Shimano 105 R7000

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8612
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

robertbb wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:38 am
People getting excited about Shimano 105 :lol:
Have you tried 105?
It's always been quite good. Perfectly suited for most riders and applications, and an ideal drivetrain for crit racing.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

by Weenie


wingguy
Posts: 4131
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

robertbb wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:38 am
People getting excited about Shimano 105 :lol:
*f##k* yeah. I would definitely consider getting a new hydro winter bike based on 105 getting close to the shift quality and ergonomics of new DA and Ultegra. What's wrong with that? :D

youngs_modulus
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:03 am
Location: Madison, WI USA

by youngs_modulus

prendrefeu wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:47 pm
robertbb wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:38 am
People getting excited about Shimano 105 :lol:
Have you tried 105?
It's always been quite good. Perfectly suited for most riders and applications, and an ideal drivetrain for crit racing.
I agree that 105's functionality is outstanding, especially for the cost. But what do you mean by "an ideal drivetrain for crit racing?"

Are you just saying that it's cheap enough that you won't care if you crash on it?

2lo8
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:32 am

by 2lo8

robertbb wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:38 am
People getting excited about Shimano 105 :lol:
All my bikes run 105/Rival or below with the exception of my 15+ year old 10sp Chorus groupset. I don't spend more than 1 $/g on weight reduction which means 105.
[6.6kg of no carbon fiber]
[2lo8.wordpress.com]
Your one-stop source for information and reviews on cheap eBay bike junk.

morganb
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:30 pm

by morganb

I hope the 160mm cranks sell well and trickle up to next gen DA. One of the major manufacturers jumping onto short cranks would make my life a lot easier.

2lo8
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:32 am

by 2lo8

I wonder if this has to do with trying to expand market into women's/kids bikes. The problem is that 165mm cranks are already so rarely equipped, usually found on XS women's bikes if the manufacturer cares and that's about it. I can't see there being a lot of demand either. 165mm is already on the tail end of the bell curve, and if you go much smaller, you're likely looking at a non 700C bike.
[6.6kg of no carbon fiber]
[2lo8.wordpress.com]
Your one-stop source for information and reviews on cheap eBay bike junk.

DamonRinard
in the industry
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:32 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

by DamonRinard

When designing the smallest frames, we have to accommodate 170mm cranks (front center, toe clearance) because not all price points have 165mm cranks available. I would love to see 165, even 160 become common enough we can design frames for them. I'd be willing to give up an existing middle length, like 172.5mm, to keep SKUs down. It's been far too long we haven't been addressing the smaller frame sizes well.
Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager, Road Bikes
Cycling Sports Group, Cannondale
Ex-Kestrel, ex-Velomax, ex-Trek, ex-Cervelo

morganb
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:30 pm

by morganb

2lo8 wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:49 am
I wonder if this has to do with trying to expand market into women's/kids bikes. The problem is that 165mm cranks are already so rarely equipped, usually found on XS women's bikes if the manufacturer cares and that's about it. I can't see there being a lot of demand either. 165mm is already on the tail end of the bell curve, and if you go much smaller, you're likely looking at a non 700C bike.
I'm 5'9 and run 150 to 160mm depending on the bike. Most people who are on 52 CM or smaller bikes should be on much shorter cranks than come stock and have just gotten used to running cranks that are way too long.

It isn't gospel but I should be on 154-159mm cranks according to the Zinn formula and I have a saddle height around 717mm with 155mm cranks. That's pretty average for a 52-54cm bike. I can put out better power with this length than 170s and have a super low position on a TT bike due to better hip and knee angles.
Last edited by morganb on Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

2lo8
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:32 am

by 2lo8

DamonRinard wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:48 am
When designing the smallest frames, we have to accommodate 170mm cranks (front center, toe clearance) because not all price points have 165mm cranks available. I would love to see 165, even 160 become common enough we can design frames for them. I'd be willing to give up an existing middle length, like 172.5mm, to keep SKUs down. It's been far too long we haven't been addressing the smaller frame sizes well.
Yes please. It would be nice to see them specced on the second from the smallest size too and men's bikes too, 50cm and under. The smallest size usually has stack/reach that's barely any different from the second smallest, but compromised handling due to slacker than slack headtubes and steeper than steep seat tubes to get the short top tube on paper. I hate the feeling that I have to compromise frame geometry for 5mm of reach reduction and extreme sloping top tube I do not want just to get a 165mm crank which is a $$$ component. Short cranks aren't just for mutants who need every last millimeter of stack and reach reduction, but XXS bikes sure seem designed that way.
[6.6kg of no carbon fiber]
[2lo8.wordpress.com]
Your one-stop source for information and reviews on cheap eBay bike junk.

2lo8
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:32 am

by 2lo8

@morganb
I wasn't saying what should be, more that the realities are that bike manufacturers hate to spec them, even if they bother to stock the 165mm SKU for the one XXS women's bike it is used on. Crank length doesn't really need to be spot on optimal, but when a crank is too long, each additional milimeter is worse. +5 from optimal seems okay. +10mm and I notice issues. +15mm seems distinctly long. Whereas in the other direction, it seems to be less of an issue.

I'm not exactly sure how you're calculating those numbers though if you get a 717mm saddle height but 155mm cranks. That doesn't seem right is using Zinn's 21% of inseam rule. It seems like you either have ~80cm legs based on saddle height or ~74cm legs based on crank length.
[6.6kg of no carbon fiber]
[2lo8.wordpress.com]
Your one-stop source for information and reviews on cheap eBay bike junk.

ooo
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

'

ooo
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:59 pm

by ooo

Shimano catalog weight info update 14.05.2018:

Shifting/Brake Lever:
ST-R7000: 251+249 (R+L) (ST-5800 486) +14g
ST-R7020: 590 (R+L) (ST-RS685 649, ST-RS505 665, ST-R8020 554)
ST-R7025: 599 (R+L)

Rear Derailleur:
RD-R7000-SS: 225 (RD-5800-SS 234) -9g
RD-R7000-GS: 232 (RD-5800-GS 250) -18g

Front Derailleur:
FD-R7000-F: 95 (FD-5800-F 89) +6g
FD-R7000-B: 111 (FD-5800-B 104) +7g

Brake:
BR-R7000: 379 (F+R) (BR-5800 388) -9g
BR-R7010: 174+173 (F+R) (BR-5810 174+176)
BR-R7010-RS: 174 (BR-5810-RS 175)
BR-R7070: 147+138 (F+R) (BR-RS785 271, BR-RS505 151+151)

Disc Brake Rotor (140 mm):
SM-RT70: 125 (SM-RT500 103, SM-RT800 108, SM-RT81 101)

Cassette Sprocket:
CS-HG700-11 11-34T: 379 (CS-HG800-11 335)
CS-R7000 11-30T: 304 (CS-R8000 269)
CS-R7000 11-32T: 320 (CS-5800 same)
CS-R7000 11-28T: 284 (CS-5800 same)
CS-R7000 12-25T: 269 (CS-5800 same)


Front Chainwheel (old info, same as 01.04.2018):
FC-R7000 50-34T: 713.4 (FC-5800 757) -43.6g
FC-R7000 52-36T: 742.6 (FC-5800 773) -30.4g
FC-R7000 53-39T: 757.8 (FC-5800 776) -20.2g

Hubs (old info, same as 01.04.2018):
HB-R7000: 155 (HB-5800 same)
HB-R7070: 165 (HB-RS770 125)
FH-R7000: 368 (FH-5800 same)
FH-R7070: 361 (FH-RS770 302)

Pedal (old info, same as 01.04.2018):
PD-R7000: 265 (PD-5800 285, PD-6800 260)
'

chunky666
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:01 pm

by chunky666

DamonRinard wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:48 am
When designing the smallest frames, we have to accommodate 170mm cranks (front center, toe clearance) because not all price points have 165mm cranks available. I would love to see 165, even 160 become common enough we can design frames for them. I'd be willing to give up an existing middle length, like 172.5mm, to keep SKUs down. It's been far too long we haven't been addressing the smaller frame sizes well.
I'd agree with the last point. GF has a 48CM Synapse Black Inc Disc. It's lovely other than the 170mm SISL Cranks on it. some someone 5'2'' they are way to long I just cant find the funds at the moment to chnage them to shorter without ending up with something lar lower spec than she has currently.

Hexsense
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

Yeah, 165mm crank length feel just right for me, 169cm (short) rider.
I'm right at the average height from my (Asian) home country. So i'd imagine there are half of people there running cranks too long.
Rider's height for 700c wheel bike span anywhere from 150-200 cm (range= 33%) , yet the common crank length range was only 165-177.5mm (range= 7%). It doesn't sound right IMO.

2lo8
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:32 am

by 2lo8

ooo wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 5:55 pm
Front Chainwheel (old info, same as 01.04.2018):
FC-R7000 50-34T: 713.4 (FC-5800 757) -43.6g
FC-R7000 52-36T: 742.6 (FC-5800 773) -30.4g
FC-R7000 53-39T: 757.8 (FC-5800 776) -20.2g
I thought FC-5800 was more like 730-745g. Those numbers look too high to me.
[6.6kg of no carbon fiber]
[2lo8.wordpress.com]
Your one-stop source for information and reviews on cheap eBay bike junk.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post