RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Components


Archive Home >> Components(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 )


Dura Ace more durable?(9 posts)

Dura Ace more durable?chris zeller
Aug 27, 2001 1:59 PM
Are Dura Ace components generally considered more durable than Ultegra or 105? Or are they just lighter? Do they shift better?

It's probably pointless, but I'm considering upgrading my ultegra triple to Shimano's new Dura Ace Triple when it comes out. My bike is set up as a tourer, but I do most of my riding as fast/fun lunchtime rides. As a tourer, understandably durability is a concern.

My understanding is that I would have to upgrade:
New Dura Ace shifters. Apperently not compatable with my Ultegra.
New BB Appearently Ultegra triple BB is not compatable with Dura Ace Triple?
New Dura Ace front derailer.

My rear is all MTB XTR so I think I'm OK there.
e.) All of the above.grzy mnky
Aug 27, 2001 2:09 PM
DA is lighter, smoother and more durable.

Swaping over just the crank should be possible, but the shifters are at least half of the picture.

Not sure what you're hoping to gain by replacing perfectly good components since you're not racing and you already run XTR on the rear for probably range considerations.
True probably not much to gainChris Zeller
Aug 27, 2001 2:41 PM
But appearently a bit of durability and smoother shifting. I realize it's probably a lot of extra $$ for a nominal gain, I guess that was really the point of this post. Exactly what is the gain.
Replace when worn outKerry Irons
Aug 27, 2001 5:15 PM
Why worry about the durability of a new part when your current stuff is not worn out? Let your existing components live out their useful life, and then replace them with something more durable (assuming the rest of the bike is holding up well). The time to invest in something with a longer life is when you NEED it, assuming that is the real reason you're considering this upgrade. The best time to make this decision is on a new bike, when your value is highest (total bike discount). The next best time is when the original stuff is worn out.
not reallyalex the engineer
Aug 28, 2001 5:12 AM
D/A BB's are notoriously fragile, and I do know people who have bent and broken D/A cranks. I do find, from personal use, that DA derailleurs are probably a bit more durable, as well as lighter, than Ultegra. For your question "is D/A more durable?', I would say:
BB: no
Cranks: no
Cogs: hell no
Brakes: maybe
Headset: probably no
Derailleurs: probably yes
Pedals: maybe
Chain: no
Hubs: no
Shifters: maybe
don't forget, D/A is primarily built for racing. Racers don't care how long something lasts, as long as it finishes the race. If you want durability, go for 105. If you want a compromise, go for Ultegra.
Well Sort ofgrzy mnky
Aug 28, 2001 8:52 AM
Gotta agree with some of what you said, but I think your single data point on your friend breaking a DA crank is a bit misleading. Who says he wouldn't have broken a "lesser" crank even sooner? The DA BB is more finicky to setup and maintain, but given proper care and feeding it should out last any of the other BB's due to it's roller and ball bearing design and larger shaft diameter in the bearing area.

My angle on saying that DA is in generla more durable is that the bearing surfaces of virtutally all of the components are better designed and more robust. I wear out more Ultegra stuff a lot sooner than DA stuff, but I stay on top of the required servicing. If you fail to maintain it then I think it will fail sooner.
105 vs. Ultegraned
Aug 29, 2001 4:50 PM
I am a newbie and looking to buy a new bike. Reliability is the only thing that is important to me as weight is not part of my decision; I'll leave that for the real cyclists. Will my upgrade from the standard Shimano 105 package to the Ultegra package, right from the gitgo, help increase reliability or will it only achieve a weight savings?

Thanks for your kind input.

Ned
Bothgrzy mnky
Aug 30, 2001 8:17 AM
Ultimately it should both reduce weight and increase reliability - however for all practical purposes it will be hard to notice for a long time. Besides the weight the most noticable thing will be the finish. The 105 will last for many many miles and remain servicable - the Ultegra will be a tad nicer on elusive things such as a slightly better feel for things like the shifters, but you really won't be able to tell the difference between things like the bottom bracket or the rear der. When things wear out from all the riding you're doing then look at replacing a worn component with something better.

Since you're starting off I'd suggest you stick with the 105 and spend the difference on things like clothing, taking a cycling trip somewhere, or buying tools and a good maintenance book. Ultimately what really matters is that you get out, ride, and enjoy yourself - not the pedigree of the machine - unless you find "cafe riding" more suitable ;-). What was it that Lance says....?
105 vs. UltegraLeisure
Aug 31, 2001 4:24 AM
I spent months fretting the same issue, wanting to get Chorus so as not to worry about the reliability issues I've had with Shimano in mountainbiking. I was afraid of Daytona because I didn't know how much attention an Italian company would pay to its third-tier product, but that's what I finally settled on.
It actually looks really good, though I can't say much more until the bike's built up. The hubs roll smoother than Ultegra and the tolerances in the engagement mechanism feel like they've been made much tighter. All the components look and feel comparable to, if less shiny than, Chorus. The derailleurs and hubs look and feel virtually identical. I think it's worth considering.
BTW, the problems that Ultegra shifters have been having are supposedly fixed for 2002, and apparently 105 is inheriting the defects thanks to trickle-down.