mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
Or you could live a little and buy SRAM.
Which kicks Shi**no's ass BTW.
Which kicks Shi**no's ass BTW.
Are top groupsets worth the extra
- Thread starter Berlinbybike
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Go high end SRAM?
e-rider
Banned member
- Location
- South West
I used to buy components from near the top but these days I tend to opt for middle range stuff - my cycling enjoyment hasn't decreased as a result and my wallet is happier! I started to get fed up of paying a premium for labels and brand names and getting products that were not worth the extra cash (mavic springs to mind).
Berlinbybike
Active Member
I'm glad you mentioned Mavic - I have some old Mavic hubs which were beautifully made and have lasted and lasted. Starting with Heliums (I think) they grew the market for factory wheels and what I've seen lately is eye-wateringly expensive and looks like kiddies stuff, and is not much lighter than the stuff of old, anyway. Dreadful. Branding indeed. And they don't sell hubs. A manifestation of all that has happened as the marketeers gained control of the bicycle industry.
Gerry Attrick
Lincolnshire Mountain Rescue Consultant
Deore/XT/XTR? All marketing dross IMHO. I have used Deore for years without any problems whatsoever and in all weathers. Only basic sensible maintenance is required. Still ... you pays your money etc.
accountantpete
OAP
I haven't got any SRAM kit but just had to buy a pair of their Blackbox jockey wheels - awesome.
They sit on my desk and when I want cheering up I have a little twirl.
They sit on my desk and when I want cheering up I have a little twirl.
i think it depends what is it. for instance i've got a road bike with XTR pedals and Ultegra group set, and i've got a cross bike with normal shimano M520 pedals and a mix of tiagra and 105 groupset.
i don't notice any difference in the pedals, but i notice difference in the gear change. The tiagra is clumpier.
the road bike is a sub-kilogram carbon frame, the cross bike is heavier aluminium and when i first had the cross bike, it had skinny road tyres, and my times on both bike are pretty much the same. The only difference is the carbon is better for climbing, but then more skittish on the descents because of the lack of weight, and i feel the carbon shift more when a side wind catches it, which can be a bit hairy at times, so the aluminium cross bike is a "safer" ride i think, but doesn't seem to be any slower. I enjoy hill climbs less on the aluminium, but safer on the downhill descents, and even though i gain time uphill on the carbon, the average speed stays the same (so i must get down faster on the aluminium?) which makes we wonder if we're all being sucked into a marketing ploy to buy more expensive bikes.
horses for courses i think. i use the cross bike for commuting/winter and the carbon for "proper rides". Buy the cheap end stuff for commuting and the save the nice expensive stuff for sportives, racing and long days out with friends when you need smoother lighter riding to keep up!
i don't notice any difference in the pedals, but i notice difference in the gear change. The tiagra is clumpier.
the road bike is a sub-kilogram carbon frame, the cross bike is heavier aluminium and when i first had the cross bike, it had skinny road tyres, and my times on both bike are pretty much the same. The only difference is the carbon is better for climbing, but then more skittish on the descents because of the lack of weight, and i feel the carbon shift more when a side wind catches it, which can be a bit hairy at times, so the aluminium cross bike is a "safer" ride i think, but doesn't seem to be any slower. I enjoy hill climbs less on the aluminium, but safer on the downhill descents, and even though i gain time uphill on the carbon, the average speed stays the same (so i must get down faster on the aluminium?) which makes we wonder if we're all being sucked into a marketing ploy to buy more expensive bikes.
horses for courses i think. i use the cross bike for commuting/winter and the carbon for "proper rides". Buy the cheap end stuff for commuting and the save the nice expensive stuff for sportives, racing and long days out with friends when you need smoother lighter riding to keep up!
I'm deeply cynical about the top-end stuff.
Is XTR twice as good as XT? Why are Crank Brothers most expensive pedals £351?
Because there's always someone who still lives with their mum and hasn't learnt the value of money, who has to have the most expensive (note I don't say 'the best,' because I don't think that's always what they're after), the component manufacturers have to produce this stuff.
Is XTR twice as good as XT? Why are Crank Brothers most expensive pedals £351?
Because there's always someone who still lives with their mum and hasn't learnt the value of money, who has to have the most expensive (note I don't say 'the best,' because I don't think that's always what they're after), the component manufacturers have to produce this stuff.
accountantpete
OAP
I used to think the same 3narf - all I can suggest is that you approach a friendly LBS/fellow rider and ask them if you could carefully have a look at a Zipp front wheel.
- Location
- the post-brexit wasteland
a senior member of my club was a former mechanic for team gb (and has a lot of stories to tell about robert millar in particular) opines that the top specced groupsets are designed to be raced on and disposed of after a short while, whereas the lower end stuff will last much better. he thinks that putting top spec groupset on clubman's bikes is like buying colin mccrea's rally car and expecting it to have similar service intervals to a family saloon.
i used to work with a chap who regularly commuted on a lovely pinerallo with record groupset. in fairness to him, it was a 30m commute so not an any-bike-will-do-distance, but he seemed to go through cranksets, chains and mechs with boring monotony. it kept him off the road for ages until he could afford replacements, and would not hear of putting a cheaper mech on just to keep him going while he saved up
i used to work with a chap who regularly commuted on a lovely pinerallo with record groupset. in fairness to him, it was a 30m commute so not an any-bike-will-do-distance, but he seemed to go through cranksets, chains and mechs with boring monotony. it kept him off the road for ages until he could afford replacements, and would not hear of putting a cheaper mech on just to keep him going while he saved up
How about the first (and I think still only) carbon wheel to survive Paris-Roubaix and win? In terms of wheels it's just bling to weekend warriors, but to active racers it represents a marginal gain. Re: groupsets I personally can't tell the difference in performance between Centaur and Record.
There is a massive difference between top end carbon wheels like Zipp or Hed, and mid/low-end carbon such as Planet X/Gigantex, or even alloy wheels. Weight is the immediately obvious one, and the marketing types will then point to wind tunnel data showing that various deep section carbons trump shallower rims. It's actually more obvious when you are riding them why Zipp and Hed are ahead of the competition - handling. I've ridden all sorts of carbon wheels while timetrialling, and the toroidal shapes of Zipp and Hed feel much safer than the V-shaped Planet X of a comparable depth when dealing with a nasty crosswind.
I've also done a non-conclusive test on a national hill climb course of carbon v alloy climbing wheels, 2 runs of each @ 390W where I was on average 20 seconds faster on the carbon.
A great deal of the price tag is to claw back the R&D costs associated with developing such wheels.
There is a massive difference between top end carbon wheels like Zipp or Hed, and mid/low-end carbon such as Planet X/Gigantex, or even alloy wheels. Weight is the immediately obvious one, and the marketing types will then point to wind tunnel data showing that various deep section carbons trump shallower rims. It's actually more obvious when you are riding them why Zipp and Hed are ahead of the competition - handling. I've ridden all sorts of carbon wheels while timetrialling, and the toroidal shapes of Zipp and Hed feel much safer than the V-shaped Planet X of a comparable depth when dealing with a nasty crosswind.
I've also done a non-conclusive test on a national hill climb course of carbon v alloy climbing wheels, 2 runs of each @ 390W where I was on average 20 seconds faster on the carbon.
A great deal of the price tag is to claw back the R&D costs associated with developing such wheels.
GrasB
Veteran
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
From road riding my feeling is thus;
The top end shifters & leavers seem to give noticeable improvements in tactile feel over the mid range stuff. The mechs you're paying for weight reduction & better performance in the short term (long term they need more servicing & TLC). Once you get onto the running gear you're paying purely for weight reduction while retaining functional load bearing.
Mid-range kit typically has the headline features of the top end suff but utilises cheaper materials & the drive train mechanicals are typically more robust. It may not be quite as crisp & precise when new but it'll take more miles & be less sensitive to less than perfect servicing.
Low end stuff isn't that light & may not have the head line features of the higher spec stuff but typically it'll be based on well proven technologies which typically make it the most robust & reliable.
If I was going to build my road bike up from scratch again I'd not go for the SRAM RED group set. No, I'd use an SRAM Force group set with RED shifters. Certainly I'm using PG107# chain & cassettes over the RED dedicated OG/PG1090(R) line for SRAM Red.
I'm, with Will1985 as regard to wheel sets, even with what look like very similar wheel sets on paper (weight, spoke count, rim profile) the jump from £250 to £450 is very noticeable. I did a basic non-systematic test & it showed that on rough road for the same HR the more expensive rims with the tyres delivered more speed.
The top end shifters & leavers seem to give noticeable improvements in tactile feel over the mid range stuff. The mechs you're paying for weight reduction & better performance in the short term (long term they need more servicing & TLC). Once you get onto the running gear you're paying purely for weight reduction while retaining functional load bearing.
Mid-range kit typically has the headline features of the top end suff but utilises cheaper materials & the drive train mechanicals are typically more robust. It may not be quite as crisp & precise when new but it'll take more miles & be less sensitive to less than perfect servicing.
Low end stuff isn't that light & may not have the head line features of the higher spec stuff but typically it'll be based on well proven technologies which typically make it the most robust & reliable.
If I was going to build my road bike up from scratch again I'd not go for the SRAM RED group set. No, I'd use an SRAM Force group set with RED shifters. Certainly I'm using PG107# chain & cassettes over the RED dedicated OG/PG1090(R) line for SRAM Red.
I'm, with Will1985 as regard to wheel sets, even with what look like very similar wheel sets on paper (weight, spoke count, rim profile) the jump from £250 to £450 is very noticeable. I did a basic non-systematic test & it showed that on rough road for the same HR the more expensive rims with the tyres delivered more speed.
snailracer
Über Member
IMO, the only people who can actually make justifiable use of "top" groupsets are pro racers, who do not actually buy them. If you have to buy them yourself, logically the answer is NO.
