Expen$ive Component$ == Bike Bling?

[Pete Biggs]

pinnah wrote:

>> Machined rims provide better braking at first.
>
> Does this feature go away with wear?

It does. I like the slightly rough grooved-effect some machined rims have
(varies from example to example) but they do eventually smooth out --
although that can take some time if grooves are deep and you don't ride
much in the wet.

Also there's no chance of any bad rim join to interfere with braking --
but that can be fixed on non-machined rims by filing.

>> Shifting feel, more gears.
>
> Could you expound on the issue of shifting "feel". Is Ultegra or 105
> noticably more crisp in its shifting compared to Sora/RSX level stuff?
> And to be clear, you are talking about Brifters here, not RDs, right?

Brifters yes. Campag Chorus Ergos have a slightly lighter shifting action
than Mirage, IME, even though the designs are basically similar.
Difference between Shimano STI designs are greater (both internally &
externally), and ergonomically, Sora STIs are very different from 105's as
they have a thumb button to shift to smaller sprockets instead of finger
lever. I'll leave more detailed reviews to readers who use Shimano more
than me. (As you might tell from my replies, I'm using Campag on my road
bikes now).

>>> + Front [& rear] derailleurs?
>>> - Shifting performance, weight, durabiltiy, adjustability?
>>
>> Performance, durabilty & adjustability is not a problem for modern
>> low-end Campag & Shimano mechs, IME.
>
> Interesting. Is it your experience that Sora level stuff will shift
> as cleanly and crisply as 105 or Ultegra stuff?

Again I'll pass on "105 v Ultegra", but Xenon (bottom of the range Campag)
rear derailleurs shift just as well as much more expensive Racing T
Campagnolo derailleurs, in my experience, and modern bottom-end Shimano
MTB derailleurs work very well indeed on my brother's mountain bike: I
can't imagine the need for better ones in terms of shifting performance.

>> One factor you don't mention is appearance. Definitely /some/ of the
>> extra money you spend on more expensive stuff is purely for a shinier
>> finish or a fancier shape, and for a badge with more cred.
>
> Heh!! If it was all about appearance, I would still be riding lugged
> steel!!!



cheers
~PB

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

>So, this begs an obvious question. Is there *any* advantage to more
>expensive components other than weight? If so, what are they and
>can a recreational rider actually feel them?

The higher end stuff from Campy and Shimano are usually more durable.

>To get the juices going, here is a starting point...
>+ Wheels, spokes and rims?
> - Weight, durability, braking smoothness, braking power?

Dboule butted spokes, that are lighter than straight gauge, will build
more durable wheels.

>+ Hubs?
> - Speed/efficiency, durability, lower maintenance?

Better sealing on the hub bearings. Your lower end hubs would need to be
really, really, nasty to have noticeably higher drag.

>+ Bottom brackets?
> - Speed/efficiency, durability, lower maintenance?

Same as hubs.

>+ Brake calipers?
> - Braking power, braking feel, adjustability, durability?

All of the above except for braking power. Brake shoes make a big
difference.

>+ Brake levers/brifters?
> - Braking power, braking feel, repairability, durability,
>adjustability?

Shift feel is different. Not much to adjust on these, so no difference.

>+ Crank sets?
> - Shifting performance, weight, durability, stiffness (power)?

Weight. Also, stiffness has nothing to do with power.

>+ Front derailleurs?
> - Shifting performance, weight, durabiltiy, adjustability?

weight.

>+ Rear derailluers?
> - Shifting performance, weight, durabiltiy, adjustability?

weight and durability.

>+ Bars, stems and posts?
> - Weight, stiffness, shock absorbtion/comfort, adjustability,
>suspension?

weight.

------------
Alex

 

[Donald Gillies]

I upgraded my bikes when I was a kid in the 1970's. Back then, extra
$$ bought you these advantages :

1. better aesthetics. back then innovation was pretty stagnant and so
manufacturers competed on aesthetics much more. campagnolo was
king and their stuff was timelessly beautiful. ultegra and dura
ace were much more beautiful too.

2. better manufacturing tolerances. components might last 2x-5x
longer, at the very least, easily justifying their price.
campagnolo used grade 25 lot-selected ball bearings. that means
the roundness tolerance was grade 25 - much higher than standard
grade 100 - and all the bearings came from the same manufacturing
run so they were very close in diameter. high-end stuff had races
that were precision ground, not stamped. T-7075 chainrings and
crank arms on campagnolo resulted in longer chainring wear (but
more cracked crank arms, eventually.)

3. lighter weight. this was not a big deal back in the 1970's since
an aluminum crank weighs roughly the same as an .. aluminum crank,
no matter who makes it, no matter T7075 or T6061.

4. better function. the cheapest derailleurs (simplex delrin, huret)
didn't shift well, especially after aging. The best ones (suntour
VGT and cyclone - underpriced, simplex SLJ) shifted very very well.

======

nowadays, when you spend more money you get :

1. mild increase in aesthetics. nobody makes stuff as nice as the
old days. nobody polishes components the way campagnolo did in
the 1970's and 1980's.

2. i think that maybe shimano 105 and campagnolo veloce stuff might
be using grade 25 bearings today. please correct me if i'm wrong.
manufacturing has come a long way. on the other hand, component
makers might intentionally use softer aluminum and stamped races
just to force the customer to pay a "wear out tax".

3. lighter weight. lots of carbon and titanium stuff is available.
in most case the carbon stuff doesn't last, and you are paying a
"stupid tax" when you buy carbon componentry. Not only that, but
carbon components cannot be refinished / repolished. Once it's
natty, its beauty is gone forever.

4. better function. indexed drivetrains are so tricky to design that
basically there are only 2 - campagnolo and shimano. therefore,
you can shift a dura ace derailleur with a sora brifter etc.
similarly, you can shift a record derailleur with a mirage
brifter. the parts are geometrically equivalent on both lines of
derailleurs (not always interchangable, however.) because of that
requirement that shifting must be early and precise with an
indexed drivetrain, the function of the low end componentry today
has never been better, imho.

nowadays, the campagnolo nuovo record parts would be a 50-50 mix of
centaur and chorus (non-carbon) parts. and it would work a whole lot
better than campagnolo record parts, although it would be uglier and
less durable than the 1970's stuff.

if you are looking to upgrade i don't think benefit #4 makes sense any
more, and neither does benefit #1. A lot of the reason to upgrade
parts has simply disappeared, and along with it, alot of the
mechanical fun in bicycles has disappeared in the last 15 years.

=====

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

 

[StaceyJ]

Drew,
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but do you have any
quantitative evidence for your claims? Specifically:

"Machined rims provide better braking when wet" - I've never noticed
this myself (of course, the braking surface on most of my machined rims
have already worn through the tooling marks and are essentially
identical to non-machined varieties)

"Ball bearing brake calipers work better" - Better? How? The best
calipers I've used to date have been an NOS pair of 600 ultegra dual
pivots with kool stop pads (before Shimano decided to go on a
lightening spree with their brakes). Stiff as hell, and very
responsive. Of course, they could have doubled as boat anchors. As
there was no slop at the bushings, I don't see how BB could improve
things.

"Campy brifters have a better user interface than Shimano" - I
absolutely concede the point about rebuildability, but for my
(smallish) hands, I find that the new Shimano brifters are the best
fit. Any question of ergonomics is generally best left to the
individual.

SYJ

 

[pinnah]

[email protected] (Donald Gillies) wrote:
>I upgraded my bikes when I was a kid in the 1970's. Back then, extra
>$$ bought you these advantages :
>
>1. better aesthetics. back then innovation was pretty stagnant and so
> manufacturers competed on aesthetics much more. campagnolo was
> king and their stuff was timelessly beautiful. ultegra and dura
> ace were much more beautiful too.

And Superbe. I never liked the futuristic styling of Shimano and found
old Campy to be pretty bouroque. But Superbe was pretty. The shop I
worked in was definitely SunTour biased, and I'm sure that rubbed off.


>2. better manufacturing tolerances. components might last 2x-5x
> longer, at the very least, easily justifying their price.
> campagnolo used grade 25 lot-selected ball bearings.

This is what I recall. The old (non-sealed) high end stuff would spin
forever. I've been out of touch so long that I have no way to compare
the quasi-rubber-sealed bearing like the RSX I'm currently on, much
less the high end sealed stuff like Phil Wood. All of them feel
"stiff" to my hand but that means nothing I reckon.


>nowadays, when you spend more money you get :
>2. i think that maybe shimano 105 and campagnolo veloce stuff might
> be using grade 25 bearings today. please correct me if i'm wrong.
> manufacturing has come a long way. on the other hand, component
> makers might intentionally use softer aluminum and stamped races
> just to force the customer to pay a "wear out tax".

Knowing this type of distinction would be most helpful. As I noted
above, I can't tell by feel.


Thanks for the input

 

[Tom Kunich]

"pinnah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Are there discernable differences between expensive components like
> Campy or DuraAce and less expensive stuff like Shimano Sora?

There is a very noticable difference in the operation of DuraAce and Record
or Chorus and those levels below. Whether it makes a hill of beans or not is
a personal opinion. I have some old Mirage components that are still working
fine after 5 or 6 years and lots and lots of miles. They don't shift very
smoothly but what do I care?

Wheels however DO make a complete difference. Low end wheels suck but you
can't tell that until you have a lot of experience with poor wheels and then
a lot more with good wheels and then go back to the lower end wheels for
awhile. You can ride further and faster on good wheels with less fatigue.
Again, that might not make any difference to you. A guy that was riding with
me over the weekend had a Motiv that he rides on training rides because it
weighs 40 lbs, has all sorts of friction and then getting on his good bike
makes him feel like Superman.

> If so, what are they and how good of a rider do you need to be to able
> to tell the difference?

That really isn't the point. Good components aren't "good" because they're
expensive. They're expensive because all of the time it takes to make them
better, to pay for better materials, more expensive manufacturing processes
such as cold forging instead of hot pour castings.

You DO get what you pay for but in practical terms you don't get a lot of
gain after the middle quality stuff like 105 or Ultegra in Shimano or Veloce
and Centaur in Campy.

 

[Lou Holtman]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "pinnah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Are there discernable differences between expensive components like
>>Campy or DuraAce and less expensive stuff like Shimano Sora?
>
>
> There is a very noticable difference in the operation of DuraAce and Record
> or Chorus and those levels below. Whether it makes a hill of beans or not is
> a personal opinion. I have some old Mirage components that are still working
> fine after 5 or 6 years and lots and lots of miles. They don't shift very
> smoothly but what do I care?
>
> Wheels however DO make a complete difference. Low end wheels suck but you
> can't tell that until you have a lot of experience with poor wheels and then
> a lot more with good wheels and then go back to the lower end wheels for
> awhile. You can ride further and faster on good wheels with less fatigue.
> Again, that might not make any difference to you. A guy that was riding with
> me over the weekend had a Motiv that he rides on training rides because it
> weighs 40 lbs, has all sorts of friction and then getting on his good bike
> makes him feel like Superman.
>
>
>>If so, what are they and how good of a rider do you need to be to able
>>to tell the difference?
>
>
> That really isn't the point. Good components aren't "good" because they're
> expensive. They're expensive because all of the time it takes to make them
> better, to pay for better materials, more expensive manufacturing processes
> such as cold forging instead of hot pour castings.
>
> You DO get what you pay for but in practical terms you don't get a lot of
> gain after the middle quality stuff like 105 or Ultegra in Shimano or Veloce
> and Centaur in Campy.
>
>


I agree with Tom. In general things are getting better/durable until
105/Ultegra or Veloce/Centaur. After that it is mostly bling/weight.
BTW there is nothing wrong with bike bling. Some people have watches
costing thousands of dollars an yet they only tell time.

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu

 

[pinnah]

Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wheels however DO make a complete difference. Low end wheels suck but you
>> can't tell that until you have a lot of experience with poor wheels and then
>> a lot more with good wheels and then go back to the lower end wheels for
>> awhile. You can ride further and faster on good wheels with less fatigue.

Lou, this is very interesting. Couple of quick follow ups if I
could....

1) Could you describe what make a good wheel?
+ Quality of the hubs?
+ Style of the rim (aero or no)?
+ Construction of the rim?
+ Weight of the rim?
+ Number or lacing pattern of the spokes?
+ Overall weight of the wheel?

2) In what way are the faster?
+ Climb better?
+ Accelerate better?
+ Faster on the flats?
+ Better handling (less gyro effect)?

Thanks for the help and insight!

 

[Tom Kunich]

"pinnah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Wheels however DO make a complete difference. Low end wheels suck but
>>> you
>>> can't tell that until you have a lot of experience with poor wheels and
>>> then
>>> a lot more with good wheels and then go back to the lower end wheels for
>>> awhile. You can ride further and faster on good wheels with less
>>> fatigue.
>
> Lou, this is very interesting. Couple of quick follow ups if I
> could....
>
> 1) Could you describe what make a good wheel?

Low rolling resistance. This isn't something you can feel by riding a couple
of feet but if you have a lot of experience and know your body well, after
20 miles or so you can tell something is right with good wheels.

> + Quality of the hubs?

Record, Chorus or DuraAce from the components people. Mavic hubs are very
good rollers.

> + Style of the rim (aero or no)?

Not aero unless you're racing.

> + Construction of the rim?

Aluminum. As far as I'm concerned, the best rims EVER were the Mavic Open
4CD and the Campagnolo look-alike. When you're 30 miles out a country road
you don't want to find out that you only have short stem innertubes and your
rims require long stems.

> + Weight of the rim?

All rims are heavy these days.

> + Number or lacing pattern of the spokes?

32 Spoke 3 cross.

> + Overall weight of the wheel?

Under 1900 grams.

> 2) In what way are the faster?

Put on your brake so that it just touches once in awhile and then go try to
keep up with the fast guys in your local club. After 5 or 10 miles you'll be
absolutely amazed at how tired you are. This demonstrates that what you
might not consider as much rolling resistance adds up to substantial amounts
of energy very rapidly. Wheels are this way. You don't actually feel the
wheels are faster but after 20 miles or more you are fresher and able to go
harder.

> + Climb better?
> + Accelerate better?
> + Faster on the flats?
> + Better handling (less gyro effect)?

 

[Bruce Jackson]

But how much of the effect you site is psychological? I remember back
in my racing days being without a good sewup before a training ride. I
had neither money for a new sewup nor time to patch a punctured one.
Just so I could make the training ride I threw on the wheels from my
commuter bike. It had touring rims and wide enough tires (28mm) that I
didn't need to pump them up every day. I figured that I'd be at such a
disadvantage that I'd just stay on as long as I could. In the heat of
battle I quit thinking about being handicaped by heavy slow wheels and
just thought about the ride and ended up staying on as well as
contesting the city limit sign sprints as well as I usually did. I'm
not claiming that light wheels and fast tires don't make any difference
but I think that perception often mirrors anticipation. The difference
isn't as great as we think it is.

 

[John Thompson]

On 2005-04-22, Tom Kunich <[email protected]> wrote:
> "pinnah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> 1) Could you describe what make a good wheel?

> Low rolling resistance.

Rolling resistance is more a property of the tires than the wheels.

>> + Quality of the hubs?
>
> Record, Chorus or DuraAce from the components people. Mavic hubs are very
> good rollers.

Under load, you would be hard pressed to discern a significant difference
between the way the top-end Campy or Shimano hubs and the low-end Wald
hubs ride. High end components are made to closer tolerances and will feel
smoother when unloaded, though. They are also much more reliable and
durable. If you're the type of person who feels a compelling need to
replace equipment on the basis of fashion rather than waiting until it is
worn out, you would probably be best served by mid-level components. If,
OTOH, you expect to be riding those same hubs 20 years from now, go for
the high end.

>> + Weight of the rim?
>
> All rims are heavy these days.

You can still get nice, light sew-up rims.

>> + Climb better?
>> + Accelerate better?

Lighter wheels will accellerate more easily.

>> + Better handling (less gyro effect)?

A good set of silk tubulars can't be beat!

--

John ([email protected])