Do I get some “successful thread derailment” badge for bringing up the flexiness of Red cranks? My bad. I’ll say I have some eeWings cranks on my MTB and they are SUPER nice, albeit also SUPER expensive.
Back to the point, the new group looks very promising in terms of ergonomics, which is the main thing I care about. I’m sure it’ll be very light, but Force—>Red is usually not worth the $$/grams to upgrade for me. (And yet I have eeWings for some reason?) And wireless electronic shifting has taken any “superior shifting feel” argument out of the equation.
I hope it’s compatible with Force calipers and hoses, as the only upgrade I’d be likely to make would be the brifters, i.e. the ergo parts.
Elastic deformation and springs, by default, involve energy loss per cycle, that’s what is defined by the Q factor. Not sure if you are trying to argue the opposite by mentioning things that (of course) confirm what I said: energy lost in the system isn’t recovered by the system. I.e., the first law of thermodynamics.
But to the initial point, I’m open to being shown that the energy lost to deflection of a crankarm is indeed recovered elsewhere in the system instead of being “lost”. I don’t see how and where that could happen by I’m sure I’m missing something.
A pretty decent measure of crank loss/performance would be running powermeter pedals along with a hub-based powermeter. Swap out the crank (everything else being the same) and that should give some indication of crank performance differences (ie - compare relationship between pedal and hub power). Would not be a perfect test and would likely differ by individual, but should be able to highlight any measurable performance differences between cranks (but wouldn’t really tell you if it’s due to stiffness or other factors)
I apologize for contributing to the thread derail.
Back on topic, I saw something on weightweenies indicating that a 1x13 sram red groupset may be part of the upcoming plan? Not sure on sourcing of the info, but sounds intriguing since 13 speed cassette spacing seems pretty sensitive, and having the mech be electronic would help avoid the inevitable tuning needed as cable shifting ages etc
spitballing a bit more here, perhaps the 1x13 electronic would be UDH only.
Getting the advantage of more consistent alignment due to elimination of hanger, and also more likely to pick up spec since 1x13 range seems particularly attractive for gravel frame marketing and riding.
no idea on watts due to shape/size change of hoods.
big potential benefit for me though would be ability to put down power fully while shifting though. not a necessity of course since shim 12s shifting is already so good and it is not rocket science to shift current bikes anyway. how well the new FD would work is an unknown though, since shim 12s di2 FD really is a benchmark product.
I think it is a hardware/mechanical design issue? I seem to recall it being attributed to physical patent issues, when podcasts have discussed it. I do not know what the specific hurdle is though. Maybe also has to do with shimano big chainring design too? not sure.
The bike it is shown on is a Roubaix SL8, same as the diverge and crux, they aren’t natively UDH compatible, so that is what this modification piece allows for.
It will be interesting to see more about these mods.
Some MTB companies seem to be selling replacement rear frame pieces that are legitimately UDH standard compatible.
I’m not sure that the 5DEV workaround is fully compliant and approved by UDH/SRAM. Not sure if it would offer the full purported benefits of UDH.
