# News from Sea Otter



## Cyclo-phile (Sep 22, 2005)

- Carbon levers and black finish for Rival
- OCT (hollow) crank arms for Rival (~100g lighter)
- Zero Loss shifting trickles down from Red to Force and Rival
- adjustable reach and longer brake levers trickle down to Force and Rival
- shifter guts can supposedly be retrofitted to current Force and Rival levers
- lower price for Force group
- same price for Rival group, despite significant upgrades


----------



## rhauft (Aug 8, 2006)

*Also...*

I heard directly from my SRAM rep...

*09* *RED* = *11 speed*

...and of course even lighter.


----------



## orlin03 (Dec 11, 2007)

Holy crap (to both posts)! That's good news all around! It's funny, but during my morning ride today I was recalling the ten speeds I rode in my youth (the ones with 2x5 gearing), comparing them to toady's bikes and wondering if anyone ever imagined riding a bike with 20 or 30 speeds back then. I concluded that there must be little need for any more than ten gears out back, and that was why the triple crank is fading away; now I hear about 11 speed... good thing cyclists like overkill (I know I do).


----------



## thien (Feb 18, 2004)

Check out the actual release video.

SRAM announces new Rival

A couple of close up shots here.


----------



## rhauft (Aug 8, 2006)

SRAM really has it goin on!
Really nice looking groupo. 
Impressive upgrades to SRAM's 3rd tear groupo. Great Ultegra alternative.
Fingers crossed they continue the black theme with black brakes for *RED* please!


----------



## cydswipe (Mar 7, 2002)

Thein, did they say anything about the TT ring prototype they had on the table?


----------



## thien (Feb 18, 2004)

cydswipe said:


> Thein, did they say anything about the TT ring prototype they had on the table?


Ah, yes, it'll be available for racing this summer, and be available for consumers in the fall. I may cut together a video of the TT stuff they talked about as well.


----------



## rhauft (Aug 8, 2006)

The *RED* crankset will now be available in a BB30-compatible version.
more here:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb/2008...h.php?id=/tech/2008/features/seaotter_tech208


----------



## 3465mike (Dec 7, 2004)

11 speed? doubt it...


----------



## chicagocmr (Oct 4, 2007)

Cyclo-phile said:


> - Carbon levers and black finish for Rival
> - OCT (hollow) crank arms for Rival (~100g lighter)
> - Zero Loss shifting trickles down from Red to Force and Rival
> - adjustable reach and longer brake levers trickle down to Force and Rival
> ...


On point 5, I'm pretty sure that Force and Rival get some of the features of RED, but I don't believe that the guts are backwards compatable with the insides of the previous generation hoods. Although, I'm sure the new controls will play well with inital force and rival brake and drivetrain components..


----------



## rhauft (Aug 8, 2006)

3465mike said:


> 11 speed? doubt it...


Funny, that's what they said about the 'new' 6,7,8,9,10 speed when they were in development.
microwave ovens, laptops, cell phones, PDA's, GPS... That stuff will never be available to the public either.

FWIW, I heard directly from my SRAM distributor that '11' is in development.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

The Red Cassette will also gain a new option : 11 - 28.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

11 speed is not innovation. I hope SRAM does not go down that road. I don't need more gears, I need more usable gears. Twenty speeds is plenty. With my gearing right now, the easiest five gears in the big ring overlap with the hardest 7 in the small chainring. That kind of redundancy might be great for getting the "perfect" gear when racing, but it does nothing for me and my recreational riding. 
Using Sheldon's gear calculator, I can make a chainring cassette combo that gives me a significantly easier and harder gears, with the same double chainring (with 30/58 rings) and 10 speed cassette. With this setup I have the same easy gear as a standard triple, and a harder gear than the double I have on my bike now. I know that I would need a longer cage dérailleur, and it would probably be slightly heavier with the longer chain and all. 

What am I missing? I'm sure this is not a novel idea, but why has it not caught on? I might just start my own thread.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

SleeveleSS said:


> 11 speed is not innovation. I hope SRAM does not go down that road. I don't need more gears....



Tons of people said this about 8, 9 & 10, too... but I'm guessing you run 10 (despite the option to still pick up less expensive 9spd gear).

The reason for not having a 58-30 is because you'd have a terrible time keeping the chain from dropping when shifting down under load... plus, the people who don't like being seen with triples--wouldn't want long-cage derailleurs, either.

It's not bad to have some overlap--it's easier to stay in the same chainring than the go clear through the cassette anytime you change chainrings.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

MarvinK said:


> Tons of people said this about 8, 9 & 10, too... but I'm guessing you run 10 (despite the option to still pick up less expensive 9spd gear).
> 
> The reason for not having a 58-30 is because you'd have a terrible time keeping the chain from dropping when shifting down under load... plus, the people who don't like being seen with triples--wouldn't want long-cage derailleurs, either.
> 
> It's not bad to have some overlap--it's easier to stay in the same chainring than the go clear through the cassette anytime you change chainrings.


The problem with running 9-speed is they are not pumping any innovation into anymore. I would like to stay with the current drivetrain spec, but would also not like that to involve more gears than we have now. If 9 speed was the current standard, I would be fine with that. Even with my proposed setup you still have several gears of overlap. 

As far as the terrible shifting, fixing that problem is innovation, 11 speeds is not. I got rid of my triple because of the weight, poor shifting, lack of usable gears, and redundancy. I would have none of those concerns with a long cage dérailleur. I am not a retro-grouch by any means, but rear hub spacing isn't getting any wider and more gears means a narrower chain, and a more finicky drivetrain.


----------



## cydswipe (Mar 7, 2002)

If SRAM really wanted to be innovative, they should come up with a custom cassette/chain combo package. So you could program in what you really needed, on-line or from a dealer, have your cassette made with chain to match.


----------



## Squidward (Dec 18, 2005)

The problem with 11 speeds is that the cassette has to get wider to accomodate the additional gear, making the wheel dish even more. If they make the chain narrower, doesn't that weaken it? Doesn't that make shifting less precise? At what point do we stop the madness? I'll admit that I believe that 9 gears is plenty. The chains were a bit wider and, from what I've read here and in other forums, stronger. The shifting seems to be more precise, too, but that doesn't allow for variances between bikes. Still, do we really need another gear back there? I don't. I also don't need to be playing the upgrade game for the sake of staying up with the latest technology, though we are being forced to do so as manufacturers stop producing last year's model (try buying a new 8-speed cassette from Campy or Shimano that was produced within the last year or so).

I recently rode an old mountain bike with 6 gears on the rear and it was interesting going through the gears thinking, "wait, I've already shifted through the entire cassette?" after only what seemed like a few shifts. Having more gears than 6 makes sense but after 9 it seems like overkill to me.


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

Aside from "mid-summer," does anyone know when I might be able to expect blowing my allowance on the new Rival group?


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

cydswipe said:


> If SRAM really wanted to be innovative, they should come up with a custom cassette/chain combo package. So you could program in what you really needed, on-line or from a dealer, have your cassette made with chain to match.


What does the chain need to match??? - TF


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

SleeveleSS said:


> 11 speed is not innovation. I hope SRAM does not go down that road. I don't need more gears, I need more usable gears. Twenty speeds is plenty. With my gearing right now, the easiest five gears in the big ring overlap with the hardest 7 in the small chainring. That kind of redundancy might be great for getting the "perfect" gear when racing, but it does nothing for me and my recreational riding.
> Using Sheldon's gear calculator, I can make a chainring cassette combo that gives me a significantly easier and harder gears, with the same double chainring (with 30/58 rings) and 10 speed cassette. With this setup I have the same easy gear as a standard triple, and a harder gear than the double I have on my bike now. I know that I would need a longer cage dérailleur, and it would probably be slightly heavier with the longer chain and all.
> 
> What am I missing? I'm sure this is not a novel idea, but why has it not caught on? I might just start my own thread.


I think it would be terrible!

- It would shift much, much worse than a triple (if it would shift at all). They probably would have to come up with something other than a derailleur. Maybe they could put in a 'fake' middle ring to help it shift, which kind of defeats the point.

- You would have many rides where you would be right at the split and be shifting (again, maybe) the front up and down on every little rise and dip with a speed change.

Overlap is a GOOD thing.

The extra cog on the rear, where shifting is easy, will give the usable extended range.

TF


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

cydswipe said:


> If SRAM really wanted to be innovative, they should come up with a custom cassette/chain combo package. So you could program in what you really needed, on-line or from a dealer, have your cassette made with chain to match.


 Do you use your teeth as a chain breaking tool or something?


----------



## cydswipe (Mar 7, 2002)

Andrea138 said:


> Do you use your teeth as a chain breaking tool or something?


nope. I have always thought along the line of: new casette=new chain for wear purposes. I simply thought it would be a nice marketing combo idea.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

That's not innovative, that just a money-making scam.

Maybe they're looking at doing something drastic, like they are for their mtn groups... possibly no derailleur, just some fangled thing on the chainring/cassette... it's Truvativ HammerSchmidt.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

TurboTurtle said:


> I think it would be terrible!
> 
> - It would shift much, much worse than a triple (if it would shift at all). They probably would have to come up with something other than a derailleur. Maybe they could put in a 'fake' middle ring to help it shift, which kind of defeats the point.
> 
> ...


Why would it shift so much worse? (Genuine curiosity here) It seems like a long cage XTR would work fine. My proposed system would still have overlap. The easiest three in the big ring overlap the hardest two in the small ring. Overlap is nice, but too much is just unneeded redundancy. Looking at a standard triple, there is no gear in the middle ring that you cannot get in either the large ring or the small ring. What's the point in that?


----------



## Squidward (Dec 18, 2005)

With such a wide gear spread up front, you would be running an even larger spread than a compact double. The problems that I have experienced with compact doubles is that it is much easier to drop the chain when shifting to the smaller chainring. Also, I have to shift the rear derailleur three gears when I shift the front (thank goodness for Campy shifters that allow me to shift up to five cogs per throw of the levers). A wider spread up front means that you need to shift even more gears to stay in about the same gear range. It'll drive you crazy after a while. Also, since you have such a wide gear spread both front and rear you will need a longer cage derailleur, and these usually don't shift as crisply as the shorter cage counterparts.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

Squidward said:


> With such a wide gear spread up front, you would be running an even larger spread than a compact double. The problems that I have experienced with compact doubles is that it is much easier to drop the chain when shifting to the smaller chainring. Also, I have to shift the rear derailleur three gears when I shift the front (thank goodness for Campy shifters that allow me to shift up to five cogs per throw of the levers). A wider spread up front means that you need to shift even more gears to stay in about the same gear range. It'll drive you crazy after a while. Also, since you have such a wide gear spread both front and rear you will need a longer cage derailleur, and these usually don't shift as crisply as the shorter cage counterparts.


Dropping the chain is easily solved with a jumpstop. I agree you would have to shift a few more gears when changing rings, which might bother some more than others. As to the long cage dérailleur, I think it is commonly agreed the XTR is not sloppy. When it comes down to it, you have mentioned three potential problems. One is easily solvable, one is debatable, and the last seems to be a non-issue. I don't claim to be an expert or to have thought of all the possible difficulties with such a system, but I don't think you've shot it down yet. :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## dmar836 (Nov 17, 2007)

Looks like swapping out the older Force shifters for the new Rival shifters would give Red-like performance. This yearly trend-upgrade stuff is really getting out of hand.


----------



## weltyed (Feb 6, 2004)

*i sort of agree...*

if i had bought the first generation force or rival, i would have been ticked when red came out. then i would have been ticked again when they added front trim. but for guys like me who were waiting for all the bugs to be worked out, i cant wait to get my grubby paws on the new rival set.

i see it as sram actually listening to the end user and making these changes because thats what the consumer wants. in the past some companies have just upgraded because they thought the user wanted it. sram knows the user wants these upgrades.



dmar836 said:


> Looks like swapping out the older Force shifters for the new Rival shifters would give Red-like performance. This yearly trend-upgrade stuff is really getting out of hand.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

SleeveleSS said:


> Why would it shift so much worse? (Genuine curiosity here) It seems like a long cage XTR would work fine. My proposed system would still have overlap. The easiest three in the big ring overlap the hardest two in the small ring. Overlap is nice, but too much is just unneeded redundancy. Looking at a standard triple, there is no gear in the middle ring that you cannot get in either the large ring or the small ring. What's the point in that?


Because the front D would have to lift the chain from a 30 all the way to the 58. It has a hard enough time with the 39 to 53 to make it a pain. The compacts (34 to 50) are noticably worse. I doubt if the 30 to 58 would even work. The rear D has nothing to do with it (other than chain wrap).

The point of the middle ring is that I can put it in the middle and ride almost all day only using the rear shifter, but I have the large and small rings on those few special places where they really work well. In fact, I would rather have a single front (probably something like a 39 or 42) than the double you propose.

TF


----------



## dmar836 (Nov 17, 2007)

My Force has front trim but not the shorter front throw. Haven't checked the weights.


----------



## orlin03 (Dec 11, 2007)

Yeah, there may be a bit of redundancy in the overlap, but the more I ride, the more I appreciate it. I like knowing as I enter a hilly section I can leave it in the small ring and still go well over 20 mph, or head up a hill in the big ring at under 17 mph. I am running a long cage with a 11-23 and a 53x39 (triple to double conversion left-over), so maybe this helps the cross chaining a bit, but it's nice and relaxing. I quit wishing for a 38 or 37 when I realized I'd be giving up all the tuning put into the gears to help them shift smoothly. BTW, can you really push a 58??


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

orlin03 said:


> Yeah, there may be a bit of redundancy in the overlap, but the more I ride, the more I appreciate it. I like knowing as I enter a hilly section I can leave it in the small ring and still go well over 20 mph, or head up a hill in the big ring at under 17 mph. I am running a long cage with a 11-23 and a 53x39 (triple to double conversion left-over), so maybe this helps the cross chaining a bit, but it's nice and relaxing. I quit wishing for a 38 or 37 when I realized I'd be giving up all the tuning put into the gears to help them shift smoothly. BTW, can you really push a 58??


Well, I'll be the first to admit that the 58 was just for making a point, that you could keep a double and have harder and easier gears and still retain overlap. In reality I would probably keep the big ring (53), as I only really spin out going down hills I don't want to go much faster on anyway, and switch the small ring to a 30. This combo would still give overlap, it would keep the same hardest gear, and make the easiest go from 2.7 gear inches to 2.1, which is of course the same as a triple. This way you have a double with the same range as a triple, and still have overlap. The only real engineering problem I see is getting the front mech. to work and shift properly, but much tougher engineering challenges have been solved before. 

I'm not saying it would work great with existing stuff, but I think it's feasible with some R&D from the big brands. That way everyone could be riding doubles, and we could phase out the triple entirely, and when people wanted to upgrade (i.e. got stronger and wanted a standard double) they could just put new chainrings on (and maybe a new front mech.) instead of having to get a new crank and a new shifter. Obviously this idea has its flaws, but I don't think it's entirely bad. :wink:


----------



## orlin03 (Dec 11, 2007)

SleeveleSS said:


> Well, I'll be the first to admit that the 58 was just for making a point, that you could keep a double and have harder and easier gears and still retain overlap. In reality I would probably keep the big ring (53), as I only really spin out going down hills I don't want to go much faster on anyway, and switch the small ring to a 30. This combo would still give overlap, it would keep the same hardest gear, and make the easiest go from 2.7 gear inches to 2.1, which is of course the same as a triple. This way you have a double with the same range as a triple, and still have overlap. The only real engineering problem I see is getting the front mech. to work and shift properly, but much tougher engineering challenges have been solved before.
> 
> I'm not saying it would work great with existing stuff, but I think it's feasible with some R&D from the big brands. That way everyone could be riding doubles, and we could phase out the triple entirely, and when people wanted to upgrade (i.e. got stronger and wanted a standard double) they could just put new chainrings on (and maybe a new front mech.) instead of having to get a new crank and a new shifter. Obviously this idea has its flaws, but I don't think it's entirely bad. :wink:


It's not, actually, and in the future we may actually see something in that direction. Of course, there would have to be something that helped us fly across the rear cassette to the appropriate gear when making the change; right now, I do two clicks in the back if I'm trying to match up with a front shift, but with a farther spread, you'd be dropping gears faster than you could count. Maybe electronic shifting could have a magic button for this?


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

orlin03 said:


> It's not, actually, and in the future we may actually see something in that direction. Of course, there would have to be something that helped us fly across the rear cassette to the appropriate gear when making the change; right now, I do two clicks in the back if I'm trying to match up with a front shift, but with a farther spread, you'd be dropping gears faster than you could count. Maybe electronic shifting could have a magic button for this?


Ah yes, electronics to the rescue.  This is one of the many possible uses for the overly hyped e-DA. Hopefully it works as good as advertised once they release it.


----------



## prunepit (Nov 19, 2006)

Been running a 52-34 on my compact crank with no problems.34-23 will get up anything and a 52-11 is plenty tall.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I'm running a 34-23 and there's an occasional double-digit grade where I wish I had another gear or two. I never walk it, but there's times I certainly stand up and push.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

The reason that anything broader than a 39-53 or 34-50 is difficult is because the front derailleur is working against the loaded run of the chain. Going to a broader spread would be both more difficult to get the chain to lift from small to large as it would be to get the chain to fall on the teeth of the lower c-ring.

How about this for an idea: right now with 10 speed cassettes we have nearly straight blocks with broad range. How about drive trains with finer tooth and chain pitch? This would allow for closer jumps between gears.


----------

