A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shimano Sora group components compared to early 90's tourney



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 7th 05, 04:19 PM
justareader
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Shimano Sora group components compared to early 90's tourney

Is the Shimano Sora group comparable to the old tourney components
found on 80's and 90's road bikes?

I realize that the Sora components are heavy as a boat anchor with
steel chain rings etc. Are they durable and fairly low maintenance?

The old ty* stuff would last 30,000+ miles with good routine
maintenance, as long as you did not crash and break the plastic bits.
Ads
  #2  
Old May 7th 05, 06:34 PM
Sheldon Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A timid poster asked:

Is the Shimano Sora group comparable to the old tourney components
found on 80's and 90's road bikes?


No, Sora is quite a lot nicer.

I realize that the Sora components are heavy as a boat anchor


Hyperbole.

with
steel chain rings etc. Are they durable and fairly low maintenance?


Steel chainrings are very much more durable than aluminum ones, and not
that much heavier.

I like the Sora stuff quite a lot, though I'd tend to upgrade to a
Tiagra or Deore rear derailer.

The Soras are my favorite Shimano brifters, I'd use them myself if they
came in a 9-speed version. Since they don't, I use Campagnolo instead.

Sheldon "Sora, Sora, Sora" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Faith is believing what you know ain't so. --Mark Twain |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

  #3  
Old May 7th 05, 11:11 PM
Callistus Valerius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sheldon Brown" wrote in message
...
A timid poster asked:

Is the Shimano Sora group comparable to the old tourney components
found on 80's and 90's road bikes?


No, Sora is quite a lot nicer.

I realize that the Sora components are heavy as a boat anchor


Hyperbole.

with
steel chain rings etc. Are they durable and fairly low maintenance?


Steel chainrings are very much more durable than aluminum ones, and not
that much heavier.

I like the Sora stuff quite a lot, though I'd tend to upgrade to a
Tiagra or Deore rear derailer.

The Soras are my favorite Shimano brifters, I'd use them myself if they
came in a 9-speed version. Since they don't, I use Campagnolo instead.

Sheldon "Sora, Sora, Sora" Brown


I have a Sora with 17,000+ miles on it, and like it very much. The only
part replaced so far was the rear der. I replaced it with a 105 rear der,
and it works great.



  #4  
Old May 8th 05, 01:25 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Sheldon Brown wrote:


The Soras are my favorite Shimano brifters, I'd use them myself if

they
came in a 9-speed version. Since they don't, I use Campagnolo

instead.


The only Sora component I dislike are the brifters. They are quite
small for my medium-sized hands, the Ultegra brifters just feel right.
Also the thumb shifters which do make nice crisp shifts just get in the
way a lot. I move my hands around a lot on the hoods and those dang
levers bump my thumbs constantly.

  #5  
Old May 8th 05, 02:08 AM
RonSonic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 07 May 2005 11:19:04 EDT, justareader wrote:

Is the Shimano Sora group comparable to the old tourney components
found on 80's and 90's road bikes?


Better.

I realize that the Sora components are heavy as a boat anchor with
steel chain rings etc. Are they durable and fairly low maintenance?


Bull****. This weight obsession is a bunch of advertiser and magazine writer
bull****. Sora does weigh more than the higher end models, that's why it costs
less. Sora is not excessively or unreasonably heavy, just heavier than something
that costs twice as much.

The old ty* stuff would last 30,000+ miles with good routine
maintenance, as long as you did not crash and break the plastic bits.


The plastic bits are tougher than they used to be.

Ron
  #6  
Old May 8th 05, 09:23 AM
Ryan Cousineau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Sheldon Brown wrote:

A timid poster asked:

Is the Shimano Sora group comparable to the old tourney components
found on 80's and 90's road bikes?


I like the Sora stuff quite a lot, though I'd tend to upgrade to a
Tiagra or Deore rear derailer.


What do you see as the weakness of the Sora part there?

The Soras are my favorite Shimano brifters, I'd use them myself if they
came in a 9-speed version. Since they don't, I use Campagnolo instead.


I'm building up a Shimagnolo race bike myself, with the Approved
Combination of Shimano cassettes, cranks, BB, and front derailer mated
to Veloce shifters and a rear derailer which is...from Campagnolo
(wheels are boutique stuff with a Shimano-compatible freehub body). The
ostensible reasons for running Veloce are rebuildability and
surprisingly light weight (almost any Ergo brifter is lighter than even
a Dura-Ace STI unit), but the emotional reason is that I really like the
aesthetics and kinesthetics of Campy's shifters. Also, I got a smoking
deal on the shifters.

My current racing bike has a Sora right-hand brifter, so I have some
experience with the thing. One consideration for racers is that the Sora
button is virtually impossible to operate from the drops. The Campy
shift button of a similar design is operable with one's thumb while in
the drops (Shimano's non-Sora brifters are shiftable from the drops due
to their different arrangement).

Back to the aesthetics, the current Campy shifters all seem decidedly
more purposeful than the Shimano stuff. Shimano's current road offerings
seem to be moving towards a "fake-future" style, which is nice when it
follows function (as with the funky Hollowtech II cranks) but which
looks out of place on the shifters. The STI cable routing is also quite
fussy, though it must be said that I have sometimes used the shifter
cables as a convenient thing to rest my hands on while riding in a
pseudo-TT position.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.
  #7  
Old May 8th 05, 04:40 PM
Peter Cole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RonSonic wrote:
On 07 May 2005 11:19:04 EDT, justareader wrote:


I realize that the Sora components are heavy as a boat anchor with
steel chain rings etc. Are they durable and fairly low maintenance?



Bull****. This weight obsession is a bunch of advertiser and magazine writer
bull****. Sora does weigh more than the higher end models, that's why it costs
less. Sora is not excessively or unreasonably heavy, just heavier than something
that costs twice as much.


A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
something.
  #8  
Old May 8th 05, 05:28 PM
m-gineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Cole wrote:

RonSonic wrote:
On 07 May 2005 11:19:04 EDT, justareader wrote:


I realize that the Sora components are heavy as a boat anchor with
steel chain rings etc. Are they durable and fairly low maintenance?



Bull****. This weight obsession is a bunch of advertiser and magazine writer
bull****. Sora does weigh more than the higher end models, that's why it costs
less. Sora is not excessively or unreasonably heavy, just heavier than something
that costs twice as much.


A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
something.


according to my catalogues (2001, in later editions the weight isn't
listed or listed as 170 grams!) 200 grams more (Tiagra 100), and 50 for
the axle. Saves a lot of money for nicer tyres
--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
  #9  
Old May 8th 05, 08:14 PM
Peter Cole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

m-gineering wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:


A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
something.



according to my catalogues (2001, in later editions the weight isn't
listed or listed as 170 grams!) 200 grams more (Tiagra 100), and 50 for
the axle. Saves a lot of money for nicer tyres


According to on-line retailers, Sora is ~950g, 105 ~650g.

I'll take the nice crank and the cheap tires, thanks.
  #10  
Old May 8th 05, 08:26 PM
m-gineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Cole wrote:

m-gineering wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:


A Sora double crank is over 300g heavier than a 105. That's a bunch of
something.



according to my catalogues (2001, in later editions the weight isn't
listed or listed as 170 grams!) 200 grams more (Tiagra 100), and 50 for
the axle. Saves a lot of money for nicer tyres


According to on-line retailers, Sora is ~950g, 105 ~650g.

I'll take the nice crank and the cheap tires, thanks.


Customer is always right....
--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Freewheel for Shimano Sora 7-speed brifters dcg Techniques 25 January 31st 05 03:15 PM
anyone remember the "arabesque" Shimano 600 group? maxo General 5 June 1st 04 07:52 PM
Why is Shimano so hated by some? Evan Evans Techniques 342 February 9th 04 11:22 PM
Shimano USA - Price Too High? Stuart J. Armour Techniques 44 November 4th 03 03:30 PM
Who is going to Interbike? Bruce Gilbert Techniques 2 October 10th 03 09:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.