Shimano Patent Shows Direct Mount Electronic Derailleur

Mar 27, 2023
by Mike Kazimer  
photo
It looks like Shimano are working on a new direct mount derailleur of their own.

Earlier this year we covered Shimano's patent for a wild-looking derailleur with three jockey wheels that's intended to provide more ground clearance when used with a wide range cassette. It turns out that Shimano had another patent granted last June that's also worth examining – one for a direct mount rear derailleur that BikeRadar recently reported on.

Digging a little further reveals a patent that was granted last week for a wireless electronic derailleur that will use that direct mount. The patent is fairly broad, and describes several possible configurations for the derailleur. It states, “The mounting portion has a mounting opening through which a central axis of a hub axle passes in a mounting state of the bicycle rear derailleur. The mounting portion includes a single joint or is free of any joint.”

It goes on to say, “It is possible to mount a battery for the electronic components of the bicycle on the rear derailleur, which may also be to power electronic derailleur control. Therefore, the battery may be accommodated at the rear derailleur or remote from the rear derailleur with a connection to the battery mounting portion.”

Exciting stuff, I know, but the gist of it is that the patent describes a derailleur that can use some form of direct mount, and is wireless and electronic. The drawings depict one version where the derailleur is mounted close to the chainstay, and the other where it uses a link that's similar to what Shimano used when they last tried to get a direct mount system off the ground back in 2012.

photo

Many of the aspects the patent describes apply to the e-bike specific 12-speed XT Di2 drivetrain that launched last summer. Things like a cadence, velocity, and acceleration sensor can be used for shifting, both manually and automatically, while coasting.

Given all the hubbub surrounding SRAM's new direct-mount Eagle Transmission derailleur, it's not surprising that Shimano would be working on a design of their own. Don't forget, Shimano's no stranger to direct mount rear derailleurs; the first Saint group debuted in 2003 with an axle-mounted derailleur. One feature that differentiates the SRAM Transmission derailleur and what's depicted in Shimano's patents is a B-tension screw - the Transmission derailleur doesn't have one at all, while Shimano's design shows a screw that can be used to adjust the position of the derailleur in relation to the cassette.

photo

Will we see a direct competitor to SRAM's Transmission hit the market any time soon? Although it's clear Shimano are working on all sorts of projects, I'm inclined to think that any official launches are still well into the future. We'll just have to wait and see.

photo


Author Info:
mikekazimer avatar

Member since Feb 1, 2009
1,740 articles

291 Comments
  • 703 10
 SRAM and Shimano just need to fuck and get it over with
  • 48 0
 The will-they won't-they is just so enthralling though!
  • 246 4
 no no no......those two forming any kind of alliance will just mean that we all are the ones that get fucked....repeatedly, hard and non-consenually.
  • 20 4
 and with "acoustic" toy options, please.
  • 18 1
 But then the F SRAM and F SHIMANO crowds would have to come together, and I'd have to find something else to watch unfold while I munch popcorn in the corner...
  • 17 1
 If by fuck you mean merge, remember monopoly is not good for consumers
  • 4 0
 @Mtbdialed: bang on
  • 8 0
 @someguy101: Nah they can birth some bastard standards...as long as they are universal.
  • 7 0
 @robotdave: You might go to Guitar Center for that...
  • 20 0
 This is Campy's chance!!
  • 3 1
 @greg390: acoustic, electric, AND acoustic/electric options. lightyears ahead of the bike industry Wink
  • 54 0
 The sexual B tension is gradually building
  • 3 8
flag Mtbdialed (Mar 27, 2023 at 19:02) (Below Threshold)
 @RobertGrainier: I ain't entirely sure what you mean by "B" in this context.....butt let's hope it's derailleur related!? Big Grin
  • 12 2
 @danielfloyd: there's a F Shimano crowd?
  • 75 7
 @robotdave: people need to stop calling bikes without electronics/motors acoustic. It's stupid.
  • 5 0
 The bastard child of shimano's robustness and longevity an srams smoothness sounds like win.....
  • 4 0
 Red vs. blue, it’ll never happen.
  • 1 0
 Comment gold for March IMO
  • 6 1
 @kingtut87: agreed. people also need to stop calling sex toys without electronics/motors acoustic. It's stupid.
  • 3 6
 @kingtut87: it is so stupid. From Miriam Webster: of, relating to, or being a musical instrument whose sound is not electronically modified. Is it a f*ing musical instrument? Does it have anything to do with sound?
  • 1 0
 @someguy101: that's why the state grant so many intellectual monopolies
  • 1 0
 @robotdave: can we please use some less politically correct term?
  • 6 12
flag OrangeGoblin (Mar 28, 2023 at 1:29) (Below Threshold)
 @upundu: You're kidding right? Do I have to explain the very obvious (and playful) metaphor for Acoustic and Electric guitars? Shredding guitars, shredding bikes etc etc. Cheer up.
  • 4 2
 Calling them acoustic bikes will always be important as long as people are still getting upset about the term "acoustic bikes".
  • 10 0
 @kingtut87: Amish is the correct term.,
  • 1 0
 @jabblede: I believe the ultra light dura ace cranks have failed a few times. the two heads of the coin are @thanksshimano and @f*cksrammemes on insta.
  • 2 0
 @Amainman: if anything, our country is too divided to ever reach any common ground... Wait you mean because sram is red and shimano is blue.
  • 5 5
 Why would you want shimano stuff plagued by the poor quality of the sram drive trains
  • 1 0
 @kingtut87: Agreed. Unfortunately people get butt hurt when you call them with motor and regular.
  • 1 0
 people sitting next to me at work just asked why I was laughing!!!
  • 5 1
 @OrangeGoblin: That's not it actually. It's a complete misnomer when people refer to non-motorised bikes as "acoustic".

What they actually should say is analogue.
  • 3 1
 @chrismac70: honestly, at XT/XO1 and higher, I have had a lot more out of the box issues with Shimano.....lower end stuff like NX/SX/Deore, I agree shimano is far more reliable.
  • 1 0
 Big NONO.... they must compete hard. Or its us who will need new oils
  • 1 0
 @RobertGrainier: Please limit your comments
  • 2 1
 @OrangeGoblin: yeah it’s a great metaphor if you don’t know or care what words mean
  • 1 1
 @upundu: School shootings, climate change be damned… THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM.
  • 3 0
 Sramano
  • 4 0
 shemaawwwwwwn EE HEEEE
  • 1 0
 @someguy101: They'd be much more likely to have a FWB relationship. They get the benefits, consumers would get f*cked.
  • 4 2
 @excavator666: they should even say that, it's a f*ckin bike. Analogue is dumb as shit, as bad as acoustic. Ebikes are balance bikes, else it's a bike
  • 5 0
 Maybe they should just direct mount each other teehee
  • 2 0
 @RichieNotRude: I propose "bikes" vs. "bik-EEEEEEEEEEEEs."
  • 1 0
 @Mtbdialed: and lube will be scarce
  • 1 0
 @skiwenric: dry lube could be painful
  • 298 4
 what we absolutely, definitely need, is competing, incompatible, derailleur mounting standards.
  • 37 0
 You will be forced to chose a bike on derailleur and solely that as no bike company is going to make a SRAM and Shimano frame
  • 131 1
 @Jules15: or a company will. by making a separate piece, perhaps called a "hanger" that works with each mount. so we'll be back to where we were, but now frame companies will have to build and stock two different kinds.

There was a time when there was actually some collaboration on this stuff. there were exactly 2 ISCG mount types, and one was just a better version of the older one. ISCG is literally an acronym for International STANDARD chain guide.

Some brands with clearer heads need to start pressuring component companies to work as a forum to standardize this stuff. the lock-in is hurting their profits, not helping them, if they'd only realize it.
  • 207 1
 what we really need, is a derailleur routed through the stem.
  • 38 11
 There are so many reasons i got a Zerode and dont give a fuck about this bullshit anymore!
  • 75 0
 @Zany2410: said as if owning a boutique gearbox bike doesn't come with its own set of bullshits to deal with.
  • 5 0
 @steelpolish: stem mounted drivetrains for the win
  • 14 0
 True. But it's Shimano. We've got until around 2030 before they get anything to market and this becomes a real world problem.
  • 2 0
 Its better than one megabikecorp with zero competition whatsoever.
  • 2 0
 @groghunter: I've got a 2018 frame with two hanger options, one standard and one for Shimano direct mount. Thank you to Rocky Mountain for not locking buyers in to the latter (even though I do like it).
  • 2 0
 Don't worry there will always be a company willing to sell you a little aluminium conversion thingy for 75% of the cost of the derailleur. Ah, the bike industry.
  • 1 0
 Is that a given? All Shimano needs is that their mount fits on the same hole of Transmission-compatible bikes. Although having come second, they could make a slightly smaller fit so that their mount could fit in Transmission-compatible bikes with an adapter, but no Sram mount could fit on Shimano-compatible bikes.
  • 2 9
flag groghunter (Mar 28, 2023 at 8:21) (Below Threshold)
 @DavidGuerra: UDH is patented. If Shimano makes their mount fit UDH, SRAM can sue them.

(SRAM might not necessarily win. but at the very least, Shimano will have to spend a boatload on lawyers to defend it in court. and possibly multiple cases in multiple countries, if SRAM filed a separate patent in the EU for example.)
  • 3 0
 @groghunter: I thought the whole trojan horse deal with the UDH is they opened it up to everybody
  • 6 1
 @gtill9000: they make it easy for frame mfgs to get a license to use it, because as many frames supporting it as possible is to their advantage. however, it IS patented, and you still have to apply for a license. and they are under no obligation to grant that license to competitors. www.universalderailleurhanger.com

See my comments below for more details, but we even have an example: it seems ethirteen had to change their XD compatible cassettes due to violating SRAM's patent.

SRAM has done a very good job marketing XD and UDH as "open" standards without actually opening the standards.
  • 4 2
 @groghunter: UDH is definitely open source. Don’t know where you’re pulling that info from. That was the key premise of the whole idea.
  • 2 0
 @Zimbaboi: literally SRAMs own documentation. see above.
  • 2 0
 @Zany2410: But if I did that, then I'd have to ride a Zerode instead of all the other sweet bikes in the entire world. Feels kind of limiting...
  • 4 0
 @groghunter: From that website:

"What is required to use the UDH?

A license. The bike brand needs to sign up for a free license. The license gives the licensee the right to use the UDH patent and the UDH trademark. A bike brand may want to make their own slightly different derailleur hanger with different features. This is ok. However in order to mark their frames with the UDH trademark they must conform to UDH frame and hanger specification. This ensures that if a rider breaks their hanger, it can still be replaced with a standard UDH hanger."

I'm reading this as frame manufacturers need the license, not component manufactures. It also reads that the license is solely to ensure that your frame is compliant with the UDH standard so that a SRAM UDH will act a a suitable replacement.

In other words, they're (freely) licensing the ability to publicly state that your frame is UDH-compatible, not the ability to design and manufacture such a frame.

Do I have that right?
  • 2 1
 @pmhobson: somewhat. the thing you're missing, as demonstrated by ethirteen's troubles with infringement, is that not mentioning components does not equal components do not infringe the patent.

Patent law is pretty clear on this, infringement is infringement, regardless of how nicely SRAM may talk about it to get frame/hub companies on board.
  • 5 0
 @groghunter: but, from my understanding is you remove the UDH to fit the SRAM type-t derailleur... so in essence when you remove it you're left with a hole that's 'x' big and you tighten it up... surely you cant copyright a hole in a frame?

Shimano could make the way it tightens up slightly different but it wouldn't be infringing the UDH as its not used?
  • 3 0
 @jammers-1991: you can absolutely patent a configuration of holes and surfaces for an application, and that's exactly what SRAM did.

you can make all sorts of arguments about ways to get around it, and some of them might even work. I would happily argue that "a derailleur but without a hanger" shouldn't have been granted a patent at all. but legally, if you measure a SRAM transmission derailleur mount, and make a derailleur (or frame) that works with that specific configuration of holes and surfaces, you must have a license from SRAM to sell that product.
  • 1 0
 @groghunter: gotta say SRAM and Shimano both have hangers in double shear around the hub axle and either side of the chainstay, so I’d be surprised if adapters couldn’t be made to accommodate either manufacturers mechs.
  • 2 1
 The udh is an open licence I don't see why shimano wouldn't use the sram hole. There patent looks just like sram's derailleur.
  • 150 18
 Can’t wait until they both introduce an innovative piece of sacrificial material that is designed to prevent frame breakage in a crash. Something to “hang” the derailleur from.. but what would they call it?
  • 150 1
 A derailleur banger in case you bang it on something.
  • 33 18
 was at a Transmission reveal party...got the opportunity to take a few cracks at the new setup (witnessed someone stand/jump on it, hit it, shove a screw driver into while at full speed). Nothing. Direct mount is not going to cause any damage to the frame in a crash that was not otherwise going to occur with a normal derailleur using a hanger. I was not a believer until a saw it.
  • 12 0
 @SATN-XC: I think that’s great until it isn’t.. SRAM specifically went out of their way to make the entire derailleur user serviceable and parts replaceable as a safeguard which is awesome. I just hope the two DM standards work together.
  • 5 1
 @nicktapias: no way Shimano and SRAM will have DM parts that are interchangeable between them. That would go against SRAM's "its a complete system" ethos. I assume you'll have to go all in on one or the other (though I would say most riders are like that anyways).
  • 6 4
 @nicktapias: no way SRAM sells any replacement parts for… ever?
  • 33 2
 The derailleur hanger is the scrotum of the bicycle frame. It plays a critically important function, is incredibly exposed, and is made from the most delicate material on the bike.
  • 8 0
 @SATN-XC: when they popped the balloons at the party, was the confetti metal grey?
  • 5 1
 @somebody-else: they will stop supporting this as soon as the 13 speed model comes out. I can’t find rebuild parts for 11 speed road shifters- they’ll just push riders into the next complete system as soon as it’s convenient….for them
  • 4 0
 @cjeder: In that case, they really should call the new stuff PUBES.
  • 4 0
 @sandwich: they never supported axs gen1 so it’s no surprise. Even better was downgrading the specs of axs GX to cheaper cage than cable GX.
  • 1 0
 @SATN-XC: that was some kinky party dude
  • 4 0
 @cjeder: does it hang lower as your bike gets older?
  • 2 0
 You mean a universal solution of sorts?
  • 1 0
 @cjeder: Holy hell, how is this not getting more upvotes?
  • 2 1
 The stress from derailleur strikes in this new Transmission is almost entirely going to be on the thruaxle, so if a strike does break the axle then the frame was going to be toast anyways. Another thing hangers do is protect the derailleur. I'm not convinced yet that the modular design of Sram's new derailleur will allow for easy, cheap replacement of a bent upper section like a bent hanger.
  • 1 0
 @hamncheez: they show a breakdown of disassembly and their availability of replacement parts, their old derailleurs had no replacement parts besides the pulley, so I’m not sure what kind of convincing you’re asking for
  • 1 0
 @Zimbaboi: Price and ease of home service.
  • 78 6
 Sram puts out 1x drivetrain ---> 5 years later, shimano gets on board and makes a version that shifts a little better

Sram puts out electronic direct mount drivetrain ---> 5 years later, shimano gets on board and makes version that shifts a little better.

2028 is the year of shimano!
  • 5 3
 got it, wireless shimano in 2024 confirmed!
  • 20 4
 But when Shimano does it, you will actually be able to afford it.
  • 5 2
 Has there ever been a direct comparison between AXS and Di2 in terms of shifting performance? I don't care too much about the wireless thing. It may be nice for the OEM market (fewer holes in the frame to reinforce and seal, less time at the assembly line, provided they would otherwise have gone for internal routing) but overall I think it is pretty daft to invest in wireless transmission between two components, less than 2m apart on a single vehicle. Electric wiring is nowhere near as critical for bends etc as a 1.2mm steel cable is. For a home mechanic like me a really consistent and robust gearing system might be worth something, but the whole wireless thing seems pretty pointless.
  • 5 8
 @lkubica: GX AXS is cheap
  • 2 0
 @vinay: what about externally routed di2 or even better, through the headset, or EVEN BETTER: the headset is the di2 battery
  • 3 0
 @NateO14: Di2 could be internal or external, is pretty irrelevant actually. These wires appear so thin, I suppose you can fit and guide them anywhere. If a frame manufacturer wants to be really sleek, they could actually mold the wire strips in the frame parts so that you only have short connecting wires going from one to the other. Heck, why not use some common standard like USB-C between all those components so that you can connect whatever needs to be connected? Run a long (external or internal) cable between shifter and mech (with one of them providing the power) or run short cables jumping from bars to front triangle to rear triangle to mech etc. I can actually see someone realize this using a small Arduino unit controlling the lot, powered by the powerbank you already own. The biggest issue is probably to produce a rear mech that is sufficiently strong and accurate. But maybe, if one modifies an existing cable actuated rear mech, maybe...
  • 2 2
 @lkubica: because XTR is very inexpensive and affordable? The same old Derore cost less argument is pretty hilarious as best.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: There has been in the road world. The last I saw was the new 12sp Di2 vs the new 12sp AXS, and the shimano units reportedly shifted quicker and more smoothly. I have heard that Sram shifting is specifically slow on the 2x setup, as when you click a shift, it waits a moment to see if you're going to click both at the same time to actuate the front derailleur. After that short wait to check, the rear will shift. I have not seen the comparison with the 2x AXS drivetrain set to 1x or the other shift mode, but am interested to see if that makes the shifting speed a little tighter between the two brands.

Di2 and AXS mtb are almost never compared as the Di2 options are frankly dated compared to modern AXS drivetrains.
  • 2 0
 @f00bar: what? The upgrade kit costs double what a xtr derailleur and shifter does
  • 2 1
 @Zimbaboi: xtr di2 is $700+usd last I checked. . . Pretty sure gx axs is less than that.

Oh, wait you were comparing apples to oranges, in that case xx1 cable is about the same price. . .
  • 1 2
 Except Di2 has never shifted better than AXS. Faster, yes. But better? No.
  • 1 0
 @seraph: I'll sort of agree with that. I haven't had any AXS systems brick themselves due to lack of an update, so that's been nice.
  • 37 1
 So both are just slowly creeping onto the frame. Next is a chainstay mount, then no mount at all, then a front triangle mount for "more clearance" then....they're gonna call it a G E A R B O X
  • 15 1
 I can't wait.
After seeing SRAM's "Transmission" prices, gearboxes actually look like a good deal. Before, they were a pricey option for enthusiasts (me included), but now they're market price
  • 4 0
 Gearboxes on mountian bikes are having a slow and painful birth. I first rode one almost 20years ago and thought they would catch on. But here we are still waiting.
  • 2 0
 Judging by the top image, it seems like that chainstay will be the first that will have to go. There is no room for such ancient technology like a chainstay. In the future, we'll all be riding Orange bikes. At least they have room for these rear mechs. Gearboxes, yeah they're out there already. I honestly don't know how this works on an OEM level. Currently it seems like you have Effigear and Pinion as the big players and they both use different interfaces. So at least until recently, a big brand could jump from one gearing brand to the other without a major redesign as long as they stuck with the conventional rear mech interface. And with the advent of Microshift, TRP and Box, we've only got more reputable players there. With the current gearboxes, a brand is really locked into a model. If a brand only does small quantities or builds to order, they're safe. But big brands build big quantities and if the gearbox manufacturer can't deliver, they're in trouble. I think they both don't want to commit to that. With the power Shimano has already, I think they're best off developing an internal gearbox that fits the same interface that's being occupied by their current pedal assistance. I think that could give them a huge edge over the competition. And considering how cheap their internal gear hubs are with respect to a Pinion or even an Effi gearbox, I think they can make a very competitive one too.
  • 1 0
 @zyoungson: why did you stop riding a gearbox bike?
  • 2 0
 @RonSauce: Because I didnt own it
  • 1 0
 @zyoungson: but why did you think it was going to be popular, but it never even convinced you to buy one?
  • 2 0
 @RonSauce: Something can be popular even though you don't want or can afford it personally. One can recognize a tune that has the potential to become popular because it follows a formula that's proven to be popular, but it isn't your taste. In the context of a bicycle drivetrain, gearboxes solved many things that were issues with conventional drivetrains twenty years ago. You could get the gearing range of a 3x9sp drivetrain without the hassle and even without the complex chainretention devices of back then. It is just that, lots of issues have already been solved with conventional drivetrains and they work just fine for most people. I doubt anyone could have foreseen that back then.

However, what I have seen is that internal geared hubs have become so much better. A Sachs/SRAM S7 (seven speed) geared hub required regular maintenance and still was finicky with its hollow axle. A Shimano Nexus 7sp hub is so common nowadays and just works. I commonly help friends, family and neighbors on their bikes and have never seen issues with those. But the improvements in internal gearbox (frame or hub mounted) are minimal if you compare them to the improvement in derailleur-based drivetrains. So what appeared like a huge advantage twenty years ago isn't so huge anymore.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: I am all about gear boxes on paper. Actually riding one changed my mind.

If after 20 years you didnt buy into an idea that you though should take off its pretty easy to take a step back and recognize the reason you didn't buy in is probably the same reason(s) as everyone else.

My question was not asked as a "gotcha" or to troll, im genuinely curious where this guy's thought process was, and really hope gear boxes ARE the future.
  • 1 0
 @RonSauce: Yeah, to some extend same here. Other than obviously internal hub gears, I haven't ridden a bike with a gearbox like Pinion or Effigear. A few years ago I was pretty sure I wanted an internal gearbox, but it was mainly the size of the box that was limiting the geometry I was looking for. I discussed my options with Alex Claus from Portus Cycles (who had his Krowd Karl bike), with Olsen (whose bikes were very different from what he makes now), eventually went with BTR. We discussed both Pinion and Effigear, it just was that it was easiest (and cheapest, fair enough) to get what I was looking for just using a conventional drivetrain. So aside from some modifications to the geometry (lower top tube and seattube), my frame is fairly standard and fits the standard rearmech. I'm still using the Shimano Zee rear mech but I recently bought the Microshift Kids' Acolyte gearing (because the short rear mech is important for me) and will switch over once it is time to replace my current chain. It will take a long while before the gearbox pays off in terms of replacement for wear. These 8sp chains I need for the Microshift setup are about the same price as a singlespeed chain.

So yeah, I was definitely willing to invest in a gearbox. I was already going down the custom route so the option was there. It is just that some pro-gearbox arguments already don't apply well to my use cases. I ride a hardtail so the sprung-unsprung ratio isn't such a big deal (even though fair enough the bb still moves less than the rear axle as you allow the bike to pivot). I live in The Netherlands so I don't really need the big range which would otherwise push me towards those long cage rear mechs. And I stand up most of the time so I'm already putting more force down (hence need less light gearing) than someone who sits and spins up the same inclines. And as said, I was after a short chainstay. Not just because of fashion (though fashion seems to spin the other direction lately) but primarily because I already have my feet shifted forwards on the pedals so for the fore-aft balance (for grip in corners) it works best to have a short rear center and long front center. I'm mainly giving my reasons as others might have very different preferences and uses cases and they might very well be better off with such a gearbox. If you want a big range (but still no big rear mech cage), a longer rear center, rear suspension etc. That must be a huge number of people on here and I can still imagine they could very well be served by using a gearbox.
  • 2 0
 @vinay: Effigear's new Mimic gearbox uses the same mounts as Pinion, since Pinion made their mount open-source (in an effort to get more brands on board with gearboxes)
  • 1 1
 @RonSauce: Because sir, that is just the way it is. Some things in life will remain a mystery
  • 30 0
 The important question is, will this fit on the same UDH standard or is Shimano making up another one?
  • 3 2
 Likely different
  • 6 0
 I think it will be the same, or at least adaptable. I don’t think Sram can patent a particular hole diameter in a rear triangle.
  • 60 1
 @plustiresaintdead, the UDH design is open source; as far as I'm aware there aren't any licensing fees or anything like that to use it. Whether or not Shimano decides that a UDH-compatible frame will be all that's necessary to run their new stuff remains to be seen - even acknowledging UDH might be a tough pill for them to swallow.
  • 15 0
 God I hope so. Having derailleurs use a common interface was a major win for consumers. Seems like the UDH might have the critical mass to have staying power.
  • 16 0
 @mikekazimer: you should double-check that Kaz. if it's like XD drivers, there are no licensing fees for brands to make drivers, but they don't address components. www.xddriverbody.com

They also still make you ask, it's not an open standard, just an easily granted agreement. which they could withhold from a competitor like Shimano at their discretion.

There may actually be something of an article there for you guys.
  • 14 1
 @groghunter, Shimano's not a frame manufacturer, so I don't think there's anything SRAM could withhold from them. I don't forsee a future where there are SRAM or Shimano specific bikes - I like to think that both companies are too smart to let that happen. It's in both of their best interests to get their products on as many bikes as possible.
  • 15 2
 @mikekazimer: XD is open source, but Shimano created MS anyway.
  • 14 0
 @mikekazimer: www.universalderailleurhanger.com www.pinkbike.com/news/sram-granted-patent-for-drivetrain-with-a-direct-mount-derailleur.html

it's the same as XD. it's patented, therefore SRAM holds exclusive rights to that configuration of surfaces and holes in the US/other places as treaties or other patents apply.

while they may not choose to do so, they absolutely have the legal authority to withhold a license to anyone, at their discretion.

I agree it's in their best interest not to. but that hasn't stopped us from seeing several occurrences where they did it anyway, wagering that their "standard" would win the market.
  • 5 0
 @JSTootell: as i pointed out, it's freely licensed, not open source.

but your point is absolutely true. does a shimano XD cassette get more shimano parts on more bikes? absolutely. did they do it? nope.
  • 3 3
 @mikekazimer: they don't have to use any part of the UDH standard in order to make a derailleur that's fully compatible. UDH isn't patented, right? My guess is that their system will have its own 'standard', but it'll be fully compatible with UDH too. I think even Shimano would see that they missed the boat for getting frame manufacturers on board, and will have to make their derailleurs compatible whether it's explicit or not.
  • 12 0
 This will 100% fit to a UDH bike frame. UDH is now the default standard and creating a new standard and have it widely adopted is not feasible - period!. SRAM knew that to make the UDH ubiquitous on frames they had to make the standard open. They also knew that they will get a 2 or 3 year jump on Shimano when it comes to utilising the UDH for their Transmission design.
  • 2 0
 @mikekazimer: On the other hand they got their fingers burnt with the last effort at a Shimano only mech mount. Maybe they'll see sense this time.
  • 9 0
 @groghunter: SRAM licenses the drive shell, but doesn't license the thread-on cassette system. That's significant.
  • 2 0
 @Illorgan: that's the way i understand it, but i'm not sure exactly how ethirteen gets around that, so i didn't want to make it as a statement of fact.
  • 1 4
 Shimano can make a UDH standard 0.01mm narrower and charge an extra $200 for the iNnoVaTiOn
  • 1 0
 @f00bar: if I could give you 10 up-votes I would!
  • 3 0
 @groghunter: ethirteen originally had a large nut that threaded on the driveshell that held on the largest 2 cogs. They ran into patent issues and had to switch to the current push-on/pinch bolt design. It works but isn't ideal by any stretch.
  • 6 13
flag velodonata (Mar 27, 2023 at 18:49) (Below Threshold)
 @JSTootell: Yes but XD kind of sucks and is basically incompatible with the way Shimano has been making cassettes since forever. MS is a better standard.
  • 2 0
 @JSTootell: Yes, but XD isn't a great design to scale down to inexpensive/OE cassettes without a good amount of pitfalls in design. MS does. There's no way to make a good XD cassette under $50, hence Sram produce a fair bit of HG units still.
  • 5 2
 @hexonjuan: Shimano didn't need to invent Microspline to keep HG though. They could have used the XD standard for their high end parts, while Sram is already using HG for their low end parts.

Shimano created a standard that doesn't need to exist.
  • 2 2
 @JSTootell: don't you mean that SRAM could have invented microspline? It was them who invented XD, which is the standard that doesn't need to exist. Alternatively we could just stick to 11t minimum, and not need XD or ms at all.
  • 5 0
 @Tambo: XD existed before MicroSpline. XD allowed a 10T cog for increased range, and as a welcome side effect, made the cassette a single component that's significantly easier to put on/swap/store versus a stack of cogs and spacers and other associated BS you get with Shimano's standards. I do grant that that stack of loose parts does make for a cheaper cassette. In my experience, there's much less freehub body wear with XD too, no splines getting galled by torque.

HG is fine, but imperfect. XD has clear advantages. MS didn't need to be added to the world to achieve the aims Shimano got with MS, other than to avoid having to swallow their pride and use their main competitor's standard.
  • 3 1
 @mtallman2: There's a lot of good reasons for Shimano not using X. For the customer, XD cassettes are needlessly complicated and costly. There's a reason XT cassettes are way less expensive, it's easier to mount cogs to a continuous spline than to drive everything off the first and last cogs. MS is also a better interface for alloy bodies, as the spline depth on HG is too shallow to prevent marring (XD has a similar issue with really powerful riders)

For Shimano, it means that they don't need to rely on licensed tech from their biggest competitor, who, by the terms of the license agreement, could terminate it with 30 days notice.
  • 1 0
 While the standard will be open source, ie SRAM will allow as many people as possible to make frames that in turn will allow sales of SRAM derailleurs to go on them, I highly doubt they will allow their biggest competitor and existential threat to mount a competing derailleur on their standard where they replace said universal hanger with their product.

Shimano will likely have to continue down the path they started with Saint, where the derailleur mounts to an axle. Fortunately, axles are a relatively open standard, legally, so I doubt this presents Shimano with any real difficulty. Unlike SRAM, you will probably still have to adjust the derailleur's throw when you install it on a new frame. Upside: there will be adjustments to deal with manufacturing tolerances in other parts, such as frames. They will likely continue to trail SRAM to market with the innovations that the average rider wants (ex: 1x drivetrains), but their engineering execution and value prospect will likely continue to be superior (ex: SLX vs say, SRAM XO shifting performance, as measured after a few months in the real world).
  • 2 0
 @cjeder: I fully acknowledged that Shimano's cassettes are less complex to manufacture, but you'll never convince me that an XD cassette is "needlessly complicated for the customer." I can swap 5 XD/XDR cassettes in the time it takes me to swap 1 HG cassette. Installing a single piece versus 15 loose components is a huge difference in user friendliness to me.

That's just one data point of many that informs my opinion that SRAM generally makes stuff that is easier to work on. Truly wireless drivetrains versus hidden batteries and snaking wires, bleeding edge versus an open funnel of oil, brake line barbs/olives that require no special tools to install, a drivetrain configuration app that normal functioning humans can understand and navigate without a CS degree, etc. etc.
  • 2 0
 @JSTootell: They did. The market was asking for the large range but also at more affordable price points than what could be made for XD. Shimano listened to the market and made their engineering decisions on that it seems XTR may not win the weight war, but it certainly nails it out of the park on price. And I highly doubt Sram would've welcomed an application from Shimano to license their XD driver.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: SRAM is by far the biggest in OEM deals. This means they would profit enormously from proprietary mounts. No more people switching to Shimano, since all bikes that come as stock with SRAM would have to stay with SRAM components.
  • 2 0
 @hexonjuan: An M9101 XTR cassette is $409 currently, and an XG-1295 is $415, where's the home run?
  • 2 0
 @hexonjuan: oh i'm sure they'd entertain the idea. but not for free. probably a dollar value around "enough so that your cassettes cost about $10 more than ours"
  • 3 0
 100% Shimano will never use anything that SRAM designs. Whether the UDH is open patent or not, that would be like Shimano suddenly making their cassettes for XD instead of the whole system they designed to circumvent the XD design (Microspline).
  • 2 0
 @plustiresaintdead: it's not about patents or designs, it's about Shimano not wanting to use SRAM tech. They are historically stubborn about using only their own tech.
  • 3 0
 @Tambo: xD was made by sram AND dt swiss. They make it using a hg body spines pattern as a "blank" that you can machine down into xD. So basically it was just an evolution, that simplified production problems.
  • 1 0
 @mtallman2: Fair, but a XG1299 is going for a bit under $500. If we're doing top tier:top tier comparison, the price gap gets a couple factors larger.
  • 1 0
 @groghunter: Exactly, and that's a big if.
  • 2 0
 @hexonjuan: Fair enough, that's the same cassette in fancier colorways though...the price gap is purely cosmetic, and all margin, zero cost.
  • 3 2
 @mikekazimer: SRAM has the patent on the UDH, there is no way they are gonna let Shimano use that, unless - maybe - if Shimano was willing to pay a licensing fee for every derailleur sold, which I frankly can not see happening.
  • 1 0
 @FuzzyL: is UDH patented? Of course they should let Shimano use it because they don't want to lose frame manufacturers to a competing sh standard.
  • 3 1
 @Tambo: You're absolutely right. it is in their best interests. Unfortunately, the dream of "maybe we can win and force Shimano to pay us for every derailleur they sell, or force them out of business or something" is really appealing to investors.

and to be clear, it's both brands. in some ways, SRAM has absolutely done some of this defensively, as Shimano has been just as guilty, if not more, of trying to lock people into their parts, both with patents and without. SRAM, way back in just the day as just a drivetrain startup, was essentially born out of Shimano's lack of will to make MTB components that were more than just "a slightly burlier road derailleur," in part due to their successful efforts in locking people into their ecosystem.
  • 28 1
 Mounting to the axle is a good idea. I've got no issue with that. I have no desire for electric drivetrains.
  • 3 0
 Same here. Here is hoping Shimano might perfect it without electric shifting but all the pros from Srams system.
  • 1 0
 @fiatpolski: I've got a Shimano Saint 2007 model rearmech on my fully, so axle mounted but without rapid-rise. It does take a beating indeed. I don't know what people would dislike about it. I only remember some thought it was happy but then again, 2007 was only during the transition of "old school hucking" to "maybe a little smoother and lighter". Can't blame Shimano for releasing a heavier and stronger mech back in 2003, nor for releasing this modified model in 2007 after so much resistance against rapid rise (and the subsequent flee of customers to SRAM who did use rapid rise). But there really was nothing wrong with the concept of the axle mounted mech.
  • 23 2
 I'm assuming there is no mechanical reason a cable operated DM RD wouldn't be feasible. I understand that they may not be interested in developing one, but just trying to keep hope alive as I really like the DM design but my bicycle will never depend on batteries to operate.
  • 3 0
 Give it a year or two for OEM demand and there will be cable systems. Unless SRAMANO fancy offering AXS/Di2 at prices for sub $2.5k bikes.
  • 5 0
 Our Supre derailleur is direct mount and cable operated.
  • 1 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: And it costs 1250,00 EUR with crank (no cassette), pretty close to a SRAM X0 Transmission ( 1856 - 490 (casette) = 1366 EUR), based on Nikolai frame configurator (and it's not clear shifter is included).
  • 1 0
 per this PB article linked below, that exact product debuted in 2003 with Shimano's Saint groupset:

www.pinkbike.com/news/a-brief-history-of-direct-mount-derailleurs.html
  • 1 0
 @Grizzly134: Yeah I've read that a few times lately, but I'd seen one or knew about one before today.
Even back then and even reading the articles now, I still don't quite understand the point of the original "Direct Mount" RD's that just seemed like they were using a longer hanger instead of a b-link. Seemed like 6 or half dozen to me. But that article you linked to clearly shows a true axle mounted direct mount Saint RD. Like I said I'd never seen one before in pictures or the real world. Obviously they didn't catch on.
  • 12 0
 Really debating getting rid of all bike electronics including my Garmin. It's taking away the whole reason that I loved it. Start Strava, make sure all batteries are charged, sometimes struggle to sync to the phone, change speed sensor battery, restart the watch when the heart rate is not right, update firmwares.
  • 15 0
 I did this last year. Ditched my wahoo as well. I noticed that I started judging how much “fun” I was having off riding metrics. If I looked down and saw I was pacing slower or averaging a higher time, I was instantly having less “fun”. I even ditched Strava all together so I’d stop paying attention to segment times and all of that. Now I start my Apple Watch and just use apple fitness to track mileage and time for suspension service interval sake, I was able to turn every other metric off to where it doesn’t give me speed, average speed, or anything like that. I’ve noticed I’ve been enjoying riding a lot more and I go out and focus on actually having fun while being in nature.
  • 8 1
 This. A bike in its purest form should be 100% mechanical. Enjoyment in its purest form should be 100% about just riding.
  • 4 0
 I did this… no computer, no HRM, mountain or road… it’s great. When if feel like going hard, I go hard, if I feel like noodling… I noodle. Been just as fit as past years and it’s much more enjoyable.
  • 1 0
 Garmin I can live with, though I get your point. Biking should be simple.
  • 4 1
 @mkul7r4: Any idea how silly it is to state, ON social media, “eLeCtRoNiCs Is WhErE i DrAw ThE lInE!”

Your car you got to the trailhead in has an automatic transmission you’re wearing an Apple Watch and carrying a cell phone in case you get lost or hurt. Good lord.
  • 1 0
 @Blownoutrides: Hey now, my vehicle is a manual transmission!

If ditching allows you to enjoy your riding, I say go for it! I can totally ignore all that stuff and still enjoy my riding. My ride last night was about my bare minimum in effort, but I didn't care. I have all the data to prove it was slow, but, I don't care.
  • 27 15
 I'll be happy if when I hit or catch my derailleur it either destroys the $600 der or my $1000 rear swingarm....who cares about a $15 hanger.
  • 4 0
 I know right.
  • 61 25
 What if it didn’t destroy either of them?
  • 18 5
 Funny enough, neither of these is mounted to the frame. They're both mounted to axles for the axles would take much of the load. That said, if you hit anything hard enough to destroy either one of the new style of derailers, your frame will be trashed anyway if it was a regular derailleur hanger or not
  • 18 11
 @mikekazimer: If you don't destroy one of them you're not riding fast enough.
  • 13 3
 Strain on the derailleur is born by the axle, not the frame. Destroying your frame in this context would require ripping the rear axle out of the swingarm; if you crash that hard your components are probably the least of your worries!

I saw a review comparing the new Sram derailleur to a crankset. Yeah you could probably damage it in a really savage crash, but for "normal" crashes it's just part of the bike now.
  • 13 6
 @mikekazimer: yet to see a video where the Sram derailleur is hit from the front and/or bent backwards as it happens often when hitting a rock or catching a stick or tree


Haven't had bros standing on top of my regular derailleur that often irl

Also looking forward to the 2024/2025 review of the next gen to hear what's bad about the current gen, as it's always the case with suspension part and bike frame reviews
  • 11 4
 It could be worse, it could be a derailleur that is weaker than the hanger. Looking at you, Shimano XTR.
  • 1 1
 Just had to replace the swing arm on my 2022 Specialized Kenevo SL - it was $363
  • 7 10
 @mikekazimer: Doesn't matter it's sram it will be worn out in 2 years so you will have to buy a new one or if you get lucky the parts to fix it for more that a standard derailleur.

It"s caledl progress.
  • 33 7
 @JohSch, I mean, these days it's pretty rare that new bikes and parts are worse than what came before. Your skepticism over the SRAM stuff is fine, but at this point I don't think there's anything I could do to convince you that it withstands impacts very well.
  • 29 6
 @JohSch: I guess you didn't watch the Fanatik video where they repeatedly smashed it with a metal pipe from a 45 degree angle?

Others have already said it, but with this direct mount system you can't damage the frame without completely breaking/ripping out the axle. In which case your frame was probably never going to survive.

People need to actually understand the system before they shit on it. After that, if a bulletproof rear derailleur that costs about the same as its non-direct mount equivalent and creates basically zero compatibility issues still pisses you off for some reason then I guess you can bitch about it.
  • 9 11
 @bkm303: I never said it was not strong I have seen the videos, I said I don't believe it will last, because it"s Sram and I have not had very good luck with some of their parts in the past.
  • 6 2
 so tired of this...have you seen any of the reviews, appears to be a nonissue. If you are hitting your derailleur hard enough to damage a swingarm I think a hangar would be far from the most damage you'd get.
  • 7 1
 I have seen a few times a broken derailleur going into the spokes,then catching to the frame and boom...I think this system would survive 0 problem most of the crashes.
  • 6 1
 @lake-st: got it, SRAM bad other company good
  • 5 15
flag lake-st (Mar 27, 2023 at 15:16) (Below Threshold)
 @bmied31: I am not a fan of Sram parts, I don't believe they stand up as well as Shimano "To Wear"

And Sram never impressed me as a company I remember a recall Sram did but they had no serial numbers so they were unable to know how many parts were affected, or where they were sold.

So buy it and enjoy it, I won't do either.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: than its all about cost
  • 2 0
 @bman33: seriously. If you look at old frames without hangers, it’s just a little piece of metal hanging down to mount the derailleur to. The new direct mount stuff is just a different work around to the problem those old frames had.
  • 2 0
 @JohSch: I’ve seen one. It pivots backwards. You just have to loosen the axle, give your cranks half a turn and retighten it to reset it. Exact same process as the udh.
  • 1 3
 @mikekazimer: hubs will start breaking
  • 3 0
 @bman33: Good point. Replaceable derailleur hangers really only protected frames against derailleur hanger failures; and I never found them to do much to protect he derailleur. Complaining about getting rid of them is a bit like complaining that nobody invited the alcoholic to the party because he always brought beer.

This said, the only part of direct mount I’m skeptical of is how much is going on at the axle. It has to mount the derailleur, serve as the b pivot, and receive the axle. SRAMs solution - a knurled washer that locks in place with the mounting bolt - is a bit hamhanded. I’m relieved to see a b gap adjuster in the Shimano patent. Other than that, the whole idea seems elegant to me.
  • 1 0
 @devinkalt: Less than a derailleur
  • 1 5
flag 8a71b4 (Mar 27, 2023 at 18:45) (Below Threshold)
 @bmied31
@mikekazimer

The derailleur can stand up to impacts very well, but the open question is what happens to the bike frame. For example, the mount includes a knurled plate that goes against the dropout. What happens when the derailleur catches on a rock from the front. Will the dropout marred due to the knurled plate being forced to rotate against it?

For sideways loads, if the hanger isn't there to bend, you are sending shock forces through a narrow right dropout, in ways it was not designed to bend.

Carbon bikes are not manufactured to aerospace grade standards, you can have delaminations and voids that are present but the bike will still generally be ok because of safety factors involved. Start putting shocks through the frame, and those delaminations/voids can grow, which reduces the strength of the frame.
  • 2 1
 @bmied31: ok - then you destroy your $600 der vs a $15 hanger, doesn't the point still stand?
  • 1 1
 @mikekazimer: that's a pretty big "what if", let's try to keep this discussion reasonable
  • 3 1
 @RadBartTaylor: I honestly don't get the handwringing on this. It's not as though derailleur hangers were ever all that successful at protecting derailleurs. Half the time that they worked, they would send your derailleur into your spokes.
  • 4 0
 @lake-st: Since the rebrand (dropping avid, X7, X9 etc) they’ve been a different company. You should definitely try it out. I used to buy a new bike and I’d take anything sram off it and replace with shimano without even using it but these days the roles have completely reversed, I’ll ride the shimano stuff until it breaks and then replace with sram. Sram are currently making much better products that most importantly to me last much longer than shimano’s stuff. I still have shimano on my hardtail though.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer: 8lb sledge hammer and a quad espresso. Go!
  • 1 0
 @cjeder: just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's a bad idea....some of my posts are a bit in jest, but I think we can all agree that it may create some problems along with solving some. Not sure how long you've been MTBing, but I straightened many a der-hanger back in the day when they were not replaceable and integral to the frame, der was fine. I've broken several der-hanger also. I've had my der go into my spokes on one occasion. Typically it's not a catastrophic event though, shifting goes to shit, which means you've bent your hanger, that happens at least once a year. What now, der takes that abuse?

I'm all for innovation but not at the expense of replacing stuff more often - "seems" like a bad idea is different than saying "this is a bad idea", I'm in the "seems" category.
  • 1 0
 @RadBartTaylor: Fair enough. It's healthy to be skeptical of Sram on this one too. If history is a guide the problem won't be the innovation, but the execution. My bet is Transmission is strong in all the ways Sram has demonstrated. If there is a problem, it's that the pulley cage is still hanging out there as the weakest link in an ever more expensive part. This was a problem with axs too and conventional mounts too. Not sure if rebuildabiliy and a magic pulley can save the fact that it'll really suck to blow up a 600 derailleur regardless of how it's mounted.
  • 1 0
 @cjeder: yeah but you can actually replace the entire cage now
  • 2 0
 @8a71b4, the knurled plate is designed to stay in place when an impact occurs - the rest of the derailleur is designed to rotate while it remains stationary. You can see what would happen after an impact here: www.sram.com/en/learn/eagle-transmission-welcome-guide/ready-for-anything.
  • 1 0
 @mikekazimer:

> the knurled plate is designed to stay in place when an impact occurs

Yes, through friction against the carbon dropout. It also has the protrusions which engage the circular cam on the derailleur. What happens when you hit the derailleur from the front hard enough to move it past the limit of its free rotation where the cam is locked into the protrusion? You are certainly going to make the knurled plate rotate against the dropout.
  • 12 1
 I remain far more interested in the release of LinkGlide than this....
  • 3 2
 I'm with you there, cant seem to find anyone comparing the two.
  • 8 3
 @Seebema: link glide cassette weighs more than the entire SRAM Transmission. Comparison complete.
  • 2 0
 Linkglide is just a cassette with thicker sprockets and revised shift ramps, and derailleurs with altered pull ratios.
  • 1 0
 @mtallman2: Costs less, for sure. Is *claimed* to last much longer. Doesn't take batteries.... I think there are more variables at play than the one you seem focused on, and while that might matter the most for you, there are plenty of people with other concerns.

Personally, I think this is still a step in an evolutionary path, not an endpoint. For me, the most exciting thing was the shaping in the cassette. SRAM might finally be to a point where they can rival Shimano's shifts. They got rid of the b-tension assy. that was their Achilles Heal, so maybe their stuff will hold up better now, too. Maybe (gasp!) they'll finally earn my business, when they release a cable actuated version of these ideas.
  • 8 0
 Coming soon...adaptors to mix and match new direct mount derailleur standards that look like hangers.
  • 7 0
 For sale Park Tool Derailleur Hanger Alignment Tool. One careful owner, used a handful of times.
  • 4 0
 Lets just hope that whatever is released is incompatible with every other drivetrain vendor and increases SKU's by at least 50%. Bike shops are crying out for even more SKU's and incompatible parts to try and stock.
  • 3 0
 patent diagram clearly shows the direct mount system....but there is also a derailleur cable to it...Non-electric direct mount system possible? [also noted how there is no headset routing in the diagram, thank you]
  • 3 0
 wires from the battery.
  • 4 0
 @k2theg: patent diagram clearly shows the direct mount system....but there is also a derailleur cable to it...Non-electric direct mount system possible? [also noted how there is no headset routing in the diagram, thank you]
[Reply]
k2theg (3 hours ago)
wires from the battery.

Sram has a patent that covers the battery attached to the derailleur, so Shimano is placing inside the axle with a tiny wire.
  • 4 0
 @hellanorcal: Shimano will mount the battery on the handlebar next to the shifter. The battery wires will run through your internally routed headset.
  • 2 0
 Anybody who thinks that Shimano is going to make a derailleur that won't bolt up to the same interface as what SRAM designed, I'm sorry but the sky is not falling on your heads. SRAM designed that interface between derailleur hardware and frame to be as basic as it can and made it availble to use for anybody. They only asked for a licence agreement if you wanted to use the UDH branding in your marketing etc. It's basically a Dia 20 x12.5mm wide hole with some clearance around it that anybody can design too. Literally anybody can use. Shimano aren't stupid. You can see from the drawings already that they are going to use those same dimensions for their direct mount. .....and frames aren't going to break. There is a huge amount of material in that set up that by teh time a frame breaks you have more to worry about. The hanger inteface has had it's day and was a impedence to making drivetrains shift better. We now have a drive train that shifts under full load and is going to take one hell of a beating before it becomes a problem. It's not cheap now but all that tech will be used in lower priced componenets in time. Not ready for a new frame for a while. Go and buy a couple replacment derailleurs of your current flavour and stick them in the cupboard. Cars literally change every model with not much interchangability yet no ones jumps up and down about it. These guys are literally improving the bike in a big way and everyones shrieking like little girls that lost their puppy.
  • 2 0
 I have been a Shimano fanboy since my first Deore XT group in the mid-90s but I am tired of waiting on them to release product. Making a GRX that worked with XT/XTR might have saved our relationship but the process of building a mullet Gravel bike pushed me to AXS, and my MTB is about to follow as the Eagle X01 AXS stuff gets a bit cheaper.

We had a good run Shimano, but your efforts are too little too late.
  • 4 0
 They just filed the patent? Cool. So at the speed Shimano releases products we'll see this in 2030.
  • 3 0
 A patent application needs at least 18 months to get public. It is not like shimano has been working on it two weeks ago.
  • 5 0
 Wrong, it will be announced in 2030 then actually available by 2035
  • 4 0
 So what your saying is that 11spd XT drivetrains are gonna be dropping in price even more?
  • 4 3
 I get that it’s mounted to your axle, which definitely strengthens overall integrity. However, anyone who says taking repeated impacts to your axle, which is routed through your rear triangle isn’t going to cause wear to the rear triangle, is nuts. Without a breakaway part, there will for sure eventually be enough stress that it’ll start breaking rear triangles.
  • 5 1
 Um…all rear wheel impacts go through the axle/dropout and transfer into the rear triangle. Don’t try to convince anyone those loaded are smaller and/or less frequent than those to a derrailleur.
  • 2 0
 @UtahBrent: single side loaded impacts vs centralized impacts that are distributed to both sides. Very different impact types.
  • 1 2
 @Keegansamonster: Regardless if the derailleur is fixed to one side of the axle, if it is braced by more than one attachment point (it is), it still transfers loads to both dropouts, just like the whee/hub does. For either case, the load goes through the axle to both sides of the rear triangle.

The difference is that the hanger could potentially put more of a bending moment on the axle, considering axles are pretty stiff, and reinforced at some point of flex by the hub axle around them, this isn't an issue.
  • 1 0
 One more great reason to buy used. I'm keeping my udh and all of the capability it comes with, and he $30 bender to fix it when there's a problem. F this crap but Hey at least these standard changes and frangible equipment are bringing more people into skateboarding lol
  • 1 0
 Both the UDH and this are more MTB BS that we don't actually need but will be forced to buy at some point, costing us more and devalue our bikes in the process... but hey we can all finish our bike rides and jump up and down on the rear mech now - yay!... I am waiting for them to announce something like a square-ish press fit bottom bracket now.
  • 1 0
 Shimano's bread is buttered by Road. They could give a flying F about mountain, as evidenced by their complete lack of advancement (save for a new shade of gray for yet another boring XTR update), and the dearth of OE spec. I did an informal survey of various MTB brands and a Shimano build is the exception, not the rule, whereas you can go 50 levels deep on SRAM builds.
  • 1 0
 The two S-bag companies are no different than the two party political system in the US. You love to hate them, they want you to hate them, and like political pundits whores, the gumboil gallery of armchair mountain bike experts here in the comment section spout their despise for the one or the other, meanwhile both are laughing all the way to bank with new 'standards' guised in product advancements wrapped in patents.
  • 2 2
 I thought the hanger was supposed to be a "safety valve" to make sure the frame and deraileur were not destroyed in a crash; a sacrificial part, low dollars. You take that away and it costs you a frame or deraileur? No thank you.
  • 3 3
 How come NOBODY is talking about the fact that Shimano released the directmount rear derailleur Saint and Zee models, M600-605-800-805, in 2004, almost 20 years ago. So what is new in bicycle land, nothing, the inventors are just re-inventing someone else old ideas
  • 6 0
 Literally everyone is talking about it. I’ve yet to see an article where it doesn’t mention that shimano did direct mount first.
  • 1 0
 @thenotoriousmic: Including literally this one.
  • 2 0
 And inexplicably, even though it’s wireless, it’ll have a cable coming out of the derailleur at an extreme oblique angle.
  • 4 0
 DiCUES is just around the corner I can feel it
  • 1 0
 if only there was something universal to both fit sram and shimano instead of having proprietary bullshit that forces you to change frames if you want to try another drivetrain brand
  • 2 0
 Id love to see the carbon footprint of making shit derailleurs that break and need replaced instead of a life time warrantie gear box.
  • 4 0
 As long as it uses the UDH standard, than it's all good.
  • 3 1
 I feel at this point we should accept the derailleur for what it is and inject more R&D into reducing weight and improving gear box designs
  • 1 0
 Seeing as how bike manufacturers no longer have to design derailleur hangers and based on their price bikes should get about 10% cheaper...
  • 3 0
 they cant even route a seatpost properly
  • 1 0
 Lol, I had to go check the diagram again.
  • 3 0
 Yeah, but can you stand on it?
  • 4 0
 Patented by SRAM, no-go.
  • 3 0
 heeeeeeeeeereeeeeeeee weeeeeeeeeee goooooooooooooo
  • 2 0
 The Shimano version won’t unnecessarily stick out a mile past the chain stay like the SRAM everything does.
  • 3 4
 “We can’t cover you on the homepage unless you actually have something worth covering. We stretched it a bit got the XT di2 since you bought those ads but we can’t pretend it’s new and exciting when it was announced two years before it comes out. Oh you have a patent from a few months ago? Of course I look at the patents but Santa Cruz flew me to the Alps for a bike launch when it came out and I must have been asleep in first class. Cool. We can cover this patent like it’s real news. Thanks again for the ad buy”
  • 2 0
 this is the truth right here. sram cant be FKd to even list the simples product specs and PB and the rest of the media are too busy gargling them to notice.
  • 1 0
 I heard that shimano also wants to have its own derailleur henger other than UDH. That is, in this case, diferent whole Direct Mount
  • 16 14
 sram tech but 5 years late… classic
  • 41 3
 It'll somehow be better at the shifting part though
  • 28 2
 @DizzyNinja: and it'll cost 1/20th the price
  • 18 1
 Or 20 year too early you mean ? Don't forget, Shimano was doing direct mount when Sram was still trying to push their plastic derailleurs to the market.
  • 3 1
 Another great day to be an SS rider!
  • 2 0
 there's not one SINGLE day where it's great to be an SS rider
  • 3 1
 Anyone with a non UDH is worth nothing now. Damn.
  • 2 0
 I'd like a cable actuated transmission please..
  • 3 1
 All hail Shimano MTB designs!
  • 2 0
 It’s threads like this that need the popcorn emoji
  • 2 0
 Probably already for sale on craigslist
  • 2 2
 They all had direct mounted dérailleurs before. Why they are going back to some old technology that failed in 2000 era?

Stop re-inventing old crap.....
  • 3 5
 Lots of people commenting saying that competition is good. Well I'm sorry capitalist pigs, you're wrong. As a consumer choice is good, competition never is.

In a world of choice you can choose which tyres you want to run. You look what's available for your size wheels and make your choice. If you've got 26" wheels though that choice is being removed from you because of competition. 27.5 / 650b shouldn't be a thing on mtb's, it isn't significantly bigger than 26" to justify it being a thing, we'd be better off with 29" and 26" for both performance and practicality reasons. 27.5" though won the competition and has pretty much killed 26".

In competition there are winners and losers. It's survival of the fittest, last man standing. By it's very nature competition in business ultimately removes choice.

To maintain choice the bike manufacturers need to braver and push back against Shimano and SRAM. Bike manufacturers should dictate that all interfaces need to be free and open to use by anyone, no patents, no licensing. If a brand wants to patent an interface then the bike companies need to be brave and refuse to use it.
We don't need XD and MS. By licensing the interface brands are trying to remove consumer choice by locking in a consumer to a particular system. Patents on things like freehub bodies, mech-hangers, etc is about making sure you can't buy from anyone else, killing the competition and removing consumer choice.
  • 1 0
 Really looking forward to having to stock two different dropouts on each frame design depending on drivetrain supplier. FFS.
  • 1 0
 I will never forgive SRAM for forcing Gripshift onto so many MTBs in the 90s. Never!!!!
  • 4 3
 I can only hope that they sell an acoustic version
  • 8 8
 Excited to carry a replaceable rear triangle, instead of a hanger...Thank goodness my derailleur will survive tho
  • 3 2
 No surprise, Shimano is late to the game as always
  • 2 0
 Late? They're still at home looking for the keys to the station wagon.
  • 1 0
 I hope that dropper cable routing is a joke.
  • 3 1
 Hey Shimano....Wake up!
  • 2 0
 Do they even need to? When compared to Sram, Shimano is a massive corporation and probably doesn't need to pump innovation into cycling as fast as Sram has been.
  • 1 0
 Here, have a nice article about what bike radar have done
  • 1 0
 Once again, Shimano too late to the game!
  • 2 1
 because Shimano never developed ramped sprockets/chamrings and assymetrical chains or trigger shifters or STI road levers or Di2 or hollow forged cranks etc. etc.etc. This time round SRAM got in and designed it first. Guaranteed Shimano will have product out to suit in the next 12 months.
  • 3 3
 Exactly what we need competing standards
  • 4 1
 proprietary mounting for derailleurs is the biggest middle finger to consumers honestly, like if you want to try another brand? oh well change your frame too
  • 1 0
 Good idea
  • 2 3
 Sick, gimme that transmission shiftability/durability with a linkglide cassette and I'll cream my little pants
  • 2 2
 Wasn't XD open source too and what did Shimano do....
  • 2 1
 but can you stand on it?
  • 4 0
 Stand On is the new Huck to Flat
  • 1 0
 finally
  • 1 0
 Oh snap!
  • 6 7
 Another thing nobody asked for....
  • 1 1
 Lipstick on a pig.
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.083627
Mobile Version of Website