Re: Ultegra/105 STI Shifter Compatability

[Dave Thompson]

"John" > wrote in message
om...
> My bike has a Shimano 105 group. My right shifter is not shifting
properly
> and must be replaced. Found a good price on a new Ultegra right shifter.
> My question: Is a new Ultegra shifter compatible with my 105 rear
> derailleur?
>
> Thanks
> John Myers
>
>If your 105 is 9-speed, then Ultegra 9-speed compatibility is 100%.

[Steve Juniper]

I think most bike dealers treat most buyers as young racer wannabes and wind
up not providing a sufficient range of gearing - especially for people
living in hilly areas.

Rule of thumb: A trainer once suggested to me that if you can't sustain at
least 72 rpm on your steepest fairly long typical hill, your gearing is most
likely too high.

I switched my triple 105 Buenos Aires 12-27 to an XT 11-34 and really like
the range. I rarely use the 34, but appreciate having it. Inexpensive and
easy to do. Most of my rides here average over 100 feet/mile with typical
climbs to 18%. A few at 33%, but they're short.
--
Steve

Steve Juniper )
Berkeley, California
"Every day above ground is a good day!"

"Dave Thompson" > wrote in message
...

"John" > wrote in message
om...
> My bike has a Shimano 105 group. My right shifter is not shifting
properly
> and must be replaced. Found a good price on a new Ultegra right shifter.
> My question: Is a new Ultegra shifter compatible with my 105 rear
> derailleur?
>
> Thanks
> John Myers
>
>If your 105 is 9-speed, then Ultegra 9-speed compatibility is 100%.

[[email protected]]

Steve Juniper writes:

> I think most bike dealers treat most buyers as young racer wannabes
> and wind up not providing a sufficient range of gearing - especially
> for people living in hilly areas.

I think they don't ride bike, at least not in the hills and over
longer distances.

> Rule of thumb: A trainer once suggested to me that if you can't
> sustain at least 72 rpm on your steepest fairly long typical hill,
> your gearing is most likely too high.

Well that's the kind of stuff they pass out in bike shops except that
these people never watch a major road race in mountains where 50-60
rpm is common among professional racers and tourist turn definitely
believe that if they ride for any length trip. TdF pictures on TV are
not slow motion.

> I switched my triple 105 Buenos Aires 12-27 to an XT 11-34 and
> really like the range. I rarely use the 34, but appreciate having
> it. Inexpensive and easy to do. Most of my rides here average over
> 100 feet/mile with typical climbs to 18%. A few at 33%, but they're
> short.

I'm sure you don't turn 72rpm on any 18% or greater grade a 1/4 mile
or longer. I've watched many races and seen tourist riders on passes
like the Gavia and Gerlos and the only riders I saw pedaling that fast
were substantially under-geared (less than 1:1 aka 20t-30t) riders
making little headway. I suspect I never saw them again because they
never got up the hill. The same is true for hiking. The quick-step
guys don't climb steep trails but talk about it.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

[Werehatrack]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:06:37 GMT, "Steve Juniper"
> may have said:

>I think most bike dealers treat most buyers as young racer wannabes and wind
>up not providing a sufficient range of gearing - especially for people
>living in hilly areas.
>
>Rule of thumb: A trainer once suggested to me that if you can't sustain at
>least 72 rpm on your steepest fairly long typical hill, your gearing is most
>likely too high.
>
>I switched my triple 105 Buenos Aires 12-27 to an XT 11-34 and really like
>the range. I rarely use the 34, but appreciate having it. Inexpensive and
>easy to do. Most of my rides here average over 100 feet/mile with typical
>climbs to 18%. A few at 33%, but they're short.

And I'll add that in my opinion, for current road bikes in the hands
of an average user, the gearing as supplied by the factory tends to be
too high for anything but flat or mildly rolling terrain. I think that
part of the current overwhelming popularity of the mountain bikes is
directly attributable to the extra-low gears that are widely and
commonly available on them.

Apparently, this has been true for quite a long time.

My early-70s-vintage road bike has a 14/34 freewheel and 39/52
chainrings. Surveying the road bikes in the "sport" category of a
major retailer, I found that the typical highest gear ratio supplied
had become taller by a fair margin in the intervening 30 years, and
the number of available ratios had nearly tripled from 10 to 24 or 27,
but that the lowest gear combo was *also* typically slightly taller
than on my '73. Logically, with such an expansion of the number of
gear ratio selections, I'd have thought they would have extended the
range in both directions, but such is quite clearly not the case.

Meanwhile, since I've got a 14/34 on the rear now, by swapping just
the crankset and chainrings for a triple, and mounting a front der to
match, I can get a *larger* range than most current bikes are supplied
with. I find that quite amusing. (Yes, I'm aware that I may have to
swap the BB as well; I'll jump that curb when I come to it.)

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[John Dacey]

On 17 Aug 2003 12:33:21 GMT, ("Quidquid bonum tibi
est, tibi bonus est." - (P. Chisholm)) wrote:

>John-<< Is a new Ultegra shifter compatible with my 105 rear
>derailleur? >><BR><BR>
>
>yes...ensure that the old and new shifters match in 'speeds', 8s or 9s...

Ultegra and 105 shifters and derailleurs are fully compatible for all
indexing generations of these components. There's no functional
justification to "match" them.

-------------------------------
http://www.businesscycles.com
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
305-273-4440
Now in our twentieth year.
Our catalog of track equipment: seventh year online
-------------------------------

[Steve Juniper]

Good comment!

Even in the TDF the average rpm rate is clearly around 90, slowing to maybe
70 significantly only on the steepest climbs where they just don't have low
enough gears (as discussed by the commentators during one particularly steep
TDF climb segment). As Joe Friel ('Cyclist's Training Bible') says, high
rpms for speed and endurance, lower for those shorter distances where more
power is needed briefly.
--
Steve

Steve Juniper )
Berkeley, California
"Every day above ground is a good day!"

"Werehatrack" > wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:06:37 GMT, "Steve Juniper"
> may have said:

>I think most bike dealers treat most buyers as young racer wannabes and
wind
>up not providing a sufficient range of gearing - especially for people
>living in hilly areas.
>
>Rule of thumb: A trainer once suggested to me that if you can't sustain at
>least 72 rpm on your steepest fairly long typical hill, your gearing is
most
>likely too high.
>
>I switched my triple 105 Buenos Aires 12-27 to an XT 11-34 and really like
>the range. I rarely use the 34, but appreciate having it. Inexpensive and
>easy to do. Most of my rides here average over 100 feet/mile with typical
>climbs to 18%. A few at 33%, but they're short.

And I'll add that in my opinion, for current road bikes in the hands
of an average user, the gearing as supplied by the factory tends to be
too high for anything but flat or mildly rolling terrain. I think that
part of the current overwhelming popularity of the mountain bikes is
directly attributable to the extra-low gears that are widely and
commonly available on them.

Apparently, this has been true for quite a long time.

My early-70s-vintage road bike has a 14/34 freewheel and 39/52
chainrings. Surveying the road bikes in the "sport" category of a
major retailer, I found that the typical highest gear ratio supplied
had become taller by a fair margin in the intervening 30 years, and
the number of available ratios had nearly tripled from 10 to 24 or 27,
but that the lowest gear combo was *also* typically slightly taller
than on my '73. Logically, with such an expansion of the number of
gear ratio selections, I'd have thought they would have extended the
range in both directions, but such is quite clearly not the case.

Meanwhile, since I've got a 14/34 on the rear now, by swapping just
the crankset and chainrings for a triple, and mounting a front der to
match, I can get a *larger* range than most current bikes are supplied
with. I find that quite amusing. (Yes, I'm aware that I may have to
swap the BB as well; I'll jump that curb when I come to it.)

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[Java Man (Espressopithecus)]

In article >,
says...
> On 17 Aug 2003 12:33:21 GMT, ("Quidquid bonum tibi
> est, tibi bonus est." - (P. Chisholm)) wrote:
>
> >John-<< Is a new Ultegra shifter compatible with my 105 rear
> >derailleur? >><BR><BR>
> >
> >yes...ensure that the old and new shifters match in 'speeds', 8s or 9s...
>
> Ultegra and 105 shifters and derailleurs are fully compatible for all
> indexing generations of these components. There's no functional
> justification to "match" them.
>
Are you saying that you can use an 8 speed brifter on a nine speed
cassette?

Rick

[Paul Southworth]

In article >,
John Dacey > wrote:
>On 17 Aug 2003 12:33:21 GMT, ("Quidquid bonum tibi
>est, tibi bonus est." - (P. Chisholm)) wrote:
>
>>John-<< Is a new Ultegra shifter compatible with my 105 rear
>>derailleur? >><BR><BR>
>>
>>yes...ensure that the old and new shifters match in 'speeds', 8s or 9s...
>
>Ultegra and 105 shifters and derailleurs are fully compatible for all
>indexing generations of these components. There's no functional
>justification to "match" them.

Unless you are expecting it to work with your existing cogset, I
assume that's what Peter meant - you'd need shifters, cogs and chain.

[Eric Murray]

In article >,
Werehatrack > wrote:
>
>And I'll add that in my opinion, for current road bikes in the hands
>of an average user, the gearing as supplied by the factory tends to be
>too high for anything but flat or mildly rolling terrain.

>Apparently, this has been true for quite a long time.
>
>My early-70s-vintage road bike has a 14/34 freewheel and 39/52
>chainrings. Surveying the road bikes in the "sport" category of a
>major retailer, I found that the typical highest gear ratio supplied
>had become taller by a fair margin in the intervening 30 years

You are not comparing equivalent bikes.

Racing bikes in the 70s typically came with a 52-42 front
and 13-21 rear. A 13-24 rear cluster was still considered 'wimp gears'
when I started racing in the mid-80s. Real he-men used a 21t cog.
At least 39t small rings were common by then.

"racing 10-speeds" not intended for actual race use
usually had the same 52/42 front and a 14-26 or 14-28 rear.
(largest cog handled by the Simplex or Campy deraileurs).
About the same low gear as the 39-24 combination.

Your 39/34 was probably a touring bike.

If anything, the low ratios on sport/race bikes are lower now than they
were in the 70s or 80s. Even on double chainring bikes there is typically
a 12-25 on the back and always a 39t small ring. But most sport bikes
(80% here in the California bay area) these days are sold with triple
chainrings. For example I recently got my wife a Bianchi Vigorelli.
It came with a 52/42/30 front and 13-26 rear cluster. This is typical
for current sport bikes and low enough for just about anything short of
loaded touring.


Of course the high gears we have now are way too high for most non-racing
riders, but that's a different subject.

Eric

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:38:56 GMT, (Eric Murray) may have
said:

>Of course the high gears we have now are way too high for most non-racing
>riders, but that's a different subject.

Indirectly, though, that is the subject in a nutshell. In too many
cases, racing (or too-close-to-racing) gears are being sold where they
are not the most appropriate choice for the majority of the market.
Too-tall high gears wouldn't matter (much) if the lower end went deep
enough, but as is made apparent by the fact that lower-geared
inefficient bikes are making people happy where taller-geared
efficient ones didn't, I have to think that the impression of the
public's perception of the road bike as being geared too high is
relevant. Probably 99% of potential bike buyers will never need or be
able to fully use competitive-level gearing, but yet that's often what
is being sold to them on the upper end of the range; at the lower end,
the opportunity for more useful expansion seems to be gettting
ignored. Not always, but often enough, from what I can see. At some
point, increasing the number of gears without increasing the range of
the ratios just means that the rider is shifting more than one gear at
a time *most* of the time. If we have 11-speed cassettes in a couple
of years, and 33-speed systems, an increase in complexity will
certainly be realized, but will utility improve with it if the same
overall top and bottom ratios are present as on a current 24-speed?



--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

java-<< Are you saying that you can use an 8 speed brifter on a nine speed
cassette? >><BR><BR>

I am not nor is Mr. Dacey. If he has a 8s shifter, replace with a 8s, if a 9s,
replace with a 9s.

question was is a ultegra shifter compatible with a 105 rear der...answer
yes...but get the same 'speed' as previously, match the cassette...

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Rick Onanian]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:54:43 GMT, Steve Juniper >
wrote:
> TDF climb segment). As Joe Friel ('Cyclist's Training Bible') says, high
> rpms for speed and endurance, lower for those shorter distances where
> more power is needed briefly.

That may be a good general rule of thumb, but it
should always be tempered by experimentation and
experience.

Until recently, I always tried to spin 80 rpm or
so, matching my gear to that cadence.

Then I decided to do something a little different,
and found that I go faster and last much, much
longer by torquing a taller gear.

That is my observation about _me_. Every person's
body and psychology is different; and each should
feel free to experiment to find what works. Also,
each should repeatedly experiment, especialyl with
things like cadence which don't cost anything other
than a few minutes.

Yes, I said psychology. I meant it in so far as
whatever excites you will help your riding...and
finding my lower cadence, as well as finding my
new long-distance ability, excites me to no end.

After taking my longest ride ever on Saturday, my
legs continue to feel it; I am supressing the excited urge to ride right
now, lest I damage my
muscles.

--
Rick Onanian

[Patrick Lamb]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:27:15 GMT,
wrote:

>I'm sure you don't turn 72rpm on any 18% or greater grade a 1/4 mile
>or longer. I've watched many races and seen tourist riders on passes
>like the Gavia and Gerlos and the only riders I saw pedaling that fast
>were substantially under-geared (less than 1:1 aka 20t-30t) riders
>making little headway. I suspect I never saw them again because they
>never got up the hill. The same is true for hiking. The quick-step
>guys don't climb steep trails but talk about it.

If 18% or greater grades 1/4 mile or longer are normal cycling, then
why do you post your ride reports detailing the long grades? Why are
there so many web pages describing bicycle rides over the Sierra
passes? Sorry, I think this argument is a red herring.

Pat

[[email protected]]

Patrick Lamb > writes:

>> I'm sure you don't turn 72rpm on any 18% or greater grade a 1/4
>> mile or longer. I've watched many races and seen tourist riders on
>> passes like the Gavia and Gerlos and the only riders I saw pedaling
>> that fast were substantially under-geared (less than 1:1 aka
>> 20t-30t) riders making little headway. I suspect I never saw them
>> again because they never got up the hill. The same is true for
>> hiking. The quick-step guys don't climb steep trails but talk
>> about it.

> If 18% or greater grades 1/4 mile or longer are normal cycling, then
> why do you post your ride reports detailing the long grades? Why
> are there so many web pages describing bicycle rides over the Sierra
> passes? Sorry, I think this argument is a red herring.

I don't get your tangential reference to ride reports. Right here in
my area we have plenty of roads with 18-20 percent grades for more
than a quarter mile. My point is that first you proposed lower gears
and then say that the purpose of keeping cadence at what I see as
artificially high levels, levels that riders imagine are effective. I
propose they are not and that no one in fact rides that way, and I do
so from many rides I have taken in the mountains with other riders,
tourists and racers.

http://www.paloaltobicycles.com/alps_photos/s10.html

Here I am with the California State Road champion a week after he won
the race. He did not spin up these hills nor did I. We rode as TdF
riders do today at less than 60rpm here and on the Gavia, Stelvio,
Grossglockner and Gerlos, all passes with longer steep sections. Lots
of these roads are on that web site and many more.

Jobst Brandt

Palo Alto CA

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:22:01 GMT, (Eric Murray) may have
said:

>I guess you are not going to let any pesky facts
>get in the way of your theory. Go check out the gearing
>on new bikes in your LBS and get back to us.

If 95% of the bikes were being sold by an LBS, that would be a
relevant place to look. I suspect it's more like 5%.

More relevant to the road bike segment is what's in stock at the local
major sporting goods stores and (in snobbish neighborhoods) bike
boutiques. Of course, road bikes account for relatively little of the
overall bike sales, but it's my observation that at these two
categories of store, the majority of sales of that class will take
place. And if the stock on the floor at the local places which meet
that description are any example, the ones being pumped out by these
big sporting goods chains and bike boutiques (the latter of which, as
far as I am concerned, lose their right to LBS status by virtue of
selling status instead of bikes) often tend *not* to have a deep
enough low gear. Yes, I've looked.

Usually the same stores also have touring (sometimes termed
"performance"; go figure) bikes with a deeper low end as well, but the
salescritters are all too willing, ready and eager to drive the
testosterone-endowed customer right into the sport bikes with the tall
gears when they'd be better off in a touring or hybrid unit. It's
really just as much the customer's fault, though; they go in saying
they want a bike that can go fast, and the salescritter sells them
what they asked for.

I don't blame the stores in such an instance entirely, but an LBS
would probably have steered the customer to a more appropriate unit
because their people know more than just what it says in the glossy
brochures that the makers provide. And the problem isn't really with
the manufacturers either; they make what their wholesale customers
tell them is needed to put on display in the stores...but who's doing
the buying for a chain like Oshman's? A cycling specialist, or a
marketing droid?

A real LBS will tell a prospective customer both the up side of a pure
sport road bike and the down side, but a boutique will sell the
customer whatever he asks for, and tell him he has made a wise choice
without the slightest admonition that the choice has its
drawbacks...and the sporting goods stores often have no guidance to
offer at all. There are exceptions; the local REI has at least one
guy in the bike department who knows which pedal is left-hand threaded
and why you don't want to run in the small/small cog pair, but at the
big sporting goods store a couple of miles down the road (where they
have probably 5 times as many bikes for sale) it would be amazing to
me if the department had someone in it who could spell derailleur.
And yes, the same store had three (of 5) road bikes in there with no
lower gear pair than 39/23; that's probably OK here in Houston, where
the steepest grades you'll find are on a traffic overpass, but they
buy for the whole chain from a central location; those same choices
would be wrong for Austin. On the other hand, I didn't see a single
MTB in that display that had a low cog pair higher than 32/28, and
many were lower than that. And the MTBs outnumbered the road bikes by
something like 8 to 1. Has the public's choice become clear?

People outside of the cycling enthusiast market are buying a lot more
MTBs than any other category. Some of that's really image, but if you
ask people why they bought an MTB, the answers tend to run to ride
harshness, ride position, and, yes, gearing. MTBs typically have
lower gearing than either road, touring, or (as the industry seems to
have euphemised them) "comfort" bikes. (If harshness and position
were really the serious issues, the "comfort" bikes should be
dominating, but they're not. I would tend to put image ahead of
reality in that area, though.) I've heard the "racing bikes are just
too hard to ride" refrain from non-enthusiasts too often over the
years, and while the definition of "hard to ride" varies, gearing is
mentioned as often as not. Some of the people making that particular
complaint, in my opinion, should buy a fixed-gear bike and be done
with it, because what they're *really* griping about is the fact that
they don't remember to shift down out of the top cog when coming to a
stop, but they gripe a lot less with an MTB. (I was married to one of
these untill not too long ago.)

So, would more road bikes be sold if they were marketed with "touring"
gears more often? The only way to find out would be to try...and it
looks like there's way too much resistance to road bikes in the
marketplace right now for that to be an experiment worth staking any
money on. As a result, the manufacturers who are aiming more narrowly
at the real racers (and grabbing volume from the wannabes) by gearing
tall probably are just reflecting the reality that they see; I can't
really blame them for not wanting to try to *change* it, since they
most likely are making more bike sales in the MTB division than they
ever had when road bikes were popular.

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[Rick Onanian]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 04:38:48 GMT, Werehatrack >
wrote:
> If 95% of the bikes were being sold by an LBS, that would be a
> relevant place to look. I suspect it's more like 5%.

Road bikes? Where else can you even FIND a road bike?

> More relevant to the road bike segment is what's in stock at the local
> major sporting goods stores and (in snobbish neighborhoods) bike
> boutiques. Of course, road bikes account for relatively little of the

Huh?

I guess it's different in Texas, but here in Rhode
Island (and nearby Massachusettes) the only place to
get a road bike, or any bike manufactured by a real
bike company (not a Huffy/Magna/Next/Roadmaster/etc),
is at an LBS.

The exceptions are the borderline market, that is,
Mongoose (which can be found at LBS and sporting
good chains) and the newly-acquired GT/Schwinn, which
can be found at Wal Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods.

In fact, the _only_ road bike I've ever seen anywhere
other than a LBS is a low-end Diamondback model at
Dick's Sporting Goods, which very recently put up it's
first few stores in this area. I had never heard of
them before.

They keep a stock of one of these bikes, as far as I
can tell, in each store; there is no price tag on it,
and it's generally not obvious that it's even for sale.
It looks more like a display, they've usually got it
hanging on a bike rack they're selling, or something.

I asked how much, and found it was something like $325.
That's great, if it's any good; I'd rather pay $325 for
that than $600 for a bottom-of-the-barrel Trek that's
not any better. Luckily, I bought a nice Giant that I
love, instead (before Dick's showed up). ;)

> far as I am concerned, lose their right to LBS status by virtue of
> selling status instead of bikes) often tend *not* to have a deep

I'll concede that some LBS's are not run well, and so
are almost as bad as department stores. At least you
can be sure you're getting a quality bike, usually
put together safely, even if you then have to fool
around with making it fit and changing the gearing...

--
Rick Onanian