SRAM Customer Support

[tiramisue]

As an avid cyclist and long-time user of high-performance bikes, I wanted to share my recent experience with SRAM’s customer support. While SRAM is undoubtedly a major player in the cycling industry, my recent interaction with their support team has raised concerns about their commitment to addressing technical issues and advancing product development.

I've previously owned bikes equipped with SRAM RED AXS DUB and Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 drivetrains. Recently, I replaced one of my SRAM-equipped bikes with an identical model fitted with Shimano Dura-Ace. While I noticed some improvements, I attribute these differences not solely to the drivetrain but to broader engineering nuances between the two systems.

I contacted SRAM’s engineering team regarding an issue with the DUB system. In my specific case, the DUB system uses a 28.99 mm spindle within a BB86 frame. This design limits the bearing size to fit within the 41 mm bottom bracket shell, resulting in bearings with an approximate diameter of just 3 mm. Based on precise calculations, factoring in planetary behavior within the bearing, I found that this design choice reduces bearing efficiency by roughly 11% compared to a 24 mm axle system like Shimano’s. This performance gap is purely due to the smaller bearing size and does not even account for the thinner bearing races, or, due to this design, often seen as a double-row BB which would massively exacerbate the issue. I emphasized in my inquiry that my analysis excluded factors like greasing and sealing, as these are constants across both systems. Additionally, I clarified that my concerns were not based on subjective perceptions of bearing drag, as I understand how such impressions can be skewed by grease and seals.

Key Concerns Raised to SRAM:

- Friction Efficiency: The smaller bearings in the DUB+BB86 combination inherently produce higher rolling resistance under load.
- Engineering Trade-Offs: The DUB system prioritizes cost-effectiveness and broad compatibility over performance optimization for specific setups like BB86.
- Lack of Measurable Data: I requested concrete data on friction losses and durability but received none.

Unfortunately, SRAM’s response did not address my concerns. Instead, they leaned heavily on anecdotal evidence and vague reassurances:
- Their replies focused on personal experiences and claims of “perceived resistance,” without providing any objective data to counter my calculations.
- They emphasized DUB’s design goal of broad compatibility across multiple standards but admitted it wasn’t optimized for specific setups like BB86.
- Statements like “it’s not something to be concerned with” felt dismissive, especially for a high-end customer base that values engineering transparency.

I must admit that I am deeply disappointed with SRAM’s support for several reasons. First, it is frustrating that a leading manufacturer like SRAM demonstrates such a lack of transparency and appears unwilling to address constructive feedback with data. Instead of providing solid technical arguments or acknowledging potential shortcomings, their responses were dismissive and, at times, even condescending. For a premium product like RED AXS, I would expect technological excellence and customer engagement to be top priorities—not compromises made in favor of maximizing revenue and misleading consumers with marketing.

Additionally, SRAM’s tone throughout the exchange came across as unnecessarily arrogant. This attitude is disheartening and risks alienating loyal, detail-oriented customers who are genuinely invested in their hobbies.

As a result, this experience has significantly diminished my trust in SRAM and their commitment to customers. As a long-standing customer who values precision engineering and thoughtful design, I had hoped for more openness, technical rigor, and a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. Unfortunately, this interaction has left me questioning SRAM’s priorities and their ability to meet the expectations of their most discerning customers.

[eins4eins]

I think they didn't provide a more detailed answer because your mail was eye opening to them and they're busy now trying to figure out how to get rid of their engineering team to free up budget for hiring you.

[nickf]

Lack of measurable data because the data is probably unmeasurable? It's a bearing on a bicycle. I can appreciate your technical take on this but I don't think any manufacturer would have a better answer for you. Note to self, avoid BB86.

[Aeo]

Unfortunately, they cannot operate freely. You could appeal to Shimano to let them out of patent hell or to various bike brands to go make a bigger hole in their frames

[Requiem84]

Could you try to send a similar email to Shimano and Campagnolo?

[nullptr]

So you send a AI generated message to SRAM and you expect them to produce a new spindle standard for you?

It's nothing new. Avoid BB86 if you're planning to use DUB or 30mm spindles. If you wanna keep using SRAM then switch to a 24mm shimano spindle + BB and get a 107 BCD spider to fit genuine SRAM chainrings.

[lock40Nm]

- They emphasized DUB’s design goal of broad compatibility across multiple standards but admitted it wasn’t optimized for specific setups like BB86.

Very good answer, everyone knows that. DUB need bigger shells like BB86. It's not secret.

[DreadRat]

I don't know if you have ever worked for a large engineering company, but if you have you hade you would know that absolutly no company is going to answer that kind of question. Your are asking questions that are on a fairly high technical level, so if someone is going to give you an answer on the level that you want, it would have to be someone at the RnD department.

First of all, they are most likley no allowed to tell you why they have made certain choises. That sort of technical documentation is usaly confidental.

Secondly, if they were allowed to tell you, it would now be worth their time. The time it takes to find, read and present the information could be several hours. All to just stroke your ego. That time would be better used in actually developing products. Engineers (especially in the US, where SRAM is based) are not cheap.

For what it is worth, I think SRAMs customer service is great. I've had nothing but good experiences the few times I've been in contact with them.

[gloscherrybomb]

I can't believe what I've just read.

[CampagYOLO]

So you're basically telling a company that their product is flawed but don't worry, you know how to fix it?
Shocked that you got a response that you weren't expecting!

If your data is correct, how on earth do Pro teams such as Movistar and Canyon/SRAM who run BB86 + DUB combinations win any races?

[Steve Curtis]

Your product sucks but I'm of superior intellect and can save the day
Try sending a similar email to any multinational organisation and you either won't receive a response, or it will be worded similarly.

[robeambro]

I can't believe what I've just read.

+1. My god, the level of short-sightedness and entitlement is unreal.

[Requiem84]

Nobody had the feeling that the first post has been drafted with ChatGPT or another LLM?

[nullptr]

Nobody had the feeling that the first post has been drafted with ChatGPT or another LLM?

Hi Requiem84,

I see there's some skepticism about whether tiramisue's message might have been generated by ChatGPT or similar AI. While it's true that AI tools can produce coherent and detailed responses, there are a few key indicators suggesting this wasn't the case here:

Contextual Specificity: AI-generated content often sticks to generalized or surface-level information. If OP's post includes niche references, personal anecdotes, or highly specific insights about the topic, it’s a good sign of human authorship.

Tone and Style: AI often has a consistent and neutral tone. If OP's message has a unique voice, emotional inflections, or stylistic quirks, it’s more likely the work of a human.

Errors and Idiosyncrasies: Humans make mistakes or have distinct ways of phrasing things that AI might avoid. Look for typos, unusual grammar, or unconventional phrasing that wouldn’t typically appear in an AI-generated response.

Direct Interaction: If OP has replied to follow-up questions in a way that shows ongoing adaptation and personality, this further supports human involvement. AI responses can feel a bit static in comparison.

Ultimately, while it's becoming harder to distinguish AI text from human writing, the originality and authenticity of OP's message seem to lean toward the latter. Let’s keep the conversation focused on the content itself rather than its potential origin!

[CampagYOLO]

Nobody had the feeling that the first post has been drafted with ChatGPT or another LLM?

Hi Requiem84,

I see there's some skepticism about whether tiramisue's message might have been generated by ChatGPT or similar AI. While it's true that AI tools can produce coherent and detailed responses, there are a few key indicators suggesting this wasn't the case here:

Contextual Specificity: AI-generated content often sticks to generalized or surface-level information. If OP's post includes niche references, personal anecdotes, or highly specific insights about the topic, it’s a good sign of human authorship.

Tone and Style: AI often has a consistent and neutral tone. If OP's message has a unique voice, emotional inflections, or stylistic quirks, it’s more likely the work of a human.

Errors and Idiosyncrasies: Humans make mistakes or have distinct ways of phrasing things that AI might avoid. Look for typos, unusual grammar, or unconventional phrasing that wouldn’t typically appear in an AI-generated response.

Direct Interaction: If OP has replied to follow-up questions in a way that shows ongoing adaptation and personality, this further supports human involvement. AI responses can feel a bit static in comparison.

Ultimately, while it's becoming harder to distinguish AI text from human writing, the originality and authenticity of OP's message seem to lean toward the latter. Let’s keep the conversation focused on the content itself rather than its potential origin!