# SRAM vs Shimano(highend)



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

I was wondering why most high end bikes now are using SRAM XX or XO instead of Shimano XTR or XT. Even in Crosscountry competitions there is no real difference both brands performance.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

A lot of high end stuff can be built either/or (Niner, Turner) or bought as a frame only and built how the customer likes. Ready-made completes with XO/XX only is likely because the manu gets a better deal on the SRAM stuff contributing to more profit per unit.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

do you like Coke or Pepsi?


----------



## In-Yo-Grill (Jul 19, 2011)

Don't think there's a difference in quality but SRAM is available on different colors where Shimano is limited.


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

It just means that Sram is offering manufacturers better pricing. If Shimano gave a higher profit margin then you would see more Shimano.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

XX is the lightest weight grouppo for MTB, between SRAM and Shimano.

SRAM is pretty aggressive at getting OE contracts, probably since that's where a lot of the money is at for them. Probably more convenient for a mfg to shop everything all at one place. Mfgs probably like how SRAM handles warranty stuff as well, willing to support customers directly, rather than requiring you to deal with them through an authorized dealer. They're much more aggressive at marketing too. That's all conjecture though, from speaking with SRAM reps and stuff at events.

IMO, in the end, it's not whether they offer great prices to the mfg, but whether or not people buy the bikes equipped with them and the mfg is happy with their bike's performance and customer satisfaction after sales.

My XC/trail rig has newer SRAM 10spd XO/XX stuff on it, which I thought was a step about old Shimano 9 spd stuff, and my AM rig has older 9 spd Shimano. If I were to buy a new bike, I'd want the new 10 spd Shimano stuff on it.


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

The odd part is, some of the brands use Shimano XT and XTR on mid range bikes and SRAM XO and XX on the high end bikes . I thought XTR is for high end bikes and it was used at least two years ago for to them. Most 29ers today are running on SRAM.


----------



## Caffeine Powered (Mar 31, 2005)

mack_turtle said:


> do you like coke or pepsi?


RC Cola


----------



## jeffgothro (Mar 10, 2007)

XTR...its the SH*T!!!


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

chunky1x said:


> The odd part is, some of the brands use Shimano XT and XTR on mid range bikes and SRAM XO and XX on the high end bikes . I thought XTR is for high end bikes and it was used at least two years ago for to them. Most 29ers today are running on SRAM.


XO is in a similar price range as XTR, with XX being much more expensive. The XX cassette's MSRP is $300+, for example.

I notice Trek doing that with their XC race models, XX in top end model, except for an XO FD, and XT for the next model down (other mfg spec'ing XTR rear derailleur maybe). I also see that Yeti, typically a high pedigree brand that runs Shimano, uses SRAM X7 for their lowest end models. A number of value oriented brands spec SRAM as well, such as Salsa. Motobecane/Bikesdirect sells XTR equipped bikes at the same price as XO.

I see it as the Shimano equipped bikes attracting the crowd that wants a fast XCish bike for simply trail riding, with a little competition sprinkled in, and the XX equipped bikes attracting the crowd serious about racing and want something good off the shelf.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Varaxis said:


> XX is the lightest weight grouppo for MTB, between SRAM and Shimano.
> 
> SRAM is pretty aggressive at getting OE contracts, probably since that's where a lot of the money is at for them. Probably more convenient for a mfg to shop everything all at one place. *Mfgs probably like how SRAM handles warranty stuff as well, willing to support customers directly, rather than requiring you to deal with them through an authorized dealer. *They're much more aggressive at marketing too. That's all conjecture though, from speaking with SRAM reps and stuff at events.
> 
> ...


Not sure where that comes from but when I had an issue with my front hub on my Felt, I dealt directly with Shimano and it was easy.


----------



## the-one1 (Aug 2, 2008)

SRAM deals with end users through a shop. Shimano deals with end users directly,


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

chunky1x said:


> I was wondering why most high end bikes now are using SRAM XX or XO instead of Shimano XTR or XT. Even in Crosscountry competitions there is no real difference both brands performance.


No real difference? I disagree. Though both brands offer very precise and crisp shifting, and stiff as hell crankset accross the line but the difference in personality can make or break when it comes to choosing between the Two.

The difference is quite significant, Sram is a 1:1 and Shimano is 2:1, Sram XX/XOFront derailleur is probably the best in the industry next to the internal gear hub. You can shift under much higher load than Shimano, shift the same you'd get chain suck with Shimano.

Sram also have a pronounce "thack" when shifting I know that many racers prefer that over super smooth and quiet shifting of Shimano.

Now Shimano XTR are tech filled line up of products too, like I said buttery smooth shifting that can go thru the gears up or down within a few swipe. High tolerance products looks great without trying too hard.

When it comes to Hydro brake, I'd take Shimano over Sram anyday. They are reliable and super easy to bleed and set up and exceptional attention to detail.

I have both top end components and like them both but to say that they perform the same, they do not.:thumbsup:


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

mimi1885 said:


> No real difference? I disagree. Though both brands offer very precise and crisp shifting, and stiff as hell crankset accross the line but the difference in personality can make or break when it comes to choosing between the Two.
> 
> The difference is quite significant, Sram is a 1:1 and Shimano is 2:1, Sram XX/XOFront derailleur is probably the best in the industry next to the internal gear hub. You can shift under much higher load than Shimano, shift the same you'd get chain suck with Shimano.
> 
> ...


I agree that Shimano can be numb in shifting. All Shimano derailleurs I own lack a thud or thack sound or have faint sound that can easily be drown out and I wish for more feed back but overall they are great. I have nothing against SRAM but since they are so rare in my place, parts can be an issue. For every one SRAM XO or XX sold they are about 50 or more XT and XTR sold for build your own bike units.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

chunky1x said:


> I agree that Shimano can be numb in shifting. All Shimano derailleurs I own lack a thud or thack sound or have faint sound that can easily be drown out and I wish for more feed back but overall they are great. I have nothing against SRAM but since they are so rare in my place, parts can be an issue. For every one SRAM XO or XX sold they are about 50 or more XT and XTR sold for build your own bike units.


Well that was easy, in Asia the OEM Shimano were sold on the market for about half the price of what sold here, while Sram is about the same price here. If I'm a bike shop that put the components together it would be an easy answer

For example, in 2007 I was in Asia I pick up XTR groupo for just under 1k before it was a few months before most online store start offering here in the US and it was at full retail. Now the dollar is pretty weak the economin advantage seems to be cut considerably


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

mimi1885 said:


> Well that was easy, in Asia the OEM Shimano were sold on the market for about half the price of what sold here, while Sram is about the same price here. If I'm a bike shop that put the components together it would be an easy answer
> 
> For example, in 2007 I was in Asia I pick up XTR groupo for just under 1k before it was a few months before most online store start offering here in the US and it was at full retail. Now the dollar is pretty weak the economin advantage seems to be cut considerably


I hear your pain dude. I was just looking online for XTR 2011 and the cheapest I've saw was $1,180.24 plus shipping and taxes while a similar unit in Cebu City would cost $700 dollars with installation and labor. If SRAM cost the same in your country, that would explain why Specialize Stompjumper or either Giant or GT equivalent cost more than building one using their frames and tires but with XTR.

This explains everything. Thanks.


----------



## trailmax (Jun 29, 2011)

Sram X0 = Shimano XTR , 
Sram X9 = Shimano XT, 
Sram X7 = Shimano SLX, 
Sram X5 = Shimano Deore, 
Sram X4 = Shimano Altus

Sram XX in a level unto itself. Shimano's light weight XTR race can't even compete with the lightness of XX components. Also, XX stuff cost more than XTR. I dont know if I would say more$$$ equaling better but, in this case XX is lighter at equal or better performance of XTR. 

Although XX is super light and elite status, if I were to build a race bike I would choose XTR over XX just because XX components look like single serve disposable light. I question the durability of XX because Sram shaves off so much in terms of weight to durability ratio.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

trailmax said:


> Sram XX in a level unto itself. Shimano's light weight XTR race can't even compete with the lightness of XX components. Also, XX stuff cost more than XTR. I dont know if I would say more$$$ equaling better but, in this case XX is lighter at equal or better performance of XTR.
> 
> Although XX is super light and elite status, if I were to build a race bike I would choose XTR over XX just because XX components look like single serve disposable light. I question the durability of XX because Sram shaves off so much in terms of weight to durability ratio.


There's something for everyone, until now XTR has been dominating the racing scene but now weight weenies has another choice that's lighter weight and a strong performer. If you are looking for a more durable option than XX then XO may be a good choice without going to XTR.


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

Sorry about this post. I was having problems using multiquote.


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

trailmax said:


> Sram X0 = Shimano XTR ,
> Sram X9 = Shimano XT,
> Sram X7 = Shimano SLX,
> Sram X5 = Shimano Deore,
> ...





mimi1885 said:


> There's something for everyone, until now XTR has been dominating the racing scene but now weight weenies has another choice that's lighter weight and a strong performer. If you are looking for a more durable option than XX then XO may be a good choice without going to XTR.


So SRAM XX is the same with Shimano XRT with Yumeya kit which is also fragile. You pay a lot more for lighter stuff that is brittle. I think this plain illogical for a rough and rugged mountain bike to have a light but brittle components.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

chunky1x said:


> So SRAM XX is the same with Shimano XRT with Yumeya kit which is also fragile. You pay a lot more for lighter stuff that is brittle. I think this plain illogical for a rough and rugged mountain bike to have a light but brittle components.


Not quite XX is still the kink of lightweight the first time I held the 10spd cassette I was in awe. I not sure about proven durability but it's worth the money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 3fast3furious (Dec 10, 2010)

Most people covered already the price advantage with SRAM v. Shimano. But there is also the package deals that can determine what brand to go with from the factory. Some brands prefer to set the bike up with a Rock Shox fork and that might pair better with the other SRAM componants in a price bundle. Others might find that Shimano wheels go better with the drive train for a different build. I know some companies like Trek will have multiple levels of the "same" bike with SRAM on one build and Shimano on another. I think its all to offer the most flexibility in pricing options for the customers


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

This thread was made possible largely by shimano 960 dual control. If shimano didn't insist they know what's good for us better than ourselves, and gave us the crappy only DC, SRAM would have never gain any share of the market. Now the monstrosity is very hard to ignore on both road and mountain bike. 

Funny how things work out sometime. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

mimi1885 said:


> This thread was made possible largely by shimano 960 dual control. If shimano didn't insist they know what's good for us better than ourselves, and gave us the crappy only DC, SRAM would have never gain any share of the market. Now the monstrosity is very hard to ignore on both road and mountain bike.
> 
> Funny how things work out sometime.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The words 960 Dual Control stand my hair on end. I hate them so.


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

zebrahum said:


> The words 960 Dual Control stand my hair on end. I hate them so.


I think that using the weak back part of the fingers for shifting is not a great idea. Maybe it's like a Xbox controller. Awkward at first but convenient later. Or it could be crap.


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

chunky1x said:


> I think that using the weak back part of the fingers for shifting is not a great idea. Maybe it's like a Xbox controller. Awkward at first but convenient later. Or it could be crap.


Nope, I've used most gaming systems that have been released and I can say that Dual Control is just crap. I'll put in the caveat that I hate it but it doesn't mean that everyone does. I mostly held ill will toward DC because of the poor function that it had not really the physical mechanism behind changing gears.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

It's tough to say if it's crap or not the similar system worked well in road application but when XTR DC came onto the scene disc brake start maturing already many riders went with one finger braking and two finger shifting with long throw kinda killed it a bit. I had both XTR and XT as well as the 970 DC the new one definitely better. 

The gripe was that shimano only offered DC when majority of their consumers wanted trigger. Had they offered both SRAM would still be making gripshift. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

My beef with both SRAM and Shimano high end systems are the crank sets. SRAM has only 1-2 gears while Shimano 1-3 gear option. Also I am not happy with aluminum top gears for both brands. You are force to ride the middle gear most of the time since you will wear the top gear fast if you use it. I ride most of the time in 42's and only use 32-22 if climbing(rarely). If I will upgrade my bike, I will have high end systems except for the crank sets(3 gear Truvativ or Shimano Deore will be ideal).

Logic would dictate that aluminum gears will not last as long as harden steel. I could be wrong with this one.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

chunky1x said:


> My beef with both SRAM and Shimano high end systems are the crank sets. SRAM has only 1-2 gears while Shimano 1-3 gear option. Also I am not happy with aluminum top gears for both brands. You are force to ride the middle gear most of the time since you will wear the top gear fast if you use it. I ride most of the time in 42's and only use 32-22 if climbing(rarely). If I will upgrade my bike, I will have high end systems except for the crank sets(3 gear Truvativ or Shimano Deore will be ideal).
> 
> Logic would dictate that aluminum gears will not last as long as harden steel. I could be wrong with this one.


You sound like a typical Asian Mtb riders where they ride their Mtb mostly on road. If that's the case you should get a commuter or a road bike. As for the "gear" you mean chain ring many Mtb I know ride with 2 rings small and middle not the big ring. If you find yourself riding the big ring most of the time you need to find dirt trails or steep hills if not then it's a road riding on a mt bike.

On the topic of chainring shimano XTR big ring and middle ring are carbon and steel cold forge they are plenty strong. What kind of riding do you do in Cebu.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Higher end chainrings have hard anodized finishes that are very durable (and add quite a bit to the cost, with premium rings costing close to $100 vs. as low as $35 for cheaper 38T-44T rings). Shimano XTR and SRAM XX have this finish, as well as some high end after market rings, such as those from PraxisWorks. I think older Shimano XTR chainrings had sort of a dark grey ceramic finish--I ran the original alloy rings on my M952 set for 15k miles/10 years. I believe the XX cassette also has the hard anodized finish, while the PG970 doesn't... well, the XX cassette is steel except for the 36T anyways, so that explains why people report that it lasts 2-3x longer than something like the SRAM PG970.

You are thinking of budget cranksets, which are just bare 7075-T6 alloy, maybe with regular anodizing for color. Anodizing for color actually decreases durability in many types of alloy, embrittling the surface of the metal, which can crack and create a stress riser that cracks the host material, even if the host material normally has a very high resistance to such damage (without anodizing). CNC + anodized parts got a bad rep back in the day and seems to be making a come back, mainly for fashion/bling.

Chainrings, cassettes, and chains can do so much more for performance than derailleurs, I've found. Riding X-Glide was a revelation for me, being so much better than XO (Powerglide II/PG2) and XT/XTR (HyperGlide/HG) stuff I currently was riding. Generally, stiffness in the rear triangle and all the drivetrain components (derailleurs, chainrings, etc.) lend to precision and less ghost shifting and better performance under load. Shifters are basically remote controls for the derailleur, but needs to not give in under cable tension/pull and perform consistently, so there's no real shifting performance there, just cable pull feel. Chains are have more performance to them than I thought, with light hollow-pin and plate cut out chains being easier to jam (and twist, ruining the chain) and drop and needing lube more often. Some chains are much noisier when pedaling as well. Seems like Shimano and SRAM chains tend to run best when paired with the same brand cassette and chainrings. I've been running a KMC chain I bought for my XX drivetrain for as long as I could, to make it worth the cost, but it's been giving me drop, jam, and chainsuck issues.

Ever since I went 2x10, I've been pushing 42T almost always, except for when I want to take it easy on a hill, rather than attacking it. On my bigger bike, I only hit the 44T whenever the trail is pointing even slightly downwards. The triple is useful for rolling hills, with middle ring for flats, granny for climbs, and big ring for descents. Much easier to shift the front once than to dump 3+ gears in back.


----------



## Hand/of/Midas (Sep 19, 2007)

chunky1x said:


> I ride most of the time in 42's and only use 32-22 if climbing(rarely). .


You want to be around a 80-ish cadence when pedaling, if you are spinning slower then that
then you are in too large of a gear, unless you want to be inefficient and have potential future knee issues.


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

mimi1885 said:


> You sound like a typical Asian Mtb riders where they ride their Mtb mostly on road. If that's the case you should get a commuter or a road bike. As for the "gear" you mean chain ring many Mtb I know ride with 2 rings small and middle not the big ring. If you find yourself riding the big ring most of the time you need to find dirt trails or steep hills if not then it's a road riding on a mt bike.
> 
> On the topic of chainring shimano XTR big ring and middle ring are carbon and steel cold forge they are plenty strong. What kind of riding do you do in Cebu.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I typically ride my bike on the road most of the time. It can withstand deep 1 foot plus runts and just awful road conditions. I've destroyed rims and crank arms while on the road but blown an inner tube once off road. Technically most MTB owners here have the same reason. But it does not mean that we don't go trail riding. We got so used to 42 or 38(some will go for 46 or 44) that we find going 34 or 32 to be too slow. I've spend hours of trail climbing I've spent less than 30 minutes in the middle gear and only very steep climbs. Most climbs I use 42 with third to the last or the very last gear of my 8 speed cassette. MTB racers use 36-32 most of the time in the 3 ring of their cross country races and won. I'm sure I could last longer on 32 ring on the trail but I just could not bear how slow it is. I like some resistance in my pedals not comfort.

Funny thing is that, we also were wondering why most foreigners ride middle rings all the time or use a smaller 34 or 32 ring in 2x10 in their crank set or why most U.S. bikes have smaller 3x10 or 2x10 systems. This explains a lot.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

chunky1x said:


> I typically ride my bike on the road most of the time. It can withstand deep 1 foot plus runts and just awful road conditions. I've destroyed rims and crank arms while on the road but blown an inner tube once off road. Technically most MTB owners here have the same reason. But it does not mean that we don't go trail riding. We got so used to 42 or 38(some will go for 46 or 44) that we find going 34 or 32 to be too slow. I've spend hours of trail climbing I've spent less than 30 minutes in the middle gear and only very steep climbs. Most climbs I use 42 with third to the last or the very last gear of my 8 speed cassette. MTB racers use 36-32 most of the time in the 3 ring of their cross country races and won. I'm sure I could last longer on 32 ring on the trail but I just could not bear how slow it is. I like some resistance in my pedals not comfort.
> 
> Funny thing is that, we also were wondering why most foreigners ride middle rings all the time or use a smaller 34 or 32 ring in 2x10 in their crank set or why most U.S. bikes have smaller 3x10 or 2x10 systems. This explains a lot.


Well that would make you a pretty strong guy if you climb the steep on a big ring, I'm not thet strongest guy but both my SS 32-16 and 32-20 punish me plenty I've not had the need to climb with anything bigger. I doubt that I can do big ring on the trail I ride then again I doubted that I can ride SS but I did


----------



## SimpleJon (Mar 28, 2011)

chunky1x said:


> I typically ride my bike on the road most of the time. It can withstand deep 1 foot plus runts and just awful road conditions. I've destroyed rims and crank arms while on the road but blown an inner tube once off road. Technically most MTB owners here have the same reason. But it does not mean that we don't go trail riding. We got so used to 42 or 38(some will go for 46 or 44) that we find going 34 or 32 to be too slow. I've spend hours of trail climbing I've spent less than 30 minutes in the middle gear and only very steep climbs. Most climbs I use 42 with third to the last or the very last gear of my 8 speed cassette. MTB racers use 36-32 most of the time in the 3 ring of their cross country races and won. I'm sure I could last longer on 32 ring on the trail but I just could not bear how slow it is. I like some resistance in my pedals not comfort.
> 
> Funny thing is that, we also were wondering why most foreigners ride middle rings all the time or use a smaller 34 or 32 ring in 2x10 in their crank set or why most U.S. bikes have smaller 3x10 or 2x10 systems. This explains a lot.


I only use the big 44T ring for the road sections to and from the trails or sometimes when the days ride has sections of road or flattish gravel tracks in between the single track. Also shouldn't really be cross chaining a triple to the extent you describe if you want longevity out of your drivetrain


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

mimi1885 said:


> Well that would make you a pretty strong guy if you climb the steep on a big ring, I'm not thet strongest guy but both my SS 32-16 and 32-20 punish me plenty I've not had the need to climb with anything bigger. I doubt that I can do big ring on the trail I ride then again I doubted that I can ride SS but I did


Not really. I just got used to it.


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

SimpleJon said:


> I only use the big 44T ring for the road sections to and from the trails or sometimes when the days ride has sections of road or flattish gravel tracks in between the single track. Also shouldn't really be cross chaining a triple to the extent you describe if you want longevity out of your drivetrain


I agree. Cross chaining would bend and destroy sprockets and actually did to my third to the last group set(worn the teeth out and bent the 42). Though I am still using more 3x6 style to my new 3x8 system and hold to outer gears longer in the 8 speed. Come to thing about it, I should be using 2x8(42/32). Maybe in three years from now and old stock SLX will be cheaper by then. I don't use 42 in very steep climbs more like 32 or extremely rare 22 for both road and cross country.

I should reconsider my style or buying a new 2x10(42/32) to compensate for the lack of 22 or both.


----------



## dje562189 (Apr 16, 2007)

I agree with the coke vs pepsi comment but think SRAM is slightly less expensive than the equivalent component group Shimano


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

dje562189 said:


> I agree with the coke vs pepsi comment but think SRAM is slightly less expensive than the equivalent component group Shimano


Damn where have you been for the last 5 years


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> Higher end chainrings have hard anodized finishes that are very durable (and add quite a bit to the cost, with premium rings costing close to $100 vs. as low as $35 for cheaper 38T-44T rings). Shimano XTR and SRAM XX have this finish, as well as some high end after market rings, such as those from PraxisWorks. I think older Shimano XTR chainrings had sort of a dark grey ceramic finish--I ran the original alloy rings on my M952 set for 15k miles/10 years. I believe the XX cassette also has the hard anodized finish, while the PG970 doesn't... well, the XX cassette is steel except for the 36T anyways, so that explains why people report that it lasts 2-3x longer than something like the SRAM PG970.
> 
> You are thinking of budget cranksets, which are just bare 7075-T6 alloy, maybe with regular anodizing for color. Anodizing for color actually decreases durability in many types of alloy, embrittling the surface of the metal, which can crack and create a stress riser that cracks the host material, even if the host material normally has a very high resistance to such damage (without anodizing). CNC + anodized parts got a bad rep back in the day and seems to be making a come back, mainly for fashion/bling.
> 
> ...


15000 miles for a aluminum 42 chain ring is great lifespan.


----------



## dje562189 (Apr 16, 2007)

Vet School, didnt have much time for a life


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Not sure how they do it. My FSA (stock on Afterburner crankset) rings and Noir crankset's stock middle ring barely lasted about 2k miles--with the Noir, I have to admit I didn't use the big ring much, since it was basically a bashguard from riding techy DH trails just past sunset without a light and, incidentally, grinding some teeth on large rocks that I was plowing over. My XX stock rings has 4k already and doesn't look bad at all, but doesn't look like it'll come close at all to what I experienced with the old XTR rings.


----------



## Teshanek (Apr 1, 2012)

am agreeing with most of guys here...profit margins / pricing battles between Shimano and SRAM...and also, every purchase is somehow a question of personal taste...comparing to cars, what is better...high-end BMW or high-end AUDI RS5? ...therefore Shimano and / or SRAM has to have competition in the other so that people can pronounce their tastes


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

I would raise this one. Why is there a lot of people hate Hollow Tech or SRAM equivalent? Every time I ask I ask for their durability my colleagues, shop owners and one reviewer in YouTube would frown and ask to walk away from them.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

chunky1x said:


> I would raise this one. Why is there a lot of people hate Hollow Tech or SRAM equivalent? Every time I ask I ask for their durability my colleagues, shop owners and one reviewer in YouTube would frown and ask to walk away from them.


I'm not sure when you said "a lot" what are you implying? What's the alternative, Shimano Hollow Tech is not a bad system, have you use the Hollow tech, and what do you think? How many people on YouTube did you see and what's their crank of choice if not Sram or Shimano and why is the other brands better?

You like to post your opinion as fact like braking technique(and we know how that one turned out) and your gearing and offroad riding, now this?

I've ridden several places in Asia and I have an idea of how their perception and value differ than people here in US, some are good but some are just downright backward. A good example would be a thread suggesting a 185cm(6") rider should ride med or even small frame with long seat post and long stem would be good for them because is more maneuverable


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

mimi1885 said:


> I'm not sure when you said "a lot" what are you implying? What's the alternative, Shimano Hollow Tech is not a bad system, have you use the Hollow tech, and what do you think? How many people on YouTube did you see and what's their crank of choice if not Sram or Shimano and why is the other brands better?
> 
> You like to post your opinion as fact like braking technique(and we know how that one turned out) and your gearing and offroad riding, now this?
> 
> I've ridden several places in Asia and I have an idea of how their perception and value differ than people here in US, some are good but some are just downright backward. A good example would be a thread suggesting a 185cm(6") rider should ride med or even small frame with long seat post and long stem would be good for them because is more maneuverable


The braking technique post was a mistake and I've apologized for that profusely. I even change my style of posting and questioning for more neutral stand from that post onward. I ride 42 for the past decade and a half with off roading. I still do ride today with almost 1400 km road(from 26km increased to 44 km daily since March 2012 except for a few days) 120 km of trail(10-16km weekly but currently suspended) since I got my new bike a last January 2012. Even a lot more with my first and second crappy MTB. I am not happy with less resistance and speed so 42 will stay but I did change a little bit 2 days ago with 32 and an outer gear to mimic 42 with second to the last inner gear and still figuring it out the right resistance and speed because it messes my breathing technique. And even looking now for a 2x10 42's to reduce chain crossing. I always love 42.

Now back to this topic. Most common complaint about this type of bottom bracket is bearings falling out with in two years. Why would this happened? There is a post here about Hollowtech 2 about this. A shop in Cebu City and some riders said the same exact thing. There is a YouTube video about the types of bottom brackets he preferred the regular and sealed in bearing over Hollowtech and others durability. The odd part is the same exact statement keeps popping out.

For users of Hollowtech, how true this is or how wrong this? Is this a case of bad installation or etc? I am willing to see all the facts and argument. I've even change my mind about aluminum chain rings base on all comments posted here.

FYI: I have posted 2 more bad posts in the past. One about Pledge and a reply to WD 40. I AM ONLY HUMAN and will make mistakes. Everybody crashes but we all get back on the seat and ride free. Also, I don't own both high end products and still in the process of elimination. Already planing mixing SLX with XT or Truvativ with XT or all SLX or XT or If available X7-X9 to current line up with some form of Hollowtech or Sealed in Bearing. I'm here to see which fact and fiction in a neutral environment.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Shimano M770 Hollowtech II Bottom Bracket Review - BikeRadar

HollowTech II is the industry standard atm, with other BB types mirroring its design for cross compatibility, like RaceFace's X Type and FSA's MegaEXO. SRAM's GXP is their own proprietary design.

The difference between them is how the crank interfaces with the BB. Usually, with the HT types, the non-driveside crankarm sideloads the bearings with a crankarm cap, and then the crank is clamped down onto the spindle. They sometimes recommend a torque value on the cap, as a guideline to get the right preload, but basically you need to tighten it just enough to have no side to side play in the crank, with as light of a preload as possible, kind of like the process for a stem, threadless fork steerer and headset. The GXP method basically relies on a torque value for threading on the non driveside crank and a wave washer on the driveside for preloading.

People may say that they like the old ISIS, Octalink, and square taper designs, but I'd check up on their credentials before siding with them, over the engineers and material scientists who spent a great amount of time designing it. I know Octalink had issues with the splines stripping--I personally never had the issue, but I knew to be really careful with removing and reinstalling cranks and basically leaving it alone.




























No matter what BB type you have, doing **** like and not taking care of it leads to issues (not only to the BB, but anything that has bearings, seals, and/or slides). Even the top end offerings are not immune to such abuse. The beauty of the external BB systems is its user serviceability. It may say do not disassemble, but you certainly can if you're rehauling it. Maybe the "beauty" of the old systems is how you really can't do any significant maintenance to them and basically ride it until it dies, not messing with it.

Doing some *simple* tests with the the old ISIS setups vs new setups, spinning a crankset without a chain on it, I could easily get 8+ revolutions with the ISIS setup, while a GXP setup with ceramic BB only gets 4-5 and a GXP setup with standard bearings only gets 4 or so. Do I notice when riding? No. Even though I'm a type that can sense the effects of freewheel drag in certain hubs (DT vs Chris King vs I9, DT definitely feels fastest when coasting) and pedal spinning stiffness, I don't notice a BB having any noticeable drag. I can feel a BB getting gritty though. Maybe when I try a BB30 or BB35, I'll be able to feel the additional drag that comes with the larger diameter spindles and bearings.

Some trivia: anyone remember the SRAM proprietary system that was a lesser known alternative to ISIS and Octalink? Had someone approach me wanting to find an affordable crankset to go with it and I was hard pressed to find one that wasn't as expensive as just getting a Hollowtech II compat crankset + BB combo on sale.


----------



## chunky1x (Jan 20, 2012)

Varaxis said:


> Shimano M770 Hollowtech II Bottom Bracket Review - BikeRadar
> 
> HollowTech II is the industry standard atm, with other BB types mirroring its design for cross compatibility, like RaceFace's X Type and FSA's MegaEXO. SRAM's GXP is their own proprietary design.
> 
> ...


I see. The primary cause of the problem is improper installation not the product itself. That is why they said bearings are falling out because of lack or too much torque or even misaligned.

Thank you for clearing this up and thank you for everything.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Varaxis, that was a great post bro, and I agree with the installation issue people would be surprise how little torque required to tighten the BB til they use the torque wrench



chunky1x said:


> I would raise this one. *Why is there a lot of people hate* Hollow Tech or SRAM equivalent?* Every time I ask* I ask for their durability *my colleagues, shop owners* and one reviewer in YouTube would frown and ask to walk away from them.





chunky1x said:


> I even change my style of posting and questioning for more neutral stand from that post onward.


If you have tried it failed epically Almost every word you said on that quote is misleading but I highlighted a few for you hoping you can learn from it. This day and age you can do a search on Google and get just about any response to support your theory but however it does not change the fact.

If 100 or even 1,000 people who complaint for any reasons may seem like a lot of people especially if most are in Cebu, but compare to the millions and millions of HollowTech II sold the number is very small. Commonsense dictates that if a product fails to deliver the durability needed for offroad riding no one would buy it and furthermore Shimano would be liable for such but so far I've not seen or heard of such thing.

The beauty of it is that you have choices, there are many companies who offer non-HollowTech crankset, Crankbrothers makes gorgeous ISIS crankset that works really well.



chunky1x said:


> I ride 42 for the past decade and a half with off roading. I still do ride today with almost 1400 km road(from 26km increased to 44 km daily since March 2012 except for a few days) 120 km of trail(10-16km weekly but currently suspended) since I got my new bike a last January 2012. Even a lot more with my first and second crappy MTB. I am not happy with less resistance and speed so 42 will stay but I did change a little bit 2 days ago with 32 and an outer gear to mimic 42 with second to the last inner gear and still figuring it out the right resistance and speed because it messes my breathing technique. And even looking now for a 2x10 42's to reduce chain crossing. I always love 42.
> 
> Your definition of steepness and resistance is vague at best, I've ridden with a few pros in the bike clinics and regardless of their discipline they are strong and well conditioned non can sustain hours of climbing in the big ring like you, while there's no denying that you are stronger than me and most people I know I doubt that your definition of climbing is the same.
> 
> ...


From your research about H-Tech durability issues how many have you read that were satisfy with the products. It's like reporting a plane crash as flying hazard but not stating the amount of plane take off and land safely.

I own and use just about all of the HollowTech cranks from XTR to Deore as well as Truvativ, FSA, Cranksbrother. I also own and still use many of my ISIS and Octalink products I have not have any durability issues with them, and many of my friends and the groups I ride with like them as well, so if "a lot" of people have complain about that I have not encountered one yet.

Take it as my opinion and experience because frankly, I don't really care what side are you willing to hear and consider but posting yet again a inflammatory comment about a well known product(s) in a Beginner's corner is not a wise move. I know you are trying but really try harder:thumbsup:


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Shall we relate to the hate on Avid disc brakes and the hate on Trek? 

So many people ride Avid brakes and Treks that there are bound to be many reports of things not working to some users satisfaction. From Trek frames cracking to Avids being noisy and hard to set up without rubbing, I wonder what the % of failure claims are compared to # sold. I recall reading Avid reporting under a 5% manufacturer defect rate (not sure what that exactly means, though).

Then there's the excess glorifying for parts that don't live up to all the consumer hype. Thomson products, for example, are not "indestructible" like many say they are. There are plenty of other products that get super hyped up and highly popularized, when there alternatives that are no worse, such as Chris King headsets, Stan's Crest rims, Kenda Nevegals. Some seem to be passing fads, when people learn otherwise, but some just don't die. Nevegal popularity died just recently and it seems Stan's Crest popularity is about to. RaceFace products gained a ton of popularity too, but the moment they died, a lot of plp came out of the woodwork and started to realize they only truly liked their crankarms or whatever. Not surprising to hear such things, as anodized alloy parts aren't really all that great for holding up to real riding and buying into the generalized stereotypes that mtn bike stuff from Canada is tougher than stuff in the US can leave you disappointed (it seems generally true, but plp start to assume almost _everything_ out of Canada is similarly stout).

I'm just basically saying that going with consumer trends just doesn't seem all that wise. I will put my trust into the big name brands that fully support their products--having a warranty in which they will gladly honor without any significant hassle is the least I look for. Extensive R&D and top level pro riders to test and validate is also what I look for, which find to be big name brands like Easton, Trek, Shimano, SRAM, etc. Innovation from smaller brands is nice, but I don't want to be the type that quickly grabs every little small advantage I can to improve my ride, though it's hard to resist sometimes.


----------



## SimpleJon (Mar 28, 2011)

I recently had a tap a bottom bracket shell for a friend who was ranting and raving about how s**t Hollowtech II was and how he was using the correct tool and it stripped etc. It turned out he was using a foot long hollowtech II BB wrench and cranking it as tight as he could. The recommended Torque is 30 - 40 Nm which is round about a 25 foot lbs, so with a 1' Wrench this is 25 lbs of force required, I got his bathroom scales and told him to push as hard as he could, this came out at just under 90kg (200lbs). He soon shut up when he realized he had over tightened the cups by 8X the recommended value; I asked him if his pedals were difficult to remove from the old crank his response was "Yes damn difficult"


----------

