Dura Ace 09 Groupset

Junior

My good god is it beautiful... looks like they've gone down the campag route finally of integrating the cables





http://worldwidecyclesblog.com/2008/06/02/dura-ace-2009/

Chips Lovell

Saw that alright the other week. With Sram also doing integrated cables, I guess they had no excuse. Looking forward to seeing the new Campag stuff when its out too.

blorg

It is going to be much more expensive than current Dura Ace?

Chips Lovell

I can't remember where I read it now, but I believe it is. The current version has been around for about 5 years now and has apparently been coming down in price in recent times.

Quigs Snr

Apparently it could be in the 1400 Euro - 1500 euro price range. The UK suppliers have a price of about £1100 on it. You can get the 7800 stuff now for about 800 even, so I really can't see the value of upgrading just yet.

Like the shifters, the front and rear derailleurs, plus the campag style cable routing at last, but I am not mad on the 2 tone brake calipers and chainset. Wish they had just gone full carbon with the chainset but I don't think the 7800 carbon chainset was a success so they are not going down that route yet (never mind the excessive price I just heard they weren't happy with the quality). Its just an aesthetic thing but I prefer the look of the current Dura Ace or better again the Ultegra Dark Grey SL. That being said though I will reserve final judgement until I see it in the flesh...

Raam

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Wish they had just gone full carbon with the chainset

Don't the carbon cranks have a spider in them anyway?

Quigs Snr

Which ones the Dura Ace 7800 ones ? They looked like a one piece construction to be honest, but they would certainley have had some sort of alloy skeleton. SRAM and Campy have gone the carbon route, it would be nice to see Shimano do the same (with an affordable option this time). That being said I have recently shifted from FSA Carbon cranks to stanard Dura Ace 7800 and am pretty pleased... maybe Shimano are correct to stick with alloy. After all they are still probably the best cranks on the market, not as fancy as others sure, but stiffer.

tunney

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Wish they had just gone full carbon with the chainset but I don't think the 7800 carbon chainset was a success so they are not going down that route yet

Why? Carbon cranks are still not as stiff as alloy ones.

Quigs Snr

Purely for looks Tunney, would look nice on the bike ! Carbon may not be quite as stiff but it is still stiff enough to not hold any of us back. CSC did race with the FSA Carbon Cranks for a number of years and a lot of pro tour teams ride the Record stuff.

I am ok with Alloy or Carbon, I think Shimano should have an option like Campag do, surely one must be on the way. I have alloy on my bikes now but have had carbon in the past. The Dura Ace stuff is just marginally smoother in my opinion. I couldn't tell the difference between the carbon and aluminium apart from that, but then I am no thunder thighed track rider so I wouldn't be troubling the cranks too much.

Chips Lovell

tunney wrote: »

Why? Carbon cranks are still not as stiff as alloy ones.

Tour magazine did a test a while back and Record cranks topped the list for stiffness to weight. Don't think it's online, but all the data is here. On pure stiffness alone, there was shag all difference between Record, Chorus, Dura Ace and Ultegra.

blorg

Are there any other major factors than weight and stiffness with regard to a crankset? Durability, Q factor and bling? Can the average non-pro rider even tell the difference with regard to stiffness?

Quigs Snr

I don't think so really. I think most decently branded cranks are functional for what they do. You pay extra for weight and bling (which usually go hand in hand). Pro riders cannot really tell, although like the rest of us some are superstitious and won't ride with certain brands / materials etc....

tunney

el tonto wrote: »

Tour magazine did a test a while back and Record cranks topped the list for stiffness to weight. Don't think it's online, but all the data is here. On pure stiffness alone, there was shag all difference between Record, Chorus, Dura Ace and Ultegra.

I don't think I know anyone riding campag record carbon cranks. I do know sh!t loads of people riding carbon cranks though.

tunney

Quigs Snr wrote: »

I don't think so really. I think most decently branded cranks are functional for what they do. You pay extra for weight and bling (which usually go hand in hand). Pro riders cannot really tell, although like the rest of us some are superstitious and won't ride with certain brands / materials etc....

I'd beg to differ. A Pro sprinter generating 1500watts at 65-70kph would notice anything not stif enough

Junior

tunney wrote: »

I'd beg to differ. A Pro sprinter generating 1500watts at 65-70kph would notice anything not stif enough

Seriously would a pro sprinter generate that much ?

blorg

Would they notice the difference between say 100.55 N/mm (my current Truvativ Elita crankset) and 102.6 (Ultegra SL) or 101.35 N/mm (Dura Ace?) Or are there allegations that there is another type of stiffness that isn't being noticed here?

What sort of level would you want to be at before a difference would be noticed with any crankset, even the significantly "noodlier" ones like the FSA SL-K (69.95 N/mm?) I am pretty sure it is beyond my level but I am wondering at what level it would make a difference. I _do_ notice drive train stiffness differences between my bikes but I am pretty sure that is the frame.

I need to decide where to waste my money next you see! Was thinking of swapping my (triple) Truvativ Elita crankset for Ultegra SL; this might get me a marginal weight saving (~91g based on the double weights) and increase in stiffness, but it would also get me a 52 big ring, which I would like back, and would match the rest of my groupset.

tunney

Junior wrote: »

Seriously would a pro sprinter generate that much ?

Yip at least. I saw a photo of a sprinters SRM display once. Max wattage usually is (at least on mine ) 700 w or the like. This one said 1.51 kw Nearly crapped myself.

blorg

Junior wrote: »

Seriously would a pro sprinter generate that much ?

Only for a few seconds in a sprint, although those few seconds could be decisive.

Would you agree this is the only real place that crank stiffness comes into play?

cantalach

el tonto wrote: »

Tour magazine did a test a while back and Record cranks topped the list for stiffness to weight. Don't think it's online, but all the data is here. On pure stiffness alone, there was shag all difference between Record, Chorus, Dura Ace and Ultegra.

An Aussie magazine called Ride Cycling Review tested the four you've just mentioned plus the Campag Centaur and some very exotic offerings from FSA and Zipp. Their contention was that vertical stiffness is actually not the issue because they're all very good in that plane. So they used industrial test harnesses to very accurately measure the lateral flex under different loads. Ultegra came out the clear winner in absolute stiffness, with Dura Ace second. The Campag stuff occupied the middle ground, in the order you would expect based on price. FSA and Zipp brought up the rear.

Since then, Campag have brought out the Ultra Torque cranksets, which may well have put them back on top. The most startling conclusion about the testing however was not whether Shimano or Campag was better, but just how much flex there was in the mega-expensive carbon cranksets from FSA and Zipp. They were lighter to be sure, but the weight difference was a lot less than the weight of flab on your belly. The equipment used wasn't able to measure the bling factor either and I'm sure they would have scored highly there!

P_Raider

If alloy cranks are more stiff than carbon (if only marginally), then why is it that carbon frames are stiffer than alloy ones? Or, as previously stated, is the difference only marginal that us amateurs can't tell the difference? Probably opening up a whole can of worms here!

I've recently upgraded from alu to carbon and from 105 to Ultegra and I do feel a noticeable difference in performance and responsiveness.

Chips Lovell

P_Raider wrote: »

If alloy cranks are more stiff than carbon (if only marginally), then why is it that carbon frames are stiffer than alloy ones? Or, as previously stated, is the difference only marginal that us amateurs can't tell the difference? Probably opening up a whole can of worms here!

I've recently upgraded from alu to carbon and from 105 to Ultegra and I do feel a noticeable difference in performance and responsiveness.

Depending on the type of carbon, the layup and the frame design, carbon can be stiff as hell or a bit on the flexy side. The same can probably be said for aluminium, that it can depend on which alloy and the frame design.

Aluminium frames have a reputation for being quite stiff, but also a little unforgiving, in that you'll feel more of the road through them.

tunney

P_Raider wrote: »

If alloy cranks are more stiff than carbon (if only marginally), then why is it that carbon frames are stiffer than alloy ones? Or, as previously stated, is the difference only marginal that us amateurs can't tell the difference? Probably opening up a whole can of worms here!

I've recently upgraded from alu to carbon and from 105 to Ultegra and I do feel a noticeable difference in performance and responsiveness.

Unless you are going top end the carbon frames won't be stiffer than the equivalent alu frames at that price point.

Amateurs can easily tell the difference between a crap frame and wheels and a good frame and wheels. Anyone half decent could flex the f*ck out of alot of entry level kit.

Hungrycol

drool...

blorg

tunney wrote: »

Amateurs can easily tell the difference between a crap frame and wheels and a good frame and wheels. Anyone half decent could flex the f*ck out of alot of entry level kit.

I would tend to agree regarding frame and wheels, at least in my own experience, but do you think this holds true for cranks?

tunney

To a lesser extend yes.