New Sram Red eTap AXS group

[93KgBike]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Bike components are more like hard goods - like appliances or vehicles. Automobiles, for example, are nearly completely computer controlled these days. Would you buy a new car, if compatible computer controlled components were only going to be available for a few years, and then completely obsoleted?

That's exactly how buying cars works. You buy one, and then you buy a new one. They are totally discreet.

Not a good example.

[benb]

The main thing that has always annoyed me with compatibility issues is Hub -> Cassette incompatibility when Shimano upgrades stuff...

3rd party wheel manufacturers have had plenty of wheels that worked with Shimano X and still worked with X+1, but the Shimano hubs often were made in a way they didn't.

I am totally fine with an 10 speed derailleur not working with a 9/11/12 speed setup, etc..

Other areas they are fine.. I've been using Shimano 11 speed cranks/rings for years with 10-speed chain + drivetrain with no issue. There was an assumption there I'd be going to 11 speed before I needed a new crank.

[simonov]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Because software is fundamentally different from bike parts?

There's bike parts that don't work together on the regular. It's not like a lack of cross compatibility is somehow new or novel in the industry, whether its the electronic stuff or the mechnical stuff.

It is and it isn't. Software is what I do for a living. Sometimes it's compatible, sometimes it isn't. eTap11 wasn't built around a communication protocol that could speak to a phone. eTap 12 is. That alone is a foundational shift that can prevent backwards compatibility. There are also the mechanical considerations with how the chain, rings, ramps, pins, pulleys, spacing, etc. are setup. As the owner of two sets of eTap11, I'd love it to be backwards compatible, but I didn't expect it to be.

[simonov]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I have a cheap home computer that was bought for just a few hundred dollars in 2008, about the same time as Shimano Di2 was released. During the time I've owned it, its OS has been updated 3 times, from Windows Vista to Windows 7, then to Windows 8.1, and now Windows 10. It's processor and hard drive isn't as zippy as current computers, but it can still install and run the latest software.

Shimano Di2 components from the same time this computer was made are now no longer supported, and no compatible replacement components are being made. (And this is comparing a very low end computer even for its time, to the most high end components from Shimano.)

Would you want to ride around with the weight of your 2008 laptop strapped to your bike. Computers and small electronics are very different. I get the point about how SRAM could have chosen to design this group to build on what came before, but that might have been a barrier to them achieving their vision. I wouldn't be surprised if, in time, the product becomes more compatible across versions as it matures.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by 93KgBike

That's exactly how buying cars works. You buy one, and then you buy a new one. They are totally discreet.

Not a good example.

Do you throw away your new cars as soon as the first component wears out? Or do you replace the broken component and continue using the car? With electronic drivetrains, there's a good chance that if you buy a bike today and wear out of break one of the components in a few years, you'll have to replace the entire drivetrain.

That's what happened with Dura-Ace Di2. If you bought a Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 9spd drivetrain, and brought it to a bike dealer after a few years because a shifter or derailleur broke, the dealer would have to inform you that no new parts were available for your system (even though Shimano still made 9spd systems, and still made electronic systems). The only option they could give you was to replace the entire shifting system.

I have home heating furnace and a "smart" thermostat that were made by two difference companies about 5 years apart. And yet, they work perfectly together. That's how hard goods are supposed to work. The bicycle component companies already had a poor intercompatibility model with mechanical drivetrains, and its only gotten worse with electronic systems.

[93KgBike]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Do you throw away your new cars as soon as the first component wears out? Or do you replace the broken component and continue using the car? With electronic drivetrains, there's a good chance that if you buy a bike today and wear out of break one of the components in a few years, you'll have to replace the entire drivetrain.

It's just not a good comparison.

Originally Posted by 93KgBike

... Perhaps the Internet-of-bikes is in its infancy with eTap 12, while that wasn't really much of a consideration in the rush by the big 3 to get electronic shift onto bikes and into stores.

So eTap 11 got the development engineering, while the real plan of departure was being held for eTap 12sp.

It's unlikely that future SRAM eTap systems will abandon connectedness.

Which leaves the compatibility question in the future...

[benb]

Originally Posted by simonov

It is and it isn't. Software is what I do for a living. Sometimes it's compatible, sometimes it isn't. eTap11 wasn't built around a communication protocol that could speak to a phone. eTap 12 is. That alone is a foundational shift that can prevent backwards compatibility. There are also the mechanical considerations with how the chain, rings, ramps, pins, pulleys, spacing, etc. are setup. As the owner of two sets of eTap11, I'd love it to be backwards compatible, but I didn't expect it to be.

Good point... eTap 11 might not have a bluetooth stack/TX/RX in it. Would you want to use that phone app even if you had to spend a whole bunch and stick another box on your phone?

But I am sure they will do this again when eTap 13/14/15/whatever comes out and it uses a new/different wireless communication setup. It would be silly to think they're going to suddenly switch to keeping things compatible after this.

This is consumer stuff.. there is little interest or upside for them to maintain compatibility. People are happy about Microsoft keeping things compatible.. MS is not doing that for consumers, they're doing it for the army of businesses that depend on them and pay huge $$$ compared to consumers to make it all happen. Remember lots of B2B software products cost in the 6-7 figure range to get all that support! Just about 100% of the software I've worked on in my career has been in that price range.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by simonov

Would you want to ride around with the weight of your 2008 laptop strapped to your bike.

This has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. Stay on topic.

Originally Posted by simonov

Computers and small electronics are very different. I get the point about how SRAM could have chosen to design this group to build on what came before, but that might have been a barrier to them achieving their vision. I wouldn't be surprised if, in time, the product becomes more compatible across versions as it matures.

You are still missing my point. Sure, if you want to move onto the next step, you might have to make a total jump. That's not what I'm talking about. Maybe an example would help illustrate it:

Let's say that two riders, call them A and B, bought new bikes some years ago. Rider A decided to buy a mechanical group, and rider B decided buy an electronic group. Both of their bikes give them good service, until just the other day, when in a freak event they both simultaneously broke their rear derailleurs. So, they both bring their bikes into the shop for repair.

The mechanic tells Rider A, "Sorry, Shimano doesn't make that model of derailleur anymore. But I can sell you a derailleur from a current groupset, which will also work with your drivetrain." Rider A isn't happy that his bike won't be the exactly the same as before, but at least it can be made to work again at not much cost.

The mechanic then turns to Rider B and says, "Sorry, Shimano doesn't make this version of Di2 anymore, so there are no derailleurs available that are compatible with the rest of your shifting system. But I can sell you a completely new shifting system for a boatload more money then just buying a derailleur." Rider B is far less happy than Rider A, and is out far more money to get his bike fixed.

Think it can't happen? It can, and it has. And likely will again.

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

This has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. Stay on topic.



You are still missing my point. Sure, if you want to move onto the next step, you might have to make a total jump. That's not what I'm talking about. Maybe an example would help illustrate it:

Let's say that two riders, call them A and B, bought new bikes some years ago. Rider A decided to buy a mechanical group, and rider B decided buy an electronic group. Both of their bikes give them good service, until just the other day, when in a freak event they both simultaneously broke their rear derailleurs. So, they both bring their bikes into the shop for repair.

The mechanic tells Rider A, "Sorry, Shimano doesn't make that model of derailleur anymore. But I can sell you a derailleur from a current groupset, which will also work with your drivetrain." Rider A isn't happy that his bike won't be the exactly the same as before, but at least it can be made to work again at not much cost.

The mechanic then turns to Rider B and says, "Sorry, Shimano doesn't make this version of Di2 anymore, so there are no derailleurs available that are compatible with the rest of your shifting system. But I can sell you a completely new shifting system for a boatload more money then just buying a derailleur." Rider B is far less happy than Rider A, and is out far more money to get his bike fixed.

Think it can't happen? It can, and it has. And likely will again.

In that case SRAM mechanical has all the others beat since their last two generations of RDs are "exact actuation." The FDs moved over to the Yaw system with 10s Red two generations ago as well. So finally a yay for SRAM! (just kidding, of course).

But in all seriousness first gen of new software/hardware tends to be incompatible with future gens since the early-adopter revenue will balance out any revenue lost from incompatibility, especially if the product is good. Since SRAM is now going to go Force ETAP it makes sense for they to include some cross-generational compatibility since they'll be wading into a more consumer-level price bracket, as opposed to Red/Dura Ace which is generally reserved for the upper echelon of spending.

That being said I still find the integrated chainset power meter silly, but if high-end bikes can still find profitability when including power meter modules for free (ie only need a unlock code after paying for activation) maybe the ride and return model isn't so absurd.

[SoCalSteve]

Originally Posted by Jaybee

Sucks that you have 3 nice bikes that can't be ridden anymore.

I LITERALLY laughed out loud...

11 speed ETap is truly amazing. I for one am happy to ride my 5 x 11 speed ETap groups for many, many happy miles and years to come.

[simonov]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

This has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. Stay on topic.



You are still missing my point. Sure, if you want to move onto the next step, you might have to make a total jump. That's not what I'm talking about. Maybe an example would help illustrate it:

Let's say that two riders, call them A and B, bought new bikes some years ago. Rider A decided to buy a mechanical group, and rider B decided buy an electronic group. Both of their bikes give them good service, until just the other day, when in a freak event they both simultaneously broke their rear derailleurs. So, they both bring their bikes into the shop for repair.

The mechanic tells Rider A, "Sorry, Shimano doesn't make that model of derailleur anymore. But I can sell you a derailleur from a current groupset, which will also work with your drivetrain." Rider A isn't happy that his bike won't be the exactly the same as before, but at least it can be made to work again at not much cost.

The mechanic then turns to Rider B and says, "Sorry, Shimano doesn't make this version of Di2 anymore, so there are no derailleurs available that are compatible with the rest of your shifting system. But I can sell you a completely new shifting system for a boatload more money then just buying a derailleur." Rider B is far less happy than Rider A, and is out far more money to get his bike fixed.

Think it can't happen? It can, and it has. And likely will again.

No, you're missing my point. Across many years and al the brands, compatibility from one generation to the next has been limited and that's probably being generous. Some people have made the argument that since these parts are electronic, they should absolutely be cross-compatible since it's just software. My point is that, first, this group is very different in its mechanical design components so the software/electronics debate is likely moot in terms of overall compatibility. And, second, software (using the term loosely) isn't inherently backwards compatible. The reason computers can be upgraded for many years is due to the complex stack of hardware components and dedicated drives and memory units that are designed for that purpose. Small electronics are run by very, very simple firmware programs embedded in the unit. Firmware can be upgraded, but only within certain parameters. The assumption that a rear derailleur can be upgraded because it's electronic is based on a false premise. So, again, my point is that there are many engineering reasons these parts aren't backwards compatible and when you remove the incorrect assumptions about how electronics work, it's really no different than any other new product generation by any of the big component companies.

In your scenario, I feel bad for rider B. But he'd be in the same situation if he was riding DA 7600 or Campy 9 or whatever old mechanical group. I'd also say that people should give SRAM some time to see what kind of support they offer for older eTap owners. SRAM still lists 10 speed groups on their site and parts can still be found new.

[SoCalSteve]

https://www.excelsports.com/search/?...=Sram+10+speed

I’m not sure how long SRAM 10 speed was on-off the market for, but it certainly looks like many years down the road it is still supported quite well.

As for software - firmware updates of 11 speed ETap, why fix something if it isn’t broken? I works pretty much flawlessly all the time.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by simonov

No, you're missing my point. Across many years and al the brands, compatibility from one generation to the next has been limited and that's probably being generous. Some people have made the argument that since these parts are electronic, they should absolutely be cross-compatible since it's just software. My point is that, first, this group is very different in its mechanical design components so the software/electronics debate is likely moot in terms of overall compatibility. And, second, software (using the term loosely) isn't inherently backwards compatible. The reason computers can be upgraded for many years is due to the complex stack of hardware components and dedicated drives and memory units that are designed for that purpose. Small electronics are run by very, very simple firmware programs embedded in the unit. Firmware can be upgraded, but only within certain parameters. The assumption that a rear derailleur can be upgraded because it's electronic is based on a false premise. So, again, my point is that there are many engineering reasons these parts aren't backwards compatible and when you remove the incorrect assumptions about how electronics work, it's really no different than any other new product generation by any of the big component companies.

I'm not trying to be disrepectful, but you really don't understand what you are talking about. Firstly, the fundamentals of the mechanical operation of motor actuated derailleurs is no different than for cable actuated derailleurs, so that introduces no new limitations on forward/backward compatibility. In fact, the indexing micro-adjustment feature shows just how much flexibility these systems possess.

As far as "small electronics" being more limited in compatibility vs. complex systems: Having worked in the embedded microcontroller systems industry for 25 years, I can assure you that the exact opposite is true. Complex systems require many different layers of software and systems, which all must interact with each other and are all typically developed and maintained by different parties. Getting all the parties to agree on maintaining forward and backwards compatibility across a set of changing standards is nearly impossible. Over time, the cost of trying to maintain and upgrade the many components of a complex systems generally means that it turns out to be simpler and easier to replace an entire system every few years.

In contrast, small embedded systems are much simpler, and require a far more limited set of smaller components. Consequently, maintenance and modification of these systems is simpler, and can largely be done by a single party. In fact, I've worked on upgrading the capabilities of embedded systems that had been designed and built decades earlier. Since embedded systems are often used in "hard good" type products with long service lives, the microcontrollers are generally designed with future upgradeability in mind - only a poor embedded engineer will allow their product to go out the door without the ability to add and modify features for future compatibility. (I'm currently working on a microcontroller based electro-mechanical product to replace an older existing product; the new product will not only have new and different features and and capabilites, but it will have the capacity to add even more features and capabilities in the future, AND it will remain fully backward compatible so it can be used as a direct replacement component in already existing systems.)

Originally Posted by simonov

In your scenario, I feel bad for rider B. But he'd be in the same situation if he was riding DA 7600 or Campy 9 or whatever old mechanical group. I'd also say that people should give SRAM some time to see what kind of support they offer for older eTap owners. SRAM still lists 10 speed groups on their site and parts can still be found new.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. For many component groups, especially for Campagnolo, there were clear upgrade/downgrade paths, allowing users to continue using older components with newer components. For example, a set of 8spd Campagnolo wheels from 25 years ago can be used with today's 12spd drivetrains, simply by switching the cassette and freehub body. The original 8spd Ergo shifters were backward compatible with all 7spd systems, or could be converted to 9spd by swapping an index gear. The next generation Ergo shifters could likewise be used with 8spd, 9spd or 10spd drivetrains. There is large cross-compatibility with derailleurs as well. And that's just using OEM parts. With aftermarket adapters, there is an even wider range of cross-compatibility, even between different components from different manufacturers.


It appears that some component manufacturers really like electronic shifting systems, and not just because of their higher selling prices - it appears that they allow them to better control forced obsolescences. One of the features of digitally controlled system is that they allow greater flexibility and adaptability than purely mechanical systems. So if the features of electronic shifting systems aren't forward and backward compatability, it is because of manufacturer imposed limitations.

[simonov]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I'm not trying to be disrepectful, but you really don't understand what you are talking about. Firstly, the fundamentals of the mechanical operation of motor actuated derailleurs is no different than for cable actuated derailleurs, so that introduces no new limitations on forward/backward compatibility. In fact, the indexing micro-adjustment feature shows just how much flexibility these systems possess.

As far as "small electronics" being more limited in compatibility vs. complex systems: Having worked in the embedded microcontroller systems industry for 25 years, I can assure you that the exact opposite is true. Complex systems require many different layers of software and systems, which all must interact with each other and are all typically developed and maintained by different parties. Getting all the parties to agree on maintaining forward and backwards compatibility across a set of changing standards is nearly impossible. Over time, the cost of trying to maintain and upgrade the many components of a complex systems generally means that it turns out to be simpler and easier to replace an entire system every few years.

In contrast, small embedded systems are much simpler, and require a far more limited set of smaller components. Consequently, maintenance and modification of these systems is simpler, and can largely be done by a single party. In fact, I've worked on upgrading the capabilities of embedded systems that had been designed and built decades earlier. Since embedded systems are often used in "hard good" type products with long service lives, the microcontrollers are generally designed with future upgradeability in mind - only a poor embedded engineer will allow their product to go out the door without the ability to add and modify features for future compatibility. (I'm currently working on a microcontroller based electro-mechanical product to replace an older existing product; the new product will not only have new and different features and and capabilites, but it will have the capacity to add even more features and capabilities in the future, AND it will remain fully backward compatible so it can be used as a direct replacement component in already existing systems.)




Again, you don't know what you are talking about. For many component groups, especially for Campagnolo, there were clear upgrade/downgrade paths, allowing users to continue using older components with newer components. For example, a set of 8spd Campagnolo wheels from 25 years ago can be used with today's 12spd drivetrains, simply by switching the cassette and freehub body. The original 8spd Ergo shifters were backward compatible with all 7spd systems, or could be converted to 9spd by swapping an index gear. The next generation Ergo shifters could likewise be used with 8spd, 9spd or 10spd drivetrains. There is large cross-compatibility with derailleurs as well. And that's just using OEM parts. With aftermarket adapters, there is an even wider range of cross-compatibility, even between different components from different manufacturers.


It appears that some component manufacturers really like electronic shifting systems, and not just because of their higher selling prices - it appears that they allow them to better control forced obsolescences. One of the features of digitally controlled system is that they allow greater flexibility and adaptability than purely mechanical systems. So if the features of electronic shifting systems aren't forward and backward compatability, it is because of manufacturer imposed limitations.

Since you're such a genius, why not go explain to SRAM how to cram bluetooth hardware into all the eTap 11 speed gear out on the road. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that's how products are designed when accounting for all the technical and business factors at play. All your post proves is that old stuff was more compatible than new stuff, regardless of whether it's electronic or mechanical.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by simonov

Since you're such a genius, why not go explain to SRAM how to cram bluetooth hardware into all the eTap 11 speed gear out on the road. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that's how products are designed when accounting for all the technical and business factors at play. All your post proves is that old stuff was more compatible than new stuff, regardless of whether it's electronic or mechanical.

????

AXS uses Bluetooth only for setup, not for operation. SRAM 11spd systems already have their own system for setup, so Bluetooth is not required. Both AXS and the previous SRAM electronic shifting systems use the same proprietary Airea wireless communication for actual shifting operations.

Backwards/forwards compatibility doesn't mean that older components will get all the functionality of new components - it means that older components will at least retain their previous functionality when used with newer components (and may get new functionality when possible).

In my current industry, not retaining backward compatibility would mean that customers might have to replace their whole system (at larger cost) when upgrading a single component. And if customers have to replace their whole systems, that opens up the possibility of replacing our systems with a competitors - which means lost sales to us. On the hand, if maintaining backward compatibility resulting in cost increases in our products, that might discourage sales to new customers. So we have to think ahead and do careful design work.

But apparently, the bicycle industry has enough customers like you, who are willing to jump at any shiny new trinkets at any cost, so they don't have to put as much forethought into their products.