Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

Which Domane sl7 eTap or Di2???

Notices
Road Cycling ďIt is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.Ē -- Ernest Hemingway

Which Domane sl7 eTap or Di2???

Old 03-04-20, 09:14 AM
  #1  
Nowake
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Which Domane sl7 eTap or Di2???

To begin with,I donít understand gear ratios in my head when I hear numbers.

Although, I do have a good understanding in my legs.

Little ring front

Big ring back

Go up hill


My legs know that.



Iím probably going with the Di2 due to price, and I already have a Ultegra crank arm power meter.

But Iím curious about the difference in the crank cassette gearing ratios.



It seems to me like there is a huge deference in the cranks,

The R8000 is 50/34

And the SRAM Force, 46/33



With not quite as much change in the cassettes,

The Shimano Ultegra HG800-11, is a 11-34, 11 speed



While the SRAM Force, XG-1270, is a 10-33, 12 speed



My questions are...



Is one geared more for gravel, and one for road?



With these comparisons, how is there really that much difference in the 11&12 speed?



Am I really missing something that would make me spend the extra $200?



Thanks
Nowake is offline  
Old 03-04-20, 10:52 AM
  #2  
WhyFi
Senior Member
 
WhyFi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 34,799

Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo

Mentioned: 344 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16866 Post(s)
Liked 5,573 Times in 2,889 Posts
The differences are relatively minor and, at the end of the day, you're talking about consumables. I'd focus on things like ergonomic differences, reliability and availability before getting down to gearing minutiae.
WhyFi is online now  
Likes For WhyFi:
Old 03-04-20, 11:07 AM
  #3  
eduskator
Senior Member
 
eduskator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Quťbec, Canada
Posts: 1,014

Bikes: TCR Pro 0 / Revolt 2

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 446 Post(s)
Liked 259 Times in 196 Posts
Seems to me like you're idea is already made up! And DI2 is a great choice if you don't mind having wires.

50/34 = 50 tooth on the big ring and 34 on the smaller ring.

Last edited by eduskator; 03-05-20 at 07:58 AM.
eduskator is offline  
Old 03-04-20, 11:20 AM
  #4  
AdkMtnMonster
Airplanes, bikes, beer.
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Off the front
Posts: 642

Bikes: Road bikes, mountain bikes, a gravel bikeÖ

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked 653 Times in 283 Posts
The eTap theory is that smaller chainrings and cassette cogs require less energy to spin, thus maximizing the effects of the two watt-bombs extending from the rider’s hips to the bike’s pedals. Smaller is lighter, lighter is faster, faster is better, better is on the podium. Overall, the gear ratios are very similar between the two choices, but the 12 speed cassette offers smaller steps to really fine-tune your cadence. I’d go with the SRAM option if I could. No problem with Shimano’s two top tiers here, but I think the eTap might just b3 the coolest thing in a while. Plenty of pro teams are riding SRAM, too.
AdkMtnMonster is online now  
Old 03-04-20, 11:28 AM
  #5  
WhyFi
Senior Member
 
WhyFi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 34,799

Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo

Mentioned: 344 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16866 Post(s)
Liked 5,573 Times in 2,889 Posts
Originally Posted by AdkMtnMonster View Post
The eTap theory is that smaller chainrings and cassette cogs require less energy to spin
If that's SRAM's theory, they're far dumber than I'd have thought. I'll give them more credit than that and have to assume that you're being intentionally obtuse for semi-comedic purposes.
WhyFi is online now  
Likes For WhyFi:
Old 03-04-20, 11:51 AM
  #6  
AdkMtnMonster
Airplanes, bikes, beer.
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Off the front
Posts: 642

Bikes: Road bikes, mountain bikes, a gravel bikeÖ

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked 653 Times in 283 Posts
Originally Posted by WhyFi View Post
If that's SRAM's theory, they're far dumber than I'd have thought. I'll give them more credit than that and have to assume that you're being intentionally obtuse for semi-comedic purposes.

Smaller chainrings require less energy to turn than larger chainrings in the exact same scenario. (Imagine a 52 tooth chainring turning a 17 in the rear, compared to a 46 tooth chainring turning the same 17. Same cadence, though, will point out the obvious difference.) A smaller chainring, in turn spinning a smaller cog on a cassette, can turn the rear wheel at the same speeds as the big ring bike, but requiring less kinetic energy of rotation, and the smaller components weigh less. I didnít make this up, nor did I invent it, or purchase it on my new bike. (Not available on my bike.)

A 46x14 is nearly identical to a 52x17 in terms of gearing. Everyone is looking for an advantage, a gimmick, a new feature, an improvement, an innovation... SRAM has one, once again. However it works out remains to be seen, but math doesnít lie.
AdkMtnMonster is online now  
Old 03-04-20, 12:48 PM
  #7  
WhyFi
Senior Member
 
WhyFi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 34,799

Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo

Mentioned: 344 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16866 Post(s)
Liked 5,573 Times in 2,889 Posts
Originally Posted by AdkMtnMonster View Post
Smaller chainrings require less energy to turn than larger chainrings in the exact same scenario. (Imagine a 52 tooth chainring turning a 17 in the rear, compared to a 46 tooth chainring turning the same 17. Same cadence, though, will point out the obvious difference.) A smaller chainring, in turn spinning a smaller cog on a cassette, can turn the rear wheel at the same speeds as the big ring bike, but requiring less kinetic energy of rotation, and the smaller components weigh less. I didn’t make this up, nor did I invent it, or purchase it on my new bike. (Not available on my bike.)

A 46x14 is nearly identical to a 52x17 in terms of gearing. Everyone is looking for an advantage, a gimmick, a new feature, an improvement, an innovation... SRAM has one, once again. However it works out remains to be seen, but math doesn’t lie.
Yeah, nope.

I had to see for myself if SRAM were this far out of it - they're not. They went with the smaller 10t so that they could go to smaller chainsets for A) greater range for the big ring, necessitating fewer front shifts and B) a smaller tooth/circumference differential to ease front shift transitions (13 tooth difference for all three available chainsets). People love to rag on SRAM for their front shifting and it seems as if these moves were indeed made to minimize front shifting issues.
WhyFi is online now  
Likes For WhyFi:
Old 03-04-20, 05:26 PM
  #8  
AdkMtnMonster
Airplanes, bikes, beer.
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Off the front
Posts: 642

Bikes: Road bikes, mountain bikes, a gravel bikeÖ

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked 653 Times in 283 Posts
Ok. I’ve read all kinds of wrong stuff before, so I probably fell for something I read that was incorrect. Thanks for the right info.
AdkMtnMonster is online now  
Likes For AdkMtnMonster:
Old 03-04-20, 06:36 PM
  #9  
noodle soup
Senior Member
 
noodle soup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,886
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4670 Post(s)
Liked 1,804 Times in 977 Posts
Originally Posted by AdkMtnMonster View Post
Ok. Iíve read all kinds of wrong stuff before, so I probably fell for something I read that was incorrect. Thanks for the right info.
what you read is technically correct, but the actual advantage is insignificant.
noodle soup is offline  
Old 03-05-20, 12:58 AM
  #10  
surak
Senior Member
 
surak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,538

Bikes: Specialized Roubaix, Canyon Inflite AL SLX, Priority Continuum Onyx, Santana Vision, Kent Dual-Drive Tandem

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 663 Post(s)
Liked 482 Times in 279 Posts
Smaller rings/cogs are lighter and have a minor aero advantage, but have worse friction loss because the chain has to bend more.
surak is offline  
Old 03-05-20, 02:30 AM
  #11  
znomit
Zoom zoom zoom zoom bonk
 
znomit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 4,314

Bikes: Giant Defy, Trek 1.7c, BMC GF02, Fuji Tahoe, Scott Sub 35

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Liked 475 Times in 240 Posts
Originally Posted by surak View Post
Smaller rings/cogs are lighter and have a minor aero advantage, but have worse friction loss because the chain has to bend more.
The total bend is the same though, just shared over fewer links.
znomit is offline  
Old 03-05-20, 02:42 AM
  #12  
surak
Senior Member
 
surak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,538

Bikes: Specialized Roubaix, Canyon Inflite AL SLX, Priority Continuum Onyx, Santana Vision, Kent Dual-Drive Tandem

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 663 Post(s)
Liked 482 Times in 279 Posts
Originally Posted by znomit View Post
The total bend is the same though, just shared over fewer links.
​​​​​​It's the bending of each roller under load that's important from the standpoint of drivetrain friction. Oversized pulley wheels and enormous chainrings exist, and are used by the pros and record-setting track cyclists, to reduce this. Whether the watts lost due to additional friction matters to amateurs is subjective, but they are real watts.
​​​​​​
surak is offline  
Likes For surak:
Old 03-05-20, 04:36 AM
  #13  
Amt0571
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Catalonia
Posts: 902

Bikes: Canyon Grand Canyon AL SL 8.0, Btwin Ultra 520 AF GF, Dahon Mu P27, Triban Road 7, Benotto 850

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked 177 Times in 119 Posts
Gearing ranges are almost identical in both. Bigger chainrings are usually slightly more efficient, though I don't think that a mere mortal can notice it.

Cassette gear spacing is better on the sram one as it has one more cog (that's more noticeable). IMHO, that's the only advantage.

I wouldn't spend $200 for that though. Well... to be fair I wouldn't spend anything on an electronic groupset.
Amt0571 is offline  
Old 03-05-20, 07:52 AM
  #14  
Rides4Beer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: SC
Posts: 1,401

Bikes: SuperSix Evo | Revolt

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 702 Post(s)
Liked 754 Times in 392 Posts
I went with di2 on the new road bike, for a few reasons. I don't need the latest/greatest, and 11spd consumables are cheaper. I prefer the aesthetics of di2 over SRAM's large batteries. The visible wires are minimal so that's a non-issue for me. I've got about 300 miles on the bike and the shifting is absolutely fantastic. The only problem is now I want di2 on my gravel bike.
Rides4Beer is offline  
Likes For Rides4Beer:
Old 03-05-20, 08:41 AM
  #15  
August West
Senior Member
 
August West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 468

Bikes: Domane SLR7 Project One

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked 168 Times in 103 Posts
I went with Di2 on my new Domane, absolutely love it and wouldn't want to go back to mechanical if given the choice. While I've never ridden the SRAM setup I'm sure it is a great option too from the reviews I've read.

Advantages of Di2 for me were, I have several chains I rotate through and with Di2 I can just keep using them in the rotation. I also like have one large internal battery that lasts a long, long time as opposed to the individual batteries SRAM uses. A little less expensive although not a big deal. Cassettes are less expensive and I have several Ultegra's in various gear ranges I can just keep on using. Wireless is nice, especially if you are retrofitting but with a new bike like the Domane all the wiring is internal anyway so I don't see it as a major advantage in this case. But if adding it to an older bike I could see wireless saving a ton of build time. And familiarity. I ridden Ultegra for a long time and am familiar and comfortable with Shimano. Parts availability is also much easier to source and I would guess 5 years or more down the road will continue to be.
August West is offline  
Old 03-09-20, 08:09 AM
  #16  
TerryDi2C
Di2 fanatic
 
TerryDi2C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked 29 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by Rides4Beer View Post
The only problem is now I want di2 on my gravel bike.
Hah, I know how you feel... I also want Di2 on my commuter and other bikes
TerryDi2C is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.