shimano gears

[m0rk]

When talking higher quality in what order are the gearing systems from
shimano like ...

Ive seen Sora, Dura-ace, 105 - all sorts but where in the line do they
come .... which ones would be more desirable for a standard tourer?

 

[dave]

m0rk wrote:
> When talking higher quality in what order are the gearing systems from
> shimano like ...
>
> Ive seen Sora, Dura-ace, 105 - all sorts but where in the line do they
> come .... which ones would be more desirable for a standard tourer?

Sora 105 ultegra Dura-ace. Anoter one in there somewhere.. Dura
ace is price is no object.. ultegra is what you would usually aim at
high end (assuming price is an object). All of em r ok

 

[vernon]

> Ive seen Sora, Dura-ace, 105 - all sorts but where in the line do they
> come .... which ones would be more desirable for a standard tourer?

Not always aplicable to tourers as the derailleur at the rear has to cope
with a gearing range that can only be accommodated by a mountain bike
derrailleur. The derrailleur at the front may also be from a mointan bike
range depending on the size of the chain rings at the front. It ougn't to
be a concern if you are buying a new tourer as the variation in derailleur
ranges fitted is very narrow when compared with mountain bikes. For what
it's worth, my Galaxy has Shimano Deore chaninrings and front derailleur.
Shimano Alivio rear derraileur and a Shimano megearange 7 speed cassette.
None of these components are original fittings but they do the job well..

Hve a quick look at the specs of tourers in the Galaxy price range and
you'll find the derailleurs pretty much the same spec.

 

[mb]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> When talking higher quality in what order are the gearing systems from
> shimano like ...
>
> Ive seen Sora, Dura-ace, 105 - all sorts but where in the line do they
> come .... which ones would be more desirable for a standard tourer?
>

I only know the road bike order, cheapest to most expensive;
Sora, Tiagra, 105, Ultegra, Dura-Ace.

--
Mike

 

[Peter B]

"m0rk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When talking higher quality in what order are the gearing systems from
> shimano like ...
>
> Ive seen Sora, Dura-ace, 105 - all sorts but where in the line do they
> come .... which ones would be more desirable for a standard tourer?

As pointed out by another poster the road range may not be totally
applicable for a tourer.
So mtb-wise: Deore, LX, XT, XTR.
Re rear mechs: There seems little or no difference between Deore and LX that
would affect life-span or function. Moving up to XT gains a ceramic top
jockey bearing and a sealed ball bearing in the lower, worth paying the
difference for mtbing IMO but for touring I'm not qualified to opine.

Moving up to XTR comes with a heavy law of diminishing returns penalty.

There are cheaper mtb groups than mentioned but I don't see the point unless
on a very tight budget, there are also other mtb groups (Saint & Hone) but
they have compatibility problems and offer nothing over the ones I've listed
according to magazine reports I've read.

http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/catalog...<>ast_id=1408474395181175&bmUID=1127553140733

--
Pete
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/P

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, m0rk
('[email protected]') wrote:

> When talking higher quality in what order are the gearing systems from
> shimano like ...
>
> Ive seen Sora, Dura-ace, 105 - all sorts but where in the line do they
> come .... which ones would be more desirable for a standard tourer?

The order of the road groupsets is Sora, 105, DuraAce, Ultegra, if I
recall correctly. But note that the Dawes Galaxy and Super Galaxy use
Deore and XT transmission components respectively, and those are
designed as mountain bike groupsets.

Road groupsets probably don't offer a wide enough gear range for heavily
loaded tourers. Also, because on a tourer the emphasis needs to be on
reliability rather than light weight, you probably want to avoid the top
of the range groupsets (Ultegra for road groupsets, XTR for off-road).
XTR in particular has a reputation for being light to the point of
flimsy, and thus probably not the best choice for a heavy rider.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?

 

[MartinM]

Simon Brooke wrote:


> The order of the road groupsets is Sora, 105, DuraAce, Ultegra, if I
> recall correctly.

nope; a glance at the prices in the Comic suggests Sora Tiagra 105
Ultegra Dura Ace; apparently Dura-Ace is so OTT price wise because Mr S
inspects each one.

 

[MSeries]

m0rk wrote:
> When talking higher quality in what order are the gearing systems from
> shimano like ...
>
> Ive seen Sora, Dura-ace, 105 - all sorts but where in the line do they
> come .... which ones would be more desirable for a standard tourer?

My tourer has had its components changed radically over the years, here
is what it has

Hubs: Deore XT (1990)
Rear Mech: Deore XT (2003)
Front Mech: 105 (2003)
Front shifter:105 (1988)
Rear shifter: Dura Ace(2003)
Brake levers: Exage Motion (1988)


Front brake: Accor
rear brake: Alhonga


I am not necessarily recommending any of the above, they are what I
have. I prefer to use nothing lower than Deore XT and 105 compnents on
my bikes, a good mix of style, durability and lightness.

 

[POHB]

There was this thread recently
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.misc/browse_frm/thread/b9c52f132651b5ce
where the correct order of shimano gears was thrashed to death.


"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, m0rk
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> When talking higher quality in what order are the gearing systems from
>> shimano like ...
>>
>> Ive seen Sora, Dura-ace, 105 - all sorts but where in the line do they
>> come .... which ones would be more desirable for a standard tourer?
>
> The order of the road groupsets is Sora, 105, DuraAce, Ultegra, if I
> recall correctly. But note that the Dawes Galaxy and Super Galaxy use
> Deore and XT transmission components respectively, and those are
> designed as mountain bike groupsets.
>
> Road groupsets probably don't offer a wide enough gear range for heavily
> loaded tourers. Also, because on a tourer the emphasis needs to be on
> reliability rather than light weight, you probably want to avoid the top
> of the range groupsets (Ultegra for road groupsets, XTR for off-road).
> XTR in particular has a reputation for being light to the point of
> flimsy, and thus probably not the best choice for a heavy rider.
>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?
>

 

[David Martin]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, m0rk
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > When talking higher quality in what order are the gearing systems from
> > shimano like ...
> >
> > Ive seen Sora, Dura-ace, 105 - all sorts but where in the line do they
> > come .... which ones would be more desirable for a standard tourer?
>
> The order of the road groupsets is Sora, 105, DuraAce, Ultegra, if I
> recall correctly. But note that the Dawes Galaxy and Super Galaxy use
> Deore and XT transmission components respectively, and those are
> designed as mountain bike groupsets.
>
> Road groupsets probably don't offer a wide enough gear range for heavily
> loaded tourers.

Correct. The road triple setups typically cant cope with a rear
sprocket larger than 28t (they claim 27 or 26.) MTB ones can use
megarange (up to 34t)

> Also, because on a tourer the emphasis needs to be on
> reliability rather than light weight, you probably want to avoid the top
> of the range groupsets (Ultegra for road groupsets, XTR for off-road).

Ultegra is not to be avoided on reliability grounds. It is really good
stuff and, as with XT, the counterpart on teh MTB side, very good value
for money if you are going to run it for its full lifespan. Dura-Ace
and XTR are as good quality (or slightly better) but optimised for
light weight so may not be as reliable (but are what you would choose
for racing).

> XTR in particular has a reputation for being light to the point of
> flimsy, and thus probably not the best choice for a heavy rider.

Any named groupset will be acceptable quality when new. The main
difference is how long it will last in good condition. IME XT/Ultegra
is well worth the price as it just keeps on going. Ultegra hubs are
excellent if looked after and will go tens of thousands of miles and
more (I weigh the wrong side of 90 kilos and run them on 23-25mm tyres
so they get a fair workout).

I have tried MTB mechs of various sorts and by far the best is XT (not
the rapid rise type). Bearings don't wear, the jockey wheels keep
going.

I was not too impressed with my LX hubs though it may have been bad
initial set up. I have to change the cones and balls (though the
internal races are good).

MTB and Road groupsets are essentially interchangeable except for the
brakes. Road brakes use a different amount of cable pull to V-brakes so
may need an adapter. You may also find the shape of the front mech
better for small chainsets if you get an MTB one.

For the record:

Road bike: RLX shifters (2nd hand 2003) and brakes (1998) - these are
not working as well as I would like but are functional.
Hubs - Ultegra (1988) except the freehub body which was swapped for a
cheap hyperglide one off an MTB). Front mech - Sante (1988), rear mech
Ultegra 2005 long cage, Dura Ace adjustable cable stops (good kit).
Rims - Open 4CD. I built the wheels myself. Chainset TA Carmina compact
double replacing Ultegra double (1988 165mm length) BB UN72 repacing
the original Ultegra - still perfect after 30K miles. Just swapped the
Uniglide sprockets for a hyperglide one (13-28). I'll pick up a close
ration block for TT's next year.

MTB: XT rapidfire rear shifter, SRAM centra front shifter (can't find a
decent trimmable rapidfire front changer that I can justify buying),
Deore front mech replacing 8yo Alivio, XT rear mech. After going
through three mechs in six months just commuting, XT was worth the
money. One Shimano rapid-rise mech lasted one week before it started to
miss shifts. SRAM 5.0 got binned because the jockey wheels went and
getting replacements was problematic. Brakes : Deore V on rear, Deore
LX on front. They eat rims. Levers are Deore. Hubs are LX. Rear one is
still perfect, Front requires new cones/balls. They'll require new rims
soon. Probably after the winter.

In short, the MTB has run mostly on cheaper components which have cost
more over the time and miles I have had it than the more expensive
components on the road bike. Getting more expensive stuff on the MTB is
making a difference to the hassle you get from worn out components.

If you have the money and will use the bike enough, buy XT/Ultegra and
you won't regret it 10 years down the line.

...d

 

[m0rk]

> more (I weigh the wrong side of 90 kilos and run them on 23-25mm tyres
> so they get a fair workout).

Hey ... were the same weight then ... I also weigh the wrong side of 90
kilos ;o)

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, David
Martin ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, m0rk
>> Also, because on a tourer the emphasis needs to be on
>> reliability rather than light weight, you probably want to avoid the
>> top of the range groupsets (Ultegra for road groupsets, XTR for
>> off-road).
>
> Ultegra is not to be avoided on reliability grounds. It is really good
> stuff and, as with XT, the counterpart on teh MTB side, very good value
> for money if you are going to run it for its full lifespan. Dura-Ace
> and XTR are as good quality (or slightly better) but optimised for
> light weight so may not be as reliable (but are what you would choose
> for racing).
>
>> XTR in particular has a reputation for being light to the point of
>> flimsy, and thus probably not the best choice for a heavy rider.
>
> Any named groupset will be acceptable quality when new. The main
> difference is how long it will last in good condition.

I've seen XTR cassettes in which the larger cogs have crumpled in their
first race, less than one week out of the box. That counts as 'flimsy'
in my book.

> I have tried MTB mechs of various sorts and by far the best is XT (not
> the rapid rise type). Bearings don't wear, the jockey wheels keep
> going.

I've dumped the XT rear derailleur on my favourite bike in favour of SRAM
X.9, largely for better shifting; this summer I've had to do an
emergency replacement of an XTR rear derailleur on someone else's bike
because the bearings were worn beyond repair (if we could have got new
jockey wheels for it in time it would not have been replaced).

My personal opinion is that Shimano are OK-ish value for money in the
middle of the range, but at the top end of the range they are not as
good as the alternatives (which, to be fair, tend to be more expensive).

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ring of great evil
Small one casts it into flame
Bringing rise of Men ;; gonzoron

 

[Peter Headland]

> I've seen XTR cassettes in which the larger cogs have crumpled
> in their first race, less than one week out of the box. That counts
> as 'flimsy' in my book.

That problem certainly used to (see below) happen when people shifted
to the larger sprockets, which are made of titanium. Given sufficent
force on the shifter, the chain could be jammed sideways into the next
cog up hard enough to bend it. The same thing could happen in a fall if
the shifter got hit the right way.

In response Shimano invented "rapid rise" - the idea was that since the
down-shifts are driven by a spring, not a cable pull, they can't
crumple the cogs. The clever part was making rapid rise into a
marketing "benefit" (saved them from having to admit the screwed up). I
believe that they also strengthened the cogs. I don't know if the
problem still exists.

Whatever the case, all manufacturers eventually make these sorts of
mistakes (Campagnolo have had their share), especially in the high end
stuff where they are often pushing lightness over strength and use
frou-frou designer materials for marketing reasons. In and of itself,
that doesn't prove that they will never make anything worth using/all
their stuff is flimsy/their stuff isn't durable, etc. (I know you
didn't say that, Simon). The way this stuff gets totally re-engineered
every few years, comments based on experiences with earlier ranges have
limited value unless there is a clear long-term pattern.

--
Peter Headland

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Peter
Headland ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Whatever the case, all manufacturers eventually make these sorts of
> mistakes (Campagnolo have had their share), especially in the high end
> stuff where they are often pushing lightness over strength and use
> frou-frou designer materials for marketing reasons. In and of itself,
> that doesn't prove that they will never make anything worth using/all
> their stuff is flimsy/their stuff isn't durable, etc. (I know you
> didn't say that, Simon).

Nope, but it does mean that it you're building up a tandem for touring
(which is where I think this thread started) then using /anyone's/ top
of the range groupset is probably a mistake, and you're better off one
or two groupsets down, where reliability takes priority over extreme
lightness, and you're a bit further from the cutting edge of technology.
It's often said that Chorus is last year's Record, but in practice
Chorus is what has been learned from people racing last year's Record
pretty hard, and will usually be a bit more reliable.

That was all I was really saying when I suggested the OP avoid XTR or
Ultegra.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

 

[David Martin]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Peter
> Headland ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > Whatever the case, all manufacturers eventually make these sorts of
> > mistakes (Campagnolo have had their share), especially in the high end
> > stuff where they are often pushing lightness over strength and use
> > frou-frou designer materials for marketing reasons. In and of itself,
> > that doesn't prove that they will never make anything worth using/all
> > their stuff is flimsy/their stuff isn't durable, etc. (I know you
> > didn't say that, Simon).
>
> Nope, but it does mean that it you're building up a tandem for touring
> (which is where I think this thread started) then using /anyone's/ top
> of the range groupset is probably a mistake, and you're better off one
> or two groupsets down, where reliability takes priority over extreme
> lightness, and you're a bit further from the cutting edge of technology.
> It's often said that Chorus is last year's Record, but in practice
> Chorus is what has been learned from people racing last year's Record
> pretty hard, and will usually be a bit more reliable.
>
> That was all I was really saying when I suggested the OP avoid XTR or
> Ultegra.

I'd put Ultegra more on a par with XT (which I have found to be very
good) and avoid Dura Ace instead.
Good Dura Ace is excellent and long lasting.. but by the time you know
which bits will be durable it is either no longer available or you have
made a number of expensive mistakes.

 

[Clive George]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Nope, but it does mean that it you're building up a tandem for touring
> (which is where I think this thread started)

Normal tourer, but still relevant

> then using /anyone's/ top
> of the range groupset is probably a mistake, and you're better off one
> or two groupsets down, where reliability takes priority over extreme
> lightness, and you're a bit further from the cutting edge of technology.

Certainly true for cassettes. XT are lovely light things, but I won't have
them on the MTB tandem - the rings are a little weak for my ham fisted
gearchanging. LX (or possibly Nexave) hasn't failed yet..

cheers,
clive

 

[Peter Headland]

> avoid [...] Ultegra

Did you mean Dura Ace? My observation has been that Ultegra/105* are
probably the best balance of durability and functionality in Shimano's
road range. * - Some of the Ultegra stuff appears identical to 105
except for the finish and price tag. The triple front certainly used to
be indistinguishable between the two ranges. OTOH, Ultegra cranks used
to be noticeably nicer than 105.

Dura Ace has definitely had its issues (the double bottom brackets of a
few years ago that were notorious for letting water in and failing
prematurely, for example). The other problem with DA is that Shimano
don't make much effort to maintain backward or sideways compatibility
(why on earth does a DA9 triple shifter not work with any other type of
Shimano road triple mech. and vice-versa for example?)

--
Peter Headland