# "I frankly would rather ride 8-speed Dura Ace than 11 speed 105 or 10-speed Tiagra"



## armstrong (Jul 9, 2013)

*"I frankly would rather ride 8-speed Dura Ace than 11 speed 105 or 10-speed Tiagra"*

Your thoughts on this? This quote comes from tocycles.com, a seller of 2nd-hand high end bikes. It's in the "Groupset" section here:

FAQs - TOCycles

The page's argument is that for the same amount of money (say $1500), you can get a much better ride from a used bike compared to a new bike, primarily because of the quality of the components. They may be used, but they are superior to equivalently-priced new components.

Given trickle-down technology, at what point does current lower-end components match up with old-school DA and Ultegra? I don't think 105 is at 11 speed quite yet (that's not the exact point), but "is" 8-speed DA really superior to modern 105? 

I ask these questions cause I'm thinking of changing my 10-speed ultegra drivetrain (6500) to a triple, and I have the opportunity to swap it for a 9-speed ultegra triple. Just wondering if I'll lose a lot (or any) performance in terms of the crispness/quality of the shifting since the 10-speed is obviously newer and hence presumably better designed. If the quality of DA (and hence ultegra kinda) is basically future-proof, then I'd be more inclined to make this switch.


----------



## JoePAz (Jul 20, 2012)

Last year I bought a used trek 5200 with 9 speed Ultegra (3x9). I could have spend more on new bike and got 2x10 Tiagra, but chose instead the older bike an components. 

BTW... I paid $500 for this 2001 carbon bike and $500 in new market would have gotten me nothing like it. The bike has been a very good runner over the 1400 miles I have put on it. I am happy I bought it instead of new. Back in 2001 this bike was just one step below top of the line Trek 5900 with dura-ace.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

my backup bike with DA8 is sweet.

since it's only ridden a few hundred miles a year now, tend to forget how nice it shifts and stops.

Tiagra? phhht....I'll take the DA any day.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

The word used doesn't specify how used so it's really a pointless discussion to have.


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

It was my understanding that for the most part, companies like Shimano "trickle down" their technology. I'm going to just chuck this one out but it would be something like:

2013 105 = 2010 Ultegra = 2007 Dura Ace...

Again, I may be wrong and those dates are completely made up but I thought this is how it works...


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Bear in mind that drive train components don't have infinite service lives. Stuff wears out and/or gets damaged. Although I'm not going to be shopping for NOS 8 speed Dura Ace components in this lifetime, and have no idea of what's available, I would suspect that the supply of new replacement parts is dwindling for 8 speed Dura Ace.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I don't think you'd feel much difference between 6500 and whatever model number 3x9 would have been. I also don't think the 8th and 9th cog add that much to the function of the drivetrain. But, I can say the same thing about a third chainring.

I feel like you have a real question, "How do I get my available gear ratios to meet my needs better?" that you're presenting as a question about one possible solution you have in mind.

At risk of being kind of a jerk, let me propose a couple other options that may solve your problem without having to replace so many parts or try to hunt down bits and pieces of NOS high-end drivetrains.

Depending on what cassette you've got, you might consider a wider range. I like 12-27 a lot. Right now, I actually have an 11-32, though in 9-speed, I do notice a couple of the jumps sometimes.

Depending on what two chainrings you have, you might consider going smaller. I've done that too on this bike - it has a 34 and a 46. Great for climbing, and 46/11 is plenty high for me. You can actually go even lower if you want to.


----------



## armstrong (Jul 9, 2013)

OK - I've read several suggestions about going to a compact crank and I'm on board. I also want to shorten my crank arms cause they are theoretically too long for me (I'm 5'6 with average dimensions). I currently have 172.5 FSA Gossamers. I've found a compact ultegra 6700 crank at 165 in good shape. Images here:

https://imageshack.us/a/img703/9818/5gbo.jpg
https://imageshack.us/a/img843/1397/vkhl.jpg

Is there anything else I need to buy to switch my crankarms over? Any sizing concerns I have to look out for? (e.g. are BB's basically all standard size?) Do I need a new cassette? The current RD is a 6500 Ultegra 10 speed.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Your chainrings need the same BCD. I'm a bit of a Shimano fanboy with regard to their chainrings, so I'd be thinking about getting a whole crankset, not just the arms and BB. Is your existing BB English-threaded? There are a few standards now.

What chainrings do you have now? If they're 53/39, they probably also have a 130 BCD, while compact means 110. Also, is that the 6700 crank or the 6750? I ask because first you say compact sounds attractive, but 6700 is a standard crank, and wouldn't accept those rings.

Be cautious of theories about crank arm size and rider height. Nobody's been able to show a correlation in the lab. It certainly seems intuitive, but so did the idea that the Sun orbits the Earth. FWIW, I'm happy enough on everything from 165 to 175, though I do notice it's a little harder for me to dial in saddle height when I have 175s on my bike.


----------

