I of course should not be on this thread , as I run friction shifters which work with everything from 5 speed to 12 speed. May even work with 13 speed but haven’t tried. No batteries required 
5 Likes
I dont see this happening because their current wireless battery performance is abysmal. I can’t even finish a ride if I get a low battery warning at the start
I have a 4 battery SRAM charger in my garage. 2 batteries sit on it at all times. 4 more are across several bikes. I never have to extend a cable across the garage. Never have to have multiple chargers going. Can charge in my car vis USB while the bike is on car. It’s the easiest charger I can image. And lest you say “see you spend so much effort charging because the batteries don’t last long”. No, I don’ think I’ve ever had a battery die. It’s the opposite. And if I ever did find that my battery is dead, I can swap one from another bike in less than 10 seconds.
I’ve had both. Everything about the SRAM electrical setup is superior.
4 Likes
1 Like
the wireless shifters cause a bigger drain on the system than if they were wired directly. If you wire the shifters to the system, the wireless transmitter turns off and better battery life
Yes, I’ve noticed that on my Ultegra Di2. Yes its MORE than when wired, but not crazy more. I could see them making it optional on MtB as well since it would only be one thin Di2 wire from the shifter to the mech, IF you wanted to set it up that way.
Ultimately, deciding which battery system is “better” is fruitless because it just comes down to preference. I’m a Di2 guy. In terms of having to find an outlet near your bike, I’d suggest a portable battery pack like you’d use when traveling as an option if you are in a pinch.
2 Likes
You are technically correct, but the drain on the shifters is near zero. I’ve had my force brifters on the same coin battery for 2+ years without ever changing the battery.
2 Likes
I will say though, if you don’t check them and have to change the battery in the wild, it’s a real pita.
1 Like
Im talking about the derailier’s battery. receiving a wireless signal has a power cost as well
It does, but it’s nearly zero while not riding the bike. That’s why the SRAM app tells you to “shake the bike” when you are using their app to adjust it. Vibration wakes the derailleur up and powers on the radios among other things. That’s why it is advised to remove the derailleur batteries before going for a long drive. If you drove 1/2 across the country with a low battery, you might exhaust battery. Never happened to me, but it’s a thing.
1 Like
where was I claiming THIS was the problem.
I made a statement that 12sp battery usage is higher than in 11sp due to wireless receiving.
I just dislike Shimano as a company. Despite previously owning several Di2 groups. I think that the intentionally make things incompatible and have poor customer service. Examples:
- About 10 years ago I had to replace a dead Di2 front derailleur. The new generation had just come out so I bought the new version. Everything worked fine and shifted perfectly. Shimano updated the firmware for the system. Once I did that I got a message saying that the FD and RD had to be from the same generation. And my whole bike stopped working. I had to get the new RD to make it work again. And this was a system that, before the firmware change, had been working perfectly. So, this is clearly a case where Shimano CHOSE, for no good reason, to make parts not compatible that should be compatible. SRAM is the opposite- backwards compatibility is always supported as much as possible.
- Shimano forcing Hammerhead to remove Di2 gear info from the Karoo after it being there for several years. Why? This is information that is publicly broadcast and contains nothing proprietary. Why force the issue? The only people it hurts is their own Di2 owners.
- Microspline?? Why? There was already a 12 speed freehub standard in XD and XDr. Why introduce a second system that has no advantages? It just makes wheel sets incompatible between systems. Again, why?
- And, finally, the crankset debacle. Continuing to sell defective cranks for years without fixing, or even admitting, the problem. Then, finally, they require inspections to see if they’ll replace it and, it turns out, that a bunch of people pass the inspection and then have the crank break. Why can’t they just take care of their customers?
Compare that scenario to a decade or so ago when SRAM had hydraulic brake problems in cold weather. They helped their customers with temporary solutions, fixed the underlying problem, and replaced all the brakes with no questions asked.
8 Likes
- That’s a fairly new thing for SRAM since 12 to 11 etap is not compatible as they operate on different protocols. Agree recently though they have completely turned into a customer centric brand.
- It sucks but once SRAM acquired hammerhead you can assume this was a business/data decision as they didn’t want their competitor getting hold of their IP…also a pretty unique example since Garmin obviously doesn’t produce groupsets.
- Again competitors are not going to adopt each others standards…see: bottom brackets, freehubs, etc. What made XD better than microspline? Shimano have been running 12 speeds on that since their new groupsets were released.
- Agree with you.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
I’d feel the same I think.
Shimano 11-sp 105 CS-HG700 11-34: 11-13-15-17-19-21-23-25-27-30-34
Shimano 12-sp Ultegra CS-R8101 11-34: 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-24-27-30-34
Sunrace 11-sp CSRS3 EAV (11-34): 11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-24-28-34
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.
1 Like
Respectfully the reason cited on the sram website is protocol based.
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.
That seems a bit nitpicky: yes, protocols are implemented in software. How does that “correction” change my point, though?
1 Like