What is so special about SRAM Red?

jojoma

I test rode a very high end bike yesterday that was equipped with the Red group. The one-paddle concept is interesting, but I just don't see what is so great about the group. Is it the light weight? Going down the cassette was fast and flawless, but so are most groups. However, going up the cassette (where you have to double tap) seems like it has a couple limitations. First, you have to physically move the paddle to the left further than with Shimano groups. And second, I'm not sure if you can go up 2-3 sprockets at a time. Even with my 105, I can shift up three rungs with one full push to the left. It goes click, click, click, but it's all in the same stroke, which make life easier when hitting steep sections.

The one thing I can say that impressed me was a shift I made under a lot of load, which it seemed to handle easily.

alfeng

You are a candidate for a set of Campagnolo shifters!

Peter@vecchios

Lots of hype, lots of marketing push. If you look at mags and bikie websites, it is everywhere. Personally, I prefer Campag 'method' of moving the chain around, particularly the front, then shimano(and I like little about that gorilla). I find it a good thing that Sram could come up with a design that works, and doesn't infringe on anybody else's design(altho they are experts at lawsuits). The competition is a good thing but I also don't think the actual 'action' of the group lives up to it's hype. PLUS I think the BB/crank designs are awful. Haven't seen a folded big ring this year but saw a few last year.

dhk2

+1. I like the competition SRAM is bringing to the giants, but think their component groups are a bit over-priced and over-hyped. Although their real-world reliabillity is an unknown, they appear to be wanting in at the very top of the market.

JTE83

Total BULLSHIT! SRAM competition has been bad for the market as probably the sales of Shimano and Campy dropped so they had to raise their prices, probably also to look comparable pricewise when SRAM introduced their $475 Force Shifters. 5 years ago, Shimano Dura Ace 9 STI's new could be had for $189! Now 105 10 speed STI's go for $309!

NO, I TOTALLY HATE SRAM!

rudycyclist

You are nuts dude. Do you know anything about economics? If a company is losing sales because of competition, they will actually lower prices to raise their sales. If they increased prices, then sales would drop more because nobody would want to pay more for something. Plus, who pays retail for stuff anymore? I'll bet very few people here pay retail for their bikes/components because of sponsorships through bike shops.

Plus, have you ridden it before? I raced it last weekend for the first time and absolutely loved it every second I was using it.

__________________
Trek Madone SL 5.2
-Sram Force
Trek T1
Trek TTX 9.5 (Flying Ace)
-Shimano Ultegra

triblue

SRAM....was smooth as silk on the Cervelo I rode a few weeks ago....I'd get it..but now..thinking about getting the Cervelo and the SRAM

Attached Thumbnails

 

JTE83

The simple fact is both Shimano and Campy raised their prices. So fuck economics.

Never ridden SRAM, but tested it's shifting. No, I'd rather shift with two different levers.

dgregory57

You may have a doctorate in economics, I have no idea... But I am positive that your profanity makes you sound like an idiot.

__________________

Peter@vecchios

shimano pricing has stayed stable for us. Campagnolo, along with everything European, has gotten more expensive because of the poor exchange rate, not because of Sram.

Camilo

Bizarro (i.e. opposite) economic theory where competition raises prices. The implication then would be that a monopoly would lower prices?

sideshow_bob

While I'm certainly not going to support JTE83's ramblings, there is a clear trend in the bike industry towards higher pricing at the top of the market. At the present the manufacturers and distributors have recognized within the present market conditions that there are more consumers who are willing to pay top dollar for what is essentially marketing hype. This spirals prices upwards. It's a simple economic principle of supply and demand.

JTE83 is actually a good example of this. He's basically a Fred, has about 60 bikes and will tell you the inordinate sums of money he's spent on them. The crown jewel is a Cervelo, which is basically Taiwanese fabricated and mass produced. The production costs of these are clearly quite low, yet the market in general can't seem to fork out their (substantial) dollars on them fast enough. So JTE83 is you want to be a hater hate yourself and all the other Freds out there on high end rigs that they ride once in a while to get a coffee on. This is one of the primary reasons prices are where they are.

The bottom line is that even accounting for inflation you are paying far more today than say 20 years ago for a premium bike and the components to go on it. SRAM is simply the latest to jump on the train and supply a product to the market at the premium price point and cash in on it.

*Disclaimer -- I have two bikes with Force on them!

--brett

alfeng

For those who don't remember OR are too young to know, breaking up AT&T (i.e., a monopoly) raised the price for local phone service by a significant amount ... in part, because in the past, long distance service subsidized local service.

Camilo

Well, it's had a profoundly opposite effect on long distance. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the Bells (local service in many if not most areas of the country) were regulated monopolies and therefore not an example of true monopoly pricing. I don't think that the fact that long distance was subsidizing local service under a regulated monopoly discedits the point I was making, becauase I believe it was part of the rugulatory picture.

Prices at the upper end of hte bike market may have indeed increased, but it certainly is not because of more options in that category. It probably has to do with more people with a lot of disposible income wanting top of the line cycling equipment. If so, it is still supply and demand - higer demand for premium equipment, more companies entering the market because of that. In the old days, the demand for top quality gear was very small. We boomers are a huge economic factor these days with our disposibe income and active lifestyle. In the 60s and 70s, the only people who wanted top notch cycling gear were young (poor) eccentric racers.

It probably also has to do with the psychological factor of people wanting/thinking that more $ = better gear or at least more status. (your point on marketing, for sure).

I've seen essentially the same thing in the premium and boutique acoustic guitar market in the last 15 years or so. A lot of folks just have a lot of money and want "the best" - and among "the best", the "newest".

sorry about all the typos - I have a sticky keyboard and no patience to go back and fix them!