Shimano released their gravel oriented wireless (Di2) One By derailleur this week.  With this release we have the following options in the market:

Vendor	Wireless/Wired	Speed	Max Tooth	UVP
Shimano GRX Di2	Wireless	12 Speed	51	€2012
Shimano GRX	Wired	12 Speed	51	€1589
SRAM RED XPLR eTap AXS	Wireless	12 Speed	44	Unclear
SRAM Force XPLR AXS (D2)	Wireless	12 Speed	44	€1942
SRAM Rival XPLR AXS (D2)	Wireless	12 Speed	44	€1424
SRAM RED XPLR AXS	Wireless	13 Speed	46	€3883
SRAM Force XPLR AXS (E1)	Wireless	13 Speed	46	€1970
SRAM Rival XPLR (E1)	Wireless	13 Speed	46	€1435
Campagnolo Ekar	Wired	13 Speed	44	€1593

Yes, I’m fully aware that there is also SRAM Apex and that one can have a bigger range on SRAM with a mountain bike rear derailleur.  You can also hack an old SRAM Force 11 speed levers with the fantastic Ratio Technologies upgrade kits, but I’m interested in a different point.

What does the table above say about products and users?

The bike rider has a few considerations. 

1) Too many options, can’t decide.

2) stick to what you know (“I rode Shimano so far, I want to stay with Shimano in my next bike”).

3) Wireless and 13-Speed seems “better” than wired and 12-Speed (More modern and more is better right?).

The bike industry has two dominant components vendors: Shimano and SRAM. It’s pretty obvious that one of them is trying to pull the industry in one direction in which they have an advantage. The other, larger vendor, which also means the vendor with the more entrenched OEM relationships, can dig their heals and even, take a completely different position. And what does it yield? Confused consumers.

Lets consider when do cyclists buy new group sets?  These are the type of purchases that are done when buying a new bike or when there is a very attractive feature in a new group that is just absolutely a must.  We also buy new things for our bikes because these new things are now available and we can’t control our wants (N+1 is the perfect example).  Cycling in most cases is a spend that’s very strongly sits in the “disposable income” category.

So both Shimano and SRAM released new groups in the last few months.  Are they needed?  SRAM seems to be saying “wireless and 13 speed at any price point”.  This is great for consumers since these groups fit any wallet size (within reason).  They are also signaling to the market “we dont believe in wires”.  For cyclists who think that “sorry I can’t join the ride today as I forgot to charge my bicycle battery” is not a reasonable position, SRAM has, of course, extra batteries and chargers for sale. Shimano has a solution.  

Shimano seems to believe that options are not just in price points, but also technical.  Shimano is clearly an engineering driven company.  Their engineers are not asking the consumers to decide which technology they prefer or to force consumers into one direction, but rather they provide a wired and wireless options for the same group.  Price-wise Shimano seemed to have positioned the GRX Di2 RX827 on the same price point as the SRAM Force group.  The group also supports a much larger cassette range (officially up to 51 teeth).

Are these groups actually target the same cyclist or are we confused by Proximity Bias? Both vendors release wireless kits in such close proximity to each other, but are SRAM and Shimano address the same market?  

A rider looking for a very wide range for their adventure rig with cables, basically only have a single off the shelf option: Shimano Wired GRX 12 speed.  A rider looking for a tightly spaced high gear (i.e. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, etc) can pick the SRAM 13-Speed wireless setup (as long as their bike support the UDH derailleur hanger standard SRAM introduced) or go with Campagnolo Ekar.

From a product perspective, these are a lot of options which yield a lot of decision points with both large vendors trying to grab as much market as they can (that’s their job). These options are likely aimed at OEMs and the typical consumer will make a buying decision based on total package cost (the bike).  For the rest of us, loads of options means that we can wax poetics about the cycling industry and we are likely to stick to the groups we have been using forever.

I wish there will be the best of both worlds.  I appreciate a “save my climb” gear like Shimano’s 10-51 cassette or the aftermarket options from Garbaruk or Ingrid.  On all options with a pizza-size cassette, the spacing in the higher gears leaves me looking for that in between gear when riding in relatively flat topographies.  (Typical gears offered are: 10-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-33-39-45-51).  It’d be great to have a Campagnolo Ekar like spacing with some changes on the very low end (my own fantasy): 10-11-12-13-14-15-17-20-23-27-35-44-50.  It’s a nice “problem” to have.