In my opinion this violates the forum policy on posting data, which state that if a company makes a claim based on data (net zero drag), and the data came from a 3rd party, then you must state your affiliation to the party that performed the testing. E.g. if was internal testing by a CS-sponsored pro team, then knowing that would be useful to readers (without needing to know the team or the raw data).

The FAQ is here.

Here is the pulleys for the new Shimano 9100 series.

http://www.trisports.com/...ano-9100-series.html

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

First, an average result means that at some yaw angles the OSPW creates drag. What are these yaw angles where this occurs?

Next, if you own the only independent friction testing lab it cannot be a neutral resource for the cycling community. Do you honestly think Ceramic Speed will ever show their product to be 2nd or 3rd in a test? Nope.

You guys bought the only fair chance a consumer had at determining who was selling overpriced bearings.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

While I think the supply chain, possible aero penalty and other theories laid out here are all good ones, my theory as to why Shimano, SRAM, et al. have not included oversized pulleys in their stock RDs is a simple one: the RD does not shift as well with oversized pulleys (at least that has been my experience with the Ceramicspeed OSPW).

It's important though to provide some context around that statement. My OSPW shifts great on my TT bike, where I use 56/42 Q-Rings. It didn't shift as well on my road bike, where I use 53/36 Q-Rings. Round rings? I have no doubt the OSPW would shift just fine. I know Daniel Holloway races crits with the OSPW and I there is no way he would tolerate bad shifting on his crit bike.

My road bike is maybe a "worst case scenario" for shifting - non-Shimano crank, weird-shaped Q-Rings, unapproved front chainring difference of 17T, and either an 11-25 or 11-28 in the back. It's already a challenging shifting environment, and in my experience, the OSPW just added one too many non-standard variables into the shifting equation.

Shimano and the other component manufacturers have to produce RDs that tolerate a lot of "bad" consumer behavior, whether someone like me going off-script on the rest of their drivetrain or a consumer who mistreats their drivetrain. and when someone test rides a bike, Shimano wants that ultra fast, precise "snickety snick" that we all love in a new, stock drivetrain, and not even a slight hesitation to shift (the reason why generally road RDs are as short a cage as possible for the intended application).

---

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099

Ben has a right to defend the brand. Beyond that, yes, there are 2 hurdles CS has. First, I can't see a reason why aero info should be withheld, even by a third party. Accordingly, its suspect if it's not disclosed if claims are made against it.

Second, Jason is no longer an independent arbiter of brand claims based on what I know. That doesn't mean he's not believable. But he's not independent.

I would urge the owner of aero tests to let the data be publicly disclosed.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Shimano has already been there and done that...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

Hi Fazz,

First let me start off by apologizing on your IMTX experience, as I take my job/passion very seriously, that is something I don’t like to hear and it really bums me out. Although I am always very confident in my work, I am also aware that mechanicals can happen at any time no matter what is done to help prevent them unfortunately, it is my job to help eliminate all variables that may lead to a mechanical and I apologize that you have encountered one during your race. While working event’s, I get a lot of bikes through my hands, ranging from simple adjustment’s/check overs to full upgrades. Every customer that comes through with their bike is encouraged to ride the bike and bring it back should there be any further adjustment’s/tweaks needed before the race. As myself and other mechanics will tell you, a bike can perform perfectly in the stand, however when it’s under load, things can change.

You should not have experienced poor shift performance with your OSPW for a year. Any mechanic who has struggled with setup should have contacted us. There should be no reason for why you have experienced poor shift performance for a year, if the system is installed: running the right chain length, B-limit adjustment, spring tension and hangar alignment. Note, our 9100 development was not influenced by the shifting performance of 17T/17T. The new 9100 system and its differences was what influenced our final design. I’m happy to explain that for you.

Like Shimano’s Shadow derailleurs for their mountain bike line, the new 9100 utilizes very similar approach angles, direct mount style and other similar design features. By changing the parallelogram/approach angle and adding the direct mount style, Shimano came up with a derailleur that yields crisper shifting through the full range of gears as well as the capacity to run a 30T cassette. However, another design change is the upper pulleys placement on the derailleur cage itself. On the new 9100, the pulley is in a neutral pivot state as to where the 9000 system, the pulley was offset a few millimeters. With the upper pulley being in a neutral state in direct line with the M-Pin, this helps with rigidity and “crispness” of shifting. Coming back to the parallelogram, we can, and have made a 9100 derailleur work with a 17t upper and lower pulley, but the performance we were after, and the consumer would be satisfied with, just wasn’t there as the B tension needed to be exaggerated a bit. When you start to exaggerate B tension gaps (distance between the upper pulley and largest cog) shifting can become a bit sluggish in the mid-range of the cassette. Also, when trying the 17t upper set up, cassette size became extremely limited, which is something we did not want. So, with the all that in mind, we opted for a 13t upper pulley that provided us the best all round system for the 9100 design/features. One addition is we have also designed the new 9100 system to be compatible with a 32t cassette should the user want to run that setup for hilly conditions. Aside from the 13t upper and 19t lower pulley, the overall cage has been fully redesigned in relation to stiffness and airflow.

I hope the above addresses your question, and again Fazz, I am sorry for the issues you had in TX. I encourage you to reach out to me via email so I can help rectify the issue, I can be reached at Jey@ceramicspeed.com

I look forward to hearing from you,
Jeff.

---

CeramicSpeed
Technical/R&D, Americas.

Out of respect for the forum policy, which I was unaware of, I will say that it was internal testing alongside a CS manufacturing partner and another as part of a sponsored team arrangement. I can also say it was the first internal testing we had performed. Even prior to friction testing. FF oversized vs 11T showed us what we needed to know there initially. I clearly recall the Skype video call with company EVP, Martin Banke, where he showed me the first prototype. It was just a few days before we were both traveling to the tunnel. We were a little nervous it would arrive. We took a few fairings in also to butter our curious side. It was a neat feeling. It was a nervous feeling also, going into the unknown. Thankfully a few years on and here we are.

---

Chief Marketing Officer,
CeramicSpeed

BryanD,

I’ll keep this simple and to the point.

What are these yaw angles where this occurs? As per my original comment, “this data is not owned by CeramicSpeed and therefore we cannot publish it”

Do you honestly think CeramicSpeed will ever show their product to be 2nd or 3rd in a test? You placed your answer there, which is not objective more subjective. I'm not going to dive into that. I'm familiar with your outlook of CeramicSpeed, no bigger critic than BryanD ;)

---

Chief Marketing Officer,
CeramicSpeed

One final remark from me before I step out of this and into travels over to Europe. Stemming back to the original post that was put here by FFT, of which is now removed.

Yesterday, following my comment and inclusion of Jason Smith's analysis of the inaccuracies and misinterpretation of data, which I posted here and on the YouTube video, FFT quickly made this comment within the YouTube thread as a reaction to Jason's first analysis:

"FFT has taken on board feedback regarding failure to consider chain load (aka baseline watts). Our first iteration used a simple 300w fixed model. We have now introduced a more sophisticated loss model incorporating rider watts. Clearly if the chain is not moving (rider watts = 0) then losses must = 0 and relative losses/gains of OSPW must = 0. Thus the minimal losses must be 0w not 2.4w. However to be fair on CeramicSpeed riding at under 50w is unusual and FFT is interested when the CS's claim of 2.37w would be realised (admittedly according to our projections). We calculate this would be at 371w (@99rpm) vs Shim105 and 556w (@99rpm) vs DuraAce."

For some reason FFT has removed this comments from thread below the YouTube video. We have tried to help FFT correct their calculator by providing the solution to 4 assumption errors present in the video/calculator. We will support FFT again by highlighting another error from within their last comment as copied above. This comes courtesy of Jason "The friction created by a rear derailleur is independent of rider output. The three lower chain spans’ friction is based on chain tension, which is a product of the cage force only. Rider output does affect the friction seen in the top chain span, yet this span does not contribute to the lower three spans, and hence the RD system. Regardless if you have a 50W rider, or a 500W rider, if the cadence is the same, the contribution of the rear deraileur (including the lower three chain spans), regardless of stock or OSPW, will not change."

Thanks all,
BP

---

Chief Marketing Officer,
CeramicSpeed

As a 1x user running a 54t upfront and a 32t in the back, the main reason I never switched to the 9100 OSPW from my 13T-15T Berner system is simply because I couldn't run 1x with the old 9100 Ceramic Speed System. Frankly now that the 9150 system uses a 13T I should have no problem running my 1X system. I will never go back to running a 2x so Berner it is. I am probably the most excited person about these new 9150 system. While I love my Berner cage it was clearly given 0% aero thought in the design.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset