Workshop tales, trials and disasters.
Maintenance tips, techniques and myths.
Technical discussion, description and outright lies
18 posts • Page 1 of 1
Google has failed me. Trying to find out the weight difference between the crankset w/o BB, and the weight of the nondrive side arms. In a world where cost is king, might be easier to do 6800 with a DA crank to keep weight under control. I suck at riding anyway, so I think telling my wife I wanted to spend 1500 on a group might not work so well.
The weights are here
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... ook-36392/
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/cate ... roup-46802
6800 BB weight listed here
That is both perfect and horrifying. 60 grams less for double the price, and arguably a less attractive crank for some people. Wow. Thanks for the link. I would figured a bit more of a difference.
True, but I would expect more weight benefit from the heaviest most expensive part of the group set. I would figure that they would be pushing the limits more. I have visions of tighter tolerances and throwing away bad gear regularly because they are just too close to the edge. Seems that they have a bit more to shave off!
I think the point of my story is that I have a 6800 crank in my future because there is no way that 200 bucks is worth 100 grams. 200 grams? Maybe. Don't fill up your bottle too much. Done. I can't push 52/11 hard so will just live with the semi compact and a couple cassettes. The moving parts might be worthwhile to spend more but I am skeptical.
OK this link seemed to be quite helpful... seems that, ignoring the chainrings which I assume are quite significant in the 9000 style crank, you can assume 30-40% of the crankarm/spindle assembly would be the nondriveside. Which makes sense, I guess, juts a visual gives that impression. So if a 750 gram 6800 crank was broken down, you'd expect a nondrive side crank arm about 250grams... and the DA to be 200, and the 105 to be 300. Figures from the air, but it sounds like a reasonable guesstimate. This makes the idea of spending extra on a higher spec Stages to be absolutely laughable - it's 200 bucks US for 200 grams. Spend that money on a skinsuit, or fibre pills.
In the end I think it must be horses for courses, and some of us are trying to beat Black Caviar while others are just trying to stay on the saddle. Given that you're 100-200 grams in front getting a Stages, I think sacrificing a bit for the 105 would be acceptable. The irony I find is that aethestics aren't affected that much. Black is black, and you can't really see both sides of the bike at the same time. Bring on the Aussie distro!
are they made of different materials? possibly causing the higher cost, function may be the same ...
Its not just cycling where minimal performance gains have exponential cost when you get to the top end.
But on the face of it, I agree, dura ace has an astronomically larger cost than ultegra.
The DA group is 1500 from Merlin...
The info I've seen float around has the DA being much more reliable in the longterm than Ultegra. Not sure how relevant that is with the move towards Di2. Mechanics don't matter much when a computer shifts for you. Plus likely hydro braking....
I am currently looking to move to campy to try something different (maybe a bit of wank factor too).
Have been thinking about my 5600 shifting and i have to say other than the occasional front shift, I'd love to know how much better it can possibly get !!!
The 5600 shifting was miles better than the 5700, but I noticed the Ultegra "hung in" a lot longer, giving the crisp shifts for a lot longer than the 105. Campy wears in, doesn't wear out - I'm quite interested in that as well, but the semicompact is my future and you're guaranteed stiffness in the 9000/6800 line, can't be sure with the 110 bcd pretending to be 120bcd with campy. Plus the Stages power meter... While I could run a shimano 6800 crank with Athena EPS, it just doesn't seem kosher
I can categorically tell you from workshop experience that mantra is untrue. The difference is when the shifters wear out, they're rebuildable (at least until they stop making the bits).
I had a thought, but it got run over as it crossed my mind.
18 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]