Radical SRAM crankset patent incorporates three rotating derailleurs

[Veloo]

Ready, set, DISCUSS!
Or debate...

https://cyclingtips.com/2020/06/radical-sram-crankset-patent-incorporates-three-rotating-derailleurs/

[peanutgallery]

Ooff!!

Hard pass on that, way to complicated

[mulp]

Looks like SRAM groupsets are about to get even more expensive!

[unterhausen]

Cue the jokes about SRAM front derailleurs

[merckx]

Some perspective.

[R3awak3n]

I am sure yall said the same thing when someone found a sram patent for wireless shifting and look where we are now

[johnniecakes]

Hope they continue to develop this. Glad to see that “out of the box“ thinking is going on. SRAM continues to push Shimano and Campagnolo along into new designs

[mhespenheide]

Simplicity is a virtue.

[mhespenheide]

Or, if you really want to complicate the front shifting:

http://velobase.com/CompImages/Crankset/5071E052-7DA4-4467-8EE0-E1A9D04FB617.jpeg

[mcfarton]

Cue the jokes about SRAM front derailleurs


[emoji38]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thirdgenbird]

Maybe not the correct place to put this, but I was browsing major bike brand websites and realized that sram mechanical road groupsets were gone. Maybe I missed one, but I looked at the following brands:
Giant
Specialized
Trek
Bianchi

Across these four brands, there were no road (not gravel or cross) bikes equipped with sram mechanical groups. There were shimano groups from bottom to top, sram electronic groups, and three bikes with Campagnolo drivetrains.*

I didn’t look too deeply into cross or gravel, but it seems a few sram 1x mechanical groups do show up here but shimano owns the entry level.

Is this a new thing? I don’t pay much attention to bicycles from large manufacturers but the last I did, sram had taken a noticeable chunk of the entry to mid level road bikes.

I have joked that sram is abandoning road mechanical groupsets but it almost looks true.


*one Campagnolo equipped bike only has Campagnolo derailleurs, chain and cassette with gran compe cranks and friction shifters. They actually appear to be Veloce 10 derailleurs that are just branded Campagnolo. Niche, but awesome in my opinion.

[yinzerniner]

Cue the jokes about SRAM front derailleurs

There are many jokes but all have a tinge of truth when it comes to SRAM mech fds. But their electronic have been very good, if not quite up to the gold standard of shimano

That being said the inability to shift at all ranges of the pedal stroke seems like a huge issue. To quote the Goldblum: SRAM was so preoccupied with if they could, no one stopped to think if the should.

[J.Higgins]

On the OP: No. Not yet, anyway. I'd have to ride it first.

I always wonder why there are no more derailleur manufacturers Than SRAM, Campagnolo, and Shimano and a smattering of other smaller offerings. I would love to see a company like Paul Components or White Industries make some decent derailleurs. The alternative is to go Rohloff or Pinion, I suppose. Gosh, this is making me grumpy. :mad:

[FlashUNC]

Maybe not the correct place to put this, but I was browsing major bike brand websites and realized that sram mechanical road groupsets were gone. Maybe I missed one, but I looked at the following brands:
Giant
Specialized
Trek
Bianchi

Across these four brands, there were no road (not gravel or cross) bikes equipped with sram mechanical groups. There were shimano groups from bottom to top, sram electronic groups, and three bikes with Campagnolo drivetrains.*

I didn’t look too deeply into cross or gravel, but it seems a few sram 1x mechanical groups do show up here but shimano owns the entry level.

Is this a new thing? I don’t pay much attention to bicycles from large manufacturers but the last I did, sram had taken a noticeable chunk of the entry to mid level road bikes.

I have joked that sram is abandoning road mechanical groupsets but it almost looks true.


*one Campagnolo equipped bike only has Campagnolo derailleurs, chain and cassette with gran compe cranks and friction shifters. They actually appear to be Veloce 10 derailleurs that are just branded Campagnolo. Niche, but awesome in my opinion.

I think it's pretty obvious by now SRAM isn't in the conventional mechanical road group business anymore. They see electronic as the only real path forward.

[Old School]

On the OP: No. Not yet, anyway. I'd have to ride it first.

I always wonder why there are no more derailleur manufacturers Than SRAM, Campagnolo, and Shimano and a smattering of other smaller offerings. I would love to see a company like Paul Components or White Industries make some decent derailleurs. The alternative is to go Rohloff or Pinion, I suppose. Gosh, this is making me grumpy. :mad:

Box and TRP have tried to swim against the inrushing tides.

[thirdgenbird]

I think it's pretty obvious by now SRAM isn't in the conventional mechanical road group business anymore. They see electronic as the only real path forward.

I just figured they would offer their existing mechanical groups to OEMs at a steep discount as a revenue stream. The tooling and development has got to be long paid off by now. It’s one thing to phase out of that business of you are not already competitive (Campagnolo) vs abandon it totally. I guess they may feel their mechanical road groups are no longer competitive. I could understand not wanting to invest R&D into a market that you don’t feel has longevity.

Doubling down on wireless obviously makes sense. This has really been what has differentiated them from the competition. The landscape of OEM bicycles and builds here help prove that. I just didn’t expect to find more Campagnolo mechanical builds than sram.

[Waldo62]

You mean SRAM isn't going the 1x20 route?

[FlashUNC]

You mean SRAM isn't going the 1x20 route?

I would think the stumbling block there would be the Shimano 14 cog rear patent.

[MattTuck]

This looks like just the ticket for my solo un-supported ride across Australia.

It was nice knowing all of you :p

[eBAUMANN]

This is why etap groups are so expensive, gotta fund that R and D! :banana:

[dddd]

With current issues stemming from wider-range doubles and wider cassettes, some relief might be afforded by re-thinking the chainrings, using much closer ratios to:

1) Allow closer chainring spacing, and allow adjacent rings to share structure, possibly all of one piece like a cassette, allowing for three or four rings in a compact lightweight unit.

2) Allow reduced cross-chaining angle much of the time, for greater transmission efficiency (highly marketable advantage).

3) Make dropped chains less likely due to reduced chain rise/fall movement with each shift, also due to additional central chainrings being flanked on both sides by adjacent rings, as on a cassette.

4) Allow faster shifts, under greater chain tension.

5) Reduce or eliminate double-shifts.

6) Possibly achieve greater overall gearing range with four chainrings.

7) Weight gain minimal, likely more than offset by improved transmission efficiency.

8) Greater chain life. Greater chainring life.

9) all of the above improvements weighed against the small weight increase and likely having to modify existing frame chainstay shape between chainrings and rear tire and the possible reduction of maximum tire width (on monster-cross bikes).

Current 1x and wide-range doubles each have issues, so one shouldn't restrain consideration of other possibilities! We did closer-ratio triples back when friction-shifting was the only option, but today's better shifters and narrower, better-shifting chains/sprockets (not to mention possible electronic control) open the door for close-ratio multiple chainrings to re-appear. What is needed is a simple quantitative analysis of performance benefits to make it worthy and marketable.

[seanile]

Hope they continue to develop this. Glad to see that “out of the box“ thinking is going on. SRAM continues to push Shimano and Campagnolo along into new designs
here here.
sram haters can shove off, they've at least made the effort to push the envelope in different directions. they've stood out for me with their work on doubletap (which i really enjoy), 1x groupsets, cross-compatibility between mtb and road shifting, massive rear cassettes, clutch derailleurs, and wireless. it's innovative, it might not be perfect the first time around, but good on 'em for ignoring opportunities for complacency.

i say all this is with my, 'as a business, the opportunity is to innovate, the alternative is to cost compete' hat on. (i just came up with that and i'm proud of it. what must not be forgotten is that cycling is a competitive racing sport, just like formula 1 racing (except the rules are that components must be available commercially). In order to serve that purpose you must come up with some ridiculous mechanical/electrical solutions with crazy prices.
additionally, other parts on a bicycle, like wheels and bearings, have seen similar leaps in innovation (and expense). But because they're innovations of chemistry and physics and not mechanical, they don't get as many headlines because they're intangible and often not understood.

now, if i wore my customer/ludite hat, i'd be all about simple, mechanical, and maintainable. i share this opinion with cars. screw whoever thought up planned obsolescence and disposable modules.

what's my point? i'm not sure because i'm kinda high right now. 2:04 looked close enough to 4:20. i think it's that we're paying too much attention to it because in order for our sport's races to happen, we need the be able to buy whatever they're using. and in order to be competitive in a race, every *legal* advantage must be sought.

[David Tollefson]

...cross-compatibility between mtb and road shifting...

A huge one for me.

[Mark McM]

Doubling down on wireless obviously makes sense. This has really been what has differentiated them from the competition. The landscape of OEM bicycles and builds here help prove that. I just didn’t expect to find more Campagnolo mechanical builds than sram.

That might be SRAM's strategy, but I wonder if the recent "bike boom" will make them rethink that. In the shadow of the Coronavirus pandemic, there has been a huge upswing in the number of bikes sold; but the vast majority of those bikes are lower end bikes, which I'm sure did not have electronic drivetrains, nor do their pricepoints support the cost increase of electronic drivetrains. If they had moved fully to electronic drivetrains, they likely would have completely missed the recent sales boom.

[BRad704]

I would think the stumbling block there would be the Shimano 14 cog rear patent.

Set up full synchro on DI2 and you've basically got 1x16-ish right there. :)

[TheseGoTo11]

With current issues stemming from wider-range doubles and wider cassettes, some relief might be afforded by re-thinking the chainrings, using much closer ratios to:

1) Allow closer chainring spacing, and allow adjacent rings to share structure, possibly all of one piece like a cassette, allowing for three or four rings in a compact lightweight unit.

2) Allow reduced cross-chaining angle much of the time, for greater transmission efficiency (highly marketable advantage).

3) Make dropped chains less likely due to reduced chain rise/fall movement with each shift, also due to additional central chainrings being flanked on both sides by adjacent rings, as on a cassette.

4) Allow faster shifts, under greater chain tension.

5) Reduce or eliminate double-shifts.

6) Possibly achieve greater overall gearing range with four chainrings.

7) Weight gain minimal, likely more than offset by improved transmission efficiency.

8) Greater chain life. Greater chainring life.

9) all of the above improvements weighed against the small weight increase and likely having to modify existing frame chainstay shape between chainrings and rear tire and the possible reduction of maximum tire width (on monster-cross bikes).

Current 1x and wide-range doubles each have issues, so one shouldn't restrain consideration of other possibilities! We did closer-ratio triples back when friction-shifting was the only option, but today's better shifters and narrower, better-shifting chains/sprockets (not to mention possible electronic control) open the door for close-ratio multiple chainrings to re-appear. What is needed is a simple quantitative analysis of performance benefits to make it worthy and marketable.

What you described is what I had in mind with setting up several of my bikes. For example, my Jones SWB runs an XT M782 crank 40-30-22 with 8 Praxis ten speed cogs on back 13-15-18-21-24-29-34-40. Huge range, but also the ability to minimize chain deflection. A narrower width cassette on back means the FD doesn't need to travel as far inboard, which helps with tire clearance, too.

This works great despite not being an "out-of-the-box" solution and being two generations behind current groupsets. But imagine what a "modern" or even electronic triple drivetrain could look like given all the tech of current groupsets. 3 rings with 8 cogs using 11 or 12 speed spacing would be even more narrow. But I suppose triples aren't cool and if they aren't cool they're hard to sell.

[dddd]

What you described is what I had in mind with setting up several of my bikes. For example, my Jones SWB runs an XT M782 crank 40-30-22 with 8 Praxis ten speed cogs on back 13-15-18-21-24-29-34-40. Huge range, but also the ability to minimize chain deflection. A narrower width cassette on back means the FD doesn't need to travel as far inboard, which helps with tire clearance, too.

This works great despite not being an "out-of-the-box" solution and being two generations behind current groupsets. But imagine what a "modern" or even electronic triple drivetrain could look like given all the tech of current groupsets. 3 rings with 8 cogs using 11 or 12 speed spacing would be even more narrow. But I suppose triples aren't cool and if they aren't cool they're hard to sell.

I think that if one of these companies started out showing a quad version that it might really get attention in the market, especially with folks looking for ever-wider gear range.
And, to the extent that the 4-chainring stack was wider, it could offset it's packaging challenges by offering reduced chain-angling friction at both ends of the cassette.
Maybe one less cog in back could be seen as potentially beneficial to wheel structure and chainline as well, but since that would mean new, retrograde hub/wheel changes, I don't think is would be the best way to sell the more-chainrings idea.

Also, is it possible that a 34-42-50t triple could be made almost to the same dimensions as with 34-50t rings? (noticing that the compact-double chainring spacing has grown, needed for reliable downshifts and for chain clearance against the inside of the big ring).
Compare compact chainring spacing to 11s cog spacing to see what I mean.

I could see this evolving, with drive-side crankarms shaped for greater front derailer cage clearance.