Protocols are software, and electronic shifters don’t care whether you have 3 cogs in the back of 13. I hope that going forward, SRAM will expand its compatibility. I’d love to get a 13-speed drivetrain by solely buying a new cassette, rear derailleur and perhaps chainring. Let’s hope SRAM will deliver on that, not least because groupsets cost a lot more these days.
I don’t think that has anything to do with IP. The protocol is public, you just need to sign an agreement with Shimano that you can use it. What makes Shimano’s move even more egregious is that it applied retroactively, if you bought a Hammerhead Karoo (2) before SRAM purchased the company, then functionality was retroactively taken away for no good reason.
IMHO it is narrow minded and has damaged Shimano’s brand reputation needlessly.
SRAM was using the same standards as Shimano in the 11-speed era. I used to run a SRAM Force 11-speed cassette on my 2x11 speed Shimano groupset as I preferred SRAM’s gearing to Shimano’s. You could say SRAM was forced to do that as it was a much smaller company back then.
What makes XD better than Microspline is simple, it existed before Microspline and has worked well. Ditto for UDH. In my opinion, Shimano’s hand might be forced when all frame manufacturers adopt UDH (as seems to be the case now). I don’t think a new UDH-like standard would be accepted by the market, unless it is actually a lot better from a technical perspective and manufacturers trust Shimano as a partner. My impression is that UDH is spreading widely as it has solved a problem for customers, frame manufacturers and SRAM alike, and that SRAM seems easy to deal with when it comes to UDH-compatible frames and UDH derailleur hangers. I doubt companies and customers clamor for mutually exclusive standards, where your frame might not be compatible with your groupset of choice.
SRAM’s/Hammerhead’s experience with Di2 seems an indication that manufacturers should not trust Shimano too much.
Sunrace 11-sp & Shimano 12-sp have bigger jumps at the easy end of the cassette, with the benefit of a bit of a corn cob at the business end.
Shimano 11-sp has finer jumps at the easy end but misses out on the sublime close ratios that others have at high speed.
I use the Sunrace cassette & I love it! I wouldn’t really enjoy the Shimano 11-sp cassette. Mind you my other bike has a 12-36 9-sp which goes 12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36, which has similar big jumps at the fast end as the Shimano 11-sp above & I find it a bit awkward sometimes, but it’s only got 9 sprockets so I accept there has to be a compromise.
Protocols are a set of formal rules describing how to transmit or exchange data.
Software is something else entirely, though may be used to implement some protocols. Though certain hardware requirements are also be necessary to implement some protocols.
Yes, I believe that this is the justification they have given. I also believe that they could have designed the (software and if at all necessary hardware) of the shifters as to be backwards compatible.
The reason why SRAM and Shimano haven’t is that they can sell entire groupsets (= more money for them) as opposed to upgrade kids. If SRAM continues on the new path they have chosen with the new Red groupset (and Red XPLR), then this is a big plus in my mind.
There is also another reason why compatibility is a plus: I have to have my left Force D1 shifter replaced, and it is a pain to source it as the new D2 has been released. Obviously, I am not too keen on replacing two brake/shift levers or have an unmatched pair.
I think you are picking a weird fight based on semantics. Within the particular context, I think my claim is correct: incompatibility (going from 11-speed eTap to 12-speed eTap) was engineered into the product and from a technical point of view needless. Maybe you are technically correct in that SRAM also changed the frequencies or some other hardware-related aspect, but I don’t think that invalidates my overarching point. Although I still think that the most likely change is software-only.
Ditto for Shimano. In fact, Shimano’s 11-speed TT shifters do work with their 12-speed groupsets, I reckon it wasn’t worth the engineering effort to gimp compatibility.
That was why I loved SRAM’s 11-32 cassette and picked it over Shimano’s: I prefer larger jumps on the climby end and am happy to take another closely spaced cog on the fast end of the cassette.
eTap uses a different radio (Airea) which is not bluetooth or Ant+ compatible. AXS is bluetooth BLE. So, it’s a HW & software issue for compatibility. eTAP came out in 2015 and probably had 2-3 years of development. Maybe they could have used Bluetooth BLE in 2015, but they didn’t. Breaking protocol changes is never taken lightly, but in the long run it was a good thing
I didn’t know about SRAM switched to BLE, I thought they still use the same proprietary radio protocol (to transmit shift commands and the like). Thanks!
I keep a couple of spare batteries on a charger in my car. I can easily go more than a week of daily rides without changing the batteries on my eTap and AXS derailleurs. Even on long one-day gravel rides, I don’t bother with carrying a spare. I just throw in freshly charge batteries and go. I never understood the need to carry spares.
