What is so special about SRAM Red?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

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.

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.You are a candidate for a set of Campagnolo shifters!

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.

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.

+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.

+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.

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!

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!
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.

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.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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.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!

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!

--brettBrett, I actually think you are supporting my opinion and using the same principle I was, discrediing the other guys. I stick to my point that increased supply does not raise prices. You have described a classic example of increased demand increasing prices. Supplies may have gone up, but that is not the cause of increased prices. It is the increased demand - which apparently is a larger force for upward prices than the increased supply (which would decrease that upward pressure). If there was just Campy in the high end market like the 60s, I believe prices would be even higher. But we have Shimano, Campy, SRAM and now FSA I believe is trying to get into it. People with disposible income wanting top notch gear => higher prices and more companies wanting to get into that market. It's all consistent with supply and demand, imho!

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.REALLY?!? Just where in Wisconsin you -- Whitefish Bay? You need a wider circle of "friends" whom you could/should then poll -- I'll bet if you had access to the "books" (or, a "customer" list) of your local bike shop(s), you would see that MOST people are not sponsored riders who receive a team discount.

With the understanding that JTE83 may not be someone with whom you'd want to share a round of beers (I'm sure some people might say the same of me!), that doesn't mean that he is hasn't inadvertantly made a valid observation ... but, as others have rightly noted, there are other factors beyond SRAM which have impacted the current price of components.

Without getting into a lengthy discourse on economics, let me point out that supply-and-demand usually does NOT establish pricing ... and, the supply-and-demand curve only indicates a theoretical sweet spot for pricing & of product distribution ... there is no assurance that there isn't a backlog-OR-shortage of inventory in the warehouse; and/but, presumes that tomorrow's demand for the "product" will be the same as today's ... it could be less OR it could be more in the future.

FYI. De Beers hoards diamonds & has consequently, successfully created and maintained an artificial price level for diamonds.

PERCEIVED VALUE and/or whatever-the-market-will-bear IS how products are often priced.

Marketing has a lot to do with pricing to inspire the consumer's choice ... and, some people want to make the more expensive choice because they presume the value will be there ... for the moment, or during a resale.

Double-Tap (to bring this back to the realm of the immediate thread) may be the greatest shifting mechanism that has ever been designed, but if it had been priced at HALF of the cost of a pair of Shimano STI shifters, there would be many people who wouldn't have given (OR, give) it a second look ...

BTW. Hey, SRAM invented the "grip shift" ... I have some trigger shifters (which most MTBers love/use), but I love the "grip shift" for the same reason that I prefer Campagnolo's ERGO shifters ...

For whatever reason, most riders shun the "grip shift" design and it seems to have been relegated to department-store bikes. Since the "grip shift" lacks the snob-appeal which motivates many purchases, you/(rudycyclist) have to ask yourself if you would use a "grip shift" on a MTB even if you liked it better if you accidentally tried it and liked it ...

For those who don't remember OR aren't aware, to maintain the perception of value, the pricing of American cars has kept pace (i.e., escalated) with the pricing of foreign cars as the Dollar devalued against the Yen and European currencies for DECADES and consequently cars produced-and-sold by the American car manufacturers has continued to lose market share for decades because not all of the consumers can be fooled all of the time (to paraphrase Lincoln) ...

When currency fluctuation finally caused a Toyota Corolla to cost more than a Chevy Impala, well GM/Ford/Chrysler were compelled to raise the price of their full size cars to assure the American consumer that their full-size cars were worth more than those little Toyotas.

Pricing by IS often done with the intention of instilling a perceived value by the consumer ...

Consequently, people paid a premium for their Toyotas or Hondas because, in part, their resale value had warranted it -- that is, no loss in a higher initial expenditure because it was recouped on the back-end.

Despite having the same internal mechansim and only differing cosmetically, some people perceive that a pair of FORCE shifters ($530) is worth more than a pair of RIVAL shifters ($345) ... some people want the "bling" factor OR cosmetic continuity with the rest of their group selection OR whatever ... on the other hand, some people do realize there isn't a reason to pay the premium for the FORCE over the RIVAL ...

Whatever the market will bear ...

I presume that since your parents have paid for -- and, are probably still paying for (directly, or indirectly) -- your cycling "stuff" that you aren't as sensitive to component OR frame prices as most of the other riders who are not sponsored riders. Good luck with that in the future regardless of whether you are sponsored, or not.

FOR THE RECORD. I don't "hate" SRAM ... it IS probably good that there is another "player" producing cycling components. BUT, I continue to contend that SRAM's North American Customer Service is woefully lacking (things could change in the future, but I'm not holding-my-breath) ... and, that is the reason I would never recommend a SRAM product to anyone who is actually paying for the components, themselves.

Assos this year is offering their top line bibshorts for 180GBP- it is about 400USD. No matter how many competitors around, if you want to sell bibshots (for example) nowadays- make sure the price is high. C'mon- those are only bibshorts.

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.Yes, the per-minute cost of long distance phone service has come down as a result of competition ...

Nonetheless, local phone service was significantly less expensive when the "phone company" was a monopoly ... less than $10 in the late 70s before deregulation ... if you don't factor in the Federal taxes, it pretty much doubled right after Ma Bell became the Baby Bells because the newly formed Baby Bells (and, their State-regulated entities) were no longer subsidized.

No doubt, with the competition in long distance service & lower fees, the number of MINUTES used by the average American eventually went up ... but, much/some of that increase might have been enhanced by the Baby Boom (i.e., a generation who had learned to "phone home" while they were away at college).

Cynically, it could be suggested that the Federal government has subsequently received more revenue because it created more billing agencies ... maybe, not.

Anyway, I was just pointing out a situation where prices went up AFTER a monoply was broken apart ... just "testing" the old saw that competition lowers prices ...
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). Yes, in part, prices have increased because of technological advances/changes (R&D) ... in part, Dollar devaluation (momentarily, the cost of a "custom" bike frame does not seem to have kept pace with "inflation") ... and, in part, the tulip bulb factor is at play.

On going "demand" HAS kept prices from dropping at the high end, but some of the profits garnered from the high-end "stuff" theoretically go toward R&D & sponsorships (aka "advertising") ... and, a residual benefit is that for a fraction of what a mid-90s Campagnolo Chorus group would have cost, one could get a pre-2007 a Campagnolo Mirage group which was almost comparable to the earlier variant of the better group. Some of that is thanks to Campagnolo's decision to relabel the designs of their formerly better components with the labels given to their lower end component groups ... the practice of continuing to provide "older" component designs has allowd for maintenance-and/or-expansion of market share.

BTW. The fact that the "lesser" Campagnolo groups are immediately sharing designs with the "better" Campagnolo groups suggests (to me) that it is less expensive for the production facilities to simply vary a "single" design (hubs come to mind) rather than continue to maintain multiple production/inventory lines OR they finally exhausted the inventory of all the old turnings! It could be argued that the 2007-and-subsequent Veloce group (for example) is equal-to-or-better than the 1998 Chorus group, and undoubtedly better than the 2007 Chorus group.
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".Good-or-bad, the BLING-factor has its place ... it is part of what makes the World go round!

If there was just Campy in the high end market like the 60s, I believe prices would be even higher. Maybe, not ...

BUT, only because if there were only Campagnolo at the high end, we would probably still be using FRICTION shifters!
But we have Shimano, Campy, SRAM and now FSA I believe is trying to get into it. People with disposible income wanting top notch gear => higher prices and more companies wanting to get into that market. It's all consistent with supply and demand, imho!So, for whatever reason you prefer, thank goodness for Shimano, et al.

I just had my new Cervelo built up with Ultegra SL and I really like it alot. Reliability, bling, and a lot cheaper than sram or campy at 1k$