10-speed Ultegra vs. Dura-Ace

On 2005-03-29 06:00:26 -0800, Qui si parla Campagnolo
said:

Bill Lloyd wrote:
On 2005-03-27 22:21:00 -0800, A Muzi said:

Steve Sr. wrote:

I am considering a component group for a new road bike. Are there any
real advantages for the Dura-Ace group over Ultegra except a little
bit of weight reduction? I am talking brakes and a triple drive train
only, no wheels.
Is Dura-Ace more reliable / durable that the Ultegra group? I know
that Shimano sometimes uses better materials i.e. sealed bearings in
their higher end groups. What do you think?


Chorus is superior in every way IMHO and cheaper too.


To Dura Ace? Give me a ****ing break.


No break required. Chorus, with more durable/better levers, rear der,
similar hub design to DA(took them 5 years to get it) , MUCH better
front der design, is on par or 'better' than DA for less money.

You said "in every way." And then what's really better, maybe the
levers and the front derailleur?

I don't really think either is far above the other... I think the high
end groups of both are pretty equivalent (though the Dura-Ace crank
design makes more sense than the $500+ CF crank design approach of the
Campy groups). And the #1 issue with using Campy in the US is, if you
race, you get no support. Flat a rear wheel, buh-bye. Seen too many
teammates that rode campy hitching a ride when there was no neutral
support.

On 2005-03-28 16:39:42 -0800, "araby" said:


"Steve Sr." wrote in message
...
I am considering a component group for a new road bike. Are there any
real advantages for the Dura-Ace group over Ultegra except a little
bit of weight reduction? I am talking brakes and a triple drive train
only, no wheels.

Is Dura-Ace more reliable / durable that the Ultegra group? I know
that Shimano sometimes uses better materials i.e. sealed bearings in
their higher end groups. What do you think?


I assume that you are considering ultra high mileage otherwise
reliability and durability issues don't really come into it. All their
current range has both attributes although the high end stuff would
probably eventually last longer.
Why just Shimano? If durability and reliability is really a factor,
Campagnolo stuff is renowned for its durability. I have a Victory
derailleur and crank assembly on one of my bikes that is starting its
eighteenth season. It still seems as good as new with approx 30000km on
it -and the Victory group was the second cheapest in the range. I
replaced the ball bearings in the B/B about four years ago and that was
only because I was moving it onto another bike and had it stripped
down. .

You state "as good as new" and then note 30,000km. That's hardly
anything. I regularly get 4 years, and about 40,000 miles, out of
Dura-Ace stuff, changing only cassettes, chains, and brake pads. After
40,000 miles (60,000 km) I typically get a new group, as the shifters
get a bit sloppy (not BAD, but not as good as new, and the chainrings
are starting to get a little hooked, and the rear derailleur gets a bit
worn as well, with the original pulleys). Done this 3 times over the
past 12 years. And I don't change hubs at the same time... just ball
bearings every 2 years or so.

I HAVE had problems with 105 parts -- the seals on the freehubs suck
and fret the cones if you look at them crosseyed -- but Dura Ace is
nothing if not durable. I do live in CA but I don't do much
maintenance.

On 2005-03-28 17:55:25 -0800, "Rangersfan"
said:

"Steve Sr." wrote in message
...
I am considering a component group for a new road bike. Are there any
real advantages for the Dura-Ace group over Ultegra except a little
bit of weight reduction? I am talking brakes and a triple drive train
only, no wheels.

Is Dura-Ace more reliable / durable that the Ultegra group? I know
that Shimano sometimes uses better materials i.e. sealed bearings in
their higher end groups. What do you think?

My understanding between the differences is, pretty much where you see
Ti on the Dura-Ace, you see alloy on the Ultegra. Where you see alloy
on the Dura-Ace, you'll see plastic on the Ultegra.

No. Ti on Dura-Ace would typically be steel on Ultegra. And
Alloy-plastic... what?

Ultegra was updated, I believe in 2005. Some of the changes include
outboard bearings on the bottom bracket, an integrated spindle, and
more ergodynamic shifters (like the Dura-Ace). Prior to 2005, I don't
believe they were 10-spd either. Just something to think about if you
find a 2004 or earlier Ultegra bike on sale.

Correct here.

Bill Lloyd wrote in
news:2005032918161275249%thanksforno@spamcom:

On 2005-03-29 06:00:26 -0800, Qui si parla Campagnolo
said:

Bill Lloyd wrote:
On 2005-03-27 22:21:00 -0800, A Muzi said:

Steve Sr. wrote:

I am considering a component group for a new road bike. Are
there any real advantages for the Dura-Ace group over Ultegra
except a little bit of weight reduction? I am talking brakes
and a triple drive train only, no wheels.
Is Dura-Ace more reliable / durable that the Ultegra group? I
know that Shimano sometimes uses better materials i.e. sealed
bearings in their higher end groups. What do you think?


Chorus is superior in every way IMHO and cheaper too.


To Dura Ace? Give me a ****ing break.


No break required. Chorus, with more durable/better levers, rear
der, similar hub design to DA(took them 5 years to get it) , MUCH
better front der design, is on par or 'better' than DA for less
money.
And the #1 issue with using Campy
in the US is, if you race, you get no support. Flat a rear wheel,
buh-bye. Seen too many teammates that rode campy hitching a ride
when there was no neutral support.

That's odd because in Canada NS regularly uses 9s Shimano rears on
Campy bikes with no issue and even on Campy 10s stuff Shimano 9 are a
bit crunchy but work with some care...guess either Campy or Shimano
stuff is different in the US.

That said the miniscule % of riders that race are hardly a
significant consideration

Bill Lloyd wrote:
On 2005-03-29 06:00:26 -0800, Qui si parla Campagnolo
said:

Bill Lloyd wrote:

On 2005-03-27 22:21:00 -0800, A Muzi said:

Steve Sr. wrote:

I am considering a component group for a new road bike. Are there any
real advantages for the Dura-Ace group over Ultegra except a little
bit of weight reduction? I am talking brakes and a triple drive train
only, no wheels.
Is Dura-Ace more reliable / durable that the Ultegra group? I know
that Shimano sometimes uses better materials i.e. sealed bearings in
their higher end groups. What do you think?



Chorus is superior in every way IMHO and cheaper too.



To Dura Ace? Give me a ****ing break.


No break required. Chorus, with more durable/better levers, rear der,
similar hub design to DA(took them 5 years to get it) , MUCH better
front der design, is on par or 'better' than DA for less money.


You said "in every way." And then what's really better, maybe the
levers and the front derailleur?

I don't really think either is far above the other... I think the high
end groups of both are pretty equivalent (though the Dura-Ace crank
design makes more sense than the $500+ CF crank design approach of the
Campy groups). And the #1 issue with using Campy in the US is, if you
race, you get no support. Flat a rear wheel, buh-bye. Seen too many
teammates that rode campy hitching a ride when there was no neutral
support.


Well, I didn't say 'in every way', but I think DA and ultegra are
incredibly overpriced and hyped for lots of plastic and aluminum.

As for the crank, I think the ALUMINUM crank of either Chorus and
Record, at MUCH less $ than DA or ultegra, with a really simple, very
effective proven BB design is the way to go. SO MANY are swayed by the
outside of the BB bearing crank, which answerts no \question, solves no
problem with regard to the square taper BB/crank setup. PLEASE don't
claim it is stiffer...it is when tested by a gorilla machine that exerts
much more force than any human.

Campag carbon cranks are way overpriced, I admit. Pretty tho.

On 2005-03-30 06:04:23 -0800, Qui si parla Campagnolo
said:

Bill Lloyd wrote:
On 2005-03-29 06:00:26 -0800, Qui si parla Campagnolo
said:

Bill Lloyd wrote:

On 2005-03-27 22:21:00 -0800, A Muzi said:

Steve Sr. wrote:

I am considering a component group for a new road bike. Are there any
real advantages for the Dura-Ace group over Ultegra except a little
bit of weight reduction? I am talking brakes and a triple drive train
only, no wheels.
Is Dura-Ace more reliable / durable that the Ultegra group? I know
that Shimano sometimes uses better materials i.e. sealed bearings in
their higher end groups. What do you think?



Chorus is superior in every way IMHO and cheaper too.



To Dura Ace? Give me a ****ing break.


No break required. Chorus, with more durable/better levers, rear der,
similar hub design to DA(took them 5 years to get it) , MUCH better
front der design, is on par or 'better' than DA for less money.


You said "in every way." And then what's really better, maybe the
levers and the front derailleur?

I don't really think either is far above the other... I think the high
end groups of both are pretty equivalent (though the Dura-Ace crank
design makes more sense than the $500+ CF crank design approach of the
Campy groups). And the #1 issue with using Campy in the US is, if you
race, you get no support. Flat a rear wheel, buh-bye. Seen too many
teammates that rode campy hitching a ride when there was no neutral
support.


Well, I didn't say 'in every way', but I think DA and ultegra are
incredibly overpriced and hyped for lots of plastic and aluminum.

You did say "in every way" -- look at your quote above!

As for "incredibly overpriced... for lots of plastic and aluminum..."
where's the plastic? Perhaps there's some in the shifters, but where
else?


As for the crank, I think the ALUMINUM crank of either Chorus and
Record, at MUCH less $ than DA or ultegra, with a really simple, very
effective proven BB design is the way to go. SO MANY are swayed by the
outside of the BB bearing crank, which answerts no \question, solves no
problem with regard to the square taper BB/crank setup. PLEASE don't
claim it is stiffer...it is when tested by a gorilla machine that
exerts much more force than any human.

Don't know if it's stiffer. I personally have SRM cranks, and they're
not as stiff as the old 9 speed stuff I used beforehand. I'm using the
9-speed stuff still, I find it's a lot easier to install/remove cranks,
but that's not such a huge deal, as I do it every ~22 months when the
SRM crank battery dies. I end up having to replace the Dura-Ace BB at
the same time, though -- I will say the seals on the Dura-Ace 9 speed
BB do suck.


Campag carbon cranks are way overpriced, I admit. Pretty tho.

Well we agree there ;-)

Peter Chisholm wrote:

...
As for the crank, I think the ALUMINUM crank of either Chorus and
Record, at MUCH less $ than DA or ultegra, with a really simple, very
effective proven BB design is the way to go. SO MANY are swayed by the
outside of the BB bearing crank, which answerts no \question, solves no
problem with regard to the square taper BB/crank setup. PLEASE don't
claim it is stiffer...it is when tested by a gorilla machine that exerts
much more force than any human....

Peter,

Are you saying that Chalo Colina is not human?

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Bill Lloyd wrote:

On 2005-03-29 06:00:26 -0800, Qui si parla Campagnolo
said:

Bill Lloyd wrote:

On 2005-03-27 22:21:00 -0800, A Muzi said:

Steve Sr. wrote:

I am considering a component group for a new road bike. Are there any
real advantages for the Dura-Ace group over Ultegra except a little
bit of weight reduction? I am talking brakes and a triple drive train
only, no wheels.
Is Dura-Ace more reliable / durable that the Ultegra group? I know
that Shimano sometimes uses better materials i.e. sealed bearings in
their higher end groups. What do you think?




Chorus is superior in every way IMHO and cheaper too.




To Dura Ace? Give me a ****ing break.


No break required. Chorus, with more durable/better levers, rear der,
similar hub design to DA(took them 5 years to get it) , MUCH better
front der design, is on par or 'better' than DA for less money.



You said "in every way." And then what's really better, maybe the
levers and the front derailleur?

I don't really think either is far above the other... I think the high
end groups of both are pretty equivalent (though the Dura-Ace crank
design makes more sense than the $500+ CF crank design approach of the
Campy groups). And the #1 issue with using Campy in the US is, if you
race, you get no support. Flat a rear wheel, buh-bye. Seen too many
teammates that rode campy hitching a ride when there was no neutral
support.


Well, I didn't say 'in every way', but I think DA and ultegra are
incredibly overpriced and hyped for lots of plastic and aluminum.

As for the crank, I think the ALUMINUM crank of either Chorus and
Record, at MUCH less $ than DA or ultegra, with a really simple, very
effective proven BB design is the way to go. SO MANY are swayed by the
outside of the BB bearing crank, which answerts no \question, solves no
problem with regard to the square taper BB/crank setup. PLEASE don't
claim it is stiffer...it is when tested by a gorilla machine that exerts
much more force than any human.

Campag carbon cranks are way overpriced, I admit. Pretty tho.
I'll defend my statement.
Chorus ( aluminum crank version) is superior to Dura Ace
curent model in every way and about $500~$60 cheaper too.

Is there really an argument here? Seems obvious to me.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tom Sherman wrote:

Peter Chisholm wrote:

...
As for the crank, I think the ALUMINUM crank of either Chorus and
Record, at MUCH less $ than DA or ultegra, with a really simple, very
effective proven BB design is the way to go. SO MANY are swayed by the
outside of the BB bearing crank, which answerts no \question, solves no
problem with regard to the square taper BB/crank setup. PLEASE don't
claim it is stiffer...it is when tested by a gorilla machine that exerts
much more force than any human....

Peter,

Are you saying that Chalo Colina is not human?

I think we've been intimating that for years... his size alone pretty
much disqualifies him.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Bill Lloyd wrote:


You said "in every way." And then what's really better, maybe the
levers and the front derailleur?

I don't really think either is far above the other... I think the
high end groups of both are pretty equivalent (though the Dura-Ace
crank design makes more sense than the $500+ CF crank design approach
of the Campy groups). And the #1 issue with using Campy in the US
is, if you race, you get no support. Flat a rear wheel, buh-bye.
Seen too many teammates that rode campy hitching a ride when there
was no neutral support.


Well, I didn't say 'in every way', but I think DA and ultegra are
incredibly overpriced and hyped for lots of plastic and aluminum.


You did say "in every way" -- look at your quote above!

Yep, you are right....And I mean it...

As for "incredibly overpriced... for lots of plastic and aluminum..."
where's the plastic? Perhaps there's some in the shifters, but where else?

Plastic in the levers for sure, plastic bodies, coverings, etc.


As for the crank, I think the ALUMINUM crank of either Chorus and
Record, at MUCH less $ than DA or ultegra, with a really simple, very
effective proven BB design is the way to go. SO MANY are swayed by the
outside of the BB bearing crank, which answerts no \question, solves
no problem with regard to the square taper BB/crank setup. PLEASE
don't claim it is stiffer...it is when tested by a gorilla machine
that exerts much more force than any human.


Don't know if it's stiffer. I personally have SRM cranks, and they're
not as stiff as the old 9 speed stuff I used beforehand. I'm using the
9-speed stuff still, I find it's a lot easier to install/remove cranks,
but that's not such a huge deal, as I do it every ~22 months when the
SRM crank battery dies. I end up having to replace the Dura-Ace BB at
the same time, though -- I will say the seals on the Dura-Ace 9 speed BB
do suck.


Campag carbon cranks are way overpriced, I admit. Pretty tho.


Well we agree there ;-)