Ultegra update?

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

ooo
Posts: 1590
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

09.06.2017 catalog STI weights per pair :

Code: Select all

R9100  R8000
230    295    Rim  brake & Di2   shift  (+65g R9150 vs R8050)
365    438    Rim  brake & Cable shift  (+73g R9100 vs R8000)  (365-230=135, 438-295=143)
360    360    Disc brake & Di2   shift  (+ 0g R9170 vs R8070)  (360-230=130, 360-295= 65)
505    550    Disc brake & Cable shift  (+45g R9120 vs R8020)  (505-230=275, 550-295=255)

360g seems odd from marketing and technical PoV
Ultegra uses Aluminum lever vs Carbon lever on Dura-Ace
Considering other weight numbers, 2×ST-R8070 may be ≈ 430g

https://www.facebook.com/shimanoroad/vi ... 855773724/
Shimano rep answering some questions here ^^^

Shimano-Road wrote:R8000 = June
R8070 = August
R8050 = August


Shimano-Road wrote:There isn't a powermeter in this version available


Shimano-Road wrote:What is the difference in weight compared to the new Dura Ace R9100. Let's say a full groupset (mechanical)

Weight difference is about 310 grams.


Shimano-Road wrote:R8000 is 43gr heavier than 6800
R8050 is 11gr heavier than 6870
'

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



AW84
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:04 am

by AW84

tmr5555 wrote:Call me pedantic but I don't like that it's heavier than the previous generation.
Fair enough maybe it's sturdier, better put together where it matters but...c'mon.


The reality is at some point these components can't be made any lighter without sacrificing functionality or durability. Or, making them entirely of titanium and carbon and increasing the price ten-fold. And even then, they'd eventually hit a wall again.

User avatar
slake21
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:59 am
Location: EU

by slake21

AW84 wrote:
tmr5555 wrote:Call me pedantic but I don't like that it's heavier than the previous generation.
Fair enough maybe it's sturdier, better put together where it matters but...c'mon.


The reality is at some point these components can't be made any lighter without sacrificing functionality or durability. Or, making them entirely of titanium and carbon and increasing the price ten-fold. And even then, they'd eventually hit a wall again.

until someone comes up with a new lighter (and not weaker) material of course

2lo8
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:32 am

by 2lo8

I'm guessing R8000 cranks are bonded, if so, SiSL cranks are also bonded and lighter, unless you think those are insufficiently stiff. Not that I can afford them, but eeBrakes are supposed to be on par with DA and are half the weight with no carbon fiber. Even if you used steel hardware, I'd guess they'd still be half the weight of R8000. SRAM rival RD is still lighter than R8000, partially because of that hanger adapter, but has no carbon fiber or titanium. BB-9000 is about 10g lighter without any use of titanium or carbon, and the DA/Red chains are just a hair lighter again without carbon or titanium. SRAM red cassettes also have no carbon or titanium, unlike DA/Ultegra cassettes.

Ultegra doesn't use titanium, but does use some carbon, but it's not like it's the epitome of low weight non-ti/cf engineering. There's still a lot of engineering and design that can be done, although at a certain point the cost of manufacture is high enough to justify the more exotic materials.
[14lb(6.35kg) of no carbon fiber]
[2lo8.wordpress.com]
Your one-stop source for information and reviews on cheap eBay bike junk.

jeffy
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:51 pm

by jeffy

^ but you are comparing (ultegra) components that are significantly less expensive, with ones (ti / ee) that cost much more : ?

2lo8
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:32 am

by 2lo8

It was in response to

The reality is at some point these components can't be made any lighter without sacrificing functionality or durability. Or, making them entirely of titanium and carbon and increasing the price ten-fold.


among other comments blaming Ultegra's weight on materials.

In regards to Ultegra not losing weight. Fact of the matter is that Ultegra is nowhere near the limits of what aluminum can do, and Ultegra does in fact include some carbon. The limits of Ultegra aren't because of material considerations, or sacrificing functionality and arguably durability.

So yes, that is the point. You can engineer Ultegra's materials to be lighter than Ultegra without sacrificing functionality and arguable durability. Obviously this comes at a cost, but the point is that it's not the materials holding things back. The reason Ultegra weighs as much as it does is because it's built to a marketing strategy, a product hierarchy and a price point.

I also mentioned the SRAM Rival RD which costs less than Ultegra, being 105 equivalent. Rival shifters/brakes are also considerably lighter, but I know if I say that people are going to say you sacrifice functionality. eeBrake design could come down a lot in price and still maintain a relatively light weight. Look at Bontrager's direct mount speed stops. If you mass produced the design and made it even rougher around the edges, it would still be lighter than Shimano brakes.
[14lb(6.35kg) of no carbon fiber]
[2lo8.wordpress.com]
Your one-stop source for information and reviews on cheap eBay bike junk.

User avatar
slake21
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:59 am
Location: EU

by slake21

is the Ultegra FD really different from DA front mech?

this is from bikerumor: "Curiously, the mechanical front derailleur doesn’t get the revised & rotating Dura-Ace design layout, but still has been reshaped with a shorter arm to better clear the latest crop of wide road tires."

thought they were kind of the same..
Image

Image

2lo8
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:32 am

by 2lo8

It's the same dealer's manual for 5801, R8000 and R9100
[14lb(6.35kg) of no carbon fiber]
[2lo8.wordpress.com]
Your one-stop source for information and reviews on cheap eBay bike junk.

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

just saw the release. the bigest deal will be a 34 rear pizza side cog for those who either want to climb ventoux or are simply not strong climbers. seems the trend in group sets is for ever bigger rear cassettes. when i got my first modern road bike i was on a 12/25. years later 11-28 was the rage followed by 11-32 and now we see a 34 cog. can't imagine what comes next.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels

rcb78
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:17 pm

by rcb78

A bigger deal than a 34t cassette is that it will work with 10sp freehub bodies using the same offset design as the 11sp mtn cassettes. This finally makes 11sp an easy upgrade path for people with older bikes that don't want to replace the wheels at the same time.

eaglejackson
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:26 am
Location: PNW

by eaglejackson

fromtrektocolnago wrote:just saw the release. the bigest deal will be a 34 rear pizza side cog for those who either want to climb ventoux or are simply not strong climbers. seems the trend in group sets is for ever bigger rear cassettes. when i got my first modern road bike i was on a 12/25. years later 11-28 was the rage followed by 11-32 and now we see a 34 cog. can't imagine what comes next.

52/42 with 12-24 is what I rode in the 80's. 53/39 was a welcome evolution giving a lower gear. So much more choice now with 53/39, 52/36, and 50/34, with 11-28 or even 11-32, and now 11-34.

Hexsense
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am
Location: USA

by Hexsense

50x11 is as big as 56x12. Pros (and people, generally) these day ride at higher cadence too so demand for higher gear is lower but lower gear is higher.
I don't really like that 53/39 still exist without evolving into a wider range.
Ideally i would like it to be
Dura-ace 50/34, 52/36, 54/38, 56/40 (for pros TT)
Ultegra 48/32, 50/34, 52/36, 54/38.
and if you don't like 54/38 because of big jump then just buy 40t small ring to make it 54/40 (or mix 52 to be 52/38 or 52/40). Shimano use 110bcd 4bolts for every size anyway.

petal666
Posts: 967
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:19 am
Location: Brisbane, Oz
Contact:

by petal666

55x12 is closer.

User avatar
vejnemojnen
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:11 pm

by vejnemojnen

I'd welcome a hobbist-amateur "flat terrain" chainset with 50-39 or 50-42.

I actually really love, that you can easily maintain cruising around 30kph with 39-15, 39-16. My ideal setup is 50-39 with 13-26 at the rear. Strictly for flatish-terrain, but 39-26 is pretty nice for occasional inclines as well.

the finer increments the cassette has, the better. for flatish-landish riding.

oh, and for my solo leisure riding, pretty much a 13t is overkill with 50t. albeit, occasionally, every once in a while, seldom I do use it..

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



2lo8
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:32 am

by 2lo8

If you get a 130 BCD crank, you can do that easily. 50t triple rings are meant to be paired with 39t middle rings. Just use a 130 BCD double and use a triple 50t big ring. 13-26 seems pretty unnecessary compared to 12-25 for 11 speed. 12-25 would give you better chainline in 39t as well.
13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-23-26
12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-25
[14lb(6.35kg) of no carbon fiber]
[2lo8.wordpress.com]
Your one-stop source for information and reviews on cheap eBay bike junk.

Post Reply