Shimano 9100 Compatibility Chart
Buy the Shimano Dura online or shop all from. Shimano Dura-Ace CS-R9100 11-Speed Cassette. Sale 28% Off $199.95 $277.99. Item # SHI00DQ. Find your size. Instead earning their loyal following through the incredible dependability and meticulous engineering of the Dura-Ace CS-R9100 11-Speed Cassette. 9100 isn't a typo there. Compatibility chart brand model bcd 11 0 1bcd 11 bcd ocp3 red 22 gxp 110 red 22 gxp 130 red 22 bb30 110 red 22 bb30 130 red bb30 110 red bb30 130 red gxp 110 red gxp 130 force x1 110 force x1 130 force bb30 110. Shimano 3 0 bcd 13 cd ocp3 110x4 110 bcd30 bcd aero 130 bcd aero chainrings.
A community of cyclists - some with questions, some answersPost your problems here, and we will try to get your bike rolling again. It really, really helps if you can provide pictures and/or video.If you just want to post a picture, this isn't the place for it. Questions and advice about bike repair only.' Is this cracked / safe to ride?' - If you have to ask, don't ride it. We probably can't tell from a picture just what condition your bike is in. Take it to your Local Bike Shop and ask them.
If it's carbon, they're probably going to tell you to replace it.Related Links:. I haven't personally tested this configuration, but I checked the chart and a line flows from the ST-RS685 to FD-9100 to both boxes for 11s cranks (FC-9100 and FC-9000/6800/5800/RS500). However there is no line between the older 11s FDs and new cranks, regardless of shifter used.It is always easier to limit a FD's travel via limit screws to prevent dumping a chain than to get more when there isn't enough.
I know the the difference in spacing is not very much, but it is enough that a FD-9000 doesn't have the range of motion to handle the FC-9100.Edit: I get what you're saying elsewhere, but it was my understanding that ST-9100 has the same pull ratio on both sides as ST-9000/6800/5800, but they changed derailleur geometry to achieve a different leverage ratio to match the wider chain ring spacing. Which is the whole point of the inquiry asking for real-world experience!(To restate what I believe OP was quite clear about but apparently isn't landing:) Shimano claims out of one side of their mouth that the two (these specific shifters and the latest DA FD) are compatible, yet totes out of the other side of their mouth the game-changing differences in the latest FD arm length (ie pull ratio) and chainring spacing.Either the two aren't compatible, despite what Shimano's compatibility table says, or the changes to FD arm aren't very significant. Both can't be true. Because it's not possible to buy Dura Ace R9120 hydraulic shifters currently and the release date keeps being moved back. Therefore because I want to get my bike on the road and not wait another 1-3 months I'm using the non-series RS-R685 shifters whilst I wait. I have already bought the derailleurs on the incorrect expectation the shifters would be released in good time.
Additionally although money isn't a limiting factor for me, the R9120 shifters are £900 a pair with callipers whereas the equivalent non-series set is £400 so it's fair that other people may chose that route for that reason yet still benefit from the improvements of the new derailleurs.Everyone has their reasons, even if you might not see why.
AdvertisementsThe all-new Shimano Dura-Ace R9100 might be delivering a little too late for the pros to race it at, but we found a set of production mechanical parts to throw on the scale while at the USA Cycling Cyclocross National Championships. The cranks shown have 172.5mm arms and a 52/36 chainring setup to come in at 629g. Roll on down for the rest of the groupMechanical shifter levers come in at 370g for the pair.Rim brakes were 160g and 161g.Front derailleur was 70g and rear was 159g.The 11-30 cassette, which is the largest they offer, weighed in at 213g with a plastic cylinder holding it together (which was intentionally made non-removable without damaging it), so subtract maybe 10g at most.
Shimano 9100 Compatibility Chart Printable
The threaded bottom bracket came in at 64g.Follow these links for the full tech story from our for the group, plus, close up looks at the and new. Stay tuned for our first ride impressions of the new Di2 version with rim and disc brakes, plus the power meter later this month! The “oracle”(?), the only thing ignorant is you saying Shimano is “circling the drain”. Oh tell me wise one, what does “circling the drain” mean to you? Instead of just spouting BS, tell me how “circling the drain” will manifest itself?
To me, “circling the drain” implies it will be gone in a matter of time. Are you saying Shimano will be gone in any time soon? If not, what else, will it lose market share to SRAM? By how much, and by when? Otherwise, please specify what you are talking about, otherwise you just soundwell, stupid. “sadly it is extremely ugly”I don’t agree wholly with that statement (ugh that rr der) although your opinion seems to be the majority.
The quality of that finish still seems really high to me, and I really like “smoky/platinum nickel” finish.“least responsive front derailleur I have ridden in the last 10 years”I haven’t really found that to be true myself, the new quasi-compact (52-36) did see a degrade in performance, but less than I would expect from such a range. The high leverage cable pivot has certainly changed the way it feels at the lever.“It’s only a matter of time before they go down”Peeps been saying that for 30 years: Too much cash on hand for that to be an issue, but I’m no oracle.“alienating IBDs by not confronting online sales being less than dealers cost”Could not agree more with that statement. Their response seems to be “make IBD’s access to product so obtuse IBD’s forget their pedals even exist.“more warranty issues out of the box than other brands”I haven’t found that to be the case where I work, but I have noticed a really strong positive improvement from Sram, so the gap is closing for sure.“performance of nearly all components have degraded as well”Again I haven’t really found that to be the case. The switch to aero shift housing nearly caused me to swear off/at Shimano, but I’ve noticed substantial improvement to the quality of the routing out of the lever body, at the expense of that nasty wart coming off the side of the lever body. Circling the drain? I’d disagree but know that the industry is a fickle one.It wasn’t too long ago that SRAM wasn’t worth much on road to mtn. Their semi invention of the 1x pretty much put them back on the map.It’s been good to see SRAM’s road groups start to carry some momentum.Not sure they’ll ever have the enormous development capabilities as Shimano but heck, that could be one of their strengths.Who knows what is on it’s way to either help or hinder any of the players.I certainly wouldn’t count Shimano out.
Not yet.Spend enough time in one or three areas and you can say stuff like “Everyone uses that tire/brake/group etc”.But it’s still a pretty localized perspective. As somebody said above- there are a zillion bikes out there w/ Shimano.
And it’s not like the uber high end stuff carries either brand. Shimano’s history and pride comes from their steel work, forging, andalloying abilities. Shimano was one of the first JP companies to research successful cold forging technologies after WWII.While CNCing and Carbon Fiber have taken way, Shimano’s engineering department could slaughter many others. It’s true, shimano makes the best hydraulic brakes, best shifting, best cassetes, best overall real smoothness.
But let’s be honest, it’s too much, old japanese kind of company.– NO carbon, carbon is risk, no good for big comapny, aluminium better for that.– No BB30, no matter waht, no aluminium spindle for cranksets.– No decent 1x competitor to sram.– No 1x for road or gravel.– Aesthetics are always too much CASIO, not even sony.– This group is heavier than previous one, and always much heavier than campy or sram.– No wireless.– MTB di2 is a joke with so many cables and that useless display, over engineered di2 shifters.Still, cheaper than campy or sram, and works better in every single aspect.