New Shimano parts group

[gravitylover]

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/29401/Sh...n-sale-in-July

There are some other interesting tidbits in that site like today Shimano bought Pearl Izumi...

[Particle]

I still don't get the 15mm axle deal...I guess it's nice if it can replace 9mm but why? XC you don't really need a thru-axle, this just seems like a move to change standards in order to make more money.

[gravitylover]

I still don't get the 15mm axle deal...I guess it's nice if it can replace 9mm but why? XC you don't really need a thru-axle, this just seems like a move to change standards in order to make more money.

New standards don't make anybody more money. Think about it - doesn't it start to cost less to produce a product for longer? Reusing molds and economies of scale and all of that. Maybe Fox wants to use lighter stanchions and lowers so the additional stiffness has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately this is another case where I think the end user gets screwed as they have no choice but to upgrade or replace what they've already got because the "old" parts start getting harder to find again.

[Particle]

New standards don't make anybody more money.

Tell that to Sony / Blu-ray

[bagtagley]

I feel the same way, Particle, but the XC nerds at MTBR are already popping collective boners over the new standard.

Here's some more info on the SLX. I seems like LX is heading to cruiser/hybrid retirement, with SLX taking over the "core", all-mountain segment. I kinda like the idea of a dual-ring front mech. Now, if they'd just do one for 83mm spacing with Saint.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/article.php?sid=2723
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...groupset-14555

[Particle]

I kinda like the idea of a dual-ring front mech. Now, if they'd just do one for 83mm spacing with Saint.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/article.php?sid=2723
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...groupset-14555

Interesting for sure. Also like that they include pedal reinforcement in the 2-ring cranks.

[CantDog]

15mm axle=planned obsolescence.

[rideit]

I dunno...the 15mm option looks like a great development.
QR's are flexy, 20mm are overkill for XC.
This nails the difference, with 100 gram savings over 20mm.

They are still offering QR, 20mm, 8 speed, V brakes, etc, so it's not like you are forced to buy it (the new offerings)

[Spats]

15mm is retarded for the following reason:

Wheel strength is roughly proportional to hub flange spacing. 100mm is a road bike standard, chosen to be as narrow as possible for aerodynamic reasons: road wheels don't ever see big side loads. MTBs don't care about aerodynamics, just strength.

What's worse, MTB wheels lost over 20% of their spoke strength when we added disc brakes, because the carriers pushed the hub flanges inboard. So wheels now would actually be substantially weaker than they were in the 1990s if materials technology hadn't advanced dramatically during that time.

The obvious solution has always been wider hubs. Charlie Cunningham actually built 118mm hubs and forks for a while in the 1980s, which, having no disc carrier, make wheels with 60% more spoke strength than modern disc wheels! This produces stronger wheels for the same weight, or allows lighter rims, decreasing the all-important rotating weight.

Manufacturers have always complained that it's too hard to change the standards -- but they've had multiple opportunities to address this, and totally failed each time by leaving flange width the same. The disc hub transition? FAIL. 20mm thru axles? FAIL. Cannondale and Specialized building their own special hubs for their own proprietary system? FAIL.

And now Shimano building their own proprietary standard and keeping it 100mm: FAIL.

It's like there are no actual engineers in the bicycle industry...companies will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants with FEA software trying to shave grams off a frame, but they won't do basic math on a bicycle wheel to figure out how to make it stronger or save rotating weight, which matters a lot more than frame weight.

[gravitylover]

Rotational mass doesn't mean squat on a front wheel (unless I'm missing something) all you do is push it uphill. Please don't suggest that we should obsolete all of the equipment we currently own I mean really, how many front wheels fail catastrophically due to being "weaker?" Personally I'd rather not have to add more sku's (and cost) to the inventory shops already need to stock.

Just wait, the next development is going to be 10 speed rears on mt bikes necessitating a 140mm (or even 145) spacing and the associated downsides in cornering. This is from a very reliable inside source at a very influential component manufacturing group. Their reasoning is because the market wants it and that it will also allow us to go to single chainrings up front and have large cogs in the rear as big as 38-40 teeth

[flowtron]

I hate the "no engineers in the bicycle industry" angle.

I dunno Splat. I have seriously blown up one f. wheel in my history of riding, and that was from nose casing a 15ft dirtjump. I don't worry about f. wheel strength at all. I've dinged up some rims that needed replacemant, but only folded one wheel. I think the more pressing need for the industry was figuring out how to optimize springs, damping, weight and torsional stiffness in forks, not to mention getting rear suspension to actually work well on a number of levels.


That said, with the expanding 29er market, I would bet we're gonna see some wider hub options in the near future. It seems to me like it would be the holy grail for that crowd. Hayes/SunRingle/Manitou would be a candidate for such a project, producing hubs and forks.

[rideit]

My point was that 15mm was a good axle thickness.
The 100mm width?

That is a different issue altogether.

However, I would think that it will be fine for 90% of CC riders...those that need more, well, get the 20mm option!

(more options=better, from a consumer standpoint)
however, from an ex-shop owner POV, fuck...
Rigid Singlespeeds rool.

[davep]

Rotational mass doesn't mean squat on a front wheel (unless I'm missing something) all you do is push it uphill.

You're missing something. Rotational mass at the outer diameter of your wheels (ie rims, tires, and tubes) takes 2X more energy to accelerate than non-rotating mass. Doesn't matter front or rear wheel. OTOH, rotating mass at the center of your wheels (ie hubs) doesn't matter any more than non-rotating.

[pechelman]

axle diameter is stupid
flange width is stupid
the key is to get rid of the axle and the hub

i suggest the new standard be to have no wheels
we should hop from rock to rock on our dropouts

spokes be damned!

[flowtron]

axle diameter is stupid
flange width is stupid!

I read this and was getting ready for something that would blow my mind.

the key is to get rid of the axle and the hub!

Then I read this and my mind was starting to crack a bit in anticipation of something truly revolutionary.


Then I read the rest and laughed.

[rideit]

we should hop from rock to rock on our dropouts

That pretty much describes pro trials comps.

[Spats]

That said, with the expanding 29er market, I would bet we're gonna see some wider hub options in the near future. It seems to me like it would be the holy grail for that crowd.

The thing people don't understand is that we lost over twice as much strength when we went to disc hubs than we lose going to a 29er wheel. That's why I laugh at all the people who say "29er wheels are flexy"...none of them made a peep when we went to disc hubs, proving that the issue is entirely psychological.

Bracing angle makes all the difference. Even if you don't taco your wheels, you still have to true them, and you're still buying rims that are much heavier than they could be. With sufficiently wide bracing you could be running 400g XC rims on a freeride bike.

Real world example: my recumbent has a 20" front and 26" rear wheel. I've had to true up the 26" rear wheel several times...city pavement is bad enough that spokes have even gone slack from the abuse. However, I have never so much as touched a spoke nipple on the 20" front wheel, and it's as true as the day I bought the bike, over five years and thousands of miles ago.

[kidwoo]

The thing people don't understand is that we lost over twice as much strength when we went to disc hubs than we lose going to a 29er wheel.

I've written my congressman hundreds of times over this.

To no avail. NO AVAIL!!!!!

Real world example: my recumbent has a 20" front and 26" rear wheel. I've had to true up the 26" rear wheel several times...city pavement is bad enough that spokes have even gone slack from the abuse. However, I have never so much as touched a spoke nipple on the 20" front wheel, and it's as true as the day I bought the bike, over five years and thousands of miles ago.

Considering how evenly distributed your weight is between both wheels on a recumbent and the typically extremely high componentry (like wheels) on recumbent bicycles, I find this shocking.

[scrublover]

save over 100gms from their 20mm hub? right. only because shimano weighs their QR hubs with them in as far as i know. someone correct me if i'm wrong. i don't really see the point of the new 15mm stuff, either.

for the weight weenie xc crowd, i bet you could design a lighter 20mm version of things, and still retain the major stiffness from a 20mm axle without having to resort to a new standard.

hell, i'll see what can do...where'd i put that dremel tool... the shadow stuff looks cool. nice for the derailleur grabbing east coast stuff. may have to try it next time i need a new rear mech. using twist shifters, i'd just have to pick up a pair of the rocket shorties and be sure to get a rear in the non-rapid rise stuff. whatever the hell it's called.

[Badger Sauce]

Well it comes down to this:

a) Buy it, ride it, break it, replace it.

b) Keep your old shit, if its not broke dont fix it.

c) Make something yourself if you think your ideas or whatever if you have it all figured out.

d) Get a snow bike, and laugh at all the poor bastards that still have to deal with inferior wheel systems.





Make a choice

[Hugh Conway]

I hate the "no engineers in the bicycle industry" angle

He means "engineers have no pull in the bike industry"

it's fact, not opinion.

[flowtron]

He means "engineers have no pull in the bike industry"

it's fact, not opinion.

Yeah. Dave Weagle has no pull in the industry.


Theres always going to be compromises between enginerding and money-making in the industry.

[bagtagley]

Theres always going to be compromises between enginerding and money-making in the industry.

And patent waffling.

[Spats]

Yeah. Dave Weagle has no pull in the industry.


Theres always going to be compromises between enginerding and money-making in the industry.

DW doesn't have much pull. If he did, he would have hooked up with someone bigger than a third-tier brand like Iron Horse.

As far as compromise, 15mm isn't a compromise between engineering and money-making -- it's a compromise between engineering and stupidity, with the balance tilted heavily towards stupidity.

[bagtagley]

DW doesn't have much pull. If he did, he would have hooked up with someone bigger than a third-tier brand like Iron Horse.

You mean like Ibis or Pivot or IF or Trek?