Worth the extra money for Tiagra over Sora?

nomelette

Hi there,

I'm a newbie to road cyclist hoping to buy myself a shiny new bike. I've tried sitting on a few in LBS and endless searching online for a good deal.

I've been looking into the Scott Contessa Speedster range but I'm not sure whether it's best to get the cheapest 24 speed "speedster 45" model with a lower end gearset, pay £100 more for the (27 speed) 35 model with Sora/Tiagra gearing or go another £50 on that with the speedster 25 model with full tiagra gearing (30 speed). There may be other differences between the three but the frame's seem to be the same as far as I can tell, but I don't know!

The answer is probably how much I'll actually use the bike, but I was hoping for a bit of advice from you guys

Cheers,
Alice

Anonymous

I would not bother as its a triple.

If it were a compact with two chainrings then there would be a bigger advantage to having 10 sprockets instead of 8/9.
Even then, what you do not have you do not miss, so 8/9 would be fine unless you had experienced 10

On a triple you should not need as big a large sprocket on the cassette so you will be in pretty much the same position as if you had 10 with a compact.

That said its always better to have more sprockets and smoother jumps in gears.
Also the triple may come with as big a cassette as its compact equivalent so you will still have big jumps on the 8\9 speed.
Are there no other differences? Carbon forks?

ellj22

If you can easily afford the difference in price then I would say go for 10 spd setup found with Tiagra. It feels nicer to use and if you get more into your riding it's easy to upgrade to better components as things wear out. Higher end 9spd kit is almost non existent new. However if you don't think you will use the bike much then it's less of an issue as the bike will not be worth £150 more when secondhand.

Ask your LBS to set the bikes up to take for a spin, that way you will get a feel for them and know if that is the bike for you. It's worth trying 2 or more brands for comparison.

bagz3

As a newbie i'd say no its not worth the extra cash. Spend it on accessories instead.

If you get into cycling, then the chances are you'll want a new, better spec'd bike in a year or 2 anyway.

kajjal

The more gears you have the easier it is to pick the right gear for where you are riding, uphill, downhill , on the flat etc. All the bikes have a wide range of gears to get you up hills which is good if you are starting our.

The bikes all have the same frame and forks etc so the main change is the gearing.

If you look around there are still brand new 2013 bikes being sold at reduced prices which would save you some money if you can find what you want in your size. That way you could spend the saved money on clothing, helmet etc.

nomelette

Wow, thanks chaps, lots to think about. I think I agree with the cheaper option - and still be able to afford other bits and pieces. I didn't think about it in the sense I can't miss what I haven't tried!

They're reduced 2013 models, yeah - I'm terrible at spending lots of money, so this works well

Thanks again, and I'll probably be back with more (perhaps silly!) questions once I actually starting riding properly

sloppyschleckonds

bagz3 wrote:

As a newbie i'd say no its not worth the extra cash. Spend it on accessories instead.

If you get into cycling, then the chances are you'll want a new, better spec'd bike in a year or 2 anyway.

This

yellowv2

I have both these groupsets on two different Trek bikes which my son's now use.
The Tiagra version was my first road bike, it has 2005 Tiagra 9 speed, the second bought for my son has Sora 2010 version. In my opinion having ridden both, the Tiagra is considerably better. The gear changes are smoother and more positive and also easier to use (I am not keen on the thumber shifter with Sora) also the brakes are superior.
So in my view it is worth the extra over Sora.
I would also think that the 2013 10 speed Tiagra is even better.

littledove44

bagz3 wrote:

As a newbie i'd say no its not worth the extra cash. Spend it on accessories instead.

If you get into cycling, then the chances are you'll want a new, better spec'd bike in a year or 2 anyway.

You are wise beyond your years. I bought a bike with a mix of Tiagra and 105. Six months on I want a new bike with ultegra or dura ace. I think there is a small chance I can now tell the difference. :?

menthel

yellowv2 wrote:

I have both these groupsets on two different Trek bikes which my son's now use.
The Tiagra version was my first road bike, it has 2005 Tiagra 9 speed, the second bought for my son has Sora 2010 version. In my opinion having ridden both, the Tiagra is considerably better. The gear changes are smoother and more positive and also easier to use (I am not keen on the thumber shifter with Sora) also the brakes are superior.
So in my view it is worth the extra over Sora.
I would also think that the 2013 10 speed Tiagra is even better.

The 2013 bike will have the 9sp sora without thumb shifters. Very like the 9 speed tiagra in fact.

yellowv2

Ah, in that case it possibly is not worth the extra.
Although if the difference is only £50, I think I would probably still opt for the Tiagra, which may be similar to old 105 ?

rickeverett

you only notice a real upgrade when you go...

Claris - Tiagra
Sora - 105
Tiagra - Ultegra
105 - Dura ace

Found if you go one up its fractional really.

Sprool

If you are new to road cycling I'd go for the cheaper option with good wide gear range - you'll find you will need some cash left over to buy the stuff you didn't think you needed - jacket, bib shorts, maybe cleats & proper cycling shoes, pedal upgrade, cycle computer, mini pump, decent track pump, spare inner tubes, tyre levers, puncture repair kit, basic mini tool set, lights, gloves, helmet upgrade, sunglasses for tomorrow, new cycling jersey, bike lock, it goes on and on...