Ultegra update?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
ooo
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

CS-HG800 11-34 stock 2-7 day at 86,95€ (vs 11-32 at 72,95€/41,95€ R8000/5800)
https://www.bike-components.de/en/Shimano/CS-HG800-11-11-speed-Cassette-p58013/

pdlpsher1 wrote:
jeffy wrote:looking at the various 2018 bikes being announced, it is very disappointing that (other than BMC) none of the 8000 & 9100 bikes have direct mount hangers - at least in the product photos. It is not as if a hanger is a huge overhead.


Figures. Someone has mentioned that Shimano has priced the direct mount version of the OEM rear derailleur to be cheaper than the regular version in order to speed up adoption. But I guess no one at the bike manufacturer has noticed it?


mfg uses same frame design to make da/ult/105 versions of bike,
most will wait at least until 105 rd before adpoting dm
some will skip it if they want sram option on frame
'

by Weenie


User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6222
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

So, on the subject of this whole Direct Mount hanger business...

1. The new 9100 derailleur, and I presume the new Ultegra rear derailleur, both have removeable "b-links", correct? This b-link, which I used to refer to as the "extension thingy", is essentially there so that when attached to a regular hanger the derailleur is positioned in the same place it would be if it was attached to a Direct Mount hanger after removing the b-link. So why the fuss over wheteher there is a DM or a regular hanger?

2. If frame manufacturers only made DM hangers then that would mean SRAM and Campagnolo rear derailleurs could not be used with these frames, unless there was another hanger available to be swapped out. Not good. As it is now, the b-link is provided for current hangers. So what is the advantage of creating frames with a hanger that will not work with SRAM or Campagnolo rear derailleurs? Or more generally, what is the advantage, period?

3. Is it better? So far, the new 9100 rear derailleur has left me with quite mixed feelings. I suppose it's better if you want to run pie plate type cassettes, after all... the design is carried over from their mountain bike stuff. But it doesn't seem like they thought through some of the practical issues this design presents to a lot of road bikes. Specifically, I'm talking about rear wheel removal. With some road bikes, especially ones with fairly substantial Bottom Bracket mouldings, it is a royal pain in the ass to do a simple rear wheel removal. The derailleur just does not want to move out of the way enough to allow the wheel to slide out. With mountain bikes there's usually a ton of clearance up front of the tire between the bottom bracket. Also, BB drops aren't as large as on road bikes. So on mountain bikes this issue is moot. But with road bikes and quick release wheels, that wheel needs to both drop down and slide forward a substantial amount to clear the derailleur and in some cases all kinds of jamming up occurs due to the rear derailleur not being able to move easily out of the way. Add to this that some folks want to run larger tires and the problem gets worse.

4. I suppose through axles and longer chainstays to accommodate bigger tires would help all this, but where does the mountainization of the road bike stop, or does it? I like the fast elegant quick release and easy removal of the rear wheel. I think Shimano needs a few tweaks to their latest rear derailleur design before I'll start jumping up and down praising its virtues because so far this single aspect of it is proving to be a big negative. Rear wheel removal should be an easy operation on any frame, or at least no more difficult than it ever was. If it's not, then someone has messed up in their design process. Fix it Shimano. Please, fix it.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

jeffy
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:51 pm

by jeffy

AFAIK Rear wheel removal is significantly less of an
issue with DM Hangers and Thru-Axle wheels. The design of the QR endcaps
(and that they protrude passed the internal wall of the dropout creates the issue.

Perhaps I don't understand- but can't swappable hangers be created? Will he new BMX TM not be able to be used with SRAM??

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6222
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Oh, you mean like mountain bikes have, which also have a ton of clearance between the tire and the bottom bracket, and the BB drop is not nearly as significant as it is on road bikes. Yes, no issue there. Moot point.
I'm talking about a direct mount hanger on current road bikes with quick release wheels. Under these circumstances the new derailleur makes rear wheel removal more difficult in a lot of cases. Through axles would probably help however, since the wheel could just drop straight down and out I suppose, provided the derailleur swings back enough to allow it. But I'd hate for the quick release wheel to go the way of the DoDo bird too. All for what?

Yes, different hangers could be created I suppose, but again, why? The new derailleurs have the b-link to hook up to existing hangers. Do we really need to make everything obsolete, for what, the sake of change for change's sake? It's getting ridiculous.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

pdlpsher1
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

Calnago wrote:Yes, different hangers could be created I suppose, but again, why? The new derailleurs have the b-link to hook up to existing hangers. Do we really need to make everything obsolete, for what, the sake of change for change's sake? It's getting ridiculous.


Easier wheel removal and weight savings. Depending on the bike the ease of wheel removal is far bigger deal. On my bike I can't remove the rear wheel unless I remove the QR nut, as the QR nut interferes with the RD. Having a direct mount hanger will solve that problem. The second benefit is weight savings. With DM hanger you only have one pivot bolt instead of two.

Look around you and see how fast everything is evolving, like the smart mobile phone you have. Then take a look at the bicycle which was invented over 100 years ago. In ten years your car will likely be totally autonomous :D

ooo
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

classic hangers put rd in different positions relative to wheel and chainstay, because classic hanger spec is not strict
dm hanger position rd in exact position where shimano spec wants it to be. only some of classic hanger position rd in the same spot,
this spot gives you best wheel removal and arguably may affect shifting (again, some classic hangers may put your rd in same spot with same effect)
'

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6222
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Classic hanger specs do specify a range of workability however. Perhaps it's the new derailleur design as well, but the "latest and greatest" most certainly has not made wheel removal easier. Quite the contrary.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6222
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

pdlpsher1 wrote:...On my bike I can't remove the rear wheel unless I remove the QR nut, as the QR nut interferes with the RD. Having a direct mount hanger will solve that problem. The second benefit is weight savings. With DM hanger you only have one pivot bolt instead of two.

Ok, perhaps a DM hanger might help your specific problem, but your problem is a basic design flaw in your frame. I know exactly what you're talking about and those situations are an annoyance for sure, but not related to the DM issue. Any frame that requires you to remove your quick release skewer nut before you can remove the rear wheel is just a poor design from the get go.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

ooo
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

ST-R8020 diagram uploaded (hydro brake + mechanical shift)
interesting details:

ST-R8020 and ST-R9120 uses same body design and same hoods design
(unlike ST-R8000 vs ST-R9100 - they have different body and hoods design)

Also, ultegra level WH-RS700-TL wheels added to Dealers manual::
http://si.shimano.com/pdfs/dm/DM-WH0002-10-ENG.pdf
Attachments
r8020.gif
ST-R8020
r9120.gif
ST-R9120
'

ooo
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

ST-R8070 diagram uploaded (hydro brake + di2 shift)

again, ST-R8070 is copy-paste from ST-R9170 design/hoods
Attachments
r8070.gif
ST-R8070
r9170.gif
ST-R9170
'

User avatar
rainerhq
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Estonia

by rainerhq

matty wrote:
rainerhq wrote:
rainerhq wrote:Just ordered rear der from LBS for 75€ (68£). Should be here in 10 days.

My shortcage arrived and installed. Works great with 11-32 cassette. Front ring 48T.
197g


Guess it would be a stretch using 50 at front and gs would be required? Don't know the cage length do you of the ss version?

My front ring is 48T melon(Garbaruk), so its almost the same as 50T?
Domane
"Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride"

P90Puma
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:00 pm

by P90Puma

ooo wrote:ST-R8070 diagram uploaded (hydro brake + di2 shift)

again, ST-R8070 is copy-paste from ST-R9170 design/hoods


Has anyone posted the weight differences for the hydro di2 shifters from 9100 to 8000?

ooo
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

No pics of ST-R8070 & ST-R8020 with scale weight yet.
Shimano updated catalog weights, still look suspicious:

2017-07-01: ST-R8020 550/pair; ST-R9120 505/pair
2017-08-10: ST-R8020 554/pair; ST-R9120 538/pair

No changes about ST-R9170 360/pair & ST-R8070 360/pair,
but we already know that ST-R9170 real weight is 320/pair

Also updated catalog info on CS-HG800 cassette 11-34T:
2017-07-01: carbon spider 1, alu spider 1, weight 335
2017-08-10: carbon spider 0, alu spider 2, weight 335
'

jlok
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:30 am

by jlok

Just gotta love Shimano's product spec strategy... remember the WH 9100 C40 CL spec?
Giant Propel Advanced SL Disc 1 < Propel Adv < TCR Adv SL Disc < KTM Revelator Sky < CAAD 12 Disc < Domane S Disc < Alize < CAAD 10

ooo
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

Di2 firmware update released for R8050 series:

2017-08-16
FD-R8050 3.1.0
RD-R8050 3.0.3
ST-R8050 3.0.1
ST-R8060 3.0.1
ST-R8070 3.0.1
'

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post