Claris good enough for club runs?

Matthewfalle

but remember - this is Ugo - unless it is some steel audax thing its not worth it. same re wheels: unless they are H Plus Archetypes that he built they are all shit,shit,shit,gonna break and kill you.

#itsjustUgo

ugo.santalucia

philthy3 wrote:

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.

HIgh end groupsets are designed for racing, Claris is designed with recreational cycling and touring in mind. They are different products, one needs the cutting edge technology, the other one doesn't and it's cheaper as a result.
I wouldn't say that one is better in quality than the other... depends what you mean by quality. Is an Aston Martin better in quality than a Focus? Which one is more likely to do 200,000 miles free of issues? Which one needs less maintenance?

If I had to choose a groupset to do a tour around the world, Claris would be a contender, Dura Ace wouldn't. Beaumont chose Ultegra (not Dura Ace), but his was a "race" and he was supported, if I was to do it, it would be a tour and I would be on my own (not that I have such plans).

I chose to go with Ultegra Di2 rather than Dura-Ace because I had some problems with Dura-Ace when I did my Africa ‘Cairo to Cape Town’ ride in 2015. I think Ultegra is a good compromise between strength and weight; for ultra-endurance I think Ultegra Di2 is a far more robust system. We fitted a new chain every eight days, a new cassette every fortnight and I broke one crank.

w00dster

Pretty sure you can all see what Ugo is saying. What is best for one person is not for another. Examples, my bikepacking set up uses very cheap easy to fix gears which just work. Generally if I couldn’t fix it while out in the middle of no where I could possibly bodge it and get to a shop where a replacement would cost me very little.
I also race, and wouldn’t use the same setup for racing. I use Ultegra for that, and Di2 on another bike.
I’d disagree on the Ford Focus doing 200k though, had one, it was pants. But an Aston Martin, lucky to get 2000 miles without something going wrong!
My old bike had Dura Ace 9000 and had a few problems, slipping chain from bit to little and the infamous creaking cassette. The slipping chain wasn’t regular just didn’t like to be changed when under load. The cassette was a known problem.
For an audaxer and long distance tourer they may see Claris as being better, however for a recreational or racer it is sub optimal. Both people are correct it’s just different use cases.
I use gatorskins on my commute bike, they’re rubbish, but to some people they’re awesome, reduced flats. Go on for ever. But to me they’re slow, rubbish grip and not easy to get off the rim, but they do the job on the commuter. (Hope that analogy works)

bonzo_banana

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.

Sorry for the wall of text, I'm a fast typist and often blast out the text without giving time to tidy it up before posting. I just meant optimised by having a better of spread of gears at the extreme so faster on the flats and easier up hills. Some high end groupsets might have a more compact cassette or crankset and so despite having a smoother shifting between gears generally just doesn't have the same actual gear range as a Claris groupset that has been optimised that way.

The last sentence was really just using a mix and match approach to the groupsets so you could use a Sora or Tiagra rear derailleur which I assume is slightly better engineered than Claris to achieve even greater shifting reliability with a 8 speed cassette as the shifters/brifters set the pull-ratio. Many mountain bikes have a slightly more mix and match approach to groupsets to achieve the best performance for price but you don't see it so much with road bikes. Occasionally on mountain bikes you see quite a large gap in groupset components so a Deore rear derailleur could be matched with a Tourney front derailleur or a mainly Altus groupset with a Alivio rear derailleur. They sometimes go one or two groupsets up on the rear derailleur.

StillGoing

ugo.santalucia wrote:

HIgh end groupsets are designed for racing, Claris is designed with recreational cycling and touring in mind. They are different products, one needs the cutting edge technology, the other one doesn't and it's cheaper as a result.
I wouldn't say that one is better in quality than the other... depends what you mean by quality. Is an Aston Martin better in quality than a Focus? Which one is more likely to do 200,000 miles free of issues? Which one needs less maintenance?

If I had to choose a groupset to do a tour around the world, Claris would be a contender, Dura Ace wouldn't. Beaumont chose Ultegra (not Dura Ace), but his was a "race" and he was supported, if I was to do it, it would be a tour and I would be on my own (not that I have such plans).

I chose to go with Ultegra Di2 rather than Dura-Ace because I had some problems with Dura-Ace when I did my Africa ‘Cairo to Cape Town’ ride in 2015. I think Ultegra is a good compromise between strength and weight; for ultra-endurance I think Ultegra Di2 is a far more robust system. We fitted a new chain every eight days, a new cassette every fortnight and I broke one crank.

Now you're either typing while on the lash or deranged. This tour around the world, why don't you just take a single speed and do away with all risk of reliability for gear shifts and have solid tyres to avoid punctures? :roll: I've run SRAM Red 10 speed for over 10 years without problem and thousands of miles before selling it, still in top working condition. My Ultegra Di2 that replaced it hasn't missed a beat. The SRAM Rival 22/Force 22/Apex combo on my winter trainer hasn't caused any reliability issues in four years and gets abused on the turbo, as well as used in the sh1tty weather. If I was doing this tour of the world, I'd want as big a range of gears as I could rather than 8 speed and a triple front.

lesfirth

Bonzo Banana 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.

Sorry for the wall of text, I'm a fast typist and often blast out the text without giving time to tidy it up before posting. I just meant optimised by having a better of spread of gears at the extreme so faster on the flats and easier up hills. Some high end groupsets might have a more compact cassette or crankset and so despite having a smoother shifting between gears generally just doesn't have the same actual gear range as a Claris groupset that has been optimised that way.

The last sentence was really just using a mix and match approach to the groupsets so you could use a Sora or Tiagra rear derailleur which I assume is slightly better engineered than Claris to achieve even greater shifting reliability with a 8 speed cassette as the shifters/brifters set the pull-ratio. Many mountain bikes have a slightly more mix and match approach to groupsets to achieve the best performance for price but you don't see it so much with road bikes. Occasionally on mountain bikes you see quite a large gap in groupset components so a Deore rear derailleur could be matched with a Tourney front derailleur or a mainly Altus groupset with a Alivio rear derailleur. They sometimes go one or two groupsets up on the rear derailleur.

An 11/28 cassette is what it is, be it claris or dura ace. High end or low end it has the same range so what the " faster on the flats and easier up hills" is about is lost on me. I cant comment on what mountain bikers do but I think you must have had a sudden bout of "keyboard diarrhea" when you composed this post. If you feel it coming on again I think you should try sitting on your hands until it goes away.

ugo.santalucia

philthy3 wrote:

If I was doing this tour of the world, I'd want as big a range of gears as I could rather than 8 speed and a triple front.

A triple is the biggest range you can get. You can't get a ratio below 1:1 with a double

Your Red groupset probably works fine because you maintain it and clean it... if you were touring around the world unsupported you wouldn't be able to do that, so you want something that keeps shifting even when it's encrusted in grime... 8 speed better than 11, because of tolerances.

You are abusing the bike on the turbo? I don't think we are talking the same language, if you think a bike gets abused on the turbo.
As Beaumont explained... it's a chain every 8 days (3000 km or so) with 11 speed ... CH71 6-8 speed chains are very durable (although CH50 are not).

There is also of course a question of availability, once you've passed Greece, the chances of finding an 11 speed chain decrease by the mile... with an 8 speed drivetrain, you can use pretty much any chain, so unless you want to carry half a dozen of them (or someone is going to do it for you)... 8 speed makes more sense.

... but of course, your abuse on the turbo trumps everything...

StillGoing

ugo.santalucia wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

If I was doing this tour of the world, I'd want as big a range of gears as I could rather than 8 speed and a triple front.

A triple is the biggest range you can get. You can't get a ratio below 1:1 with a double

Your Red groupset probably works fine because you maintain it and clean it... if you were touring around the world unsupported you wouldn't be able to do that, so you want something that keeps shifting even when it's encrusted in grime... 8 speed better than 11, because of tolerances.

You are abusing the bike on the turbo? I don't think we are talking the same language, if you think a bike gets abused on the turbo.
As Beaumont explained... it's a chain every 8 days (3000 km or so) with 11 speed ... CH71 6-8 speed chains are very durable (although CH50 are not).

There is also of course a question of availability, once you've passed Greece, the chances of finding an 11 speed chain decrease by the mile... with an 8 speed drivetrain, you can use pretty much any chain, so unless you want to carry half a dozen of them (or someone is going to do it for you)... 8 speed makes more sense.

... but of course, your abuse on the turbo trumps everything...

Fair enough Ugo, you've convinced me. I'm selling up and buying

bonzo_banana

lesfirth wrote:

Bonzo Banana 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.

Sorry for the wall of text, I'm a fast typist and often blast out the text without giving time to tidy it up before posting. I just meant optimised by having a better of spread of gears at the extreme so faster on the flats and easier up hills. Some high end groupsets might have a more compact cassette or crankset and so despite having a smoother shifting between gears generally just doesn't have the same actual gear range as a Claris groupset that has been optimised that way.

The last sentence was really just using a mix and match approach to the groupsets so you could use a Sora or Tiagra rear derailleur which I assume is slightly better engineered than Claris to achieve even greater shifting reliability with a 8 speed cassette as the shifters/brifters set the pull-ratio. Many mountain bikes have a slightly more mix and match approach to groupsets to achieve the best performance for price but you don't see it so much with road bikes. Occasionally on mountain bikes you see quite a large gap in groupset components so a Deore rear derailleur could be matched with a Tourney front derailleur or a mainly Altus groupset with a Alivio rear derailleur. They sometimes go one or two groupsets up on the rear derailleur.

An 11/28 cassette is what it is, be it claris or dura ace. High end or low end it has the same range so what the " faster on the flats and easier up hills" is about is lost on me. I cant comment on what mountain bikers do but I think you must have had a sudden bout of "keyboard diarrhea" when you composed this post. If you feel it coming on again I think you should try sitting on your hands until it goes away.

I thought that was incredbly simple to understand that was my point some Claris bikes may be equipped with a wider range cassette or you could customise it yourself. The Giant Contend 2 comes with a 11-34 cassette. So smoother shifting between gears isn't the whole picture some Claris bikes as supplied could have wider ratio cassettes. The tone of your comment is childish, moronic and frankly pathetic but then I don't know you or the state of your mental health so we will leave it at that.

https://www.giant-bicycles.com/gb/contend-2

gethinceri

I bet we don't leave it at that.

darkhairedlord

I took the kids to the cinema this morning, still have popcorn.

cycleclinic

UgO wants a penny farthing though.

I like 8 speed. Got two bikes with it.

lesfirth

Bonzo Banana wrote:

lesfirth wrote:

Bonzo Banana 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.

Sorry for the wall of text, I'm a fast typist and often blast out the text without giving time to tidy it up before posting. I just meant optimised by having a better of spread of gears at the extreme so faster on the flats and easier up hills. Some high end groupsets might have a more compact cassette or crankset and so despite having a smoother shifting between gears generally just doesn't have the same actual gear range as a Claris groupset that has been optimised that way.

The last sentence was really just using a mix and match approach to the groupsets so you could use a Sora or Tiagra rear derailleur which I assume is slightly better engineered than Claris to achieve even greater shifting reliability with a 8 speed cassette as the shifters/brifters set the pull-ratio. Many mountain bikes have a slightly more mix and match approach to groupsets to achieve the best performance for price but you don't see it so much with road bikes. Occasionally on mountain bikes you see quite a large gap in groupset components so a Deore rear derailleur could be matched with a Tourney front derailleur or a mainly Altus groupset with a Alivio rear derailleur. They sometimes go one or two groupsets up on the rear derailleur.

An 11/28 cassette is what it is, be it claris or dura ace. High end or low end it has the same range so what the " faster on the flats and easier up hills" is about is lost on me. I cant comment on what mountain bikers do but I think you must have had a sudden bout of "keyboard diarrhea" when you composed this post. If you feel it coming on again I think you should try sitting on your hands until it goes away.

I thought that was incredbly simple to understand that was my point some Claris bikes may be equipped with a wider range cassette or you could customise it yourself. The Giant Contend 2 comes with a 11-34 cassette. So smoother shifting between gears isn't the whole picture some Claris bikes as supplied could have wider ratio cassettes. The tone of your comment is childish, moronic and frankly pathetic but then I don't know you or the state of your mental health so we will leave it at that.

https://www.giant-bicycles.com/gb/contend-2

Having read my post again and from your reaction to it, it is apparent that the humour I Intended to convey my opinion
got lost. I had no intention of offending you and for doing so I apologize.

veronese68

darkhairedlord wrote:

I took the kids to the cinema this morning, still have popcorn.

Some people are either a bit dim or just arguing for the sake of it.
Pass the popcorn.

ugo.santalucia

philthy3 wrote:

Fair enough Ugo, you've convinced me. I'm selling up and buying

If we want to talk Ordinary...

The hour record on an Ordinary is 35.5 km, can you do better?

An Ordinary has been ridden from Land's End to John O'Groats in just over 5 days, although watch this space, because this guy is aiming to do it in under 5 days, can you do better with your bike?

If you can't, we have no practical evidence that your bike is better than what you call a Penny Farthing

https://www.matlockmercury.co.uk/news/m ... -1-9646691

Phattlad

well that got slightly out of hand : )
I'm waiting for my cycle to work scheme to start then I'm looking at a Frome Longcliffe 2,Trek Domane AL2 or a Cube Attain.

cycleclinic

Spoon brake on a downhill, there is a reason why ordinaries were widow makers.

Moonbiker

Im gonna upgrade a bike to r2000 from 5700.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Shimano ... 352c95a6-0

Reckon r2000 with be better than 5700.

#trickle down

veronese68

thecycleclinic wrote:

Spoon brake on a downhill, there is a reason why ordinaries were widow makers.

You don’t need better brakes because braking is limited by grip and risk of going over the bars.
At least I think that’s how the argument goes.

cycleclinic

I know someone who has an ordinary and he take is dobt use the brake, its makes a brown patch.

ugo.santalucia

thecycleclinic wrote:

I know someone who has an ordinary and he take is dobt use the brake, its makes a brown patch.

What?

Alejandrosdog

this is worth a look

https://allthatsinteresting.com/bicycle-history/2

Moonbiker

Like the bicycle fiend pic


belt drive though?

proto

Went on club chain gang one night and a seriously strong rider turned up (3:37 for a 100 mile TT). He sat on the front and dished it out, didn’t come off the front once, the rest of us all hanging on for grim death.

His bike, a converted On-One MTB, on which he was about to ride the world, complete with flat bars and Rohloff hub gearing. I think it might had panniers on too. Your Claris gearing will be fine!

Phattlad

Thank you,the cycle to work scheme has upped my spend slightly,might get Sora in,but it looks like it’s acceptable to use Claris for what I need,should be getting my voucher in the next couple of days,limited to Evans though!

darrell1967

My local Cycle Republic have a £1699 Orbea in the window that has Claris on it.

StillGoing

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.

You need to sort out your editing as I never posted that. You've obviously deleted the details of whoever did.

pilot_pete

Darrell1967 wrote:

My local Cycle Republic have a £1699 Orbea in the window that has Claris on it.

I’d be buying something with 105 or Ultegra at that price point...

PP

darrell1967

Pilot Pete wrote:

Darrell1967 wrote:

My local Cycle Republic have a £1699 Orbea in the window that has Claris on it.

I’d be buying something with 105 or Ultegra at that price point...

PP

My thoughts exactly. Nearly fell over when I saw the price, the bike and then the group set.

super_davo

That £1600 Claris Orbea is an eBike - a stealth ebike clearly seeing as people haven't noticed it as such....