Originally Posted by
FlashBazbo
That's an awful lot of time and effort just to fall two years farther behind the market. These "refinements" should have been in the original product four years ago. If there's not a surprising new product coming from SRAM in 2013 (besides "Red"), it's not going to be good for the company. (I'm no SRAM hater. My primary road bike carries a SRAM Red/Force drivetrain. It wasn't cutting edge when I bought it and the company keeps falling farther behind every year. Hydraulic brakes? Cool. Old tech MTB stuff. C'mon, folks!)
Originally Posted by
FlashBazbo
The front derailleur isn't exactly revolutionary anymore . . . but it was, back in the 1920's, when it was a very popular way of shifting the chain. SRAM's "new" system is only new compared to those systems in that it provides indexing and shifting from the bars.
When you've got pro teams BUYING your competitor's groups rather than taking yours for free, something is wrong. That's especially true with the pro teams under serious financial strain. It's about shifting performance. And by the end of 2013, the lack of a reasonably-priced electronic group will be a killer. No credible company can afford to find itself in that situation. Electronic has been perfected and marketed by Shimano for over three years now. It is faster for the racers (especially sprinters and climbers) and it is lower-maintenance / better-performing for the enthusiast cyclist. The price has dropped until it can be had for less than some premium cable-actuated groupsets. So, yes, SRAM is behind and is falling farther behind the market. I ride SRAM. I'm pulling for them. But IT APPEARS that they've missed the breakaway. I hope not.
But . . . some people still buy friction shifters.
Originally Posted by
ThinLine
SRAM may turn out to be a Kodak if they don't embrace e' shift technology. I also am not a sram hater but lets get with the program.
Originally Posted by
FlashBazbo
There. You hit on the problem. SRAM has always been the crudest, least refined cable-actuated system. It still is. SRAM has never produced a refined product. SRAM means loud shifts from very firm lever pushes (in one direction). A lot of people like it that way. They dont like the snick-snick refined shifts that Shimano's cable-actuated shifters supply. Is it lighter? Yes. But if you're already at the UCI limit, lighter doesn't help.
With this groupset, SRAM is still targeting the best 2007 competition. Things have changed and left SRAM behind.
With this kind of half-arsed, low-budget analysis, I suggest that you guys keep your day jobs.
It is of course true at this point that SRAM has no electronic shifting system. The significance of this fact for SRAM's short-term competitiveness is probably limited. Shimano's bread and butter is still in cable-activated systems. SRAM definitely needs to have an electronic system in development, but the fact that it's not out yet doesn't mean anything at the moment. As for Campagnolo, they simply aren't a major competitor for either SRAM or Shimano, and if you don't understand this you can't hope to make a realistic analysis of the component industry. If you're worried about one of these three companies failing at some point in the not-too-distant future, you should worry about Campy. SRAM and Shimano compete somewhat superficially on technology, and compete extremely fiercely on OEM specification and supply. SRAM was extremely good at this BEFORE they entered the road component market. It isn't that surprising that their expertise in the OEM market has translated to enormous success in the road components market. The key here is not just cool new technology: it is cool new technology that they can bring to market in large volumes at a price that makes manufacturers want to use SRAM parts to spec their bikes. This is why Campy isn't even running.
Incidentally, for all the hand-waving about pro teams buying competing groups rather than using sponsor SRAM groups, it is Shimano and SRAM that dominate the peloton. Campagnolo is used by, what, three Pro Teams at this point? It is true that SRAM has some specific weaknesses, but they are doing a lot better than Campy (see above, re: Campy Is Not A Major Competitor In This Market).
As for comparing SRAM to the other two in pure technical terms, even in the absence of an electronic system, they are looking pretty good. For one, they are willing to experiment with interesting new ideas, which is what propelled Shimano to dominance in the '80s. For another, they are in pole position on hydraulic disc brakes for road bikes, which, for all you deride them as "old tech" is a big deal. And from a technological perspective, they are better poised to move in this new direction with both mechanical groups and a hypothetical future electronic group set (and, as evidence that this is a significant shift in technology, Shimano has a road disc system in the works as well). I could be wrong, but I believe the SRAM is the only manufacturer whose mechanical shifting mechanism will allow the use of a hydraulic master cylinder in a mechanical lever. I'm pretty sure that Shimano won't be able to squeeze hydraulics into a mechanical lever, meaning an electronic-only system, which will limit the short-term adoption of their system. Which obviously puts SRAM in an advantageous position, notwithstanding that they are going to be first to market with a hydraulic road disc anyway.
So I think SRAM is doing just fine, thank you very much. They've got good tech, extremely good operations, and a design team that is willing to try thinking different from the competition. I wouldn't worry too much about them being left behind.