Shimano HG Cassettes

[Nic302]

Can someone please explain the Shimano naming/numbering system? For 8 speed, I have seen HG 31 described as Altus & Acera: for HG 41, described as Acera and Sora, for HG 50 described as Acera, Claris and Sora, and HG 51 as Sora and Deore. In some cases, those cassettes with a smallest cog size (11T) are given a different name from those with 12T or 13T, even though the HG refrence is the same.
I am looking to replace a Sora 13-25 cassette by one with a wider range (possibly 11-28 or 30).
Basic question is therefore "is the HG reference the ultimate quality indication" (with higher number being higher quality)? Is there a difference in quality/weight between 'Claris' and 'Sora' if the HG number is the same? Shimano's website doesn't offer this info and that on Sheldon Brown's website doesn't use the range names.
Can anyone be definitive - or is it all just market differentiation?

[Brucey]

such cassettes are not definitively part of any given groupset, hence they don't have a groupset-related part number, and they are not branded with the name of the group (in contrast to say 105 and ultegra cassettes).

Differences between them are in many cases slight and are in terms of finish, weight, available ratios and price, with higher numbers being 'better'. In reality there is not much to choose between them in terms of how long they last.

cheers

[peetee]

No idea. However, the cynic in me suggests that bike manufacturers can save a few groats by fitting the cheaper cassette and still claim the bike is fitted with a 'full' more expensive groupset.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
In my experience anything less than hg50 is not worth the effort, stay away from hg40 chains they are noisey, hg 50 cassettes aren't that pricey.
I use hg50 cassette and hg71 chain on my 8S.

[thelawnet]

Can someone please explain the Shimano naming/numbering system? For 8 speed, I have seen HG 31 described as Altus & Acera: for HG 41, described as Acera and Sora, for HG 50 described as Acera, Claris and Sora, and HG 51 as Sora and Deore. In some cases, those cassettes with a smallest cog size (11T) are given a different name from those with 12T or 13T, even though the HG refrence is the same.
I am looking to replace a Sora 13-25 cassette by one with a wider range (possibly 11-28 or 30).
Basic question is therefore "is the HG reference the ultimate quality indication" (with higher number being higher quality)? Is there a difference in quality/weight between 'Claris' and 'Sora' if the HG number is the same? Shimano's website doesn't offer this info and that on Sheldon Brown's website doesn't use the range names.
Can anyone be definitive - or is it all just market differentiation?

One hyperglide cassette is basically the same as another.

What you get by paying more money is less weight.

Specifically:

* spider arms to hollow out larger, heavier cogs (more relevant on MTB components). The spider arms can themselves be aluminium to save a bit more weight
* titanium cogs (again more important on larger cogs)
* aluminium lock rings (versus steel). I think this saves around 10g, though the steel lock rings are more durable for repeated removal.
* aluminium cogs (on stupid dinner-plate style giant 50t mtb cassettes), these wear out 3x more quickly, though if you rarely use them it might not matter

Also the HG20/200/30/300 level components may use phosphate plating instead of nickel plating for the steel rings.

In terms construction there might be significant differences between design even at the same number, e.g., CS-HG50-10 uses a spider for the two largest cogs, but the CS-HG50-7 dates back to around 1990 and does not. The branding is not particularly consistent because it doesn't matter that much whether you have a 200, 300, 400, 500, cassette, the real thing is 'hyperglide', and that's 30 years old. (There is now hyperglide+ on XTR, so that will be a new thing in future to consider, but not for now)

So Dura-Ace isn't better than Claris in terms of shifting, it just weighs less.

Generally just buy which ever one is cheapest.

Note, also, fwiw, that a CS-HG400-9 is 100% completely identical to a CS-HG50-9 cassette. Everything from HG40/HG400 level up to Dura-Ace is essentially nickel-plated steel cogs, while HG30/HG300/HG31/HG200 are different in that they use zinc phosphate or manganese phosphate plating.

I doubt that the nickel-plating performs better than phosphate, it's perhaps a better quality finish.

In terms of the chain, the 8-speed chains are CN-HG71, which was formerly called CN-HG50, and CN-HG40, which was introduced in 2006. They are the same chain, having the same weight, the difference is 'chromizing treatment on link pins'. Perhaps this makes them slightly more durable.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
6&7&8 speed Hg50 chain was OK, hg 40 I found noisy, hg 71 is definitely better I.M.O.

It might be finish.

I used to use IG 51 chains as my gear needed it apparently 8 speed IG.

I purchased some cheap IG 51 chain, thought I had a bargain but it played up and faulted my cassette was worn, but no, chain links went stiff so chain jumped on small rear cogs, winding the cranks anti clock wise showed stiff links on the bike stand.
Previously IG 51 chain was OK, BUT...............the chains I got cheap wear made in INDIA.........................not the same despite the shimano brand.
They go on the turbo now.

I admit that its not the same all through the number ranges but appears that you have to dig deeper.

[peetee]

I wouldn't touch cheaper Shimano chains with a barge pole. They are rough and noisy. Your money is far better spent on KMC.

[robgul]

I wouldn't touch cheaper Shimano chains with a barge pole. They are rough and noisy. Your money is far better spent on KMC.

.... do you know which company makes Shimano chains? . . . . . I'm told it's a company with a 3-initial letter name starting with K . . .

That said my preference to stock at the shop is KMC if only for the fact that they have magic links and not the ridiculous and expensive break-off pin that Shimanos have (although I think some now have a magic?)

Rob

[peetee]

Have they changed recently? I must admit I haven't bought them for a year or two but I have heard enough comments from others recently to suggest they are still rubbish. Ready and willing to stand corrected.

[Brucey]

KMC certainly make chains for shimano but that they make all chains for shimano isn't clear to me.

cheers

[NetworkMan]

Having just fitted an HG201-9 11-32 to replace an HG50-9 11-32 I can shed a little light on some differences. There seems to be two general designs of the HG family of 9 speed cassettes, old and new, in that the new ones have been made lighter with less metal in the 'arms' that connect the sprocket outer to the inner core. This is certainly true on the largest (32T in this case) cog and almost certainly on some of the smaller ones too though I'd need to dismantle mine to check.

Among the 'old' designs are: HG50, possibly HG61
While some (perhaps not all) of the newer ones are: HG200-9, HG201-9, HG300-9, HG-400-9

There is also the complication in that the gear progressions are different. For the HG-50, HG300, HG400 11-32 it goes:-
11-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32

While for HG200 and HG201 it goes:-
11-13-15-17-19-21-24-28-32
... which eliminates the 17% 18-21 jump, at the expense of an 18% 11-13 jump but since I regard the 11T as pretty useless I don't care much - it makes a decent 8 speed cassette!

For the 11-32 the weight saving is around 40-50 g. at the cost of some rigidity of course. Was it worth it?

[keyboardmonkey]

HG50 cassettes seem to be a mid-range flavour of whatever Shimano wants them to be at any given time. Mine were Tiagra and Deore back in 2010:

[mercalia]

HG50 v HG51. 8 speed Not sure which is which but one is cheaper and from my memory the cheaper one locknut is part of the last sprocket whereas with the other one the locknut is separate. Doesnt really matter unless you intend to replace the smallest sprocket at some stage? I think the HG50 is older than HG51