Why is Shimano so hated by some?

(JP) writes:

Tim McNamara wrote in message
...

A Muzi writes:

Even after the Euro increase, Campagnolo is still cheaper at
every level than Shimano for new equipment. The $600 gap from
Chorus to DA will be $450 next year. If you factor maintenance
costs there's a wider gap.

Except that Chorus and Dura-Ace are not in equivalent positions in
their respective product lines. The Campy equivalent of Dura-Ace
is Record; Chorus is the equivalent of Ultegra, etc.

That said, I races on 1993 Chorus for 5 years and 1998 Chorus for 2
years, and found both superior to the Ultegra that preceded them.
I personally think that Chorus is the equivalent in quality of
Dura-Ace, but the Campy and Shimano groups should really be
compared by equivalent position.

It doesn't make any sense to compare them based on their relative
positions in the product line. The only meaningful way to compare
the value of two products is to compare their features and
functionality.

Why not? Top of the line is top of the line, second in line is second
in line. Dura-Ace is Shimano's professional class group, and Record
is Campy's professional class gruppo. Ultegra is Shimano's amateur
class group; Chorus is Campy's amateur class gruppo. And so down each
product line.

Record is typically more exensive than Dura-Ace, Chorus is typically
more expensive than Ultegra, etc. This is how most customers will
think about it, and that's why they tend to say they "can't afford
Campagnolo." They're thinking about the relative position in the
product line- "I can get Shimano's second-best group for $xxx less
than Campy's second-best gruppo" and thus Shimano looks like a better
deal. And maybe it is- I wouldn't know as I avoid Shimano because I
don't like how STI works and I prefer Ergo.

Your criteria of comparison make less sense to me, as one could
readily compare Record and Sora since they have similar features and
functionality. In fact, all the road groups have pretty much the
same features and functionality, so all would be cross-comparable by
your method. While your method might be quite accurate from the
functionalist perspective, it would lead just about everybody to
buying Shimano 105!

The first time I snapped off a Shimano bottom bracket spindle, I
weighed 240 lbs. or so. I figured maybe there was something wrong
with the particular part I had; clearly for a BB spindle to just snap
off is not an acceptable failure mode under ordinary use, right?

I was advised to replace it with a Deore XT spindle, which was
generally acknowledged by the bike shop guys I knew as the strongest
and best available. I fitted Deore XT bottom brackets to both my
bikes, keeping to the type even after cartridge BBs came available,
because neither I nor the most experienced bike shop guys I knew
considered the cartridge kind to be as strong as the older loose-ball
type.

When I snapped one of those, I weighed about 270 lbs. I broke my nose
and maxilla and lost several teeth in the process. I began to
recognize that my size made me part of the population that Shimano
with their thorough engineering had intentionally opted not to serve.

hey chalo

you definitely have reason not to like shimano, but let's do some analysis:

following one of your comments yesterday, i did a quick google for
broken shimano bb's on this group - not much showed up except for
references to old ball-style campy spindles of the same style you've
just described.

i would expect this because, theoretically, the modern larger diameter
shimano spindles should be better in both bending and torsion. i don't
have the tools to measure without cutting it open, but the ultegra bb i
have has an axle of 22.0mm o/d and 5.0mm wall thickness as best as i can
tell. with a pedal torque of 100N/m, my rusty math gives a shear stress
on the axle exterior surface of 52GPa. with a 16.0mm solid axle, the
same pedal torque will give 124GPa at the surface. neither are
excessively high, but clearly the larger diameter spindle is the way to go.

what do you ride today? have you tried one of these larger diameter axles?

jb

Tim McNamara wrote:

A Muzi writes:


Even after the Euro increase, Campagnolo is still cheaper at every
level than Shimano for new equipment. The $600 gap from Chorus to DA
will be $450 next year. If you factor maintenance costs there's a
wider gap.


Except that Chorus and Dura-Ace are not in equivalent positions in
their respective product lines. The Campy equivalent of Dura-Ace is
Record; Chorus is the equivalent of Ultegra, etc.

That said, I races on 1993 Chorus for 5 years and 1998 Chorus for 2
years, and found both superior to the Ultegra that preceded them. I
personally think that Chorus is the equivalent in quality of
Dura-Ace, but the Campy and Shimano groups should really be compared
by equivalent position.

So because Campagnolo's cheapest kit is Xenon, we should
compare it to Tourney?? That's equally ridiculous.

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

Tim McNamara wrote:

Why not? Top of the line is top of the line, second in line is second
in line. Dura-Ace is Shimano's professional class group, and Record
is Campy's professional class gruppo. Ultegra is Shimano's amateur
class group; Chorus is Campy's amateur class gruppo. And so down each
product line.

You are counting from the wrong direction: 105 = Veloce, Ultegra =
Centaur, Dura-Ace = Chorus, Nothing = Record. Makes more sense because
quality is about equal while yours is a mis-match.

wrote in message
et...
Tim McNamara wrote:

Why not? Top of the line is top of the line, second in line is second
in line. Dura-Ace is Shimano's professional class group, and Record
is Campy's professional class gruppo. Ultegra is Shimano's amateur
class group; Chorus is Campy's amateur class gruppo. And so down each
product line.

You are counting from the wrong direction: 105 = Veloce, Ultegra =
Centaur, Dura-Ace = Chorus, Nothing = Record. Makes more sense because
quality is about equal while yours is a mis-match.

This may be true, but in actuality, most consumers will do an analysis
similar to Tim's and compare how the groups line up: Record to DA, Ultegra
to Chorus, etc.

Further, now that DA 10 is out, Shimano has decided to align its top-line
group and price it at about the same price as Record, about $1500-1600 for
the DA 10 group....

writes:

Tim McNamara wrote:

Why not? Top of the line is top of the line, second in line is
second in line. Dura-Ace is Shimano's professional class group,
and Record is Campy's professional class gruppo. Ultegra is
Shimano's amateur class group; Chorus is Campy's amateur class
gruppo. And so down each product line.

You are counting from the wrong direction: 105 = Veloce, Ultegra =
Centaur, Dura-Ace = Chorus, Nothing = Record. Makes more sense
because quality is about equal while yours is a mis-match.

We're stuck disagreeing, then, because I think it makes more sense to
start at the top, mainly because Shimano has a lot of low end groups
that have no competition from Campy or anyone else. I won't disagree
with you about the comparative quality of Chorus and Dura-Ace,
because I share that opinion... but then I thought Superbe was better
than anything Campy or Shimano had to offer back in the day.

In article ,
says...

"David Kerber" wrote in message
...

Shouldn't DA be compared to Record rather than chorus? Then the price
comparison would be the other direction.

I dunno. Which is more expensive and better quality, a Ferrari, an Aston
Martin, or a Lamborghini?

Aston Martin, IIRC. DA is Shimano's top of the line, and Record is
Campy's top of the line, so that's what you need to compare.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

In article ,
says...
-snip much interesting stuff-
David Kerber wrote:
Are you sure about this time line? Windows certainly pre-dated the Mac,
though I'm less sure about the earlier Apple versions. Remember that
Windows 2.11 (the first semi-useful version) came out around the late
80's.

I just looked at our original Windows setup discs dated
1985. Win286 are dated 1987.

I recall using a PARC demo but that was definitely after we
had color (EGA) screens and mice here. Seemed much more
sophisticated IIRC because the mouse movements were smoother
- buffered somehow(?) It was much higher resolution than
the Windows of the era, albeit BW only.

GF of the era's computer was a Mac certainly before we had
the first Windows. ( BTW her job was Wang supervisor -
remember Wang?)

Ok. I didn't think Apple came out with the Mac until later. I see I
was wrong.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

A Muzi writes:

Tim McNamara wrote:

A Muzi writes:

Even after the Euro increase, Campagnolo is still cheaper at every
level than Shimano for new equipment. The $600 gap from Chorus to
DA will be $450 next year. If you factor maintenance costs there's
a wider gap.

Except that Chorus and Dura-Ace are not in equivalent positions in
their respective product lines. The Campy equivalent of Dura-Ace
is Record; Chorus is the equivalent of Ultegra, etc. That said, I
races on 1993 Chorus for 5 years and 1998 Chorus for 2 years, and
found both superior to the Ultegra that preceded them. I
personally think that Chorus is the equivalent in quality of
Dura-Ace, but the Campy and Shimano groups should really be
compared by equivalent position.

So because Campagnolo's cheapest kit is Xenon, we should compare it
to Tourney?? That's equally ridiculous.

That's why I started at the top- it makes more sense to compare Record
and Dura-Ace, as they are competitors at the top of their respective
lines. It just makes more sense to me to start from the top down. At
the bottom end, Shimano simply has no competition- no one else wants
to serve the Wal-Mart market.

Xenon would probably compare to, what, Sora? Both Campagnolo and
Shimano have changed their lines enough in the past 2-3 years that I
no longer know which group follows which.

I've got one bike with Campy Chorus Ergo (1998), and since then I've
pretty much stopped paying attention to new stuff. The rest of my
bikes have Sun Tour derailleurs (Cyclone GT on the touring/randonee
bikes, Cyclone II on the 'cross bike, XC Pro on the All-Rounder;
mainly Phil hubs with a couple of odd ones thrown in; mainly Ritchey
110/74 cranks with a Campy Athena from about 1993 and a new
Truvativ/ISIS road crank on the folding bike replacing the original
Dotek). If you buy well and maintain reasonably attentively, this
stuff just about never wears out.

David wrote:
Would you like to elaborate on the unusual requirements people need that
Shimano does not offer?



Shimano does not make MTB components while Campy does! Campy rulez!!!



--