Shimano 9070 DI2 - I now realise how good it was.

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
BdaGhisallo
Posts: 2314
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

I have had a bit of a love hate relationship with 9150 DI2 derailleurs since I mounted them on my bike about 9 months ago. I found the RD to run very loudly and I was never able to tune the FD setup to my satisfaction. I have been running various versions of DI2 drivetrains since 7970 was introduced in 2009. I have never had any problem installing it and setting it up to run flawlessly. 9150 has been different.

For some reason, I cannot get the 9150 FD tuned to the point where the chain won't simultaneously rub the cage in both the 28 and the 14 cogs on a 12-28 cassette. I use 53-39 chainrings on an SRM 9000 PM with a King BB, with 413mm chainstays and a 75mm BB drop. It almost feels like the FD trim shift that occurs when I shift into the 13 from the 14 should happen a cog earlier, on the shift from the 15 to the 14. I tried it with the FD cage really close to the chainring. I have tried raising the FD up. I have installed it so that I have the full number of adjustment mode movements on it, and used the support bolt to push the cage out in parallel. I have installed it in the middle of the range of those adjustment steps and near the end of that range. No matter what I do, I cannot get this thing to run to my satisfaction.

Added to all of this is the issue I have been having with the 9000 rear brake caliper on my alu frame with the rear brake bringing on a heavy vibration that I can feel radiating through the top tube and up through the saddle. I have tried different pads on my various wheel types - spec pads, off spec pads, pads mounted flat and pads toed it. In all setups the rear brake caliper vibrates away. It has been massively frustrating.

Fast forward to two weeks back. I got a new frame (almost identical to the previous frame with only the headtube length being shorter). All of the components outside of the derr's and brake calipers are the same between the two bikes. I was going to move over my 9150 gear because that's the newest and best that I have. But I decided to wait on that and mounted up my old 9070 groupset. WOW! 9070 works really sweetly - much better than 9150. It was so much easier to tune and dial in and runs so much more quietly. The 9070 FD shifts great and there are no issues with chain rub in any combination outside of the 39x12, which I would never use in normal use anyway. The 9000 brakes were simple to get sorted. I simply mounted the stock pads for my rims flat to the rim without worrying about toe in and they brake fantastically with zero vibration or squeal. I thought the difference might have been the frame so I went ahead and mounted the 9150 derr's and brakes but had the same issues. F*CK!!!

The 9070 components work so well that I don't think I'll be mounting up the 9150 again. I don't know why this is but it is.

PaulH
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:50 pm

by PaulH

I agree 9070 runs quieter and changes quicker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

by Weenie


User avatar
toiyuet
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Hong Kong

by toiyuet

I hate the noise by clicking 9150 shifters to change gear, just like some cheap mouse, 9070 is much quieter.

User avatar
ms6073
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

by ms6073

BdaGhisallo wrote:
Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:59 pm
I use 53-39 chainrings on an SRM 9000 PM with a King BB, with 413mm chainstays and a 75mm BB drop.
While I had no issues setting up my bike with R9100 and an SRM 9000 with either stock Shimano rings or AB 52/38 Oval rings, I did have to add a spacer behing the DA 12-28 cassette to improve the chainline. Depending on the bottom bracket, I found the SRM has a slightly increased offset compared to a Shimano crank, not to mention Ibeleive the chainring spacing on the SRM DA 9000 spider is a tad bit wider than the Shimano FC-R9100.
Michael - The Anaerobic Threshold is neither...

kode54
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:39 pm

by kode54

Have you tried taking a spacer out of the drive side to get the chain rings closer
To the frame? Since you mentioned that the auto trim needs to be one more gear in, tells me that maybe your chain line is off.
- Factor 02 Disc + DA9170 + Enve 4.5AR CK CL hubs
- Moots Vamoots Disc RSL Titanium + DA9170 + Enve 3.4AR CK CL hubs
- Parlee Altum + DA9150 + Enve SES 4.5 Ene carbon hubs
- Argonaut Spacebike 2.0 + DA9170 + Enve SES 5.6 DT Swiss 240 CL hubs

cunn1n9
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:24 am

by cunn1n9

Biggest problem of 9100 series over 9000 series is while RD looks better being tucked in etc. it makes getting wheels out and putting them in much harder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nefarious86
Moderator
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am
Contact:

by Nefarious86

I also had the rear brake shudder issue on my Allez with 404 NSW zipps but not with any other wheel, ended up back on a non NSW 303s.
Using Tapatalk

User avatar
C36
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:24 am

by C36

toiyuet wrote:I hate the noise by clicking 9150 shifters to change gear, just like some cheap mouse, 9070 is much quieter.
Well, the crispier feel of the buttons are supposed to be one of the key improvements over the 9070 shifters. I personally like it a lot more.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

BdaGhisallo
Posts: 2314
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

C36 wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:56 am
toiyuet wrote:I hate the noise by clicking 9150 shifters to change gear, just like some cheap mouse, 9070 is much quieter.
Well, the crispier feel of the buttons are supposed to be one of the key improvements over the 9070 shifters. I personally like it a lot more.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
I agree. No matter what RD and FD I end up running, the 9150 shifters will remain.

BdaGhisallo
Posts: 2314
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

ms6073 wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:24 am
BdaGhisallo wrote:
Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:59 pm
I use 53-39 chainrings on an SRM 9000 PM with a King BB, with 413mm chainstays and a 75mm BB drop.
While I had no issues setting up my bike with R9100 and an SRM 9000 with either stock Shimano rings or AB 52/38 Oval rings, I did have to add a spacer behing the DA 12-28 cassette to improve the chainline. Depending on the bottom bracket, I found the SRM has a slightly increased offset compared to a Shimano crank, not to mention Ibeleive the chainring spacing on the SRM DA 9000 spider is a tad bit wider than the Shimano FC-R9100.
I don't think that will help the chain rub when in the 39x14 though. All that will do is move the cassette out and increase the rub on the outer side of the FD cage that I am getting now. The FD does its trim adjustment based on what cog the RD tells it that the chain is on. The FD still won't do the outward trim adjustment until I shift into the 13 cog. Or am I missing something?

As for the chainring spacing on the cranksets, I thought the 9100 ring spacing was 0.5mm greater than on the 9000. Are you saying that the 9100 is 0.5mm wider than the stock Shimano 9000 crank and the 9000 SRM is wider still?

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8542
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

It was my understanding that the spacing change in the front chainrings when going from 9000 to 9100 consisted of moving the inner ring inwards (closer to the frame) by 0.4mm. This was done to better accommodate the wider rear spacing of the dropouts made necessary by those damn mountain bike brakes . I wouldn’t think the SRM 9000 ring placement would be any different than bog stock Shimano 9000 specs. I’m not sure about that, but if SRM’s Campy implementation is an indicator, I would think SRM made the spacing identical to stock Shimano 9000. But if you now try to mix the 9000 spacing with the newer Di2, I’m wondering if that wouldn’t throw the trimming off enough to be the cause of your troubles. If I was going through this like you are I think I would get a hold of a newer Shimano crank with 9100 spacing, install it, and see if the issue is still there, just to try and isolate where the problem is. If it works fine with the new crank spacing I guess you’d either have to replace your crank with the newer one or, perhaps modify your existing spacing a bit by placing 0.4mm shims between the small ring and the crank arms where it attaches. I don’t know, as I’ve never come across this situation personally, but a little experimenting might be worth a try if you have access to a newer crank.

Regarding the brake issue, I remember you started a separate thread on that I think, and you seemed to have tried everything correctly in order to rectify it. That shuddering would drive me absolutely nuts as well.
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

BdaGhisallo
Posts: 2314
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

Calnago wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:12 pm
It was my understanding that the spacing change in the front chainrings when going from 9000 to 9100 consisted of moving the inner ring inwards (closer to the frame) by 0.4mm. This was done to better accommodate the wider rear spacing of the dropouts made necessary by those damn mountain bike brakes Image. I wouldn’t think the SRM 9000 ring placement would be any different than bog stock Shimano 9000 specs. I’m not sure about that, but if SRM’s Campy implementation is an indicator, I would think SRM made the spacing identical to stock Shimano 9000. But if you now try to mix the 9000 spacing with the newer Di2, I’m wondering if that wouldn’t throw the trimming off enough to be the cause of your troubles. If I was going through this like you are I think I would get a hold of a newer Shimano crank with 9100 spacing, install it, and see if the issue is still there, just to try and isolate where the problem is. If it works fine with the new crank spacing I guess you’d either have to replace your crank with the newer one or, perhaps modify your existing spacing a bit by placing 0.4mm shims between the small ring and the crank arms where it attaches. I don’t know, as I’ve never come across this situation personally, but a little experimenting might be worth a try if you have access to a newer crank.

Regarding the brake issue, I remember you started a separate thread on that I think, and you seemed to have tried everything correctly in order to rectify it. That shuddering would drive me absolutely nuts as well.
I think you are right about all the spec differences. My only hesitation is that the chain rub on the outside of the 9100 FD cage is not something that moving the inner chainring in by 0.4mm will fix. It would need a bigger move than that. As I said, if the FD trim movement happened when shifting into the 14 and not the 13 then there would be no issue. And, I cannot imagine that all of the WT teams that used 9000 SRM PMs for two seasons with 9100 drivetrains would put up with it. I may be doing something fundamentally wrong but I cannot see what it might be.

And that braking this is ridiculous. Never come across it in my three decades plus of riding. Very disappointing for this Shimano fan.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8542
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

BdaGhisallo wrote: I think you are right about all the spec differences. My only hesitation is that the chain rub on the outside of the 9100 FD cage is not something that moving the inner chainring in by 0.4mm will fix. It would need a bigger move than that. As I said, if the FD trim movement happened when shifting into the 14 and not the 13 then there would be no issue.
Hmmm... but if the inner ring was moved inwards and you reset, zeroed out everything from scratch, I would think that might indeed change when the trim actually happens, and it would seem to be in your favor if I’m picturing it correctly. No? And you’re positive that the outer plate of the front derailleur cage is in perfect parallel alignment with the large chainring.
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

kode54
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:39 pm

by kode54

True, but I like the fact that the cage is much more like a mid one versus a short cage like the 9070 RD.

Running a larger 30T in the rear with plenty of room.
cunn1n9 wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:31 am
Biggest problem of 9100 series over 9000 series is while RD looks better being tucked in etc. it makes getting wheels out and putting them in much harder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Factor 02 Disc + DA9170 + Enve 4.5AR CK CL hubs
- Moots Vamoots Disc RSL Titanium + DA9170 + Enve 3.4AR CK CL hubs
- Parlee Altum + DA9150 + Enve SES 4.5 Ene carbon hubs
- Argonaut Spacebike 2.0 + DA9170 + Enve SES 5.6 DT Swiss 240 CL hubs

BdaGhisallo
Posts: 2314
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

Calnago wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 1:18 pm
BdaGhisallo wrote: I think you are right about all the spec differences. My only hesitation is that the chain rub on the outside of the 9100 FD cage is not something that moving the inner chainring in by 0.4mm will fix. It would need a bigger move than that. As I said, if the FD trim movement happened when shifting into the 14 and not the 13 then there would be no issue.
Hmmm... but if the inner ring was moved inwards and you reset, zeroed out everything from scratch, I would think that might indeed change when the trim actually happens, and it would seem to be in your favor if I’m picturing it correctly. No? And you’re positive that the outer plate of the front derailleur cage is in perfect parallel alignment with the large chainring.
Would it though? The trim happens when you shift a certain number of cogs from the largest cassette cog where you set the inner stop of the FD in the adjustment mode. I am not sure that moving the base location of the FD cage wouldn't simply move the position where it initiates the trim movement in by the distance you reset the FD base location. So the FD cage would be closer to the centerline of the frame when trimming on shifting into the 13 cog, yet the 13 cog would be in the same position.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post