Unlikely - it's the motors and the batteries that are the cost there, the cost of the transmitter would be relatively small, especially in the quantities that they're ordering now that dropper posts and other products are being integrated into the family. Plus, that would then break their design philosophy of everything functioning the same. Furthermore, there may be issues with potential patent infringement with FSA (assuming FSA holds any patents).Hexsense wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:51 pmThen can they make it half wireless?Skillgannon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:08 amSRAM said that they were looking to do a Force level product, but couldn't do it because there was no way to decrease the costs enough while increasing the weight - the cost was too heavily driven by the motors/batteries, the parts that they would, under their design philosophy, keep the same.
Like wireless shifters as usual,
only FD have receiver and battery, and it link with wire to RD. Or vice versa. Similar to FSA groupset.
SRAM 2019?
Moderator: robbosmans
-
- Posts: 3635
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:17 am
- Location: A bigger rock in the Pacific (AUS)
This board would be a nicer place if everyone would take themselves less seriously.
I almost miss Mr Search...
I almost miss Mr Search...
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
-
- Posts: 12566
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm
Not that I know of. SRAM doesn't have a patent on wireless shifting. They have a patent description for batteries attached to structural members of front and rear derailleurs. FSA WE's design uses a central battery just like Campy EPS and Shimano Di2.
Richie Porte also without any masking on his eTap 24 (or whatever) from a couple weeks ago.
-
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 3:33 am
The spline with eight bolts surrounding it are extremely similar (if not identical) to the current eagle Dub MTB chainring/crankset interface w/ 3 bolts. It would not be surprising if more bolts are needs for supporting the 2nd ring as well as rings that are much larger than a 28 - 36t MTB single ring. This would also make it very light for a single ring around cross/gravel applications, also a wide number of manufacturers have been manufacturing MTB chainrings for this interface for years. Kind of makes me wonder if the Quark is the 1 off as 98% (or more) of the cranksets and chainrings they sell will be non-Quark.Jacksoneaker wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:32 amVery very valid. One thing I find interesting as well is that the chainrings are marked “8-bolt” leading me to think that either all the new “direct mount” cranks will use the eight bolt interface, or the Quarq models need specific “8-bolt” compatible rings.TobinHatesYou wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:00 am
Then why does the chainring have an FCC ID and all those power meter related logos? Also you mean to tell me those 8 torx bolts go through the chainring and into the Quarq? That's now how the 8-bolt interface works.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 3669
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am
The banter on that post was awesome tho. Rohans "How do you get the water bottles out" and "why do you need disc brakes" comments got a solid chuckle.IchDien wrote:God, the Madone looks awful in that size.
Using Tapatalk
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 3669
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am
They need side loader cages lol
Using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:51 am
- Location: North Carolina
Quark spiders have always been 8 bolt (as are the power ready Prime cranksets) while the road and MTB “regular” cranksets have used 3 bolts for direct mount rings or traditional BCD spidersgrooveninja wrote:The spline with eight bolts surrounding it are extremely similar (if not identical) to the current eagle Dub MTB chainring/crankset interface w/ 3 bolts. It would not be surprising if more bolts are needs for supporting the 2nd ring as well as rings that are much larger than a 28 - 36t MTB single ring. This would also make it very light for a single ring around cross/gravel applications, also a wide number of manufacturers have been manufacturing MTB chainrings for this interface for years. Kind of makes me wonder if the Quark is the 1 off as 98% (or more) of the cranksets and chainrings they sell will be non-Quark.Jacksoneaker wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:32 amVery very valid. One thing I find interesting as well is that the chainrings are marked “8-bolt” leading me to think that either all the new “direct mount” cranks will use the eight bolt interface, or the Quarq models need specific “8-bolt” compatible rings.TobinHatesYou wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:00 am
Then why does the chainring have an FCC ID and all those power meter related logos? Also you mean to tell me those 8 torx bolts go through the chainring and into the Quarq? That's now how the 8-bolt interface works.
They haven’t always been 8 bolt, the older models used the 3 bolt style. I believe those were the ones that you had to send in if you wanted to change chainrings so Quarq could recalibrate it.commendatore wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:13 amQuark spiders have always been 8 bolt (as are the power ready Prime cranksets) while the road and MTB “regular” cranksets have used 3 bolts for direct mount rings or traditional BCD spidersgrooveninja wrote:The spline with eight bolts surrounding it are extremely similar (if not identical) to the current eagle Dub MTB chainring/crankset interface w/ 3 bolts. It would not be surprising if more bolts are needs for supporting the 2nd ring as well as rings that are much larger than a 28 - 36t MTB single ring. This would also make it very light for a single ring around cross/gravel applications, also a wide number of manufacturers have been manufacturing MTB chainrings for this interface for years. Kind of makes me wonder if the Quark is the 1 off as 98% (or more) of the cranksets and chainrings they sell will be non-Quark.Jacksoneaker wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:32 amVery very valid. One thing I find interesting as well is that the chainrings are marked “8-bolt” leading me to think that either all the new “direct mount” cranks will use the eight bolt interface, or the Quarq models need specific “8-bolt” compatible rings.TobinHatesYou wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:00 am
Then why does the chainring have an FCC ID and all those power meter related logos? Also you mean to tell me those 8 torx bolts go through the chainring and into the Quarq? That's now how the 8-bolt interface works.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com