Hey there - It puzzles me why all the 11+ speed groupsets use their own freehubs like Rotor the RVOLVER and SRAM the XDR.
I started thinking maybe there is a mechanical reason, but the more I think about it, the less I see any need to change the freehub body design because of an added sprocket or two. The force transfered between sprocket and freehub may be transferred to a smaller surface area, because sprockets or spacers get slimmer (My assumption is that this is the case as the frame width does not change). So differences in force transfer do not indicate a different freehub design, but maybe only the use of a harder material for the freehub body.
So my thought is that this change may be rather for business reasons. Vendors like SRAM and Rotor can provide complete build kits to the bike shops including groupsets, powermeters, parts like handlebars, and wheels tailored to their groupsets.
Also, the SRAM AXS and Rotor 13 speed are really really unattractive for the aftermarket (at least in Europe). They are expensive and need wheel (or at least freehub) replacements. If I want to switch e.g. from a RED to a RED AXS on my BMC SLR01 it would cost more than what the bike is worth. So it seems that OEMs are the main target market, not aftermarket.
So if an OEM is tendering the build kits for it‘s new frameset companies like SRAM (AXS, Quarq, ZIPP) and Rotor have an advantage as they can provide all their components on their own, simplify logistics, assembly, and prevent margin stacking. Shimano has also all the necessary components to compete.
However, if such vendors aim at providing an „end to end solution“ the consumer would be locked in as individual parts in the final build cannot be changed independently. Alternative vendors like FSA or KCNC would need to license design schematics to produce replacement parts for these systems which would commercially make no sense.
I‘m not the conspiracy theory guy, but that seems to be the only rationale unless you school me why there is a mechanical reason that everyone does his own design.
I started thinking maybe there is a mechanical reason, but the more I think about it, the less I see any need to change the freehub body design because of an added sprocket or two. The force transfered between sprocket and freehub may be transferred to a smaller surface area, because sprockets or spacers get slimmer (My assumption is that this is the case as the frame width does not change). So differences in force transfer do not indicate a different freehub design, but maybe only the use of a harder material for the freehub body.
So my thought is that this change may be rather for business reasons. Vendors like SRAM and Rotor can provide complete build kits to the bike shops including groupsets, powermeters, parts like handlebars, and wheels tailored to their groupsets.
Also, the SRAM AXS and Rotor 13 speed are really really unattractive for the aftermarket (at least in Europe). They are expensive and need wheel (or at least freehub) replacements. If I want to switch e.g. from a RED to a RED AXS on my BMC SLR01 it would cost more than what the bike is worth. So it seems that OEMs are the main target market, not aftermarket.
So if an OEM is tendering the build kits for it‘s new frameset companies like SRAM (AXS, Quarq, ZIPP) and Rotor have an advantage as they can provide all their components on their own, simplify logistics, assembly, and prevent margin stacking. Shimano has also all the necessary components to compete.
However, if such vendors aim at providing an „end to end solution“ the consumer would be locked in as individual parts in the final build cannot be changed independently. Alternative vendors like FSA or KCNC would need to license design schematics to produce replacement parts for these systems which would commercially make no sense.
I‘m not the conspiracy theory guy, but that seems to be the only rationale unless you school me why there is a mechanical reason that everyone does his own design.