Throwback Thursday: A Brief History of Direct Mount Derailleurs

Feb 15, 2023 at 17:32
by Eric Olsen  
You don't have to be an oracle to see that a direct mount rear derailleur is on the way from SRAM. But where did the direct mount derailleur idea start? Here's a brief history.

But before hopping into the wayback machine, it's worth explaining how a direct mount derailleur differs from a 'regular' derailleur. As the name suggests, a direct mount derailleur is mounted to a bike's frame without a replaceable / sacrificial hanger. The idea is that the extra stiffness should allow for more precise shifting; even a small amount of movement in a derailleur hanger can lead to inconsistent shifting performance. As you'll see below, many of the so-called direct mount derailleurs still relied on a link between the frame and the derailleur, it's just that this link was longer, stiffer, and attached to a different point on the derailleur compared to other options.

2003
Shimano release their first generation of Saint drivetrain with a direct axle mounted rear derailleur.


2005
Shimano released their HONE drivetrain with a direct mount derailleur and a seductive promotional video.

Shimano Hone

by ericolsen


2012
Shimano continued to push the idea to manufacturers with the official release of their direct mount standard.

Multi image Pivot Direct Mount Shimano Der.

2013
By the 2013 model year all Shimano mountain derailleurs were capable of direct mount. Frame manufacturer's were responsible for providing a "direct mount" hanger.

First Look - Affordable SLX Ensemble Supercharged With XTR Features


Shimano direct mount made sense. But riders were apparently unbothered by the added "B-Link". Imagine if Shimano had chosen to not provide the B-link with the derailleurs. Would that have incentivized the manufacturers, shops, and customers into using a direct mount derailleur hanger?

2018
The standard didn't catch on and eventually Shimano removed the direct mount option from their derailleurs when they introduced XTR 12 speed in 2018. Although interestingly Shimano's top spec gravel derailleur still has direct mount capabilities

XTR M9100

This is where story switches to SRAM

2019
In 2019 SRAM introduced the Universal Derailleur design, which offered an open license to any company interested in implementing the design on their frames.

SRAM Universal Derailleur Hanger

Most frame manufacturers began adopting this standard in the next design cycle. Notably Specialized, Giant and Trek.

Trek Fuel EX 9.8 GX Photo by Dane Perras

2021
SRAM was granted a patent for a direct mount derailleur. This showed their cards and made it obvious that the widespread adoption of UDH was more than just about standardizing the derailleur hanger.


2022
Then last August we saw our first glimpses of a direct mount SRAM prototype, and one even popped up on Craigslist.


It seems pretty clear that SRAM is on the verge of releasing a new drivetrain with a direct mount derailleur. The most notable difference is that the Shimano direct mount standard still allowed for backwards compatibility with a standard hanger, while the SRAM prototype appears to be direct mount only, which means that it might not be compatible with all frames.

Will direct mount derailleur become the norm? We'll have to wait and see what SRAM has come up with, and if Shimano decides to respond with a new direct mount system of their own.

Must Read This Week
Elite Qualifying Results from the Lenzerheide DH World Cup 2023
79121 views
[UPDATED] Overall Standings & Final Results from the Pietra Ligure Enduro World Cup 2023
74409 views
Spotted: Pivot's Lugged Carbon DH Bike Prototype
63968 views
Tech Randoms: Lenzerheide DH World Cup 2023
47588 views
First Look: 2024 Giant Glory Downhill Race Bike
47054 views
Noga Korem Dropped by GT & Sponsored by Commencal
35322 views
Tech Randoms Part II: Lenzerheide DH World Cup 2023
35226 views
Pinkbike Primer: The 2023 DH World Cup Series Finally Begins at Lenzerheide
28584 views

146 Comments

  • 156 0
 The hors d'oeuvres to the new SRAM Eagle article that has to be just days away now.
  • 40 1
 review tomorrow
  • 5 16
flag mior Mod (Mar 2, 2023 at 13:06) (Below Threshold)
 eric olsen has review photos already up Facepalm
  • 8 0
 @mior: What?
  • 2 4
 @ericolsen: clear shot photos in your blog stuff album, most likely not a team/factory bike as it has hope brakes. also, correct me if im wrong but the photo in the article tab photo doesnt appear to be a team bike due to the lack of stickers, and the mud on it is consistent with bellingham winters. ,
  • 12 2
 @mior, the thumbnail photo is from the EWS Crans-Montana race last year. www.pinkbike.com/news/motor-derailleurs-yeti-ews-crans-montana-2022.html.

And the other photos you're looking at are from this article: www.pinkbike.com/news/ratio-tease-direct-mount-derailleur-conversion.html.
  • 1 4
 @mikekazimer: good to know. just a guess.
  • 2 0
 @mior: ohh you're seeing the photos from this article. www.pinkbike.com/news/ratio-tease-direct-mount-derailleur-conversion.html
  • 4 2
 Before the main course of Shimano serving up their own “standard,” so that now we have Shimano- or SRAM-specific frames?!
  • 7 0
 Can we just get a lightweight, compact eagle cassette?
  • 2 0
 @matyk: RED AXS?
  • 1 0
 @PregoRoll: No xdr freehub for i9 hydra hubs. Same freehub needed for sram xplore.
  • 127 6
 direct mount is so great, instead of bending the hanger you now have to replace the derailleur. so cool
  • 68 2
 Or your frame..
  • 69 3
 Don't worry, Sram will make sure the mechs are strong enough to ensure they survive and your frame breaks instead.
  • 6 1
 Tres moderne of SRAM...
  • 6 9
 Right?
And the 2022 Tallboy went direct mount, which was the end of the flip chip in the rear axle mount.
Say what you will, but without that short wheelbase chip on my 2021 Tallboy, I can’t wheelie on a steep downhill.
This is a death sentence for the last leg of Whole Enchilada in Moab.
  • 33 2
 @Untgrad: Where's the steep section on the whole enchilada? Smile
  • 6 5
 @dmrluc:
Nicely put!
Seriously, my old Tallboy, with its 445mm chainstays and it 70.2° head angle, nearly killed me near the bottom of that ride. Both times.
Downhill drops into uphill faces, and I could not get that front wheel any higher! Had to jump off and walk while watching my friends ride down it. That was a first.
  • 2 1
 @dmrluc: for real
  • 12 5
 I have very seldom in my riding life just bent the hanger. I have almost always destroyed the derailleur in the process.
  • 4 0
 @adrennan: I recently hit my derailleur so hard that I couldn't imagine that it survived (the sound it made on my helmet camera was impressive). I mostly coasted down the hill and back to my van to find that it did survive, with just an insanely bent hanger.

What I don't know is if the AXS did its job and saved itself, or if I got lucky. I was about to swap back to a mechanical derailleur as I was getting tired of dealing with the battery, but it made me second guess myself. Time will tell.
  • 11 0
 @JSTootell: don't let that be the deciding factor on going back to cable, literally every derailleur out there moves inward when you push it, axs just mimics it
  • 6 1
 @OpeSorryAbootThat: that.............doesn't benefit SRAM at all though
  • 1 0
 @Untgrad: Ah I'm sure frame designers can figure out a way to incorporate a flip chip with the direct mount.
  • 2 0
 @titaniumsprucemoose:
Well Santa Cruz dropped the ball on that one..
Or, after so much crap talked about flip chips and the sort, SC saw a way out. At least for the rear axle.
  • 5 1
 Isn't it because AXS mechs are so strong in their shifting, to get quick precise changes, that and flex means they can in some cases cause poor shifting if the hanger is soft and in some cases bend the hanger.....
  • 4 0
 @adrennan: I've ruined a bunch of hangars, while never having to replace the derailleur (or frame) itself. Learned to always carry a spare or 2 with me, and had memorized I needed a Kona "H" model hanger haha.
  • 2 2
 hangers aren't what they used to be anyway. the're no longer the weakest part, it mostly is the frame anyway. if cracked more frames because of the sturdy "modern hangers" than i've actually bent a hanger. so far 4 chain/seatstays swapped under warranty.

do i like this? no. but seriously i'd rather skipp the hanger than having it one withouth the advantages of the hanger.
  • 3 0
 @sack-zement: but thats just bad luck. imagine to have to either pay 300 for the derailleur or hassle with the bike instead of at least a chance its just the hanger. i have killed many hangers but never a derailleur.
  • 2 0
 It might sound odd, but why aren't they doing steel hangers (or Ti for weight maniacs)?
I bent so much of them on my 90's steel mtb as well as on trekking bikes such as Genesis Longitude, Fortitude and so on... none of them broke and I always succeeded to rectify them.
3D printing would make it even easier IMO.
  • 1 6
flag Untgrad (Mar 3, 2023 at 5:04) (Below Threshold)
 @danstonQ:
I’m gonna take a swipe and say steel is too flexy compared to aluminum, titanium is nice and light, but still flexy.
Magnesium would be cool if it wasn’t so brittle..
Looks like the only improvement over aluminum is yet again carbon fiber!
Would be a great compliment to my carbon stem cap..
  • 1 3
 @Untgrad: The last generation Tallboy went UDH, not direct mount. And the UDH version has 435mm rear center, which is nothing out of the ordinary these days.

I have the flip chip version, I run it long and with a Cascade link which puts the rear center at 445mm. I have no issues with wheelies or getting the front wheel off the ground in any situation that requires it.

I also have a RSD Sergent with 455mm rear center, no issues getting that front wheel of the ground either.
  • 2 2
 @krka73:
I run mine long and have no problem with wheelies until I’m on a steep drop with a wall 90° in front of me.
Other than that, I like the 445mm length.
I just don’t like the idea of losing a tuning option of any kind.
I run an Ohlins shock and I love it, but when the oil begins to break down, I have no high speed rebound clicker to turn in.
That means an immediate service, or a possible over the bars even when I actually hit something fast enough to need the HSR circuit. I like options!
  • 1 1
 @Untgrad: if you're NOT running a Cascade link, the rear center of the flip chip is 430 or 440mm.

And adding direct mount doesn't necessarily mean losing rear center adjustment. It's a question of does the frame designer want it, and how they would go about it.
  • 2 0
 @danstonQ: wheels mfg made to hangers for a bit. No one bought them. It was great because titanium is a natural spring with great memory, it will flex and deflect then just spring back to its original position.
  • 2 0
 @krka73:
No Cascade link here.
Right you are 430-440. I was off by 5mm both ways.
My only point about losing rear center adjustment is that is exactly what happened with the Tallboy.
And you make a perfect point saying it’s not necessarily lost. But SC chose to lose it with the change to direct mount. I don’t like that.
  • 1 0
 @krka73:
I’ve been looking for some honest feedback from a Cascade link user.
How do you like it?
  • 1 0
 @Untgrad: I changed a few of things all at once. Went from a DPS shock & 34 FIT fork @ 130mm to Float X shock, 36 G2 fork @ 140mm plus the Cascade link. Much improved bike.

What the link alone would've done, I can't really say.
  • 1 0
 @smaptyjohnson: Indeed, titanium's resilience and shape memory would be great for that. It would be more pricey than an alloy hanger, but I'd prefer to spend a bit more into one thing I can fix rather than into several disposable fragile stuffs.

@Untgrad: steel and titanium are too flexy? But that's actually the good point about them!!! I have repaired and saved so many old vintage steel bikes thanks to their integrated hangers, as well as fixing steel trekking bikes in the middle of nowhere.
Carbon? I prefer not to answer this one just to stay polite.
  • 1 0
 @danstonQ:
Carbon, I was joking, BTW.. Im hoping the day of a carbon hanger will never happen!
I love the idea of steel or titanium, but I thought there was too much precision lost due to the inherent flex.
It would be great to have a hanger that can bend but not break!
  • 1 0
 @krka73:
Wow. That’s a massive change for front and rear suspension!
Sounds like no trade-offs.
Maybe I’ll go big after this season..
Thanks Man!
  • 1 0
 @iiman: True, and I still have the derailleur on hand.

I need a shifter, I swapped to the AXS since I got it on sale when the mechanical shifter broke.
  • 3 4
 @cmi85: .... What do you mean, say you want the new SRAM stuff. You go get UDH frame and the new SRAM transition.... first dub: you literally need a whole new bike to bolt the new SRAM stuff on. Second win: You spend $2500 for the shifter, derailer, cassette, chain, and cranks, yes wait two weeks to check that price. You can buy a complete full-suspension bike for the same cost as the drive system alone. In releasing their new drive train they also phase out their older, widely compatible components forcing consumers to make changes or work with products that are considered obsolete by the brand and no longer offer support for.




Then, you go on your first ride and obviously smack the new drivetrain into a tree. But it turns out that the UDH setup is so strong it rips out of the frame leaving the transition fully intact.

So here's how SRAM really wins: You the consumer looks like a complete assclown for being a part of the extremely small group of rich a*sholes who spend their money on dumb products that require batteries for essential function at your local trailhead. Just don't forget you're better than everyone else because you have e-cockpit on your not electric bike!!
  • 2 0
 @beanbelly:
IDK whether to thumbs up or down this one..?!
I’m still laughing too hard to decide!!
  • 3 0
 @Untgrad: BZZZZZTTTTT WRONG !!! But thanks for playing.... Steel is about 2.8 times as stiff as aluminum for an equivalent cross section, which a hanger would have to match to be compatible to the frame. Its also FAR stronger. A titanium hanger would be about 90% stiffer than an aluminum one of equal cross section and again, far stronger. Magnesium would be about a third less stiff and depending on the alloy perhaps of equal strength to aluminium, depending on what the original aluminum hanger is made from (6061T6 is easy to duplicate the strength of with cast magnesium alloys, but 7075-T6 is not).
  • 3 0
 @danstonQ: Steel and Titanium as they're done to make frames from, flex more because they have defineable fatigue limits while 6000 and 7000 series aluminum alloys do not. Thus Steel and Titanium frames don't need to be built overly stiff to have a long fatigue life. But as far as basic material properties are concerned, in terms of stiffness and strength, aluminum is the wet noodle of the three. The only reason bike frames ever moved to widespread adoption of aluminum is due to oversized diameter tubing, and taking advantage of the cube rule to structural stiffness. Essentially, a structure's stiffness cubes with increases in thickness. A 2" diameter aluminum bar is about 8 times the stiffness of a 1" diameter bar. Now Aluminum itself is only about 2/7ths the stiffness of steel so you effectively end up as a net increase in stiffness with a 2" diameter aluminum bar compared to a 1" diameter steel bar. But in parts where the cross section is going to be the same, to meet standards for say derailleur hangers, or sliding dropouts, or axles. Doing it in steel is going to be far stiffer (and stronger) than in aluminum. Aluminum is stronger and stiffer (typically) by WEIGHT compared to steel, but not by volume or area. With aluminum tubing, we ended up with frames that were stronger and stiffer than steel at a marginal weight saving. But when it comes to things like derailleur hangers... or even derailleur cages and bodies, strength and stiffness are being sacrifced to save weight.
  • 1 5
flag danstonQ (Mar 4, 2023 at 0:47) (Below Threshold)
 @deeeight: Thanks but you taught me nothing Herr Professor.
  • 2 0
 @danstonQ:
Hope all egos are still intact after that..
Afraid some might be “enhanced”..
Does anybody know why aluminum is the material of choice for hangers?
Ready to trashed by self proclaimed geniuses for asking..
  • 1 0
 @Untgrad: Based on a single experience of bending (very slightly) a Canyon one (cast rather than machined) and then attempting a controlled straightening of it back in the workshop (it immediately snapped), I'm going to say it's probably cheap and easy to engineer in the desired properties with alu: stiff enough for normal operation, brittle enough to snap if you do manage to deflect it much. That is assuming it is considered preferable for a mech to be flapping about on a mangled chain rather than being rammed into a cassette. A steel hangar would not let go after one deflection.
Disclaimer: Sample of one, not a metallurgist, making a leap as to what the "ideal" behaviour is etc,
  • 1 0
 @dmrluc: I called Poison Spider bike shop and asked if I should bring my DH rig. The dude laughed and said "nah man, its gravity assisted cross country"
  • 1 0
 @azureblue:
Sounds about right from here.. See that’s what I’m really wondering- the behavior of the metal vs say, weight.
Do they want it to break after two bends? Or be repairable for the life of the bike.
My 2021 Tallboy has the burliest derailleur mount I’ve ever seen. And, yes, aluminum. Wonder if it’s forged or cast?
I’ve straightened it once. I’ll find out on the second one!
  • 1 0
 @Untgrad: Its the weakest structural material that's commonly available and is used as a sacrificial component to protect the dropout of the frame itself and the derailleur. Replaceable hangers came around in/about 1990 as aluminum frames started to become more common, because destroying the dropout/hanger area in a crash meant writing off the entire frame at worst, and destroying an expensive derailleur at best. The dropout/hanger of my 1991 Rocky Mountain Stratos (made in Japan from 7005T6 aluminum) is one piece and the complete bike originally sold for $1200 USD. My 1991 Alpinestars Ti-Mega frame (made in the USA from Ti 3Al-2.5V and Ti 6Al/4V) had a replaceable hanger, made of aluminum, on a frame that itself sold for about $2000. As it happens, I've never broken the hanger off the dropout of my Stratos nor off the Ti Mega. I did however completely crack thru the tubing of the ti frame.
  • 1 0
 @deeeight:
Interesting..
I’ve broken one completely on my Maverick ML-7 back in the day, and I think that’s it for complete breaks.
This really is the point more than the material- what is the intended failure order, vs what actually fails last!
My shiny new 2021 Tallboy started shifting horribly, about the third ride in. I know I never hit the derailleur riding or hauling my bike, so I looked at everything else. And, the derailleur was scratch free..
Finally put my alignment tool on the hanger and it was out by a mile!!
Such a thick chunk of aluminum, no evidence of damage anywhere..
An Alpinestar Ti bicycle? Same company as the MX boots?
  • 1 0
 @Untgrad:

Yes, they had a full mountain bike line in the late 80s/early 90s.

www.pinkbike.com/news/now-that-was-a-bike-alpinestars-ti-mega-2014.html
  • 1 0
 @deeeight:
It’s almost like Mtn biking paralleled music through the 80’s and beyond!
Trying to define themselves in a world of options..
I was on an aluminum Fisher hardtail racer in the late 90’s, riding behind a friend of mine on a rebranded hardtail Moots (can’t remember the name).
There was a fat rock in the trail I almost crashed avoiding, he ran right over it. I don’t know why Ti isn’t the mainstream metal frame material. Couldn’t the price per frame come down if it were mass produced?
  • 1 0
 @Untgrad:

It could somewhat but nowhere near as cheap as aluminum or carbon. Even in aviation, titanium tends to be reserved for areas that require both strength and high heat tolerance and the majority of airframes otherwise are usually aluminum alloys or carbon composites.
  • 1 0
 @deeeight:
I guess machining and welding Ti doesn’t make it very attractive either.
Would be cool if it were an option between aluminum and carbon. I was convinced it was the bike frame material of the future at about Y2K.
I love my carbon frame, but still seems like a gimmick.
  • 1 0
 @Untgrad: sorry, everyone keeps telling me to stop drinking but I refuse to listen.
  • 2 0
 @beanbelly:
What did Butthead say to Bevis after a full pot of espresso, and a brilliant rant by Cornhollio himself?
“Preach on brother Bevis!”
  • 3 0
 Yep, the whole point of the hangar was to protect the expensive derailleurs. This industry really does beat up on the consumer.
  • 81 0
 The craigslist ad still kills me
  • 46 0
 the saint direct mount derailleur from 2003 was so heavy it must have been made from solid steel. You can use it to break up rocks when trail building in the Wasatch. Its so strong you can use it as an anvil to straighten your buddies bent derailleur hanger. Its so heavy you have to have one on the other side of your bike to balance things out.
  • 15 0
 It is so heavy you have to inflate your rear tire an extra 2 psi.
  • 9 0
 It's so heavu you have to go clipless to bunny hop your bike again
  • 20 1
 "Heavy is good, heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work you can always hit them with it."
  • 11 1
 It was so heavy Chuck Noris only pedaled up Everest once with one installed. He removed the derailer and went up a second time singlespeed to prove a point.
  • 4 2
 It's so heavy it had to have anti-wheelie installed
  • 3 0
 I ran that mech for 10 years. Bent 2 axles with impacts to the mech that didn't kill the mech. Great stuff at a time when a mech/hanger would often go every 6 months
  • 2 1
 @hughlunnon: And what happened to the frame? Did it survive the impacts that bent the axles?
  • 1 5
flag Velosexualist (Mar 3, 2023 at 0:03) (Below Threshold)
 @freebikeur: have to disagree with you technically Smile Bunny hop is all about creating the momentum and using it in right time, not about pulling your bike or whatever.
  • 2 1
 The 2003 model was rapid rise, which for many was the reason to move on to SRAM. I'm still running the 2007 Saint rear mech which is also axle mounted but not rapid rise. I ride it at the Megavalanche 2008 and nearly everyone I was with bent mech hangers, I could ride unbothered. I still think it is a good idea. Surprised to hear people bent their axles. Sure a rear mech might take a beating but so does the rear wheel. And a sideways blow to the tire has much more leverage than the mech.
  • 1 1
 @vinay: obligatory "Big Derailleur is holding back gear boxes which you can't break (if you ignore when they break)"
  • 1 0
 @hughlunnon: I ran these on my All Mountain bike in the early 00s. The axle was truly the weak link!
  • 1 0
 @M0T0: snatching it.....I get it
  • 2 0
 @vinay: I didn't mind the Rapid Rise. It wasn't garbage, just different...but the early axles were chromed pot steel. A modern high tensile aluminum axle would fix that issue.
  • 1 0
 @BrianMageemOt: Not sure whether I was running an early axle. As mentioned, my Saint mech was from 2007. Also, I was running a DT440 hub and one from Fire Eye and I think the axle came from them. The Fire Eye was so heavy, the mech was a feather in comparison.
  • 22 0
 I still don't understand what problem Shimano were trying to solve with their 'direct mount' derailleurs. It wasn't a direct mount because it still required a derailleur hanger, just in a different shape. I didn't get it then and I don't get it now.
  • 3 2
 You didn't get it then for the reason you don't need to get it now. It didn't take off. If it had taken off you would see that you couldn't fit a SRAM mech to your Shimano only bike without some kind of adapter
  • 7 0
 @browner:
I understand that, but I don’t understand what problem they were trying to solve or even how they solved it. All they did was reshape the problem
  • 3 0
 Was it not the era of the shadow mechs, that sat behind the cassette rather than to the side so they were out of the way of rock strikes?
  • 1 0
 @StinkyKieran: The first gen Saint derailleur (as shown above) was before Shadow
  • 1 0
 @notthatfast: the problem was that customers could freely bin a Shimano mech and get a SRAM one. They solved this issue by making that difficult?
  • 2 0
 I’m having a hard time understanding direct mount as anything more than a solution in search of a problem. My 2021 Santa Cruz indirect mount is so burly it seems I’d be broken before it!
And my shifting is first class with SRAM 1x12.
Santa Cruz might be doing it differently here, but I’m not willing to give up my rear axle flip chip for a newer model just to go direct mount.
  • 3 0
 It was to set the derailleurs up in the right position relative to the axle. When bikes first got thru axles frame manufacturers were making drop outs look like all kinds of weird science projects. What Shimano did was design something that allowed the derailleur to be far enough from the axle that designers could do whatever they wanted and the derailleur would still be in the right place to preserve b-tension adjustment. A lot of those bikes required you to ram the b tension screw in all the way, then manufacturers figured out drop out design and the direct mount became defunct.
  • 1 0
 To stiffen the interface between the low profile mechs of that era (especially Di2 variants) and the frame. Cuts out one extra interface that the low profile design otherwise needed.
  • 18 4
 Smart move from SRAM to get all the frames to use UDH and now they all fit their direct mount derailleur but not a potential Shimano one
  • 27 2
 you can fit every derailleur on a udh hanger
  • 8 2
 Sram probably incentived company's by offering better prices on OEM to go UDH and keeping it free patent to avoid any legal ramifications on monopolization. Probably would have looked bad to bike brands if they kept it patented and prevented any other potential brand offering on bike builds. Pretty dirty move ethnically but great in a business stand point.
  • 4 1
 @Jcolis1904: The point is - that @sendrick-lamar missed - is they wanted everyone to jump on the UDH (which is in theory a good thing for consumers) so that when they released the patented direct mount RD, there were frames already essentially designed for it...and NOT for whatever Shimano counters with, since it is patent protected.
  • 9 1
 @Jcolis1904: those gosh-darned dirty ethnic moves!!
  • 5 0
 @cmi85: I suffer from American edumacashun :/
  • 2 1
 @sendrick-lamar: talking about a potential Shimano direct mount derailleur. It would have be designed around the connection to the frame for the UDH. And I have doubts that there are no parents from SRAM around this.
  • 12 0
 That HONE ad is like S-Tec but narrated by a Mission Impossible mission briefer. Was hoping the ad would self-destruct in 5 seconds.
  • 10 0
 I may have missed the details all of the features of direct mount derailleurs, one that matters to me: does it have a break away feature so frame is not damaged in case of strike? Why do we want this if it does not?
  • 3 0
 Precisely
  • 1 0
 And will that be a user replaceable part that's sold as spare? Don't want to have to buy a whole brand new derailleur ..
  • 1 0
 @titaniumsprucemoose: or frame..
  • 10 0
 The derailleur cabal isn't going to pleased by this info leak.
  • 14 0
 I'm more concerned about the derailleur cable cabal. I'm anti-battery.
  • 7 0
 whats the actual need for a direct mount? isn't just gonna break something other than the hanger? I'm not seeing the benefit
  • 9 0
 i think this is taking place because of the electronic derailleurs. I heard (i think it was a PB review?) that the motors in them are strong enough to flex a traditional derailleur hanger. For those of us on normal drivetrains, no i dont believe that there is any benefit at all. I guess the UDH is probably a good thing though, should be easier to find replacements than with proprietary hangers. It makes sense though that the drivetrain companies would rather sell us a very expensive new derailleur rather than a sacrificial hanger from the bike manufacturer or a third party.
  • 8 1
 Supposedly... with the new design, it will allow them to move the derailleur up and more in-board, which would perhaps lessen the chance of smashing derailleurs.

But... my opinion, they're tired of watching riders replace derailleur hangers instead of derailleurs. $$$$$.
  • 1 1
 @Torbo24: You could be onto something here... and using another persons comment... perhaps this is part of the reason we haven't seen "NX AXS" yet. The weight of a cheaper NX AXS derailleur along with the strength of the motors, maybe means it needs to be directly mounted for it work reliably without bending some hangers?
  • 1 0
 There might have been some speculation about improving shifting performance/precision.
  • 6 0
 lets be honest, besides some type of negligible performance increase, the main reason companies do this is to lock you into one option and push out other manufacturers
  • 1 0
 It didn’t do that though. Nothing that a hanger change wouldn’t solve. It was an option - nothing more. Still is for gravel/road bikes.
  • 4 0
 Wonder what exotic location the SRAM unveil was held in?

Look forward to the bike companies trying to charge me full price for a current year X0 bike with last year’s XO1 and last years GX cassette and chain.
  • 3 0
 Notice the chain on that craigslist ad. Looks like Kazimer had the same one on his Trek in the "Weight Doesnt Matter" article from the other day.
  • 1 0
 He's been on the new groupo since the fall.
  • 4 0
 Sure sound like SRAM is about to drop their new MTB AXS line up any day now.
  • 1 0
 Just a shame that Shimano don’t make the b link equal on all derailleurs ,or the axle screw ,cause a xt case don’t work on the xtr b link,because the screw doesn’t let the derailleur move ,it’s stupid cause all the others parts can be changed ,xtr has some differences in quality ,and the cage that looks the clutch is different and even the clutch clamp one is equal size the other has a shorter end ,but to make a different b link is stupid
  • 1 0
 It would be really cool if while Sram was releasing this direct mount derailleur. They built in a sacrificial and replaceable piece of metal to go between the derailleur and the frame. It would be a genius move, but I am just not sure what they would call it...
  • 1 0
 My understanding is that the new Sram will be released the middle of this month. The derailleur will not have any adjustment screws and will totally depend on chain length. No high/low limit screws. Will only work with UDH compatible frames. Going to be interesting.
  • 4 0
 "and a seductive promotional video." Great adjective choice, Eric. LOL
  • 1 1
 Should I upgrade from 10 speed yet??????
Narrow wide - Check
Clutch - Check
Chain lasts more than 5 minutes - Check
Comes in 11..36T (dont need more than that around here) - Check
11..36T works with short cage shadow mech for nice ground clearance - Check
Trail bike the same as my Dh bike so only 1 set of spares needed - Check Check Check

There is an issue with 10speed though.... Formus tell me its rubbish and I need a smaller gear!!!!
  • 3 0
 never really understood what that b-link thing did anyway
  • 3 0
 A "direct mount" hanger, that is exactly like a traditional hanger, only slightly different location, compatible with normal derailleurs with a "b-link adapter" that is just like a hanger.

Makes total sense to me!
  • 2 0
 Why? I'm not sure I've ever understood the point of a direct mount derailleur. Is there any benefits?
  • 13 0
 Yes -SRAM PR dept.
  • 5 0
 sell more derailleurs? seems like a very logical move on their end.
  • 5 0
 @Torbo24:
Yes (Finger gun & wink)

-SRAM PR dept.
  • 4 0
 What we will probably hear is that the shifting with 12 speeds will be more accurate and quick. I've noticed that the 12 speed stuff from SRAM is a little more finicky and susceptible to slight misalignment causing poor shifting. My guess is this is designed to prevent that.
  • 3 0
 Based on this article, new axs will be announced next Wednesday
  • 6 1
 Hmm… this article, the “weight doesn’t matter” one, maybe one tomorrow on “precise shifting is overrated”…

Are we finally getting NX AXS??
  • 1 0
 Fun fact: before derailleurs were invented road racers had two sprockets on the rear wheel and had to get off their bike to move the chain by hand.
  • 1 0
 That's the backstory of Tullio Campagnolo being inspired to invent the quick release skewer. Because the wheel used to be held on with wingnuts.
  • 1 1
 Oh boy oh boy! More planned obsolesce. It's ok though that'll my middle aged weekend warrior ass have .01 more performance once my frame is defunct. Definitely needed for my world cup run.
  • 2 1
 Just make a derailleur that does not turn into a corksrew at the slightest touch with earth, pretty please with sugar on top.
  • 1 0
 Ah, yes the way back machine of 2003! I'm old enough to remember when the derailleur hanger was just part of the frame, sonny!
  • 11 11
 basically Shimano is way too conservative and old school to have come up with great ideas but just plays it safe and then someone else makes it better.
  • 16 4
 Who makes a derailleur better than Shimano ?
  • 3 2
 @dkendy1: Ingrid, at least as far as aesthetics are concerned
  • 3 6
 @dkendy1: sram and it’s not even close not even by a little bit.
  • 4 1
 @thenotoriousmic: Lol here we go again, eh?
  • 2 0
 As if pinkbike doesn't know the release date...
  • 1 0
 In fact, every time I take the wheel off, I'm going to have the derailleur turned out?
  • 3 5
 Mounting a derailleur at the drop out - lame.
Sram copying Shimano - business as usual.
Might as well go full “cool” and mount it on the chainstay.
SunTour S1 - now that was not playing copy cat.
  • 1 0
 Should have made it "6 things the bike industry could do better"
  • 1 0
 I had a direct mount saint on my old RMX and it was bullet proof!!
  • 1 0
 Everything old is new again. What is next, URT?
  • 1 0
 The UDH was the “Trojan Horse” for Sram
  • 3 2
 12 spd sucks balls
  • 1 1
 Really?





You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2023. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.047130
Mobile Version of Website