Shimano launch new Ultegra groupset

Lumen

Interesting news for those of us typical, newish to the sport, buyers who fall into the trap of thinking that a frame is simply something to hang the best groupset they can afford on.

"the new kit replaces the old Ultegra and Ultegra SL ranges, and weighs in at 151g lighter than the former and 107g lighter than the latter. "

DirkVoodoo

Yeah saw that, looks nice too. I felt like I should upgrade, I don't know why.

blorg

Ultegra SL wasn't around for long so.

New group looks nice, taking styling cues from 7900 Dura-Ace with the standard Ultegra metal colour.

Remember the release of a new group does not suddenly make your current one stop working!

ROK ON

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Yeah saw that, looks nice too. I felt like I should upgrade, I don't know why.

2 reasons
(1) I can get an 11/28 with the triple. I currently have 12/27 on Ultegra SL. Now I will be faster downhill and a tiny bit easier uphill (It all helps).
(2) The weight saving 100g, is 100g less that I need to lose:D

DirkVoodoo

blorg wrote: »

Remember the release of a new group does not suddenly make your current one stop working!

Of course it does. If Microsoft has taught us anything (and it hasn't) it is that my current groupset needs to be upgraded so that it can be compatible with the current roads which will soon stop offering support for my current groupset.

It will also probably be less efficient on my legs and require multiple trips to A&E after crashing every few minutes.

RobFowl

blorg wrote: »

Ultegra SL wasn't around for long so.

New group looks nice, taking styling cues from 7900 Dura-Ace with the standard Ultegra metal colour.

Remember the release of a new group does not suddenly make your current one stop working!

But it's obsolete now !!!!! Blorg.

Lumen

ROK ON wrote: »

The weight saving 100g, is 100g less that I need to lose:D

If you manage to wear out your current cassette by September (when the triple is available), you could instead get a 60g saving from buying a 7800 cassette, which is close(ish) to the €1/1g sanity-barrier.

TinyExplosions

Hmmmm... 107g lighter -I wonder if that's lighter than Rival now.... actually, no it isn't, though it's only 213g now

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

If you manage to wear out your current cassette by September (when the triple is available), you could instead get a 60g saving from buying a 7800 cassette, which is close(ish) to the €1/1g sanity-barrier.

With the step up in milage week in week out, plus a few big sportives, then I reckon the casette will need replacing way before then.

IN the original article I noticed that the triple is 52/39/30.

Are most triples 50/39/30. My one currently is. Is so then this is a big improvement and means that I no longer need to justify it, I should just go out and buy it.

@Lumen: If I upgrade then I cant buy your bike, if it is still available in the summer?;)

Lumen

ROK ON wrote: »

If I upgrade then I cant buy your bike, if it is still available in the summer?;)

If you stick with the training you won't need a triple by then anyway.

I only upgraded my bike because the smaller one didn't fit properly. I'm not doing it again until I can do Kippure in 12 minutes.

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

If you stick with the training you won't need a triple by then anyway.

I only upgraded my bike because the smaller one didn't fit properly. I'm not doing it again until I can do Kippure in 12 minutes.

Not a bad idea. I upgraded to my current bike after I lost weight. Next bike purchase should be as a reward. If I could do Kippure in 13.5m then I think that is a challenging (for me) but doable target.

blorg

@ROK_ON- SRAM do a Shimano compatible 11-28 cassette right now. Having said that the difference between 27 and 28 is pretty minimal. Upgrading your entire groupset for an extra tooth would seem nuts to me. If you really wanted to upgrade, look for a really good deal on 7800 Dura-Ace or just go all out for 7900- or indeed SRAM or Campagnolo.

Road triples typically have 52/50 - 42/39 - 30. I have had 52-42-30, 52-39-30 and 50-39-30.

Personally I don't think you really _need_ over 50-12 in this country, you could work on your cadence and tuck descending. I have maxxed out at 89km/h with this ratio (thanks to gravity.) You could usefully use a higher gear ratio with some of the long descents they have in the likes of the Alps but I have done them before (and will be again for the Marmotte) with 50-12 max.

scottreynolds

44g lighter than current Ultegra SL.... your taking the piss there. As mentioned above ..... I can buy a 11-27 Dura Ace cassette and get a better saving for about 120 pounds.

scottreynolds

blorg wrote: »

50-12 ---- I have maxxed out at 89km/h with this ratio (thanks to gravity.) You could usefully use a higher gear ratio with some of the long descents they have in the likes of the Alps but I have done them before (and will be again for the Marmotte) with 50-12 max.

I keep maxing out at 120 rpm down howth with 50-12 -- and its annoying. To do proper training you should be going hard down hill as well as up hill. I was going to ask you what the difference was between 50-12 and 50-11 and if getting a new casette or buying a new standard crankset was better?

niceonetom

are these sti compatible with the current ultegra range? I presume not... frcking exposed cables...

an 11-25 cassette is a welcome adition. Unlike blorg i think an 11 tooth is very handy to have with a 50 up front. where'd you hit 89kph? somewhere foreign i bet, with smoother roads... ah bliss.

scottreynolds

niceonetom wrote: »

where'd you hit 89kph?

Knowing blorg it was probably o'connell street during a Saturday afternoon Christmas shopping.... or down the travelator in Dundrum.

Chips Lovell

niceonetom wrote: »

are these sti compatible with the current ultegra range? I presume not... frcking exposed cables...

If they're anything like the new Dura Ace shifters, you're probably better off with the old ones.

ROK ON

[quote=blorg;59657624
Personally I don't think you really _need_ over 50-12 in this country, you could work on your cadence and tuck descending. I have maxxed out at 89km/h with this ratio (thanks to gravity.) You could usefully use a higher gear ratio with some of the long descents they have in the likes of the Alps but I have done them before (and will be again for the Marmotte) with 50-12 max.[/quote]

I wouldn't upgrade the groupset I have for 11/28. As you say the 12/27 is working fine. I would be interested at some stage in getting a 52 versus a 50 on the front. There are a few descents where I cant get any more traction (spinning out I guess). Means I max out in low 80's, when I know there is more in the tank so to speak.
Paying a lot more attention to cadence these days, so am working on that.
My issue (issue with small i) is that on a flat group spin, I have to push a higher cadence simply to keep up, as many folk have 53 front rings.
While higher cadence in itself isnt bad, it does mean that I have to expend more effort just to stay with a group. I need to all the effort for climbing.;)

sy

el tonto wrote: »

If they're anything like the new Dura Ace shifters, you're probably better off with the old ones.

Thought you were a Campag man;)

Morgan

ROK ON wrote: »

I wouldn't upgrade the groupset I have for 11/28. As you say the 12/27 is working fine. I would be interested at some stage in getting a 52 versus a 50 on the front. There are a few descents where I cant get any more traction (spinning out I guess). Means I max out in low 80's, when I know there is more in the tank so to speak.
Paying a lot more attention to cadence these days, so am working on that.
My issue (issue with small i) is that on a flat group spin, I have to push a higher cadence simply to keep up, as many folk have 53 front rings.
While higher cadence in itself isnt bad, it does mean that I have to expend more effort just to stay with a group. I need to all the effort for climbing.;)

Buy a new large chainring?

RobFowl

niceonetom wrote: »

are these sti compatible with the current ultegra range? I presume not... frcking exposed cables...

an 11-25 cassette is a welcome adition. Unlike blorg i think an 11 tooth is very handy to have with a 50 up front. where'd you hit 89kph? somewhere foreign i bet, with smoother roads... ah bliss.

I know the Dura-Ace 7900 is not compatible with the 7800 so would presume its the same with the Ultegra. Have to say prefer the look of the new Ultegra to the Dura-ace !

scottreynolds

Morgan wrote: »

Buy a new large chainring?

I like the idea of eing able to change between the various options so maybe a second crankset is better.

scottreynolds

ROK ON wrote: »

My issue (issue with small i) is that on a flat group spin, I have to push a higher cadence simply to keep up, as many folk have 53 front rings.
While higher cadence in itself isnt bad, it does mean that I have to expend more effort just to stay with a group. I need to all the effort for climbing.;)

Don't most people round the s[ins have a compact groupset... TBH I use compact and I can still go along at 40 km/h (wind behind) and still have a few gears left so I'm sure this is a percieved problem rather than actual...

Raam

el tonto wrote: »

If they're anything like the new Dura Ace shifters, you're probably better off with the old ones.

What's up with them?

Chips Lovell

ROK ON wrote: »

My issue (issue with small i) is that on a flat group spin, I have to push a higher cadence simply to keep up, as many folk have 53 front rings.

You need to work on your cadence in that case. I can do 30kph club spin in the small ring.

sy wrote: »

Thought you were a Campag man;)

I am. I'm going on various reports about pro teams who aren't sponsored by Shimano swapping back from 7900 to 7800.

Raam

scottreynolds wrote: »

I keep maxing out at 120 rpm down howth with 50-12 -- and its annoying. To do proper training you should be going hard down hill as well as up hill.

Ya can't go hard all the way on a long downhill. At some point you have to start using the tuck and let gravity and aerodynamics take over.

RobFowl

el tonto wrote: »

I am. I'm going on various reports about pro teams who aren't sponsored by Shimano swapping back from 7900 to 7800.

I was under the impression that was due to incompatibility with the SRM system and only applied to chainsets

scottreynolds

Raam wrote: »

Ya can't go hard all the way on a long downhill. At some point you have to start using the tuck and let gravity and aerodynamics take over.

Thats somewhat true.... but you should be able to increase you speed downhill and Howth isn't that big really. on certain decents, like Sally Gap to Glencree I don't want to go faster about 70km/h but around 50km/h on roads you know you should be able to pump out a few extra kms. Look at the pros decending they are pumping it to get an advantage catching the whippets, like you, who flew up.

Raam

scottreynolds wrote: »

Thats somewhat true.... but you should be able to increase you speed downhill and Howth isn't that big really. on certain decents, like Sally Gap to Glencree I don't want to go faster about 70km/h but around 50km/h on roads you know you should be able to pump out a few extra kms. Look at the pros decending they are pumping it to get an advantage catching the whippets, like you, who flew up.

I can usually push all the way down Howth with the 53/12

scottreynolds

Raam wrote: »

I can usually push all the way down Howth with the 53/12

I'm glad you agree then... i need a standard not my current compact

Chips Lovell

RobFowl wrote: »

I was under the impression that was due to incompatibility with the SRM system and only applied to chainsets

I heard Cervelo swapped back recently because the mechanics were unhappy with the rear shifting. Saxo Bank did so too before they switched to SRAM last week. Might be a storm in a teacup, but it also got a kind of lukewarm review on Cyclingnews.com.

Raam

scottreynolds wrote: »

I'm glad you agree then... i need a standard not my current compact

I think for the purposes of the TOI you should stick with the compact. Might not be a good idea switching with only a month to go. You'll be happy with the compact on Keeper Hill.

blorg

Cassette is cheaper to change and makes more of a difference.

50-12 = 64.6km/h @120RPM
52-12 = 67.2km/h
53-12 = 68.5km/h
50-11 = 70.5km/h
52-11 = 73.3km/h
53-11 = 74.7km/h

I hit 89km/h descending Lugalla during the Wicklow 200 last year. I attain consistently higher speeds in Wicklow (and indeed Dublin) compared to abroad; the descents are steeper (and I know them.) I think my max abroad is barely over 70 while I often go ~80 in Dublin/Wicklow.

Depends on your goals, I would always use a standard 53/39 racing, although that would be more to do with the front shifting quality than anything else.

I don't believe anyone ever failed to improve their fitness due to "only" having a 50-12 top gear

blorg

ROK ON wrote: »

Means I max out in low 80's, when I know there is more in the tank so to speak.

If you are talking 80km/h on descents, aerodynamics are almost certain to be the key to going faster at that sort of speed as Raam says. In a good tuck you can't pedal. My 89km/h max was entirely due to gravity+tuck, not my legs! Pedalling at the start of the descent will get you up to speed faster and ultimately a higher max, but there is a point at which it becomes counterproductive.

Note you can't just stick a 52/53 ring on a compact chainset, the BCD is different between compact and standard. You can get a 52t 110BCD if you swap the inner 34t for a 36t also I believe, but it's not particularly common. And in any case you are better going to 11t at the back (if you feel you really need it, which you probably don't )

scottreynolds

blorg wrote: »

I don't believe anyone ever failed to improve their fitness due to "only" having a 50-12 top gear

Oh, thats not my goal. I'm trying to win the Tour de France here.

blorg

scottreynolds wrote: »

Oh, thats not my goal. I'm trying to win the Tour de France here.

Haha, seriously though, if you think of the sort of gearing the pros use, they are how many times better than us and yet a standard 53/39 is not THAT much more than a compact...

I think working on cadence would be a very good idea before swapping cranksets. A fixie is very good for this and you could probably pick one up for less than a new DA 53/39

As an aside high cadence is reputed to work the heart more but be easier on the legs- I certainly find this to be the case comparing compact/standard/fixie spins in the Wicklow mountains.

ROK ON

el tonto wrote: »

You need to work on your cadence in that case. I can do 30kph club spin in the small ring.

Hi, I dont want to derail this thread by turning it into a cadence vs cassette thread (Maybe we need a separate thread).

But in order to keep the conversation goin, here is a question.

On the few spins that I have been out with you guys, I have noticed that many of the 'stronger' cyclists use the smaller front ring a lot on the flat versus what I would have expected. Usually on the flat I push the larger ring.

Do people do this purely to force them to spin at a higher rate to keep pace (30km as you say on your club spins Tonto). Or am I missing something.

I have sometimes thought about asking why a person is pusing a certain gear ratio (when to my untrained mind it does not seem that intuitive).

When out on spins I try to watch for other folks gear combinations, positioning, judge peoples cadence all in the hope of learning.

ROK ON

blorg wrote: »

As an aside high cadence is reputed to work the heart more but be easier on the legs- I certainly find this to be the case comparing compact/standard/fixie spins in the Wicklow mountains.

Not scientific, but I often find this to be the case. I an push a big gear (mash) for a lot longer than I can spin before getting our of breath.
Lesson - need to spend more time spinning I guess.

Raam

ROK ON wrote: »

Not scientific, but I often find this to be the case. I an push a big gear (mash) for a lot longer than I can spin before getting our of breath.
Lesson - need to spend more time spinning I guess.

In both cases... what kind of cadence are you talking?

scottreynolds

blorg wrote: »

I think working on cadence would be a very good idea before swapping cranksets. A fixie is very good for this and you could probably pick one up for less than a new DA 53/39

What kinda cadence are you talking. I find mostly I spin around 90 - 100 on the flats and 60-90 up hill. I think I'm optimal (whatever that means). I don't have a problem with pace for some reason I find the standard crankset gears better. I guess it really more in the 25-35 km/h range which at about 90 rpm seems to be in the middle of the range. I've got standard on the hack and its fine for everything I do. If i have to replace my casette soon I'll try to find 11-25 instead if 12-25 just for fun. Its not really that much of a pain.

Once a inevitable price crash of Ultegra comes about I'll go for a standard crankset.

Chips Lovell

ROK ON wrote: »

On the few spins that I have been out with you guys, I have noticed that many of the 'stronger' cyclists use the smaller front ring a lot on the flat versus what I would have expected. Usually on the flat I push the larger ring.

Do people do this purely to force them to spin at a higher rate to keep pace (30km as you say on your club spins Tonto). Or am I missing something.

For me, I'd use whatever gear that allows me to keep spinning it while maintaining the same pace as the group. So if I was in a group and we weren't going all out, I find i get a better workout by spinning in the small ring than giving it the occasional push in the big ring and freewheeling half the time.

ROK ON

Raam wrote: »

In both cases... what kind of cadence are you talking?

I find that a cadence 80-85 approx on the flat is very comfortable and can be done for long periods of time. (My legs get into a rythem and I sort of forget about it).

If I try to push above 100 I can do this no problem really, but I cannot do this for as long as 85pm without running out of breath and needing to reduce cadence before gradually building it up again.

Thats why I asked the other question. Is the reason I see folks pushing a smaller front ring on the flat is to force your body to simply become used to higher cadence.

ROK ON

el tonto wrote: »

For me, I'd use whatever gear that allows me to keep spinning it while maintaining the same pace as the group. So if I was in a group and we weren't going all out, I find i get a better workout by spinning in the small ring than giving it the occasional push in the big ring and freewheeling half the time.

I was thinking that thanks.

Will try this at the w/e. Sometimes having been on a spin, I find that my recover time is very quick. I have been smug with myself and put this down to increased fitness. But maybe I am not giving myself the work out that I had previously thought. Interesting.

Raam

@ ROK ON: just pop it up to 90 for now. Get comfortable with it.

MadHatter

ROK ON wrote: »

Lesson - need to spend more time spinning I guess.

You should give it a try at least. I wouldn't describe myself as a 'strong' cyclist, but I can easily reach 30kph+ when using inner ring (36t). It means a high cadence, but normally average a cadence in high 80s for a long spin, so I'm comfortable at high cadence.

Perhaps you rely on your leg strength more so than your cardiovascular capacity. It's no harm varying your style to even that out a bit.

scottreynolds

el tonto wrote: »

freewheeling half the time.

I agree -- freewheeling == bad

Caroline_ie

does it come in pink ...?

ROK ON

MadHatter wrote: »

... but I can easily reach 30kph+ when using inner ring (36t). It means a high cadence, but normally average a cadence in high 80s for a long spin, so I'm comfortable at high cadence.

Perhaps you rely on your leg strength more so than your cardiovascular capacity. It's no harm varying your style to even that out a bit.

Thanks for that. Makes sense. Have always had strong legs, and they rarely tire on a cycle (and rarely feel very tired after) - so I do rely on them way too much. Will practice spinning this w/e.
I reckon that I would be a better climber if I could spin for longer and had more cardio strength than I presently do.

@RAAM: Thanks for that. Will head out this w/e with the aim of spinning at 90ish as the primary goal.

Thanks for all the advice folks.

Tau

blorg wrote: »

If you are talking 80km/h on descents, aerodynamics are almost certain to be the key to going faster at that sort of speed as Raam says. In a good tuck you can't pedal. My 89km/h max was entirely due to gravity+tuck, not my legs! Pedalling at the start of the descent will get you up to speed faster and ultimately a higher max, but there is a point at which it becomes counterproductive.

Around about what type of speeds do people generally stop pedalling and tuck in at?

Chips Lovell

Tau wrote: »

Around about what type of speeds do people generally stop pedalling and tuck in at?

Usually it's a speed at which taking your eyes off the road to squint at your bike computer is a bad idea.

Tau

el tonto wrote: »

Usually it's a speed at which taking your eyes off the road to squint at your bike computer is a bad idea.

A fair point!