Dura-Ace R9200

[Dov]

In answer to the "what should have Shimano been innovating?" question from a few pages back.

There could have been a much greater look at the rims and the material those rims were made of + pad technology that coould ahve meant a much better rim brake. This is jsut one example where the juice is proabbly not worth the squeeze for the manufactureres who have instead made less sophisticated disc-brake wheels while increasing the price/margin of them. I get why. They are a business and need to make money but they are definitely leaving all sorts of innovaiton on the table IMO.

[robbosmans]

In answer to the "what should have Shimano been innovating?" question from a few pages back.

There could have been a much greater look at the rims and the material those rims were made of + pad technology that coould ahve meant a much better rim brake. This is jsut one example where the juice is proabbly not worth the squeeze for the manufactureres who have instead made less sophisticated disc-brake wheels while increasing the price/margin of them. I get why. They are a business and need to make money but they are definitely leaving all sorts of innovaiton on the table IMO.

Dude, this is your 100th post crying about rim brakes…

[tjvirden]

In answer to the "what should have Shimano been innovating?" question from a few pages back.

There could have been a much greater look at the rims and the material those rims were made of + pad technology that coould ahve meant a much better rim brake. This is jsut one example where the juice is proabbly not worth the squeeze for the manufactureres who have instead made less sophisticated disc-brake wheels while increasing the price/margin of them. I get why. They are a business and need to make money but they are definitely leaving all sorts of innovaiton on the table IMO.

I'm afraid you're indulging in wishful thinking! There really isn't much more to squeeze out from them.....and that's why the manufacturers are taking the path they are. What sort of innovations do you imagine, that will improve significantly on the 9100 rim brakes with suitable rims and pads?

[spdntrxi]

and as less and less frames are being made in rim brake...what do you want them to do lose more money on dying platform.

[wheelsONfire]

In answer to the "what should have Shimano been innovating?" question from a few pages back.

There could have been a much greater look at the rims and the material those rims were made of + pad technology that coould ahve meant a much better rim brake. This is jsut one example where the juice is proabbly not worth the squeeze for the manufactureres who have instead made less sophisticated disc-brake wheels while increasing the price/margin of them. I get why. They are a business and need to make money but they are definitely leaving all sorts of innovaiton on the table IMO.

I understand you have a hard time to accept rim brakes are to fade away.
However, there has been so much testing and experimenting with rims tech that we never know of.
All ditched projects and ideas we never see or will see. It doesn't matter at this point because the decision has been made.
Even so, it starts to be a problem with rim brake wheels/ rims, as the new crop of rim brake rims are so wide, so we can soon not fit 25mm tires on our rim brake frames and forks because we won't have the clearance. Ride what you have and wait a few years and see where disc brakes evolution goes.
Off topic, but anyway. 2 weeks ago i caught up with an older dude. He rode a steel frame, with steel fork and down tube shifters.
We talked and obviously the guy had money enough to buy the latest and the greatest, but he told me, this bikes does almost aswell as when it was new.
I never asked when it was bought, but it was for sure long long time ago.

[usr]

If Rotor are capable of building a stiff, reliable carbon crankset that weighs 540g (and not 680g like DA) then why can't Shimano?

It's quite possible that they very well could, but refuse to do so because they earn far more doing what they do now. What percentage of possible sales do they lose by not having a 540g crank? What percentage of their margin on DA cranks would they lose of they went from the 680g crank they have to the 540g crank that they could have?

It doesn't matter to Shimano wether their flagship group is the best group they could possibly build or not. It matters wether their entry group is the best entry group they can build (while still earning non-negative money) or not. When the latter is achieved the flagship group will sell well enough based on habits, trust and loyalty. As long as they don't overstretch goodwill. And I get the impression that they are fully aware of this danger, just look how carefully they avoid ever giving the impression that some Dura Ace component could be basically the same as Ultegra just worth some lighter materials here and there (very much unlike between Ultegra and 105)

[tjvirden]

If Rotor are capable of building a stiff, reliable carbon crankset that weighs 540g (and not 680g like DA) then why can't Shimano?

It's quite possible that they very well could, but refuse to do so because they earn far more doing what they do now. What percentage of possible sales do they lose by not having a 540g crank? What percentage of their margin on DA cranks would they lose of they went from the 680g crank they have to the 540g crank that they could have?

It doesn't matter to Shimano wether their flagship group is the best group they could possibly build or not. It matters wether their entry group is the best entry group they can build (while still earning non-negative money) or not. When the latter is achieved the flagship group will sell well enough based on habits, trust and loyalty. As long as they don't overstretch goodwill. And I get the impression that they are fully aware of this danger, just look how carefully they avoid ever giving the impression that some Dura Ace component could be basically the same as Ultegra just worth some lighter materials here and there (very much unlike between Ultegra and 105)

This is not the case at all! They were quite happy (keen even) to broadcast on GCN - through Shimano employees no less - that the difference between Dura Ace [gen 9100] and Ultegra [gen 8000] was.......weight. Performance otherwise essentially the same. They judged correctly that enough people will pay the premium for a small reduction in weight. After all, WW is alive and well

As for reliable carbon cranks.......THM have a good reputation don't they? The rest are now pretty good, after many, many years of less-than-stellar reliability. All those pedal eyes coming out for example, from all of the brands....

I hope Shimano do start to move more to composites, because that's where the future will be when it comes to........lightweight groupsets.

[usr]

This is not the case at all! They were quite happy (keen even) to broadcast on GCN - through Shimano employees no less - that the difference between Dura Ace [gen 9100] and Ultegra [gen 8000] was.......weight. Performance otherwise essentially the same.

They never claimed otherwise before, outside of not-yet-trickled-down years. But they do jump through plenty of hoops (and have always done I think) to avoid giving the impression of common parts. Like that kink in the drive side crank for example. Most years I think they even kept hood shape separate, surely for no other reason than giving DA buyers that warm, fuzzy feeling of exclusivity they paid for. They put a lot of effort into not allowing Dura Ace to become an Ultegra with some more holes and titanium bits.

[pdlpsher1]

It can matter a lot psychologicaly, putting things on the bike that makes you wanna push some more.

Exactly! This is what WWism is all about! The joy of riding the bike after you've swapped out a heavy part for a lighter part.

[spdntrxi]

As for reliable carbon cranks.......THM have a good reputation don't they? The rest are now pretty good, after many, many years of less-than-stellar reliability. All those pedal eyes coming out for example, from all of the brands....

I dont know.. I busted a M3 non-drive side arm... still bought the clav model which has been going strong.

[Dov]

In answer to the "what should have Shimano been innovating?" question from a few pages back.

There could have been a much greater look at the rims and the material those rims were made of + pad technology that coould ahve meant a much better rim brake. This is jsut one example where the juice is proabbly not worth the squeeze for the manufactureres who have instead made less sophisticated disc-brake wheels while increasing the price/margin of them. I get why. They are a business and need to make money but they are definitely leaving all sorts of innovaiton on the table IMO.

Dude, this is your 100th post crying about rim brakes…

No need to be rude.

[MarshMellow]

Just want to put this out there RE: Crankset Weight - It's not exactly rotating-mass so... effective weight is kinda / sorta skewed toward being a by-product of its intended function and purpose - transfer of power and transfer of torque. Also, a crankset having 'deadposts' and other mucky-muck, this revealed-in-print 100g weight 'overage' may lend itself to storing energy. You know, when pedalling the bike and not carrying the lightest bike in the land.

Dunno - that's my 2c / 1£ / .84670 Euro / 2.20 JPY

If anyone feels slighted by the value of their dollar being omitted for brevity's sake - Soorrrrwwwyy

[TwiggyForest]

If DA had a carbon crank, then Shimano can't talk about trickle down technology to Ultegra and 105. Besides the vast majority of sales are OEM bike builds so the fact there are lighter carbon options available is going to take away almost no sales.

[Cemicar]

The reason Shimano is less likely to produce the carbon crank is because they seem to want to sell their crank-based powermeters and carbons are not so consistent and predictable for temperatures change. I think they should have acquired 4iiii or Stages rather than Pioneers which if I remember correctly only supported the limited carbon cranks of FSA but even it ceased halfway.

[pdlpsher1]

Given Shimano's large production volumes it would be very difficult for them to switch crank material from aluminum to carbon. They would have to setup huge production lines to product carbon. Perhaps in a non-pandemic year they could have considered it but at the present the easy and 'no-brainer' decision is to stick with existing production technologies and methods. Do I want a lighter crank? Of course I do. I'm just pointing out the challenges facing Shimano. What is disappointing is that it's not so much the material remained as aluminum but rather the weight increase from 9100 to 9200. Maybe this is the result of some manufacturing process changes to address the broken crank issue. I guess we'll never know what exactly changed in the crank construction unless someone wants to cut one apart.