Curtesy of Open via Escape Collective: the new Open UP, UPPER & UPPER Zen will be “Compatible with a new, as of yet unannounced Shimano rear derailleur standard”
1 Like
Dumb.
I’m assuming there will be an option to run a normal RD, but this will effectively force manufacturers and consumers to choose their bike based on what components they want to run.
The industry once again is eating itself…
3 Likes
I really hope you are wrong.
In case of the UPPER ZEN, it seems Open can offer both, at least that is how I read their text.
2 Likes
Me, too!
Obviously we don’t know anything about the new Shimano spec (I refuse to call it a “standard”, because it is not one 
)…but we have already seen this issue popping up with the new SRAM Red 13 spd. It is only UDH-compatible. If you want to run it, you have to have a UDH frame. Which is fine from a frame perspective since you can make all other existing components UDH compatible with a derailleur hanger.
But there is no way to make a UDH RD compatible with a “normal” RD hanger. If Shimano introduces another RD hanger spec for frames, it will likely only make the problem worse.
1 Like
This is also a interesting note…since they are saying the new frame will be compatible with the new Shimano RD design, it would indicate that Shimano is indeed going full wireless.
This UPPER CONCEPT is designed specifically for the new SRAM Red 1x13 XPLR Transmission groupset. So it does not feature anything you don’t need for 1x13 Transmission. No FD mounts, no cable exits, nothing. Just one clean riding machine
1 Like
In the article the OP posted, there is a link to the Shimano patent
It does (to me) look like something that is fairly “simple”
1 Like
Yes, although I would add that SRAM so far has a good track record with UDH: manufacturers seem to like it and I haven’t heard anything from parts of bike manufacturers that they had issues dealing with SRAM in that area (e. g. by making onerous demands).
I understand that just as with all standards, manufacturers need to adopt it, and if your bikes doesn’t, that sucks. But in and of itself that need not be a bad thing.
The real problem is that I expect Shimano to adopt a “not invented here” stance and deliberately make something different and incompatible.
Do you know whether SRAM places any limitations on other manufacturers adopting UDH for their RDs? I know that the license for UDH is very lenient (or at least applied very leniently).
The writing was on the wall. They are losing the high-end MTB market. Yes, mechanical works great (I have XTR M9000/XTM8000 on my hardtail and I’m happy), but once you go electronic, you tend to not go back.
Can you translate that back to non-engineer speak?
It looks to me that the physical interface could be identical, but you are installing and adjusting the RD differently.
1 Like
100%…which was why I made my first post.
No idea…
1 Like
You calling me an engineer !!!
All I meant (was eating my tea so should have spent more time typing) was that I was expecting some complex shape that would eliminate and compatibility with SRAM UDH, it looks very simple structure to me, and you might even be able to make it work with any thru axle frame, as it seems to simply go either side of a hole, but i’m not used to looking at patents … nor am I a engineer
After the way they behaved over SRAM owning Hammerhead, I was fully expecting a totally different hanger design, which was completely incompatible with UDH and for them not to supply any company that used UDH or had a UDH frame
1 Like
Yeah, but Shimano has a history of artificially introducing incompatibility. E. g. Shimano made two versions of their XTR M9000 cranks, the M9000 and the M9020. The 1x-specific cranks lacked threads for the 2x chainrings, but were otherwise identical. In practice, that meant you could convert a double drivetrain to 1x, but not the other way around. Why care? Well, why have twice as many SKUs? Why go through the effort? Ugh.
2 Likes
Yeap, which is why I said
Like I said, I’m not used to looking at patients, so the structure that is the patient, may not be identical to what is released, in which case, may chaos ensue
SRAM did a good with UDH making it backwards compatible, and compatible going forward, I hope Shimano see’s sense
2 Likes
Shimano has become Suntour and seems to be a full development cycle behind SRAM at this point.
2 Likes
Brought to you by the company that denied there was a crank problem for a decade, then recalled a couple million cranks.
5 Likes
I very much doubt that Shimano would be able to pull of a component spec that required manufacturers to produce 2 different frames, a Shimano specific and a Sram specific. No way frame manufacturers would go for it.
6 Likes
I agree that the manufacturers won’t make two different frames. However, they could simply pick a spec for a frame and not give you a choice on groupset manufacturer. With the industry in a downturn, it would simplify inventory and increase purchasing volume to offer fewer build variants for each frame model.
Obviously they would lose some sales to people that are really set in their preferred groupset, but if it saves the company enough money, it could be worth it.
Shimano is big enough and arrogant enough that they just might force bike makers to do so. I think that would be bad for consumers and for the market. And hopefully someone could figure out a frame design compatible with both.
But fingers crossed that Shimano plays nice.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t put their engineering and legal group in the same boat.
And not to turn this into a SRAM/Shimano pissing match, but some publication has on record that SRAM put out the UDH standard as a deliberate Trojan horse to introduce T-type into the market, so everyone gets locked into $300 cassettes and $100 chains.
Shimano on the other hand kept Hyperglide pattern for what, 30 years, from 8 speeds all the way up to now 12 so you could ostensibly use the same wheels across 2-3 generations, while SRAM introduced their own cassette body so you’d have to buy their stuff.
7 Likes
More than likely they’d just tell Shimano to pound sand unless Shimano has something amazing up their sleeve. they don’t.
UDH is freely licensed. Looking at the patent, my guess is transmission clone, using the UDH physical design, with a b-Limit screw that impinges on a bulge in the frame which happens to be compatible with SRAM’s design.
The hanger part of the spec is, but as soon as you direct-mount a derailleur to a T-type dropout you’ve got a patent war on your hands.
1 Like
But the UDH spec includes the the drop out design. You can’t implement a UDH compatible frame with the precise dimensions of the dropout. So yeah, copying the derailleur design would be infringement, building a different attachment mechanism that happens to attach to a UDH frame, is probably in the clear.
1 Like
That’s exactly what I said - it doesn’t matter that the dropout design is open if you can’t mount anything to it because the derailleur patents restrict how the derailleur mounts to it.
1 Like