GravelMN

Just how much real world difference is there in the performance and durability between Ultegra and 105 hubs? From what I'm finding there is about 20g difference between the Ultegra and 105 rear hubs and less than that for the front. Are there any other major advantages for Ultegra or is it a significant jump in price point to shave a few grams and have a blingier (is that a word?) finish and more bragging rights?

dr_lha

Real world, not much. I have both.

Andrew R Stewart 

Depends somewhat with which years" versions you're comparing. But I don't believe there's much actual difference in the bearing elements IN REAL LIFE AFTER REAL USE. Well maintained and lubed bearings will bed in and run smoother after initial use even if the rolling surfaces are not ground and polished when new, they become smoothened with use. BUT the sealing designs do have some differences, some versions have significant improvements in sealing. It is this I would focus on.


20 gm in the center of one's wheels... come on If I wear thinner socks, cut my hair or pee before riding the difference will be more then 20gm. And at the centers of the rotation the inertia difference is almost moot. Andy.

Retro Grouch 

A decade or so ago 105 hubs had a neoprene o-ring wiper seal. Ultegra hubs had a double labyrinth sealing mechanism. I'd guess the Ultegra hub should lave less drag but I doubt anyone could ever sense the difference.

bradtx

GravelMN, I've had all of Shimano's road group hubs except for Tiagra and for a recreational rider they're all dependable. I used 105 hubs for the majority of my old distance bike's 15K miles without regret.

WRT the hubs themselves it is just a matter of appearance and a slight weight difference between the 105 and Ultegra hubs. I like my groups to be as complete as possible so my hubs matched whatever group (usually Ultegra) I chose.

Brad

DrIsotope

To me, 105 remains at the "sweet spot" for components-- close to half the price of Ultegra for just a tiny bit more weight, and seems to last every bit as long (if not longer.) My wife's bike came with a mix of 5700 105 and 4600 Tiagra, and I slowly switched out all of the Tiagra to 105. It has been absolutely flawless, and see no reason to "upgrade" any further.

RubeRad

Yes.

Also +100 DrIsotope. There was a recent thread (probably many of them in the past) discussing the 'sweet spot' in the shimano hierarchy. The overwhelming consensus was either Tiagra or 105, depending on whether an individual leaned towards cheap/reliable or weight-weenie. My understanding is that quality, performance, finish, and weight, all improve until you get to 105; beyond that, weight, finish and performance continue to marginally improve, but durability declines.

trailangel

Huh?

RubeRad

Ultegra and DA are less durable than 105, because they are aimed at racing, so they are made lighter/thinner

trailangel

^^ bs

rccardr 

In the used parts market, Ultegra and 105 are often very close in price, so no reason not to use Ultegra if the cost is virtually the same. From a performance perspective, my 65 year old self can see no difference.

With regard to reliability, despite my best efforts I've never managed to wear out anything made by Shimano, so that wouldn't even enter the equation. For me, anyway.

maartendc

In terms of durability: probably not a big difference. I ride a used 1989 Cannondale 3.0 which still has the original Shimano 105 components on it (1050) series. And they still work great! I've had to replace the chain, freewheel and such over time, but the derailleurs, cranks, etc are still the originals, no need to replace. So basically, the parts will last you decades and not wear out (apart from "consumable" parts such as bottom brackets, chains and cassettes).

The main difference will be the weight, and even then, in the modern groupsets 5800 and 6800, the weight difference is pretty small between 105 and Ultegra (I think Ultegra to Dura Ace is a bigger step in weight). If you don't care about the weight or "bling factor" you should get 105.

This is certainly not true and an old wives tale.

The exception being Dura Ace (and maybe Ultegra) cassettes, where they make some of the lesser used sprockets out of titanium or aluminum to save weight, which is less durable than all-steel cassettes. But Dura Ace and Ultegra Derailleurs, cranks, shifters, etc. certainly are not less durable, probably more durable due to harder, high-end finishes.

Steve B.

The OP question was about hubs and as with the overall group, I can't tell a difference.

I've been on Ultegra hub wheels for decades, recently went to CXP33's with 105, they come in black and it's an all black build, and I cannot tell a difference except my wallet is heavier with some money saved - maybe $30 ?.

I think 105 is the sweet spot in the Shimano group for price vs. function/performance.

HillRider

I'm not going to be as direct as trailangle but my experience says this isn't correct. They are lighter and thinner but made of somewhat better materials so their durability is at least equal. I have a pair of Dura Ace hubs, still in daily use, with well over 50,000 miles on them still using the original races, cones and freehub body and a 9-speed era Ultegra rear derailleur with about 40,000 miles and still shifting extremely well.

No question 105 is very good stuff and plenty durable but not superior to Ultegra or Dura Ace except in cost.

well biked

105, Ultegra, Dura Ace, all good stuff through the years.

Threads like this always remind me of one of my favorite "sign-offs" by Sheldon:

Dura Ace is for suckers.
Sheldon "105" Brown

I'm not looking to start an argument about component choices, btw. I just think Sheldon was often pretty clever with his posts.

HillRider

That's in the same category as the Campy owner's comment that; "Record is the pretentious man's Chorus".

shelbyfv

Not sure if this has been mentioned but there is a significant difference in the way current generation hubs are adjusted. 6800 has the new method where adjustment is by hand w/o needing cone wrenches. 5800 uses the traditional method we all know and love. I prefer the shiny silver or black of the current 5800 to the meh gray of 6800 but the new adjustment method would be hard to pass up.

Andy_K 

Look, those of us who buy 105 want to tell ourselves that we're not just saving money, we're making the smart choice. You guys are ruining our narrative with all of this reality.


Seriously though, the 5800-series 105 hubs still use a steel axle, while 6800 Ultegra has moved to aluminum which also means smaller bearings. I know a lot of mountain bikers chose SLX over XT for this reason after XT went to aluminum axles. For road riding it's probably not as big a deal. For gravel, maybe somewhere in between.

Andy_K 

Where does that leave Super Record?

Not too long ago I was commenting on UK groupset prices and I made some comment to the effect that Tiagra was "obviously" worth the <$100 price difference relative to Sora. Someone (I think it was @wphamilton) called me on my BS, asking why it would be obvious that anyone should be willing to pay more for a group that didn't add any significant functional changes.

This is clearly a slippery slope. If you start making yourself justify the cost of every upgrade and always buy the cheapest thing that works for your purposes you'll end up riding around on Claris in no time. What will the neighbors say?

wphamilton

They laugh at me, I think, but I don't care. I'd rather have Sora though

Andy_K 

It really is a very reasonable position. The rest of us like to buy jewelry for our bikes but don't like to admit that.

RubeRad

I wonder when they'll release Claris 2800 with 11-speed?

gsa103

Hubs not much difference. Over the years sometimes there are more pronounced differences in some series than others, for example, 105-5500 used JIS screws for all the adjustments, Ultegra used proper socket head screws. After a few years, one is perfectly functional, the other has the stripped heads. Newer 105 uses socket head screws for everything, so that difference vanished.

Andy_K 

The new Sora group stayed at 9-speeds. I guess someone at Shimano realized they could trickle down the technology without increasing the number of cogs. I think it makes sense, but I'm not sure how long they'll be able to maintain that position.

Shimano has historically made products for a customer base that didn't want to admit its own existence. The Tiagra and Sora lines have been directed toward enthusiast cyclists who are interesting in "sport" riding but aren't actually competitive racers (a nice way of saying we don't have the legs to use a 53-39x11-23 drivetrain). The current Sora page on the Shimano website describes them as "sports/fitness cyclists."

For a group like this 9-speed drivetrains and triple cranksets make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the majority of riders in this segment seem intent on telling themselves that they need the same equipment the racers have. It's a shame because it seems like it would otherwise be possible for component manufacturers to develop new products that better served this segment instead of just trickling down racing technology.

HillRider

The comment was made before Super Record was around and Record was the top of the Campy heap.