njkayaker

???

They mean the same thing.

unterhausen

I agree that there isn't much profit in this thread continuing. OP, say the word. Or report a post and ask for it to be closed.

seypat

I appears I've walked into a men's bathroom.

tomato coupe

Or a dog park ...

livedarklions

I like Ultegra, it just happens to be 1994 Ultegra.

mstateglfr 

Do they? They may, and they may not. Depends on context.

Saying 'money is no object' can mean(as has been shown here many times over) that it isnt even part of the determination process when selecting an option.
Saying 'money is no concern' can mean the same thing. Or it can mean that the person is not concerned about being able to afford any of the options, but money will still play a factor.
Concern can mean 'worry' and it can mean a 'caring/importance'.

I am not concerned(worried) about being able to afford a $5 conflict free environmentally sustainable chocolate bar, but I will still weigh whether I find enough value(caring/importance) in that bar's properties to buy it over a $1.50 Hershey's bar. Put another way, I am not concerned about the cost, but I am cognizant of the cost and allow it to influence my decision.

And this is why its dumb to belabor a point that was clarified pages ago- because words have multiple meanings and can mean something to one person while meaning something slightly different(or even very different) to another person. Add to it the reality that this is a global forum with some non-native English speaking posters and meaning of words becomes even more muddied.

njkayaker

Yes, yes, they do.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/money-is-no-object

There's a standard/common understanding for this common phrase. You can't try to "win" an argument by using a non-standard "meaning" for words or phrases. The OP misused the phrase (which happens; no big deal).

tomato coupe

Merriam Webster is even more direct:

Definition of money is no object

—used to say that someone is not concerned about the price of things

mstateglfr 

deleted

livedarklions

I hate to break it to everybody, but "money is no object" is really a figure of speech, it's never literally true. Obviously, everyone has a price point for everything beyond which they won't or can't go.

OP is clearly saying (and saying, and saying in the face of repetitive trolling) it isn't a question of affording the difference between Ultegra and Dura Ace or SuperCampy vs. SuperduperCampy (I don't speak Campy), it's whether the substantive differences are enough to justify the price difference.

So, technically, the OP did not literally mean that money is no object, but no one is willing to pay infinity dollars for Dura Ace, so it's a rather silly point, and not one worth two posts, let alone the multi-chaptered novel appearing in this thread.

We're really at the level of "you weren't really hit by a ton of bricks" criticism here. D-uh.

Badger6

I’m not sure how you arrived at that question based on what I wrote.

Are you more concerned about crash damage than MTBF? Anecdotally, I’ve crashed a few times on various group sets. Notably, I crashed an Ultegra RD (6870) about a year ago, hit it pretty damn hard, along with splitting my helmet. It’s Di2, and I had to use crash recovery to get it functional, and straighten the hanger. It still works really well. About 6 years ago I crashed a bike with 105 on it, really smacked the RD hard, it broke it into two pieces, irreparable. What I am getting at is that the units can all take some about of impact, but I don’t think they are engineered first for impact durability. I’m sure it is a consideration, bikes get knocked around, even inadvertently. I’m guessing the engineers are in search of the sweet spot between weight savings (especially on DA and Ulty) and MTBF- literally how many times can it shift before the mechanicals fail. In that regard, to your very original question, Ultegra will just miss that sweet spot, but the miss won’t be by much.

Koyote

This reminds me of a thread that someone started a couple years back. The OP asked 'which is the very best mechanical disc brake caliper," and so I responded with a link to this -- and the OP replied with, "No way, those are too expensive!"

Well, okay, then. You should've asked a different question.

njkayaker

Absolutely no one is thinking anybody would. Talk about silly.

PeteHski

I was actually more interested in the performance differences between the top 3 tiers, if there were any. It appears that weight saving is the only advantage.

Durability was only a minor question mark for the top level because of its focus on pro racing and a few people assuming it must be more durable simply because it is more expensive. But as usual it became another sidetrack alongside the meaning of life. I had concluded a few pages ago that durability was a none-issue with any of the major group sets.

So the mods can close this thread if they like as I doubt there is anything else to add.

rsbob 

Point of clarification in this clown car of debate: What I understood and the OP confirmed, is that even though he can afford the best, he wishes to spend his money wisely (I.E. The most bang for the buck without sacrificing). People don’t usually ‘have money’ by spending it foolishly unless they inherit or are trust fund babies.

I hope this ends this ridiculous debate.

tomato coupe

There are a lot of people that will tell you that Dura Ace shifters and front derailleurs perform better than Ultegra and 105.

genejockey 

Are you new here?

Sy Reene

Just because you raised another value proposition that didn't really get discussed.

The whole premise of this thread and the OP's question, really boils down to asking what is gained by paying more for a higher level groupset? High-level dimensions offhand I'd suggest as:
1) Weight
2) Performance (eg. Smoother, faster, more precise, etc)
3) Reliability (Finicky?, hi/lo maintenance)
4) Durability (parts longevity/service life)
5) Robustness (ability to sustain damage)

The problem is that aside from #1, which is the only easily measurable dimension, and possibly (eg chains) #4, the rest tend to be very anecdotal. Waiting on controlled sledgehammer testing to settle #5.

PeteHski

That’s the kind of thing I was interested in. I think that’s something I would have to test for myself. I’ve done the Ultegra vs 105 test before and not found any difference worth mentioning there.

PeteHski

Yes that was the general idea. I’m happy to pay more for tangible gains. Lets say Ultegra and 105 didn’t exist, so I had to choose between DA and Tiagra. Then I would choose DA. Cost only comes into it for me because there are these other cheaper options that appear to be just as good. Thinking about it that happens with many products, but groupsets seem like one of the most marginal gains out there. The difference between Ultegra and 105 is now almost non-existent.

rsbob 

PSA: Thread responders, please read the above over and over until it sinks in. Thank you and have a nice day.

Maelochs

^ thanks a lot, Mr. Buzzkill. You just took all the fun out of this thread.

Badger6

The issue of durability was raised well before I replied to it. I’d slightly reorder the ranking you offered to read 2, 3, 1…and I’d not even worry about 4 and 5. Wait, that’s how I do it now.

Badger6

There is noticeable difference, albeit not significant, if comparing same generations. But, as many have said, the trickle down of tech that Shimano uses, means that current year 105 is typically as good in function as last gen Ultegra. Maybe not as light, but other than the cranksets, it’s also negligible in practice.

Branko D

Except the weight savings, the measurable (barely) benefits are in the bearing parts; a 105 rear derailleur has jockey wheels with bushings which are less efficient from the start and get worse with contamination, while Dura-ace run on sealed bearings. On the other hand, a cheap set of aftermarket Tacx ones are slightly better than both. Similarly, Dura-ace chains, Dura-ace bottom brackets and hubs (not a question raised, but). Bearing quality is a bigger performance gain than the few hundred grams of weight - but you don't need to pay for the full Dura-ace groupset to get that.

I couldn't actually detect a difference in shifting quality between R7000 105 and R9100 Dura-ace, both simply shift when you want them to, even under strain. For a cost / benefit perspective, 105 is ridicilously hard to beat, especially with a few cheap upgrades.