Claris good enough for club runs?

Phattlad

The summer sales have started,and I’m not flush with cash
Halfords have a Boardman SLR 8.6 for under £500
I’m looking to start my local club Sunday beginner run for fitness,hoping to build up to charity distance events 25-40 milers)
I’m not looking to race,just not be dropped by the beginners group.
Is the Claris gears enough to start with,or is being 4 or 5 gears short going to make my plans unrealistic?

webboo

It will be fine, if you get dropped it will be due to fitness not your bike.

joe_totale-2

For beginner club runs and the kind of rides you're looking at Claris is absolutely fine.
What's more important for a beginner rider is not the amount of gears but their range.

timothyw

Yep, you'll be fine.

People used to manage with far less.

Matthewfalle

you'll be fine. buy, ride, enjoy.

#summerriding

Wayne Plunger

To be fair Claris Cliff pottery makes a tidy penny at auction if you have some.

Bumo_b

Be careful you don't fall into the trap of thinking you don't have enough gears. Going up a steep hill I nearly always run out of gears and I've had 8,9,10 and 11 speed. As the others have said, buy, ride and enjoy, you can always upgrade later

ugo.santalucia

Claris should be better than any of the higher end groupsets... there is a 34 T cassette option and there is a triple chainset option, which is more than it can be said for Dura Ace.

To be clear, if I was looking for a groupset specifically for long distance unsupported cycling, I would probably get Claris over anything else

N0bodyOfTheGoat

8-speed cassette drivetrains like Claris are absolutely fine, by and large. 9+ speed cassette drivetrains simply allow for the potential of a larger sprocket range and/or smaller jumps between gears.

However, 8-speed can leave something to be desired if they also cover a large sprocket tooth range, such as the 11-34 that came on my Voodoo (11-13-15-17-20-23-26-34)... That 8-tooth jump to the easiest sprocket wasn't pleasant in either direction!

I've still yet to fit the 11-34 cassette and R7000 medium cage rear derailleur to the 2x11-speed Cube (to replace 11-32 and 105 5800 medium cage). While it sacrifices the 12T cog giving an 11-13 jump, something I've had on the Voodoo even with the newer 11-30 cassettes, the prospect of a slightly easier gear and more sprockets I'm likely to use while climbing hills far outweighs the negative for me (11-13-15-17-19-21-23-25-27-30-34 vs 11-12-13-14-16-18-20-22-25-28-32).

slowbike

I used to TT using a Shimano 2300 groupset (2x8 speed) - I only changed to 2x10 speed for the bar end shifters and because I'd completely worn the 2300 chainrings ...

The groupset isn't going to slow you down - choice of gears may be more limiting but you'll be fine.

philbar72

it'll be fine. Claris will last longer than the 11 speed stuff as well.

darkhairedlord

The only part on the bike that has any measureable effect on performance is the tyres.

Alejandrosdog

darkhairedlord wrote:

The only part on the bike that has any measureable effect on performance is the RIDER

ftfy

StillGoing

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Claris should be better than any of the higher end groupsets... there is a 34 T cassette option and there is a triple chainset option, which is more than it can be said for Dura Ace.

To be clear, if I was looking for a groupset specifically for long distance unsupported cycling, I would probably get Claris over anything else

What? You mean Shimano, SRAM, Campagnolo have all got it wrong and the lower end group sets are better than the high end ones. Well I never. :roll:

bonzo_banana

philthy3 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Claris should be better than any of the higher end groupsets... there is a 34 T cassette option and there is a triple chainset option, which is more than it can be said for Dura Ace.

To be clear, if I was looking for a groupset specifically for long distance unsupported cycling, I would probably get Claris over anything else

What? You mean Shimano, SRAM, Campagnolo have all got it wrong and the lower end group sets are better than the high end ones. Well I never. :roll:

Better in some areas rather than better overall. Claris can be clunky with bigger jumps between gears but seems to be very reliable in shifting even if it does it slower with more noise. The derailleur and shifter clearly don't have to be quite as well engineered as the tolerances for shifting are wider but Shimano's trickle down approach to their groupsets means it's fantastic value as it is brilliantly reliable.

Saw this a few days ago. Seems to be old stock from 2015 from a Spanish brand that perhaps struggled to sell much in the UK. Smooth welds, sub 10kg weight for £300. Only a small shop so maybe not huge levels of stock. I think there are a couple sizes on the site. The only issue while the rear derailleur and cassette are Claris the shifters are Microshift. I've heard good things about them and btwin use them a lot on their budget bikes but the high quality frame surely more than compensates just seems amazing for £300. Some of the best bargains are where a distributor clears out the forgotten about stock at the back of the warehouse. High weight limits and lifetime warranty on the frame despite the low weight.

https://www.nrgcycles.co.uk/71197/produ ... is-xl.aspx

Looks fantastic for the money. £100 dearer at go outdoors.

https://issuu.com/bhbikes.com/docs/bh_g ... _en_sr_99m

cycleclinic

For long distance cycling the refinement of high end groupsets is somewhat lost. 8 speed with a triple is fine.

My long distance bike has veloce 10 speed. IT will never have anything more fancy. claris or sora is a very good alternative. I do club runs on an old 2x6 speed bike with sown tube shifters sometimes. Club runs should not be about how fancy the bike is.

ugo.santalucia

philthy3 wrote:

What? You mean Shimano, SRAM, Campagnolo have all got it wrong and the lower end group sets are better than the high end ones. Well I never. :roll:

Let's put it this way... if you need a car to do a lot of mileage, that will not give you grief and is low maintenance you will get a Ford Mondeo.
On the other hand, if you want to drive like a cxck and race on the track at weekends, you might get a Ford GT.

Same brand, but they are different products for different markets and pockets, I wouldn't necessarily say that the GT is better because it's more expensive.

The same difference is between Dura Ace and Claris, except neither of those come with an engine, so you might end up with a Claris that travels quicker than a Dura Ace

bonzo_banana

ugo.santalucia wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

What? You mean Shimano, SRAM, Campagnolo have all got it wrong and the lower end group sets are better than the high end ones. Well I never. :roll:

Let's put it this way... if you need a car to do a lot of mileage, that will not give you grief and is low maintenance you will get a Ford Mondeo.
On the other hand, if you want to drive like a cxck and race on the track at weekends, you might get a Ford GT.

Same brand, but they are different products for different markets and pockets, I wouldn't necessarily say that the GT is better because it's more expensive.

The same difference is between Dura Ace and Claris, except neither of those come with an engine, so you might end up with a Claris that travels quicker than a Dura Ace

Also a Claris groupset can be better optimised than a different groupset, it is also about the number of teeth on the cassette and chainrings. You can configure Claris to be faster on the flats and easier up hill than a more expensive groupset with less optimal cassette and chainrings. Higher groupsets are more about optimising power with more precise in-between gears but how many is too many? If you had a bike with 200 gears you would know that would be inefficient you would be changing gear all the time to try to get the best gear and we know you can have too few gears obviously but what is the optimal number of gears so you can get good power delivery but you aren't changing gear all the time? Also the environment you are riding, if you are riding on long simple roads then perhaps a large number of gears to optimise your power is ideal but if you are in a urban environment where you are constantly facing different gradients every 50 metres or so perhaps simplifying your gearing is actually beneficial. Higher end groupsets reduce weight and provide more in-between gears but they do so at much greater cost and much more critical engineering tolerances that can reduce reliability and durability. For me Claris is good engineering and definitely fit for purpose and provides a huge improvement on the tourney grade components below it which is mostly supplied with a much inferior freewheel which is very limited on top speed due to the 14T smallest cog. Also what if you combine a 8 speed cassette with the sharper tolerances of a Tiagra or Sora rear derailleur does that provide the most consistent gear changes under all conditions? Can you optimise your drivetrain for reliability with a mix and match approach?

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Same brand, but they are different products for different markets and pockets, I wouldn't necessarily say that the GT is better because it's more expensive.

Why is the GT more expensive though?

ugo.santalucia

Imposter wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Same brand, but they are different products for different markets and pockets, I wouldn't necessarily say that the GT is better because it's more expensive.

Why is the GT more expensive though?

Some of the extra cost is down to lighter and more performing materials, a bigger engine, longer production times etc...
Some of the extra cost is down to the market, price is at the point the customer is prepared to pay.
Most of the extra cost is down to low production numbers and therefore the all development of the car ends up costing a lot more per unit

StillGoing

ugo.santalucia wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

What? You mean Shimano, SRAM, Campagnolo have all got it wrong and the lower end group sets are better than the high end ones. Well I never. :roll:

Let's put it this way... if you need a car to do a lot of mileage, that will not give you grief and is low maintenance you will get a Ford Mondeo.
On the other hand, if you want to drive like a cxck and race on the track at weekends, you might get a Ford GT.

Same brand, but they are different products for different markets and pockets, I wouldn't necessarily say that the GT is better because it's more expensive.

The same difference is between Dura Ace and Claris, except neither of those come with an engine, so you might end up with a Claris that travels quicker than a Dura Ace

No, I'll buy a big 3.0 diesel capable of high mileage with plenty of torque. Oh I already did.

The higher end group sets are clearly better than the lower end for the materials used, the weight saving, the smoother operation of, the better and variable range of cassettes etc and even down to the aesthetics. That doesn't mean the lower end are all sh1te though. I run an Apex Wifli rear on my SRAM equipped winter/turbo bike simply for the cost saving.

ugo.santalucia

philthy3 wrote:

The higher end group sets are clearly better than the lower end for the materials used, the weight saving, the smoother operation of, the better and variable range of cassettes etc and even down to the aesthetics. That doesn't mean the lower end are all sh1te though. I run an Apex Wifli rear on my SRAM equipped winter/turbo bike simply for the cost saving.

Occasionally there are some better bits, like the bearings in Record shifters, as opposed to bushings in Veloce. For the most they are the same or worse, when it comes to reliability.
For instance, countless Ultegra 6800 chainsets split in half, whereas there is no report of any for the 105 5800 or lower series.
The Dura Ace 11 speed 9000 cassette used to creak and break, which did not happen at any of the lower levels.

StillGoing

ugo.santalucia wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

The higher end group sets are clearly better than the lower end for the materials used, the weight saving, the smoother operation of, the better and variable range of cassettes etc and even down to the aesthetics. That doesn't mean the lower end are all sh1te though. I run an Apex Wifli rear on my SRAM equipped winter/turbo bike simply for the cost saving.

Occasionally there are some better bits, like the bearings in Record shifters, as opposed to bushings in Veloce. For the most they are the same or worse, when it comes to reliability.
For instance, countless Ultegra 6800 chainsets split in half, whereas there is no report of any for the 105 5800 or lower series.
The Dura Ace 11 speed 9000 cassette used to creak and break, which did not happen at any of the lower levels.

And I'm sure there are reports of failings in the lower end group sets from release. It's easy to be selective with evidence.

lesfirth

Bonzo Banana wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Also a Claris groupset can be better optimised than a different groupset, it is also about the number of teeth on the cassette and chainrings. You can configure Claris to be faster on the flats and easier up hill than a more expensive groupset with less optimal cassette and chainrings. Higher groupsets are more about optimising power with more precise in-between gears but how many is too many? If you had a bike with 200 gears you would know that would be inefficient you would be changing gear all the time to try to get the best gear and we know you can have too few gears obviously but what is the optimal number of gears so you can get good power delivery but you aren't changing gear all the time? Also the environment you are riding, if you are riding on long simple roads then perhaps a large number of gears to optimise your power is ideal but if you are in a urban environment where you are constantly facing different gradients every 50 metres or so perhaps simplifying your gearing is actually beneficial. Higher end groupsets reduce weight and provide more in-between gears but they do so at much greater cost and much more critical engineering tolerances that can reduce reliability and durability. For me Claris is good engineering and definitely fit for purpose and provides a huge improvement on the tourney grade components below it which is mostly supplied with a much inferior freewheel which is very limited on top speed due to the 14T smallest cog. Also what if you combine a 8 speed cassette with the sharper tolerances of a Tiagra or Sora rear derailleur does that provide the most consistent gear changes under all conditions? Can you optimise your drivetrain for reliability with a mix and match approach?

I do not fully understand the above. Can you give a bit more detail. Particularly the first and last sentences.

Matthewfalle

lesfirth wrote:

Bonzo Banana wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Also a Claris groupset can be better optimised than a different groupset, it is also about the number of teeth on the cassette and chainrings. You can configure Claris to be faster on the flats and easier up hill than a more expensive groupset with less optimal cassette and chainrings. Higher groupsets are more about optimising power with more precise in-between gears but how many is too many? If you had a bike with 200 gears you would know that would be inefficient you would be changing gear all the time to try to get the best gear and we know you can have too few gears obviously but what is the optimal number of gears so you can get good power delivery but you aren't changing gear all the time? Also the environment you are riding, if you are riding on long simple roads then perhaps a large number of gears to optimise your power is ideal but if you are in a urban environment where you are constantly facing different gradients every 50 metres or so perhaps simplifying your gearing is actually beneficial. Higher end groupsets reduce weight and provide more in-between gears but they do so at much greater cost and much more critical engineering tolerances that can reduce reliability and durability. For me Claris is good engineering and definitely fit for purpose and provides a huge improvement on the tourney grade components below it which is mostly supplied with a much inferior freewheel which is very limited on top speed due to the 14T smallest cog. Also what if you combine a 8 speed cassette with the sharper tolerances of a Tiagra or Sora rear derailleur does that provide the most consistent gear changes under all conditions? Can you optimise your drivetrain for reliability with a mix and match approach?

I do not fully understand the above. Can you give a bit more detail. Particularly the first and last sentences.

agree completely with les - please can you clarify?

#clarification

Matthewfalle

ugo.santalucia wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

The higher end group sets are clearly better than the lower end for the materials used, the weight saving, the smoother operation of, the better and variable range of cassettes etc and even down to the aesthetics. That doesn't mean the lower end are all sh1te though. I run an Apex Wifli rear on my SRAM equipped winter/turbo bike simply for the cost saving.

Occasionally there are some better bits, like the bearings in Record shifters, as opposed to bushings in Veloce. For the most they are the same or worse, when it comes to reliability.
For instance, countless Ultegra 6800 chainsets split in half, whereas there is no report of any for the 105 5800 or lower series.
The Dura Ace 11 speed 9000 cassette used to creak and break, which did not happen at any of the lower levels.

countless chainsets i tell you. countless! so many you can't count them.

#thedevil'swork

ugo.santalucia

philthy3 wrote:

And I'm sure there are reports of failings in the lower end group sets from release. It's easy to be selective with evidence.

I can't think of any... 105 5600 used to chew gear cables, but that was true of Ultegra too.

chris_bass

Matthewfalle wrote:

agree completely with les - please can you clarify?

#clarification

#clarisfication

w00dster

To be fair to Ugo, 6800 crank failure is not uncommon. Older hollowtech cranks used to be forged in one piece, Ultegra 6800 were two pieces bonded together, I think the new 8000 are back to being single piece forged.
Given the sheer number of Ultegra cranksets out there, there is bound to be failures.

If anyone wanted to read, but lots of other similar stories on other discussion boards as well.

https://weightweenies.starbike.com/foru ... 2&start=30

StillGoing

Matthewfalle wrote:

lesfirth wrote:

Bonzo Banana wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Also a Claris groupset can be better optimised than a different groupset, it is also about the number of teeth on the cassette and chainrings. You can configure Claris to be faster on the flats and easier up hill than a more expensive groupset with less optimal cassette and chainrings. Higher groupsets are more about optimising power with more precise in-between gears but how many is too many? If you had a bike with 200 gears you would know that would be inefficient you would be changing gear all the time to try to get the best gear and we know you can have too few gears obviously but what is the optimal number of gears so you can get good power delivery but you aren't changing gear all the time? Also the environment you are riding, if you are riding on long simple roads then perhaps a large number of gears to optimise your power is ideal but if you are in a urban environment where you are constantly facing different gradients every 50 metres or so perhaps simplifying your gearing is actually beneficial. Higher end groupsets reduce weight and provide more in-between gears but they do so at much greater cost and much more critical engineering tolerances that can reduce reliability and durability. For me Claris is good engineering and definitely fit for purpose and provides a huge improvement on the tourney grade components below it which is mostly supplied with a much inferior freewheel which is very limited on top speed due to the 14T smallest cog. Also what if you combine a 8 speed cassette with the sharper tolerances of a Tiagra or Sora rear derailleur does that provide the most consistent gear changes under all conditions? Can you optimise your drivetrain for reliability with a mix and match approach?

I do not fully understand the above. Can you give a bit more detail. Particularly the first and last sentences.

agree completely with les - please can you clarify?

#clarification

It's been misquoted. It wasn't me that posted that.

StillGoing

ugo.santalucia wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

And I'm sure there are reports of failings in the lower end group sets from release. It's easy to be selective with evidence.

I can't think of any... 105 5600 used to chew gear cables, but that was true of Ultegra too.

Really Ugo, you're not convincing anyone that Claris is better than the higher end group sets. By your logic, we're all wasting our money buying higher end components. Claris may be cheap and for someone on a limited budget, good value for money. But those with a higher disposable income that can afford higher end components, are equally getting value for money. 8 speed is either going to be a restricted range of ratios or a wide spread of gears with big jumps between ratios. The operation of Claris is not going to be as smooth as the higher end group sets and will have a weight penalty.