Shimano CS-9000 cassette vs. CS-9100?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
eaglejackson
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:26 am
Location: PNW

by eaglejackson

Delorre wrote:Could it be that the chain and DA cassettes were a little worn (together) and the Ultegra cassette, being brand new, could cause some noise? I go through 3 chains on 1 cassette without any extra noise, but as you mention the cassette is new and the chain maybe not, it could be a explanation.
Thanks, yes, that's definitely a possibility. I need to explore..


11.4
Posts: 1097
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 4:33 am

by 11.4

uraqt wrote:I disagree that it's a small number and rare. Why did Shimano change the design.

viewtopic.php?t=118879

Look even VeloNews suggested an Ultegra cassette


Speaking with a Shimano factory mechanic, their failure rate on CS-9000 cassettes is under 0.2%. That's one in 500. Of those, carrier failure amounts to less than a third, so one in 1500. The carrier issue that's been the subject for this thread was involved less than 20% of the time (most carrier failures occurred when a chain derailed into the spokes and fell into the inside carrier). That makes it less than one in 7500 cassettes. Shimano has sold approximately 220,000 CS-9000 cassettes, which works out to about 30 cassettes that failed specifically due to collapse of this carrier. Assuming they see perhaps 30% of the actual failures, let's say that's 100 cassettes that have failed. That's still 0.05% failure rate. The rate of creaking is much higher, apparently over 1%, and is mostly blamed by Shimano engineers on improper torque when it's installed. That's why they modified the cassette.

These are data from one source. Do you have something better to show that supports the idea that this really happens a LOT?

uraqt
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:53 am

by uraqt

Sure right Shimano is great trusted source.

C

PS It make no sense that the metal carrier fails when a chain derailed into the spokes and falls into the inside carrier. That is even worse that the carbon failing. The cassette is just bad and should be recalled.

spartan
Posts: 1076
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:52 am

by spartan

my friends own a bikeshop. one of them is a head mechanic. in four years they have seen ZERO dura-ace cassette failures.
they service dura-ace bikes constantly.
Current Rides:

2017 Giant TCR Advanced SL 0 DI2 9150

pdlpsher1
Posts: 1324
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

There are plenty of pictures of failed cassettes if you Google it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dez33
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:02 am

by Dez33

pdlpsher1 wrote:There are plenty of pictures of failed cassettes if you Google it.


I witnessed one first hand, luckily my mate and not me but didn't end well. Broke in the same place as all the google pictures. I have run Ultegra cassettes ever since.

11.4
Posts: 1097
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 4:33 am

by 11.4

pdlpsher1 wrote:There are plenty of pictures of failed cassettes if you Google it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And plenty of pictures of Bigfoot as well.

Those should be relatively good numbers from Shimano. I'd trust the source. And like many people here have said, a lot of people haven't seen them. Anecdotal reports don't count for much. And I've seen dozens of photos of the same broken cassette.

Believe what you want, but anyone should ask why one person can have six or ten cassette breakages while many people have none.

pdlpsher1
Posts: 1324
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

The issue isn't whether the failure rate is high or low. The real issue is how does the top of the line Shimano cassette compare to the Campy Record and Sram Red. How many failures are on those? I don't recall anyone complaining failures on those.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

11.4
Posts: 1097
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 4:33 am

by 11.4

pdlpsher1 wrote:The issue isn't whether the failure rate is high or low. The real issue is how does the top of the line Shimano cassette compare to the Campy Record and Sram Red. How many failures are on those? I don't recall anyone complaining failures on those.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The issue actually IS whether the failure rate is high or low. If it's low, and if Campy or SRAM rates are low, then they are comparable. Right? The point is that the failure rate is low according to actual sales and returns statistics.

kode54
Posts: 1102
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:39 pm

by kode54

in my case, the weak link were the rivets. three were completely out...causing the 19 T cog to snap. before it happened, the sensation felt like i had a flat tire right before the cassette broke into 3-pieces.. i did send it back to Shimano...and a new cassette came back in the mail with the newer rivet design with 8.
- AX Lightness Vial EVO D + DA9150 + Enve SES 3.4 carbon hubs
- Parlee Altum + DA9150 + Enve SES 4.5 carbon hubs
- Parlee ESX + DA9150 + THM SRM PM + Enve SES 6.7 CK hubs
- Independent Fabrication Ti FLW + DA9100 + Enve 3.4 CK hubs

upside
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:26 am
Location: USA

by upside

I had two that started creaking so bad... Shimano replaced those, sold them and ran Ultegra ever since and no issues. That was back about four years ago.

pdlpsher1
Posts: 1324
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

11.4 wrote:
uraqt wrote:I disagree that it's a small number and rare. Why did Shimano change the design.

viewtopic.php?t=118879

Look even VeloNews suggested an Ultegra cassette


Speaking with a Shimano factory mechanic, their failure rate on CS-9000 cassettes is under 0.2%. That's one in 500. Of those, carrier failure amounts to less than a third, so one in 1500. The carrier issue that's been the subject for this thread was involved less than 20% of the time (most carrier failures occurred when a chain derailed into the spokes and fell into the inside carrier). That makes it less than one in 7500 cassettes. Shimano has sold approximately 220,000 CS-9000 cassettes, which works out to about 30 cassettes that failed specifically due to collapse of this carrier. Assuming they see perhaps 30% of the actual failures, let's say that's 100 cassettes that have failed. That's still 0.05% failure rate. The rate of creaking is much higher, apparently over 1%, and is mostly blamed by Shimano engineers on improper torque when it's installed. That's why they modified the cassette.

These are data from one source. Do you have something better to show that supports the idea that this really happens a LOT?


If Shimano believes the failures are blamed by improper torque, why don't we see any failures on Sram or Campy cassettes? And if Shimano was so adamant it's user error why did they bother redesigning the part?

pdlpsher1
Posts: 1324
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

11.4 wrote:
pdlpsher1 wrote:The issue isn't whether the failure rate is high or low. The real issue is how does the top of the line Shimano cassette compare to the Campy Record and Sram Red. How many failures are on those? I don't recall anyone complaining failures on those.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The issue actually IS whether the failure rate is high or low. If it's low, and if Campy or SRAM rates are low, then they are comparable. Right? The point is that the failure rate is low according to actual sales and returns statistics.


Claiming a failure rate is low or high without a reference point is totally irrelevant. My point is that Campy or Sram set the reference points. If Shimano's failure rate is higher than Campy then Shimano's failure rate is too high.

11.4
Posts: 1097
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 4:33 am

by 11.4

pdlpsher1 wrote:
11.4 wrote:
pdlpsher1 wrote:The issue isn't whether the failure rate is high or low. The real issue is how does the top of the line Shimano cassette compare to the Campy Record and Sram Red. How many failures are on those? I don't recall anyone complaining failures on those.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The issue actually IS whether the failure rate is high or low. If it's low, and if Campy or SRAM rates are low, then they are comparable. Right? The point is that the failure rate is low according to actual sales and returns statistics.


Claiming a failure rate is low or high without a reference point is totally irrelevant. My point is that Campy or Sram set the reference points. If Shimano's failure rate is higher than Campy then Shimano's failure rate is too high.


Umm, that's what I said.

11.4
Posts: 1097
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 4:33 am

by 11.4

pdlpsher1 wrote:
11.4 wrote:
uraqt wrote:I disagree that it's a small number and rare. Why did Shimano change the design.

viewtopic.php?t=118879

Look even VeloNews suggested an Ultegra cassette


Speaking with a Shimano factory mechanic, their failure rate on CS-9000 cassettes is under 0.2%. That's one in 500. Of those, carrier failure amounts to less than a third, so one in 1500. The carrier issue that's been the subject for this thread was involved less than 20% of the time (most carrier failures occurred when a chain derailed into the spokes and fell into the inside carrier). That makes it less than one in 7500 cassettes. Shimano has sold approximately 220,000 CS-9000 cassettes, which works out to about 30 cassettes that failed specifically due to collapse of this carrier. Assuming they see perhaps 30% of the actual failures, let's say that's 100 cassettes that have failed. That's still 0.05% failure rate. The rate of creaking is much higher, apparently over 1%, and is mostly blamed by Shimano engineers on improper torque when it's installed. That's why they modified the cassette.

These are data from one source. Do you have something better to show that supports the idea that this really happens a LOT?


If Shimano believes the failures are blamed by improper torque, why don't we see any failures on Sram or Campy cassettes? And if Shimano was so adamant it's user error why did they bother redesigning the part?


The 9000 cassettes may simply be more sensitive to someone who overtorques beyond stated spec. I don't know that, but it's a simple explanation that answers your question about why SRAM or Campy might not have as many failures. But you say "we don't see any failures on SRAM or Campy" and that's not accurate; we don't have statistics for them but I can assure you that they fail as well. It's all about whether, as I said at first, any of them fail at an excessive rate.

And why did they bother redesigning the part? So people overtorquing cassettes wouldn't be making warranty claims and giving the cassettes a bad reputation? I'd do it for that reason. Same as why you make cars so they survive crashes -- to protect drivers from themselves.


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post