Shimano R9150 RD - Why so few direct mount hangers?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Well, at least the initial question of this thread has been answered. And it is not because the industry is slow to adopt new technology. Good technology, recognized by both manufacturers and users alike is adopted very quickly, provided it is economically feasible. Bad or unnecessary technology, also recognized by manufacturers and consumers is less likely to be adopted quickly. Sometimes the benefits are difficult to see from one or the others perspective and a conflict results. As users, we hate pressfit bottom brackets but the manufacturers love them because they’re less costly to produce. The manufacturers usually win because they have marketing teams to convince the users of the “benefits” of these maybe not so superior technologies, all things considered. But sometimes that’s difficult. In these cases a little nudge is often required by the manufacturers in the form of “incentives”... we’ll give you a deal on the direct mount derailleurs without the b-link if you just make your frames compatible with it”. Hmmm. Why should they? Shimano is already providing the solution in the B-link. Plus, why complicate things for people who want to run SRAM or Campagnolo, because they are both designed around the regular hanger that currently works better on the majority of road bikes than the direct hanger does. Since the frame manufacturers would now have to produce both versions, or jump into bed with Shimano completely, there is little real incentive for them to do so. Long live the B-link, and hopefully Shimano will solve the wheel removal issue by the next version. But don’t hold your breath. The mechanical shifters still eat derailleur cables for lunch.
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

pdlpsher1
Posts: 1484
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

I don't have an issue with wheel removal. The B-screw adjustment on a 'shadow' derailleur moves the upper pulley up and down and also fore and aft. I wonder if the bikes with the wheel removal issue have the upper pullies adjusted too far forward. Lastly, we saw from TDU's bike gallery that most bikes are equipped with Shimano's 'shadow' RD. Why are the pro bikes not having an issue? I would imagine it would be a huge issue if the wheel doesn't come out when the rider gets a flat. Something doesn't make sense here.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

What kind of bike do you have? Ti, steel? Not likely to have an issue because you don’t have anything behind the BB, except for maybe a support bridge of some sort. So probably a good amount of clearance between the rear tire and the BB I suspect. How long are your chainstays? I believe Trek actually moved the hanger back just a bit on their newest models (haven’t confirmed personally but read it somewhere). Still nowhere near that of a Direct Mount hanger but I would bet that’s the reason. SKY made some mods to how they set them up as well. It all makes sense. It’s exactly as I’ve described it. It certainly doesn’t affect all bikes, and granted for the vast majority it’s probably more of just an annoyance than a deal breaker. But it’s very likely an issue for bikes that fit the “perfect storm” scenario I described earlier... short chainstays, large volume tires, lots of frame material behind the BB or some combo of the three. Basically, if you don’t have a lot of clearance between your rear tire and your BB you’re likely going to be more annoyed with rear wheel removal than before. I’m not using Shimano in my latest Koppenberg build but I bet if I was I’d have the same issue. What else are the pro teams going to do... they can’t very well be seen running their sponsors last years derailleurs. They work around it, and don’t talk about it, at least not publicly. I just get tired of people praising new stuff for the sole reason that it’s new. However, if you’re running really big cassettes you probably want it; that’s the main reason for it.
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

pdlpsher1
Posts: 1484
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

My bike is Ti with a T47 BB and with a chainstay bridge. And it has 42.5cm long chainstays. So my bike is not a good presentation of the 'perfect storm' bike. But somehow all of the pro bikes in the Pro Tour that use Di2 obviously don't have an issue unless the frames are modified frames to the fit the shadow RD. It would be interesting to have someone post some photos and give an example of such 'perfect storm' bike so we can get a better understanding of the issue.

The easy wheel removal 'campaign' was first mentioned by Shimano when the very first shadow MTB derailleur was introduced. I saw some videos on YouTube and indeed the wheel just dropped out of the hanger without fuss. But this is on a MTB with a DM hanger. If one's road bike doesn't have a wheel removal issue, the addition of a DM hanger will certainly make it easier and not harder to remove the wheel. The wheel removal issue culprit is in the shadow RD design where the upper pulley is more forward, not the DM hanger itself.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

There ya go... you've got a ti bike with 425mm chainstays... very long compared to a tight road geometry. My large frame colnagos have a chainstay of just over 410mm, but loads of clearance up front as well, so likely not an issue if I were to choose one. And I did post an example of a "perfect storm" bike... my very own Koppenberg... the picture of the offending area is in one of my posts above. I love that bike, and it works perfectly with my Campy install. And it would work perfectly with prior version Shimano install. But I would bet that with the newest Shimano derailleur, it would be a pain in the ass to remove the rear wheel. I'm sure I'd manage, but I'd be cursing a bit. And it's application in the MTB world is irrelevant in the road world due to the reasons I've tried to lay out. Tight geometries, short chainstays, etc. Lots of things are different.

And you're right. The hanger, whether it is Direct Mount or not, is NOT what is causing the issue. That's what I've been saying. The derailleur ends up in the same place whether you have a DM hanger or a regular hanger with a B-link. So all this talk I hear about "if you just had a direct hanger then the issue would be gone" is BS. Because, as you finally seem to realize in your last sentence of your post... it's the design of the rear derailleur in combination with the designs of "some" road bikes that is the culprit, and not the hanger. The hanger is irrelevant to the issue. If your road bike has an issue in this regard, it's going to have it regardless of whether you have a direct mount hanger or a regular hanger. Again, it's more of an annoyance than a deal breaker. It's just frustrating to have what should be such a simple task as removing a rear wheel all of a sudden become a bit of a faff in some cases. As we continue the "mountainization" of the road bike, this will become less of an issue I'm sure. But in the meantime... "Shhhhhh.... we're so close...so close". 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

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

pdlpsher1 wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:37 am
If one's road bike doesn't have a wheel removal issue, the addition of a DM hanger will certainly make it easier and not harder to remove the wheel.
No, it won't. I'm trying to figure out why you can't grasp that and possibly explain it better. Suppose my bike doesn't have a rear wheel removal issue and I'm running the newest Shimano stuff. I have two options to mount the rear derailleur...
1) If theres a Direct Mount hanger, I just remove the B-link that comes on the derailleur and attach it directly to that.
2) If it's a regular hanger that has served us fine for so long and which Campy and SRAM still seem to be happy using, then you don't remove the B-link and attach it to the regular hanger.

End result: The new Shimano rear derailleur is where they want it to be in space, the same spot under either scenario above. The ease or lack thereof of rear wheel removal is the same under either scenario, the use of the DM hanger simply negates the need for the B-link which Shimano had to supply, or their new derailleur wouldn't work at all on a regular hanger; it must be positioned further back. You either use the derailleur with the B-link, or without it, depending on which type of hanger you're attaching it to. But in the end it ends up in relatively the same place in space under either option, and thus does not make rear wheel removal easier. At best, it will be no harder than it was before, and could be worse, but it will not be easier.

I don't think I can explain it in any more detail than I already have. Hope you can see it now.
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

pdlpsher1
Posts: 1484
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

You are correct in that the DM hanger doesn't change the position of the RD. However there IS one big difference that you overlooked. On a normal hanger, the derailleur bolt sits just below the quick release nut. On a bike with a short normal hanger, the derailleur bolt and quick release nut interfere with each other during wheel removal. I have two bikes with this issue. So to remove the wheel I first have to remove the QR nut completely. If I don't do that then the nut can scratch up the derailleur, and vise versa. Not a deal breaker but an annoyance. The DM hanger moves the derailleur bolt out of the way. If you look at the pic I posted on my bike with the DM hanger, you'll see that there's absolutely nothing below the QR nut. If you use a shadow RD and a 'B' knuckle, the QR nut will interfere with the 'B' knuckle, although the 'B' knuckle is much thinner now as the spring has been relocated to a different place on a shadow RD. As I said previously, the DM hanger will help wheel removal if you don't currently have a wheel removal issue. If you do have a wheel removal issue due to thick BB/short chainstays, then DM hanger itself won't solve your problem.

Image

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Ahhh... it's all coming back to me now. You've expressed this issue before in a different thread. And I responded in the same way I'm going to do right now again...
That is a flaw in your frame and dropout design if you can't remove your wheel without completely removing the quick release nut in order to clear the derailleur mounting bolt before you can remove your wheel. And yes, I have seen that on rare occasions and I completely agree with you, it's more than an annoyance, it completely renders your Quick Release anything but a quick release. I'm sorry for you and those frames. Care to mention the manufacturer? But that is not a problem on the vast majority of bikes that take quick release wheels and skewers. To take your pro peloton example, how many roadside wheel changes have you ever seen where they undo the QR nut completely to remove a wheel? So, the frustration you experience with those bikes when removing a wheel was of course remedied with your new bike, but not because you now have a Direct Mount hanger, but because your other bikes' dropouts were poorly designed from the get go. So you have first hand evidence in those bikes of something not being designed very well or not thoroughly thought out. That's much the same way I feel about the new rear derailleur from Shimano. Welcome.
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
wheelbuilder
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:10 am

by wheelbuilder

I'm going to hazard a guess that pedalpushers bike is a Seven? I previously worked for a Seven dealer and have encountered just what he describes on a few builds. In reference to the 9100 issue, I was exaggerating when using the word "impossible". Not impossible, but sometimes feels nearly so. Chain length and b-tension had no bearing on the issue. Removal of the chain made it much easier to rotate the whole wheel to the left, so the cassette could come in from the left lower side so to speak, as bringing the wheel straight up and in would not work at all. Just easier for me to deal with if I just get the chain out of the equation straight away, if I recognize the bike and know the wheel is going to be coming off for service.
As far as examples, sure............. A very small Dogma, A smallish BH, and one of those open-moldish Franco's. Do not remember models of the BH or Franco. There have been a few others as well that escape me, but I will keep this in mind and report back!

pdlpsher1
Posts: 1484
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

I have solved the ‘wheel removal’ mystery. I went to the garage to study the new ‘shadow’ derailleur. To move the derailleur out of the way of the wheel, you need to put pressure at the right place and the whole derailleur swings out of the way. After that is done the wheel just falls out! One picture is worth a thousand words! A regular non-shadow RD doesn’t swing back like the shadow derailleur. So Shimano is right after all. It’s us dumb users that don’t know how to properly take advantage of this great feature. I have to admit I didn’t know this until today! So this discussion has been an educational one for sure. No, one does not have to remove the chain in order to remove the wheel Image This also explains that pro bikes with the Di2 9150 don’t have a wheel change problem.

As for my two bikes with the QR nut problem, the wheel can be removed with the QR nut on but I don’t like the idea of the QR nut scratching the derailleur’s finish. I bet everyone else don’t care about the interference. So I don’t think my two other bikes are defective in the manner Colnago described.

Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

beanbiken
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:13 pm
Location: Great Southern Land

by beanbiken

I'll be damned, I was one of the early posters with this issue. I trimmed a little of the back of the "B-link" to allow the RD to "kick back" further.......... I don't have any real issues now just have to be mind full when dropping/installing the RW. But now I am wondering if I'm just doing as you have shown but not even realizing it......... Duh :oops: I feel like a real klutz.

BB
Ahhh, coffee & carbon

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I’m just seeing this and can’t wait to give it a shot. I see it’s on the 5th cog while you’re doing this. And with your dropout small and vertical, does the wheel just fall out straight down. Still might be an issue with bikes that have to use the b-link as the wheel would still have to move down and forwards, before coming out. And if that’s the case then yes, the DM hanger would be better for the Shimano derailleur, but they’d still have to produce a regular hanger for Campy and SRAM. So it just drops out easily and pops back in easily? Gotta admit I’m cringing a bit looking at the contortions you’re putting that derailleur through but if that’s what it’s designed to do then so be it. Hopefully I’ll be able to test this out tomorrow. Is there anywhere in the tech docs that describe this that you’re aware of? I mean I would never think of having to put the chain on the 5th sprocket to make rear wheel removal easier. Does putting the chain on the big ring make it even easier still (kidding :)) . I’ll report back when I’m able to test on a bike that has some of the traits I mentioned earlier. But good job if this is the secret sauce.
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

wingguy
Posts: 3768
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

wheelbuilder wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:44 am
As far as examples, sure............. A very small Dogma, A smallish BH, and one of those open-moldish Franco's. Do not remember models of the BH or Franco. There have been a few others as well that escape me, but I will keep this in mind and report back!
Odd. Chainstay length is the same on all Dogmas up to a 54, and while I've rarely worked on them I just last week swapped my wheels with a mate who's got a small-ish F8 with R9150 and there was nothing out of the ordinary with the process, let alone any impossibility.

User avatar
wheelbuilder
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:10 am

by wheelbuilder

wingguy wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:04 am
wheelbuilder wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:44 am
As far as examples, sure............. A very small Dogma, A smallish BH, and one of those open-moldish Franco's. Do not remember models of the BH or Franco. There have been a few others as well that escape me, but I will keep this in mind and report back!
Odd. Chainstay length is the same on all Dogmas up to a 54, and while I've rarely worked on them I just last week swapped my wheels with a mate who's got a small-ish F8 with R9150 and there was nothing out of the ordinary with the process, let alone any impossibility.

Great. I've not experienced the problem with 9150. The bikes I've had difficulty with have all been mechanical. Part of the problem may be the exceptionally short run of housing Shimano requires. I never said impossible. I said nearly impossible. And I advised before that even that is an exaggeration on my part. I have no dog in this fight. I don't run Shimano on any of my bikes. I've had a few bikes that were hard to work on. That is my experience.

pdlpsher1
Posts: 1484
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

I have another bike with a slightly different setup. It has Ultegra 8000 GS mechanical RD and a regular hanger (hence the RD has the B link). I took some pics to show you that the same trick applies. One thing about the new shadow RD is that the spring tension is quite high. So one needs to use a bit of force to pull the derailleur back. The key is to move the upper pulley back to allow the wheel to drop. If you don’t move the upper pulley then the upper pulley will be in be way of the wheel, potentially making wheel removal difficult. The new shadow derailleur is very different from the previous RD. The shadow RD pivots at different places and the link geometry is new. Lastly I also included a close up pic of the B link. You can see that the B link is very slim, thus reducing the chance of the QR nut interfering with the B link. On traditional RD the area around the derailleur bolt is fat because there’s a spring around the derailleur bolt. If you use a DM hanger then the B link is completely gone, thus further aiding wheel removal. I hope this helps.

ps the pic shows the RD doesn't pivot as far back as my other bike. This is because I have the B screw maxed out in order for the RD to work with a 11-40 cassette. With the B screw maxed out I was still able to pivot the RD far enough to provide plenty of room for wheel removal. By the way the 8000 GS works beautifully with a 11-40 cassette. This bike is a tandem and I need all the low gearing I can get on the steep climbs.

Image

Image

Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by pdlpsher1 on Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post