Cervelo or Cannondale

[derrick]

http://www.cervelo.com/en/bikes/r-series/r2.html A new colour for the R2

 

[Citius]

Why will things not be made better? Maybe the parts are machined to higher tolerances? It isnt just the materials that make something better and surely if something (as an example the cassette) is made from a harder wearing material (titanium and carbon for dura ace) it will last longer and be stiffer even though it is lighter?

Like I said, the materials are higher quality as you go higher up the tree. Functionality is identical across all the groups, and the more you pay, the lighter it gets - I don't think there's any question there.

Titanium is not harder wearing though, not sure where you got that from. It is lighter than steel though, obviously - and DA has plenty of Ti.

 

[Pumpkin the robot]

So Claris is as smooth to operate as Dura Ace? 5700 is not the same functionality as 6700. I have read many reviews that state the 5700 is stiffer. Anyway I will not argue that point or about the more expensive stuff being better made, but as a machinest I know how the,better, lighter materials are harder to machine and hold tolerances (shimano have stated that the tolerances are tighter as the groupsets get more expensive) As I have seen in other posts you are like a dog with a bone when you get into a discussion and suck the joy out of cycling!

 

[Citius]

Dude, if you need expensive kit to enjoy cycling, you should go back to golf.

Do you know what functionality means? You're a 'machinest', so you must do. It means they operate on exactly the same priniciple. So I don't understand why you think that 5700 and 6700 operate differently.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

1.105 is not only lighter than Ultegra, so that argument is only part of it. It shifts better, is stiffer and is arguably better made and should therefore last longer. 300 grams of weight saving is also hardly sniffed at in my opinion, as it is with many others.

Oh yes?
How does it shift better? Quicker? Faster? Please elaborate.
Where is it stiffer? Perhaps you can point to flex in the one that's not there in the other.
Which parts are made better. Please cite examples, perhaps photos.
Then, why not finish off with an explanation as to why it would last longer. Which parts will last longer and why and how much longer.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Why will things not be made better? Maybe the parts are machined to higher tolerances? It isnt just the materials that make something better and surely if something (as an example the cassette) is made from a harder wearing material (titanium and carbon for dura ace) it will last longer and be stiffer even though it is lighter?

Neither carbon nor titanium is harder wearing than steel. Ironically the hardest-wearing sprockets are the cheaper steel ones.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

So Claris is as smooth to operate as Dura Ace? 5700 is not the same functionality as 6700. I have read many reviews that state the 5700 is stiffer. Anyway I will not argue that point or about the more expensive stuff being better made, but as a machinest I know how the,better, lighter materials are harder to machine and hold tolerances (shimano have stated that the tolerances are tighter as the groupsets get more expensive) As I have seen in other posts you are like a dog with a bone when you get into a discussion and suck the joy out of cycling!

Tolerances is a big word in marketing. Brochure writers love it, but perhaps you can give us examples of where the tolerances of Dura Acer over 105 would be better?

 

[Yellow Saddle]

OK, let's settle this for once and all. According to my digital beautyometer, the Ultegra crank is 3,8 times more beautiful than the 105 crank. Period.

 

[Pumpkin the robot]

Neither carbon nor titanium is harder wearing than steel. Ironically the hardest-wearing sprockets are the cheaper steel ones.

Steel covers a very wide variety of alloys, so all titanium alloys are not as hard wearing as all steels? A standard uncoated EN1A steel would last longer than 6al4v titanium? I think it is the chrome coating on the steel sprockets that gives them long life.

Tolerances is a big word in marketing. Brochure writers love it, but perhaps you can give us examples of where the tolerances of Dura Acer over 105 would be better?

I do not have the manufacturing drawings that shimano use for their items, but as an example the sprockets on the cassette could be machined to +/-0.025mm on one and +/- 0.25mm on another (which is an accepted general machining tolerance) This may not sound like much of a difference, but try putting things together with both tolerances and see which one goes together easily and lasts longer. Same thing in the levers, mechs and chainset, if the parts are made with closer tolerances, they will work better with less slack, giving a better operation and last longer. Try machining to +/- 0.025mm and see how much more difficult everything is to make than +/-0.1mm and you will see why costs rise, especially when the difference in materials is steel and something a little more exoitic like a stainless steel or titanium. At the end of the day I am only guessing at the tolerances, there may not be a difference, but I would find it highly unlikely they use the same for everything, even in Japan.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Steel covers a very wide variety of alloys, so all titanium alloys are not as hard wearing as all steels? A standard uncoated EN1A steel would last longer than 6al4v titanium? I think it is the chrome coating on the steel sprockets that gives them long life.



I do not have the manufacturing drawings that shimano use for their items, but as an example the sprockets on the cassette could be machined to +/-0.025mm on one and +/- 0.25mm on another (which is an accepted general machining tolerance) This may not sound like much of a difference, but try putting things together with both tolerances and see which one goes together easily and lasts longer. Same thing in the levers, mechs and chainset, if the parts are made with closer tolerances, they will work better with less slack, giving a better operation and last longer. Try machining to +/- 0.025mm and see how much more difficult everything is to make than +/-0.1mm and you will see why costs rise, especially when the difference in materials is steel and something a little more exoitic like a stainless steel or titanium. At the end of the day I am only guessing at the tolerances, there may not be a difference, but I would find it highly unlikely they use the same for everything, even in Japan.

Hmmmm,

Well, if it is the chrome plating that gives it longer life, then so be it. It is better. However, no Ti sprocket lasts as long as even the cheapest steel one. Buy them and you'll see for yourself. Shimano's latest XTR gruppo uses stainless steel teeth on a carbon ring. Too many complaints about the short half-life of the Ti sprockets.

Then, as for the tolerances thing. Doing fancy shifting around of a decimal point doesn't impress me. You fail to say why a sprocket that's slightly out of spec will not last as long as one that's exactly the right width. If a cassette indexes across the range, it means the accumulated errors still do not make an error big enough for it not to work. Where's the benefit of decimal bragging? Yes, the one is more difficult to make than the other but why do it unless it is required? This is the type of nonsense Chris King puts in its brochures. Once a workable tolerance is achieved, there is no benefit in chasing diminishing returns and no manufacturer does that.

How many levers have you ever worn out in your life? Enough of each type to say this one or that one lasts longer? I doubt it. Fact is that other than the cheap entry level stuff at the bottom end of Shimano's range, the shifters, brakes and drivetrains function and last exactly the same.

 

[bpsmith]

What do you class as the bottom end @Yellow Saddle? If we were to assume that you mean anything lower than 105 or even Tiagra, for example, then are you saying that there is zero difference between Tiagra/105 (delete appropriately) and Dura Ace?

As far as 105 vs Ultegra, the trickle down of features from 6800 to create 5800 has meant that they are closer than ever. The comparison between 5700 on one bike and 6800 on my other bike is very noticeable. My 6800 bike shifts quicker, smoother and feels crisper all round. Chainring shifts are significantly better on the 6800 than 5700 for example. My assumption would be that the newer tech has trickled down to the 5800 front mech and so changed the comparison. If these features do not improve the use of the product, then why bother trickling them down at all?

As far as the crank photo's are concerned, I prefer the look of the Ultegra in that the chainring bolts are not on view. Aesthetically, that has to be an improvement on a sleek modern frame, in my opinion, but I also understand those that may see this as a feature for 105 too.

Some people don't like the grey of the Ultegra, so would prefer the 105 if looks is all we're talking about.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

OK, let's settle this for once and all. According to my digital beautyometer, the Ultegra crank is 3,8 times more beautiful than the 105 crank. Period.

I think your Beautyometer needs recalibrating - should be reading at least MINUS 3.8 not 3.8 positive!

It's a Pug ugly (sorry Pugs but good looking you ain't) thing with all the grace and beauty of a week old hunk of road kill.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I think your Beautyometer needs recalibrating - should be reading at least MINUS 3.8 not 3.8 positive!

It's a Pug ugly (sorry Pugs but good looking you ain't) thing with all the grace and beauty of a week old hunk of road kill.

According to my Wrongometer, you are off the scale wrong. One a scale of 1 to 10, your wrongness measures 11.5. Lots of likes will confirm.

 

[ayceejay]

If we are talking aesthetics only, Shimano has nothing like this

 

[Yellow Saddle]

If we are talking aesthetics only, Shimano has nothing like this
View attachment 87267

I plugged that image into the Yellow Saddle Lab's Beautyrometer and only got a low-level reading. Very similar to that of a dirty chain image I use for calibration.