Tiagra Vs 105 vs Ultegra hubs.... what is the difference?
- Thread starter montage
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
raleighnut
Legendary Member
- Location
- One of the 'Elite'
Hacienda71
Mancunian in self imposed exile in leafy Cheshire
- Location
- Wilmslow, Cheshire
Have a dump before you go out if you ride Tiagra, that will offset the added weight. 
RecordAceFromNew
Swinging Member
- Location
- West London
It depends on the vintage, but for some time now for road/mtb respectively most Shimano hubs from Ultegra/XT and above have over-sized alloy (rather than M10 threaded steel) axles, small (3/16" rather than 1/4" for rear hubs) bearings, drive-side cones integral to the axles, and finally because of the larger hollow axles freehubs that are of different size with different hub/freehub interface to the vast majority of Shimano hubs in the market now and over the past 30 years. All these differences have implications on spares/maintenance and associated costs.
In terms of functional smoothness and quality, what I can say firstly is that looking at part numbers some XT (Ultegra class) hubs prior to the change in dimension I mentioned above used identical ball bearings to Shimano's cheapest hubs. Freehubs and cones are also shared across a range of models. Secondly ime many brand new cup and cone hubs Shimano or otherwise have preload set too high, i.e. without the correct, small amount of play that ensures neither excessive play nor grinding due to excessive preload when the QR is on tight. The best, easiest way to check and adjust for this is to use a couple of thick washers that approximate dropout size in place of the dropouts to check for play and feel how smooth/tight the axle (not wheel, because the wheel spins with far too much inertia to give you any idea/feedback) spins using your fingers when the QR is tight.
One should also not assume a brand new Shimano hub is not rusty inside. I have seen one batch with most rusty and another 1/3rd rusty (generally on the non-drive side of the rear hubs, seemingly starting from the annular steel bracket fixing the cup to the alloy hub shell, perhaps due to galvanic corrosion).
The other thing that makes a difference is the weatherproofing design inherent to the hub. I think the mtb hubs are usually a bit better, but it does depend on the specific model, so if you care enough it is worth checking and comparing the exploded diagrams of the specific hubs concerned.
Regarding durability some believe ceramic bearings are the bees' knees. When a cup and cone hub fails you want the bearings and cones to fail first well before the cups (because the non-drive side rear and front cups are not replaceable, and which is also why cups should be made with the hardest steel). The use of ceramic bearings, leaving aside their susceptibility to impact loading, would work against that.
Apart from weight and cosmetic finish, I have seen no obvious indication that hubs from Shimano's higher groups are meaningfully and always better functionally than lower group ones, but differences do exist between models.
Just my 2p.
In terms of functional smoothness and quality, what I can say firstly is that looking at part numbers some XT (Ultegra class) hubs prior to the change in dimension I mentioned above used identical ball bearings to Shimano's cheapest hubs. Freehubs and cones are also shared across a range of models. Secondly ime many brand new cup and cone hubs Shimano or otherwise have preload set too high, i.e. without the correct, small amount of play that ensures neither excessive play nor grinding due to excessive preload when the QR is on tight. The best, easiest way to check and adjust for this is to use a couple of thick washers that approximate dropout size in place of the dropouts to check for play and feel how smooth/tight the axle (not wheel, because the wheel spins with far too much inertia to give you any idea/feedback) spins using your fingers when the QR is tight.
One should also not assume a brand new Shimano hub is not rusty inside. I have seen one batch with most rusty and another 1/3rd rusty (generally on the non-drive side of the rear hubs, seemingly starting from the annular steel bracket fixing the cup to the alloy hub shell, perhaps due to galvanic corrosion).
The other thing that makes a difference is the weatherproofing design inherent to the hub. I think the mtb hubs are usually a bit better, but it does depend on the specific model, so if you care enough it is worth checking and comparing the exploded diagrams of the specific hubs concerned.
Regarding durability some believe ceramic bearings are the bees' knees. When a cup and cone hub fails you want the bearings and cones to fail first well before the cups (because the non-drive side rear and front cups are not replaceable, and which is also why cups should be made with the hardest steel). The use of ceramic bearings, leaving aside their susceptibility to impact loading, would work against that.
Apart from weight and cosmetic finish, I have seen no obvious indication that hubs from Shimano's higher groups are meaningfully and always better functionally than lower group ones, but differences do exist between models.
Just my 2p.
- Location
- Somewhere wet & hilly in NW England.
I share your sentiments - christ knows how anyone can tell that Ultegra hubs 'roll better' than 105 etc. Seriously, how do people measure these things?
Similar threads
