When will you buy eTap AXS?

[mattr]

No, they can peplace the chain rings, but they have to pay for it, as you pay for your chainrings. And BTW everytime they will get a new PM.

~€400 every time to replace worn out rings and a fully functional PM. Not even like they are especially special rings. I can get a pair of really nice rings for half that. And fit them to my perfectly functional powermeter.

[Mirco]

No, they can peplace the chain rings, but they have to pay for it, as you pay for your chainrings. And BTW everytime they will get a new PM.

~€400 every time to replace worn out rings and a fully functional PM. Not even like they are especially special rings. I can get a pair of really nice rings for half that. And fit them to my perfectly functional powermeter.

But, do you have any idea when the Sram rings are worn out? Sram claims the new rings will be worn out later then the the rings before, which I am going to use the 3rd season now, with about 12000-13000km per season, and my road bike season lasts from mid of March to mid of september. Rest of the year cyclocross.

So the new rings will worn out maybe after 4 to 5 years and that is good for me.

[mattr]

Sram claims the new rings will be worn out later then the the rings before, which I am going to use the 3rd season now, with about 12000-13000km per season, and my road bike season lasts from mid of March to mid of september. Rest of the year cyclocross.

So the new rings will worn out maybe after 4 to 5 years and that is good for me.

Thats nice for you.
I've done rings in under 10000km before now (not for several years).
New rings once a year doesn't appeal. (I've seen this "durable rings" claim multiple times. It's never been accurate.)

[Sock3t]

No, they can peplace the chain rings, but they have to pay for it, as you pay for your chainrings. And BTW everytime they will get a new PM.

~€400 every time to replace worn out rings and a fully functional PM. Not even like they are especially special rings. I can get a pair of really nice rings for half that. And fit them to my perfectly functional powermeter.

But, do you have any idea when the Sram rings are worn out? Sram claims the new rings will be worn out later then the the rings before, which I am going to use the 3rd season now, with about 12000-13000km per season, and my road bike season lasts from mid of March to mid of september. Rest of the year cyclocross.

So the new rings will worn out maybe after 4 to 5 years and that is good for me.

We ride 12 months a year here, so it sounds like they would trashed in 2 years here.

[ome rodriguez]

I find the AXS concept intriguing as I could definitely benefit from the wide range. However we all know there's no free lunch. On every gear-inch combo you are essentially running a smaller chainring and one gear higher on the cassette than on a 'normal' bike setup. So there's extra drivetrain friction on the AXS. For someone who has a FTP of 300w it might not matter much. But for the old and slow (me!) it's something that cannot be simply overlooked....every watt counts!

https://www.velonews.com/2019/05/bikes- ... ins_493185

[pdlpsher1]

I saw this yesterday and couldn’t believe the test results. Six watts between 48x10 and 53x11. I’m on a compact crank so I’m already giving up some efficiency against a normal crank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Calnago]

Gearing specifics aside, I’ve always felt the standard 39/53 rings to be the smoothest riding/shifting of all. They’re still my favorite cranks to ride although I have a mix of std and 36/52. And now that everyone seems to be ok with cassettes with 32 tooth largest cogs or even bigger on a road bike, then it makes even more sense to run the bigger rings. And that’s not even touching on the wear factor. It’s like a generation has forgotten about the Suntour “Microdrive” era... tiny rings, tiny cogs, wow... big weight savings and more clearance to clear logs and stuff. Except they weren’t smooth, they didn’t last, and where are they now... oh yeah, SRAM is busy trying to resurrect that idea, and with only one ring up front no less. I get the log clearance thing for mountain bikes, but we’re not having to jump too many logs on the road. Smoothness of operation counts. Close gear ratios also contribute to that smoothness, but I digress.

[Stuartclark1977]

I asked an after market chainring maker in the uk re axs rings and there response was:

Stuart,

its rollers are the same diameter as a regular chain (or at least on the
Force AXS chain we have here they are). It seems to be an internet
rumour that they're a different diameter.

we are working on a chainring to be used on the AXS system but on a
standard crankset. However, we don't have one in production just yet.

Best Regards

So if rollers are the same shouldn’t it work with any 12 speed ring?

[pdlpsher1]

I’ve always felt the standard 39/53 rings to be the smoothest riding/shifting of all.

I don't dispute this but some of us need the low gearing from a compact crank. So a compact crank is it for me unfortunately. And as I age I'm only gonna get slower and not faster

One side benefit to a big-ass cassette is that I can stay in the big ring longer, thus minimizng FD shifts. With my compact crank I can run 50-25 on a 11-32 cassette. I think this is an acceptable cross-chain gear combo. This means I can go as slow as 11mph while still on the big ring. If I'm on a mid-compact or normal crankset I would have to shift down to avoid cross-chaining at 11mph.

For me personally gearing range trumps close gear ratios. If Shimano can make a 12-speed 11-34 cassette then I can run a mid-compact crank. This will give me plenty of range as well as low frictional losses, albeit at a weight penalty.

[Calnago]

I’m not claiming that I’m a mountain goat by any means. I am definitely NOT a climber. But still, while I have a couple of compact cranks (34/50) in the event I take off for several weeks in the Alps or something, I never use them. I don’t understand the reluctance to shift the front derailleur. To me it happens simultaneously. Front and back together with a thought and end up in the same ratio but with a better chainline. I now use either 36/52 or 39/53. Prior to even the double compact cranks, I used a Record 10 triple (30/39/53), which with the long cage rear derailleur could run a 13/29 cassette. Now there’s a huge range and close ratios. Worse thing about that was the cleaning of the chainrings and getting teased for using a triple. But it was a Record Triple, nicest triple crank ever, and same quality as the double. And I ran it with a 12/25 cassette and the end cage derailleur. Very nice setup actually and was just fine in the Alps. Then compact 34/50 cranks came into being and the stigma of a triple could be avoided by going compact. I never liked the 34/50 combo but when the 36/52 came out and I tried it, I was ok with that and it’s not that different from the 39/53.
Yet, back then the only thing more humiliating than running a triple, was running a huge cassette, or “dinner/pie plate” as it was often referred to. Ha. And that dinner plate was 29tooth. Times have changed. Next thing you know you won’t be able to discern a proper road bike from a mountain bike except one will have knobs on the tires and the other won’t.

[Hexsense]

And now that everyone seems to be ok with cassettes with 32 tooth largest cogs or even bigger on a road bike

Where are large group of people that claim to never use any cassette without 16t now?
From what i've seen, most common cassette are 11-28 even on flat races. Then 11-30 and 11-32 before 11-25...

Suddenly now the 16t between 15t and 17t is not important anymore?

[Kjetil]

It's important to me. I use Campag 12s 52/36 and 11-29 (straight to 17, all 12s campag cassettes are like that).
AXS is actually pretty good, especially compared to Shimano:

[pdlpsher1]

Yet, back then the only thing more humiliating than running a triple, was running a huge cassette, or “dinner/pie plate” as it was often referred to. Ha. And that dinner plate was 29tooth. Times have changed. Next thing you know you won’t be able to discern a proper road bike from a mountain bike except one will have knobs on the tires and the other won’t.

Haha. I'm old enough to remember triples and corn cobblers. Yeah, how time has changed and what wasn't acceptable then it's acceptable now. Now we see pros running 11-32s

I think another factor determining gearing needs is cadence. Of all the people that I ride with, I have the highest cadence. Now, I know I don't even compare to the pros that do 100rpm or more. So I never really considered myself as having an above-average pedaling cadence. Out of curiosity I looked at the ride I did today. The avg. cadence was 81. Would that be considered low, average, or high when compared to the non-racing population? I would think it's average but for some reason no one that I ride with has a higher cadence than me. I also looked at how I pedal when climbing. I did a 6% climb that lasted 1.2mi. My avg. cadence for the Strava segment was 82. So yeah, I dislike climbing at a cadence lower than 80, hence my need for a 11-32 cassette. I did do this climb at a pretty good rate today (12mph, VAM = 1,072) so I never used the lowest gears. Bottom line is If I don't care about cadence I can easily use a 11-30 or 11-28 cassette and grind it out on the climbs. So yeah, cadence matters a lot when it comes to gearing choices.

Now as to why I dislike FD shifts.....it has nothing to do how my front shifts are performing. I have Di2 and the FD shifts fast and efficient. The issue is the amount of time spent cross-chaining. There are lots of rollers where I do my riding. Many of these rollers slow me down to 11mph for a brief period. It would be a waste of time to downshift into the small ring and then having to upshift again for the downhill part of the roller. So the compact crank and a big-ass cassette is actually pretty well suited for the terrain that I ride on. But of course if I had another 100w I could do away with the compact crank and 11-32 altogether...

[Kjetil]

I consider myself a spinner, but for some reason my average always ends up at 85-86. When climbing long hills I have a nice flow at 79-81, but on the flats I like 95-100.

[Calnago]

Even with Campy’s 11/32 cassette, the 16 is still there sandwiched between the 15 and 17. But the reason that gear has such significance is due to the speed you’re going, historically coupled with a 53 ring up front and in a group, cruising along. It’s just a very common group speed and probably the 3 most used cogs would be the 15,16,17. Without the 16, that gap is noticeable at that cruising speed, so you find yourself going back and forth between the 15 and 17 too much. But if we change the game from a big ring of 53, to a 50 or even 48, then the “magic” cog could very well be more like the 15, sandwiched between the 14 and 16. It’s only relevant in group riding really, because when you’re on your own you can just meander along at whatever pace you’re comfortable with and choose whatever gear you’re comfortable with. But in groups, cruising along at a good clip, you’re always in search of that perfect cadence for the speed the group is going at, which is not in your complete control. Basically, there is no real “magic” about the 16 cog anymore, and, at least with 2x and 12sp, there’s no reason you have to be without it anyway, unless you’re going to something really ridiculous like a 40 tooth cog at the back for the road.