- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
TECH NEWS
2021 Shimano Dura-Ace 9200 shifter - maybe, closer! - 1Could this be the new Shimano Dura-Ace 9200 dual control lever?
Could this be the new 2022-generation Shimano Dura-Ace 9200 shifter fitted to an Aethos on Specialized’s website?
These points suggest it could be:
- The hood is a very different shape to any in Shimano’s current lineup with a gentler, less abrupt upward curve.
- The textured shift lever that sits directly behind the brake lever extends right the way up to the underside of the hood section, which is unlike anything Shimano’s range at the moment.
- The brake lever is far straighter than on current Dura-Ace.
On the other hand, there are no visible brake hoses here, and the Aethos's hoses run externally between the handlebar and the fork, indicating that this could just be a computer rendering and not to be taken at face value.
We’ve speculated a lot about new Dura-Ace recently, and reported that applications approved by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seem to confirm rumours that the next generation will be at least partially wireless.
There’s certainly a wire fitted to the Aethos’s rear derailleur (above). There’s just a chance that it could link the front and rear derailleurs and that the rest of the system is wireless, but those components look like they’re from the existing Shimano Dura-Ace lineup, as does the chainset, so on the whole we don't think this dual control lever is the real deal.
It's all very odd and we're just not sure, but here's what we're hoping to see in Shimano Dura-Ace 9200.
> Your complete guide to Shimano road bike groupsets
David Arthur took a look at some rumours that were doing the rounds back in February 2020 predicting that the next Dura-Ace will carry the R9200 series name. A little later in the year, we saw what was believed to be the new Dura-Ace system on Remco Evenepoel’s bike. The issues faced this year might have delayed its release, but rest assured, things are moving in the right direction for the release of this new tech.
The problem is, we’re currently all just guessing at what this new tech might actually consist of. Cycling Weekly reckons that the new Dura-Ace Di2 will be Di2-only and powered by cigarette lighter technology, while CyclingTips has come to the conclusion that 12-speed and wireless are definitely going to be features of Dura-Ace.
So without further ado, here's our next-gen Dura-Ace wishlist...
12-speed, please
Broadly, we’re all singing from the same hymn sheet on this one. 12-speed shifting looks to be one of the main features of the new Dura-Ace and we’re ok with that. 11 cogs in a cassette are, let’s face it, absolutely fine. The same was said about 10 cogs, but to keep up with the crowd, Shimano will need to make their latest groupset 12-speed. Not that we'll be complaining about having an extra cog.
A standard freehub standard
While Sram went to an XD driver to attach its cassettes to wheels, we believe that Shimano will follow Campagnolo and simply squeeze an extra cog onto its existing Shimano Hypreglide freehub standard. That would be excellent news for those of you with a few wheelsets, and we're sure that aftermarket wheel brands would be grateful too.
The only scenario that we could see forcing Shimano to use its MicroSpline freehub standard from the mountain bike world would be the move to a 10T cog in the cassette... but more on that later.
Make a 32T cog available as standard
With the last iteration of Dura-Ace, Shimano moved the maximum cog allowed in the standard cage length up from 20T to 30T. We’d like to see this extended again to fit a 32T cog in the rear.
Why? If 12-speed does indeed happen then an 11-32T cassette would be ideal for the majority of roadies, with the larger cogs in the rear helping us up those steep climbs. Many already customise their setups to these ratios, we’d just like to see it become standard issue.
Do we need a 10T cog, really?
While we’re on the subject of cogs, we would expect Shimano to follow Campagnolo’s lead on what to do with the extra cog in the 12-speed system.
SRAM used it to add a 10T cog in the rear and then made the chainrings smaller. The theory is very solid; it allows the rider to remain in the big ring for longer and saves a bit of weight too. That said, issues with drivetrain resistance reported by Velonews and the fact that many SRAM-sponsored riders have ditched the 10T along with the smaller chainrings points to it not being a perfect solution.
Campagnolo simply uses the extra cog to smooth a jump between teeth in a wide-ranging cassette. And that would be very helpful if Shimano decided to give us 11-32T cassettes as standard.
Make it wireless
While wiring a Di2 system is pretty straight forward, the setup simplicity of SRAM has drawn many riders to SRAM’s eTap system. Several conflicting patent drawings make it unclear as to whether Shimano will go for a fully wireless system, or rely on some connection between various parts of the groupset.
There is a separate argument to be had as to how useful wireless is. Ok, it might make installation a bit faster, but in use, there aren’t many significant benefits to a wireless system; especially if that wireless system has very fractionally slower shifting than wired, or has reduced battery life. SRAM's double-tap design, which relies on you pressing both left and right shifter paddles at the same time to shift the front derailleur, waits for a fraction of a second when you press for a shift of the rear derailleur. The system is simply waiting to see if you are going to press both paddles, hence the small delay in shifting.
SRAM eTap also houses the batteries in the derailleurs themselves, resulting in a slightly reduced battery compared to Shimano and Campagnolo. The benefits of each system is a can of worms to crack open if you’re bored on a long ride with a mechanically-minded friend.
Improve the app integration
One thing that we think Shimano simply must learn from SRAM is that app integration, and its performance, are both crucial, especially when we're becoming so accustomed to using apps to get the most out of cycling tech nowadays.
Get a bike with SRAM Red eTap AXS equipped and you simply download the app, connect to your groupset via Bluetooth, and away you go. With Shimano, an inline wireless connector needs buying for an eyebrow-raising sum before you can connect the system to your smartphone. Before you do that, the system needs to be on the same update; and to ensure that is the case, the bike needs plugging into the computer software, which has all of the smartphone app functionality, making the app a little redundant.
Continuation of mechanical shifting
Mechanical Dura-Ace shifting is some of the smoothest on the market, and while the industry is undoubtedly going towards disc brakes and electronic shifting on high-end bikes, we’d love to see Dura-Ace continue to offer mechanical shifting and rim brakes
That said, we’ve been through Trek’s 2021 range and there is no sign of mechanical Dura-Ace shifting. With the launch of its new Emonda, Trek said that the decision to make it a disc-brake only platform in 2021 was based on sales data that showed an overwhelming preference for discs.
Custom programmability - shout about it!
Finally, we’d really like to see Shimano make more of the custom programmability of Di2. Shifter button functions can be customised, and you can do some really cool stuff with that.
One cyclocross racer had both their left and their right shifter programmed to operate the rear derailleur on their 1X race bike. That way, if (when) they crashed and broke a shifter, they could still operate the gears. Ideally, this would tie in nicely with a better app experience and wouldn’t require the inline wireless transmitter.
How much of this will we get from the new Dura-Ace groupset? We’re feeling greedy, so hopefully all of it!
Latest Comments
- Critman 6 sec ago
"30mm outer diameter 18mm inner diameter 13.4mm". Good luck finding a skinny tire.
- espressodan 36 min 42 sec ago
Road.cc: "Cyclists are fed up of victim blaming"...
- Destroyer666 1 hour 28 min ago
Ahem, the recommended lockring is just a common through-axle specific lockring, so nothing Miche specific there, and the required tool for it is an...
- Destroyer666 2 hours 23 min ago
Nonono, not those, but those that have constructed Italian cars and motorcycles that have been driven to hundreds of race and championship...
- RoubaixCube 2 hours 32 min ago
This may well be the case although Im unaware of the brands popularity on their home turf. I used to see them being advertised more in the UK...
- qwerty360 3 hours 2 min ago
Arguably sticking it in a bank account is bad....
- Sredlums 4 hours 1 min ago
I'd counter that those brakes were in fact so inadequate that they eventually developed a whole new type of bicycle that was actually suited for it...
- levestane 4 hours 3 min ago
Unfortunately, Africa is heavily exploited both for resource extraction...
- CitizenSmith 4 hours 29 min ago
There seems to be no support for TOO) now - their email and website are defunct. They are inactive on Facebook. Aftter less than a year the rails...
Add new comment
47 comments
I really wonder - from reading this article and comments - what people are smoking these days.
Dura-Ace has and never will be designed for your average cyclist. The brief to the Shimano engineers is along the lines of "unlimited funds and resources - make the best groupset you can for our pro riders".
11-30 is already a big enough gear for the pros on all but perhaps 2 world tour stages a year when they face the exceedingly steep stuff. 34/30 chainring/sprocket combination is a 29-inch gear that is tiny even by amateur racer standards. As for someone saying to accommodate a 36T rear sprocket that would be incredibly useless for the pros (even in cyclocross) and even Ultegra R8000 targeted at amateur racers and bike enthusiasts only goes up to a 34T.
The article says how the 10T sprocket " theory is very solid; it allows the rider to remain in the big ring for longer". This just doesn't make sense. If you're in the 10T sprocket, you should already be in the big ring, and it doesn't help you stay in the big ring for longer because you are likely travelling at a pace where the 11T sprocket with the big ring would be needed. The theory around a 10T sprocket is also entirely mechanically wrong. The 10T is significantly less efficient than using a larger chainring paired with an 11T sprocket or an even larger chainring and using the slightly larger sprockets keeping the chain line straighter and improving the drivetrain efficiency as a lot of friction is generated by the yaw angle of the chain line not to mention that 10 points of engagement are less efficient than more points of engagement on a larger sprocket and bigger chainring. We've seen this with SRAM (incredibly quickly) caving to their pro teams and producing sensibly sized chainrings when they noticed that riders were using old Red chainrings with AXS.
Some comments have suggested using that additional 12th sprocket at the bigger end of the cassette and I can understand why. However, mechanically the way the number of teeth on a sprocket changes the size of the gear is not a linear sequence. The difference between an 11T and 12T sprocket is 10.32 inches and that's just a 1T difference. The difference between 25T and 28T sprocket is 5.78 inches and that's a 3T difference. So my estimation is that on an existing 11-28 DA cassette, a 16T sprocket will be added as that will have a more noticeable benefit to the rider than adding between the larger sprockets.
With regards to the Hollowtech II chainsets (this referring to the manufacturing technique of the cranks, not the spindle) I cannot see this changing. The reason being is that though people do experience a failure with the bonding of the two-part cranks the failure rate is incredibly low given how many Hollowtech II cranksets Shimano produce. The case for carbon cranks is a fair one, though it has limitations including new production lines being required and design limitations - the crank will likely slim, dense, and stiff compared to a chunky, hollow, and stiff aluminium crank. Both result in an equally stiff crank but how you get that similar result is different and that comes down to the materials and 2nd moment of area. It is sometimes forgotten how stiff aluminium is and just because carbon fibre exists does not mean it's the right material for every application.
Cranks that don't break in normal use would be a good start. Maybe even carbon cranks? They don't break, it seems.
https://www.instagram.com/thanksshimano/
My dream Dura-Ace gruppo would skip 12 and go straight to 13 so we can have a practical 1x setup for roadies. Rotor made a compelling argument for why 1x13 makes sense... they just don't have the patents or customer base to really make it take off. I imagine Shimano engineers could make it work. That way, Shimano would leapfrog SRAM and Campy instead of playing catch up.
Maybe a couple more buttons so you can map 4 to a bike computer? (or 6 if going 1x... which might be a bit excessive)
Would never happen, but it'd be cool for DA chains go fully titanium like the YBN SLA211 Ti. Would also be cool to see a Ti crankset like the Cane Creek. I guess pedals, too, while we're at it. Especially as everyone else seems to at least be using Ti in the axle.
I think there's still room for innovation when it comes to ergonomics. Hopefully they can shrink the space required for the hydraulics and continue to improve comfort on the hoods.
I know the last thing the world wants is another BB standard. And that many don't count it as part of the gruppo. And that plenty are happy with BB86. But T47 shows that there's still some demand for a lightweight, threaded solution that's aligned with modern bike design. And the anniversary Dura-Ace release seems like a good excuse to put out a BB that finally makes everyone happy.
I'd like to see Shimano develop their own dedicated crank based power meter on DA. There are loads of 3rd party one (Stages, 4iiii etc) but the dual sided versions are rubbish and have huge questions over their data reliability. Sram have a chainset power meter designed around their own standard cranksets with thanks to their sister company Quarq. A company the size of Shimano really should be offering a counter to this without relying on other companies to bodge one around their products.
I think they've got some big issues to overcome thanks to the asymetric design of the cranks.
That said, I've ridden the R9100-P power meter and I was seeing my regular numbers with my usual balance.
They've got one already? Although DC Rainmaker wasn't too impressed with it.
True they do have one but as I said , its based on current chainsets and not a dedicated design a la the SRAM red Spider developed with Quarq. It works because its a dual concept not slapping a meter onto an old design.
Can you elaborate? There's a lot of uncessarily noise talked about power meter accuracy - especially when cross comparing across bikes and meters. As long as they are consistent over time, and reasonably accurate anything more than 2-3% accuracy is irrelevant unless you are a pro.
There's been quite a bit of analysis of dual sided power meters on Shimano 4-arm cranks - TLDR is the left-hand side is fine but the right side suffers from inaccurate power readings mainly due to the drive side crank design (arm structure).
It's not the fault of the 3rd party power meter suppliers as such, more a consequence of Shimano crank design. Plenty of information online including some good FEA videos on YouTube.
They already have and it's been in the pro-peloton and commercially available for years. It's called FC-R9100-P and is used by every Shimano sponsored team. It will set you back £1,499.00.
I would like to see Shimano not make the same mistakes and pander to the pros at the expense of normal users like SRAM did with AXS and design a groupset with stupidly limited 2x tooth difference. Why on earth when you had a working 17t system would you regress to 13t?
So let's hope 9200 includes provision of a 34t cassette if not a 36t with a rear mech to match, or at least 8100 does the following year.
What exactly is a "17t system"
A front mech that can cope with a 17t difference between chain rings. Old Red manages a 50/34 Axs red can only manage 48/35. Limits the versatility.
I should probably qualify my remarks with that I don't give a crap with whatever they do with 9200, but I hope they don't blindly push it down the range without thinking hard about what more recreational riders want/need.
Compact cranks - 50/34 - are a 16 tooth difference. SRAM have traditionally struggled to supply a front derailleur that works as well as the competition, especially on those 16 tooth jumps required with compact and semi compact chainsets, less of an issue on standard chainsets. AXS wasn't a pandering to the professional, it was more likely a way to provide amateurs with a functional front derailleur as a smaller pair of front rings will require a smaller % difference to give the same range between the two.
Shimano don't suffer the same issue so it doubtful they'll need to find the same "solution" as sram (which has been rejected by the pros in any case)
My bad - Road max teeth difference is 16t. GRX manages 17t (48/31) with a slightly wider Q factor which may be unrelated.
Point stands tho. 13t difference seems ultra conservative.
Standard chainsets are 53/39 which is a 14 tooth jump, so again it's not down to SRAM just making concessions to the pro teams. Their 10T cassette and smaller chainring combo is proving to be an albatross for professionals, but anyway it's important to look at the % of difference in gain rather than the number of teeth when calculating the gearing potential. The smaller the rings, the less of a jump required make a difference
But that same mech can handle Semi and Compact 16t jumps too. Which kinda proves my point about SRAM being over-conservative to their detriment in the Consumer space.
It was about SRAM historically having trouble with their front mechs generally, and reducing the size of the chainrings let them get away with an "easier" 13 tooth change to provide the same range as more recognised combinations
Sram brought out their 11x system and although it was adopted by one pro team it proved to be problematic with dropped chains etc. there comes a limit where the system has too much play in it and going 17t is pushing it with current trends. Your average rider doesnt need that and a more reliable system will always win in this case. last thing they want to be known for is a groupset that keeps dropping chains scuffing up your shiny new bike when the chain decides to wrap itself around the crank arm
But isn't that the whole point of DA, as opposed to the rest of the range?
11-32 cassette would likely be:
11-12-13-14-15-16-18-20-22-25-28-32T
Where the 15T is additional to the sprockets in the CS-R7000.
Personally I'd favour 12-32 and add a 17T too. In my opinion, if you're pedalling fast enough to need the 11 then you probably don't need to pedal. I run a 14-28T 11-speed on compact chainset, this would suit most new bike buyers. I'm not slow, but I don't race.
In my opinion, if you're pedalling fast enough to need the 11 then you probably don't need to pedal.
Agreed. For ordinary duffers, 12 would be a good smallest cog. Would certainly suit me when I install my 34 cassette onto the super-compact 46/30- I'm still wearing out the 32 and 48/32 that came with the bike. These heavy trailers don't tow themselves.
In my opinion, anyone who says this has got on too large a ring/rings.
but... but... I thought pushing the big ring made me a man?
How fast do you need to be able to pedal? Genuinely? I can hit 42mph with my 50-11. I have needed it exactly one time: when I was in a race and we were headed downhill in a tailwind. Besides that, I've only pedaled up to that speed because I can. It's faster to just tuck at that point.
I'm not saying I want to get rid of the 11T necessarily. But 12T cassettes should definitely be an option for non-racers. The 11T is completely useless for them.
Ha-ha, advice from "racers."
Weighting the 1T jumps to the friendlier end of the cassette would be so much better for normal riders.
Fun story - Only time I've ever *needed* my 11T was when chasing a Nuun SigmaSports rider when he attacked at Thruxton. And I never want to use it again haha
This!
Was looking at the Canyon Endurace when they changed the front from compact to semi compact, which seemed like a daft move until I looked at the ratios of the 34 cassette it was then spec'd with. The 11-34 has a much more even spread over the whole range rather than being loaded towards the lhigh gears. The 11 still looks unneccessary on that too.
Aii, if you know, it's all about close ratio and getting that as low down the gearing as possible. It ain't really about range cos that is easy these days and it ain't about high gears.
I have started using Miche cassettes as I can build a suitable cluster. I can't say the shifting performance is any worse.
Pages