You'll still need to adjust and fine tune the shifting. Hub endcaps and end of endcap spacing to freehub is not specified.
I wonder what will happen with bikes that don't have UDH, will there be a variant available? And what about cable actuation... I'd much prefer X01 cable actuated than GX AXS...
Plus yeah, snapping off or bending the UDH mount and killing the derailleur would kinda suck. That piece being replaceable would be quite nice.
I heard a rumour that the SRAM flat-top chain was going to be necessary for decent shifting with the new derailleur and [presumably] cassette. Can anyone...
I heard a rumour that the SRAM flat-top chain was going to be necessary for decent shifting with the new derailleur and [presumably] cassette. Can anyone corroborate?
Yeah, one of the earlier posts has more details (IIRC the cassette was marked as "flat-top only" or something similar...)
From another forum: " I had...
Yeah, one of the earlier posts has more details (IIRC the cassette was marked as "flat-top only" or something similar...)
From another forum: " I had a conversation with a reliable source, who has access to supply chain ordering for new bike builds at a well known company. He advised me not to order any SRAM Force, as they are being updated in March 2023."
Dunno if they're going to release all AXS stuff at the same time, but that's in-line w/ what other folks have posted for the new Eagle release...
Do you know if that is a cassette or derailleur requirement, or both? Currently I have a really nicely working Sramano setup with AXS derailleur matched to...
Do you know if that is a cassette or derailleur requirement, or both? Currently I have a really nicely working Sramano setup with AXS derailleur matched to Shimano chain, chainring, and cassette. Will it still be possible with the next gen stuff?
I think you will still be able to use your Sramano setup. The chain and cassette will be designed to work together just like Shimano 12 spd is, but I can't imagine there is any special f*%kery with the jockey wheels that would make the derailleur not work with a Shimano chain and cassette. The only thing that would make that the case is if they change the pitch between cogs and that is unlikely given space constraints.
Jockey wheels are the only thing that'd stop one from using shimano chain/cassette. And worst case, jockey wheels are easy to change. I'm sure an aftermarket company would make shimano compatible jockey wheels for axs derailleurs.
I'm roadie ignorant: why are flat top chains used? What makes them better than a standard chain?
Also thanks sram, less compatibility is what everyone is clamoring for!
Shimano jockeys not working with Sram chains is a reality, the other way around shouldn't be an issue. It's the Sram chain that has too much material so need more clearance on jockeys.
As for sprocket spacing, 12spd stuff isn't the same already as far as I know, it's just close enough for it to somehow function.
I mean, if the soon to be released sram trunnion derailleurs are flat top chain only, that makes them incompatible with current gen sram mtb chains and cassettes. Which I think is horse shit. Or have I misunderstood?
"To gain a wider gear range with smaller gearing steps, the chain has to get narrower. With Flattop, we’ve added material on the flat side of the chain plates to strengthen every link... Additionally, Flattop chains feature longer wearing large diameter rollers that help deliver the same drivetrain efficiency as our 11-speed drivetrains."
And "The plates are thinner which means less material. To maintain strength the material is added to the top of the chain plate making it our strongest, and longest lasting chain we’ve ever made."
Reading between the lines, and being part-roadie, I think they were running into real efficiency/friction loss problems with their road one-by drivetrains and especially from the 12-speed micro-drivetrains their road teams were using with 10-tooth rear cogs and smaller chainrings. The one-year experiment of the 1x-only 3T Strada team was a very public failure, and I think there was a mini-revolt from their world tour teams where everyone went back to larger chainrings for a while. Not sure where that's at or if racers are back on 48 and 50 tooth big rings. I think the flat top chain is narrower for packing 12-speeds into the space of 11 or 13 speeds into the space of 12 to reduce cross-chaining, plus using bigger rollers, taller teeth, fancy manufacturing and generally doing anything they can to reduce friction in the chain roller/tooth interface for world tour road riders who will be a lot of time in those tight 10, 11, and 12 tooth cogs.
Editor's Note: all of this is baffling to me. I'm still extremely happy with my SRAM 11-speed on my mountain bike and my front derailleur and mid-compact crankset on my road bike.
Here's SRAM's copy about "Why flat top chains:"
"To gain a wider gear range with smaller gearing steps, the chain has to get narrower. With Flattop...
Here's SRAM's copy about "Why flat top chains:"
"To gain a wider gear range with smaller gearing steps, the chain has to get narrower. With Flattop, we’ve added material on the flat side of the chain plates to strengthen every link... Additionally, Flattop chains feature longer wearing large diameter rollers that help deliver the same drivetrain efficiency as our 11-speed drivetrains."
And "The plates are thinner which means less material. To maintain strength the material is added to the top of the chain plate making it our strongest, and longest lasting chain we’ve ever made."
Reading between the lines, and being part-roadie, I think they were running into real efficiency/friction loss problems with their road one-by drivetrains and especially from the 12-speed micro-drivetrains their road teams were using with 10-tooth rear cogs and smaller chainrings. The one-year experiment of the 1x-only 3T Strada team was a very public failure, and I think there was a mini-revolt from their world tour teams where everyone went back to larger chainrings for a while. Not sure where that's at or if racers are back on 48 and 50 tooth big rings. I think the flat top chain is narrower for packing 12-speeds into the space of 11 or 13 speeds into the space of 12 to reduce cross-chaining, plus using bigger rollers, taller teeth, fancy manufacturing and generally doing anything they can to reduce friction in the chain roller/tooth interface for world tour road riders who will be a lot of time in those tight 10, 11, and 12 tooth cogs.
Editor's Note: all of this is baffling to me. I'm still extremely happy with my SRAM 11-speed on my mountain bike and my front derailleur and mid-compact crankset on my road bike.
I have it on good authority that SRAM is battling efficiency issues with their 10t cog in the context of world cup/tour level riders. From what I know, most pros are actively avoiding its use outside of soft pedaling, as there is about a 50-60 watt loss when over 1000 watts of power are applied. It's not a problem for the average rider, but it's not ideal for top-level competition.
I mean, if the soon to be released sram trunnion derailleurs are flat top chain only, that makes them incompatible with current gen sram mtb chains and cassettes...
I mean, if the soon to be released sram trunnion derailleurs are flat top chain only, that makes them incompatible with current gen sram mtb chains and cassettes. Which I think is horse shit. Or have I misunderstood?
If the MTB flat top chains have larger diameter rollers like the road stuff does, compatibility is out the window.
But in any case, I'd much prefer the new cassettes and chains be compatible with the old derailleurs than the other way around. Riding an old bike without UDH means the new stuff is useless if it will be coaxial mount only while running the old stuff with the new chain without the stupid 42-52 jump would bring a happy middle ground.
I'm SOL anyway though as I have the old gen X01 derailleur that can only handle a max 50T sprocket so it's a complete new drivetrain/new bike day for me once the stuff comes out...
Here's SRAM's copy about "Why flat top chains:"
"To gain a wider gear range with smaller gearing steps, the chain has to get narrower. With Flattop...
Here's SRAM's copy about "Why flat top chains:"
"To gain a wider gear range with smaller gearing steps, the chain has to get narrower. With Flattop, we’ve added material on the flat side of the chain plates to strengthen every link... Additionally, Flattop chains feature longer wearing large diameter rollers that help deliver the same drivetrain efficiency as our 11-speed drivetrains."
And "The plates are thinner which means less material. To maintain strength the material is added to the top of the chain plate making it our strongest, and longest lasting chain we’ve ever made."
Reading between the lines, and being part-roadie, I think they were running into real efficiency/friction loss problems with their road one-by drivetrains and especially from the 12-speed micro-drivetrains their road teams were using with 10-tooth rear cogs and smaller chainrings. The one-year experiment of the 1x-only 3T Strada team was a very public failure, and I think there was a mini-revolt from their world tour teams where everyone went back to larger chainrings for a while. Not sure where that's at or if racers are back on 48 and 50 tooth big rings. I think the flat top chain is narrower for packing 12-speeds into the space of 11 or 13 speeds into the space of 12 to reduce cross-chaining, plus using bigger rollers, taller teeth, fancy manufacturing and generally doing anything they can to reduce friction in the chain roller/tooth interface for world tour road riders who will be a lot of time in those tight 10, 11, and 12 tooth cogs.
Editor's Note: all of this is baffling to me. I'm still extremely happy with my SRAM 11-speed on my mountain bike and my front derailleur and mid-compact crankset on my road bike.
I heard pros absolutely hated the 10T cassettes and got 11T cassettes and larger sprockets.
Here's SRAM's copy about "Why flat top chains:"
"To gain a wider gear range with smaller gearing steps, the chain has to get narrower. With Flattop...
Here's SRAM's copy about "Why flat top chains:"
"To gain a wider gear range with smaller gearing steps, the chain has to get narrower. With Flattop, we’ve added material on the flat side of the chain plates to strengthen every link... Additionally, Flattop chains feature longer wearing large diameter rollers that help deliver the same drivetrain efficiency as our 11-speed drivetrains."
And "The plates are thinner which means less material. To maintain strength the material is added to the top of the chain plate making it our strongest, and longest lasting chain we’ve ever made."
Reading between the lines, and being part-roadie, I think they were running into real efficiency/friction loss problems with their road one-by drivetrains and especially from the 12-speed micro-drivetrains their road teams were using with 10-tooth rear cogs and smaller chainrings. The one-year experiment of the 1x-only 3T Strada team was a very public failure, and I think there was a mini-revolt from their world tour teams where everyone went back to larger chainrings for a while. Not sure where that's at or if racers are back on 48 and 50 tooth big rings. I think the flat top chain is narrower for packing 12-speeds into the space of 11 or 13 speeds into the space of 12 to reduce cross-chaining, plus using bigger rollers, taller teeth, fancy manufacturing and generally doing anything they can to reduce friction in the chain roller/tooth interface for world tour road riders who will be a lot of time in those tight 10, 11, and 12 tooth cogs.
Editor's Note: all of this is baffling to me. I'm still extremely happy with my SRAM 11-speed on my mountain bike and my front derailleur and mid-compact crankset on my road bike.
I have it on good authority that SRAM is battling efficiency issues with their 10t cog in the context of world cup/tour level riders. From what...
I have it on good authority that SRAM is battling efficiency issues with their 10t cog in the context of world cup/tour level riders. From what I know, most pros are actively avoiding its use outside of soft pedaling, as there is about a 50-60 watt loss when over 1000 watts of power are applied. It's not a problem for the average rider, but it's not ideal for top-level competition.
The losses need to be put into context. 40 to 60 W is 4 to 6 %. Not THAT much. But the question is how much losses are in an 11T drivetrain. 2 to 4 %? Not much but could make the photo finish go against you instead of for you.
On the original announcement it said something like preorder end of 22 and available start/spring 23. But I haven’t heard anything since then
Just look at some pre-order dates for TEMPO – mid or fall of 2023. Craziness. Seems like a shortage on forks rather parts based on the build kit combos they have ready now (Ohlins).
I mean, if the soon to be released sram trunnion derailleurs are flat top chain only, that makes them incompatible with current gen sram mtb chains and cassettes...
I mean, if the soon to be released sram trunnion derailleurs are flat top chain only, that makes them incompatible with current gen sram mtb chains and cassettes. Which I think is horse shit. Or have I misunderstood?
While I am all for being able to mix and match components, Shimano and SRAM have zero reason to make their parts cross compatible. It can hurt or limit their sales (and potentially limit improvements in their designs), both OEM and aftermarket if they are cross compatible. By making chains, cassettes, and chainrings required for a properly operating drivetrain, they ensure long term business. Years ago, the XO shifter to a Shimano derailleur was absolutely awesome for 9 speed. Mixed with a Sram chain and ultergra cassette was my favorite set up for DH. This is just those brands long term play to make complete systems and sell more parts (push out smaller players or those not making full drivetrains).
In a lot of ways we have it easy in the bike world. In the auto world, it's way messier. Shoot even Toyota parts are not compatible from year to year in some instances. The 2004 Tacoma for example split two generations and shared few parts.
Sram's UDH was to preempt their new derailleur design. To be backwards compatible with frames from the last few years with a new product coming out was smart and will frankly be kind of cool for owners of those bikes.
Kerr snagged a few frames of what looks like an all-metal Atherton proto with traditional DW. High-ish pivot? More affordable alloy frame? Or, just a test mule?
In addition, Dan is on the a.170 travel enduro/park bike for the jump lines towards the end, it stands out from the a.150 because of a mostly straight seat tube (matching what the 170 teasers they've been putting on insta). Can't tell if its 29 or mullet.
Kerr snagged a few frames of what looks like an all-metal Atherton proto with traditional DW. High-ish pivot? More affordable alloy frame? Or, just a test...
Kerr snagged a few frames of what looks like an all-metal Atherton proto with traditional DW. High-ish pivot? More affordable alloy frame? Or, just a test mule?
In addition, Dan is on the a.170 travel enduro/park bike for the jump lines towards the end, it stands out from the a.150 because of a mostly straight seat tube (matching what the 170 teasers they've been putting on insta). Can't tell if its 29 or mullet.
So basically this is an alloy Pivot. If they offer a more balanced geo (Pivot have very short CS) I could definitely get along with this as Pivot suspension seems to offer everything I'd consider "a good thing" but kids' bike size CS with long reach, no thanks. Exciting news really.
Kerr snagged a few frames of what looks like an all-metal Atherton proto with traditional DW. High-ish pivot? More affordable alloy frame? Or, just a test...
Kerr snagged a few frames of what looks like an all-metal Atherton proto with traditional DW. High-ish pivot? More affordable alloy frame? Or, just a test mule?
In addition, Dan is on the a.170 travel enduro/park bike for the jump lines towards the end, it stands out from the a.150 because of a mostly straight seat tube (matching what the 170 teasers they've been putting on insta). Can't tell if its 29 or mullet.
Looks exactly the same suspension layup as the ghost riot.
It's actually VERY similar. Even kinematics wise as both system mimic what Yeti is doing (but Yeti is emulating an infinitely long link via the slider) - the lower link rises in the first part of the travel until the line between rear triangle pivots passes the rocker link pivot on the main triangle, from where the lower link starts rotating downward while the suspension goes deeper into the travel.
I've been wondering for a while now what that means for the DW Link patent which, at least part of it, states the instant centre of rotation at the end of the travel lies between the two pivot points of the lower link. If the rotation of the lower link changes direction mid-travel, the IC moves further backwards, off the lower link...
Kerr snagged a few frames of what looks like an all-metal Atherton proto with traditional DW. High-ish pivot? More affordable alloy frame? Or, just a test...
Kerr snagged a few frames of what looks like an all-metal Atherton proto with traditional DW. High-ish pivot? More affordable alloy frame? Or, just a test mule?
In addition, Dan is on the a.170 travel enduro/park bike for the jump lines towards the end, it stands out from the a.150 because of a mostly straight seat tube (matching what the 170 teasers they've been putting on insta). Can't tell if its 29 or mullet.
Looks exactly the same suspension layup as the ghost riot.
Not at all. Go check suspension analysis on Linkagedesign for Ibis/Pivot and then go have a look at the Ghost, pretty much as opposite as it can be and even worse on the latest version of the Ghost Riot.
Shimano continues to make firm progress toward their Mountain Bike drivetrain improvements. Must add how HG Plus even while staying mechanical cable has incredible lever-feel with a crisp shift the result.
I guess we can count on shimano to not make an electronic, wireless version of this future derailleur (seeing as it will probably come out with a di2 option soon after?)
I sort of get it for road bikes but for mountain bikes, I hope it won't be wired and require a battery in the down-tube/seat tube...
Dam, very interesting. It's notable that it's fairly detailed, looks like it's well thought out, it could be a real product. I mean, some patents are intended to block competitors from making things. Shimano's gearbox patent from a few years ago for example, which had some vague and questionable elements. But this seems like it could actually make it to production.
Edit: I wonder if all the interest show in La Sal prompted Shimano to investigate this?
I guess we can count on shimano to not make an electronic, wireless version of this future derailleur (seeing as it will probably come out with...
I guess we can count on shimano to not make an electronic, wireless version of this future derailleur (seeing as it will probably come out with a di2 option soon after?)
I sort of get it for road bikes but for mountain bikes, I hope it won't be wired and require a battery in the down-tube/seat tube...
As far as I know Shimano can't make any true wireless derailleurs because SRAM has a patent and Campagnolo has another one. SRAM patented the in-derailleur battery, effectively banning Shimano from running absolutely no wires from a junction box/battery.
You'll still need to adjust and fine tune the shifting. Hub endcaps and end of endcap spacing to freehub is not specified.
I wonder what will happen with bikes that don't have UDH, will there be a variant available? And what about cable actuation... I'd much prefer X01 cable actuated than GX AXS...
Plus yeah, snapping off or bending the UDH mount and killing the derailleur would kinda suck. That piece being replaceable would be quite nice.
I think you will still be able to use your Sramano setup. The chain and cassette will be designed to work together just like Shimano 12 spd is, but I can't imagine there is any special f*%kery with the jockey wheels that would make the derailleur not work with a Shimano chain and cassette. The only thing that would make that the case is if they change the pitch between cogs and that is unlikely given space constraints.
Jockey wheels are the only thing that'd stop one from using shimano chain/cassette. And worst case, jockey wheels are easy to change. I'm sure an aftermarket company would make shimano compatible jockey wheels for axs derailleurs.
I'm roadie ignorant: why are flat top chains used? What makes them better than a standard chain?
Also thanks sram, less compatibility is what everyone is clamoring for!
Less compatibility in what regard?
Shimano jockeys not working with Sram chains is a reality, the other way around shouldn't be an issue. It's the Sram chain that has too much material so need more clearance on jockeys.
As for sprocket spacing, 12spd stuff isn't the same already as far as I know, it's just close enough for it to somehow function.
I mean, if the soon to be released sram trunnion derailleurs are flat top chain only, that makes them incompatible with current gen sram mtb chains and cassettes. Which I think is horse shit. Or have I misunderstood?
Here's SRAM's copy about "Why flat top chains:"
"To gain a wider gear range with smaller gearing steps, the chain has to get narrower. With Flattop, we’ve added material on the flat side of the chain plates to strengthen every link... Additionally, Flattop chains feature longer wearing large diameter rollers that help deliver the same drivetrain efficiency as our 11-speed drivetrains."
https://www.sram.com/en/life/stories/modern-chain-management
And "The plates are thinner which means less material. To maintain strength the material is added to the top of the chain plate making it our strongest, and longest lasting chain we’ve ever made."
https://support.sram.com/hc/en-us/articles/6526788799771-Why-do-the-new…-
Reading between the lines, and being part-roadie, I think they were running into real efficiency/friction loss problems with their road one-by drivetrains and especially from the 12-speed micro-drivetrains their road teams were using with 10-tooth rear cogs and smaller chainrings. The one-year experiment of the 1x-only 3T Strada team was a very public failure, and I think there was a mini-revolt from their world tour teams where everyone went back to larger chainrings for a while. Not sure where that's at or if racers are back on 48 and 50 tooth big rings. I think the flat top chain is narrower for packing 12-speeds into the space of 11 or 13 speeds into the space of 12 to reduce cross-chaining, plus using bigger rollers, taller teeth, fancy manufacturing and generally doing anything they can to reduce friction in the chain roller/tooth interface for world tour road riders who will be a lot of time in those tight 10, 11, and 12 tooth cogs.
Editor's Note: all of this is baffling to me. I'm still extremely happy with my SRAM 11-speed on my mountain bike and my front derailleur and mid-compact crankset on my road bike.
Anyone know when the commencal supreme v5 getting launched/put on sale?
On the original announcement it said something like preorder end of 22 and available start/spring 23. But I haven’t heard anything since then
I have it on good authority that SRAM is battling efficiency issues with their 10t cog in the context of world cup/tour level riders. From what I know, most pros are actively avoiding its use outside of soft pedaling, as there is about a 50-60 watt loss when over 1000 watts of power are applied. It's not a problem for the average rider, but it's not ideal for top-level competition.
If the MTB flat top chains have larger diameter rollers like the road stuff does, compatibility is out the window.
But in any case, I'd much prefer the new cassettes and chains be compatible with the old derailleurs than the other way around. Riding an old bike without UDH means the new stuff is useless if it will be coaxial mount only while running the old stuff with the new chain without the stupid 42-52 jump would bring a happy middle ground.
I'm SOL anyway though as I have the old gen X01 derailleur that can only handle a max 50T sprocket so it's a complete new drivetrain/new bike day for me once the stuff comes out...
I heard pros absolutely hated the 10T cassettes and got 11T cassettes and larger sprockets.
Also... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsk3zAZyLaQ
The losses need to be put into context. 40 to 60 W is 4 to 6 %. Not THAT much. But the question is how much losses are in an 11T drivetrain. 2 to 4 %? Not much but could make the photo finish go against you instead of for you.
Just look at some pre-order dates for TEMPO – mid or fall of 2023. Craziness. Seems like a shortage on forks rather parts based on the build kit combos they have ready now (Ohlins).
While I am all for being able to mix and match components, Shimano and SRAM have zero reason to make their parts cross compatible. It can hurt or limit their sales (and potentially limit improvements in their designs), both OEM and aftermarket if they are cross compatible. By making chains, cassettes, and chainrings required for a properly operating drivetrain, they ensure long term business. Years ago, the XO shifter to a Shimano derailleur was absolutely awesome for 9 speed. Mixed with a Sram chain and ultergra cassette was my favorite set up for DH. This is just those brands long term play to make complete systems and sell more parts (push out smaller players or those not making full drivetrains).
In a lot of ways we have it easy in the bike world. In the auto world, it's way messier. Shoot even Toyota parts are not compatible from year to year in some instances. The 2004 Tacoma for example split two generations and shared few parts.
Sram's UDH was to preempt their new derailleur design. To be backwards compatible with frames from the last few years with a new product coming out was smart and will frankly be kind of cool for owners of those bikes.
The best part of the new axs stuff is how much better it shifts under load. Smooth as butter!
Sram should work with on the cassette spread. The eagle gear of 52 is garbage and the jump to it is bs. Make the cassette more usable.
Also the clutch, really, really really good. And strong. No chain slap...ever.
Kerr snagged a few frames of what looks like an all-metal Atherton proto with traditional DW. High-ish pivot? More affordable alloy frame? Or, just a test mule?
In addition, Dan is on the a.170 travel enduro/park bike for the jump lines towards the end, it stands out from the a.150 because of a mostly straight seat tube (matching what the 170 teasers they've been putting on insta). Can't tell if its 29 or mullet.
Have you seen pictures of the proto stuff? I.e. the pictures on this page of this thread?
So basically this is an alloy Pivot. If they offer a more balanced geo (Pivot have very short CS) I could definitely get along with this as Pivot suspension seems to offer everything I'd consider "a good thing" but kids' bike size CS with long reach, no thanks. Exciting news really.
IBIS has finally invited all their team riders even those from Europe (Raphaela Richter, Louise Paulin, etc) to California.
So they´re most likely launching their long awaited enduro bike, which was originally planned for spring 2022.
Looks exactly the same suspension layup as the ghost riot.
It's actually VERY similar. Even kinematics wise as both system mimic what Yeti is doing (but Yeti is emulating an infinitely long link via the slider) - the lower link rises in the first part of the travel until the line between rear triangle pivots passes the rocker link pivot on the main triangle, from where the lower link starts rotating downward while the suspension goes deeper into the travel.
I've been wondering for a while now what that means for the DW Link patent which, at least part of it, states the instant centre of rotation at the end of the travel lies between the two pivot points of the lower link. If the rotation of the lower link changes direction mid-travel, the IC moves further backwards, off the lower link...
Not at all. Go check suspension analysis on Linkagedesign for Ibis/Pivot and then go have a look at the Ghost, pretty much as opposite as it can be and even worse on the latest version of the Ghost Riot.
Commencal Supreme DH V5 available to pre order on the website with delivery starting in March 2023
https://www.commencal-store.co.uk/supreme-dh-v5-c102x4280041
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/is-shimano-about-to-reinvent-the-rear-…
An OE Drivetrain pairs up very well, having to find the 52t only for the most steep of climbing. A 32~30t w/ SRAM 42t 2nd gear is already very low.
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/is-shimano-about-to-reinvent-the-rear-derailleur/
Shimano continues to make firm progress toward their Mountain Bike drivetrain improvements. Must add how HG Plus even while staying mechanical cable has incredible lever-feel with a crisp shift the result.
I guess we can count on shimano to not make an electronic, wireless version of this future derailleur (seeing as it will probably come out with a di2 option soon after?)
I sort of get it for road bikes but for mountain bikes, I hope it won't be wired and require a battery in the down-tube/seat tube...
Dam, very interesting. It's notable that it's fairly detailed, looks like it's well thought out, it could be a real product. I mean, some patents are intended to block competitors from making things. Shimano's gearbox patent from a few years ago for example, which had some vague and questionable elements. But this seems like it could actually make it to production.
Edit: I wonder if all the interest show in La Sal prompted Shimano to investigate this?
As far as I know Shimano can't make any true wireless derailleurs because SRAM has a patent and Campagnolo has another one. SRAM patented the in-derailleur battery, effectively banning Shimano from running absolutely no wires from a junction box/battery.
Post a reply to: MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation