I'm hoping they expand their cassette portfolio. I'm not sure what the minimum is on Eagle but I think a 48x10-40 would be pretty versatile especially if you spaced it like 3T's "Bailout" cassette with small steps in the middle of the block and larger steps at the extremes. As you alluded to, they probably need to fill out their cassette portfolio if they want to effectively target the gravel market anyways.

For someone like myself that rides different bikes at different times of the year, assuming the 10-40 cassette materializes, I could have one rear derailleur, one set of aero wheels with a 10-40, one set of mtb wheels with a 10-50, two chains, and a single blip box (I've often fantasized about using blips to shift on my mtb, ymmv) and that setup would work furnish me with electronic shifting on a:

-TT bike
-Road bike
-Gravel bike
-Mountain bike

Not a bad deal when you amortize things over a large stable.

One "hack" to for people to think about since the blips are the same, TRP makes a hydraulic brake that incorporates blips into the hood:
https://www.trpcycling.com/...hylex-blip-adapters/

I meant apples to apples comparison: Shimano Dura-ace hydraulic Di2 group set.

---

"No matter how hard you train, Somebody will train harder. No matter how hard you run, Somebody will run harder. No matter how hard you want it, Somebody will want it more, I am Somebody"~ST Post

look, i'm no saint. but, when you see the editorial about this group around the web, tech editors were flown in, put up, etc., for a very well done, professional launch. i bought my own airline ticket, rented my own car, and i turned down an ad placement agency's attempt to buy some space from me starting today. just a little too cute for my taste. so i've got absolutely no skin in this. not only am i not getting paid a dime, i paid money i didn't have to pay to go to a launch i didn't have to go to.

in my opinion, SRAM hit this one out of the stadium. i think if you look deeper, you'll find for a number of reasons that your friction concern is neutralized. i'm happy to have that discussion with you all editorially.

having said that, i think there's a bit of a strategic messaging problem here, not just with SRAM, but with the bike companies spec'ing this group. i just got a prompt in my email box about the $12,000 road bike with this groupkit. basically, we're all supposed to sit around and spectate everyone's westminster dog show of $12,000, $15,000, $20,000 bikes built up with this group, and clap politely as hedge fund managers buy these bikes. This is the Shiv disc launch and the P5X launch all over again.

i love this new group. but SRAM needs to contextualize what it's doing, to show us all that this is new tech that of course flows down, and it will flow down, and this is what we can all expect to see in a year, 3 years, 5 years, so yes, you and i are included in this. i want skin in the game. but not somebody buying ads from me. i want the same skin you have: the ability to afford the tech. i'd like to know the tech is coming toward me, not floating 9 miles above me, costwise.

and SRAM and i are going to have a meet, and talk about that, soon, so that i can relay it to you, which i will do on our front page.

so, i'm going to defend the tech, and criticize it when i feel it needs a critique, not based on some sort of affiliate commission or banner ad buy, but because the tech is sound. shimano's tech is also sound. just, SRAM is finally in the same conversation with shimano in 2x groupkits.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

well, i don't know then. one thing i have had a hard time overcoming is what you said: an apples to apples comparison. unless i know all the weights, component by component, it's hard to tell, because, are rotors included? what size? what size chain rings and what cassette? cables? and so on. i'll defer to whatever it is you discover, and am happy to see you post it here.

one component i guess i expect would be heavier with SRAM is the RD, because it's got that fluid damper and doubles as a 1x RD, so, that extra functionality is likely to add some weight, tho i don't know whether it did.

another component that would be heavier is the cassette. 1 more cog.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

one problem with the expanded cassette range is that there's 1 RD, and there's 1 cage size. easier for them to come out with another set of rings, tho as previously mentioned bikes would need to accommodate the lower FD. if they choose to remake the eagle into a fluid damped RD that might be an option. i've asked sram ALL these questions and we have a tentative meeting set up to discuss them.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Current state of play with quarq
user thinks: chainrings are replaceable so this is a long term purchase
what happens: replace 3 dzero spiders per set of chainrings - it's a good thing quarq CS is so good, even working through distributors

What happens with the new one - suddenly stops working before a race, though it worked in the warmup and battery was fine.

I like everything about quarq except the reliability of the units, which is a fairly major factor.

As for the rest of the AXS stuff, lots of clever ideas but just not interesting to me especially with the horrible hoods.

Good overview article, and I think your forward thinking of the future capabilities of a system like this are unfortunately quite spot on. Why unfortunately? Well, this paragraph (above) caught my eye. Of course you don't have anything (or much) to hide. Heck, most people don't have much to hide.

But if a person ends up for some reason in non-favored category (in the view of the govt, or the watchers, or ? ), then it is another matter altogether. I am sure you are aware that systems that do (or have to capability to) invade privacy to this degree have a historically bad record of, not going after "people that have something to hide", but instead wreaking general mayhem (see: 'facebook') or, worse, going after totally innocent people going about regular life sometimes with dire consequences (again, see: 'facebook').

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

as long as disabling the ability of tracking you REALLY disables it, and as long as the default setting is disabled, why do you want to foreclose on functionality that i might want? it's like autopay, brother. if you don't want a bill to automatically be paid, then don't enable autopay. i bet i can find all sorts of sync-backs and auto-syncs in your life. it doesn't keep me up at night that you've chosen to have your workouts uploaded to strava. why don't we focus on the excesses (FB) rather than legitimate tech options?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

By no means was I attempting to discredit, knock, insult, offend, [whichever adjective that you would like to fill in here] you and your efforts. I just don't think I'll be upgrading my old Quarq Riken and/or selling my SRM like I had hoped to, because from the little i've learned about it the new Quarq, it just isn't for me, which I find disappointing. As for the rest of the group, I'd love to upgrade to etap but I'll probably just try to snag 11s blow out stuff as everyone else upgrades.

don't worry. i didn't get the sense you were throwing shade. just, i'm finding myself doing a lot of sticking up for this new groupkit, and i wanted to make clear that i saw it, tasted it, smelled it, rode it, i have a bike in my workshop on which the tri-specific version of this group is hung, and simply based on my own experience i'm writing what i think. certain things i don't know, such as, how long-lasting and trouble-free is the PM? this i can't know.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I was thinking in the context of 1x specifically. Curious to hear what SRAM says.

Slowman wrote:

just, i'm finding myself doing a lot of sticking up for this new groupkit, and i wanted to make clear that i saw it, tasted it, smelled it, rode it, i have a bike in my workshop on which the tri-specific version of this group is hung, and simply based on my own experience i'm writing what i think.

Slowman in article wrote:

The RD is, according to SRAM, faster, the shifting intervals are more precise.

Dan, what did you think about the speed of shifting? Your review gives a nod to SRAM's claims to faster shifting, but I'm curious what you thought.


The superior shifting speed of Di2 was often touted as a primary advantage of Di2, probably more so for crit/road riders than triathaletes, so I'm curious how much that gap has been narrowed.

---

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

the rear is supposed to be faster, but i couldn't feel it. the front is faster, and i can feel it, but that's mostly (i think) because the new system mandates a strict 13-tooth differential between the rings. it's not the speed of the derailleur that's faster (tho it might be), it's the ring pickup that's faster. in my opinion.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Any news on a new TT config? Si at GCN says the RD is the controller of the system now, and I seem to remember that that used to be the brifters, necessitating the blip box in a TT config. Has this changed? Can blips (and clics) now just send commands without having to wire them up to a (non-aero) blip box?

Or we just don't know yet?

---

Citizen of the world, former drunkard. Resident Traumatic Brain Injury advocate.

there is still a blip box. it's about half the size/volume of the old one. which means i don't think it's fair anymore to embrace the shimano junction box but trash the blip box. they're about the same size now.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

from DCR https://www.dcrainmaker.com/...-the-smart-tech.html

That's the fundamental limiting factor. The snappiest front shifting I've ever personally used isn't eTap or Di2, but a friction-shifted touring triple made in 1990 with 50-40-28 chainrings. Its rings don't have modern pin/ramp profiling, but the system is new enough that it shipped with a "modern"-ish triple front derailleur, and the teeth grab the chain pretty much instantly on upshifts every time.

Smaller jumps can also make the shifting "feel" snappier because the ratio change is less dramatic, so the front shift creates a smaller pedaling disruption. That they require less compensatory rear shifting is also a part of this.

I'm a bit of a SRAM fanboi, but I tend to agree with you on the fully integrated PM.

1) Not just ring wear, but the teeth of a chain ring are very unprotected relative to the spider. Teeth get bent, particularly if you're dropping onto a rock doing some hardcore gravel stuff (aka mountain biking on the wrong bike, which is apparently the cool thing to do now). My last two ring replacements were bent teeth. I've gotten good at bending teeth back, but destroying the resell value on a $120 ring is nothing compared to jacking up an $800 ring.

2) Quarqs, historically, haven't been terribly reliable. I had to send them in on average about once per year. (and customer service is stellar, making up for the reliability) It was nice to just send in the spider, swapping in my stock Force spider. It would suck a bit more to have to send in the entire crankset. Maybe they've fixed the reliability issues on this, though.

I'm not opposed to integration, but there's a headwind on this for me, initially.

Really LOL. I've been there too. Minimal CS required from Quarq for 7 different PM's of two previous generations. Then two D-Zero spiders done in 3 months.

I do wonder if this reduced reliability was a factor in this new move to integrate the spider and rings.

I just recieved an email from BMC about this:
https://www.bmc-switzerland.com/...hine-slr01_disc-ltd/

I was really looking forward to this launch, but it turns out I just don't care about any of it. Why? Price. It is just too expensive. Not just too expensive, but stupid expensive.

Aaah, but is the actual rollout between the 2 setups 5% larger? (I'm assuming you're dropping your pressures appropriately on the larger tire, right?)

When I do my roller testing lately, I adjust the pressures to correspond with the "Berto 15% drop" levels for the load. Since I do all of the tests in the same gearing and at the same cadence, the differences in the roller speed (I measure from the roller itself) for the tests represent the differences in the rollout.

Here's one example:

• 23C Conti GP4000S @ 92psi, roller speed = 39.9 kph
• 42C Challenge Gravel Grinder Race @ 44psi, roller speed = 41.5 kph

So...the larger tire's rollout is effectively (due to running lower pressure) only ~1.5% larger than the smaller one, not 5%...so that's not even a 1 tooth difference in a chainring.

THAT'S why I said he was "overthinking it" ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

41.5 is 4% bigger than 39.9.

If there was a ‘like button’ I would use it

Oops...you're right. I must've dropped the 1...but, my example was for a wider range of tire size than Dan's 25c to 36c example (where he said there was a 5% difference).

I also happen to have a run with the Challenge 38C Gravel Grinder Race that measures out at more like 36mm wide when mounted (that model runs significantly small). The roller speed on that one was 40.4 kph...so, for Dan's example, it IS going to be <1.5% (1.3%, to be exact).

(Thanks for the correction BTW)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/