Re: Shimano Sora group components compared to early 90's tourney

[Peter Cole]

RonSonic wrote:
> On 07 May 2005 11:19:04 EDT, justareader <[email protected]> wrote:
>

>>I realize that the Sora components are heavy as a boat anchor with
>>steel chain rings etc. Are they durable and fairly low maintenance?
>
>
> ********. This weight obsession is a bunch of advertiser and magazine writer
> ********. Sora does weigh more than the higher end models, that's why it costs
> less. Sora is not excessively or unreasonably heavy, just heavier than something
> that costs twice as much.

A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
something.

 

[m-gineering]

Peter Cole wrote:
>
> RonSonic wrote:
> > On 07 May 2005 11:19:04 EDT, justareader <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>
> >>I realize that the Sora components are heavy as a boat anchor with
> >>steel chain rings etc. Are they durable and fairly low maintenance?
> >
> >
> > ********. This weight obsession is a bunch of advertiser and magazine writer
> > ********. Sora does weigh more than the higher end models, that's why it costs
> > less. Sora is not excessively or unreasonably heavy, just heavier than something
> > that costs twice as much.
>
> A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
> something.

according to my catalogues (2001, in later editions the weight isn't
listed or listed as 170 grams!) 200 grams more (Tiagra 100), and 50 for
the axle. Saves a lot of money for nicer tyres
--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

 

[Peter Cole]

m-gineering wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:

>>A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
>>something.
>
>
> according to my catalogues (2001, in later editions the weight isn't
> listed or listed as 170 grams!) 200 grams more (Tiagra 100), and 50 for
> the axle. Saves a lot of money for nicer tyres

According to on-line retailers, Sora is ~950g, 105 ~650g.

I'll take the nice crank and the cheap tires, thanks.

 

[m-gineering]

Peter Cole wrote:
>
> m-gineering wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
>
> >>A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
> >>something.
> >
> >
> > according to my catalogues (2001, in later editions the weight isn't
> > listed or listed as 170 grams!) 200 grams more (Tiagra 100), and 50 for
> > the axle. Saves a lot of money for nicer tyres
>
> According to on-line retailers, Sora is ~950g, 105 ~650g.
>
> I'll take the nice crank and the cheap tires, thanks.

Customer is always right....
--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

 

[Jim Smith]

Peter Cole <[email protected]> writes:

> m-gineering wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>>A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
>>>something.
>> according to my catalogues (2001, in later editions the weight isn't
>> listed or listed as 170 grams!) 200 grams more (Tiagra 100), and 50 for
>> the axle. Saves a lot of money for nicer tyres
>
> According to on-line retailers, Sora is ~950g, 105 ~650g.

Yeah, but the Sora cranks use steel rings, which last three times
longer than aluminium, so you are really looking at 950g vs 1950g.
You save the equivalent of a liter of water using Sora. Drink up!

 

[Peter Cole]

Jim Smith wrote:
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>m-gineering wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>>>A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
>>>>something.
>>>
>>>according to my catalogues (2001, in later editions the weight isn't
>>>listed or listed as 170 grams!) 200 grams more (Tiagra 100), and 50 for
>>>the axle. Saves a lot of money for nicer tyres
>>
>>According to on-line retailers, Sora is ~950g, 105 ~650g.
>
>
> Yeah, but the Sora cranks use steel rings, which last three times
> longer than aluminium, so you are really looking at 950g vs 1950g.
> You save the equivalent of a liter of water using Sora. Drink up!
>

I can understand steel MTB chainrings, but not road, unless you ride in
a very windy place and need the ballast.

 

[m-gineering]

Peter Cole wrote:

>
> According to on-line retailers, Sora is ~950g, 105 ~650g.

apples and oranges, ie triple and double chainset. 105 triple is 745

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

 

[Peter Cole]

m-gineering wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>
>>According to on-line retailers, Sora is ~950g, 105 ~650g.
>
>
> apples and oranges, ie triple and double chainset. 105 triple is 745
>
I was comparing double to double.

 

[RonSonic]

On Sun, 08 May 2005 11:40:49 -0400, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>> On 07 May 2005 11:19:04 EDT, justareader <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>>>I realize that the Sora components are heavy as a boat anchor with
>>>steel chain rings etc. Are they durable and fairly low maintenance?
>>
>>
>> ********. This weight obsession is a bunch of advertiser and magazine writer
>> ********. Sora does weigh more than the higher end models, that's why it costs
>> less. Sora is not excessively or unreasonably heavy, just heavier than something
>> that costs twice as much.
>
>A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
>something.

It's about ten ounces. Yeah, ten ounces here, ten ounces there and pretty soon
you're talking a real weight difference. But there isn't that kind of weight
difference in the other components so it's moot.

Ron

 

[Callistus Valerius]

I can understand steel MTB chainrings, but not road, unless you ride in
> a very windy place and need the ballast.

So that's why my sora bike works better than my ultegra in the wind.

 

[Peter Cole]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 11:40:49 -0400, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
>>something.
>
>
> It's about ten ounces. Yeah, ten ounces here, ten ounces there and pretty soon
> you're talking a real weight difference. But there isn't that kind of weight
> difference in the other components so it's moot.

It's not moot, it's less than $100/lb, which is a reasonable ROI, even
down in the fairly low end.

 

[justareader]

On Mon, 09 May 2005 07:16:15 -0400, Peter Cole
<[email protected]> wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 May 2005 11:40:49 -0400, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
>>>something.
>>
>>
>> It's about ten ounces. Yeah, ten ounces here, ten ounces there and pretty soon
>> you're talking a real weight difference. But there isn't that kind of weight
>> difference in the other components so it's moot.
>
>It's not moot, it's less than $100/lb, which is a reasonable ROI, even
>down in the fairly low end.

Definately a consideration for racers that accelerate frequently. In
my case the old school rat trap pedals with the bolt on grease cups
i'm using add quite a bit of flywheel effect anyways.

 

[Jim Smith]

justareader <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 09 May 2005 07:16:15 -0400, Peter Cole
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>RonSonic wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 May 2005 11:40:49 -0400, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
>>>>something.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's about ten ounces. Yeah, ten ounces here, ten ounces there and pretty soon
>>> you're talking a real weight difference. But there isn't that kind of weight
>>> difference in the other components so it's moot.
>>
>>It's not moot, it's less than $100/lb, which is a reasonable ROI, even
>>down in the fairly low end.
>
> Definately a consideration for racers that accelerate frequently. In
> my case the old school rat trap pedals with the bolt on grease cups
> i'm using add quite a bit of flywheel effect anyways.

They certainly do, as can be demonstrated by removing the chain and
noticing how much effort it takes to spin the cranks up to speed.
Oh... never mind.