Shimano GRX

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by BikeNY

Here is another overview:

https://bikepacking.com/news/shimano-grx/

I think it's pretty cool that Shimano went through the effort to make this, and it sounds like some of the innovations are for real.

I think the brake lever redesign is worth mentioning. The moved the pivot for the brake levers up by 18mm for better braking from the hoods and a more secure grip up there.

46-30 chainrings should be well received as well.

Totally agree about the pivot point - better leverage, more natural one-finger braking point, more textured hoods for hopefully a more secure hold.

As for the other changes - seems like this groupsets aimed more towards the OEM crowd. The offset at the FD and cranks seems like a natural progression to fit fat tires / wide chainstays. If the large 17t jumps are as smooth as the 16t jumps getting the gearing right should be a breeze.

The groups as a whole are pretty ugly though with the press shots and renders. At least in the real world pics they are... equally ugly.
https://cyclingtips.com/2019/05/shim...-info-weights/

[Sjambok]

Those hoods are quite ugly. Given that I am very curious how the braking is for smaller handed individuals on single track. I wonder if moving the pivot is more marketing or actual performance increase.

[d_douglas]

I think it looks great! Very practical stuff, but then again, I defer to others on details like chainlines and pivot points !!

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by David Tollefson

Or the 30T minimum chainring. I'd like to see that down to 28 or 26T. But with their choice of a new bolt pattern, maybe that's all they can do.

According to the BikeRumor article, the BCDs are 110mm/80mm. SRAM has a 120mm/80mm 4 arm crank that has a standard 39t/26t combination (and 74mm BCD fits chainrings down to 24t), so it is likely that a 28t or even a 26t chainring could be fit to the GRX crank. Perhaps an aftermarket chainring manufacturer will make smaller chainrings for this crank (are you listening TA and Stronglight?)

[Ken Robb]

[QUOTE=

wide ass bars with cross top levers
50mm ocho fork
29x2 tire clearance
short chain stays
long reach frame
short stem

Like others wish they'd gone 12s with 11-46. Oh well. They've gotta leave some stuff on the roadmap for three years from now I guess.[/QUOTE]
Why are short chain stays desirable for you?

[geordanh]

taking the thread off track a bit, but longer reach frames have done wonders for mtb and think for what so many people are using gravel bikes for (borderline mtb stuff) plus loading up the bars with bags etc, designing these bikes around short stems is the future. Short chain stays keeps bike from feeling like a boat if you're stretching top tubes.

[AngryScientist]

I am happy to see the new sub compact crank options!

[dddd]

Wow, the cross-top hydraulic aux levers that I have been clamoring for just became reality!

The added 2.5mm of chainline I assume just goes along with committed use of disc-standard 135mm rear spacing, but if it were my build and I didn't need such low gearing or added tire clearance, I would probably use one of the older (130/135mm) chainline model cranks together with the 135mm rear spacing.

The derailer actuation is obviously of the new geometry as used on 11s (and on 10s Tiagra). This makes for less-finicky cable performance requirements so fits in with the lower quality level (cheaper cables and unsealed ferrules) and with rougher conditions and/or extended maintenance intervals.

By hitting a lower price point with so much in the way of features, soon there might be a lot more mountain bikers getting out onto the road and "gravel" (rougher roads) rides.
I could see a lot of mtb riders who have expensive mtb's willing to shell out for a gravel bike now, but only if the price were tempting.
It seems like a good strategy, as Shimano might be selling them a better gruppo later if it turns out they like using drop handlebars and decide to upgrade to a better gravel bike.

[charliedid]

Yeah bike parts!

[zennmotion]

Originally Posted by David Tollefson

I like the in-line brake levers. At least I like the idea -- I've never used them.

In-line levers were a thing for a few years with CX. And then they weren't. They might be nice for people who rarely ride in the drops as they offer better leverage for extended braking to reduce hand fatigue. On the other hand I found that I didn't like moving my hands inboard to use them at the worst times, like sketchy fast gravel descents when wider is much better for control. There's nothing new under the sun...

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by zennmotion

In-line levers were a thing for a few years with CX. And then they weren't.

That may speak more of availability then demand. In-line levers weren't a thing in CX, because they originally didn't exist. Then somebody invented in-line mechanical cable levers, and then they were a thing. Then CX largely switched to hydraulic (disc) brakes, and there weren't any hydraulic in-line levers, so weren't a thing again. Now that there are hydraulic in-line levers, maybe they'll be a thing again.

[Safepants]

Originally Posted by jtbadge

Point is, there are two completely incompatible sets of "existing 10s road dual control levers" - 4700 and everything else 10 speed. These derailleurs can't work with both.

ugh, i forgot about that. I have 4600 RD currently, and 5600 shifters, i should be good to upgrade the rear mech right?

[geordanh]

Originally Posted by zennmotion

In-line levers were a thing for a few years with CX. And then they weren't. They might be nice for people who rarely ride in the drops as they offer better leverage for extended braking to reduce hand fatigue. On the other hand I found that I didn't like moving my hands inboard to use them at the worst times, like sketchy fast gravel descents when wider is much better for control. There's nothing new under the sun...

Yeah to me fast gravel you’re in the drops for control. The cross tops are when you’re trying to get your weight as far back as you can on something steep like a trail feature


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

That may speak more of availability then demand. In-line levers weren't a thing in CX, because they originally didn't exist. Then somebody invented in-line mechanical cable levers, and then they were a thing. Then CX largely switched to hydraulic (disc) brakes, and there weren't any hydraulic in-line levers, so weren't a thing again. Now that there are hydraulic in-line levers, maybe they'll be a thing again.

There will always be a few that insist on having inline levers.

I like the mix-n-match with Ultegra since I just bought 2 RX800 rear derailleurs.

After last weekend's Devil's Backbone ride, I may spring for a crank with a smaller small ring. ...but all that does is make me slower, so maybe not. Dunno.

I'm tempted to try a 36t mtn bike 11sp cassette on the wheelset I rode last weekend (2 weekends ago?!) Cub Creek is an SOB at the top @ 22%! The rest of the time, I'm good with a 28t big cog

M

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by Safepants

ugh, i forgot about that. I have 4600 RD currently, and 5600 shifters, i should be good to upgrade the rear mech right?

I don't think so. New 10sp Tiagra only seems to work with new 10sp Tiagra

You can always run any Shimano mtn bike derailleur up to 9sp with that setup if you need bigger (physically) gears. I kept a 9sp Shadow rear derailleur around for a while for that very reason.

M