SRAM Red versus Campy Record

[djconnel]

http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/13184.0.html


price:
I use the Performance "regular" price, rather than sale price

Pardon the lack of column alignment -- I can't figure out how to make that happen.

component Record(Performance) Red(list)
crank $700 $370
brakes $340 $297
rear_derailleur $300 $311
front_derailleur $150 $108
cassette $275 $230
shifters $390 $555
--------------------------------------------
sum $2155 $1871

weight:
I use weight weenies for Campy, which is generally within around 2% of claimed, versus claimed for Red. Generally claimed and measured are fairly close for Rival and Force.

component Record(Wt.W.) Red(claimed)
crank 689g 750g
brakes 282g 265g
rear_derailleur 185g 153g
front_derailleur 70g 58g
cassette 142g 155g
shifters 330g 280g
--------------------------------------------
sum 1698g 1661g

Wierd Record shifters are relatively cheap compared to Dura-Ace ($475), Force ($540), Ultegra ($410), Rival ($350).

Anyway.... FWIW.

Dan

 

[Tech72]

I was not a SRAM fan when Rival and Force first came out but have warmed up to them after using Force for a short time on a friend's bike. Since Red is an improvement in performance and weight to Force, I'm sold. My only qualm is the tacky graphics on the Red parts, in particular the showy crankset graphics.

New improved Record and now SRAM takes it up a notch. Can't wait to see how Shimano responds with Dura-Ace. The new D-A better be damn fine to stay in the game. Also been hearing about a groupset from FSA and now also read Zipp is putting together a complete groupset as well? We live with two high-end groupsets the past 20 years then now all these guys are coming out with new toys, this is great! Road bike buying is looking more interesting in the new few years. Now if only Mavic got back in the game. I used to ride the Mavic SSC groupset in the 80's and loved it.

 

[sogood]

Surprised by Red's cassette weight. It's still heavier than Record's conventional cassette layout.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

The cassette might be a bit heavier than Record, but it is nice, hard, durable steel. No compromises at all and it should last a very long time.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com

 

[sogood]

The cassette might be a bit heavier than Record, but it is nice, hard, durable steel. No compromises at all and it should last a very long time.

Certainly a very novel design. But will see how durable it really is over time.

The teeth pattern is also very odd. Presumably there's additional load on those available teeth.

 

[djconnel]

The cassette might be a bit heavier than Record, but it is nice, hard, durable steel. No compromises at all and it should last a very long time.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com

The Record cassette I listed is all Ti cogs, while the Red is steel, as you note. That said, Campagnolo lists the cassette as 156 grams, essentially the same as Red:
http://www.campagnolo.com/groupsets.php?gid=1&cid=5

Dura-Ace for next year will have its carbon crank:
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/shimanos-carbon-dura-ace-cranks-11543

Dan

 

[Tech72]

I've seen the carbon D-A crankset in a few articles now but also recall reading that Shimano will likely not go the carbon route since the carbon crankset did not really improve upon the performance (ie. stiffness or weight) of the alloy version and taking into account new tooling costs and manufacturing methods, it wasn't viable to go carbon for the crankset. Or have Shimano changed their minds to "keep up with Jones" and offer a carbon version for extra bling factor?

Now if only Shimano would use carbon for the D-A STI levers, that would be nice....and lighten the heavy brifters (as compared to Campy and SRAM).

 

[rudycyclist]

Not gonna lie, the new Red looks amazing. Cycling News just posted some new pics of it and it seems to outlook Campy and Shimano. However I think I will stick with Shimano next year. Any word if Sram will go with their own freehub spacing instead of using the same one Shimano uses? I heard some rumors of it about a month ago.

 

[Tim Lamkin]

Read this on the "Red"

http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/13184.0.html

 

[nerdag]

Any word if Sram will go with their own freehub spacing instead of using the same one Shimano uses? I heard some rumors of it about a month ago.

Can't see it happening until Sram manage to get a sizeable chunk of the market.

They're clearly aiming at the high end of the market, which probably makes up a small proportion of overall sales for the bicycle industry. That being the case, they'll have to convince enough high end wheel manufacturers to adopt a third major standard, which isn't likely to be a hugely profitable business decision for most makers at this stage of the game.

The smart thing to do would be to stick with something that works (you can debate this point all you want if you are anti-Shimano) and is widely available, at least until you control enough of the market to convince wheel makers to adopt a new standard.

This is, of course, pure speculation.

n

 

[sideshow_bob]

Can't see it happening until Sram manage to get a sizeable chunk of the market.

Given they have just engineered the new cassette to be compatible with Shimano 10s freehubs (the only thing to date that haven't endeared me to their cassettes), I'd say it doesn't really seem very likely.

From a commercial point of view, I'm sure I'm not the first person who took the buying route of SRAM chain, SRAM cassette (replacing Shimano MTB parts) then SRAM shifters and RD/FD, then thinking sure I'll give their road group a go. Making their stuff non-Shimano compatible removes that entry. Personally I think it's far more likely that as their products improve, Shimano will try and leverage their market dominance and release some new incarnation of cassette in the MTB and road lines and try to lock SRAM out of making interchangable components.

--brett

 

[Tim Lamkin]

I agree...and hope that they will push all others to come up with new innovative stuff...meaning their stuff is so cool others msut follow. Campy and DurA need some real "out there" ideas...IMO

 

[Tech72]

I agree...and hope that they will push all others to come up with new innovative stuff...meaning their stuff is so cool others msut follow. Campy and DurA need some real "out there" ideas...IMO

Doesn't Campy and Shimano already have an "out there" plan coming within the next couple of years with the electronic shifting stuff? Seems like a relatively big leap in road componentry from whatever other competitors are coming up with. Sure it's not totally new, Mavic had a go at electronic bits but Zap/Mektronic was less than perfect and died a quick death. As impressive as Red is, what great innovation did it really bring to the table? Maybe someone will take the next step with 11sp? Not that we really need 11sp.

All the new fancy components are great but it seems like there's no real innovation right now. Everything is being made from carbon but nothing that has the same impact as say, indexed shifting or brifters. Parts that changed the way riders ride.

 

[Tim Lamkin]

Doesn't Campy and Shimano already have an "out there" plan coming within the next couple of years with the electronic shifting stuff? Seems like a relatively big leap in road componentry from whatever other competitors are coming up with. Sure it's not totally new, Mavic had a go at electronic bits but Zap/Mektronic was less than perfect and died a quick death. As impressive as Red is, what great innovation did it really bring to the table? Maybe someone will take the next step with 11sp? Not that we really need 11sp.

All the new fancy components are great but it seems like there's no real innovation right now. Everything is being made from carbon but nothing that has the same impact as say, indexed shifting or brifters. Parts that changed the way riders ride.

That is my view nothng way out and very cool, electroinc just does not do it for me......

 

[Crankyfeet]

Doesn't Campy and Shimano already have an "out there" plan coming within the next couple of years with the electronic shifting stuff? Seems like a relatively big leap in road componentry from whatever other competitors are coming up with.

I thought the electronic shifting with relatively heavy battery was only attractive to GT riders with restrictions on minimum bike weight. Without the minimum weight restrictions, who'd want to put an extra pound plus on the bike for minimal, if any, performance gain unless you could secretly wire it up to a rear hub motor.

 

[sideshow_bob]

I thought the electronic shifting with relatively heavy battery was only attractive to GT riders with restrictions on minimum bike weight. Without the minimum weight restrictions, who'd want to put an extra pound plus on the bike for minimal, if any, performance gain unless you could secretly wire it up to a rear hub motor.

It's not only 'GT' riders who have a restriction on weight. It's any event that is covered by UCI rules. Pretty much all racing from club level racing up (not sure it covers North American racing).

The battery in the prototype I've seen is much smaller than 'a pound' and I'd say overall with the removal of about 2 meters of steel shifter cable and say 1 meter of cable sheath, that at worst you are breaking even. Most likely the weight is less.

As ay rider who has tested the gear will confirm the issue is reliability in **** conditions, and battery failure in general use. When they get that part right in pro conditions, they may consider mass market. Personally I think fuel (methanol for example) cell evolution might be one thing that could deliver a quantum leap in the technology.

--brett

 

[djconnel]

It's not only 'GT' riders who have a restriction on weight. It's any event that is covered by UCI rules. Pretty much all racing from club level racing up (not sure it covers North American racing).
--brett

In the United States, only races which qualify for international competition, or UCI-sanctioned events, have the weight restriction. In other words, unless it is judged unsafe for competition on a per-case basis, it's fine.

the same applies to esoteric UCI geometry rules (replaced with esoteric USA Cycling rules...)

Dan