# Shimano Gears



## yorkshiregoth (29 Dec 2007)

Is there a great deal of difference between Shimano Sora and Tiagra and 105 and Ultegra and Dura-Ace?


----------



## fossyant (29 Dec 2007)

Basically, the bit's get a bit better and lighter, and more expensive.

Better by quality of parts, better bearings, better finish/polishing... Once into 105 and above the difference is smaller. I run Ultegra and Dura Ace on my two road bikes - it's all fairly old, but works well. The Dura Ace stuff is better finished and has a more crisp feel/operation than Ultegra. Strictly speaking, it should last longer. For example, my DA rear mech is 16 years old, the jocky wheels still smooth and the mech has no play at all (i.e. not loose) - worth the extra...yes.

Depends upon your budget and the riding it will get. For example, Ultegra will last much longer in adverse conditions than Sora, and the price differential isn't hugeh. Ultegra to Dura Ace....not much in it !


----------



## Chuffy (29 Dec 2007)

They rank in this order:-

Dura-Ace
Ultegra
105
Tiagra
Sora

Conventional wisdom has it that for anything but a committed racer, 105 is more than adequate and any difference is negligible.

The main actual difference is in weight and materials. Unless you have a complete groupset, inc the chainset, there isn't much in it really. Unless you are a complete weight weeny of course. I have D-A on my Sunday best bike. I only got it because I wanted to have the 'best'. With the benefit of hindsight I would have got 'lesser' mechanicals and spent the money saved on better wheels (or even a better frame).


----------



## bonj2 (29 Dec 2007)

nowadays, higher end ones are just lighter. no other difference really.
in the past they may have been slightly better made but not much.


----------



## Steve Austin (29 Dec 2007)

Bonj, GET OUT of know-how. Comments like that are completely worthless and wrong.

there is a world of difference between Dura-Ace and sora, and it appears you don't know this.

For example:
shifting is better in the higher quality groupsets
the more expensive sets last longer
Also they're are lots of individual nuances to each range , and you could find someone running a specific component form one range because its available in that gearing, ie cassette ratio


----------



## bonj2 (29 Dec 2007)

Steve Austin said:


> Bonj, GET OUT of know-how. Comments like that are completely worthless and wrong.
> 
> there is a world of difference between Dura-Ace and sora, and it appears you don't know this.
> 
> ...



well, that's not what i've heard.


----------



## Steve Austin (29 Dec 2007)

Have you ever used dura-ace, ultegra, 105, tiagra, sora?

would you be able to tell the difference between your arse and your elbow them?


----------



## bonj2 (29 Dec 2007)

Steve Austin said:


> Have you ever used dura-ace, ultegra, 105, tiagra, sora?
> 
> would you be able to tell the difference between your arse and your elbow them?



certain bike shop staff admit dura-ace is only lighter, this isn't in the bike shop's best interest as they want you to buy dura-ace, and thinking there's something more to it would make you more likely to.

certain cyclists say dura-ace is more than just lighter, this IS in their best interest as they want to feel like there was a point in them spending all that extra money on it.

who's more likely to be right...


----------



## Steve Austin (29 Dec 2007)

Bonj, move away from KNOW HOW. you are just spouting nonsense about products you know nothing about.

If you want to talk bollocks get into Soapbox


----------



## bonj2 (29 Dec 2007)

oh shut it, you don't know any better than i do.


----------



## mickle (29 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> oh shut it, you don't know any better than i do.



As someone who has spent more than twenty years in the cycle trade, who worked as a mechanic on the British HPV Racing Team and who now works for the pre-eminent cycling promotion company as Head of Technical Services with responsibility for the maintenance and up-keep of 400 bikes I feel qualified to tell you that Steve does in fact know more than you do.

The clue is in the title. If it said 'Guess how' you'd be fine. It doesn't, it says 'Know How'. And clearly you dont know what the feck you are talking about.


----------



## andy_wrx (29 Dec 2007)

Oh, I think you're being too harsh on Bonjie.

After all, on 10th of December on this post
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=6396
he was asking the very same Q as the OP, and here's what he thought...



bonj said:


> I just won these shifters - what do you reckon , not bad for £75 inc p+p? or not great?
> 
> and where does '105' come in the sequence?
> the way i understand it it's
> ...



So clearly he's [now, 19 days later] a fully-qualified expert...


----------



## spandex (29 Dec 2007)

yep 19 days will do it (what i dont know but it will do it)


----------



## yenrod (29 Dec 2007)

yorkshiregoth said:


> Is there a great deal of difference between Shimano Sora and Tiagra and 105 and Ultegra and Dura-Ace?



Yorks - Ive got Tiagra *sti* levers and as much as they do they job and are 9sp: go for the 10sp. as the lever stroke aint a big AND ALSO go for something better than Tiagra ie 105 upwards...


----------



## mickle (29 Dec 2007)

The top stuff; Dura Ace, XTR, SRAM Red, X.0, and Record are superb. It's like jewellery. The design, materials and build quality are like nothing else. Its all flagship stuff and absolutely built to last. My old XTR rear mech has seen 12 years of neglect and abuse by me and then Ms Mickle. Without anything more than an occasional wash and one replacement of jockey wheels the thing still has less pivot play than a brand new Deore. If you can afford the top stuff go for it.


----------



## Chuffy (29 Dec 2007)

...and if you can't afford it, 105 and the rest are still good kit. 99% of purchase decisions are based on perceived value and snobbery. Some parts, eg the hubs will differ from the top to the bottom of the range, but for the 'bling' parts, that retailers hang the value of the bike on (eg, STis, rear mech) it's not so great.


----------



## Chuffy (29 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> oh shut it, you don't know any better than i do.


But would you spot a single-speed conversion if you saw one. And if someone referred to the owner of said single speed as a 'single-speed freewheeling ladyboy'? 

Bet you would....


----------



## spandex (29 Dec 2007)




----------



## bonj2 (30 Dec 2007)

what guff.


mickle said:


> As someone who has *spent more than twenty years in the cycle trade*, who worked as a spanner-monkey for blah blah blah blah



that's your problem. You're old hat. You only know about OLD bikes with steel frames and downtube shifters and what not. You know nothing about commercialism and modern technology.


----------



## bonj2 (30 Dec 2007)

Chuffy said:


> But would you spot a single-speed conversion if you saw one. And if someone referred to the owner of said single speed as a 'single-speed freewheeling ladyboy'?
> 
> Bet you would....



 *sigh* i don't see the point in singlespeed, but i can spot a single speed from a hub-geared bike from a derailleur geared bike, why wouldn't i, is that a trick question  and you can spot a fixie from a SS if it's being ridden

why, what are you getting at. (i'm only responding to this silly line of questionning 'cos it's you, i wouldn't give any o' the other tossers the time o' day with it)


----------



## bonj2 (30 Dec 2007)

mickle said:


> who now works for the pre-eminent cycling promotion company as Head of Technical Services


PRE-eminent? So not _actually_ eminent currently then?
So your company thinks it's going to be the _next_ big thing, it isn't a _current_ big thing?


----------



## spandex (30 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> *sigh* i don't see the point in singlespeed, but i can spot a single speed from a hub-geared bike from a derailleur geared bike, why wouldn't i, is that a trick question  and you can spot a fixie from a SS if it's being ridden
> 
> why, what are you getting at. (*i'm only responding to this silly line of questionning 'cos it's you, i wouldn't give any o' the other tossers the time o' day with it*)





ok yer! I think you gave me the time of day buy giving me the finger when I was trying to help you. So cut out all this S£$T and go to this over forum you have seen?


----------



## bonj2 (30 Dec 2007)

spandex said:


> ok yer! I think you gave me the time of day buy giving me the finger *when I was trying to help you*. So cut out all this S£$T and go to this over forum you have seen?


when was that? and what was the help? Do enlighten me, I can't remember it - but maybe we can start afresh


----------



## mickle (30 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> PRE-eminent? So not _actually_ eminent currently then?
> So your company thinks it's going to be the _next_ big thing, it isn't a _current_ big thing?



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pre-eminent


----------



## mickle (30 Dec 2007)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/twat

'a man who is a stupid incompetent fool'


----------



## spandex (30 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> when was that? and what was the help? Do enlighten me, I can't remember it - but *maybe we* *can start afresh*





Tell me why you wish to and why I need to start afresh as ALL my friends know they get one chance and only one with me but they ALL get a chance.


----------



## bonj2 (30 Dec 2007)

when are you planning to eminate? Is it in the business plan for 2008? Or just a pipe dream?


----------



## bonj2 (30 Dec 2007)

spandex said:


> *Tell me why you wish to* and why I need to start afresh as ALL my friends know they get one chance and only one with me but they ALL get a chance.


well, shock horror - being a _cycling_ forum I would have thought I could start a thread about something bike related or try to answer a thread about something bike related without being shot down in flames or sneered at. It seems not.


----------



## spandex (30 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> when was that? and what was the help? Do enlighten me, I can't remember it - but maybe we can start afresh




you ask me to start afresh



bonj said:


> well, shock horror - being a _cycling_ forum I would have thought I could start a thread about something bike related or try to answer a thread about something bike related without being shot down in flames or sneered at. It seems not.



and then you try and tell me that i sneered at you. You can even answer my qustions?


----------



## mickle (30 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> when are you planning to eminate? Is it in the business plan for 2008? Or just a pipe dream?



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eminate


----------



## mickle (30 Dec 2007)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot


----------



## bonj2 (30 Dec 2007)

spandex said:


> you ask me to start afresh
> 
> 
> 
> and then you try and tell me that i sneered at you. You can even answer my qustions?



well, you did. What do you want me to do, grovel, and tell you how great you are?


----------



## Danny (30 Dec 2007)

Guys, I think you ought to cool it, this exchange is getting a bit out of hand!

Personally I don't think Steve should have insulted Bonj for just venturing an opinion, even if it was not very well informed. He's got as much right to post in this section as anyone else - if you think what he says is wrong, you can say so politely.

While I accept that there is a difference between the various different sets of gears, I have seen plenty of similar threads which have effectively made the same point as Bonj.


----------



## spandex (30 Dec 2007)

bonj said:


> well, you did. What do you want me to do, grovel, and tell you how great you are?




No I dont your a grown man and groveling is for kids.

All I wish is for you to answer my question I answered yours and it is just polite that is all I wish.


----------



## bonj2 (30 Dec 2007)

*sigh* what question was that


----------



## RedBike (30 Dec 2007)

I've got an old dura-ace groupo on one bike and a new 105 on the other. Certain bits of the new 105 out perform the old Dura-ace; but in terms of build quality there nothing in it. 

The dura-ace uses bearing where the 105 uses brushes, titanium instead of aluminum etc etc. 

It's also probably worth pointing out that how the brakes/gears are setup and the state of your cables has a massive effect on how the brakes/gears feel.


----------



## spandex (30 Dec 2007)

You are spot on Redbike that is why some of us pay £200 for a "groupo" instead if £60


----------



## monnet (30 Dec 2007)

If we're back talking about groupsets, I'll add my tuppence worth. In terms of performance the top end sets (Dura Ace and Record etc) really do take the biscuit and they're lighter. However, the lower top end stuff, if you know what I mean, is probably better value. ie: Campag Centaur is essentially 3 year old Record for a much more affordable price. 

Top Velo noted about Shimano's groupsets that 105 is great with Dura Ace being obviously better but for signiicantly more cash. They also pointed out that for the difference between 105, Ultegra and Dura Ace in terms of price and weight (and kudos) there is really no sensible reason to buy Ultegra - spend mor on DA if you can, if not save yourself a few quid and get 105.


----------



## monnet (30 Dec 2007)

I should also point out from personal experience that the higher up the groupsets you go the better the brakes are. Which is why I ride 105 with Ultegra brakes (despite my posting above!)


----------



## Chuffy (30 Dec 2007)

Dannyg said:


> While I accept that there is a difference between the various different sets of gears, I have seen plenty of similar threads which have effectively made the same point as Bonj.


Yup. Including Redbike and Monnet above.
Of course, not all of us are mechanical gods like others on here...


----------

