Those groupset prices are ridiculous. Groupsets almost cost more than custom frames now.

Soon we won't be buying bikes any more. Instead, we will be signing 2 year contracts to lease $20K bikes and paying monthly service charges for software updates and data plans to manage our techno e-groupsets.

Gotta rope us in like they have done with our smartphones, Strava/Garmin/GPS apps, cable/internet... blah blah.

Old man rant? Yes. Truth? Hell yes. :beer:

I've enjoyed and approved of fancy new stuff for the past several years of my bike life. This crosses a line and triggers a spasm of retro-grouch.

Dripping with proprietary designs that need all OE parts to keep OE function and design intent... check.

Your power meter wears out when your chainrings do... check.

Relentless focus on selling minuscule marginal gains to the average consumer for years, to turn around and make a claim that although their idea increases drivetrain friction, "It's so small you won't notice it." ...check.

New liquid clutch in the RD... check.

Absurd pricing model... check.

I understand it's a halo-level product intended to make a statement with a lot of new design ideas. I'm sure it's pretty rad to ride. I hate what it says about what the industry spends its time and effort on, instead of trying to speak to anyone who doesn't want to buy an Arabian horse or a race car.

Problem with citing that article is that it's not an apples to apples comparison with the AXS system, as the chain design, cog spacing, and dampered RD are all vastly different components than what was previously tested.

I don't know whether the switch from 11 to 10 on the smallest cog is going to make a big difference in terms of total efficiency, but I can tell you that the extra spacing between the chain and cogs will absolutely help in terms of everyday riding, as will the single tooth steps. And conversely friction facts just did a test recently which seemed to confirm that a clutch RD can be more efficient than a regular RD when designed correctly:
https://cyclingtips.com/2019/01/do-c...rain-friction/

What would be interesting to see is if AXS stayed with the traditional 11-28 cassette (but made it 12 speed) and chainring sizes if the efficiency would be higher. My guessing is that in a lab it would be, however you would be losing the extra single step which helps out cadence for the same overall range on the cassette, or if the previously observed efficiency losses between larger and smaller cogs/chainrings would be minimized or eliminated due to the redesigned chain and cassette.

I'm sure any lost efficiency is more than made up for by the fact you're traveling at a speed necessary to be in a 50-10. Either you're railing a descent to winding it up something fierce for the town limit sign.

interesting...
I like the orbital rear mech
I like the 10 cog...in concept it's not as efficient but really, were not talking a lot of watts and its for bombing downhill, not really used that much...
I like the wireless shifting and faster chip and motors.
Not sure about the app...it sounds cool to program the shifting...

don't like integrated chain rings but I'm sure there will be after market rings and cranks.
and yeah, the price, but well see, but yeah its a halo group so fine...no one is holding a guy to our heads to buy it...and that Force group will be telling.

Just like Shimano R8000 is great value...Force can be that.

As a very keen, pretty competent, middle age, high income cyclist, I am bull's eye target market for this groupset, and honestly I will probably end up getting one (could be shimano, Campy or SRAM) at some point in the future. However, I am also an engineer, and pretty realistic about what I would be getting. Will it make me faster? absolutely not.

Also, I feel that SRAM are making a massive mistake making all parts proprietary, the beauty of the 11 speed is that campy, Shimano and SRAM are pretty much compatible with each other, but with 12 speed setups, I am not going to be able to swap bikes on my Turbo Trainer, swap wheels, cassettes etc.... actually I think I may stick with 11 speed for some time to come

In the GCN video, they noted you can add on the power meter to a non-power meter crank later on if you wished. In that case, why would you need to chuck the power meter when the chainring needs replacing?

Because the power meter is integrated into the chainring. If you need a new chainring, you need to get a new power meter. On the good side, they have stated the chainrings will last much longer, and if you trade in the old one you get 50% off a new one.

THanks for the link. I guess that's why sram is claiming their resigned cogs and chain eliminate that friction inefficiency.

Hm ok maybe I heard wrong on the GCN video then, or maybe they just were referring to a third party power meter.

You probably heard right. There is a non-power meter version that you could add something like a Stages to and then just replace rings as needed.

I like the idea of a 46/33 crank, 10-33 cassette. I would probably prefer an 11-33 cassette if I were to put this on a new gravel bike. I also like their solution for a clutch style rear derailleur.

Street price on a Di2 9170 group is about $2700 That is more than a $1000 less than the equivalent eTap AXS groupset. In a years time the prices might be more in line, but early adopters will be paying a high premium.

Totally agreed. A 10-tooth cog is overkill for most riders even with a compact.

I use a 46x11 on my gravel bike and it's plenty for 99.9% of the time. I'd also rather have an 11-33 or thereabouts.

I do like the 46/33 crank option as well.

this is exactly what I have been saying. For most people 11-33 is just fine and you get a tighter ration at the other end of the cassette which is better.

At 100 RPM with a 11 in the back is about 33mph... A 10 gives you another 3mph which for some will be worth, most will just coast down the hill... And for straight line 33mph is plenty. Again, different strokes...