I think that the cheaper equioment is better then more expensive

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: I think that the cheaper equioment is better then more expensive

Post by meic »

I have recently done a couple of rides with a rear wheel built up on a XT 756 hub.
It just drips quality in comparison to my usual LX or Tiagra hubs. It is so smooth and utterly silent even while freewheeling, you can not hear or feel the pawls when you spin it in your hands. There is no jolt on take up of drive due to it having more indents, pawls or both. A beautiful piece of quality engineering.

However it makes zero difference to your ride statistics, no faster than the others and they have no greater* reliability issues themselves. The lifespan of the Tiagras and LX's is so much greater than that of rims and comparable to spokes themselves so the possibly extended lifespan of the XT will only benefit a very few riders (I dont think I will live long enough personally to benefit!)

* Yes, I know that I have broken an LX freehub and torn the flange on one but I am in a very tiny minority (unique even?) in that respect.
Yma o Hyd
reohn2
Posts: 45186
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: I think that the cheaper equioment is better then more expensive

Post by reohn2 »

meic wrote:
even if the cassette will stand a second C9 it's not so economical.


Where did you post that previous to my post? :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: I think that the cheaper equioment is better then more expensive

Post by meic »

I think we may be starting a feedback loop here, I am totally lost about what you are asking.
Yma o Hyd
reohn2
Posts: 45186
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: I think that the cheaper equioment is better then more expensive

Post by reohn2 »

meic wrote:I think we may be starting a feedback loop here, I am totally lost about what you are asking.


It just seemed in you first post that you were claiming the C9 chain was better,which I can accept but not in context of use with most cassettes.
Then you claim you were just pointing out that though better what you were in fact saying was that it wasn't,therefore agreeing with me.
I was just asking where was the quote from you used to back up that claim as it wasn't from this thread.

Sorry if I've confused you but I was confused myself.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: I think that the cheaper equioment is better then more expensive

Post by meic »

Yes we are certainly at risk of tying ourselves up in knots here.

I would call the C9 a better chain because it is more resistant to wear, two or three times the life on an equivalent. I would say that it remains a better chain even if the cassettes it is used with (by me) did not allow me to fully benefit from its superior quality.
Yma o Hyd
reohn2
Posts: 45186
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: I think that the cheaper equioment is better then more expensive

Post by reohn2 »

meic wrote:Yes we are certainly at risk of tying ourselves up in knots here.

I would call the C9 a better chain because it is more resistant to wear, two or three times the life on an equivalent. I would say that it remains a better chain even if the cassettes it is used with (by me) did not allow me to fully benefit from its superior quality.

The key word is 'context',if the chain wears out the cassette when itself is only half worn then the next cassette will wear out quicker than the first,and a third cassette quicker still,no?
There's then a roll reversal that makes the C9 uneconomic though better,in practice it isn't from a cost perspective.

If there were a cassette that outlasted three C9 chains then the chain's superior quality could be realised,though the cost of such a cassette I suspect would be prohibitive.

I find a mid range Deore/Tiagra Shimano cassette* to three Sram 971 chains good enough quality to be economically superior.

* I only buy the mid range ones as they have a chrome finish and it's easier to tell when they're mucky,similarly so Sram 971 chains,but I suspect Acera level cassettes and Sram 951 chains are as good though the difference in cost is small.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
Spinners
Posts: 1678
Joined: 6 Dec 2008, 6:58pm
Location: Port Talbot

Re: I think that the cheaper equioment is better then more expensive

Post by Spinners »

I've been really surprised at how good 9-speed Sora (3500) has been on my two road bikes (one double and one triple). A crash meant that I've retired the Sora groupset on one road bike and the 10-speed Tiagra (4600) replacement groupset has been nowhere near as smooth on shifting. Both spannered by the same pro mechanic I should add.
Cycling UK Life Member
PBP Ancien (2007)
reohn2
Posts: 45186
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: I think that the cheaper equioment is better then more expensive

Post by reohn2 »

Spinners wrote:I've been really surprised at how good 9-speed Sora (3500) has been on my two road bikes (one double and one triple). A crash meant that I've retired the Sora groupset on one road bike and the 10-speed Tiagra (4600) replacement groupset has been nowhere near as smooth on shifting. Both spannered by the same pro mechanic I should add.


It seems to be emerging that some(I'd hesitate to say all) 10sp Tiagra STI's are faulty in someway and aren't as good as other STI's in the Shimano range,three others on this forum have had similar experiences to yours.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Post Reply