I’m sure it’ll ruffle a few feathers, especially those who cling to the the last vestiges of things like “gold standard”. I’ve never been a huge fan of SRM as they represent a lot of what isn’t desirable in the sports tech industry. It’s kind of an arrogant attitude when I’ve heard of multiple companies reaching out to them looking for partnerships and such. I’ve known two companies in the last year to talk to me personally saying it’s a what can they do for SRM feel. Maybe it’s lost in translation (to the American branch from things like Canadian English to the American). There are some things that isn’t attitude and just tech. Just to name a few:
- Overpriced – Some SRM’s are 4 gages vs quarq’s 5 to install. Some are 8. Both are machined and installed in home countries. The Quarq uses very sophisticated electronics while the SRM uses a 1st gen MSP430 and the same analog voltage to frequency circuit that leads to an order of magnitude greater noise than a decent sigma delta they have for 20 years+. PCB was designed pre 2010 and hasn’t changed (FCC filings). Update your stuff. Get BLE working right. Move away from stupid Crank torque frequency ANT+ standard as it’s very very very dumb.
- Weird battery – Sure it lasts long but why can only SRM replace it? Oh, the thing they don’t tell you is that if that battery (lithium thionyl chloride) is damaged and then exposed to water it makes the Samsung Note fires look like a joke. They EXPLODE! These are used in high spec military applications (cool, right) and require special training and handling precautions (wait, what?) as well as very difficult disposal. They have a 2 – 3 times energy density per weight over coin cells which are already about 2x that of rechargeable lithium tech. But shipping hunks of metal for little reason is expensive. You can buy half a Quarq for that.
- Servicing and shipping – The mechanical properties of the metal isn’t changing. I mean if it was we’d be finding all the Ferraris turn into wet noodles after a few undulating roads. Vintage super cars would just be jiggly art. Something SRM hasn’t figured out. They can’t seem to trust hundreds of years of fatigue theory. The real reason is a service model and to check calibration and replace faulty parts including things like chain rings that can skew accuracy as they wear. However, ever ship one from not the US or Germany / EU country? Guess what you’re requested to do? Declare your $3000 cranks as near worthless. They also absolve themselves of responsibility of shipping damage. If not you’re saddled with any fees from improper paperwork either direction.
- No active temp – everything should have it. It’s needed. It’s worth about a few percent if there is a temperature change alone and not only that, it’s a labour item which is where there is the high cost. So why can Quarq and P2max do it and not SRM at 3 – 5 times the price?
- Lipstick on a pig – There was never a FC-7900 nor an FC-9000 crankset for this. Sure they used the left arms on the FC-9000 named one, but they were Shimano SR-71 which is old production mold FC-7800 where Shimano milled off the arms (not SRM like on the 7800). Don’t paint a 7800 (literally painted a black line) and call it a 6 year newer crankset. That is just marketing lies.
- Lies – The marketing lies! The arm of the new Origin was clearly a THM unit with a Look Tri lobe. Don’t say it’s not THM when it is THM or at least their design. I’ve heard conflicting things on both sides with people close to THM confirming it’s THM while people at SRM say it isn’t.
- Pedal – They trade in one 9 year old design for another 9 year old design. Great work? The Look pedal and the SRM pedals are the same mechanical and strain gage setup. But jam nuts are so 5 year ago low cost Bepro. You’re not competitive, you have half the strain gages and circuits and calibration as everyone else. Have the decency to be half the price.
However, a few years ago I notice that SRM moved to shear gages. It bothered me because clearly according to the patents this is Quarq’s invention! I’d bet dollars to donuts that if it ever made it to court, SRM would be dead for infringement. However, then P2Max at least had a hope of saying their setup was different but then aimed to lower cost. They ended up with a wonky flexy spider that requires “dynamic calibration” to save the cost though. But now it too falls into the potential infringement category. None of this is a legal opinion of course. I’ve just spent a lot of time the last few years looking at patents.
So I figured I’d go through that in another whiteboard video while I’m putting together some updates related to Maelstrom and other things. Enjoy. And give a like or subscribe. Like 80% of my viewers are no subscribers.
With all the complaints though… All these products are pretty good. However, in a market for a spider? I’d recommend a Quarq. But I’m not keen on the AXS system. Changing roller diameter is going to cause all sorts of headaches for people and accelerated wear. When you can’t run an aftermarket chain or cassette without destroying something, and one of those things is a piece of electronics that can’t have it’s wear item replaced, well… that’s a bad time.