Why is Shimano so hated by some?

Tim McNamara wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>
>>having recently ridden with a guy who asked me "why is my brake rubbing" and then discovering that
>>all 6 of his disk bolts were nearly out, i'd say that a splined rotor is the best way to go. all
>>the torque is handled by the splines, only allignment by the lock nut - a much lesser task, and
>>much less room for fitter error.
>
>
> Interesting, this is a potential problem I hadn't heard of. Do these botls come loose regularly?
> Would countersinking the holes in the rotor and using a conical-headed nut (like a lug nut) solve
> the problem?

It's a well known problem, in fact it's so well known that Shimano have implemented various
fasteners to prevent these bolts unscrewing, and many other manufacturers prepare the bolts with
threadlock. It also happens to the bolts fastening the calliper onto the bike. We used to have both
problems with some regularity, until I worked out what was going on and started using locktite
rather than antiseize (actually it bit me again yesterday on a wheel I had not yet got around to
`upgrading').

Of course the phenomenon behind it is essentially identical to the disk brake induced QR loosening,
which makes it all the more astonishing that apparently qualified and educated people are prepared
to pretend that the latter problem does not exist. Of course some of them also insist that rotor
bolts loosening is all operator error, regardless of the evidence that this problem is known to
(some) manufacturers.

James

 

The problem with the idea of comparing the "top of the line" is that you have already assumed that
the tops of both lines are equally high. The fact is that Campy's top of the line is head and
shoulders higher than Shimano's top of the line. Therefore, they're not price comparable in the
sense that they offer a different value for money. Dura-ace and Chorus are quite similar and
therefore it makes sense to compare the prices as the products are comparable. Otherwise, you
unreasonably (and contrary to the facts) restrict both lines to the same range of quality (while
conveniently ignoring that you've skewed the Shimano product line allowing it to dip way down below
Campy in terms of lower quality components). The only reason why one would compare the two product
lines by matching Dura-Ace with Record, Ultegra with Chorus, etc. is if one is primarily interested
in the status/style cache that is attached to the name.

Rob Strickland

 

Robert Strickland <[email protected]> wrote:
> The fact is that Campy's top of the line is head and shoulders higher than Shimano's top of the
> line. Therefore, they're not

Based on what measurement? Serious question.

--
MfG/Best regards helmut springer

 

I've used both Shimano and Campagnolo equipment and from my experience Campy is better.

I have had the same ergo shifters and derailleur since the second year of ergo levers (must be approaching 10 years). When I first got Campy I was using a 7sp hub with an 8 sp derailleur, pulled out a lock screw when I upgraded to 8 sp, then put an new indexing disk in the levers and I had 9 sp, all with the same levers and derailleur. Still works great. Designed better (fewer moving parts) than Shimano and obviously built to last.

My .02 from a convert to Campy.

 

I see many of you feel the same way I do. Microsoft was the first company to come to mind when thinking of Shimano. They do make good stuff, but they tend to be somewhat anti-competitive. Good for them but bad for us. I guess I can't really blame them business is business.

I have many Shimano components on my mountain bike. I did recently replace my Shimano rear derailluer with a SRAM XO. This thing is the "cats ass". It works precisily and perfectly and doesn't have the big loop to get hung up on sticks. For you "gram counters", I believe it's even lighter than the new XTR!

 

Chris B. <[email protected]_THANKS-rogers.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> (Crossposted to alt.mountain-bike)
>
<snip>

>> My guess is most (if not all) failures of the 6 bolt configuration are due to improper assembly
>> and/or poor attention to maintenance not design.
>
> This is the standard response right out of the cyclist textbook. I have no evidence to show
> otherwise but I wonder on what basis you reach your conclusion?

Do you know where I can get a copy of that book? Seriously, as I stated my observation is purely a
guess which is based upon the detailed XTR disk brake installation instructions, required special
installation tools and perceived mechanical ability of many end users/LBS mechanics.

>
> I'd be interested to hear if any disc brake users reading this have had or witnessed problems with
> disc brake rotor bolts loosening, shearing or stripping the hub shell.

Good point. Of course this information would be suspect unless you know if the installation was done
properly, maintenance was done properly and the usage is within the scope of the design.
>
>>I guess we should dump all of our 3,4 or 5 bolt cranks in favor of Shimano's yet to be released
>>splined chainrings/cranks. Those pesky chainring bolts always come lose or break.
>
> You can be snide all you like but I see no reason why a splined design again wouldn't be superior
> here and if Shimano is going to go from 4-bolt cranks to 6 or 3 anyway, then they may as well
> engineer a good splined design. Now that you mention it, I do think that chainring bolts can be
> quite a pain in the ass, especially if there is corrosion and if you don't have a tool handy to
> keep the sleeve from spinning as you tighten the bolt.. However, as you point out, there is such a
> huge number of cranks out there working OK that switching from the half a dozen bolt circle and
> bolt number 'standards' we have now to something else would be...uh, nevermind.

I wasn't trying to be snide. I was trying to point out that the tried and true chainring attachment
method (which is somewhat similar to bolt-on disks) could be next for a Shimano "improvement".

>
> Your red herring still doesn't explain why disc brakes which have only in the last few years need
> to use an inferior design - it's not like the designers didn't already have freehubs around to
> take a lesson from.

MTB Disk brakes have been around for many years. It is only recently that they have come into
widespread use.

ALF

 

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in news:B2azb.31118$sP7.22735 @newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:

<snip>
>
> also, i'm not sure if this is the case, but it was mentioned by al frost earlier that the riveted
> shimano splined disk design was potentially "weak". that may or may not be the case, but in
> motorcycles, rivets are preferred design, particularly those with rivets deliberately loose to
> allow the disk to "float" and supress squeal. i haven't yet played with a shimano splined disk so
> i don't know if they've done that, but it sure would be welcome!!!!

<snip>

Then there are also the two piece rotor designs used in high performance automotive applications.
These designs use a bolt-on disk attached to a "hat". All of the bolts are loaded in shear under
braking. Seems to work for them.

ALF

 

hophead <[email protected]> wrote:
: Microsoft was the first company to come to mind when thinking of Shimano. They do make good stuff,

i assume you're talking about shimano.

: but they tend to be somewhat anti-competitive.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
NOSPAM_THANKS-rogers.com says...
> (Crossposted to alt.mountain-bike)
>
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:58:57 GMT, Al Frost <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Chris B. <[email protected]_THANKS-rogers.com> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
> >
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> Well, what does that tell you? I have heard quite a few reports of bolts which have gotten
> >> loose, gone missing or even sheared off at the head - not to mention stripping of the threads
> >> in the hub. The fact that the rotor bolts that are supplied with disc brakes have thread
> >> locking goo on them (and that Shimano *also* includes locking tabs to use with their
> >> non-splined rotors) would serve to discomfort me if I still used a disc brake. I mean, leaving
> >> aside whatever Shimano's motives are, does it not make more sense for the torque to be
> >> transferred directly from the rotor to the hub? Engineer types, what sayest thou?
> >
> >The idea of a splined rotor makes sense for transfering the braking loads directly from the rotor
> >to the hub, however, XTR rotors are a two piece design and therefore the "weak" link of the
> >attaching bolts is now moved to the disk/splined rotor spider interface rivets. Granted the
> >rivets are exposed to lower loads, in either design failure ultimiately depends on the strength
> >of the bolt/rivet and the number of bolts/rivets versus the load.
>
> I see no reason why the rotor could not be one piece. The comment of mine that you initially
> quoted was a sidebar questioning why the 6-bolt IS standard became the standard in the first place
> if a splined design can be superior. It's not like I'm a Shimano fanboy, the only XTR component I
> own of theirs is a 12 year old rear hub which I bought used.
>

There's only two reasons for the two piece XTR rotor, marketing and weight which as we all know is a
pseudonym for marketing.

> > My guess is most (if not all) failures of the 6 bolt configuration are due to improper assembly
> > and/or poor attention to maintenance not design.
>
> This is the standard response right out of the cyclist textbook. I have no evidence to show
> otherwise but I wonder on what basis you reach your conclusion?
>
> I'd be interested to hear if any disc brake users reading this have had or witnessed problems with
> disc brake rotor bolts loosening, shearing or stripping the hub shell.

I've had 3 rotors fail and none of them at the bolt holes, always at one of the CNC cutouts on the
actual breaking surface. I get a stress crack in one and it stops where it meets another cut out and
doesn't really seem to affect anything other than being a cause for concern from the day it's
discovered until I finally replace it. I don't know why it happens and I have not seen it happen on
anyone else's bike.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:25:12 GMT, Al Frost <[email protected]> wrote:

>Chris B. <[email protected]_THANKS-rogers.com> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> (Crossposted to alt.mountain-bike)
>>
><snip>
>
>>> My guess is most (if not all) failures of the 6 bolt configuration are due to improper assembly
>>> and/or poor attention to maintenance not design.
>>
>> This is the standard response right out of the cyclist textbook. I have no evidence to show
>> otherwise but I wonder on what basis you reach your conclusion?
>
>Do you know where I can get a copy of that book? Seriously, as I stated my observation is purely a
>guess which is based upon the detailed XTR disk brake installation instructions, required special
>installation tools and perceived mechanical ability of many end users/LBS mechanics.

I don't think we're getting anywhere at all now. The XTR isn't even a 6 bolt configuration, is it?

>> I'd be interested to hear if any disc brake users reading this have had or witnessed problems
>> with disc brake rotor bolts loosening, shearing or stripping the hub shell.
>
>Good point. Of course this information would be suspect unless you know if the installation was
>done properly, maintenance was done properly and the usage is within the scope of the design.

I don't know about you but I would expect a rotor that was installed properly to stay put and,
assuming that the caliper was still aligned and functioning properly, to be expected to stop the
bike+rider. Then again, if people are willing to accept relying on loctite then I suppose I am in
the minority and my expectations are unreasonable.

Again, the standard cyclist response is to _always_ blame the rider.

>>>I guess we should dump all of our 3,4 or 5 bolt cranks in favor of Shimano's yet to be released
>>>splined chainrings/cranks. Those pesky chainring bolts always come lose or break.
>>
>> You can be snide all you like but I see no reason why a splined design again wouldn't be superior
>> here and if Shimano is going to go from 4-bolt cranks to 6 or 3 anyway, then they may as well
>> engineer a good splined design. Now that you mention it, I do think that chainring bolts can be
>> quite a pain in the ass, especially if there is corrosion and if you don't have a tool handy to
>> keep the sleeve from spinning as you tighten the bolt.. However, as you point out, there is such
>> a huge number of cranks out there working OK that switching from the half a dozen bolt circle and
>> bolt number 'standards' we have now to something else would be...uh, nevermind.
>
>I wasn't trying to be snide. I was trying to point out that the tried and true chainring attachment
>method (which is somewhat similar to bolt-on disks) could be next for a Shimano "improvement".

While I was trying to point out that there are already so many 'standards' that one more isn't going
to make much difference. Are the new XTR cranks and chainrings compatible with anything else anyway?

>> Your red herring still doesn't explain why disc brakes which have only

gotten popular

>> in the last few years need to use an inferior design - it's not like the designers didn't already
>> have freehubs around to take a lesson from.
>
>MTB Disk brakes have been around for many years. It is only recently that they have come into
>widespread use.

That would have been my point, if a few words hadn't floated off into the ether. We have or have had
3 bolt rotors (Rockshox?), Hope 5-bolt and IS 6-bolt and no doubt others that I don't know about.
Along those lines, there have also been a lot of completing standards for mounting the caliper to
the fork and I still think that the 74mm post mount is a better design than the 51mm IS tabs. The
designers really love to put shearing loads on bolts! I also recall that Hayes and Formula each had
a different mounting system. I think it was around 1999 when it was obvious that IS would be the
future, though even that 'standard' was tweaked for 2000, IIRC.

All of this sorting out of an industry wide standard occured nearly 20 years after splined freehubs
were rollled out and I still can't see why nobody thought to take the hint.

 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:39:45 -0400, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>NOSPAM_THANKS-rogers.com says...
>> (Crossposted to alt.mountain-bike)
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:58:57 GMT, Al Frost <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Chris B. <[email protected]_THANKS-rogers.com> wrote in
>> >news:[email protected]:

<snip>

>> I see no reason why the rotor could not be one piece. The comment of mine that you initially
>> quoted was a sidebar questioning why the 6-bolt IS standard became the standard in the first
>> place if a splined design can be superior. It's not like I'm a Shimano fanboy, the only XTR
>> component I own of theirs is a 12 year old rear hub which I bought used.
>
>There's only two reasons for the two piece XTR rotor, marketing and weight which as we all know is
>a pseudonym for marketing.

That's kind of what I figured - I'll have to take a look at these the next time I go to my LBS.

<snip>

>> I'd be interested to hear if any disc brake users reading this have had or witnessed problems
>> with disc brake rotor bolts loosening, shearing or stripping the hub shell.
>
>I've had 3 rotors fail and none of them at the bolt holes, always at one of the CNC cutouts on the
>actual breaking surface. I get a stress crack in one and it stops where it meets another cut out
>and doesn't really seem to affect anything other than being a cause for concern from the day it's
>discovered until I finally replace it. I don't know why it happens and I have not seen it happen on
>anyone else's bike.

Well that's not good - I guess that they are all from the same manufacturer? Maybe on 3 seperate
occasions a bolt got loose and on it's way to the ground it gouged the fast spinning rotor at just
the right radius to cause a problem?

 

Chris B. <[email protected]_THANKS-rogers.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snip>
>>
> I don't think we're getting anywhere at all now. The XTR isn't even a 6 bolt configuration, is it?

Shimano does sell a 6-bolt XTR disc brakeset but it's not widely advertised nor widely available and
(back to the original point) so Shimano can sell more hubsets/wheelsets.
>
<snip>
>
> I don't know about you but I would expect a rotor that was installed properly to stay put and,
> assuming that the caliper was still aligned and functioning properly, to be expected to stop the
> bike+rider. Then again, if people are willing to accept relying on loctite then I suppose I am in
> the minority and my expectations are unreasonable.

Agreed however I would add to your statement that for a properly designed system your expectations
are not unreasonable. In Shimano's case the XTR brakeset uses the "belt and suspenders" approach
which is good for the users and Shimano's legal fees. I don't believe that other manufacturers of
disk brake systems take this approach.

ALF

 

> >day it's discovered until I finally replace it. I don't know why it happens and I have not seen
> >it happen on anyone else's bike.
>
> Well that's not good - I guess that they are all from the same manufacturer? Maybe on 3 seperate
> occasions a bolt got loose and on it's way to the ground it gouged the fast spinning rotor at just
> the right radius to cause a problem?
>

And fastened itself back in the hole with fresh loctite? Could be These are Hayes rotors, and
it's only the front one it happens to and only mine. And it's not like there's any sign of impact or
gouging, it's just a hairline crack that develops in a non critical area. I'm not a downhiller so I
don't think I'm doing the sort of heat cycles they are. My latest one has been cracked for over a
year, I will only replace it if I come into a used one off a wrecked bike or something.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

<re: BB spindles>
> what do you ride today? have you tried one of these larger diameter axles?

I have used ISIS spindles, with mixed results. I have not used Shimano "pipe spindles" because they
looked lethally flawed. I have settled on a variety of BMX cranks including Bullseye, Primo,
Redline, and Profile.

The ISIS cranks I tried (2 cranks, 2 BBs) tended to work loose from being ridden. The second time
this happened, I got rid of them to prevent further hassles.

I have avoided Shimano BBs both because I do not trust them to provide sufficient strength, and
because their non-tapered, non-clamped spline was obviously the work of incompetents. There is no
means by which to control torsional lash in the "Octalink" design, so I would have seen the same
problems I had with ISIS, only worse. The fact that Shimano is abandoning this design so soon is, I
believe, a strong indication that they know it's a dog.

BMX 3-piece cranks provide a variety of very sturdy and reliable options. Most of them are splined
and pinch-bolted. This has been common among quality BMX cranks since the '80s, but Shimano are just
now catching on. They have gone from a slavish imitation of a Campagnolo design, to a plainly
inferior original design, to an imitation of a Roger Durham design. Hopefully they did not screw it
up so badly that it lacks the virtues of Durham's design.

Of the range of BMX 3-pc cranks, I like Primo cranks for their easily reverse-engineerable spindle
and excellent, even excessive, material quality. I find Redline Flite cranks to have the nicest
finish quality, and Bullseye cranks to have the best lightweight-yet-sturdy design. Threaded bottom
brackets and 110/74mm spiders can be had for all of these cranks.

Chalo Colina

 

Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 1 Dec 2003 11:25:12 -0800, [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:
> >acccelerate wear in other components. A 10-speed chain is significantly narrower than a 7-speed
> >chain, so it will wear faster and require more frequent replacement.
>
> Are the plates on a 10 speed chain narrower, or just the rollers? If the plates are thinner, then
> I guess it would wear faster.

The wear on a roller chain that results in "stretch" (pitch lengthening) is between the pin and the
bushing. In a "bushingless" chain, it's between the pin and the portions of the inner plates that
serve as bushings.

In either case, the projected area of these interfaces is smaller when the chain is narrower.

There is a really good closeup photo of extreme chain wear at
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html .

Chalo Colina

 

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Chalo) writes:
>
> > I would expect 10-speed to last as long in relation to 7-speed as the ratio of their sprocket
> > tooth widths. (I doubt that manufacturers use harder steel for 10-speed than they did for
> > 7-speed, though this would make a difference.)
>
> As I would also expect; however, my 9 speed Campy Chorus cassette, with cogs that look appreciably
> thinner than the 7 speed Sachs freewheels on most of my bikes, last about x3 as long than the
> thicker Sachs cogs. The chromed Campy steel appears to have a much harder surface than the
> champagne colored ones on the 7 speed freewheels.

I think this is an idiosyncrasy of the Sachs Maillard freewheels that use pinched 'n squished
sprocket teeth to assist indexing. My impression is that they are made of a softer, more ductile
steel than usual, in order to allow the highly detailed tooth forming. It is also a weaker than
usual steel; whenever I have used a Sachs freewheel for very many miles I break teeth off of it at
their roots.

Chalo Colina

 

Chris B. <[email protected]_THANKS-rogers.com> wrote:

> I think that the cartridge bottom bracket is an improvement and I can't fault Shimano for
> pushing it.

When those first hit the market, I was working as a shop mechanic in Austin. Our rental fleet of
Specialized bikes were the first ones we got with the new BBs. The first time I built one up and
took it for a quick test ride, I thought I had bent something beyond repair when I first stepped on
it, so flexible was the bottom bracket.

"Thanks, but no thanks" has been my take on those things ever since. Not only did they scare me, but
they wasted all the frame stiffness at the bottom bracket that I took pains to obtain.

Chalo Colina

 

SRAM used to be Linux, but they ran their genius R&D/inventor guy, Sam Patterson (company named after original founders, Scotty, Ray and Sam) out the door, and the company is no longer a real innovator. I think their products are good, but not visionary.

 

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tuschinski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
<...>
> If you are a big person and a Shimano user, you had best be going fishing and not cycling. Shimano
> parts are not intended for unusually big and strong riders, and the results of them using Shimano
> parts can be ugly. I was a perfect example of this, until I got my nice new teeth.
>

What do you class as a big person, and were you doing big drops to break your gear?

I have just bought a new wheelset for my Giant Yukon 2004 as I am too heavy for all the stock wheels
I've had with my bikes (bought at the low-middle cost range) - I'm 6'4" and 220lbs. I ovaled my rim
doing bunny hops on bitumen.

Is my size what you are talking about as a big rider, and what sort of riding in your experience
leads to breaking more core gear.

<...>

Thanks,

Tim

 

"Tim Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Shimano parts are not intended for unusually big and strong riders, and the results of them
> > using Shimano parts can be ugly.
> >
>
> What do you class as a big person,

I am 6'8" tall and I weigh about 360 lbs. at this time. When I rode and broke the most Shimano
equipment, I weighed between 230 and 275 lbs.

> and were you doing big drops to break your gear?

No. I never liked jumping or riding in the muck, because those activities were hard on my body
and my then very limited budget constraints. I put just about all my miles and parts failures
on pavement.

> I have just bought a new wheelset for my Giant Yukon 2004 as I am too heavy for all the stock
> wheels I've had with my bikes (bought at the low-middle cost range) - I'm 6'4" and 220lbs. I
> ovaled my rim doing bunny hops on bitumen.

Sun Mammoth must be the best rim I have tried for those purposes. 36 spokes build a significantly
stronger wheel than 32, too.

Load carrying capacity has become my first priority for wheels, so I ususally use 48 spokes on a
relatively normal rim. Where big hits are an issue, a sturdier rim seems to help more than a high
spoke count does.

> Is my size what you are talking about as a big rider, and what sort of riding in your experience
> leads to breaking more core gear.

If you are fit and ride hard, at your size you will break stuff. Safety comes first IMO when
evaluating your equipment; things that won't hurt you can be replaced when they break instead of
before they break.

If you are using an ISIS crank or a Shimano "pipe spindle" crank, you are probably safe, but if you
mess one up I'd advise upgrading to a BMX-style crank rather than trying the same again.

If you are using a square-taper crank, I would strongly suggest that you switch to something beefier
without waiting around. This is the most breakage-prone structural part of an average bicycle if my
experience is any indication.

I would stay away from really light 150g-range handlebars if I were you, too. And no carbon
seatposts! Good luck.

Chalo Colina