SRAM is objectively better than Shimano in every way.
The illusion of choice keeps the masses happy and satisfied, so long they will not revolt
>>939244
yep, only thing keeping me from revolting
>>939250
nah, you're pretty revolting
>>939253
He said "keeping me from revolting", not "keeping me from being revolting", illiterate fucktard.
>>939255
Troll'd :^)
>>939270
>I was only pretending to be retarded!
>>939272
>I was only pretending to be revolted
fix'd
>>939240
So.....why?
>still not on that campy game
>>939315
Because campag owners are snobby ass fucks and i refused to be lumped in with them
>>939317
>posts a snob thread
>doesnt want to be a snob
>>939240
SRAM stopped producing anything beyond 3 speed internal gear hubs a year ago, while Shimano has the oil lubricated Alfine 11, so no.
>>939329
>low maintenance drivetrains with easily shiftable sequential gears are a meme
ok kid
>>939334
Heavy, inefficient, expensive, when they are above three speed they are FAR more likely to fuck up.
>>939334
You are objectively wrong and IGHs are objectively bad.
>>939338
>heavy
Good ones only marginally more so than derailleurs. For the use cases where you would want them, it's irrelevant anyway.
>inefficient
Rohloffs, the aforementioned Shimano Alfine 11, and anything 3 speed are all quite efficient. Yes, there have been tests done to prove that.
>expensive
Kinda got me there, with Rohloffs and whatnot. Remember that they make up for it by lasting a lot longer than exposed drivetrains though.
>above three speed are FAR more likely to fuck up
kek, nope, see the above mentioned Alfine 11 and Rohloff hubs.
>>939343
dunno about alfine 11 but rohloffs fuck up all the time. if the hub shell flange isn't breaking, the gears inside are fucking up.
>>939343
Keep being a shitter, shitter.
SRAM's front derailleurs are and have always been complete shit, but they made up for it (at least in the MTB domain) by introducing single-chainring designs which are vastly superior to double chainrings.
That's all the nice things I have to say about SRAM. Arguing about it is kind of like Pepsi vs Coke, Democrat vs Republican. They're mostly the same thing.
>>939387
>Democrat vs Republican. They're mostly the same thing.
Good to see /n/ is intelligent
>>939240
FUCKING CAGERS
>>939387
They're pushing single speed because they can't make a good front derailleur to save their life.
1x with a massive rear cassette and long-cage derailleur = not a lot of clearance between the bottom of the RD cage and the ground. Sure, that's next to the wheel so it shouldn't hit the ground, and you've got more clearance under the BB because of the smaller chainring... but I've bashed enough rear derailleurs in my time to be leery of increasingly long derailleur cages.
I'm still rocking a triple crankset and a close-ratio 9-speed cassette, and it's a damn good setup for XC/all mountain. Tight jumps between gears to get the right cadence when doing all-day rides on fire roads, enough range to go high speed on the flats while still enough low end for the steepest of climbs, and the short cage derailleur is tucked up in tight and away from rocks that want to rip it off the bike.
>>939390
Big tent party(also known as catch-all party to polisci nerds) look it up.
>>939456
http://www.bike-eu.com/sales-trends/artikel/2015/2/sram-stops-g8-and-g9-internal-gear-hub-production-1019292
https://www.sram.com/sram/urban/component/internal-gear-hubs (note how anything beyond 3 gear IGH is no longer listed)
Honestly, it's not a massive loss, because light, efficient internal gear hubs with high numbers of gears are few and far between. Most of the time they use grease instead of oil, put the direct drive gear (if it exists) way too low, and don't space out the gear increments evenly. At the moment, I'd say the only IGHs worth looking at are 3 speeds, the shimano alfine 11 and rohloffs. With pinion gearboxes getting an honourable mention 'cause they're awesome.
Would be nice if some company would make a good 5 speed.
>>939454
>They're pushing single speed because they can't make a good front derailleur to save their life.
Find one press release from Sram promoting single speed equipment.
>>939467
>mfw SRAM got BTFO by shimano's nexus and alfine line
>>939467
Opinions on the nexus 5?
I wuv the nexus 3
Its rugged and kawaii
>>939520
Competing in the IGH buziness is like the same in the special Olympics.
>>939550
>is like the same in the special olympics
Spend less on replacing chains and cassettes and maybe follow an English course with you money you save.
>>939510
They were definitely pushing 1x10 mtb gear like two years ago.
>>939553
The anon you are replying to is focusing on the "single speed"
I can't remember where exactly I read it, but I think SRAM's plan for MTB components is to go all 1x
>>939524
I was given a free Sram internal 5-spd hub & wheel. Heaven forbid you need to change the cable on that thing as it is extremely difficult to seat the cable into the twisting mechanism and get everything aligned and put back together.
I said fuck that piece of shit and picked up a Nexus 7-spd internal hub/wheel and the build quality, ease of use/adjustment is superior in every conceivable way.
>>939510
I fucked up, meant to type "single chainrings"
![35026[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lJxaizy.jpg "35026[1].jpg")
>>939568
Anon you replied to.
The Spectro 5 is itself a good hub,the gear stepping is very nice for flatlandia(Netherlands here)
But oh shit that "clickbox" design holy FUCK,every customer that brought one in for repair had a fucked up shifter,clickbox and/or the shifting pin(which is SOOO delicate and prone to damage).
Also you need to completely stop pedalling for it to change gear when you shift.
The replacements parts are costly too.
No wonder replacements parts are getting harder to get.
My favorite hubs are indeed the nexus 7 and especially the nexus 3,the old steel hub body SA hubs get an honorable mention too for still working after fkking decades with repairs usually consisting of replacing the pawl spring or just lubing it.
I take it you're a IGH advocate too?
>>939387
Have fun snapping your $400 rear mech. I prefer 2x9 with an SS and massive range still.
>>939510
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiALL1fnolk
>>939608
u wot m8?
A GX rear is about 80€.
>>939612
ffs
all the fucking time
it's €80 NOT 80€
>>939612
I was refering to Eagle/XX1 cost level. Only there you get equivalentish gear range to 2x10, and still a long shot from 2x11
I don't understand how SRAM is still in business, never mind that it gets $500M/y in revenue. Everything that they make is complete shit. I guess that their strategy of being the polar opposite of Campy, who make great components but have poor marketing and almost zero OEM business, does the trick.
>>939618
its called 80 euros not euros 80 fucktard
>>939361
As a tourer, only heard of a Rohloff issue once, and that was a cracked flange and fair enough. Never heard of hears going under about 40000.
>>939663
If you're a red blooded AMERICAN you buy AMERICAN.
You buy SRAM
>>939673
SRAM makes all of its crap in China. Its American HQ is mostly a marketing office with a couple of SolidWorks dudes who create amazing innovative products such as circular wheels and exploding derailers.
>>939328
>all that rotating weight
Why desu?
>>939734
Because pinion gearboxes are rare, expensive, and cannot be retrofitted. Also, an extra ~1.1kg of weight compared to an 11 speed cassette hub isn't that much. Compare and contrast the old SRAM Spectro E12.
>>939524
No direct drive, weirdly small range for a 5 speed hub, still uses grease. Although the only abnormal gap is between first and second gear, which is nice.
This is the point where I discover that Sturmey Archer *did* make a 5 speed hub (the X-RF5) that was probably decent. Good range, decent enough spacing between gears, good weight, direct drive in the middle, OLD narrow enough to retrofit to an old 10 speed bike, etc. Hard to get efficiency numbers on this stuff, but gears 2-4 should have been identical to their 3 speed hubs at least. They seem to have dropped it in favour of a notably heavier and wider rotary shift version, but it's recent enough for some online places to still sell them.
>>939553
No they weren't. That's a red herring.
>>939610
There's not a single single speed bike in that video.
>>939663
They pretty much completely own MTB drivetrains now, because Shimano refuses to diverge from their Freehub standing and therefore can't make a cassette with equivalent range. Their seatposts and suspension forks are market leaders too.
>>939623
XX1 is only one gear short of the range of a typical 2x10 setup. That's not a huge trade-off for the advantages of 1x. Shimano 2x11 does have larger range, but no MTB companies are speccing it - I couldn't find a bike specced with it until I checked Bianchi. That is indicative of how useful that extra range is considered by the market.
>>939666
Most English speakers who use the currency would say 'eighty euro'
>>939745
>standing
*standard
>>939734
The weight is at the hub, it's not like you have a lead filled rim. With an on road bike you probably wouldn't notice all that much difference and the overall weight increase isn't that huge.
Where it can matter more is with off road bikes, especially with rear suspension. that said having actually tried it I didn't find it to be an issue and it's far outweighed by all the benefits of an IGH.
Op's first post is incomplete:
SRAM is objectively better than Shimano in every way not bicycle related.
>>939789
I am-
My brain...
Anon...
What the fuck?
>>939791
SRAM makes far better fishing poles.
I have SRAM on my 3 bikes (force, rival, X0 ) and they are all shit.
Most reliable has been the Rival but it shifts like a tractor.
The 9 speed Ultegra group I had way back was far better in every way than any sram shit I've had.
Sram goes for the weight weenie demo. You grow out of that phase if you are not retarded. I can't wait to get a new Shimano group.
>>939799
My rival shifts faster than my shitty 105 and the 105 is professionaly tuned whereas the rival is tuned by myself. The 105 grinds for half a revolution while the sram shifts so quickly i don't even notice it. Also the one paddle shifting is less retarded to operate, using only one finger.
>>939801
>I bought a used bike and I'm blaming my worn cassette on the manufacturer
you're worse than those people who say carbon explodes
>>939803
Probably not a worn cassette but worn or poor cabling. Tenspeed Shimano groups aremuch more susceptible to this because of their 1:1.7 cable pull ratio, where's SRAM use 1:1.
This means SRAM shifts much better- and more consistently over time, and not just when freshly installed.
>>939799
>I have SRAM on my 3 bikes (force, rival, X0 ) and they are all shit.
Nooo!Nothing worse than being stuck with a bike(s) that don't satisfy
>>939691
Everything is made in china, dweeb.
>>939803
Shift quality is not even as good brand new.
>>939745
>They pretty much completely own MTB drivetrains now, because Shimano refuses to diverge from their Freehub standing and therefore can't make a cassette with equivalent range.
why is this?
why can the just put some xbox fuckhueg cogs on the cassette and call it a day?
>>939801
Shifting speed is entirely decided by the cassette - or more specifically, how many shifting ramps it has.
Tuning a mech takes about 0.05 IQ, screwdriver and maybe a 5mm allen.
>>939807
"much" is not a sensible term. My bikes (all shimano) shift fine even in heavy mud. Old shimano, however, greatly benefitted from the Avid Rollamajig gizmo ( pic related )
>>939828
>why is this?
>why can the just put some xbox fuckhueg cogs on the cassette and call it a day?
Shimano will offer 11-46 cassette in near future. They also have a working design for a freehub with 9T smallest cog ( shimano capreo ). If shimano wanted to, they could do an anal rape on sram and offer 9-50 cassette pretty much overnight.
They are investing in Di2 tho.
>>939745
>That's not a huge trade-off for the advantages of 1x.
The only advantage 1by drivetrain has on 2x is brainless shifting. Other then that it is all a series of tradeoffs. You either lose range or lose precision of gear selection. All that at a cost of increasingly heavy cassette ( all 'pleb' high range cassettes are 450g+ ), poor chainline on climbing gears, poor chain retention on high speed gears and poor ground clearance.
Take a look at eagle/one up shark pics - the cage is often lower to the ground then on 3x setup.
>That is indicative of how useful that extra range is considered by the market.
Market is driven by ego and retards. All people in my local riding group switched to 1x, then dropped their rings to 28 or similar retarded size, because climbing is hard and yet I regularily outclimb them. But then I have 35/21 double with 11-40 cassette. Once Shimano offers it, I'll switch to 11-46.
Intrestingly. I ran 1by with 32 front and 11-38 rear before the whole XX1 craze went on ( I am a parts designer/mfg) and kinda liked it, but overall wasn't impressed.
>>939856
Samefagging here. My old enduro SL with custom 11-38 cassette.
>>939856
>even in heavy mud.
>implying external conditions have any bearing
You an not talk away the fact that Shimano systems place 'much' (1.7 times as much) higher requirements on friction free, perfectly compresion free and immaculately installed housing.
Even Shimano admits as much. That's why the new Tiagra is not compatible with any previous tenspeed group, and the whole raison d'être du Dyna-Sys.
>>939857
Ah, so you're talking about Dyna-Sys. Holy invalidates the premise of your whole argument, Batman.
>>939862
Take a closer look you retard. That is a deore RD-M510 rear mech with a hacked cage from, afair, tiagra rear mem. That pic is before dyna sys even existed. I think that is from feb/march 2011.
>>939865
>not tenspeed
And you're straying even further from relevance here, kiddo.
>>939866
Can you read?
>>939867
Can you present a coherent argument based on actual Shimano products and not the system you built in your mothers basement with leftover ninespeed derailleur bits?
>>939869
And what point do you think I am making?
Because that bike is only to illustrate my point on this:
>Intrestingly. I ran 1by with 32 front and 11-38 rear before the whole XX1 craze went on ( I am a parts designer/mfg) and kinda liked it, but overall wasn't impressed.
Retard.
>>939856
>Tuning a mech takes about 0.05 IQ,
the Dutch must be some stupid mofo's then
>>939856
>Once Shimano offers it, I'll switch to 11-46.
So you swear by shimano cassette's?
I made a post on the /bqg/ about my sunrace cassette shifting like crap,its a little less worse lately but still shifts unpredicatable.
angle,b-screw,cable tension is all good.
the ramps on the cassette looks weird af though.
nice info you're sharing btw.
ITT: smart people and Shitmano lovers
(no, there is no overlap)
>>939888
I don't swear by shimano. I actually used cassettes from any manufacturer you can think of and found out that in 99% of cases the issue is somewhere else.
I had chosen shimano in this instance, that since I need to upgrade from my trusty 9 speed, I'll just skip 10 and go straight to 11. Since I don't want to spring mad $ to change my CK hub to XD ( neither I wish to do so ), then there is no other choice then shimano.
I am debating 11-42 sunrace cassette for that lovely red carrier tho :)
![l_cassette-miche-supertype-slijtvast-11ca_20160121104323[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WUwnn9i.jpg "l_cassette-miche-supertype-slijtvast-11ca_20160121104323[1].jpg")
>>939894
>I actually used cassettes from any manufacturer you can think of
well now I at least gotta try
Shimano
SRAM
microshift
SunRace
Miche
BBB
Campagnolo(different spacing i know)
This one looks funky,all made of anodized 7075 aluminium
>>939898
You forgot about IRD, Miche, Marchisio, E13, Hope, American Classic and KCNC.
OK - I never used an aluminium or carbon one :)
>>939901
B-but I did mention miche :(
I was actually thinking about cf cassette the last few minutes.
hopefully we'll never see one.
>it last 500Km max
>but hey,muh grams right?
>>939856
>11-46
>9-50
>heated discussion about different types of gearing
>at the end of the day, everyone reaches his goal with around the same amount of effort, but different amount of money spent
>>939960
As a shimano supporter, the worst SRAM fanboy is still 50 times better than the best cager scum.
>>939961
SJARAUM
SHEMANOE
KAMPAGMOELOE
>>939828
Previously, I would have said because an 11-46 cassette would be too heavy and require a rear mech with a too large a cage, but Sram's new 10-50 cassette makes that seem less likely. Fundamentally, Shimano seems very reluctant to imitate their competitors innovations and they are very committed to maintaining front mechs in MTB. One of the more subtle advantages of Srams 1x groups is the rear mech: it has a non-slanted parallelogram which is optimised for 1x. Shimano's mechs all have slanted parallelograms to allow front mechs, but this compromises their suitability for 1x.
>>939856
>They also have a working design for a freehub with 9T smallest cog
According to Sram, once you go that small, the polygonal forces mess with suspension action. Cogs that small wear fiercely too.
>Other then that it is all a series of tradeoffs
>chain retention
>weight
>cockpit space
>lose precision of gear selection
>poor chainline on climbing gears
I want the dirt roadies to leave.
>All that at a cost of increasingly heavy cassette ( all 'pleb' high range cassettes are 450g+ )
>Once Shimano offers it, I'll switch to 11-46.
>Market is driven by ego and retards.
You said it m8
>>939857
The roller on your chainguide is costing you a lot more than poor chainline ever will.
>>939824
>republic of china is not china
>>939240
i like shimano for MTB, as i can get 11 speed's without need a proprietary free hub
but then i like sram for road as their shifters feel nicer, and for now that's the only choice for 1x road drivetrain without doing my ganky flat bar shifter and TRP hylex combo.
>>940223
>i like shimano for MTB, as i can get 11 speed's without need a proprietary free hub
SRAM NX offers 11-42 11spd with Shimano body. The NX PG-1130 cassette is of course compatible with the more expensive SRAM 1x11 groups if you want, as is the Shimano XT cassettes.
>>939903
>No space between the number and the unit symbol
>Abusing unit symbols
Please re-read the SI Brochure.
>>940239
It's funny how you go into increasingly long periods of hiding after a good takedown. This was what, a week? It seems the selfloathing, depresion and doubt are taking a stronger hold every time. Good, good. Your suffering is well deserved.
>>940194
>>940239
>epic noodle btfo of thread after major autism overload
>si sperg suddenly resurfaces
>>940242
>It's funny how you go into increasingly long periods of hiding after a good takedown.
I don't believe anyone on this board has ever detected a genuine error in my use of or critique of others' use of SI units, prefixes or unit symbols. If you have found such a thing I will gladly apologise and bow down to the superior knowledge of SI units, prefixes and unit symbols of whoever detected such an error.
I've noticed that the quality of posts on this board with respect to the proper use of SI units, prefixes and unit symbols as prescribed by the SI Brochure has been gradually improving - this may explain why you have perceived gaps in my posting history. I can fully assure you that this is a welcome development which causes me no suffering whatsoever.
Incidentally, I have never read, much less posted in, the thread linked in >>940249. Given that said post implies that there is some confusion regarding the proper use of SI units, prefixes and unit symbols in the linked thread, I will be sure to peruse it and draw attention to any failings in the proper use of SI units prefixes and unit symbols as prescribed by the SI Brochure found therein.
>>940253
lol, suck a dick
>>940253
(No-one loves you. Your raison d'être is entirely inconsequential. You are the NEET version of don Quixote, but will die a virgin. Let these whispers remain in your ears while you cry yourself to sleep tonight.)
>>940172
>>940172
>According to Sram, once you go that small, the polygonal forces mess with suspension action. Cogs that small wear fiercely too.
According to Shimano you can sell it for years. Pic related. Canfield Bros cassette also used that system.
>>940172
>You said it m8
What did I say? That I know the tradeoffs and am willing to pay some to check new stuff. I'm a gearwhore. I know.
>>940172
>The roller on your chainguide is costing you a lot more than poor chainline ever will.
Dig more in your arse. Roller ( actually, 9t cog, coincidentally ) on a chain device I no longer own will cost me nothing. Poor chainline on 1x will cost me faster chain wear and backpedalling issues during technical climbing.
>>940172
>...but this compromises their suitability for 1x.
> Largest bike parts mfg offers slanted parallelogram for 1x
> design proven in countless bikes
> used in 1x before XX1 even existed
> somewhat compromised
(sigh)
The only thing the horizontal parallelogram on XX1 ensures is resistance to vibration induced ghost shifting. Something that is so rare that overwhelming majority of riders never experienced it.
Shimano will offer Narrow/Wide chainrings this year though. With their own meme "tooth profile".
>>939240
Worst part about this webm is that the cyclist didn't die.
>>939240
>SRAM
THe only decent product to come out of SRAM is Rock Shox, the rest is complete and utter shit.
>>940219
There is a huge amount of politics and history around the "Republic of China" being inside the "Peoples Republic of China", but as a practical matter they are two different countries.
>Don't think so? Try traveling between the two.
>>939361
You, sir, have absolutely no idea. Please refrain from commenting on Rohloff again.
>>939340
Objectively, IGH are used by millions of bikers.
Objectively, they work for them.
Objectively, otherwise IGHs wouldn't be on the market.
Objectively, you are wrong.
>>940268
Shimano have never offered a 9t cog on anything that was intended to be fitted to a suspension bike (Moultons don't count).
>What did I say?
You said Sram's 10-42 cassettes were ridiculously heavy, but you're looking forward to Shimano's 11-46 cassettes.
>>939340
Not bad, just a specialized niche. Derailleurs are lighter, cheaper, more efficient, more range, even and arbitrary steps, field maintainable, etc so ya that's a tough combo to beat. But for urban / utility work or in mud and snow the hub really pays off. It's too bad SRAM got out of it and I hope someone steps up to keep Shimano and Roholoff honest.
>>940721
>more range
If we're talking about IGH actually worth using when range is a concern (mainly off road) then the Alfine 11 has about 20% more range than a 11-42t cassette and about 20% less than 10-42t. If total range is your main concern then it's beat, but it's still pretty close. Also regarding the steps, other than 1 to 2 (24%) they're all around a 13-14% jump. If the total range is lower then I assume that a 10-42t generally has greater jumps than that.
Then you have the Speedhub which has any cassette beat with 526% range and 13.6% jumps all across the range.
>field maintainable
I suppose that's true in some regards, but then an IGH isn't go to need any maintenance in the field. The only things that could really happen is a broken chain or shifter cable (which can both happen with derailers, a chain being more likely with one) and are easily fixed with a spare. If you manage to fuck something inside the hub (unlikely) then you're just as fucked as if your freehub was to break. Then there's no derailer waiting to be smashed on rocks and trees.
>>940721
> specialised niche
Actually, this is true for many countries but not for all. In the Netherlands, there are almost certainly more IGH bikes than derailleur biks. In Germany and the UK, hubs are very widespread. To talk about a "nice" product doesn't do the IGH justice.
>>940775
*niche
>>940721
>not bad, just a specialized niche
>derailleurs are lighter, cheaper, more efficient, more range, even and arbitrary steps, field maintainable
>but for urban / utility work or in mud and snow the hub really pays off
All technically true, but rather misleading. A similar argument could be made that derailleurs are a specialised niche for when you absolutely need min weight/max efficiency to go fast, ie racing. IGHs and derailleurs both have different strengths and weaknesses with neither being truly better than the other.
A good IGH will be less than 900g heavier (less if multiple chainrings get involved for the derailleur), have efficiency within 0-3%, have roughly equal range and equally spaced steps. In return they last longer, require a lot less maintenance, don't have overlapping front/rear gear ranges to worry about, can shift when stopped, and can use a chaincase or belt drive which decreases maintenance even further. Questions of field maintenance are irrelevant, because an IGH never needs it. Cost is also hard to compare, because while IGH is more expensive upfront, when you factor in all costs over the lifetime of the drivetrain it becomes less clear.
The reason why IGHs have such a shit reputation is because, unlike derailleurs, there are still a ton of shit ones around. And when they're shit, they're really shit. (How does a massive 3+kg cannonball with 80-85% efficiency sound to you?) Even the long term players in the market still get the basics wrong, using grease instead of oil for lubricant, Sturmey Archer replacing the X-RF5 with the RX-RF5 and somehow adding nearly a kg of weight for no reason, etc.
>>940766
If a 10-42t cassette has 10% wider range than a 11-42t cassette, then how is it possible that the IGH range is 20% MORE than 11-42t and 20% LESS than 10-42t?? how did that sound right to you?
This is very very basic math anon. I know you probably suffered an american education but cmon, don't summon the SI nigger please
>>940974
>10-42t cassette has 10% wider range than a 11-42t cassette
anon... please recheck your "very very basic" math...
>>940976
Go on, please.
>>940976
Are you retarded?
>>940980
Goddamn it anon you scared him off, now we don't get to laugh and bait out SI-senpai
>>940979
>>940980
>>940982
Sorry, I misspoke. I blame the easy to abuse english language for this. The problem is ambiguity between saying "10% more" meaning x to x*1.1 and "10% more" meaning x to x+10. The other anon saying both 20% more and 20% less should have clued you in a bit. He means that the 11-42t cassette has a 382% range, the IGH has a range of ~400% and the 10-42t cassette has a range of 420%. He's wrong, because the IGH in question actually has a range of 409%, but that doesn't really matter to this discussion.
>>940984
>he's wrong
Er, "he's being exceedingly imprecise". Christ I am not on my game today.
>>940984
There is no ambiguity. "10% more" exclusively means x*1.1
420% is 5% more than 400%, not 20% more.
>should have clued you in a bit.
It clued me in that he was wrong, and very stupid (or american), yeah.
>>940988
>"10% more" exclusively means x*1.1
In the mathematical sense, yes. In the english language sense, no. But if you want to go attempt to correct everyone with your prescriptivist viewpoint, go right ahead.
>>940990
>In the english language sense, no.
You got a single source on that bro? Doubt it, because it's not true, not even colloquially. If someone does use it this way, they are simply using the English language wrong.
>>940991
>asking for an authoritative source for colloquial language
Good luck with that, since we're talking about an abuse of punctuation to overload % to mean both "percent" and "percentage point" so it'll probably never make it into a dictionary. Stuff like http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/64433.html and general observation is probably the best you'll get.
>>940996
Your own link says that 2% more on 10% is 10.2%, not 12%, exactly what I'm saying and you're not.
>B-but Jo Schmo at the pub uses it wrong so why cant I??
What the fuck kind of argument is that? You serious?
>>940999
The discussion in the link says that saying "a 2% increase" is ambiguous in english but clear in math because of the very thing I'm talking about. It then goes on to suggest different ways of rephrasing depending on meaning. Can you even read?
>trying to deny the existence of colloquial language
kek, go get into any discussion involving, say, changes in interest rates and get back to me.
>>941006
No, he says it WOULD be ambiguous, if we used percentages to represent percentage points, which is why you DON'T DO THAT, to avoid ambiguity, which is exactly what I'm saying. Can _you_ even read?
And again, I don't understand why you think other people using percentages wrong changes the definition of a percentage. It's fine if you want to use it incorrectly, and if other people figure out what you mean even though you are speaking incorrectly that's fine by me, but you are still speaking incorrectly.
Is percentage point a valid SI unit?
>>940971
> (How does a massive 3+kg cannonball with 80-85% efficiency sound to you?)
Which hubs you mean senpaitachi
>>941027
The Nuvinci N170, discontinued in 2010. Was about 3.9kg and around 80-85% efficient. Current Nuvincis are more like 2.5kg but that's still ridiculous. Also, the SRAM Spectro E12, discontinued in 1999, was at least 3.5kg, but I don't know how efficient it was.
>>941026
>Wondering whether something is or is not an SI unit
Please consult the SI Brochure.
>>939328
Is it true internal gear systems break constantly?
>>941052
If it's a drum brake or coaster brake hub, yes it constantly brakes.
>>941064
Depends whether or not the brakes are kept isolated from the gear mechanisms in the hub. Drum brakes are, coasters aren't. So it's the gear systems in coaster hubs that brake all the time.
>>940974
>If a 10-42t cassette has 10% wider range than a 11-42t cassette
where did I say that? 11-42t is around 380%, an Alfine 11 is around 400%, and 10-42t is exactly 420%.
>>940230
>thinking NX is comparable to XT and XTR.
also the XT rear mech is still cheaper than a GX mech, so it's easier to swallow when you bash it in to a rock.
>>941072
That's pretty fucking close to a 10% increase dude.
>>941073
>wat is moving the goalposts
Fanbois gonna fanboi I guess?
>>941074
Are you talking about how the Alfine is actually 408.5%? If so then I applaud you for doing your own research. You'll note that in my original post I said "about", I rounded the Alfine down to 400% and I admit that 30% greater and 10% less would've been more accurate (and more in favour of the Alfine) but the same point still stands.
sram is such garbage, their 10 speed cassette works better with their 11 speed shifters than the 11 speed cassette
All sram stuff is pinned together and not screwed together like Shimano or Campy. Sram goes for the weight weenie demographic by having less material in parts, this makes them more unreliable and more likely to break. And when they do break, you can't fix them because you can't take the thing apart, much less buy the replacement part. All shimano stuff is serviceable, no sram stuff is. You have to send the part back through warranty and sometimes it takes months. Shimano no only makes their parts serviceable, but offers the parts to buy to customers themselves. So with sram, you buy a lightly used RD, the 0.05 cent spring stretches (they all do) so now you can't return it or replace the 0.05 cent spring and the entire thing is worthless. Sram sucks.
They market the 1x meme because they could never get a FD to shift correctly.
>>941082
The line you greentexted you dumb fuck. 380 to 420 is pretty fucking close to 10%. Jesus, the people on this board...
>>939240
For road at least, sram is inferior to Shimano.
They just can't seem to match their 11sp game. Maybe they'll have better luck with the wireless stuff, but as far as mechanical is concerned there's really no comparison.
>>941088
You're just trying to be pedantic. 380% to 420% is a 40% increase. Sure 380% is close to 90% of 420% (I'm just taking your word for this, can't be bothered to math right now) but I never said it was otherwise, it's a 40% increase of the total range (which is measured as a percentage).
If you want we could just call them 3.8x, 4.09x, and 4.2x, I just felt the percentage would be easier for others to understand.
>>941091
Learn to percentage, ameritard. That's not a 40% increase. A 40% increase on 380% would be about 530%. That was an ons whole point. Your way of conflating percent with percentage points inflates your numbers by a huge margin, in both percent and percentage points.
>>941095
>ameritard
Not even close.
>A 40% increase on 380% would be about 530%
Christ.
>380% + 40% = 420%
I wasn't trying to say that 380% plus 40% of 380% equals 420%, that's retarded and if you got that impression then I apologise. I didn't think anyone else would interpret it that way, I figured that most people would simply add the numbers together.
>>941096
>I figured that most people would simply add the numbers together.
And that's very much not how you express ratios. Ratios are expressed in %, and the abbreviation you're looking for is 'pp'.
Not expressing ratios as ratios is bad enough. Masquerading pp as % to inflate numbers is beyond stupid.
>>941097
> Masquerading pp as % to inflate numbers is beyond stupid.
That wasn't my intention, that's simply how manufacturers and reviewers measure it. I don't know why they do, personally I prefer shit like 4.2x as it makes the math easier for me.
>>941098
No, that's not how 'they measure it'. They give you a ratio, expressed in percent. That you are dumb enough to attempt basic arithmetic on several ratios and express the result as a ratio without converting - that's all you. If you want to talk ratios, please do.
If money and longevity were not an object I would agree
90% of the populace better off with the heavy jap crap that lasts forever with maintenance intervals neglectef
So /n/, when are you ordering your SRAM 12 speed groupset?
>>941082
>>941091
>>941096
>>941098
>These fucking posts
Goddamn dude, if you're not American where the fuck did you receive this quality education?
I mean, grown-ass adults not being able to do logarithms and exponentiation and shit I can understand, but not understanding how ratios work? and not just that, but percentages, which you encounter every day in normal life? What le fuck
>>941168
based on his use of commas to denote independent clauses in his sentences, my guess is britcuck
>>941138
When they ship it with a triple crankset and a shimano fd
>>941138
No.
>>941138
Holy fucking shit look at the size of that cassette and derailleur I cant stop laughing just imagining someone rolling around with a fucking 50t sprocket and their XBOX HUEG derailleur cage dragging along the ground LMAO and who the fuck needs a 30t chainring with a 50t sprocket??? WHAT???? LOL
>>941286
>who the fuck needs a 30t chainring with a 50t sprocket???
The same people who used to ride a triple with a 22 t granny and a 36 t big cog. Alternatively, you could rock a 38 t chainring and keep the same low gear as with a 42 t big cog but with a 19% higher high cog.
Maybe we can has a three jointed derailleur arm next
>>941617
Yes. By the time we get spokeless wheels with a cassette so huge you directly put the rim on it.
>>941632
The derailleur arm has to be longer than the cassette, meaning it would be through the ground.
>>941286
> Huge derailleur cage
Like all the Sram 1x mechs, it's effectively a medium cage derailleur. You long cage triple is bigger.
> introduce 12 speed mtb gruppo
> 10-dinner plate spread
> massive rear mech, with extra long cage
> pretty much a trail plow at this point
> $400 a pop
> sell, wait until people mangle them, sell more
Pic related, size difference between XX1 and XX1 Eagle rear mech.
>>941807
Is pic related true?
>>942621
>$400 a pop
Which part are you referring to? Going by UK prices (which I'd imagine are higher than American) the top model derailer is less than that, the most expensive part is the cheapest cassette which converts to roughly that much.
For a full setup it comes to at least £730 or a bit over $1k, assuming the chain won't work with existing chainrings. Also you'll need a fancy pants direct mount crankset.
I honestly can't imagine there are many idiots out there who would spend that sort of money over 11 speed, it's just ridiculous. What even makes the cassette worth so much, just because it has one extra cog? Or really any of the other parts, I mean it's just a slightly smaller chain and a shifter that pulls a bit more extra cable and a derailer that moves a little bit more (12 speed cassettes are wider, right?).
>>942646
>XX1 Eagle pricing:
>Cranks – $425 | €463 | £356
>Cassette – $420 | €458 | £353
>Chain – $60-85 | €66-92 | £50-71
>Triggers – $162 | €170 | £131
>Gripshift – $148 | €155 | £119
>Derailleur – $289 | €304 | £234
Sorry, the mech is $300. Still astronomical. The full setup is ~£1250
>>942646
>What even makes the cassette worth so much, just because it has one extra cog?
Machining. Steel is very difficult to machine ( about 4 times more expensive ) and all SRAM cassettes which share this construction use a shitton of it.
http://www.cyclingindustry.news/retail-comment-why-ive-finished-a-long-relationship-with-shimano-until-dealers-take-a-stand/
What say you, /n/?
>>942653
Shimano has a terrible corporate culture. They are too comfy in their dominant role. Which is going to kill them off, just like Campy is withering down for years now.
SRAM on the other hand, is the chief responsible for the standard diarrhea we are having at this point.
>>942650
There are cheaper derailer (~£180) and cassette (~£300) options than those that you listed, those are what I used in my price up. Are there really no cheaper direct mount cranks than that, or did they switch things up for 12 speed?
>>942651
But still, it's £200 more than the cheapest 11 speed cassette from SRAM, £100 more than the most expensive. The extra metal and machining time in that one extra cog can't possibly justify that price increase.
I get that because they have the niche they can charge more (whatever they damn well like really, if it's the only choice), but I don't see why Shimano couldn't undercut them massively with such ludicrous pricing.
>>942651
What is so much more difficult to machine vs 11 speed componentry?
Tolerances?
Steel quality?
Fred tax?
Genuine question btw
>>942658
>I get that because they have the niche they can charge more (whatever they damn well like really, if it's the only choice), but I don't see why Shimano couldn't undercut them massively with such ludicrous pricing.
One thing that is always true for shimano, is that they always try to make it their way, essentially forcing the market to do their bidding. Besides, it is an image issue. Shimano simply cannot allow itsself to be seen as "mee-tooist". So they push sequential Di2 or continue to push for front mech.
But now they will offer N/W rings.
And why would they undercut SRAM in the first place, when they can release their own versions of all that at the same price point and do aggresive advertising to ride the wave with SRAM on the lead.
>>942659
Steel is harder, as a material, on the tools. Where you could use, say, 5mm/second tool movement, now you might need 1mm/second. Essentially tying your expensive CNC mill for much more time.
Moreover, the cassettes themselves are very complicated, so they need lots of machining and most likely their own dedicated tools, which drives up cost.
Consider this. Typical flat pedal requires a litte work to get it done, and they fly $50 a pair, or more. Taiwainese manufacturers make them by containerload.
At the same time, entire steel cassette costs $400 and requires, according to sram, 10 hours of machining.
All things considered, those cassettes are quite cheap. They are also a monument of our decadence, where wear parts are cost more then a month of living in some countries.
>>942660
>why would they undercut SRAM in the first place
If I was Shimano (bear in mind I'm no businessman) I'd push 12 speed at the same price (or close) as SRAM's 11 speed. If you've gotta get all new shit anyway then no one other than the hardcore fanboys would go SRAM for 12 speed and some would even jump ship to Shimano for 12 speed over 11. That's just me though, perhaps the increased profit at a higher price makes up for less product sold.
>>942662
>Typical flat pedal requires a litte work to get it done, and they fly $50 a pair, or more
That depends. Cast pedals don't need much machine work but you've gotta have a foundry set up (where as cassettes would be machined from sheet stock), fully CNC machined pedals can be made from billet stock but then they require extensive machine time potentially on costly 5 axis mills or in multiple processes. $50 for that is more than reasonable.
>according to sram, 10 hours of machining.
That's gotta be marketing bullshit. Just take a look at one of the cassettes, the individual cogs aren't complicated enough to take an average of 50 minutes each. The bulk of the profiling can be stamped, then it's just one machining pass on each side to mill some minor reliefs and clean up the tooth and spline profiles. After that chuck them in a tumbler and then coat them (neither would count as machining time, but overall production time) and pin/screw together the large cluster.
>>942681
>That's gotta be marketing bullshit. Just take a look at one of the cassettes, the individual cogs aren't complicated enough to take an average of 50 minutes each. The bulk of the profiling can be stamped, then it's just one machining pass on each side to mill some minor reliefs and clean up the tooth and spline profiles. After that chuck them in a tumbler and then coat them (neither would count as machining time, but overall production time) and pin/screw together the large cluster.
Not really. What sram dubbed "x-dome technology" is essentially taking a billet of metal and machining the entire cassette, sans the biggest cog, out of it. This allows to make those XX type cassettes so light while still being mostly steel. I can believe this takes alot of mill time.
Pic related.
>>942695
My apologies, I was mistaken. I had seen that shit before (pretty cool btw) but didn't realise it was SRAM.
>>942681
You absolutely do not want to be seen as the budget alternative. There is no reason to compete on cost on a (broken) market with only two players.
Microshift>sunrace>shimano>sram>campy
I'm upgrading from entry level shit and I go onto Shimano/SRAM website for MTB components.
How the fuck do I figure out the differences between the parts? Comparing them tells me jack shit. Product descriptions are always generic as hell and buzzwordy. There's no pricing.
I don't care about the weight or dumb marketing crap, what groupset is better than cheap shit made to break but not stupidly expensive ULTRALIGHT high end?
Thanks.
>>942720
Your choices come down to a variety of factors, ignore the bullshit and choose based on the functional features you want and price. For example I prefer Shimano shifters over SRAM (the latter has Gripshift if that's your thing) and Shimano freehubs seem to be more plentiful so I use their cassettes.
Other things you may want to consider are backwards and forwards compatibility (Shimano changed their cable pull ratio at some point, I think all SRAM 1:1 stuff works together but can't say for definite), available gear ranges, crankset features and options (I like the 2 piece Hollowtech II stuff from Shimano, easy to install and remove and can use bottom brackets from some other manufacturers), replacement part availability (if you're getting brakes a load of Shimanos use the same pads and they're easy to get hold of with many manufacturer and compound options).
I probably sound like a Shimano shill but it's just the stuff I've used and ended up liking, I don't have enough experience with SRAM to comment on it.
>>942720
X9 is great stuff, probably better than you need. X7 is quite good for any non-competitive uses as well as some competetive uses and should be more than sufficient for your uses. X5 is fine for recreational purposes and is what I'd recommend if you want to spend a bit less money.
>>942727
And in case it's not obvious, X9 is the best of those three, X7 is in the middle, X5 is 'worst' of those three but still good (it's not entry-level shit).
>>942720
Spend on shifters
Save on mech and expendables
■▲■
▲■▲
Sup.
![Girls[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/IpQ6rty.jpg "Girls[1].jpg")
>>947098
>Speedplay
Shimano is prettier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm1P7J-O6vs
It's automatic, you fucks. AUTOMATIC
>>947133
>not liking Speedplay
>>947265
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm1P7J-O6vs
>It's automatic, you fucks. AUTOMATIC
What the fux?
>>942720
As the other anon said, X-5 is the decent cheap option. I got an X-5 rear mech and I like it quite a bit - it's fast-ish, accurate and smooth.
>>939240
so have you used double tap?
because its the worst shifting system out there.
Id rather use downtube levers
>>947265
wat
>>939255
W E W
E
W
L A D
A
D
>>939240
Is that Spartacus getting knocked off?
>>947448
>>947487
>After the start, when the speed is probably more than 15km / hr,
>Internal hub structure will increase the switch, automatic transmission.
>Activities teeth, leisurely glide,
>When there is a need to step on the brake when you can back it will start braking system within the hub,
>Brake is not fixed tooth lock usage is somewhat different!
>Therefore brompton After installation you can shift the entire vehicle brake line all split light,
>Let Bush added more minutes to the beauty of classical minimalism
t. Google Translate
>>949668
>riding without fenders
>>949669
>riding with fenders
Downtubing casual who's afraid of water detected.
>>949669
look again, he has them front and rear
>>947883
>No space between the number and the unit symbols
>Using undefined unit symbols without defining them in terms of SI units
Please re-read the SI Brochure.
>>949668
>In Russia, pot hole eat 'mountain' bike.
