Andy, there are certainly exceptions like you point out, where a premium is put on weight savings over durability. And it's generally accepted that a $20 Shimano UN55 bottom bracket will last as long as an expensive weight-weenie titanium bottom bracket, and operate just as smoothly. But it's also very well known that certain high-end hubs can last forever, compared to low end hubs with lower quality bearing races and seals that wear out quickly.
My favorite components are those that use replaceable cartridge bearings. This way, you can just replace the bearings if they go bad rather than sacrifice an expensive component. I had a very expensive titanium Phil BB go bad after it sat in rusty water that built up inside my frame. It ruined the bearings. Phil replaced the bearings for me for a nominal fee, and as a result, I had a new BB again. If it had been a lower end, non-serviceable BB, it would have had to been chucked. Anton On Friday, November 28, 2014 11:09:35 AM UTC-5, ascpgh wrote: > > The exception to " But for things with complex moving parts like STI > shifters, or things with bearings like hubs and bottom brackets, more > expensive is generally better." is when those expenses bring about lighter > material use that doesn't necessarily play well with the intended use of a > group. > > On a long ago cross country ride by four riders, one bar end shifted 8 > speed one Ultegra STI and two Dura Ace STI drivetrains, one group proved to > need attention and demonstrated wear first. It was the DA STI. By > mid-continent the shifters were ill-behaving and each rider required a > replacement. Collective wear, be it from dust in the air, water-carried > grit or the water itself in the form of rain, automobile road spray or > mind-numbing mile after mile of other bicycle wheel spray, took its toll on > the DA but not the Ultegra. I continue to use the same bar ends from that > ride. > > The expense of an aluminum pivot pin over a CrMo or stainless one may > weigh less, if that is the intent, but it sure will wear down faster. The > "more expensive" moving parts may not be particularly better if durability > is the primary objective. By durable, I think about my commuter bike and > its mid-level gear that sucks up the abuse of its use like the super fly, > high-end stuff most likely cannot. > > Andy Cheatham > Pittsburgh > > > On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:50:25 AM UTC-5, Anton Tutter wrote: >> >> You've opened a can of worms with that question, as I'm sure you'll >> receive a bevy of opinions. >> >> In my experience, low-end groups (Shimano Acera, Sora) not only perform >> sub-par but also are much heavier and don't last as long. As you move up >> the food chain, they get lighter, operate with more precision, and last >> longer due various reasons, such as better bearings, more expensive >> materials, etc. But the climb up the food chain isn't always linear, and >> some component levels around the middle of the pack stand out as exemplary >> given their price-point and marketing placement. For example, Shimano 105 >> has always impressed me, giving 90% of the quality of Dura Ace but at 30% >> of the price. I'm sure similar comparisons can be made with SRAM and >> Campagnolo groups, but I don't have first hand experience current >> iterations of those brands' groups. >> >> And then there's also the trickle-down effect. Component manufacturers >> will put the results of their latest technologies on their expensive >> components, and when they become proven over time and cheaper to >> manufacturer, they trickle down into the lower groups. Think technologies >> like STI. Originally introduced in the Dura Ace group 25 years ago, now >> even entry level road groups use the technology. So a low-end group today >> may be as good as or better than a group one step up from 10-20 years ago. >> Sometimes I have a tough time discerning the quality difference of newer >> Sora components and older 105/ultegra components. >> >> With certain components like cassettes and cranks, where there are >> essentially no moving parts, the only thing the higher group level gets you >> is weight savings. But for things with complex moving parts like STI >> shifters, or things with bearings like hubs and bottom brackets, more >> expensive is generally better. >> >> Anton >> >> >> On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:54:55 PM UTC-5, Benedikt wrote: >>> >>> Does anyone feel that the expensive group sets (i.e. derailleurs, >>> cranks, cassettes, brake/shift levers) are any better then the entry level? >>> What is it that drives the price up? Is it the performance or just the >>> material it's made up of/weight? >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
