and cassettes but it doesn't look pro. And it would weigh a bit more too. These days I would LOVE to be able to find 12-34 cassettes in 10 or 11 speed but they don't exist. Got to have that 11T that I never use. Does look like SRAM makes a 12-36 in 10 speed. I'll be snagging one of those and an XO RD to put on my road bike for some big climbing rides coming up.
Seems crazy to increase size of jockey wheels for efficiency and then make the cogs smaller. Also as you've mentioned previously the chainring arms look wrong. Probably change for the next new version and tout massive strength increases. I wonder if they engineer issues to resolve later for easy improvments
Interesting comments here, thank you for the discussion. I see some of you are suggesting pedal based power meters would be a better pairing with this groupset... But in my opinion they too are consumables. Pedals wear out, too many moving parts etc, plus the point of load application is 'guessed' in calibration. I dont think they are well suited to power meters.
Ah interesting insight on pedal based power meters there. What, according to you, is the best power metre from an engineering point of view? And by that I mean the type (crank, hub based etc.), not any brands necessarily.
Think its interesting that SRAM changed the 11 tooth to a ten tooth sprocket as at 90rpm and a 50 chaining you are still hitting 50kph on an 11tooth.. I don't think many people other than perhaps professionals or people whom live at the very top of a long climb exceed this on a regular basis. I think the consumable power meter is pretty bad for consumers and I cant help but wonder if they are going to produce the crank in different lengths, for example I ride a 165crank and I cant help but wonder the availability or such items.
I laughed when some of the people that dont understand gear ratios and torque were hyped for a 10t cog. And thank you for shining some information about the inbuilt powermeter. Until another company produces 12sp chainrings that our existing cranks can use, buyers will be stuck using srams system. When swapping out for a refurb powermeter there will have to be a waiting period, what happens during that time?
Just get the kit without the power meter and choose your own. I'll be sticking with the original eTap. Oh and I wonder if SRAM has that little asterisk (*) next to that offer of 50% off replacement cranks that says "subject to change without notification." This is what scares me.
Probably less efficient, higher running cost, less adaptable to different courses, possible compatibility issues with some framesets, but a few good ideas in there.
10 cog so true, they had to use this design as it was a carry over from their one by MTB bikes, and they are now locked into this design. Or it would mean more expensive R And D
I know why Sram has gone for the smaller cogs and chainrings, saving costs on material and increasing wear rate so people have to buy more replacement parts.
I believe the catalyst for the gear ratio changes are to hide the fact SRAM can't make a front mech that doesn't drop a chain. lowering the ramp from 16 teeth to 13 teeth. Reducing the size of the chainring. Redesigning the chain with a flat upper edge. A system that doesn't allow you to change the front mech simultaneously with the rear. All help hide the fact the SRAM front mech design is flawed. I'm sure the chain keeper was invented shortly after SRAM introduced a groupset for the road.
So, using this Groupset shows: - Money is no object - you cannot decide witch gear is right - you are triggerhappy - you are weak :) Frightening to know that this shxt was "designed" in Germany. What will be next? A three teeth cog?
from the FAQ: "When it’s time to replace your integrated power meter, you can contact SRAM for a half-price replacement, and we will recycle your old one." so not as bad as it could be, but yea, probably at least double the price of a set of red chainrings and still dumb. Also from that same FAQ, it seems like they did it for weight. I guess us mortals should just wait for force etap. www.quarq.com/product/sram-red-axs-power-meter-upgrades/
Ten percent gearing change with single shift from the totally useless 10T cog to the hardly ever used 11T cog is too big, very serious problem that isn't getting much attention. Consumable power meter is probably not an issue for anyone who would be silly enough to buy this groupset.
This is the second stage the bike industry is executing to price out more cyclists. For the money it costs to get a great bike I could buy an awesome motocross motorcycle and have more fun, especially going up hill.
I've been telling people about 13T being noticeably more efficient than 11T, but 99% of them just don't want to get it. It was also very hard to find any data or science on cog efficiency. Sram probably knows this..
First, I wonder if a Campy 12 cassette will work with AXS? Curious as to whether an aftermarket will make 11T conversion cassettes and compatible chain rings for 110 bcd cranks (if indeed 11 speed rings won't work). I'd think that many riders would want the 12 speed etap with more traditional gearing options.
I mean... I'll take a bolted system which I have to Zero-Out after a few sprints everytime I swap chainrings over a throw away PM. I'll keep enjoying my Dzero and old etap.
The average road cyclist at the speed you'll be going which is 60-70km/h won't really need to put out much more than 200w when they are riding downhill at those speeds, mostly because it's actually pretty difficult, with this application the efficiency isn't a real concern .
Everyone in the cycling world has been going crazy over the 12 speed, yet shimano sponsored pro teams are still bossing everyone on 11 speed, this new 12 speed craze is ridiculous 99% of road riders do not even need 11 gears, let alone 12. Also sram have been saying how 50 up front is all you need (bigger rings front and rear are better, end of) and are going to sell just 50 tooth chainrings to consumers. I would put a great deal of money on the fact that the sram pro teams will still use 52's or 53's on flat stages or TT's. Just sram fucking over the consumer so their group set can get on GCN. Just buy shimano everyone
I imagine the best way would be to not choose the P/M option and add a Stages or 4iiii. If ur happy with single side. Or just ditch the cranks completely, they're butt ugly anyway.
I was wondering about disposable PMs too. It seems idiotic if They plan to sell them to real people. I hadn't thought about a 10 tooth cog (I'm not an engineer) but what you say makes sense there too. I wonder if other aspects of the design compensate for that? For example only 13 tooth difference between big and small ring? That is a question that comes from my own ignorance. All in all maybe not a groupset for a grand tour sprinter. And not one for me at that price point.
@@PeakTorque in the fullness of time it will be interesting to see how they approach the cheaper "ultegra-ish" level of etap once they release it. I have heard it is in the works. No way they can do the front chain rings like that. So it may solve that problem with the PM. But probably it will be 12 sp with 10 cog cassette and will use a similar chain. So one guesses it will not be as impractical in the front but I bet a lot they are committed to their inefficient gear ratios moving forward. I love my Di2. Would love it more if it was wireless.
Hmmm very interesting! I love the detail they’ve put in to the engineering but a throw away power meter is an absolute joke. Definitely think they got it wrong there. Still on the fence with the smaller chainrings and cassette. Cost is way too much also. I love the fact that theyre advancing our sport and trying different things but $6500 Australian...REally...WTF😳
Why are you talking so much about tiny cogs mate? I feel like the second smallest on my 11 speed 105 is very good but for going fast I need the smallest and biggest. Feels better after 29.9 km/h.
1st. Lower rotational weight of smaller chainrings offset any losses.. in the end it is the same efficient.. less crosschain is also more efficient.. 2st. Sram claims 5 years chainring life with new system. I'm sure they had test it 1000 times in past years on prototype stres test and in real life.. you have less crosschain and less front shifting with 12 speed back, esp. with 10-33. 3st. It is good inovation, you will see in few years from now.
SRAM thinks they have enough market influence to sway consumers into their profit scheme of niche meaningless change. Efficiency loss is real. I can even feel it going from a crank with 50/34 to 52/36. Using larger rear cogs has a big effect of power transfer feel.
I hate how Sram is forcing us to go with expensive items that will have to be replaced with the same overpriced parts such as this chainring. This is just too much. Even though I hate having to dismantle my bike to pass some Di2 wires through my bike frame, I will remain with Shimano since it's an easier system to live with. I just like how Shimano cranks have always been simple to assemble, I mean you can swap your chainrings without having to remove the crank off the bike. Sram has pushed this system a bit too far and they kept the same defaults. Just look at the brakes, they kept on pushing the idiotic Dot fluid that everyone hates. Rotors are 6 bolts only, no centerlock? The front derailleur battery limits your tire width?? An expensive 1 piece cassette that prevents you from changing the one cog that is a bit worn out! A new standard of freehub body again? Shimano has some defaults as well, but they are a lot easier to live with. And it's cheaper... Says the guy who has the R9170 groupset installed on his bike.
SRAM had stated from day 1 " when it’s time to replace your integrated power meter, you can contact SRAM for a half-price replacement, and we will recycle your old one". It's not regressive engineering, but more of business model. And they are not cheap. This system is not for those light in the wallet. And the integrated power meter follows this thinking. The power meter chainrings are $819, which means $409.50 for a replacement trade-in. I won't get it. Too expensive. They've raise the level of elitist cycling.
I think it's a flawed analysis to look at the integrated power meter separately from cost. The dentist who buys this will only be riding ~200km per year, once in a year when they pull the bike off the wall to ride their once a year charity ride. And they're only doing 150W max...
new dental grads are coming out w min 300k of debt and the big money is in the specialities like endodontics which require more education and training, thats why the suicide rate is so high
Sram has never been the smoothest, most functional or most efficient. Sram has made their name/place being the lightest though. So smaller gears all around are not smoother, more functional or efficient. But they are lighter...
@@PeakTorque Actually its easier than you think. That's not a problem or any part of the cost. I designed a number of pick and place machines to do just that kind of work.
@@marcusdali3997 that's interesting. I've done a lot of strain gauging by hand and its an art. Repeatability probably far better if automated like you say.
It’s all for money!!! And it’s not needed, and the price tag is ridiculous!!! And you of get another power meter when the chain ring is worn out. The bike industry is getting ridiculous!!!!
I thought exactly the same! In addition, we see the same on their MTB systems. I have a 38t in front which suits my needs almost perfect where I live. BUT riding in the 38/10 combo is almost impossible. It's only usefull going downhill. I can live with it, since the 11 sp. is overall much better. But smaller gears?! I don't get it...?!?(/!?
38 is pretty big upfront. It makes much more sense in an mtb context where riders might be running something like a 32 up front and still get the range when putting down the power, or climbing up walls.
Ok bear with me here: maybe the powermeter is glued onto the chainrings, and the whole part about it being recyclable is that you send it in and they unstick it and glue it onto a new chainring and then sell that to someone else. It doesn't seem clever but it's miles better than making it disposable.
fuck me i thought the chainrings were connected via a splined interface to the measuring unit (invisible from the outside), not a one piece item. this is sooo bad.
Sram forces you into electronic shifting... and almost forces you into disk brakes... the new gearing is crap, no advantage marketing bs... the hood shape of the electronic shifter is bad... overall Sram is crap compared to Shimano or even Campy.
Then cadence is more important than a 1 watt friction saving on the drive train, if you are having a lower cadence you start to put out more torque for the same given wattage which results in big fatigue disadvantages and you will usually be putting a lot more power out as well most of the time in a hard gear so your putting out an extra 30Nm of torque and 20 watts extra to save 1 watt of friction, makes sense...
Cost of chainring CNC goes up with r^2. Is that being way too sceptical? 🤣
Peak Torque
You think they will give up from that stupid system?
I assume the most of a power meter is ain't from the hardware, is the R&D , software, suport , etc, that being said sram ahould able to supply replacement 'cheap', is just the question 'will they do so?'
@@nuttynut722 That mystical R&D argument again. It isn't that power meters are a most recent invention and require millions of funding for R&D. They have been around for long enough to pay off the R&D cost tenfold. A power meter produced by a recognized brand and installed and used according to the manufacturer's instruction doesn't require much support at all.
Lower weight specs are likely the source. Same for old Suntour MicroDrive.
You are only the second person i've found on RUclips to make mention of the disposable power meter.
Everyone else frothing over an app that let's you customise your shifters, swallowing SRAM's marketing without chewing.
Look up the newest video of ronald kuba if you haven´t already, he is usually a pretty big SRAM fan but was super pissed about the new eTap.
Let’s wait and see what shimano do? They listen to their customers.
@@aaronpaterson7582 Shimano's next Dura Ace will undoubtedly be 12-speed and may even offer wireless. I cannot imagine the company will go for smaller sprockets, though - certainly not a disposable power meter.
Because it isn't, the chainrings are attached to the power meter hub/crank arms with 8 bolts
@@aaronpaterson7582 Waiting still...
A chainring is a wear item, and it’s an item you might change for an event. It’s so anti-consumer to make it part of the power meter. It’s like asking me to throw out a brake caliper when the pads go.
Good design is sustainable. This is not sustainable.
Can I hire you to make my scripts? You summed it up perfectly. It took me 8 minutes of waffling. But I'm glad you agree!
I'd agree IF the chainring wear rate was the same as other brands. SRAM claim a 50% increase in longevity before replacement. That's a bold claim and one that will show it's validity over time. However, SRAM have recognised that consumers may well be skeptical about their claims and so are offering users a 50% discount on RRP on replacement chain rings.
@@KimHDRoberts why not just reduce the price of chainring power meter combo by 50%. How ever we feel about this groupset the market will decide if SRAM have made a good decision with this idea.
@@modarm I didn't make the rules mate, just outlining them. Why not reduce the cost by 50%? Well, I assume SRAM want to sell their chainrings to people using other crank sets... probably a bad idea to reduce the retail price by 50% if you're looking to move some units to people as after-market. Not that I know for sure this is the reason, but it seems reasonable enough to me.
@@PeakTorque Haha!
The claim, regarding efficiency, is that the efficiency of fewer front shifts vastly outweighs the small loss in efficiency of a 10 tooth rear cog and the associated decreased radius/increased chain wrap. Apparently SRAM's testing revealed that the decrease in efficiency of a 10 tooth cog was minuscule (something of the order of .2%). Sheer force is obviously increased, but the counter to this is that the chain is considerably stronger than older designs. Personally, I question this. The 10 tooth is there so that smaller chain rings can be used. Smaller chain rings allow for closer ratios (13 tooth maximum versus 16 tooth for other brands using more traditional rings/rear cog setups). Closer ratios on chain rings means less stress on front shifts and, teamed with an 12 speed cassette, you can still have a similar or wider range of gears. This makes sense. Speaking of the cassette, a 12 speed also allows for closer ratios - in some instances 7 cogs have a 1 tooth delta - this is also more efficient from a biomechanical perspective. Personally, I think SRAM have put a lot of thought into this group set configuration, I think they honestly believe in what they are doing and that it is a positive improvement on what has gone before. I am not in any way a fan of the 'disposable' power meter, however SRAM themselves realise this is a cost burden and are offering a 50% discount to users who wear out their chainrings - the reality is that the replacement cost of the rings is almost identical to the cost of a set of Dura Ace chainrings without a power meter. Building the power meter into the chain rings offers vastly diminished weight and better accuracy. So there's rationals for all of your concerns. Frankly, I think this group set will be remembered as a watershed moment in group set design, but I could of course be wrong - only time will tell.
Great comment there. I do believe the front rings will shift impeccably being only 13t different. Its more the marketing I have a problem with.
@@PeakTorque Yes, marketing always ruins the engineering message. It must really grate on the engineers who slaved over this group.
Really interesting points on the vid, and great comments, particularly the one above
@@gthack371 Always good to see a great video, especially when it's followed by a good discussion.
I agree with most of your analysis. The whole design of the AXS group is, to make buyers switch to XDR driver bodys. IF you want to upgrade your bike with this groupset you might have to buy a new wheelset (and definetely a new freewheel body). NOBODY else has compatible cassettes... Expanding the spread or bandwidth of the geartrain by adding a 10T cog makes no sense whatsoever, because this 10T cog wil be all but useless to most riders. WHO can push a 46-10, 48-10 or even 50-10 at sensible RPMs (90-110)? Especially with the bigger arger diameter tires we are all usign these days... It would have made more sense, to stick with a 11T cog, form a performance perspectiveas well as from a mechanical perspective. The whole system is designed to move away from open standards towards a protect insular monopoly, which is goodfor riasing prices and creatign a monopoly. The power meter goes down the same stupid path. This might be the most wasteful component I have ever seen and even if it did perform better, crap like this shoul be prohibited for environmental concerns alone. Instead of giving consumers MORE options with a new group, we are being limited. Also, the "intelligent" system allows us only to use 23 of the 24 gears. Small chainring, 10T cog is maske out...
So a whopping price tag for 1 extra gear most of us will just not be strong enough to push...
WHY exactly should I buy this..or sell ittoone of my customers?
If I were to design a new 12-speed groupset and cassette combo, I would actually opt for a 12-34 (12-13-14-15-16-17-18-21-24-27-30-34) combined with 46/30, 48/32 and 50/34 for recrerational ride(r)s or goinf uphill and 11-27 (11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-20-22-24-27) with 52/36 and 55/38 for more ambitious riders or Pros.
Great post. A 11-34 would be amazing, with a 52-38.
This is another great point. No one has XD driver bodies on road. Only some mtb. So most wheels are incompatible. Apart from Zipp (SRAM). Road bikes should have gone to wider dropout spacing on the rear when we moved up from 9sp. Its been too narrow ever since! Look at the drive side spokes!
Very well said! Most reviews only bring up the APP and BLA BLA BLA, but what Sram is doing is trying to push custumer to use only there products, -here take the Sram AXS and while you´re at it take some new Zipps cuz you will need them... To me Sram is like the Apple of cycling with this product...
Totally agree, inefficient gear radii and consumable power meters are absurd features!
Not to mention the cog spacings they’ve chosen on the cassette. They have a chart that shows hey now have more 1t jumps but they fail to mention two important issues with their figures. Firstly, you have to always accept you “should” have at least one more by default as you now have an extra cog. Secondly, as they’ve added the extra cog as a 10t, the jumps on the bigger cogs have actually increased. Either in the absolute tooth change or how many bigger tooth changes depending on the cassette you chose. I love my 52/36 into 11/28 but the one cog I very rarely use is the 11. So why on earth would I now want a10 when I could slot in either a 30 or even 32 to give me wider range or genuinely smooth out he gaps from 11-28. I literally couldn’t find a chainring + cassette combination I’d consider from what they have on offer that would genuinely give me something I’d consider a worthwhile improvement.
All good points. I wouldn't want to ride a 10 tooth cog, no matter what ratio it yields. Simply put at the radii, the chain tension will be high and it will be lossy and noisy. Never ride in the 11 either!
I'm a Clydesdale that wouldn't give up my 11 for anything, unless I had a wider range cassette and bigger rings up front to keep the same ratios.
Lot of misinformation in this thread. ROAD CC just did an in-depth report on the new system, with interviews with two of the chief engineers. 39 munutes long but clears up some of the (unfounded) concerns here. Everyone is so quick to jump to conclusions. Give it a bit of time and you’ll see. It’s gonna be the new norm :-)
+1 on this, all 1t jumps are not equal. I prefer cassettes that start with a 12, my current crit/tt setup is 1x with a 58t x 12-32. Same exact ratios as 53 x 11-28 only smoother jumps in the middle
I've been running a 10T on my mountain bikes for the past 6 years, can't say I've ever noticed it being "lossy and noisy".
this groupset is engineered to make money :(
still loving your videos!
SRAM will bill $410 to swap the chainrings + powermeter, vs $300 for just the chainrings. So it's just a $110 overcost for the powermeter, which in a way is justified by the increase in accuracy (?) that comes with the factory integration. Anyway, the sensible thing to do is to just buy the basic crankset and add Assioma or Garmin pedals.
from there website: "When it’s time to replace your integrated power meter, you can contact SRAM for a half-price replacement, and we will recycle your old one." PowerMeter cost $1200/2=$600 every race season...lol
It just seems that nowadays costs of producing power meter aren''t as high as some companies want us to believe.
They would have been better off keeping the standard chainring sizes now and adding more middle gearing.
Agreed, 11-32 straight though 11-18 would be real nice for the road... or on the climbing end. Last year everyone was throwing larger jockey wheels on because 'efficiency' (and they aren't even loaded), but here have a 10 on every cassette... One could hope Force will cater to broader application but I won't hold my breath. Shame, I like the wireless idea and SRAM levers, but they've lost my interest.
All I hoped for was Force eTap 11 WiFli. 11-36 cassette and 46-30 chainrings. Address the new growing market that is begging for gearing like this than trying to invent some stupid new shit no-one asked for.
I went from a huge SRAM fan from using their mechanical 10 speed groups, which have a far better brifter than shimano, to really admiring the approach Shimano took with Di2. The cost of Ultegra Di2 is very reasonable and you can use your existing freewheel, cassettes, even your chainset if you want. It will even work with Q-rings. Love it!
power meters are probably way cheaper/simpler to produce than we all think and of course the brands don't want our reception to change as long as we're happy to pay a lot of money for them. but the fact that we have seen multiple bikes release last year with a stock power meter that doesn't work until you buy the software release (for example cannondale systemsix) is going in a similar direction as Sram with those chainrings. 30g for a power meter is a bold statement and the 8g of the chainring bolts + more material as it was a 2 piece construction would kill this. let's see what force will bring in April. I would be surprised if it hadn't replacable chainrings and people who change rings frequently could take the force crankset and the people who are happy to pay for red will benefit of the lightness.. who knows
I think a lot of cost is license and the calibration of the power meter. Perhaps they see that people wear out chainrings rarely since people upgrade before they wear out chainrings.
I have a 12spd AXS groupset with a 46/33 and 12-28 with power meter on a Cervelo R5 and have been riding SRAM since 2007.
The 12spd setup (when adjusted and trimmed) is the quietest drivetrain ever. Minimal noise on shifting and with the hydraulic dampening in the rear derailleur there is no chain slap. Not concerned with wearing out chain rings because I keep my chain clean and replace them when they're worn. I've never worn out a cassette or chain rings in 35 years.
Quarq power meters are very reasonable for what they deliver. I have two SRM's and spider unit with no chain rings or crank arms run 2500.00 if you want a rechargable unit and there is NO exchange policy. AXS is programmed through IPhone and Android apps on your phone so the platform can be managed very easily.
I have (2) 11Spd ETap setups and the AXS is a vast improvement.
Chip a tooth on your chainring.. buy a chainset, oh, and a new power meter... As has been said.. it's not really a sustainable. I'll stick with my Di2 stuff. Let's see how Shimano responds.
Ever seen those Japanese product managers, marketing gurus, engineers, pr team in baseball caps and pit shirts doing interviews on RUclips? No...they don't have to.
It’s also much heavier than dura ace now, when Sram has always been known as the Light group set, they’ve just lost a second unique selling point!!
Thank you. I don't understand why no one else is asking these questions. GCN in particular glossed over the consumable power meter as if everyone watching their video is in the 1%, and can replace a power meter the way I replace inner tubes. I want a fully wireless groupset for my new bike, but I'm puzzled by some of the decisions SRAM is making.
Great analysis as usual! Love it! I have felt the increased efficiency of the larger cogs...
I have used standard gearing 53/39 on a 11-23 cassette and on flat terrain is awesome but any hills and riding gets exhausting and not as fun.
Also knee tear and wear from over torquing forces applied to precious body moving parts is of great concern.
Also muscle and lungs exhaustion is experience in the sake for faster gearing.
A happy medium is semi compact gearing!
Sorry I'm gonna comment twice - I'm super-pissed about what SRAM have done. Buying eTap was massive for me and I fkg love it, like one fellow cyclist had said in these comments the dongle you supplied: wtf was it for ? I will continue to love my eTap as it's the best thing since...but to recommend it, bit stupid now - oh and it's off the scale now,, it's simply a fit n forget item, if you've got the cash! in fact it's a bloody farce... I'm glad I've found this channel 🙏
The answer is simple. MONEY! It's new, It's innovated(as they pitch).
by being last to 12sp, shimano are learning all the mistakes of sram, campy, etc... and can gather user input, they win in the long term
Facts:
Jump from 13t to 12t tooth cog is 7.7%, from 12 to 11 8.3% and from 11 to 10 is 9.1%.
The bigger front chainring, the smoother will be shifting at higher speeds when the tooth progression is minimal (1 tooth).
That gear ratios are less smooth at high-end (where you have one tooth progression).
You can add another 20 cogs in the cassette and you will still have rougher gear ratio spread at high speeds while using smaller front chainring. There is no way around it.
Hypothesis: Smother gears are more important at high speeds.
While you can easily stand up or accelerate slightly to accommodate gear ratio change when climbing at lower speeds, the high speeds are whole different story. You cannot make positional change on the bike as you are forced to be in aero position, you cannot accelerate that much because of progressive nature of drag and you just feel that gear change more on otherwise smooth ride.
This would defeat one purpose of having 12 cog cassette, namely having a better gear ratio spread.
I am also not fan of the smaller difference between front gears. This defeats second purpose of having 12 cog cassette (having wider gear ratio range).
From the user perspective I cannot see a reason why difference would not be bigger, for example 7 tooth or even more, especially if you consider fancy electronic shifting and all options that come alongside.
Maybe there are some technical reasons, or maybe the whole system is designed to push as many consumers as possible to 1X.
Either way, my general impression is that the whole concept is engineers cutting some corners and then marketing trying to sell just that as technical breakthrough. More money for lesser product, perfect!
TT specialists are using larger chainrings to give a more efficient chain line, not necessarily just the fact a larger chainring is ‘more efficient’
Yes also true
I am in the market for an Etap setup right now, and would love to buy the new setup, except for that integrated meter and spider. that completely kills it for me. the 10 tooth sprocket though, doesn't bother me 1 bit.
Well said .. I've been wondering the same thing in the xc mountain bike world. I'm still riding a triple setup to avoid ver small cassette cogs and too small a ring at the front. I find it feels more comfortable to ride a bigger gear in the back and also the front for long periods of time especially halfway thru a race or more when i can use some slower rpm pedaling but still keep up my speed on the bigger chainring. I come from a family steeped in engineering and ask the same question and all I can say is they try to make people think that new and much more expensive is needed every so often so people will rush out to keep the bike companies and bike component makers making new profits. I'm 62 years old and race xc quite often and win more often than not in the old guys category , all on a triple chainring ( albiet a close ratio of 26-32-40) which suits me in every situation from horrendous steep climbs to long flat sections and everything in between. I use a 11-42 or 11-46 in the rear and it will get me up anything ,almost all the time on the 32t without going down to the 26t chainring. and the set up is very cheap, but performs well enough to win on.
And i bet is quieter than 1x as you have a choice of the perfect chain line for nearly every ratio!
Yes it is, and I can notice the difference in resistance when the chain is not aligned .@@PeakTorque
This new groupset is awesome, with the exception of the fixed chain rings. Not a good idea at all.
I agree that a disposal power meter and non replaceable chainrings make no sense, and at these prices, pretty crazy. I'm willing to bet they will revise this in the future. As for the 10 cog, when you think about it, even the pros are rarely in...sprints and descends. But what a 10 cog gets you a more usable smaller chainring, which means you will stay in the big ring more. I think time will tell.
When you get into you 60's, you will understand the logic of these gears. 🙂
It's nice to have lower gears on a top end groupset. Powermeter - the argument would hold water if the cycling community actually showed that it cared about the cost of gear. Seems that cost is not an issue for the bulk of riders. Just go to you local race/ride and see the monetary investment people make on their gear. I use the Assioma's.
Honestly the Garmin Vector 3 is so good taking 60 seconds to swap between bikes and a superior amount of metrics. Unless you must use Speedplay pedals they are a no brainer. Of course gravel bikes aren’t included so I hope Garmin releases a SPD version. Love the AXS eTap though.
There was an old book called Bicycling Science that said anything under a 16/17 tooth cog (from memory) resulted in reduced efficiency, maybe the people churning out 9 or 10 tooth cassettes should read it 🤣 there is a LOT of design/engineering choices at present that make no sense. Good vid as always 👍
Totally agree I think they’re missjudged, no flexibility whatsoever.
I agree about the disposable power meters, but there is a suggsstion that the true manufacturing cost is around $10, in which case they are doing well from their $110 changeover.
For the reduced tooth count... I’m not so convinced. There is the general trend to higher cadence, which also implies a demand for a higher range of gears. The front difference seems to be limited to about 14 teeth, since that determines the required radial displacement.So then the only way to increase the gearing spread is to go to smaller tooth values. I have a 46-30 chain ring sitting on my table. That’s going to be more useful as cassette sizes increase, ie 11-30 cassettes on world tour bikes.
The related problem is avoiding the need for huge rear mechs as cassettes head towards 50 teeth, with vulnerable cages.
Maybe they're having trouble keeping weight down with 12s? campy SR 12 is slightly heavier than 11s for example.
Wot... a tiny channel in my recommended list... noooice c:
If you like the tech side of cycling check it out
I've been asking this about this trend in cycling as well and it's like no one has a comment. I remember when I started cycling, compact road wasn't a thing and those of us that were not in "racer" shape basically suffered. Right before compacts hit the market I remember riding Campagnolo setups that were 53/39 in the front and 13-29 in the back to get more gearing but use a double. Then compacts came out and so you'd have a 50/34 and in the back something like a 12-25 or 12-27. Now if you do the gear calculation you'll find that a 39-29 and a 34-26 combo are VERY similar at just 1 gear inch difference. But ride those bikes and the full race double feels so much more efficient.
I think this all goes to pros wanting their bike to look pro. We would be better served by larger rings and cassettes but it doesn't look pro. And it would weigh a bit more too.
These days I would LOVE to be able to find 12-34 cassettes in 10 or 11 speed but they don't exist. Got to have that 11T that I never use. Does look like SRAM makes a 12-36 in 10 speed. I'll be snagging one of those and an XO RD to put on my road bike for some big climbing rides coming up.
Seems crazy to increase size of jockey wheels for efficiency and then make the cogs smaller. Also as you've mentioned previously the chainring arms look wrong. Probably change for the next new version and tout massive strength increases. I wonder if they engineer issues to resolve later for easy improvments
Haha yeh great point! And the jockey wheels aren't even on the high tension side! That marketing is laughable.
Interesting comments here, thank you for the discussion. I see some of you are suggesting pedal based power meters would be a better pairing with this groupset... But in my opinion they too are consumables. Pedals wear out, too many moving parts etc, plus the point of load application is 'guessed' in calibration. I dont think they are well suited to power meters.
Ah interesting insight on pedal based power meters there. What, according to you, is the best power metre from an engineering point of view? And by that I mean the type (crank, hub based etc.), not any brands necessarily.
That and Garmin pedals suck!
@@kartikeyapanwar crank (spider based) in my opinion. Because they are designed from the outset to be transducers. So, srm, power2max, quarq.
@@PeakTorque love to see a video on this too
Assioma did a great job since
Think its interesting that SRAM changed the 11 tooth to a ten tooth sprocket as at 90rpm and a 50 chaining you are still hitting 50kph on an 11tooth.. I don't think many people other than perhaps professionals or people whom live at the very top of a long climb exceed this on a regular basis. I think the consumable power meter is pretty bad for consumers and I cant help but wonder if they are going to produce the crank in different lengths, for example I ride a 165crank and I cant help but wonder the availability or such items.
AND the Red AXS chainrings seem to wear out very quickly. I only got 14,000 km out of my chainrings, previous Record chainrings 40,000kms !
I laughed when some of the people that dont understand gear ratios and torque were hyped for a 10t cog.
And thank you for shining some information about the inbuilt powermeter. Until another company produces 12sp chainrings that our existing cranks can use, buyers will be stuck using srams system. When swapping out for a refurb powermeter there will have to be a waiting period, what happens during that time?
Great comment. During that refurb period I assume you go back to the Golf Club from whence you came!
Or you could opt to run the available crank without a powermeter and use power pedals instead.
Still using a Shimano RD-1051 and SL-1051 with a CS-6400 cassette and a CN-HG70 chain. Very fast positive Shifts.
It's evolving, just backwards.
Just get the kit without the power meter and choose your own. I'll be sticking with the original eTap.
Oh and I wonder if SRAM has that little asterisk (*) next to that offer of 50% off replacement cranks that says "subject to change without notification." This is what scares me.
This is why the 11 speed etap is going up in price 😂🤑
Probably less efficient, higher running cost, less adaptable to different courses, possible compatibility issues with some framesets, but a few good ideas in there.
Still have my campagnolo record 10 speed from 2000 works perfect.
I still have my shimano 6500 ultegra from 2000. It has 90,000+ miles on it and is still going.
10 cog so true, they had to use this design as it was a carry over from their one by MTB bikes, and they are now locked into this design. Or it would mean more expensive R And D
While you have brand like Ceramic speed making big pulley and cog to reduce articulation, the you have Sram making smaller cog.
I know why Sram has gone for the smaller cogs and chainrings, saving costs on material and increasing wear rate so people have to buy more replacement parts.
you know how expensive those X-Dome cassettes are. Crazy. Though they are beautifully machined it's still well over 200€ for a road cassette
Incorrect.
Indeed.
🎯 - spot on mate !
I believe the catalyst for the gear ratio changes are to hide the fact SRAM can't make a front mech that doesn't drop a chain.
lowering the ramp from 16 teeth to 13 teeth. Reducing the size of the chainring. Redesigning the chain with a flat upper edge. A system that doesn't allow you to change the front mech simultaneously with the rear. All help hide the fact the SRAM front mech design is flawed. I'm sure the chain keeper was invented shortly after SRAM introduced a groupset for the road.
To be honest I've never had a problem with a SRAM front mech.
So, using this Groupset shows:
- Money is no object
- you cannot decide witch gear is right
- you are triggerhappy
- you are weak
:)
Frightening to know that this shxt was "designed" in Germany. What will be next?
A three teeth cog?
from the FAQ: "When it’s time to replace your integrated power meter, you can contact SRAM for a half-price replacement, and we will recycle your old one." so not as bad as it could be, but yea, probably at least double the price of a set of red chainrings and still dumb. Also from that same FAQ, it seems like they did it for weight. I guess us mortals should just wait for force etap.
www.quarq.com/product/sram-red-axs-power-meter-upgrades/
One good thing is the fact that it'll have superior accuracy due to super stable zero offset in comparison to other spider based units on the market.
Ten percent gearing change with single shift from the totally useless 10T cog to the hardly ever used 11T cog is too big, very serious problem that isn't getting much attention. Consumable power meter is probably not an issue for anyone who would be silly enough to buy this groupset.
This is the second stage the bike industry is executing to price out more cyclists. For the money it costs to get a great bike I could buy an awesome motocross motorcycle and have more fun, especially going up hill.
I've been telling people about 13T being noticeably more efficient than 11T, but 99% of them just don't want to get it. It was also very hard to find any data or science on cog efficiency. Sram probably knows this..
First, I wonder if a Campy 12 cassette will work with AXS? Curious as to whether an aftermarket will make 11T conversion cassettes and compatible chain rings for 110 bcd cranks (if indeed 11 speed rings won't work). I'd think that many riders would want the 12 speed etap with more traditional gearing options.
I mean... I'll take a bolted system which I have to Zero-Out after a few sprints everytime I swap chainrings over a throw away PM. I'll keep enjoying my Dzero and old etap.
Hang on to that Dzero like a lucky charm my friend. Dont let it go.
Is there more power going through drive side assuming leg strength is the same
Simple answer 2 minutes in. . . They sell you stuff more frequently because it wears down really quickly
The average road cyclist at the speed you'll be going which is 60-70km/h won't really need to put out much more than 200w when they are riding downhill at those speeds, mostly because it's actually pretty difficult, with this application the efficiency isn't a real concern .
Everyone in the cycling world has been going crazy over the 12 speed, yet shimano sponsored pro teams are still bossing everyone on 11 speed, this new 12 speed craze is ridiculous 99% of road riders do not even need 11 gears, let alone 12. Also sram have been saying how 50 up front is all you need (bigger rings front and rear are better, end of) and are going to sell just 50 tooth chainrings to consumers. I would put a great deal of money on the fact that the sram pro teams will still use 52's or 53's on flat stages or TT's. Just sram fucking over the consumer so their group set can get on GCN. Just buy shimano everyone
How much time tou spend on 10 cog VS how much time you spend on the langer ammount of ration à 12 speed give to you as a choice on your ride ?
I think they are working towards a full bike consumerble.....
I imagine the best way would be to not choose the P/M option and add a Stages or 4iiii. If ur happy with single side. Or just ditch the cranks completely, they're butt ugly anyway.
I was wondering about disposable PMs too. It seems idiotic if They plan to sell them to real people. I hadn't thought about a 10 tooth cog (I'm not an engineer) but what you say makes sense there too. I wonder if other aspects of the design compensate for that? For example only 13 tooth difference between big and small ring? That is a question that comes from my own ignorance.
All in all maybe not a groupset for a grand tour sprinter.
And not one for me at that price point.
Yes the front rings should shift very well between them having a small 13t jump.
@@PeakTorque in the fullness of time it will be interesting to see how they approach the cheaper "ultegra-ish" level of etap once they release it. I have heard it is in the works. No way they can do the front chain rings like that. So it may solve that problem with the PM. But probably it will be 12 sp with 10 cog cassette and will use a similar chain. So one guesses it will not be as impractical in the front but I bet a lot they are committed to their inefficient gear ratios moving forward.
I love my Di2. Would love it more if it was wireless.
I guess most people who are hyped to switch to the new Sram already own some kind of power meter, but still, shame on Sram.
Hi guys pls can you tell me if the power meter got battery CR2032 or it is charging able by any usb or something? thank you
I agree. I think srams new group set is making like difficult just so they can make more money. The way I look at it is don't buy it.
Hmmm very interesting! I love the detail they’ve put in to the engineering but a throw away power meter is an absolute joke. Definitely think they got it wrong there. Still on the fence with the smaller chainrings and cassette. Cost is way too much also. I love the fact that theyre advancing our sport and trying different things but $6500 Australian...REally...WTF😳
Why are you talking so much about tiny cogs mate? I feel like the second smallest on my 11 speed 105 is very good but for going fast I need the smallest and biggest. Feels better after 29.9 km/h.
1st. Lower rotational weight of smaller chainrings offset any losses.. in the end it is the same efficient.. less crosschain is also more efficient..
2st. Sram claims 5 years chainring life with new system. I'm sure they had test it 1000 times in past years on prototype stres test and in real life.. you have less crosschain and less front shifting with 12 speed back, esp. with 10-33.
3st. It is good inovation, you will see in few years from now.
SRAM thinks they have enough market influence to sway consumers into their profit scheme of niche meaningless change. Efficiency loss is real. I can even feel it going from a crank with 50/34 to 52/36. Using larger rear cogs has a big effect of power transfer feel.
Yeah, either put on more middle gearing or get bigger cogs and chainrings. No-one is gonna spin out on a 53-11
Are there hills where you are? I spin out 53/11 almost every ride I have.
You could always change the cassette to go touring but even they are £325 a pop!
325GBP! Ouch. ulteg costs 45!
@@PeakTorque Tougher and more durable 9 speed higher quality Ultegra cassette can be purchased for around £34
£3500 groupset for those £10,000 bicycles....LOL..
I hate how Sram is forcing us to go with expensive items that will have to be replaced with the same overpriced parts such as this chainring. This is just too much. Even though I hate having to dismantle my bike to pass some Di2 wires through my bike frame, I will remain with Shimano since it's an easier system to live with. I just like how Shimano cranks have always been simple to assemble, I mean you can swap your chainrings without having to remove the crank off the bike. Sram has pushed this system a bit too far and they kept the same defaults. Just look at the brakes, they kept on pushing the idiotic Dot fluid that everyone hates. Rotors are 6 bolts only, no centerlock? The front derailleur battery limits your tire width?? An expensive 1 piece cassette that prevents you from changing the one cog that is a bit worn out! A new standard of freehub body again? Shimano has some defaults as well, but they are a lot easier to live with. And it's cheaper... Says the guy who has the R9170 groupset installed on his bike.
That tiny gear won't be used so much except on downhills, where you prob using brakes anyway... Efficiency prob won't matter much
If i was a pro sprinter i would say its very important!
How can I reach regarding reviewing a new product?
thank god there is shimano
Shimano would really need an update for wireless. Wireless is an unbeatable lovely thing. If they will do, they'll become the monsters.
@@EllasPOSEiDON they will in the near future.
Hey bro, nice 800 US chainrings. *ridiculous design, SRAM*
We need data. Could it be as simple as asking for it. I'm sure SRAM have done some testing. It'll probably be a secret 🤣
SRAM had stated from day 1 " when it’s time to replace your integrated power meter, you can contact SRAM for a half-price replacement, and we will recycle your old one". It's not regressive engineering, but more of business model. And they are not cheap. This system is not for those light in the wallet. And the integrated power meter follows this thinking. The power meter chainrings are $819, which means $409.50 for a replacement trade-in. I won't get it. Too expensive. They've raise the level of elitist cycling.
what are the chances that a very normal sram/shimano 11 speed crankset works "just fine" with this new setup?
100%.
I think it's a flawed analysis to look at the integrated power meter separately from cost. The dentist who buys this will only be riding ~200km per year, once in a year when they pull the bike off the wall to ride their once a year charity ride. And they're only doing 150W max...
I hope you don't need any dental treatment soon
new dental grads are coming out w min 300k of debt and the big money is in the specialities like endodontics which require more education and training, thats why the suicide rate is so high
Sram has never been the smoothest, most functional or most efficient.
Sram has made their name/place being the lightest though.
So smaller gears all around are not smoother, more functional or efficient.
But they are lighter...
Sram axs heavy af lmao
Plus, smaller cogs bigger gaps
Actual Powermeter cost and gages is not more than $15 US.
What about labour? Who's making them? Applying gauges isn't unskilled labour.
@@PeakTorque Actually its easier than you think. That's not a problem or any part of the cost. I designed a number of pick and place machines to do just that kind of work.
There's also the labor and technological investment in capability to be able to calibrate the meter to what it's mounted on.
do they wear out? if not there is no reason to throw them away when chainrings are done!
@@marcusdali3997 that's interesting. I've done a lot of strain gauging by hand and its an art. Repeatability probably far better if automated like you say.
power meter electronics is literally consumer-grade cheap. most of the money goes to marketing in deed.
It’s all for money!!! And it’s not needed, and the price tag is ridiculous!!! And you of get another power meter when the chain ring is worn out. The bike industry is getting ridiculous!!!!
They wanna sell chains and other drivetrain components!
I thought exactly the same! In addition, we see the same on their MTB systems. I have a 38t in front which suits my needs almost perfect where I live. BUT riding in the 38/10 combo is almost impossible. It's only usefull going downhill. I can live with it, since the 11 sp. is overall much better. But smaller gears?! I don't get it...?!?(/!?
The powermeter through away thought is just choking - simply massivly choking..:!!!!
38 is pretty big upfront. It makes much more sense in an mtb context where riders might be running something like a 32 up front and still get the range when putting down the power, or climbing up walls.
Ok bear with me here: maybe the powermeter is glued onto the chainrings, and the whole part about it being recyclable is that you send it in and they unstick it and glue it onto a new chainring and then sell that to someone else. It doesn't seem clever but it's miles better than making it disposable.
you believe that?
fuck me i thought the chainrings were connected via a splined interface to the measuring unit (invisible from the outside), not a one piece item. this is sooo bad.
also i don't see a good reason to change both chainrings, the smaller one will wear out before the big ring in most cases
Sram forces you into electronic shifting... and almost forces you into disk brakes... the new gearing is crap, no advantage marketing bs... the hood shape of the electronic shifter is bad... overall Sram is crap compared to Shimano or even Campy.
I guess a pedal powermeter option would then make better sense with this grouppo
maybe ther will even be a stages DUB option at some point. or if you have a trek bike and go for GXP there already are stages options
Fewer teeth not less.
Less teeth = less friction
Then cadence is more important than a 1 watt friction saving on the drive train, if you are having a lower cadence you start to put out more torque for the same given wattage which results in big fatigue disadvantages and you will usually be putting a lot more power out as well most of the time in a hard gear so your putting out an extra 30Nm of torque and 20 watts extra to save 1 watt of friction, makes sense...
poor design
Please people, don't buy this junk!