105 vs ultegra vs dura-ace



bobbyOCR said:
Shimano works great.

SRAM works great.

Campy works great.

end of argument.

Campybob, shut up please. I understand where you are coming from, but no-one ever mentioned adding weight to their bikes. The local scientist members (LSMs) continuously say that taking a small amount of weight (<500g) off your bike won't really make a big difference in performance. Just because they said that, you keep saying 'hey, why don't we add weight to our bikes instead, because that's what you're saying'. No its not. Why add weight to your bike? No-one said lightening your bike wouldn't make a performance difference. It'll just be really small. Really, really small. All of this is an effort to combat the utter ******** poured out by people about a 100g lighter whatever making a massive difference. The difference may be 0.1km/h, unless perceived advantage has altered that. If you go on a ride with bike X with 105 and the same bike with Ultegra, inputting the identical power levels in identical conditions, the difference will be insignificant.

Now, the reason we buy light stuff is it sells. Marketig influences everyone and we buy it, so they make it. Also, you can't compare two people, but you can compare their bikes. Bodies are different, bikes, essentially, are bikes.

And racing is a stupid example. Races contain so many friggin variables. You only need to be 0.00000000000000001km/h faster average than your opponent to win. This difference could be anything. tactics, draft, smooth piece of road, gust of wind, or training. If someone wins a race by a huge margin in a breakaway, they could do the same thing on a bike with slightly heavier components.

Don't even mention pro riders because we aren't paid to ride ****.

For an Aussie, you're alright. And yer right about the different factors deciding who wins a race. Even in time trials, that's the case. It's likely that about the only time in recent history that equipment won a race was when LeMond beat Fignon in that TdF ending TT.

Even the guys on BMCs are able to win now and again despite their extreme equipment disadvantage. :D
 
decisivemoment said:
Given the money I'd probably go as high as possible, just because I've had so many front derailleur troubles over the years. But I don't really notice any difference on the other parts of the drivetrain. When you actually price the stuff out independently of frames, Ultegra is very, very competitive at about $100 more than a 105 group -- though you'd never guess if all you looked at was the complete bikes. As for Dura-Ace, I have a friend who is about 6', 190lbs, almost no body fat at all, who has a history of breaking bottom brackets. He now goes with Ultegra cranks and BB and DA everything else.

Ultegra is the big value in the Shimano line. There is no significant performance advantage between it and Dura Ace; it's durable; and it's almost as light as Dura Ace....if weight matters to you.

Likewise in Campy, Chorus is the real bargain, especially when you remember that Chorus--at least it used to be--is last year's Record.
 
Campybob, shut up please. I understand where you are coming from, but no-one ever mentioned adding weight to their bikes.

Uh...maybe you're a bit slow on the uptake. That's EXACTLY what is not only proposed, but endorsed by our scientists by using a HEAVIER component group.

Adding weight to a racing bicycle is almost never...i repeat, almost never...a good idea. In any amount. Nor does it improve performance in and of itself. Not 2000 grams. Not 200 grams.

Now, if you are braniac enough to add weight to go faster, climber better, accelerate more quickly, why have at it. Just toss your SRAM in the trash and bolt on that 105 stuff. The scientists tell me it functions just as well as DuraAce and that extra weight won't slow you down one little bit...the formulae explain it all so clearly.

Why wouldn't one use 105? You could buy three groups for the price of one DuraAce.

Thanks CyclingForums!...Where after 35 years of training and racing I was finally edjumacated that a heavier racing bicycle is just as good as a lighter racing bicycle. You guys are so smart...You guys rock!
 
CAMPYBOB said:
Uh...maybe you're a bit slow on the uptake. That's EXACTLY what is not only proposed, but endorsed by our scientists by using a HEAVIER component group.

Adding weight to a racing bicycle is almost never...i repeat, almost never...a good idea. In any amount. Nor does it improve performance in and of itself. Not 2000 grams. Not 200 grams.

Now, if you are braniac enough to add weight to go faster, climber better, accelerate more quickly, why have at it. Just toss your SRAM in the trash and bolt on that 105 stuff. The scientists tell me it functions just as well as DuraAce and that extra weight won't slow you down one little bit...the formulae explain it all so clearly.

Why wouldn't one use 105? You could buy three groups for the price of one DuraAce.

Thanks CyclingForums!...Where after 35 years of training and racing I was finally edjumacated that a heavier racing bicycle is just as good as a lighter racing bicycle. You guys are so smart...You guys rock!
Wow. I've never seen someone so aggressively determined to miss the point. Nobody asserts that more weight = better performance. What everyone is trying to point out is that the difference is tiny. Near zero. Miniscule. It's why most pros ride on 16+ pound bikes rather than bump up against the UCI limit all the time.

For 200 grams difference, you would be better off worrying about the shape of your sunglasses or whether you've shaved or not.

You want a real and large performance boost? Everyone. Listen up. Stop pumping your tires to 130 psi. Take them down to 105 psi and you'll go much faster. And that's cheaper than buying three sets of 105...

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com
 
I'd like to chip in with the comment that when I do long distance road rides I use Dutch Perfect puncture proof tyres. They're supposedly heavier, but I've never had a puncture in a race using them, and over the span of a set of long rides that kind of time adds up.
 
What everyone is trying to point out is that the difference is tiny.

Uh huh.

Near zero.

Right.

Miniscule.

Exactly.

It's why most pros ride on 16+ pound bikes rather than bump up against the UCI limit all the time.

I guess that's why Lance weighed his bike all the time and won...oh yes...seven tours. Yup. Lance didn't think a little weight mattered either. "Mr. Millimeter was a fanatic about such things to the point of climbing with one brake-shifter and one downtube shifter to save...oh...a "miniscule" few grams. "Near zero" savings as science might describe it.

Oh...some of the smarter pro's run bikes under the UCI limit that have been weighted up to just over the UCI limit. Eh...they're like me. They listen to their legs instead of a math book.

And while we're on the subject...'why' do you think there IS such a thing as a UCI weight limit?

Any chance it could be that the riders would push the performance envelop past the safety envelop in order to go faster? Nah! No logic in that. Why kill yourself for a scientifically proven fallacy? Slightly heavier bikes are just as fast!

If only the terrain was dead nut flat. If only we accelerated the bike only once per ride. If only rides lasted a mere 10 miles. Then the math might be worth considering over expirience.

I guess Lance and I missed that science expiriment in physics 101.

200/300 grams to me it is significant. As is oft stated, YMMV. So may your wattage output.
 
CAMPYBOB said:
What everyone is trying to point out is that the difference is tiny.

Uh huh.

Near zero.

Right.

Miniscule.

Exactly.

It's why most pros ride on 16+ pound bikes rather than bump up against the UCI limit all the time.

I guess that's why Lance weighed his bike all the time and won...oh yes...seven tours. Yup. Lance didn't think a little weight mattered either. "Mr. Millimeter was a fanatic about such things to the point of climbing with one brake-shifter and one downtube shifter to save...oh...a "miniscule" few grams. "Near zero" savings as science might describe it.

Oh...some of the smarter pro's run bikes under the UCI limit that have been weighted up to just over the UCI limit. Eh...they're like me. They listen to their legs instead of a math book.

And while we're on the subject...'why' do you think there IS such a thing as a UCI weight limit?

Any chance it could be that the riders would push the performance envelop past the safety envelop in order to go faster? Nah! No logic in that. Why kill yourself for a scientifically proven fallacy? Slightly heavier bikes are just as fast!

If only the terrain was dead nut flat. If only we accelerated the bike only once per ride. If only rides lasted a mere 10 miles. Then the math might be worth considering over expirience.

I guess Lance and I missed that science expiriment in physics 101.

200/300 grams to me it is significant. As is oft stated, YMMV. So may your wattage output.

They listen to their legs instead of a math book.

you said it all just there campybob - having all 3 groupsets 105 ultegra & duara - my legs told me dura was better than ultegra - & 105 waste of space point proven!!
 
Fair enough. You feel it's clear that there is an advantage to Dura Ace and that 105 is useless. So how would you go about proving this? I guess you could start with a theory such as it's all due to the weight difference.

In that case you could test it by having your friend drop a random weight (anywhere from zero to two pounds in lead weights) down the seat tube while you're not looking. Then try and correlate your ride impressions with the actual amount of weight difference. That would be an excellent way to back up your assertions with real data. Should be easy to do, too.

Or you could find that your ride impressions do not correlate with the amount of added weight. So you'd have to find a different hypothesis for why Dura Ace and 105 feel different.

In the end, you might find a way to prove your point. Or you may have to admit that you're wrong. No shame in that. I go through that all the time and figure I'm better for it. Either way, I always end up learning something.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com
 
No, i do NOT feel 105 is "useless". I said it is at a disadvantage on a bicycle built to perform as compared to a lighter groupset...on a racing bicycle. I said that 200/300 grams of mass is significant. I would guess (strictly a guess) that the mass increase would matter more to a weaker rider.

Do the math. Only do it 'correctly'. Which isn't just plugging three values into a simple textbook formula.

Factor in a few thousand feet of climbing. Toss in inumerable accelerations from everything like getting back up to speed after topping a rise, responding to your bud's jumps, punching it after a bunch of stop signs and red lights or slowing for R-R tracks, nailing it on some false flats, getting back up to rpm after those gusts of wind momentarily slow you, pooping back on the gas accelerating out of turns, after backing off for a rough section of road, etc. Then there's covering attacks, attacking, moving up in the pack, bridging a gap, etc. if racing.

I'm a firm believer that cycling is a game of nearly constant speed changes. The accelerations never stop. At least it is that way in my neighborhood. Hill after hill after hill. It's not a five-mile ride across a table-top flat plain in dead air with no turns or stops or ride partners upping the pace.

How many watts are required to re-accelerate that mass over and over and over? To carry it over all the altitude changes? How much benefit is gained by simply being able to carry an extra water bottle and a few gels for the same weight as a heavy group?

Then, think back to how many lengths you lost the club championship by. How many seconds your saturday morning riding buddy beat you over the top of water tower hill by. And how many watts would have made a difference.

Yes, you can plug & chug variables into all kinds of formule or just do what morons like me have been doing for about 115 or so years now...go get a lighter bike.

Marketing doesn't tell me what to buy. Neither do scientists and mathematicians. I've got enough seat time in this game to know what's real and what's smoke & mirrors. Weight matters. Even the 'insignificant' weight between a low end and high end groupset matters.
 
CAMPYBOB said:
What everyone is trying to point out is that the difference is tiny.

Uh huh.

Near zero.

Right.

Miniscule.

Exactly.

It's why most pros ride on 16+ pound bikes rather than bump up against the UCI limit all the time.

I guess that's why Lance weighed his bike all the time and won...oh yes...seven tours. Yup. Lance didn't think a little weight mattered either. "Mr. Millimeter was a fanatic about such things to the point of climbing with one brake-shifter and one downtube shifter to save...oh...a "miniscule" few grams. "Near zero" savings as science might describe it.

Oh...some of the smarter pro's run bikes under the UCI limit that have been weighted up to just over the UCI limit. Eh...they're like me. They listen to their legs instead of a math book.

And while we're on the subject...'why' do you think there IS such a thing as a UCI weight limit?

Any chance it could be that the riders would push the performance envelop past the safety envelop in order to go faster? Nah! No logic in that. Why kill yourself for a scientifically proven fallacy? Slightly heavier bikes are just as fast!

If only the terrain was dead nut flat. If only we accelerated the bike only once per ride. If only rides lasted a mere 10 miles. Then the math might be worth considering over expirience.

I guess Lance and I missed that science expiriment in physics 101.

200/300 grams to me it is significant. As is oft stated, YMMV. So may your wattage output.
If it was weight that won him the tour, he would've won by 0.0001 seconds, not minutes. Physics speaks. Don't bring pro racers into it. The winners are just taking the best drugs which aren't detectable.

Now, the extra wattage required to accelerate 0.3% extra total system weight would be........Cue LSMs
 
CAMPYBOB said:
I guess that's why Lance weighed his bike all the time and won...oh yes...seven tours. Yup. Lance didn't think a little weight mattered either. "Mr. Millimeter was a fanatic about such things to the point of climbing with one brake-shifter and one downtube shifter to save...oh...a "miniscule" few grams. "Near zero" savings as science might describe it.

Actually that argument only serves to make you look silly. Pre 2003 there was no UCI weight limit. The bike Armstrong used in 2003 was the lightest he raced the tour on, with it's weight reported variously at between 6.5 and 6.6kg.

So the question I ask, is subsequent Tours did Armstrong's performance suffer at all when the weight of his machine increased by 200-300g? Either comparatively or individually? I'm sure Alienator could do the math for us to show his VAM on l'Alpe d'Huez in 2004 and 2005 (not quite directly comparative with one being a TT). Better yet compare Stage 8 in 2004 with the Telegraphe and Galibier with Stage 11 in 2006.

--brett
 
If it was weight that won him the tour, he would've won by 0.0001 seconds, not minutes.

The seconds add up to minutes, B obby. Take care of the seconds and the minutes take care of themselves over distance, time and force.

Physics speaks.

And when incorrectly applied, physics will mislead.

Don't bring pro racers into it.

You're right. Why bring in folks that actually win millions by knowing what's real and what's smoke & mirrors? I'ld much rather listen to keyboard kommandos.

The winners are just taking the best drugs which aren't detectable.

Ok, so they're all running a Ferrari or Fuentes motor. He who makes the best use of weight, aero, dopage wins. Weight is still an important part of the equation. Even weights below human detection are still having an effect on power output.

Now, the extra wattage required to accelerate 0.3% extra total system weight would be...

How many accelerations? Accelerating up what percentage grade? How many watts would be used?

That motor only has so much gas in the tank. If you want to burn that gas hauling around excess baggage, be my guest.

Lance was fanatical about his bike's setup and its' weight. His care and his knowledge of...what was that you said?...oh yes..."physics" helped him get to that line first. Sometimes by mere seconds.
 
The power required to accelerate an object is linear with respect to its mass. 0.2 kg added onto an 80 kg system is a 0.25% increase. So it would take an extra 0.25% energy/power no matter how many times a rider had to accelerate the system.

Put into perspective if a rider burns 6000 kcal on a ride, he has to eat an extra 15 kcal to make up for that extra 200 grams. That's one extra mouthful of Coke as he eats two and a half medium Supreme pizzas from Pizza Hut.

BTW: Same deal with climbing. Power/energy are also linear with mass.

I'm fairly convinced that I shouldn't be concerned with an extra 200 grams. To me it's clear that although it'll slow me down, it won't be enough of an effect to worry about. I certainly won't feel it.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com
 
I'm sure Alienator could do the math for us to show his VAM on l'Alpe d'Huez in 2004 and 2005 (not quite directly comparative with one being a TT).

One must acknowledge that "VAM", without knowing the bike/rider's mass is a guesstimated number. Lance's mass, as did that of his bike varied from year to year and stage to (climbing) stage. It's about as precise as the formulae tossed about in this thread.

Maybe Lance was careful in weighing his bike to fulfill a Pygmalion effect. Yeah. That's it. It was just a psyop to freak his competition out. I'll bet he climbed with lead-filled rims because scientists have proved the flywheel effect actually saves energy over light climbing wheels.

It's hard to believe time trialers are coming off starting ramps with discs so light they self-destruct in a few meters. Silly boys. Everyone knows heavy wheels are faster. Hell, a man can't even hit a small mutt without toasting a rim nowadays.

Well, let's sit back and watch the internet teach Lance a thing or three about bike weight and VAM.
 
Who said heavier is faster? Lighter is faster. Everyone agrees. Just that it is only faster by an exceedingly small amount when we talk about total system weight. That makes small weight changes irrelevant to quite a few of us.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com
 
So it would take an extra 0.25% energy/power no matter how many times a rider had to accelerate the system.

Which is how much over a hilly 100 miles?

To me it's clear that although it'll slow me down,

Point. Set. And match.:D It's clear to 'me' that it would slow me down. Just like tossing an extra bottle in the jersey does.

it won't be enough of an effect to worry about. I certainly won't feel it.

You're a better man than I, Gunga Din! A half pound weight differential would certainly concern me and it wouldn't take a century for me to start feeling it. Your power output must be better than mine. Or you live in flatter terrain!
 
For Heaven's sake, you all seem to agree. If winning the race or beating your pal is really important, shell out your quids for the lightest. If going for a fun ride or beating your PB is the important thing, then get the 105.
 
Okay. I'll use your example. If you assume that over that 100 hilly miles (160 km) you spend half your time climbing and accelerating.... and you're putting out an average of 400 Watts... at an average of 40 km/hr...

That's 4 hours of riding = 1,440,000 Joules expended in total. The extra 0.25% cost you...

A grand total of 1800 Joules. Not. A. Hell. Of. A. Lot. That's 4.5 seconds over a 4 hour ride at a greatly exaggerated pace, power output and assumption about climbing/accelerating.

Real world? I'd say that other factors would swamp the data and make the difference unmeasureable.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com