Scotty_Dog said:
You wipe with a plank? That explains alot. You know, with the splinters and all.steelem said:
105 vs ultegra vs dura-ace
- Thread starter zaku
- Start date
The problem is people will upgrade from a 105 bike that is old, dirty and not well maintained to brand spanking new dura ace bike and naturally will say "DA is sooooo much better!!" Well friggin' duh ....... compare some apples to oranges.
This past season I build up a Giant TCR with NOS 105 is black (cus it looked so cool). Like previously noted, that sucka shifts as good as any of my DA bikes.
I agree, loads of it feels better data doesn't cut it. Things like cables have a huge impact on shifting. To do an objective test spec out DA vs. 105 with new cables and equivilent levels of wear (ideally new).
In the end, it's the engine. DA isn't going to win a race over 105, the rider is. Spend you cash as you see fit, but I'll stick with 105 and Ultegra and have spare cash for more bikes.
This past season I build up a Giant TCR with NOS 105 is black (cus it looked so cool). Like previously noted, that sucka shifts as good as any of my DA bikes.
I agree, loads of it feels better data doesn't cut it. Things like cables have a huge impact on shifting. To do an objective test spec out DA vs. 105 with new cables and equivilent levels of wear (ideally new).
In the end, it's the engine. DA isn't going to win a race over 105, the rider is. Spend you cash as you see fit, but I'll stick with 105 and Ultegra and have spare cash for more bikes.
In the end, it's the engine. DA isn't going to win a race over 105, the rider is. Spend you cash as you see fit, but I'll stick with 105 and Ultegra and have spare cash for more bikes.[/
your wrong - so fukin wrong - my m8 is of the same standard as me & has just bought himself a 2nd cheap bike - he runs campag chorus on his 1st bike & we have a good ride at 20mph plus - this new bike has 105 & he can barely get up to 17 i am even having to wait for him - i told him b4 he bought what he could expect but unfortunaly he has to find out the hard way - i can tell you he now wishes he had bought a good 2 nd hand bike.. so tried & tested what you saying Cap
your wrong - so fukin wrong - my m8 is of the same standard as me & has just bought himself a 2nd cheap bike - he runs campag chorus on his 1st bike & we have a good ride at 20mph plus - this new bike has 105 & he can barely get up to 17 i am even having to wait for him - i told him b4 he bought what he could expect but unfortunaly he has to find out the hard way - i can tell you he now wishes he had bought a good 2 nd hand bike.. so tried & tested what you saying Cap
steelem said:
- A properly adjusted drivetrain will not drop the chain. If this is happening, it's your fault for not adjusting the stops on your front derailleur correctly.
- Weight means ****. If you'd like, I can point you to an equation of motion for a bike derived from a 4th order differential equation and solved using the Runge Kutta method. It's very exact. The net result is, as all physical equations have shown, that weight means virtually nothing.
- Even if weight were a significant factor, the weight difference between Dura Ace and 105 is insignificant.
- Gearing a lot lighter? Quicker up hills? ****. How stupid. The momentum of inertia for any rotating bike part is pitifully small. Do the math yourself. The moment of inertia for a ring--and we'll give a cassette the benefit of an overly optimistic estimation of it's moment of inertia and we'll say it can be modeled as a ring--is 0.5*the mass*the radius squared. A wheel's radius, excluding the tire. is about 311mm. It's mass is we'll be real optimistic and say that you're using tubs and the rims weigh 350g. For that wheel the moment is 0.169 kg-m^2. Now, we'll assume that the cassette weighs 175g; it's radius is 100mm. That gives the cassette a whopping inertia of 0.000875 kg-m^2. So the wheel's moment is 193 times greater than the cassette's. That means it the cassette requires 193 times less energy to spin it up to a given angular frequency. Now, don't forget that a wheel's moment of inertia is of so very little significance in bicycle performance. The net result? You look look like the pederast that you are pretending to know something.
I'd write that there is very little difference between them because I know how to do the math that science requires; I've used them all; I know the important factors in bicycle performance from a Newtonian Mechanics point of view; I'm able to read and understand the claimed differences between all the groups.
You've proven nothing, Twinkle Toes. Nada. Zipp. Do you understand exactly what irrefutable proof is?
If anyone trusts this guy, you might as well cut your own testicles off.steelem said:
Im running SORA, I'm a beginner and I average 16mph, oh, AND I'm an out of shape CLYDE... Two groups below 105 and outperforms steelem's expectations, with a me on the bike, none the less.
105 is probably the most common shimano group on bikes that people just ride for recreation; ie: not race. I'd rather have better tires and wheels than spend an extra $500+ for ultegra or dura ace.
I'm gonna side with alienator on this one, 105 is probably all any of us non racers need. I also run LX on my mountain bike (full LX group, except chain and brake pads) which is about 105 equivilent to mountain bikes? It's all I will ever need.
Get off your soapbox steelem. Your posts all seem to just antagonize bickering. How old are you? 12?
And to the original poster, if you have the money for the upgrade, your probably going to do it if you want to anyways. If youd rather spend money on better wheels, shoes, clothes, etc you will be FINE with the 105. I'm gonna upgrade my sora at some point to 105 because i want a few more gear choices and just some better overall parts. Plus I would like to be able to shift from the drops more, those thumb buttons are a pain on SORA. To each their own...
how many times in a month can we talk about this, as well as argue the exact same points?
The thread:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?t=425383
My Post:
Re: Why does Dura Ace cost the most? Wow, there are quite a few people posting assumptions and not stating them as such. A lot of mis-information is being passed around.
I'm not stating that my knowledge is the absolute truth, however, working at a bike shop, at lot of the knowledge I've learned is from ex-racers, and guys who have been around bikes for 30+ years.
The reason why sora and tiagra wear faster than 105 and above is because of the plastic parts. They aren't built with the same quality materials as 105 and above, and thus, they wear faster. That's it. Corners are cut to make them cheaper, and the cheaper plastic parts wear faster than metal. 105 and above are all metal, and thus last longer. Sora and Tiagra are completely functional, and capable, however, if you're doing more than 100 miles a week, I'd recommend 105 or above for the longevity of the parts.
Aside from weight between 105, Ultegra and DA, the higher up you go, the more precise (see: smoother) the shifting is. The difference between a properly adjusted 105 front derailer/shifter and an Ultegra is almost night and day (IMO), especially when going from the smaller cog to the larger. The difference between Ultegra and DA isn't nearly as great. The jump between Ultegra and DA leads to parts being lighter, and ultimately, they wear faster. Although its not a huge difference in terms of longevity, DA will wear faster than Ultegra (according to the shop mechanics). Generally, unless people want to show off their bikes at starbucks, or are racers, I recommend Ultegra simply because of the value you get over DA. Unless you're a racer, and grams actually matter to you, you're buying the DA name, and that's it.
If you're familiar with the shimano MTB groupo's, the jump between XT and XTR is similar to the Ultegra and DA. Lighter, but not necessarily stronger.
The thread:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?t=425383
My Post:
Re: Why does Dura Ace cost the most? Wow, there are quite a few people posting assumptions and not stating them as such. A lot of mis-information is being passed around.
I'm not stating that my knowledge is the absolute truth, however, working at a bike shop, at lot of the knowledge I've learned is from ex-racers, and guys who have been around bikes for 30+ years.
The reason why sora and tiagra wear faster than 105 and above is because of the plastic parts. They aren't built with the same quality materials as 105 and above, and thus, they wear faster. That's it. Corners are cut to make them cheaper, and the cheaper plastic parts wear faster than metal. 105 and above are all metal, and thus last longer. Sora and Tiagra are completely functional, and capable, however, if you're doing more than 100 miles a week, I'd recommend 105 or above for the longevity of the parts.
Aside from weight between 105, Ultegra and DA, the higher up you go, the more precise (see: smoother) the shifting is. The difference between a properly adjusted 105 front derailer/shifter and an Ultegra is almost night and day (IMO), especially when going from the smaller cog to the larger. The difference between Ultegra and DA isn't nearly as great. The jump between Ultegra and DA leads to parts being lighter, and ultimately, they wear faster. Although its not a huge difference in terms of longevity, DA will wear faster than Ultegra (according to the shop mechanics). Generally, unless people want to show off their bikes at starbucks, or are racers, I recommend Ultegra simply because of the value you get over DA. Unless you're a racer, and grams actually matter to you, you're buying the DA name, and that's it.
If you're familiar with the shimano MTB groupo's, the jump between XT and XTR is similar to the Ultegra and DA. Lighter, but not necessarily stronger.
steelem said:
Trooooollllllllllllll. What a pederast you are. If you could read you'd see that I have tried the top three Shimano groups.
Magazine? What? Apparently you don't understand how bicycles function.
Here's the math. Work through it if you can....which I highly doubt.
From Mark McM:
Fp = (P/V)(1+Sine(2RT))
Fp = Propulsion force (pedaling)
P = Average power
V = Velocity
R = Pedaling revolution rate
T = Time
(Note: The angle in the sine term is double the pedal revolution rate, since there are two power strokes per revolution)
The drag forces on the rider are aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, and gravity. These three terms together are:
Fd = (1/2)CdRhoAV^2 + MgCrrCosine(S) + MgSin(S)
Fd = drag force
Cd = Coefficient of aerodynamic drag
Rho = Density of air
A = Frontal area
M = total mass of bike and rider
Crr= Coefficient of Rolling Resistance
g = Acceleration of gravity
S = Slope of road
The total force is thus:
F = Fp - Fd
From Newton's second law, the equation of motion is:
dV/dt = F/I
I = Inertia
Because there is both rotating and non-rotating mass, total mass and total inertial will not be the same. Because mass at the periphery of the wheel as twice the inertia as non-rotating weight, the total mass and inertia of a bike are:
M = Ms + Mr
I = Ms + 2Mr
Ms = Static mass
Mr = Rotating mass
The complete equation of motion is thus:
dV/dt = {(P/V)(1+sin(2RT)) - [ (1/2)CdRhoAV^2 + (Ms+Mr)gCrrCosine(S) + (Ms+Mr)gSine(S) ] } / (Ms + 2Mr)
Mark was nice enough to not write this in terms of vector calculus. After all, Pederast, it's probably hard enough for you to count your fingers. If you want I'll give you the vector equations, but you won't like it and certainly won't understand it.
Why are you here? Do you actually think anyone will take anything you say seriously? Do you just go forum to forum, getting laughed out of each one?
You might have better luck with people, Fafaine, if you just stick to your kind.
I know that post wasn't directed at me, but the bickering is getting annoying. That's great that you can copy stuff from a math book. However, very few will actually care to read it. Some people understand math, others don't. Those who understand it, probably don't care, and those who don't see it as gibberish. That's awesome that you totally dig vector calc, but don't boast about your abilities in a lower division math class, it's simply not cool.alienator said:
p.s. bonus points for copying from your book verbatim.
lbraasch said:
Wow. How'd you come to know so much? Apparently you weren't reading carefully.
- Pederast claimed that he could climb faster with Dura Ace or Ultegra gearing because it was lighter. I offered the tools that he could use to prove just how wrong he was.
- It's common practice in science to write equations that have been vetted without offering proof. It's a waste of time to prove things every time.
- It's not from a book, it's from Mark McM's post at Weight Weenies. Would you like it explained to you?
- Nice flame and all. Your kin must be very proud. However, you might want to pay attention next time to what is actually being said, because this time your assumptions were dead wrong.
FWIW, I'm not boasting any abilities. I will take people to task, though, when they make claims that are patently false according to the laws by which the Universe operates. Maybe you'd just prefer that people just stumble on, believing in myths and putting stock in ideas that don't hold water. Hmmmmm.
You know, the Earth isn't flat. Sorry to tell you that.
Gotta call BS on this.lbraasch said:
I started with 105, and, owing to a crash, upgraded shifters to DA. No change in the quality of front shifting. Had another crash and stripped the thread on my FD, so upgraded to ultegra. No change in the quality of front shifting. (The FDs are almost identical, in any case - only difference is materials and a little bit more meat on the 105 swing arm.) Using DA chain since before any of that.
Before you question my bike-tuning abilities, I'll let you know that front shifting was good before and remained crisp throughout.
So the only potential for difference in front shifting between 105 and Ultegra is in the quality of the chainrings, which are easily upgradeable anyway, if that is an issue. I'm still running the original 105 rings and am very happy with them.
For the OP, I would say that the difference is mostly bling, with a little difference in weight and varying longevity. Varying, in fact, in both ways - the solid steel 105 cassette is going to outlast a much lighter ultegra one, while 105 has some blights such as the **** bush on the upper jockey wheel.
Bang for buck, it's absolutely no contest.
Speed pertains to the rider's wattage, the rider's position and consequent drag, the tyres' aero drag and rolling resistance, the wheels' aero drag, and the frame's drag in roughly that order. Differences in efficiency between groupsets are small enough to either be effectively or actually unmeasurable (I recall reading someone authoritatively stating the latter).
Anyone who believes that personal experience tells them otherwise is a testament to the amazing power of autosuggestion and marketing.
Anyone who believes that personal experience tells them otherwise is a testament to the amazing power of autosuggestion and marketing.
artemidorus said:
Eggzakry. It's hilarious that someone would actually think that the differnce in gruppos would be the reason why someone could "only get up to 17mph" when before they could apparently haul ass at 20. Yeah. Let's see: aero losses from the wheels alone are larger than any mechanical losses on the bike. Considering that at 25mph the BEST aero wheels will only let you gain 0.3-0.4 mph, the whole 17-20 argument means that Pederast has poopee on his nose.
D'oh, so that's why I've never got the point of those ceramic bearings!alienator said:Jeez, plank, you forgot mechanical losses.
wow this became a long debate thread... nonetheless, thank you guys for the informations
from reading all this, my personal judgement is that i'll just keep the 105 until i'm a racer as i probly not feel any difference as for now but until then, maybe i'll consider changing to some better cables/cable housings for this 105 set. maybe the dura-ace cable/housing set?
from reading all this, my personal judgement is that i'll just keep the 105 until i'm a racer as i probly not feel any difference as for now
but until then, maybe i'll consider changing to some better cables/cable housings for this 105 set. maybe the dura-ace cable/housing set?
zaku said:wow this became a long debate thread... nonetheless, thank you guys for the informations
from reading all this, my personal judgement is that i'll just keep the 105 until i'm a racer as i probly not feel any difference as for now
It doesn't matter which shimano housings/cables you use.
just swap over to dura ace & feel the difference yourself - i dont see any of the pro riders riding a 105 groupie do you (WHY) - do the maths!!zaku said:wow this became a long debate thread... nonetheless, thank you guys for the informations
from reading all this, my personal judgement is that i'll just keep the 105 until i'm a racer as i probly not feel any difference as for now
