Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Cassette Efficiency Question
Quote | Reply
I've seen it argued that different chains affect drivetrain efficiency, and I understand (generally) the potential efficiency problems with cross-chaining, indexing differences, different sized cassettes, different sized chainrings, and different lubricants. But my understanding is that the only real difference between cassette 'tiers' is weight.

Do different cassettes have measurable differences on efficiency? For example: DuraAce vs 105 vs [insert random cheap brand]?

Maybe this is obvious and I'm missing something. Thank you in advance for your thoughts/insight.
Quote Reply
Re: Cassette Efficiency Question [Socrates] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Here's what I think I know...

DA vs. Ultegra: no diff other than weight. They are structurally identical to my eye and calipers.
Ultegra vs. 105: I want there to be a difference because I've purchased Ultegra because I thought it was more efficient, and it looks cooler. They also appear to be identical structurally at quick glance but I have not scrutinized.
105 vs. Tiagra: I'm 90% sure there is a difference because it feels slow as molasses, but I have no data. It could be other drivetrain components in that full-Tiagra setup, but it feels mushy and sluggish. Then again, I've never put a Tiagra cassette on a $1500 wheel or run on a carbon frame, so there are a dozen other factors at play.

I suspect there may be actual differences in cassette quality when going to non-Shimano brands, but have no data to back it up. I have used non-Shimano components in otherwise fully Shimano systems and I don't prefer it for "feel." Whether that feel is feeling differences in efficiency, I'm not sure.

Dr. Alex Harrison | Founder & CEO | Sport Physiology & Performance PhD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📱 Check out our app → Saturday: Pro Fuel & Hydration, a performance nutrition coach in your pocket.
Join us on YouTube → Saturday Morning | Ride & Run Faster and our growing Saturday User Hub
Quote Reply
Re: Cassette Efficiency Question [DrAlexHarrison] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In terms of efficiency I doubt there is any difference between any of those cassettes. Where would the loss be? I doubt there is more flex or the chain doesn't engage as well.

Weight is the main thing. Which isn't insignificant, just not the question. That's gained through different materials - that I don't know off the top of my head.

I think one possible real world outcome of using top end cassettes is that people can hang on to them longer than they would something cheaper. I've seen people do everything on a DA cassette that came with an expensive bike and then race on it when it's worn down. I think that should be far more of a concern than theoretical efficiency of a cassette.

I've never had a DA because you can get Ultegra pretty reasonably if you shop around. If I did have a DA cassette it would be swapped in and used when I needed it rather than for the training miles.
Quote Reply
Re: Cassette Efficiency Question [OddSlug] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OddSlug wrote:
In terms of efficiency I doubt there is any difference between any of those cassettes. Where would the loss be?

Machining tolerances.
Quote Reply
Re: Cassette Efficiency Question [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
OddSlug wrote:
In terms of efficiency I doubt there is any difference between any of those cassettes. Where would the loss be?


Machining tolerances.

Fair enough but I don't see it being that big a deal. Either way someone should of tested it and then we'd know. Chain I can see because each link articulates so quality and lubrication are that much more important there. In lieu of proof I'm just chatting and placing a bet. Happy to be proved wrong if someone finds a test.
Quote Reply