RD-R9150 wheel removal issue

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
ms6073
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

by ms6073

Curious, I am having no issues removing the rear wheel with the 9150 rear derailleur. According to the 9150 dealer manual, the link should be installed on the frames hanfger as follows:

http://i65.tinypic.com/16m147m.png
Michael - The Anaerobic Threshold is neither...

ooo
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

BdaGhisallo wrote:I thought one of the advantages of the new RD was that it would make wheel removal easier?


RD-R9150/RD-R9100 can be mounted using old style hanger and old style link, OR new style one-piece direct mount hanger/frame (no extra link),
wheel removal advantage only for new style one-piece direct mount hanger/frame; for old style two-piece mounting wheel removal will be slower

standard mount vs direct mount no MTB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyOp2lyeAlY

i haven't seen directmount hangers/frames on road bikes yet, even on press photos from shimano
Attachments
standard-vs-directmount.jpg
'

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6033
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Well bloody hell...
First, thank you @ooo for all the posts you've been throwing up regarding the newest Shimano stuff. It's been most helpful.
I watched that little video several times. There are some aspects of the whole "direct mount" thing for road bikes that I am having serious issues with. Sounds like the "b-link" (not sure if that's its official name but it's better than what I've been calling it till now... "that extension thingy") gets removed if you actually have a road bike with a hanger that allows the derailleur to be installed in a point in space which is significantly further back than any road bike currently available allows. Hmmm. Ok, fine. But here's what I still don't get... You say that if you do use the b-link, and you basically have to at this point, then "wheel removal will be slower". That's one way of putting it. Another might be it's a "pain in the ass". But why is this so? Can't the b-link be designed such that it places the derailleur exactly where Shimano wants it to be? Isn't that it's sole purpose? And wouldn't that then make wheel removal no different than if they had a hanger that placed it there in the first place? That's a key thing I'm still seem not understanding from your statement above. Help.
The other thing is if frame manufacturers were to actually start designing frames so the b-link wasn't necessary anymore, where would that leave other derailleur manufacturers like Campagnolo, SRAM, FSA, etc, who have designed their derailleurs around mounting them in the point in space that current hangers provide.
There are a whole lot of things here that are very quietly being "not talked about". I hope someone can shed some common sense light on all of this, because so far the 9100 rear derailleur is causing more issues than it solves. And if the one benefit I actually saw to it before (easier wheel removal) is not there and in fact becomes worse, then at least for now it is a big fat fail. I hope to gain more experience with it over the next few weeks and hopefully I will see the light more clearly than I am at the moment.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
corky
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: The Surrey Hills

by corky

It's just Shimano trying to rationalise their top end road and MTB gruppos......with the new fangled 'gravel bikes' there is a blurring of lines between road and MTBs.... this will enable them to have similarly engineered components that cuts down on production costs.....

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6033
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Yes, I get all that. I call it the "mountainization of road bikes". I've already expressed my disdain for it and am now trying to accept the realities of the market and business decisions being made. But in the end I really do hope there are some practical benefits that will result for us "roadies". Having difficulty seeing them at the moment. The last few years may go down in history as the pinnacle of pure unadulterated road bike design. What seems to be happening now is just change for change's sake, well... and to create new markets and obsolete the existing. Innovate or die, so to speak. I'm all for innovation as long as it actually improves on what's currently available. Anyway, I hope @ooo, or someone, comes back to answer my previous post as my questions are real.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

ooo
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

Calnago wrote:Can't the b-link be designed such that it places the derailleur exactly where Shimano wants it to be? Isn't that it's sole purpose?


With traditonal dropout hanger there are 3 variable (L, X, Angle - see specs), so RD position can be different
Direct mount dropout hanger specs are more specific comparing to specs of traditional dropout road hanger

Bike manufacturers are not rushing to make dura-ace only hanger,
to cover costs they prefer to wait for ultegra or 105 before adapting new specs and use same design more bikes.

it was not easy to populate DM in MTB, shimano even tried to sell groupsets without this link
(retail separate RD was sold with link - ok for old hanger and DM; groupset package/oem was sold without link - for DM only)

Some local bike shops can make hangers using old broken hanger - you can ask them to make direct mount hanger
using your old hanger with mounted b-link as example + DM specs from attachment (first thing to notice - DM hanger is not flat)

(it can be called "b-link", in specs it is called "Bracket Axle Unit")
Attachments
traditional-1.png
traditional road hanger
directmount-road-r9100-r9150.jpg
direct mount road hanger
anti-dm-link-10.png
link removal for direct mount convertion
Last edited by ooo on Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
'

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6033
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Thanks @ooo, so it seems then that unless your bike has a hanger specifically designed for the new 9100 derailleur so that you don't have to use the b-link, and none do currently, then there are zero benefits to the new derailleur other than being able to run some massively big cassettes (30+ teeth). And in the meantime, if you don't run such large cassettes on your road bike you will still have easier wheel removal with the older derailleurs. Is that a fair thing to say?
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

ooo
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

Main advertising features was: new cassette range, low-profile shadow design for better protection, new colors

Easy wheel removal - this is not feature and it was not properly tested before release,
RD-9000 - mostly easy removal, on some hangers very easy
RD-R9100 - mostly hard removal, on some hangers not that hard
RD-R9100 (direct mount) - easy removal; not sure if it's easier vs RD-9000

There is a chance that with some L, X and Angle variables it will be easy to remove wheel from traditional dropout hanger with b-link
is it 1%, 10% or 50% chance? some wheel change statistics can be revealed looking at grand tours
Last edited by ooo on Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
'

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6033
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Thanks for your candidness @ooo.
:beerchug:
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
cyclespeed
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:45 am

by cyclespeed

Hey this is weight weenies, let's not forget the new RD9100 is like 20g lighter...! (And more aero).

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6033
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Ha... but do we really know it's more aero? Please... forget I said that. :lol:
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

vanmatthew
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:20 am

by vanmatthew

Hmmm. I just got my RD-9150. It was basically the same price as the 9070 for me. Are there any performance advantages that you guys have found so far with the 9150?

vanmatthew
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:20 am

by vanmatthew

Oops. Sorry I posted after only reading the first page.

beanbiken
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:13 pm
Location: Great Southern Land

by beanbiken

Ok just for future reference should anyone need it. I took something like 0.5-1.0mm of material from the back of the "B"link where it touches the derailleur body when it's lifted to remove the wheel. I also took a small amount from the jockey wheel inner plate where it tends to foul with the cassette upon wheel removal. The net outcome is that removing your wheel is still a bit of a chore but it is doable without damaging anything in the process and the B link stopper is still hard up against the hanger as per Shimano...
Ahhh, coffee & carbon

User avatar
ms6073
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

by ms6073

I adopted the method used by Team Sky and pictured in a post on the previous page. This means that I installed the derailleur such that the 'b' link is angled further back which provides additional rearward travel when removing the rear wheel.
Michael - The Anaerobic Threshold is neither...

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post