Lombard

Which one? Do a YouTube of each and you will either be entertained or highly annoyed.

GhostRider62

Hambini sell steel bearings. He claims to be a 5 year old aerospace scientist. He claims ceramic bearings wear out quickly and only have a very, very marginal savings in power up to 1000 km or miles compared to industrial quality steel bearings (not the junk your LBS puts in). If you like british football hooligan humour, you'll love him.

Ceramic speed sells ceramic bearings. They claim 6-15 watt gain with their junk, if you believe their story. But they are clever not to be transparent on what they are comparing against.

So, the savings are somewhere between 0.1 watts and 6-15 watts.

genejockey 

Perhaps you should pay him to do it correctly?

genejockey 

"Multiple tests in the lab and on the road confirm a 6-15 watt gain by using our ceramic bearings over random pebbles, lubricated with sand-encrusted vaseline!"

genejockey 

I mute the first 5 seconds of his videos.

Maelochs

What engineering types (not actual engineers, like we have here) have told me is that the benefits of ceramic bearings shine (compared to steel or other metallic bearings) in really high-stress, high-rev applications .... turbocharger impeller bearings, for instance---and that the idea that those properties transfer in a linear fashion to the minute forces and slow rotations involved with human-powered vehicles is .... great ad copy.

genejockey 

I'm sure there are benefits, but they largely accrue to the seller.

PeteHski

One thing ceramic bearings don't like is shock loading. Like for example hitting a pothole. Years ago we tried using them in F1 wheel bearings, but we had some catastrophic failures - obviously the speeds and loads were much higher, but then the bearings were much bigger. Ceramic balls are very brittle and sensitive to contamination. I wouldn't even entertain the idea of using them on a bicycle for some dubious marginal gain. CeramicSpeed are complete BS merchants too.

GhostRider62

So, Hambini's linked video from minute 14:00-16:00 approx. shows the comparative wattage advantage to changing all bearings (BB, hubs,...) with the baseline being Zipp stock bearings, presumably the last generation crap. He is claiming 5-5.5 watts at 90 rpm and 35 kph for ceramic and 5.5-6.0 watts for the best steel bearings with low friction seals and this is after 1000 km of wear. How he gets those numbers? Who knows.

Anecdotally, I had worn two 6803 in some front hubs and two 6803 and two 6903 in the rear. All were a bit rough and stock cheap bearings ($3 each) that many expensive wheels use as stock. 6803 is small, 6903 is bigger. I put NTN LLB bearings in (around $20 per) and I would not doubt 8-10 watts savings to be honest. Much more durable and longer lasting than the stock. So, I sort of believe Hambini's made up data. (Edit: also changed the BB to Hawk, I don't know who makes their bearings)

Calsun

Bearing quality is important. In bike shops in the 1970's when the bike boom started, many bikes sold by Wal-Mart and similar outlets had cheap bearings and they needed to be replaced early in the life of the bike. Replacing the bottom bracket bearings in particular was a common repair.

Where people waste money is getting the ultimate groupo when to many "low end" components work exceedingly well. It is like the people that buy Ping clubs and golf bags for status and not to improve their game.

terrymorse 

"Bikes" sold by the big box stores were not bikes. They were--and continue to be--simply bicycle-shaped objects.



A WalMart gravel bike

ofajen

I’d agree regarding current bikes. OTOH, common department store bikes from 50 years ago were more durable and functioned better as bikes than the modern fare.

I got a hand me down JC Penney 26” 10 speed in about 1973. While it had a heavy steel frame, steel one-piece cranks and steel rims, everything about it was serviceable. I rode that bike some thousands of relatively trouble free miles and learned the basics of bike maintenance on it.

A couple years later, in 1975, I had outgrown it and bought myself a 23” frame Azuki 10-speed from a local bike shop. Interestingly, that is the last time I bought a new, complete bike.

Otto

smd4

I have my “ultimate groupo” which in my case is a combination of 7400/7700 Dura Ace, upgraded with titanium or aluminum bolts and other bits and pieces. I’d never use anything lesser. I’m no racer. I just enjoy the finer things in life. It certainly wasn’t a waste of money to me.

genejockey 

Currently running a 7800/7410 groupset on my Ritchey, which I love, but I gotta say the R8000 Ultegra on my Litespeed works at least as well plus more gears. Not as pretty, of course, but I like the STI shape a little better.

We'll see if it's still good in 25 years. Well. Maybe. I mean, I'll be 90 then.

smd4

Number of gears doesn’t mean much to me. I don’t need that level of resolution between cogs. The fit and finish of DA appeals to me as much as its performance.

I’m a little younger than you so I’ll give you an update in 25 years.

genejockey 

It didn't mean much to me when I used to run a 12-25 cassette on the Ritchey, 25 years ago. But I don't have 40 year old legs anymore!

georges1

The 7800/7410 are among my favorite groupsets along with the 7700,never liked much the DA 7900, 9000 and 9150. All my road bikes projects will all have DA7800 as transmission.

georges1

Especially when you know the costs of the rotisserie/interior restorations, body frame restorations and new create engine prices, those are already five to six figures.Same with vintage watches who are very expensive too.

PeteHski

Given your bike list and preferences, you don't strike me as someone who has ever been anywhere near DA 9150.

smd4

The only thing he has to know, given his bike list and preferences, is that it looks like crap. I’d stay as far away as possible myself.

GhostRider62

One man's waste is another man's treasure.

I was playing golf with a ball hawker, constantly trying to find balls. I asked him how many times he plays his course per year and he said usually 10 times per year. I asked how much he paid all in per year. $18,000. "So, $10 per hole and you are wasting your time looking for a $5 golf ball"

I was playing Winged Foot with a member who disappeared on hole, we waited on the green figuring he had to take a deuce. He comes out of the woods smiling like he won the lottery, hands filled with golf balls. I said to him, you are worth like $500mm, why are you looking for golf balls. He says, "More like a billion and I don't know but it makes me happy" and then asks me, "If I put a 5 dollar bill on the ground, would you pick it up?"

So, one man's waste is another's treasure.

genejockey 

Try the veal! And don't forget to tip your server.

seypat

Maybe posters aren't understanding the OP's question. He/she said biking, not cycling. Evidently, there is a difference.

https://goforbiking.com/biking-cycling-difference/

https://www.bikeforums.net/general-c...ifference.html

https://www.sacramentoinjuryattorney...g-and-cycling/

livedarklions

Judging from this overdue-to-be-closed thread, there's some who don't know the difference between biking and bickering.

georges1

I think that you are assuming a little bit too much without knowing. A friend of mine lent me some weeks ago his caad 5 canondale reequiped with DA 9150 and zip wheels for a short ride, disliked the new shifters design and the way it shifts , braking was very good , but aestehtically regarding rear derailleur,brakes, crankset and front derailleur ,it is very unDura Ace like and it looks just ugly. Don't think that I am not interesting myself to new tech, I do but I do believe that old work that works well over decades is good tech.