Next gen Dura Ace

[satanas]

^ If there were tighter gaps between the gears, then yes a wide-ish front range might make more sense. If you find larger gaps annoying (as I do when they're in my flat road range) then most of the current cassettes fail unless you're going at pro peloton speeds or have a fairly slow cadence. Range is now easy to come by, but close ratios at normal speeds are not.

Overlap between chainrings reduces the need for front shifting. Yes, Di2 et al makes this easier, but doing nothing is still easier than doing something. The wider the gap between the rings, the more rear compensating shifts are needed and these take time.

Bigger gaps between rings are fine for things like touring where you're not on your limit in a paceline and close ratios don't matter, but are not IME ideal for everything.

[Lelandjt]

My bikes are all 39/53. When I hop on a bike with 36/52 or 34/50 one of the things that annoys me is the bigger step between rings. I always need to double shift the cassette when changing rings. My wife's bike came with 36/52 but we changed it to 38 and both like it better.

[jmomentum]

Shimano is still on the page of cold-forging their cassette cogs. To be fair, this tech is fine and it is what they are famous for. What could go wrong with it is that manufacturing errors can accumulate when they are putting every separate cog together. They have to maintain a very high level of precision and consistency across different molds for different cogs... So when it comes to putting 12 different cogs together... what a nightmare it could be.

Plus, molds do wear out eventually if they solely rely on their experience of when to replace the mold... though they probably will do measurements, but molds are expensive to replace. Check what Intel is doing for their wafers and just selling bad CPU to the market (if you also build PC yourself, you'd know what I am saying).

Machining seems easier in terms of making sure the manufacturing error is consistent for a particular cassette. But machining is more expensive as well, which Shimano definitely doesn't like. They are likely to prefer what could produce the most amount of products in a shorter time. Their lower-end products are flooding the market because it is dirt cheap to make and manufacturing errors don't really affect the final performance.

The cogs are not cold forged. A boron steel / titanium cold rolled sheet is out into a transfer press and submitted to different cutting/forming stages (hence “transfer”) until the final shape is acquired. Then the steel cogs go to an induction austenitizing furnace and are quenched to give them the hardness needed in service (Shimano=around 35 HRC bulk hardness) after that comes pickling (to remove the austenitizing/quenching scale) and final hot dip coating.


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

And this process is what gives shimano cassettes their toughness and durability. It seems to be a general consense that shimano has 'better' shifting than sram. If the CNC cassettes were so great, why wouldn't shimano at least make their dura ace cassettes this way? Because their stamping process may be cheaper to mass produce parts but the initial setup cost will be much more expensive than a CNC machined cassette and produces better quality.

That process does nothing to give toughness. Boron steel + quenching gives hardness, oftentimes at the expense of... toughness.

The way a cassette lets the chain go from a cog to another is related to cog design and phasing, but has little to do with the manufacturing technology as far as it allows for enough precission to accomodate the tolearnces needed by the design. Which stamping does in the case of HG / HG +/ Linkglide, as far as the tools are kept in good enough shape.

This doesn't preclude the fact that machining is a technology that allows for better precision / tighter tolerances. It can't be otherwise as the tools used for stamping are... machined. Any process can only be as good as the preceeding process is a mech engineering joke (yes we do humour too here and there).

As I said, coating is becoming critical. spacing is getting so tight and cog design so detailed that any undesired material accumulation during coating results on noise or worse.

I'm interested in comparing the different manufacturing processes for two high end cassettes like dura-ace vs sram. First, are you sure that a dura ace cassette would be hot dipped? That sounds more plausible for the lower end cassettes. I would think that a dura ace cassette would use a more controlled coating process that would not compromise dimensional accuracy.

Anyways, how would a CNC cassette wear wrt to a dura ace cassette? It seems to me like it would have a much higher wear rate and lose dimensional accuracy much quicker. My point is, why would shimano not use CNC for their high end cassettes if it produced a better product. Why is Shimano generally considered to be better at shifting. Is this related to the manufacturing process of the cassette. If CNC produces a higher precision and more dimensionally accurate cassette than what are the downsides? Are they better overall cassettes and again I ask why doesn't Shimano use this process.

[tokyolovestory]

I am expecting lighter cranks. I don't see anything that could excite me to buy the whole set.

[jmomentum]

I am expecting lighter cranks. I don't see anything that could excite me to buy the whole set.

Yeah, lighter cranks should be a pretty easy win for them after doing a complete reversal with the 9200 crankset.

[toxin]

I don't have a lot of faith in shimano making lighter cranks. They seem dead set on using aluminium.

[Greeners]

I have noticed a decline in the quality of Shimano products over the last 5-6 years. DA 9000 was their peak imo.
The finish & operation was flawless, 9100 was not as good. 9200 doesn't look as good, I don't own it so cannot offer any experience other than from people I know or reading chat forums. Shimano certainly has more people with criticisms (for the high end groupsets) nowadays it seems.

[LanceLegstrong]

I have noticed a decline in the quality of Shimano products over the last 5-6 years. DA 9000 was their peak imo.
The finish & operation was flawless, 9100 was not as good. 9200 doesn't look as good, I don't own it so cannot offer any experience other than from people I know or reading chat forums. Shimano certainly has more people with criticisms (for the high end groupsets) nowadays it seems.

I differ. I find 9200 better than 9100, and way way better than 9000. In every way. I personally don’t like the look of silver. The black looks infinitely better. I think DA 9200 is the best looking group you can buy. Miles ahead than SRAM and Campy (in the looks dept). As far as function, I still find 9200 miles ahead of 9000. The shifting speed and smoothness is a massive improvement.

I think there is some crankset improvement for sure though. I don’t know what patents SRAM has but they could do a very similar setup and make a 110x4 asymmetric spider. This would allow backwards compatibility with chainrings while also able to offer a spider based PM that actually works. It would suck for yet another standard to get around patents but seems like the best way to get a working PM for those that want it, lose some weight switching to carbon, and still having the same 4-bolt pattern to use old chainrings.

[Xabi]

I have noticed a decline in the quality of Shimano products over the last 5-6 years. DA 9000 was their peak imo.
The finish & operation was flawless, 9100 was not as good. 9200 doesn't look as good, I don't own it so cannot offer any experience other than from people I know or reading chat forums. Shimano certainly has more people with criticisms (for the high end groupsets) nowadays it seems.

I differ. I find 9200 better than 9100, and way way better than 9000. In every way. I personally don’t like the look of silver. The black looks infinitely better. I think DA 9200 is the best looking group you can buy. Miles ahead than SRAM and Campy (in the looks dept). As far as function, I still find 9200 miles ahead of 9000. The shifting speed and smoothness is a massive improvement.

I think there is some crankset improvement for sure though. I don’t know what patents SRAM has but they could do a very similar setup and make a 110x4 asymmetric spider. This would allow backwards compatibility with chainrings while also able to offer a spider based PM that actually works. It would suck for yet another standard to get around patents but seems like the best way to get a working PM for those that want it, lose some weight switching to carbon, and still having the same 4-bolt pattern to use old chainrings.

If they go carbon crankset they will need to beef up the 24mm axle, that would mean moving away from bb86/92 and getting into a new standard.

I really hope that next gen dura ace has syntace x12/UDH like derailleur hanger.

[OtterSpace]

I think there is some crankset improvement for sure though. I don’t know what patents SRAM has but they could do a very similar setup and make a 110x4 asymmetric spider. This would allow backwards compatibility with chainrings while also able to offer a spider based PM that actually works. It would suck for yet another standard to get around patents but seems like the best way to get a working PM for those that want it, lose some weight switching to carbon, and still having the same 4-bolt pattern to use old chainrings.

Shimano's head seems fully buried in the sand on this one so I'm guessing that if there are significant crankarm revisions it will be a half measure at best. They have to do something but what they do will likely be to tripple down on their current path.

Going with a separate spider would be the safer choice than an integrated carbon spider given the risk when going carbon. I might be the only one who misses the hidden bolt bb30 integrated spider SRAM cranksets but I do admit that approach is very risky and also limits angular shaping aesthetics which play a huge roll in the overall look and marketability of a groupset. As much as I hate to say it, given the move to carbon would be a bigger change I think loosing backwards compatibility would be generally acceptable given how many complain about 9200 rings on DFour with 9100 maiting molding. Changing the bcd or mounting would be an interesting choice to reduce SKU between road, gravel, and mtb but more likely to be 110x4 like you say. At least unifying GRX and road mounting would be a good play.

Like Xabi touches on the bigger part would be the axle. Many who go with Shimano love the 24mm axle so it would upset a lot of people to change so abruptly unlike SRAM who slowly moved to fully wider axles.

At this point I just have no hope for any new Shimano crankset to be appealing over a Shimano chainring + spider + SRAM E1 type setup. I just hope that whatever Shimano releases wont remove our ability to use the Shimano rings seperately. Sure the next Shimano crankset will likely be better but they are combating so many conflicting problems & inputs that its hard to see the project being well focused and anything other than a reactionary knee jerk.

I dread for the engineers working on this sub-project... Spider PM and carbon crankarms are a very mature market now with tons of players converging on simple designs so now more price sensitive too.

[BdaGhisallo]

You have to keep in mind that Shimano, at its core, is an aluminum forging specialist. They think they can do better with forged aluminum than anything they could do in carbon. They made a carbon crankset for the 7800 series to show that they could do it. They still think aluminum is the best way to go so will likely continue to refine that path.

Perhaps we might see modular cranks on the road side akin to what they do with XTR and XT, but I'd be very surprised if Shimano show up with a carbon crank when they revise their road lineup in the years to come.

[ipenguinking]

We won't see carbon crankset from Shimano if the company insists making DA components in its Sakai factory.

[spartan]

Shimano has no choice. they have reached a tech deadend with forged cranks. latest iteration weigh in at 680gm. carbon should be priority for next gen.

look at wheelsets shimano was last company to transition from aluminum to carbon in their high end wheelsets.

You have to keep in mind that Shimano, at its core, is an aluminum forging specialist. They think they can do better with forged aluminum than anything they could do in carbon. They made a carbon crankset for the 7800 series to show that they could do it. They still think aluminum is the best way to go so will likely continue to refine that path.

Perhaps we might see modular cranks on the road side akin to what they do with XTR and XT, but I'd be very surprised if Shimano show up with a carbon crank when they revise their road lineup in the years to come.

[OtterSpace]

latest iteration weigh in at 680gm. carbon should be priority for next gen.

Just adding some numbers for crankarms & spider or equivalent from what I've weighed to illustrate the deltas for everyone. Weights do not include chainrings or chainring bolts.

Stock FC-R9200 170mm crankarms & integrated spider (no PM): 550g
Stock FC-R9200 160mm crankarms & integrated spider (no PM): 532g
(Estimated) Stock FC-R9200 165mm crankarms & integrated spider (no PM): 541g
(Estimated) Stock Red E1 165mm crankarms, 8-bolts, & non PM spider: 305.97g + 7.84g + 50g = 363.81g [Δ: 177.19g]
(Estimated) Stock Red D1 165mm crankarms, 8-bolts, & non PM spider: 336.06g + 7.84g + 50g = 393.90g [Δ: 147.10g]
Stock Red E1 165mm crankarms, 8-bolts, & Sigeyi PM: 305.97g + 7.84g + 104.09g = 417.90g [Δ: 123.10g]
Stock Red D1 165mm crankarms, 8-bolts, & Sigeyi PM: 336.06g + 7.84g + 104.09g = 447.99g [Δ: 93.01g]
Stock Red E1 165mm crankarms, 8-bolts, & Quarq DFour PM: 305.97g + 7.84g + 166.55g = 480.36g [Δ: 60.64g]
Stock Red D1 165mm crankarms, 8-bolts, & Quarq DFour PM: 336.06g + 7.84g + 166.55g = 510.45g [Δ: 30.55g]

Like for like they are well over 150g over what they could be.

[Xabi]

I love 24mm axle because my frames don't support bigger axles properly.

SRAM's approach is disgusting, DUB and bb386 don't work properly on narrower "shimano" BBs. I can't understand how top end bikes can't be equipped with this subpar combination. Don't they have any better to offer?