Steel and Ti frame builders don’t like how big the dropout has to be and that if you make the left dropout flange smaller to save weight your rear triangle tubing ends up slightly asymmetrical.
There was some builder that got burned by designing their dropouts to an early UDH spec that ended up not being compatible with a later revision but now with the T-type mechs out it should stay stable.
Which is worse, the dept that designed the failing cranks or the one that put off the recall until it couldn’t be avoided?
I think it’s clear that UDH was a bit of trojan horse for sure, but people seem to quickly overlook the benefits to consumers of cheap, readily available derailleur hangers. I have no intentions of buying transmission anytime soon but I sure wouldn’t buy a bike without UDH, simply for the simplicity of having a single type of spare that works across my garage.
I could see Shimano doing that, and then frame makers revising the drop out to frame mount to use SRAM UDH adapters or Shimano TBD adapters to get the actual derailleur hanger to fit.
That is correct. But by design you can attach any regular RD with a UDH RD hanger. Literally any UDH hanger. So I don’t see how SRAM forces people to use their RDs — unless Shimano stops making RDs that attach to RD hangers.
It states that Shimano plans to introduce a new RD standard. Many of us are fearing that this standard will be incompatible with UDH because of an outbreak of not-invented-here syndrome somewhere in Osaka.
maybe I am not interpretting this correctly, but from the open statement , where it says…
I dont interpret that as Shimano have an as-yet unannounced frame-to-RD interface - I read that to imply Shimano have a RD that uses UDH?
In my head it states the frame has UDH and is compatible with the new shimano standard 
Nothing about having to produce two different frames 
Maybe i’m just in denial because I cant imagine shimano being so stupid 
EDIT: actually, looking at the patent it looks as though the plan is that the shimano version of UDR direct mount will require an extra feature on the frame (i think someone else mentioned this above). Altough that patent is old - they could have come up with another method to do the B-set screw adjustement.
But it is very possible that shimano could add extra constraints onto the frame design in addition to what UDH does.
If that is true there will be the current crop of frames that are SRAM-dirrect mount compatible but not Shimano-dirrect mount compatible - but in the future all the Shimano-direct mount frames will still support SRAM-direct mount.
This sucks but at least the frames wont be groupset specific going forward.
A lot of the angst in this thread is that people really think Shimano will be that stupid/petty, to the detriment of their customers.
Yeah, that’s hard to say. Open’s statement can be read that there is only one version of the UPPER ZEN frame and not two, which would already be a plus. But of course, it may still mean that UDH-“only” frames will be incompatible with Shimano’s drivetrains. What a mess.
It is completely this. I lot of made up anxiety here.
Just look at the mtb market. There is NO way Shimano could release a derailleur/dropout system that wouldn’t be compatible with a UDH frame. Would 100% lose that game of chicken. So their hands are tied. And if they already create a system for mtb, they would most likely use the same for road/gravel. See the number of gravel and now road bikes that are being released with UDH. And on that point, given the length of product cycles, my bet would be that manufacturers already know what Shimano’s new “standard” is, and that is why you are seeing new road/gravel bikes like this Open being released with UDH.
I’ve heard that the new Shimano stuff will utilize the same-sized hole in the frame that fits UDH, Transmission, etc.
I’m not sure I’d call it its own standard, but it works differently than Transmission, so…
I just don’t see this. Because it wouldn’t be a detriment to the customer, it would be a detriment to themselves. It’s corporate suicide. I just don’t see the executives at Shimano letting themselves go defunct over a RD standard. I can see them making a new standard that prevents backwards compatibility with current drivetrains. They’ve done that before. But to bet that frame manufacturers will start producing two frame specs (1 for each groupset) is crazy. They’d lose their whole business.
The reported failure rate is significantly less than 1% of the cranks. The idea that Shimano designed “failing cranks” is not in line with the data.
The problem is that even though it is an extremely small percentage of cranks affected, the raw numbers is noticeable. As I theorized long before the recall, the number of cranks sold is a staggering amount, so even though the reported failure rate is almost statistically insignificant, the raw numbers makes it stand out.
This ended up being a PR issue more than anything else.
Not only that, the engineering department probably wanted to fix it but the legal dept or financial dept or whatever said wait. It happens in the automotive industry all the time. It’s always about the cost. If they do the calculations and they have a 1% failure rate, that’s cheaper to just deal with those customers than do a recall. Even if they have to pay out some individual settlements here and there to customers, it was probably still cheaper. It’s not until the finances hit that tipping point where it’s cheaper to do a recall.
Electronic only frames are a non starter for me. I went electronic, and I don’t like it. I got rid of the AXS on my trail bike for mechanical X01, I’m swapping back from AXS XX1 to XTR (glad I didn’t sell the parts), on my XC bike, and I will eventually get around to putting 105 mechanical on my new roadie that currently has Dura Ace Di2. I should look up the pricing now actually…
What do you not like about electronic shifting?
I understand the one downside, that an electrical gremlin or a dead battery can’t be fixed in the field, unlike most cable shifting issues, but I’ve never heard anyone switching back.
And it’s not just SRAM vs Shimano shifting in your case either I guess.
I did. And while I am currently on electronic for both my road and gravel bikes, I’d have no hesitation going back to mechanical. I actually still prefer it in many ways.
Being a guy with normal hand strength, I experience no advantage when riding my electronic shifting bike (11 speed Dura-Ace Di2). My other 2 bikes have 12 speed GRX (mech) and 11 speed 105 (mech). I never miss, or even think about, not having electronic shifting.
To me that’s one big advantage on a dropbar bike, because I got used to shifting with my ring finger at times. No way my ring finger is strong enough to do that with a mechanical Shimano shifter. I also have to move my fingers less, especially when shifting to an easier gear in the rear or when shifting into the big chainring in the front.
The other downside of mechanical, which nobody seems to mention, is cable maintenance. If you are like me and sweat a lot and have salty sweat you end up needing to change cables and housings a lot. Before disk brakes I had to change all of the brake and shifter cables and housings three or four times a year per bike because they corroded and added a lot of drag. Despite lubricating the cables religiously. And the shifting needed a lot of adjustment during the life of the cable. With electronic on my road, gravel, and mountain bikes the last time I adjusted anything (except for installation) was 8 years ago. To me the lack of headache is worth it.
That seems like an outlier case. I can’t think of anyone that has ever needed to change cables that frequently…and while it certainly makes a strong argument for you to use electronic, I don’t think it is necessarily a damning case against mechanical, as a whole.
Throughout the season I have to readjust my cable tension on my mountain bike (XTR/XT mechanical). I also have to change the cables once every 1–2 years. It isn’t bad, but definitely electronic shifters are better.
Part of the discussion seems to revolve around whether we “need” electronic shifting (answer: No.), but electronic shifting enables a lot of things.