Next generation of Dura-Ace Di2

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
icantaffordcycling
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:03 am

by icantaffordcycling

Hexsense wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:01 pm
Uhm, i find it real useful on my ride. I look down to my bike computer, it show exactly what gear i'm in. Other than reminding me if i still have gear left to shift into,
Not saying that it doesn't add value for some riders or users. That is not my point. Simply saying that for people who don't want it, they are not forced into paying for it. There is no reason to have it integrated like @THY was suggesting. In my opinion, leaving the EW-WU111 as an add-on is fine.
For my 1x road setup, there is no risk of cross chainring and I wouldn't have that showing on my bike computer anyways. Other than the initial setup for setting shifter functions and updating it doesn't add any value to me.
Not sure what the advantage of having it integrated into the shifters/derailleurs would be if they can't get around SRAM's patents anyways.

by Weenie


aeroisnteverything
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:43 pm

by aeroisnteverything

For wireless info relay, they could just add the antennas and chip into the junction box. All the info is accessible through it, and it would fit. Does not even need any custom protocol to avoid interference - just Bluetooth.

TheRich
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

icantaffordcycling wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:57 pm
@THY what is wrong with the current EW-WU111. It saves money for people who don't want/need it. There is nothing that it offers to me other than making the initial setup easier.
The reason why the bluetooth module is so expensive is because it's a separate item. If it were integrated into the battery it would be significantly cheaper.

TheRich
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

aeroisnteverything wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:22 pm
New hub is a given, isn't it - micro spline.
Why is that?

The top gear of a road bike is used far more than the top gear of a MTB.....especially if you're talking about 12-speed MTB with a suitibly sized chainring...adding drag (at the cassette AND the chainrings) by going to a 10t on the road is completely unnecessary since we still use double chainrings.

User avatar
Alexbn921
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 pm

by Alexbn921

Correction.
Shimano will intuduce a new hub. all other hubs will need the micro spline freehub.

pedale
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:06 pm

by pedale

TheRich wrote:
icantaffordcycling wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:57 pm
@THY what is wrong with the current EW-WU111. It saves money for people who don't want/need it. There is nothing that it offers to me other than making the initial setup easier.
The reason why the bluetooth module is so expensive is because it's a separate item. If it were integrated into the battery it would be significantly cheaper.

And because shimano decided to price it outrageously expensive. You can buy decent true wireless headphones or basic gps for this price

Ritxis
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:00 pm
Location: San Sebastian

by Ritxis

Hexsense wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:59 pm
XDR doesn't actually need a new hub for road.
New freehub body, yes. But whole new hub is not required. I hope new Shimano Microspline is the same.

XDR is 1.85mm wider than XD. XD use MTB freehub width.
Road 11 speed freehub body is also 1.85mm wider than MTB 11 speed hub (which is the same as MTB and road 10 speed). So XDR is just as wide as Shimano/Sram 11 speed road freehub body.

It is a straight swap of freehub body without replacing the hub or redishing the wheel for XDR. However, it can be tricky if Shimano stubbornly only allow few selected manufacturers to offer Microspline freehub body, rather than having it open standard.
What were Sram thinking, when they developed the XD freehub? They did not have in mind to pass at 12 speeds on the road bikes? they realized later that the XD was limited for them, and they had to take out the XDr to accommodate the 12 road cassettes.................

That Shimano took it into account with the Microspline, and I won't take out a Microspline-R for the new Dura-ace 12.........

ooo
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

mtb microspline geometry sized for cassettes ≥ 10-40T (11-40T)

viewtopic.php?t=153264#p1425226
'

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 5739
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

ooo wrote:
Thu Aug 22, 2019 10:29 am
mtb microspline geometry sized for cassettes ≥ 10-40T (11-40T)

viewtopic.php?t=153264#p1425226

No, you’re overthinking this. There is no such limitation.

A standard range road cassette can be designed to fit Micro Spline fairly easily, but the largest cogs would have to be on a carrier. The length or position of the splined interface doesn’t matter except if you’re trying to build a cassette that uses individual cogs. You wouldn’t even really have to make a Micro Spline Road variant, though it would allow for a thicker/stronger carrier to be used.
Last edited by TobinHatesYou on Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 5739
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Ritxis wrote:
Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:57 am

What were Sram thinking, when they developed the XD freehub? They did not have in mind to pass at 12 speeds on the road bikes? they realized later that the XD was limited for them, and they had to take out the XDr to accommodate the 12 road cassettes.................

That Shimano took it into account with the Microspline, and I won't take out a Microspline-R for the new Dura-ace 12.........

They actually didn’t *have* to create XDR. They could have just designed monoblock 12spd Road cassettes without the extra 1.8mm since that only affects the carrier-spline interface. An analogous scenario would be if you machined 1.8mm out of a regular Ultegra 11-28t cassette’s largest cluster and used it on a 10spd HG freehub. It’s been done.

https://youtu.be/cazQt5oleo4

User avatar
pdlpsher1
Posts: 2665
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

I’m interested in seeing what Shimano will do on their power meter. Whether they stick to strain gauges on the crank arms or go with a spider based solution. The pros are probably complaining about the inaccurate L/R numbers. And truthfully I don’t think anyone really cares about L/R.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Karvalo
Posts: 1087
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:40 pm

by Karvalo

Ritxis wrote:
Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:57 am
What were Sram thinking, when they developed the XD freehub?
They were thinking "let's make it fit existing MTB hubs so people can upgrade to our new groupset really easily". And you know what? It was a really good idea.
They did not have in mind to pass at 12 speeds on the road bikes?
Why would they? It's completely irrelevant.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 5739
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

pdlpsher1 wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:02 am
I’m interested in seeing what Shimano will do on their power meter. Whether they stick to strain gauges on the crank arms or go with a spider based solution. The pros are probably complaining about the inaccurate L/R numbers. And truthfully I don’t think anyone really cares about L/R.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem isn’t just L/R balance...these PMs are reading independently low on the DS with only a slight coupling effect. Shimano’s current cranks are incapable of measuring strain properly at the “spider” since it is integrated into the DS crank. If they want to go the spider route in the future, they’d have to use a removable spider, just like everyone else.

Easiest thing for them to do is drop the asymmetry with the crank arm vs bolt pattern in the next generation while remaining crankarm based. Second easiest thing would be to come out with DA PM pedals... those would prove incredibly popular.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 5739
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Karvalo wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:23 am
Ritxis wrote:
Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:57 am
What were Sram thinking, when they developed the XD freehub?
They were thinking "let's make it fit existing MTB hubs so people can upgrade to our new groupset really easily". And you know what? It was a really good idea.

I get the complaint. There’s pretty much no drawback in designing XDR from the get-go and just supplying a 1.8mm spacer. In fact that’s apparently White Industries has been doing from the beginning with their “XD” freehubs. They anticipated XDR from the beginning.

by Weenie


morrisond
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:34 pm

by morrisond

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:28 am
pdlpsher1 wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:02 am
I’m interested in seeing what Shimano will do on their power meter. Whether they stick to strain gauges on the crank arms or go with a spider based solution. The pros are probably complaining about the inaccurate L/R numbers. And truthfully I don’t think anyone really cares about L/R.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem isn’t just L/R balance...these PMs are reading independently low on the DS with only a slight coupling effect. Shimano’s current cranks are incapable of measuring strain properly at the “spider” since it is integrated into the DS crank. If they want to go the spider route in the future, they’d have to use a removable spider, just like everyone else.

Easiest thing for them to do is drop the asymmetry with the crank arm vs bolt pattern in the next generation while remaining crankarm based. Second easiest thing would be to come out with DA PM pedals... those would prove incredibly popular.
I'll second the DA PM pedals - that would be an awesome solution.

Replacing pedals on 5 bikes is keeping me from getting other Pedal System PM's as I would then have to go and buy 4 other sets of pedals. That's a big cost on top of the PM pedals.

I love Shimano pedals.

Post Reply