When will you buy eTap AXS?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.

The question is when...?

Poll ended at Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:50 am

Right NOW!
8
3%
Soon, when I get a better deal.
10
3%
April, when Force eTap AXS would appear.
18
6%
Want it, but no plan.
46
16%
My current groupset is just fine.
198
69%
Never! Single Speed FTW!
7
2%
 
Total votes: 287

User avatar
pdlpsher1
Posts: 2194
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

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!

It would be interesting to see what Shimano does for 12-speed. Personally I favor gearing range over close ratios. I would love to see a 11-33 cassette option in the next 12-speed DA. To me that's more useful than adding on extra cog to a 11-32. And it appears that Campy has also figured out that the majority of the riders favor range over close ratios as their smallest cassette is a 11-29 on their latest 12-speed.

by Weenie


RyanH
Moderator
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

by RyanH

If my ideal gearing was 53/34 x 11-28 then 12 speed would allow me to have a 11-32 with a slight increase in jump from my 11 speed 11-28 using a 53/38 up front. 11-.30 with 53/38 would be similar to 36x28 and getting the same spacing. I suppose that could motivate me to move to 12 speed when Shimano comes out with 12 speed. I do prefer a standard chainset as the jump from big to small requires minimal cadence change and overall just feels smoother to use.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 7960
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

I suspect 53/34 would be absolutely horrible in practice even if they could get the shifting perfect on it. When I shift between rings at the front, with a fairly close ratio cassette at the back, it’s often about just maintaining the same cadence that I am running at but with a better chainline or, I’m preparing to be moving up and down the cassette to the extreme ends in that ring. Moving down I want to be in the big ring before it gets too crossed, and moving up I want to get to the small ring for the same reason. But at the initial switch of front rings I want my resulting cadence to be very similar to what I just left. So whenever I shift between rings, I virtually am always simultaneously shifting the rear by one, two or three cogs depending on the situation. Bang!... and it’s done, at both ends. I do not want to immediately be trying to find the right gear after switching rings up front. And that’s why I really don’t like the 50/34 combo... that’s what I more often than not found myself doing. With a 53/34 that situation would be even worse. Plus, it’s just a very big drop, or lift, from one ring to the next which would likely not be easily solved from a smooth mechanical perspective, and particularly not by SRAM. 53/39 is still the smoothest front chain ring combo available, both in operation and when shifting. And if we now think it’s ok to run 32 tooth cogs at the back, then how much more mamby pamby do you want to get by going with even smaller chainrings too. Does yellow make you sad?
https://youtu.be/XfmVBmDKLZI
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
pdlpsher1
Posts: 2194
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

Yeah. 50/34 is already bad enough I can't imagine a 53/34. That's the beauty of the AXS system albeit it comes at a cost (frictional losses and potential cog wear).

I don't need a 53-11 so the 50/34 works perfectly for me although each front shift has to be offset with three rear shifts. So I try to avoid FD shifting when possible.

In a 12-speed Shimano the 50/34 and 11-33 cassette would be perfect for me personally.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 7960
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

^and that is where Campy mechanical shines, being able to simultaneously shift the front and rear together, instantaneously, moving one, two or three cogs at the rear with virtually nothing more than a thought, as the physical action is pretty much the same between them. The entire shift, front and rear, is complete in the blink of an eye. I don’t even think about it, and therefore shifting the front is a no brainer. I never “don’t shift” the front because I need to shift three cogs at the back simultaneously. If the situation calls for it, done. Faster then EPS. Faster then Di2, in any mode you care to program it. And compared to SRAM, well... let’s just not.
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

MichaelB
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:31 am

by MichaelB

Calnago wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:21 pm
^and that is where Campy mechanical shines, being able to simultaneously shift the front and rear together, instantaneously, moving one, two or three cogs at the rear with virtually nothing more than a thought, .....
I do that now on my Shimano setup with no issues :noidea:

Back on topic, there are soooo many proprietry things on AXS and crap cross-compatibility (even within SRAM) and the cost horrendous, I don't know if I'd even consider it on a new bike ..

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 7960
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

MichaelB wrote:
Calnago wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:21 pm
^and that is where Campy mechanical shines, being able to simultaneously shift the front and rear together, instantaneously, moving one, two or three cogs at the rear with virtually nothing more than a thought, .....
I do that now on my Shimano setup with no issues :noidea:
With Shimano mechanical you would have to push the lever 3 separate times to move three cogs, well... at least going down the cassette.. With Campy I’ve already moved those 3 cogs in your first click. With Di2 you can program it to shift 1, 2, or 3 cogs but then you’re stuck with that number each time. Also with Di2 the front/rear shift is not simultaneous. With Campy mechanical all options are available all the time. Plus the tactile feel just allows you to get used to what 1,2, or 3 cog shift feels like at the fingers and the sound of the clicks as it shifts. Some might not care but once you become one with it, it is a big deal that I wouldn’t want to give up, and a nice one, at least for me.
Last edited by Calnago on Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
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

RedbullFiXX
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:13 am

by RedbullFiXX

Calnago wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:21 pm
^and that is where Campy mechanical shines, being able to simultaneously shift the front and rear together, instantaneously, moving one, two or three cogs at the rear with virtually nothing more than a thought, as the physical action is pretty much the same between them. The entire shift, front and rear, is complete in the blink of an eye. I don’t even think about it, and therefore shifting the front is a no brainer. I never “don’t shift” the front because I need to shift three cogs at the back simultaneously. If the situation calls for it, done. Faster then EPS. Faster then Di2, in any mode you care to program it. And compared to SRAM, well... let’s just not.
I can't even reach the shifters in the drops with Campag mech :noidea:
etap, so easy

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 3321
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

MichaelB wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:54 pm

Back on topic, there are soooo many proprietry things on AXS and crap cross-compatibility (even within SRAM) and the cost horrendous, I don't know if I'd even consider it on a new bike ..

Anecdote. I was in a random bike shop in Santa Cruz yesterday (Spokesman Bicycles I think?) They had a custom eTap AXS build with White Industries R30 cranks and the chain had no issues meshing with the VBC chainrings.

User avatar
Kjetil
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Hamar, Norway
Contact:

by Kjetil

Shipping some love Calnago's way.
Last edited by Kjetil on Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bianchi-Campagnolo
The Specialissima

Nejmann
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 6:25 pm

by Nejmann

Calnago wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:39 pm
I suspect 53/34 would be absolutely horrible in practice even if they could get the shifting perfect on it. When I shift between rings at the front, with a fairly close ratio cassette at the back, it’s often about just maintaining the same cadence that I am running at but with a better chainline or, I’m preparing to be moving up and down the cassette to the extreme ends in that ring. Moving down I want to be in the big ring before it gets too crossed, and moving up I want to get to the small ring for the same reason. But at the initial switch of front rings I want my resulting cadence to be very similar to what I just left. So whenever I shift between rings, I virtually am always simultaneously shifting the rear by one, two or three cogs depending on the situation. Bang!... and it’s done, at both ends. I do not want to immediately be trying to find the right gear after switching rings up front. And that’s why I really don’t like the 50/34 combo... that’s what I more often than not found myself doing. With a 53/34 that situation would be even worse. Plus, it’s just a very big drop, or lift, from one ring to the next which would likely not be easily solved from a smooth mechanical perspective, and particularly not by SRAM. 53/39 is still the smoothest front chain ring combo available, both in operation and when shifting. And if we now think it’s ok to run 32 tooth cogs at the back, then how much more mamby pamby do you want to get by going with even smaller chainrings too. Does yellow make you sad?
https://youtu.be/XfmVBmDKLZI
So with SR12 will there be better shifting with 53/39 - 11/32, than with 50/34 - 11/32?
I'm used to 50/34 11/28 (sram), when i ride in alps, but 53/39 - 11/32 is actually the same ratio.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 7960
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

@Nejmann: the shifting is definitely smoother between 53/39 rings versus 50/34, and yes, your lowest gear would be the same in the options you describe. You might consider the mid (52/36) too, as it’s shifting is still smooth and it would give you an extra low gear, and it doesn’t seem to leave me fishing for the right gear after a ring change. Plus, with rear cog cassette sizes of 29,32, or even larger becoming acceptable on the road, do we really need the full compact at all anymore. At some point gearing will be so low it will be faster to walk.
#mountainization of the road bike.
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
pdlpsher1
Posts: 2194
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

Low gearing is a necessity here in the Rockies front range. The Rockies is just to my west. So all climbs point to the west. In the winter the winds are from the W, NW, and N. I need an extra gear or two when climbing with a strong headwind.

I recently replaced my 11-34 with a 11-32. Shimano’s 11-34 is geared for gravel and I didn’t like the wide gaps on the higher gears (there’s no 12, 14, etc.). I’ll save the 11-34 for special climbing days.

I’m headed to the mountains today with my 11-32.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hexsense
Posts: 771
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

After gear analyzing for my usage. If the Force 12sp doesn't have 15-16t jump front ring, i'll give it a pass and go Ultegra di2 instead.
I know pros like standard (14t or 13t jump) over compact (16t jump) but i'm so used to do compensate shift in the back that big jump doesn't bother me anymore. One rear shift first, front shift, then one or two more in the back in a quick succession. I don't even have to stop powering down during the shift. Shimano FD works just fine.

Without 16t jump in the front. Added 1 cog in the back is simply there to compensate for closer gear range (overlap) up front and doesn't really give me bigger gear range or tighter jumping between gears. At that point 11sp Shimano di2 with better FD, lower profile RD, and cheaper cassette/chain is more attractive to me.

RyanH
Moderator
Posts: 2539
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

by RyanH

@calnago, try to climb this at mile 60 after smashing yourself (and the entire group) for the entire ride:

Image

The average grade is deceiving as it's high teens for a lot of the climb. I was on 36/25 and my cadence dipped to 42rpm at one point. Had I been fresh, I could've done that climb at between 5 and 5.2 w/kg but 4.5w/kg was respectable given what we had done prior.

"Mamby pamby" gears have their place. The problem is that running a compact chainset would've meant that I would've probably been dropped prior to the climb because we had several over 40mph 400w efforts. I can barely tolerate the jumps in an 11-28 cassette so a larger cassette is normally off the table but would be a necessary compromise with current gearing options.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post