Road Bike Gears - what's the difference?

Bombbastic22

• Dura-Ace [7900] (10 speed)
• Ultegra [6700] (10 speed)
• 105 [5700] (10 speed)
• Tiagra [4500] (9 speed)
• Sora [3400] (9 speed)
• 2200 [2300] (8 speed)

Aside from price and maybe a little weight - can anyone say what the difference is between all of these gear systems? Durability? Smoothness of shifting?

jinghong

the 2200 is only 8 speed IIRC, above tiagra you get 10 speed, so better power transfer as you can have 2 rings on the front instead of 3, longer durability, lower weight as you go up the rungs. OTOH dura ace needs more precise tuning

Morgan

jinghong wrote: »

as you can have 2 rings on the front instead of 3

You can get triples right up to Dura-Ace level these days.

The primary difference between the ranges is weight. Shifting smoothness/feel also improves.

Tonyandthewhale

Shape of the gear levers also changes, above sora you move from crappy thumbshift button to a secondary lever behind the brake lever so you can change gears in the drops I think that's a pretty major advantage. especially when racing.
As regards drop-bar sti shifters I've used 2200, 2300, 8 speed sora, 9 speed sora, tiagra, 9 speed 105, 9 speed ultegra and 10 speed 105 on various different bikes throughout my cycling career and although I was happy with 2300 I'm still glad I paid the extra for 105 on my latest ride. So if you're trying to suggest that 2200 is as good as anything else and upgrading your groupset is wasted money then I'm going to have to disagree with you as that's an ovely reductionist view of the cycling experience.

Jinghong, you can run 2200 hundred with a double and I'm not sure I agree that a double necessarily means less power transfer than a triple. It's just that triples are dorky and heavy and the gear changes aren't as crisp.

jinghong

Morgan wrote: »

You can get triples right up to Dura-Ace level these days.

The primary difference between the ranges is weight. Shifting smoothness/feel also improves.

I understand that. But you're missing my point: with 10 speeds on the back you can get away with 2 rings on the front meaning better power transfer from pedal to crank, as well as less weight. To illustrate this point, the best power transfer is from a single ring fixie. It stands to reason that the further the ring is from the centre of the bike, the more sideways torque you will have

Chips Lovell

What? You need 10 speed to run a double?!

el tel

If power loss or 'sideways torque' due to offsetness of the chainring from the sproket is a big factor for you I dare say you won't have to worry about what gruoupset you use as you will get all your equipment and multiple bikes for free from the suppliers to your UCI pro tour team

Bombbastic22

Thanks for the replies (to both posts)

So, do you think this bad boy is worth the money???


http://www.kearneycycles.com/galway-bicycles-details.php?act=viewProd&productId=620

niceonetom

jinghong wrote: »

I understand that. But you're missing my point: with 10 speeds on the back you can get away with 2 rings on the front meaning better power transfer from pedal to crank, as well as less weight. To illustrate this point, the best power transfer is from a single ring fixie. It stands to reason that the further the ring is from the centre of the bike, the more sideways torque you will have

Yeah that's nonsense in several different ways.

Bombbastic22 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies (to both posts)

So, do you think this bad boy is worth the money???


http://www.kearneycycles.com/galway-bicycles-details.php?act=viewProd&productId=620

Not really. 1900 is quite a lot to pay for an alu bike with carbon fork and basic wheels even if it does have a nice groupset. Being more concerned with gears than frames is common for those new to the game - really you'd get a nicer bike or your money if you went for a less well known brand with, say 105 or SRAM rival gearing.

Canyon. Planet X. Read through some previous which-bike threads. There are many.

Bombbastic22

niceonetom wrote: »

Yeah that's nonsense in several different ways.



Not really. 1900 is quite a lot to pay for an alu bike with carbon fork and basic wheels even if it does have a nice groupset. Being more concerned with gears than frames is common for those new to the game - really you'd get a nicer bike or your money if you went for a less well known brand with, say 105 or SRAM rival gearing.

Canyon. Planet X. Read through some previous which-bike threads. There are many.

Cheers for reply! Will have a loook

Bombbastic22

niceonetom wrote: »

Yeah that's nonsense in several different ways.



Not really. 1900 is quite a lot to pay for an alu bike with carbon fork and basic wheels even if it does have a nice groupset. Being more concerned with gears than frames is common for those new to the game - really you'd get a nicer bike or your money if you went for a less well known brand with, say 105 or SRAM rival gearing.

Canyon. Planet X. Read through some previous which-bike threads. There are many.

Hmmm...have been advised by some experienced cyclists to stick with Shimano gears, even if they are a bit dearer. How much overpriced do you think this tcr bike is overpriced??? I mean can you expect to get a better bike with the same Shimano Ultegra gears for cheaper???

The seatpost and the fork are carbon, will this make the ride smoother?

Also is their much difference in saddle comfort between one bike and another.

Chips Lovell

Ooof. That's very pricey.

Icyseanfitz

Bombbastic22 wrote: »

Hmmm...have been advised by some experienced cyclists to stick with Shimano gears, even if they are a bit dearer. How much overpriced do you think this tcr bike is overpriced??? I mean can you expect to get a better bike with the same Shimano Ultegra gears for cheaper???

The seatpost and the fork are carbon, will this make the ride smoother?

Also is their much difference in saddle comfort between one bike and another.

get the best frame you can get, it will always be the one of the most expensive parts of any bike, at least in my opinion, planet x and canyon have some great bikes for the same price as the one you listed

ROK ON

Bombbastic22 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies (to both posts)

So, do you think this bad boy is worth the money???


http://www.kearneycycles.com/galway-bicycles-details.php?act=viewProd&productId=620

No, it is not worth the money.
Why - you can get a carbon frame with the same group and better wheels for the same money or less.

Now carbon isnt the be all and end all when it comes to bike frames, however in most cases the alu frame is generally a bit cheaper than a carbon one. There is a lot of profit margin in that bike - I hope he sells a lot of them.

Bombbastic22

ROK ON wrote: »

No, it is not worth the money.
Why - you can get a carbon frame with the same group and better wheels for the same money or less.

Now carbon isnt the be all and end all when it comes to bike frames, however in most cases the alu frame is generally a bit cheaper than a carbon one. There is a lot of profit margin in that bike - I hope he sells a lot of them.

So zen, where can I get zis better bike with ze carbon frame and same gear set? (in Galway) What brand and where can I purchaze zis. My ackzent has gone somwhat Spanish. Why? I do not know ze raizon. Too much of ze coffee makes ze brain loco perhaps.......who needs ze cocain-a.........can you post ze links?

ROK ON

Bombbastic22 wrote: »

So zen, where can I get zis better bike with ze carbon frame and same gear set? (in Galway) What brand and where can I purchaze zis. My ackzent has gone somwhat Spanish. Why? I do not know ze raizon. Too much of ze coffee makes ze brain loco perhaps.......who needs ze cocain-a.........can you post ze links?

Read Toms post. Go search in a Canyon on Planet X for a well speced low priced road bike.

Zen0

jinghong wrote: »

I understand that. But you're missing my point: with 10 speeds on the back you can get away with 2 rings on the front meaning better power transfer from pedal to crank, as well as less weight. To illustrate this point, the best power transfer is from a single ring fixie. It stands to reason that the further the ring is from the centre of the bike, the more sideways torque you will have

Ten speeds on the back won't give you any wider ratios unless your rear mech allows for a larger low speed sprocket. In most cases, it just allows closer gear spacing, and a chain that probably wears faster/costs more. If you need wider ratios, then you need a triple or an SRAM chainset - the SRAMS do support wider ratios.

ROK ON

Zen0 wrote: »

Ten speeds on the back won't give you any wider ratios unless your rear mech allows for a larger low speed sprocket. In most cases, it just allows closer gear spacing, and a chain that probably wears faster/costs more. If you need wider ratios, then you need a triple or an SRAM chainset - the SRAMS do support wider ratios.

Untrue.
I run a 34/27 on a normal rear derailleur. That gives 33.1 gear inches on my set up.
A mate of mine has a campag with a 34/29 on the back. Again normal derailleur.
The SRAM Apex derailleaur allows you to run 34/32 on the back, but it would need to be a vertical wall before you would get the use out of it IMO.
34/27 is more than fine for vast majority of cyclists on vast majority of roads.

Bombbastic22

ROK ON wrote: »

Untrue.
I run a 34/27 on a normal rear derailleur. That gives 33.1 gear inches on my set up.
A mate of mine has a campag with a 34/29 on the back. Again normal derailleur.
The SRAM Apex derailleaur allows you to run 34/32 on the back, but it would need to be a vertical wall before you would get the use out of it IMO.
34/27 is more than fine for vast majority of cyclists on vast majority of roads.

HOLY CRAP! Just spotted this!!

http://www.planet-x-bikes.co.uk/i/q/YBPXSLPRIV/planet-x-pro-carbon-rival-road-bike

Is this worth the denero? It looks super light weight and 100% carbon!

Opinions oh wise ones? It's got me feeling very excited!

dermur

Bombbastic22 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies (to both posts)

So, do you think this bad boy is worth the money???


http://www.kearneycycles.com/galway-bicycles-details.php?act=viewProd&productId=620

That's expensive - I don't think I'd be paying more than 1200-1300 for that.

Bombbastic22

Actually, I like this one better!

http://www.planet-x-bikes.co.uk/i/q/CBPXSLPULT/sl-pro-carbon-shimano-ulterga

dermur

Better...glad you're going for the black bar tape!

ratracer

Bombbastic22 wrote: »

Actually, I like this one better!

http://www.planet-x-bikes.co.uk/i/q/CBPXSLPULT/sl-pro-carbon-shimano-ulterga

I bought one of these about 18 months ago, upgrading from a Lapierre. IMO the bike is faultless, great ride, no problems from the Ultegra groupset. Yoy won't get better value in a new bike, better still if ya can get it on the bike to work scheme.

Zen0

ROK ON wrote: »

Untrue.
I run a 34/27 on a normal rear derailleur. That gives 33.1 gear inches on my set up.
A mate of mine has a campag with a 34/29 on the back. Again normal derailleur.
The SRAM Apex derailleaur allows you to run 34/32 on the back, but it would need to be a vertical wall before you would get the use out of it IMO.
34/27 is more than fine for vast majority of cyclists on vast majority of roads.

A 34/27 may suit you, but for those of us with old knackered knees, the option to run at lower gears on steep Wicklow hills is a real bonus. On a triple, I can spin up those hills, and I don't find too many cyclists bombing past me on higher ratios. No doubt stronger cyclists can get by on the higher ratios, but some of the "advice" given on this topic is highly personalised opinion. I know it's unfashionable to run on a triple, but it actually suits some of us, and a broad dissing of anything outside of your own experience does not necessarily constitute good advice.

Bombbastic22

ratracer wrote: »

I bought one of these about 18 months ago, upgrading from a Lapierre. IMO the bike is faultless, great ride, no problems from the Ultegra groupset. Yoy won't get better value in a new bike, better still if ya can get it on the bike to work scheme.

I have just fallen in love! And it is a love akin to the kind when you're about 13, very innocent and believe that women are fragile, delicate little angels sent from God to make your life heavenly!

I love this bike and your comments have made me love it more! I can't believe the frame is so light!

ROK ON

Zen0 wrote: »

A 34/27 may suit you, but for those of us with old knackered knees, the option to run at lower gears on steep Wicklow hills is a real bonus. On a triple, I can spin up those hills, and I don't find too many cyclists bombing past me on higher ratios. No doubt stronger cyclists can get by on the higher ratios, but some of the "advice" given on this topic is highly personalised opinion. I know it's unfashionable to run on a triple, but it actually suits some of us, and a broad dissing of anything outside of your own experience does not necessarily constitute good advice.

I have used a triple for years. No problem with them at all. What I am saying is that if you check the gear ratios, most triples come with an easiest gear of 30/25 or 30/27.
That equates to approximately to 33.1 and 29.2 gear inches. As it happens, the lowest gear for many on a compact is 34/27, which is 33.1 gear inches also.
So a triple with 30/25 is the same as running a compact with 34/27.


In the past few years it has been possible to fit 28 and 29 tooth rear sprockets. A 34/28 would give you 31.9 gear inches, so again getting closer to the normal triple gearing of 30/27,

So it is possible that a triple and a compact bike would have a very similar amount of gear inches available on any climb. I have a compact on one bike, and if I was doing an event that took in a lot of climbs I would simply put a 28 sprocket casette on the rear.
My point was that, when you actually look at what gear ratios are possible, you would need to be running a triple of 30/30, before you would have a gear that is not possible on a compact. Most other gears are possible on a compact.