Groupsets
sam
Thanks,
s
thirty-six
There could be now, or there might have been life there. All the
available data suggest it was or is certainly a possibility
Fred Flintstein
Don't get aftermarket cages and pulleys for your
rear derailleur.
Fred Schleck
Ryan Cousineau
> So what's the verdict on SRAM?
You're looking for rec.bicycles.tech. This is rec.bicycles.arguing-jerks
It's a subtle distinction.
As for SRAM, the people I know who've used it seem to be quietly happy with it. I'm not sure I see a unique selling point for it (unless it's cheap), but that's hardly an indictment.
However, Cyclingnews recently posted a review of SRAM Force, the penultimate group, which they gave a "4" on their rating scale, which goes from 4 to 5.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/reviews/sram-force-road-groupset
This may not tell you much about SRAM Force, but it does give us an excuse to explain the subtle art of reading a buff-book tech review and extracting actual data. Follow along as I parse selected quotes...
"While there are still a few key differences, Force is now so close to Red in look, feel and performance that there's almost no reason to move up any higher in the company's range."
-you should buy Rival
"...the 2010 Force levers still offer very natural-feeling ergonomics with independently reach-adjustable brake levers and shift paddles, and longer lever blades for easier braking from the drops."
-braking from the drops has been upgraded from terrible to less terrible.
"As with all SRAM road shifters, spring tensions are reassuringly firm and there's very good tactile feedback but lever feel is still a bit tinny compared to Shimano or Campagnolo, though hardly offensive and easy to get used to."
-spring tension feels excessive. The lever feels like knock-off junk.
"Rear shift performance has been refined slightly over the original Force group, mostly on account of the updated PG-1070 cassette (the PC-1070 chain is unchanged and updates to the rear derailleur are essentially cosmetic). The new PowerGlide shaping reinserts the omitted teeth of the original OpenGlide design but with no perceivable hit in shifting speed or smoothness."
-the novel feature they were so proud of was utter shit in practice. They've abandoned it finally, thank goodness.
"What has improved, however, is the sound quality: even with the same chain design as before, the PG-1070 cassette is noticeably quieter-running and feels a bit silkier under load, thus eliminating a major – and valid – complaint of SRAM critics."
-We didn't mention the atrocious noise in previous reviews. We can't afford to burn potential sponsors with such abandon. Now that they've fixed that show-stopper, we can tell you about it.
"Front shifts on our standard-drive test unit were very good overall but lacking in refinement compared to Campag. Unfortunately for SRAM, that performance gap grows even wider when compared to Shimano and their new fantastically rigid outer rings, which yield the best front shifting in the business hands-down."
-Front shifting is worst in class.
"Both lever feel and overall power have improved over the already-very-good levels thanks to the stiffer and more heavily triangulated upper arm, and both panic stops and decelerations in high-speed descents are handled with competence and confidence. But again, recent advances in Shimano's braking systems put SRAM in catch-up mode.
Weight remains virtually unchanged from the previous generation but the new arms do finally gain proper centring and spring tension adjustments. "
-Braking is not good. On the other hand, the old version was both worse and non-adjustable.
"Arguments between the virtues and vices of the three major component groups aside, this latest Force iteration raises interesting questions for the fate of SRAM's flagship Red package as it offers a superb weight-to-price ratio and excellent overall performance with just a handful of minor areas of improvement. "
-As bad as Force is, Red is just as bad and far more expensive. So it's got that going for it.
"In the meantime, Force buyers will be well served knowing they're getting nearly all of the function and performance of the top dog at a much lower price. But if you're willing to deal with another 100g or so, SRAM's value king Rival group is almost an exact replica of Force in terms of function and around £400 cheaper."
-The Force group serves as a poorly-constructed moron tax. If you're so cheap as to contemplate buying a SRAM group, you'll be wanting to get Rival, which is just as crappy, but is at least priced commensurate with its performance.
(I did some street-price comparisons at Probikekit, and it looks like Force is priced pretty dearly, and Rival somewhat cheaper, but Ultegra is cheaper than Force, and 105 is WAY cheaper than Rival. That may reflect the UK market; it may be less expensive in the US.)
RicodJour
> On Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:50:48 PM UTC-7, sam wrote:
>
> > So what's the verdict on SRAM?
>
> You're looking for rec.bicycles.tech. This is rec.bicycles.arguing-jerks
>
> It's a subtle distinction.
No, it's not.
Your ability to read between the lines is transcendent. I'm guessing
you're lit-up. ;)
R
Simply Fred
> So what's the verdict on SRAM?
Ask Andy.
sam
cc990a...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>, rcou...@gmail.com
says...
>
> On Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:50:48 PM UTC-7, sam wrote:
> > So what's the verdict on SRAM?
>
> You're looking for rec.bicycles.tech. This is rec.bicycles.arguing-jerks
>
> It's a subtle distinction.
>
> As for SRAM, the people I know who've used it seem to be quietly happy with it. I'm not sure I see a unique selling point for it (unless it's cheap), but that's hardly an indictment.
>
>
>
> However, Cyclingnews recently posted a review of SRAM Force, the penultimate group, which they gave a "4" on their rating scale, which goes from 4 to 5.
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/reviews/sram-force-road-groupset
>
> This may not tell you much about SRAM Force, but it does give us an excuse to explain the subtle art of reading a buff-book tech review and extracting actual data. Follow along as I parse selected quotes...
>
> "While there are still a few key differences, Force is now so close to Red in look, feel and performance that there's almost no reason to move up any higher in the company's range."
>
> -you should buy Rival
>
> "...the 2010 Force levers still offer very natural-feeling ergonomics with independently reach-adjustable brake levers and shift paddles, and longer lever blades for easier braking from the drops."
>
> -braking from the drops has been upgraded from terrible to less terrible.
>
> "As with all SRAM road shifters, spring tensions are reassuringly firm and there's very good tactile feedback but lever feel is still a bit tinny compared to Shimano or Campagnolo, though hardly offensive and easy to get used to."
>
> -spring tension feels excessive. The lever feels like knock-off junk.
>
> "Rear shift performance has been refined slightly over the original Force group, mostly on account of the updated PG-1070 cassette (the PC-1070 chain is unchanged and updates to the rear derailleur are essentially cosmetic). The new PowerGlide shaping reinserts the omitted teeth of the original OpenGlide design but with no
perceivable hit in shifting speed or smoothness."
>
> -the novel feature they were so proud of was utter shit in practice. They've abandoned it finally, thank goodness.
>
>
> -We didn't mention the atrocious noise in previous reviews. We can't afford to burn potential sponsors with such abandon. Now that they've fixed that show-stopper, we can tell you about it.
>
> "Front shifts on our standard-drive test unit were very good overall but lacking in refinement compared to Campag. Unfortunately for SRAM, that performance gap grows even wider when compared to Shimano and their new fantastically rigid outer rings, which yield the best front shifting in the business hands-down."
>
> -Front shifting is worst in class.
>
> "Both lever feel and overall power have improved over the already-very-good levels thanks to the stiffer and more heavily triangulated upper arm, and both panic stops and decelerations in high-speed descents are handled with competence and confidence. But again, recent advances in Shimano's braking systems put SRAM in catch-up
mode.
>
> Weight remains virtually unchanged from the previous generation but the new arms do finally gain proper centring and spring tension adjustments. "
>
> -Braking is not good. On the other hand, the old version was both worse and non-adjustable.
>
> "Arguments between the virtues and vices of the three major component groups aside, this latest Force iteration raises interesting questions for the fate of SRAM's flagship Red package as it offers a superb weight-to-price ratio and excellent overall performance with just a handful of minor areas of improvement. "
>
> -As bad as Force is, Red is just as bad and far more expensive. So it's got that going for it.
>
>
> -The Force group serves as a poorly-constructed moron tax. If you're so cheap as to contemplate buying a SRAM group, you'll be wanting to get Rival, which is just as crappy, but is at least priced commensurate with its performance.
>
> (I did some street-price comparisons at Probikekit, and it looks like Force is priced pretty dearly, and Rival somewhat cheaper, but Ultegra is cheaper than Force, and 105 is WAY cheaper than Rival. That may reflect the UK market; it may be less expensive in the US.)
Awesome. Thanks for the good info.
s
A. Dumas
> they gave a "4" on their rating scale, which goes from 4 to 5.
Ha ha.
Frederick the Great
<2251064d-a018-4d92...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com
>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:50:48 PM UTC-7, sam wrote:
> > So what's the verdict on SRAM?
>
> You're looking for rec.bicycles.tech.
Almost entirely people trolling each other badly.
> This is rec.bicycles.arguing-jerks
No argument---unless you want one.
> It's a subtle distinction.
I certainly cannot discern the distinction.
--
Old Fritz
Simply Fred
>> You're looking for rec.bicycles.tech.
Frederick the Great wrote:
> Almost entirely people trolling each other badly.
Amateur trolls suck.
Ryan Cousineau
Ah, I've made this joke before.
Nagurski
> In article <2251064d-a018-4d92-9c0d-
> cc990a301...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>, rcous...@gmail.com
>
> > -The Force group serves as a poorly-constructed moron tax. If you're so cheap as to contemplate buying a SRAM group, you'll be wanting to get Rival, which is just as crappy, but is at least priced commensurate with its performance.
>
> > (I did some street-price comparisons at Probikekit, and it looks like Force is priced pretty dearly, and Rival somewhat cheaper, but Ultegra is cheaper than Force, and 105 is WAY cheaper than Rival. That may reflect the UK market; it may be less expensive in the US.)
>
> Awesome. Thanks for the good info.
>
> s
Not all of them in here are total fuckwits. Just most.
Simply Fred
> Not all of them in here are total fuckwits. Just most.
Well no, the lucky ones are asshats because they get their cheques in
the male first while the best are fucktards.
Ryan Cousineau
> In article <2251064d-a018-4d92-9c0d-
> cc990a...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>, rcou...@gmail.com
> says...
> >
> > On Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:50:48 PM UTC-7, sam wrote:
> > > So what's the verdict on SRAM?
> > As for SRAM, the people I know who've used it seem to be quietly happy with it. I'm not sure I see a unique selling point for it (unless it's cheap), but that's hardly an indictment.
> > However, Cyclingnews recently posted a review of SRAM Force, the penultimate group, which they gave a "4" on their rating scale, which goes from 4 to 5.
> >
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/reviews/sram-force-road-groupset
> >
> > This may not tell you much about SRAM Force, but it does give us an excuse to explain the subtle art of reading a buff-book tech review and extracting actual data. Follow along as I parse selected quotes...
[snark]
> Awesome. Thanks for the good info.
I posted an edited version of this elsewhere, and some SRAM-loving friends all came out and said they loved it, specifically citing its usefulness in cyclocross (I'm not sure why CX; I've asked them to explain).
I haven't ridden a SRAM bike yet, but I would not turn a bike down for having it. My main road race bike has a Shimagnolo setup with Campy-9 shifters, which I like a lot. My CX bike has 105, which I like just fine, and my commuter bike has friction DT shifters, which I like just fine.
Philip W. Moore, Jr.
news:MPG.27ec3e304...@news.supernews.com...
> So what's the verdict on SRAM?
>
> Thanks,
>
> s
>
Ryan Cousineau has a good article for you...paging Ryan. Really, you should
read it. Anyway, I've used Sram Red, and liked it just fine, but pedaling
with that hollow Sram Red dome cassette is as noisy as freewheeling with a
Chris King hub. As far as the shifting, it's as fast or faster than Dura
Ace, and can drop multiple steps down the cassette like Campagnolo. The
hoods feel like 9 spd and 10 spd Campy. The mechanics of Sram allow you to
downshift from the drops as easily as with a Campy thumb trigger. by pulling
the inner lever of the rear shifter toward the drop and simply flicking your
wrist. With that said, Sram is a good choice over Campy because of
wheel/cassette compatibility, but I recently switched from Sram Red to Campy
Record 10 because I don't like the up- and down-shift motion (going in the
same direction) of the Sram stuff, which causes inadvertent
shifting...especially when you're on the rivet or bonking while climbing and
the drivetrain is under load (this isn't much of a problem in crits or while
in a pace-line because you're typically spinning in these situations and
there isn't a lot of stress on the gears). Plus, Campy is repairable and
Sram isn't (even though the internals of Sram suggest that they can be
repaired and/or replaced). Hope this helps.